01/25/2021 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – January 25, 2021
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2021 - 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams
Link to virtual hearing online: https://www.tigard-
or.gov/city_hall/public_hearing_feed.php
Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101
Public testimony call-in time is between 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
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.
AMAN (CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001)
Staff: Associate Planner Agnes Lindor
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General
Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium-High-Density
Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from General Commercia l
and R-12 to General Commercial and R-25. LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway
6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:35 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m.
January 25, 2021 Page 1 of 10
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes, January 25, 2021
Location: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams
Link to virtual hearing online:
https://boxcast.tv/channel/pyjnvrar8xo1rw6bwbss
Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101
Public testimony call-in time was between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Hu
Vice President Jackson
Commissioner Brook
Alt. Commissioner Dick
Alt. Commissioner Miranda
Commissioner Quinones
Commissioner Roberts
Commissioner Schuck
Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur
Commissioner Watson
Absent: Commissioner Whitehurst
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director;
Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant ; Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner;
Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer
COMMUNICATIONS
Assistant Community Development Director introduced and welcomed the Planning
Commission’s new council liaison, Jeanette Shaw.
Vice President Jackson reported that the River Terrace 2.0 CAC had met again since the last
meeting. He noted that they went over some of the early concept ideas. He said the comment
period is still open on the City Website for anyone who like to go and see what they have so far -
and that everyone is welcome to add their own comments.
CONSIDER MINUTES
President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the January 4, 2021
minutes; there being none, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMAN (CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001)
January 25, 2021 Page 2 of 10
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and
Medium-Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium -High-Density Residential. The
applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from General Commercia l and R-12 to
General Commercial and R-25. LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway
HEARING STATEMENTS
President Hu read the required statements and procedural items from the hearing guide. There
were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of
interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Jackson, Roberts, and Watson
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Agnes Lindor introduced herself. (Exhibit A). She went over the project
information, going over the particulars of the 3 lots and the surrounding zoning. She noted:
- The area is on the north side of Pacific highway, just south of the Fred Meyer, at
11655 SW Pacific Highway
- Made up of 3 lots
o CR-12: 2.79 acres (Lots 1 and 2) / CG: 2.57 ac res (lot 3)
- Surrounding zoning:
o R-25 to the north (condos)
o R-12 to the west (apartments)
o R-12/C-G to east (detached houses and commercial businesses)
o C-G to south (Pacific Hwy)
Applications are a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The designations would c hange from
Commercial General and Medium Density Residential to Commercial General and Medium High
Density Residential and the Map Amendment would change the zoning from C -G and R12 to C-
G and R25.
- Existing Comp Plan Designations:
C-G: 2.57 acres (lot 3) / R-12: 2.79 acres (Lots 1 and 2)
o Takes Lot 2 from R-12 to C-G / Takes Lot 1 from R-12 to R-25
- Proposed: C-G: 3.9 acres / R-25: 1.46 acres
- Because the residential acreage is shrinking but moving to a higher density, there’s still
only a net increase in density of four units.
Agnes noted that since the staff report was written there were a few additional public comments
that had come in via email. Those comments were emailed to the commissioners earlier in the
day before the hearing. There was also a phone conversation with Agnes and Ms. Catherine
Davidson last week about the application and her concerns regarding traffic.
Staff’s Findings
- As described in the staff report, the proposal has demonstrated compliance with all
applicable Comprehensive Plan polices and map designations.
- There are adequate public facilities to serve the property at the intensity of the
proposed zoning
January 25, 2021 Page 3 of 10
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment.
QUESTIONS
Commissioner Jackson said “I’m curious why for just this zoning change, why exhibits show a
proposed route of a potential road through the area and that it follows a non-rectilinear route for
the zone change and why it already assumes that there’s going to be a road along it. Jeremy
Tamargo, Principal Engineer answered, “As part of the partition application from th e applicant,
that was what triggered the extension of Torchwood from the east to the west there along the
development frontage. So that’s why you’re seeing that as the dividing line and the reasoning
behind that is - in order for the partition to have occurred, each of the lots needed frontage along
the public right of way. Tom McGuire, Assistant CD Director added some informational
comments. He noted, “Torchwood is a stub street. If you look at the general zoning map you’ll
see that it’s a stub street and when the city or county have stub streets the expectation is that that
street will carry through at that location when the next development comes along. If we’re not
going to have a street prepared to go through, then we end it in a cul-de-sac.” Commissioner
Jackson said, “So the idea would be that in the very long-term eventually Torchwood would
connect to 78th?” “Yes, that’s correct if that property ever redevelops.”
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Alex Dupey introduced himself as the Director of Planning Services with MIG, a consulting
firm based in Portland. He was there representing the applicant, Walter Aman. Mr. Dupey shared
a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). He said he didn’t want to go over what Agnes had
already described but would talk about the Transportation Planning Rule Transportation Analysis
- which was the origin of the trip cap. He said there had been lots of questions from the
community about traffic and transportation. The requirement is that we meet Transportation
Planning Rule requirements, which are an Oregon administrative rule – and that is a higher level
of analysis than what you would see with an actual development proposal. So, on approval of this
application if development were to occur, then you would see more of the typical traffic impact
analysis with specific development proposed and analyzed through that process. He went
through the Transportation Planning Rule components of that. Regarding trip generation he
noted that the vehicular trips generated were estimated using ITE trip generation rates for similar
uses. Assumed ITE land uses may not reflect the actual development that occurs. When ODOT
looks at traffic, particularly for this application, because there’s no development proposed, they
look at what the reasonable worst case might be. So , for general commercial in this case, it might
be a fast food restaurant or a coffee shop. Whether or not that’s actually what will be developed ,
it’s really the worst-case potential for traffic, so they look at that as a way to judge what the
impact might be on the system. He said they’d developed those rates and looked at that. He went
on to talk about trip generatio n using the chart in Exhibit B and ended his presentation with the
findings and recommendations.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
President Hu asked if there was anyone on the line waiting to testify . There were four people
waiting to testify.
January 25, 2021 Page 4 of 10
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None
TESTIMONY NEUTRAL - Angela Swensen, Jeff Seeber
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – Catherine Davidson, Jim Long
Angela Swensen, 11074 SW Legacy Oak Way, Tigard – lives in the neighborhood to the east
of the developed land on Legacy Oak Way which is a one -way private street. There’s no parking
on Legacy Oak Way because it’s a private narrow street. She said her entire neighborhood has
garages that are built in a way that they do not fit a full-sized car, so their entire neighborhood
has to park at least one vehicle on Torchwood. They cannot lose the parking they have on that
street. They can’t have too many cars going down a one -way street. She is also concerned about
safety in that on 74th you make a very sharp right turn onto Torchwood and it’s hard for even
two cars to pass. She said their neighborhood wants Tigard to expand and grow – they’re happy
to support that, but they want to do it safely and in a way th at can accommodate their
community.
Associate Planner Agnes said that she’d spoken to Angela about the project and they
talked about specific street improvements that would be triggered with development. Part of the
concern is that some of the lots along Torchwood have not been developed, so there are parts of
the road that don’t meet the required street width as required by Code . She asked Principal
Engineer Jeremy Tamargo to comment on that.
Jeremy Tamargo said this would be something that would be add ressed once they have an
actual development application for that residential lot (lot 1).
Catherine Davidson, 7577 SW Torchwood Street, Tigard thanked staff for walking her
through the process. She wants to go on record to express concerns because it’s been a bit of a
confusing process. She wants to make sure that her neighborhood’s priorities of safety, traffic
and parking are rolled into that. She doesn’t want to miss th is opportunity. She appreciated that
the Planning Commissioners (Roberts, Watson and Jackson) had come by to visit the site. She
said she’s talking about the entry from 74th turning in to Torchwood – and the parking on that
street has an impact as well. So when they talk about four additional units with this rezoning
being allowed if Torchwood was punched through, that seems negligible – but when you’re
talking about more than doubling – even as it’s zoned today – that makes an impact. She said
that Agnes did a good job of explaining the parking situation. She respects the strategic priority
of this Planning Commission and really support s the continued development and growth of
Tigard. It’s just that they also believe that this commission also prioritizes safety and that’s their
biggest concern. So first, she was a bit concerned that she heard earlier – that Torchwood could
eventually connect through 78th – that’s something they’d never heard before and that’s very, very
future state – and she doesn’t want to be confused by thinking that’s part of what they’re talking
about today. Second, regarding street improvements being considered in the proposal for
development. Her question is – what would those street improvements be? And if not, she
doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to advocate that that is incredibly important for this area.
Agnes Lindor said she could speak to the future extension of Torchwood. At this time,
that’s not something that’s being proposed – it would be at a later time when the adjacent
property to the west redevelops and then the houses behind that pr operty eventually redevelop.
January 25, 2021 Page 5 of 10
That’s when that connection would potentially occur. As for the improvements for what would
be required for Torchwood – she deferred that question to principal engineer Jeremy Tamargo.
Jeremy said that for the parcel itself – it would be the full local street section that is
required by the Code on the property itself. And then a number of the comments were related to
the existing section of Torchwood so within our streets section of Code 18.910 there are sections
where the applicant, when they come in for their development for the residential section, would
have to address both in terms of the traffic study as well as if there were any offsite traffic
calming measures that would be necessary. Due to the existing development th ere is a less than
standard section of Torchwood that was alluded to between the two sections of SW Legacy Oak
Way there. So, as part of the development application they would have to address whether the
development would cause negative impacts on the exis ting street section. If that was the case,
there are measures that could be come necessary to implement - such as traffic calming or other
measures as deemed appropriate by engineering staff at the time of the application. But that
would be once a developme nt application for that residential development actually came into the
city.
Alex Dupey interjected that he believes a lot of the concern around this is that there isn’t
really a development application with this application – so as to the future – there are lots of
questions around that and understandably so. However , with whatever development application
that comes in - there would be additional opportunities for people to provide input for those
concerns – such as parking, landscaping, another access . Those are pieces that would be
developed as a part of the application itself for the development - and that’s not necessarily
germane to this application of the Comprehensive Plan zone change. This is just the first of a
couple of layers.
Jim Long 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard spoke representing himself and the CPO4M group. He
noted he is the chair. He appreciates the chance to comment but said he had a great deal of
difficulty getting into the hearing. He started trying before 7:00 to get on -line and it wasn’t until
7:30 that he actually got connected by phone so he could actually see the screen. He said he
missed the presentation, the introduction, the discussion and that his difficulty was in the link;
the link was broken. He finally called the phone number and was given directions to get in by IT.
He’d been confused by what the link looked like. He didn’t like that it said “off air .” IT told him
to click on the arrow between off and air and that linked him to the hearing. Mr. Long noted he
was ready to testify back in September when this was delayed because the hearing was canceled
(due to the wildfires in Oregon and the hazardous smoke). He thinks they shouldn’t make a
decision on this Comprehensive Plan amendment , and speaking for CPO4M they would ask for
a continuance – they would like another hearing so they can get the proper links and people can
access and actually hear the hearing and comment on what the plans are. He noted that when he
walks along that one-way street he can’t walk on the sidewalk because there are cars parked in the
driveway and the cars go right into the sidewalk. It’s not safe for people who have ADA issues.
They would have to go out into the street to get around. There are difficulties and unanswered
questions and he wants the hearing to be continued for more input.
QUESTIONS
A commissioner asked Mr. Long if he had any other questions or comments that he wanted to
state but couldn’t because of the 3-minute limit. He said he would have put some together, but
he really wants to convey the fact how frustrating the system was to him, his inability to hear the
presentation, etc. Because of that he’s unable to give more specifics at this time.
January 25, 2021 Page 6 of 10
Another commissioner asked if CPO4 had any questions that Mr. Long would like to sub mit. Mr.
Long said they’re meeting the upcoming Wednesday night on zoom. This is one of the issues on
the agenda. They’ll be talking about the density and partitions. He can bring it back the next time
there’s an opportunity to provide some input.
Assistant CD Director Tom McGuire asked Mr. Long to explain why he wants the
hearing continued. He said, “you’re at the hearing now, everybody’s present, they can go back to
show any graphic that was shown previously, you have a copy of the staff report – Agnes
presented a summary of that. Alex summarized how they responded to the Transportation
Planning Rule – that was in the applicant’s application. And there were a couple of neighbors
here to testify on some specific issues. So that’s all that’s happened in the hearing so far. I’m
sorry Mr. Long missed it and I’m sorry for the confusion you had with calling in and that it took
so long to get in. But I think, since everybody is here and we’re talking about the application – if
you have specific questions, we can answer those. If you have questions about what you may
have missed in the early part of the hearing? We can answer that. What is your specific reason for
a continuance? Even if we continue this , it’s not going to be a “do-over” – we wouldn’t make the
same presentations again. Is there a specific set of questions or issues that you need additional
information on, Mr. Long?”
Mr. Long said, “I’m very computer literate. It’s not an issue of not knowing how to use a
computer. The links were not working. They’re not up to snuff - they’re not up to the grade I’ve
seen with other jurisdictions. Because of that , I wasn’t able to get on and I don’t know how many
other people were unable to get on because of it. I’ve never had this problem before. Because of
that problem we were unable to hear. I can’t comment on what was presented because I didn’t
hear it. I just want a continuance. It seems simple to reschedule this. It’s been rescheduled before
and now there’s this problem with the links. I’ll be asking at ou r CPO meeting if other people
had the same difficulty, but we’ll also be formulating some more opinions and presentations at
the CPO meeting to submit some comments to you.”
President Hu thanked Mr. Long and said they will consider his request.
QUESTION REGARDING ACCESSING SITE
President Hu took a moment to ask the next testifier, Mr. Jeff Seeber, about his experience using
the links to get into the meeting, “Are you watching us on the web right now Mr. Seeber?” He
answered “Yes sir, I am.” “Did you have a problem getting on at the beginning? Were you able
to watch the meeting from the beginning?” “Yes, sir.” “Thank you.”
Jeff Seeber, 10855 SW 74th was curious about the traffic issue being close to the trip monitor or
too much traffic off of 217. And with the parking – as they’re building units like they did on Oak
west of Hall and then more units on 74th ease of Winco Foods - was that calculated into the trip
coordination for Hwy 99 at all? Because that seems to me that that would put that over the top
for having the density change. The other question is – if you’re going to have construction going
on, how are you going to get the vehicles in without caus ing traffic delays and problems in the
morning and evening without forcing that traffic on to Torchwood – which is already an issue
with traffic and parking. This would cause a massive inconvenience and it’s not safe. So those
are my two questions.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
January 25, 2021 Page 7 of 10
Alex Dupey replied to Mr. Seeber: “The development you identified – that is incorporated into
the model – it does incorporate into the overall trips within the area. Regarding the construction
impacts – that is something that would be conside red as a part of a development application.
This application is only for the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change. When there is
development proposed, then those types of impacts or questions that you have specifically about
parking, trip generation, traffic construction – those are all things that will be addressed as part of
that very specific development application review – which is not part of this application tonight.
There was one more question from Mr. Seeber – “Can you identify what type of density is going
up?” Agnes Lindor answered, “The density was calculated based on apartment development.”
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
There were some questions and comments from the commissioners and afterwards President Hu
asked that each of the commissioners give their thoughts on this application. Following are some
of the comments:
Commissioner Brook: I’m onboard to support the growth of Tigard and am okay with
increasing density, but sidewalks are important, and parking is always an issue. I have a couple of
concerns about this, but if we could make a condition that we see the development plan so that
we can help make sure that certain… I believe that we have it in the code that certain standards
have to be met but this might be one of those si tuations where even though it technically checks
all the boxes – if you go look at it in person, it just won’t. It will be more of a negative impact
than a positive impact on the surrounding existing neighborhood. So I think it’s really important
that we see this again, once we have more details about it. But other than that, I do generally
support the concept and I think that if – in my dream world, there are modifications made to
that street where it’s expanded. I haven’t actually visited there in over a year so I’m not sure I can
remember exactly what the north side of Torchwood looks like – if it would be possible to
expand the street. But I think more housing is welcome if we can make that street bigger. I would
love for our commission to be able to see this again before anything…
President Hu said to Commissioner Brook, “we can certainly recommend that to City
Council – if you want to make a motion later on.” Commissioner Brook said she’d probably be
too nervous to do that and would let somebody else do that. President Hu said “Okay - so
commissioners – Commissioner Brook would like that to be a recommendation to the City
Council – that it come back to us. So if you could make a motion, she’d appreciate it.”
Commissioner K7 said his sentiments match Commissioner Brook’s sentiments. He’d
wondered about existing parking and how the safety etc. works around that area and – we could
potentially postpone that discussion until the development plans arrive – but how do we even
think about widening that road if we have to make it safer to add sidewalks like Commissioner
Brook was suggesting. There are houses already built there? So that’s my bigger concern about
rezoning and trying to add more traffic, etc. I’m extremely nervous about this one . I’m not really
sure if we should go ahead with this or not .
Commissioner Quinones said she thinks Commissioner K7 took the words right out of her
mouth. She is also very nervous about it. She did not visit the site but knowing there are already
so many restrictions and there is no plan or coming proposal on building – why is this coming
now to change the zoning? I ask for us to think - what is the benefit of doing this now? If there
is no development coming down the pipeline in the next year, then maybe we can focus on
January 25, 2021 Page 8 of 10
helping those residents with their road – or have something that goes to the City Council that
supports infrastructure for what is going on in that community. So that’s my thought.
Alt. Commissioner Miranda: Being new to the commission I have some questions. Why is the
applicant wanting to make this change at this time? The benefit to them as moving their mixed
use to commercial and then creating this basically isolated high density unit – from looking at
Google Earth and Maps and seeing and hearing from the people who called in today, I can really
understand the walkability crunch. Having this isolated parcel is not an incentive – it makes me
concerned.
Tom McGuire said it’s not unusual for applications to come in for a Zone Change
without a development. In this case, it’s because the owner of the current property tends to do
commercial development and they are, through the partition in the zone change , they are
preparing the residential portion for sale to someone who would then come in to do a residential
development and then they can concentrate on commercial development on the south. So that’s
not that unusual. He went on to speak about Torchwood Street. It will be some time before we
get the right of way to allow Torchwood to be fully developed on the north side because there’s a
house that actually extends into what would be the right of way. But what’s missing on the north
side from the street is the parking, t he curb, the planter strip and the sidewalk locations. So the
actual drive width that cars use on a fully developed street is there. He said he’d measured and it’s
around 17 feet from the parked car on the south side to the other side of the travel lane on the
north side. For a local service street that’s not an unusual situation.
There was more lengthy discussion and then applicant representative Alex Dupey said
the reason we’re asking for the zone change is because we do have an affordable housing
developer who is interested in that northern parcel. For their funding requirements they need to
have a parcel that is zoned at the time of their application for that site. So we’ve done this
process first, where we’ve done the partition and the zone change, bu t that all needs to be in
place before the application can be submitted for funding. This is important to the conversation
as to why we’re doing this and why that specific zoning is requested for particularly that northern
parcel – parcel one.
Vice President Jackson’s overall feeling is that the higher density makes sense, commercial
makes sense – especially near Hwy99. He believes the unit difference is negligible, so he is firmly
in support of it.
Alt. Commissioner Dick doesn’t think the four units are going to make or break anything. She
would vote for it herself if she could. She said she also understands the concerns of the
neighbors on Torchwood – how devastating this must be for them - to have this privacy and
now it’s going to be gone. But so close to Hwy99, it needs to be developed density-wise. That’s
something that’s going to be difficult for the neighbors and she greatly understands that.
Commissioner Watson is generally in support of the zoning so long as the road works -
particularly in fairness to the property owner.
Commissioner Roberts is in favor of adding the lower cost housing, of increasing our
commercial presence and bringing business to the City. This is the most vociferous community
or neighborhood group we’ve had. Despite the CPO4M’s discussion – there were like 300 people
invited to the neighborhood meeting – only a couple dozen showed up when he looked at the
January 25, 2021 Page 9 of 10
meeting minutes. He doesn’t think there’s an issue of them not having an opportunity – although
he’s sympathetic to Mr. Long’s plight electronically.
President Hu said his thoughts are I generally support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Re-zoning. His original concern was related to public facilities – in light of the comments by
the neighbors. But Agnes (she must be a mind-reader) - her slide says there’s adequate public
facilities – so I take her word for it.
President Hu brought up the issue about Mr. Long wanting a continuance. He noted that as
Tom McGuire had said, even if we grant a continuance, we will not be repeating this whole
meeting again. And the person directly after Mr. Long – Mr. Seeber - had testified that he was
able to access this meeting just fine with no issues. President Hu said, “I’m really sorry Mr. Long
had an issue, but my opinion is I don’t think we should grant the continuance; however, if some
of the commissioners think we should - you can make a motion. If not, we can move on to a
motion for a recommendation the City Council. He said, “I think there’s an approval condition
in the staff report and Commissioner Brook also wanted to ask the City Council to have this case
brought back in front of the Planning Commission again when there’s a development proposal –
so we can also ask the City Council to do that.
Commissioner K7 asked what the harm would be of granting a continuance. What
problems would that cause , if any?
Applicant representative Alex Dupey said that this had been rescheduled already back
from September due to the fires and to continue this hearing again would cause problems with
the affordable housing developer’s schedule. They are on a timeline for submitting an application
and if this were continued and put off again, they would miss their window. Given the delays
with the fires in the fall we’ve been pushed up to the end of our rope in terms of our schedule –
so if we do miss that, we’ll be challenged to meet the application deadlines. Commissioner K7
asked if there were any other repercussions with granting a continuance for CPO4M that we
need to consider? President Hu noted that their group would have another chance to make
their presentation in front of the City Council. “We are making a recommendation to the City
Council. We’re not making the final decision. So they would still have a chance to make their
comments.” Commissioner K7 said that was an excellent point.
MOTION
Commissioner Craig Schuck made the following motion: “I move the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for application
CPA2020-00001 and ZON2020-00001, and adoption of the findings and conditions of
approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony received.”
President Hu asked if the condition of approval would require the applicant to submi t their
development application in front of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schuck said,
“that’s not how he would move it, no.” President Hu, said “okay, thank you.”
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts.
VOTE – 8 Voting Commissioners Present:
January 25, 2021 Page 10 of 10
Five in Favor: Commissioners Hu, Jackson, Roberts, Schuck and Watson
One Against: Commissioner Brook
Two Abstained: Commissioners Quinones and Tiruvaller
RESULT – Motion to Recommend APPROVAL Passes 5-3
OTHER BUSINESS
Tom McGuire said the commission’s schedule is busier in this winter/spring season than it’s
been in the past summer. He reminded everyone to keep checking the rolling calendar that
comes out as items are added or changed. We’ll continue with briefings on our full slate of major
legislative projects and will be seeing more quasi -judicial cases coming our way. There was some
discussion about possibly having a joint meeting with the City Council – particularly since we
have a new City Manager, new Commissioners and new City Councilors . Councilor Shaw said,
speaking for herself, she would welcome a joint meeting. Commissioner Jackson suggested that
the commission be prepared before going into the joint meeting – perhaps at the regular
Planning Commission meeting before the joint meeting, have that on the agenda so the
commissioners are able to be knowledgeable about whatever the topic is. Tom agreed and said
that they could shoot for August or September and hope that we’re back to meeting in pers on at
that time.
Regarding making motions - Commissioner Watson suggested that perhaps they could have a
slide at the end of staff’s presentation with the case numbers and possibly the staff’s
recommendation. She said that would make it easier for all the commissioners who don’t have
those numbers memorized - and some commissioners are on laptops or phones and it’s not easy
to navigate quickly and find that information. Tom said when we’re in the City Hall we normally
have the numbers up on the screen but because of Covid and the virtual meeting, that doesn’t
happen. He said he’d try to remember to remind staff to put that information back up when we
get to the point of a motion.
ADJOURNMENT
President Hu adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
_______________________________________
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
__________________________________
ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Aman Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment
Planning Commission Hearing
Agenda Item #5
Community Development January 25, 2021
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TIGARD
Project Information
`11655 SW Pacific Hwy
`5.36 acres (3 lots)
`RV rental business:
Lot 2 and 3 (south of
Torchwood)
`Vacant: Lot 1 (north
of Torchwood)
Fred
Meyer
CITY OF TIGARD
Project Information
`Comprehensive Plan
designations:
General Commercial
(Lot 3) and Medium
Density Residential
(Lots 1 & 2)
`Zones:
`C-G; Lot 3 (2.57
acres)
`R-12; Lot 1 & 2
(2.79 acres)
Fred
Meyer
CITY OF TIGARD
Project Summary
`Proposed Applications:
`Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
•Change from Commercial General and Medium Density
Residential to Commercial General and Medium-High
Density Residential
`Zoning Map Amendment
•Change from C-G and R-12 to C-G and R-25
CITY OF TIGARD
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
`Existing:
`General Commercial:
2.57 acres (Lot 3)
`Med. Density Res.:
2.79 acres (Lots 1 &2)
`Proposed:
`General Commercial:
3.9 acres (Lot 2 & 3)
`Med.-High Density
Res.: 1.46 acres
(Lot 1)
CITY OF TIGARD
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
`Existing:
`C-G: 2.57 acres
(Lot 3)
`R-12: 2.79 acres
(Lots 1 & 2)
`Proposed:
`C-G: 3.9 acres
(Lot 2 & 3)
`R-25: 1.46 acres
(Lot 1)
Net increase in
density is four units
CITY OF TIGARD
Findings
`The proposal has demonstrated compliance with all
applicable comprehensive plan polices and map
designations.
`There are adequate public facilities to serve the
property at the intensity of the proposed zoning.
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommendation
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and recommends
approval of the:
•Comprehensive plan map amendment; and
•Zoning map amendment
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Aman Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment
Planning Commission Hearing
Agenda Item #5
Community Development January 25, 2021
11655 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
JANUARY 25, 2021
EXHIBIT B
VICINITY MAP
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE REQUIREMENTS
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660 -012-0060 Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) requires a traffic assessment for zone changes.
Compares the change in vehicle trip potential (i.e., trip generation)
between the existing zoning and proposed zoning.
Changes should not create a significant impact on the
transportation system beyond the current land uses, and to be
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance
standard of the impacted facilities.
`Existing:
`C-G: 2.57 acres (Lot 3)
`R-12: 2.79 acres (Lots 1 &
2)
`Proposed:
`C-G: 3.9 acres (Lot 2 & 3)
`R-25: 1.46 acres (Lot 1)
Net increase in density is
four units
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT
TRIP GENERATION
The vehicular trips generated were estimated using ITE trip
generation rates for similar uses.
Assumed ITE land uses may not reflect the actual development that
occurs.
Represents the reasonable worst-case trip generation potential for
the land given the wide array of uses that would be allowed within
the assumed zoning.
TRIP GENERATION
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
INTERSECTION MOBILITY
TARGET
DELAY
(SEC)
DELAY
(SEC)
TPR
COMPLIANCE LOS V/C LOS V/C
AM Peak Hour
OR 99W / SW 72nd Avenue 1.10 v/c C 29.7 0.90 C 32.7 0.92 Yes
OR 99W / SW Dartmouth Street 1.10 v/c E 68.4 1.06 E 75.9 1.07 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp 0.85 v/c B 16.2 0.94 B 16.6 0.95 No
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 32.3 0.92 C 33.4 0.93 No
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
INTERSECTION MOBILITY
TARGET
DELAY
(SEC)
DELAY
(SEC)
TPR
COMPLIANCE LOS V/C LOS V/C
PM Peak Hour
OR 99W / SW 72nd Avenue 1.10 v/c D 35.3 0.85 D 36.2 0.87 Yes
OR 99W / SW Dartmouth Street 1.10 v/c D 37.1 0.84 D 38.5 0.86 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp 0.85 v/c B 12.8 0.75 B 12.9 0.76 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 28.7 0.91 C 29.0 0.92 No
Bolded values indicate an intersection that exceeds the mobility target
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OR 99W/SW 72nd and OR 99W/SW Dartmouth St. meet TPR under current and
proposed zoning.
The OR 99W / Highway 217 Ramp intersections slightly exceed mobility targets
during the a.m. and/or p.m. peak periods and OR 99W / Highway 217.
Trip cap is proposed for Lot 2 as a condition of approval to mitigate the
potential effect on the operations of the intersections.
With the trip cap, the application meet meets the requirements of the
TPR, as described in section 660-012-0060 of the Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 1 OF 16
Agenda Item: 5
Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: AMAN
CASE NO.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT CPA2020-00001
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZON2020-00001
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment
and a zoning map amendment. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map, the 5.36-acre property has a split designation with both General
Commercial / C-G (2.57 acres) and Medium Density Residential / R-12 (2.79
acres). The applicant is proposing a change in one of the designations from the
current Medium Density Residential / R-12 to Medium-High Density Residential
/ R-25 as well as a change to the total amount of land in each designation. The
proposal would result in the property being designated as General Commercial /
C-G (3.9 acres) and Medium-High Density Residential / R-25 (1.46 acres).
APPLICANT: Walter Aman
PO Box 4127
Portland, OR 97208
APPLICANT’S
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alex Dupey, MIG Inc.
1101 Second Ave #100
Seattle, WA 98101
OWNER: Same as applicant
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 1S136CA Tax Lot 01600.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
DESIGNATION: EXISTING: General Commercial and Medium Density Residential
PROPOSED: General Commercial and Medium-High Density Residential
ZONE: EXISTING: C-G and R-12
PROPOSED: C-G and R-25
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 2 OF 16
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2,
10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan Title 1.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments as complying with all applicable
comprehensive plan policies and map designations, Statewide Planning Goals, and Metro policies,
and that the applicant has demonstrated adequate public services exist to serve the property at the
intensity of the proposed zoning.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Lot 2, proposed to be zoned C-G, is limited to a maximum of 56 AM peak hour and 47 PM peak
hour trips with a total of 553 daily trips. If the applicant or future property owners wish to allow for
more trips on Lot 2, a Major Modification (Chapter 18.765) application with accompanying
Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660-012-0060 analysis will be required to determine whether the
limit can be revised or removed. The trip cap will be implemented as a condition of approval on
subsequent land use permits for proposed development and will be listed as a condition of approval
in the ordinance adopting the zone change.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Description
The project site is approximately 5.36-acres with frontage on SW Pacific Highway to the south and SW
Torchwood Street to the north. The site consists of three lots, recently approved through a partition
(MLP2020-00009). There are two existing buildings on Lot 3 that are being used for a recreational vehicle
rental business. Most of the site is paved, except the northernmost part (Lot 1) that is undeveloped and
mostly grass. Lot 3 is zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a General Commercial comprehensive plan
designation; and Lots 1 and 2 are zoned R-12 with a Medium Density Residential comprehensive plan
designation. Properties to the north and west are developed with apartments and condominiums (R-25 and
R-12 zones); properties to the east are development with single detached houses and commercial uses (R-12
and C-G zones); and the property to the south is also developed with commercial uses (C-G zone).
The subject site consists of two lots that are rectilinear in shape and a large flag lot, Lot 3, where the pole
portion (approximately 70 feet wide) provides access to the site from SW Pacific Highway. The site is
relatively flat, elevations range from 230 feet above mean sea level elevation near the southern property line
to 245 feet near the north eastern property line. No portion of the site has slopes greater than 10 percent.
Proposal Description
The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from General Commercial and Medium
Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium-High Density Residential, and a Zoning Map
Amendment from C-G and R-12 to C-G and R-25. The proposal is shown below.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 3 OF 16
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 4 OF 16
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment:
Existing Acres Proposed Acres
Compressive Plan Designation
General Commercial 2.57 (Lot 3) 3.9 (Lot 2 and 3)
Medium Density Residential 2.79 (Lot 1 and 2) 0
Medium-High Density Residential 0 1.46 (Lot 1)
Zone
C-G 2.57 (Lot 3) 3.9 (Lot 2 and 3)
R-12 2.79 (Lot 1 and 2) 0
R-25 0 1.46 (Lot 1)
TOTAL: 5.36 5.36
The R-25 zone has a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet per unit versus 3,050 square feet in the R-12
zone. However, because the overall amount or residentially zoned land is shrinking, the net increase in
density is only four units.
Decision Process
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 5 OF 16
The application is processed through a Type III-Modified procedure. The Planning Commission will make a
recommendation to City Council on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. The
Council may approve the amendment, approve with conditions, deny the amendments, or remand the
amendments back to Planning Commission.
Initially, the Planning Commission public hearing for this application was scheduled for August 31, 2020
and was continued to September 14, 2020 to resolve issues relating to the Transportation Planning Rule
analysis. The September 14th hearing was cancelled due to the wildfire emergency. Since then, the applicant
has been working with the City and ODOT to resolve issues relating to the TPR analysis and moving
forward with a separate partition application, which has subsequently been approved.
SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site
be notified of the proposal and be given an opportunity to provide comments prior to a decision being
made. The Type III Notice of Public Hearing regarding the initial application was mailed to affected parties
on August 3, 2020 and posted on the site on August 3, 2020. Due to the cancellation of the September 14th
hearing, another notice of public hearing was mailed on January 5, 2021 and posted on the site on January 5,
2021. Staff received the following comments:
August 10, 2020:
- A phone call from Sue Rorman asking for more information about the project.
August 12, 2020:
- An email from Deborah Milat inquiring about what the proposed application is for.
August 20, 2020:
- An email from Jean Dahlquist requesting the staff report and corresponding attachments.
August 24, 2020:
- A phone call and email from Erica Stevensen expressing concerns relating to traffic, parking, fire,
compatibility with the neighborhood, and reduced value of homes.
- A phone call from Jean Stillwell inquiring about what the proposed application is for.
August 25, 2020:
- A phone call from a citizen (who only left their first name; Gloria) inquiring about the application.
Staff called Gloria back and did not receive a response.
August 31, 2020:
- An email from Susan Frohnmayer requesting a link to the public hearing. Staff emailed the link.
- An email from Jenn Walsh expressing concern relating to increased traffic to the neighborhood and
requiring the parcels have direct access to 99W.
- An email from Ashley Pace that included general questions about extension of comment period
deadlines, how to attend the next meeting, whether the City Council meeting date will change, and
where the City obtains it’s addresses for mailings.
- A phone call to testify at the hearing was received from Catherine Davidson. Staff informed Ms.
Davidson that the hearing was continued and that she can testify at the hearing on September 14th.
September 1, 2020:
- An email from Angela Swensen expressing concerns related to traffic, parking, and trespassing.
- An email from Miriam Nelson expressing concern related to traffic, extension of Torchwood,
parking, and trespassing.
September 3, 2020:
- An email from John and Cindy Patelzick expressing concern about traffic, extension of Torchwood,
impacts to animal habitats, increased noise, and lack of park amenities in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 6 OF 16
September 10, 2020:
- An email from Ms. Jean Dahlquist stating that comprehensive plan map and zoning map
amendments must address Goal 10.
September 12, 2020:
- An email from Mr. and Mrs. Reinertsen expressing concerns related to noise, lighting, loss of
privacy, property values, increased traffic, and decreased safety.
September 13, 2020:
- An email from Mr. Bruce Abbott expressing concern related to traffic, lack of parking, emergency
vehicle access, and negative impacts to the neighborhood.
- An email from Ms. Rachel McCown expressing concerns related to insufficient finding in the traffic
report, parking, traffic, building height, and noise.
- An email from Mr. and Mrs. Reinertsen expressing concerns related noise, lighting, loss of privacy
with removal of vegetation, property values, increased traffic, and decreased safety.
- An email from Mr. John Stevenson expressing concerns related to the proposed commercial zone
being extended north and traffic impacts.
- An email from Ms. Jean Stillwell expressing concerns livability including increase in noise, pollution,
traffic, safety and parking issues, possible fire concerns, increased crime rates, loss of privacy, and
decreased property values.
September 14, 2020:
- A letter from Ms. Louise Dix; Fair Housing Council of Oregon, stating that the staff report must
address Statewide Planning Goal 10 and demonstrate that the amendments do not leave the City
with less than adequate residential land supplies.
- An email from Mr. Jim Long asking whether the September 14th hearing is cancelled and when the
next hearing will be held.
- An email from Ms. Leela Seeber expressing concerns related to traffic, lack of sidewalks and parking,
and timing of these amendments with housing that is under construction at SW Spruce and SW 72nd
Avenue.
- An email from Mr. Jeff Smith expressing concerns related to access, traffic, parking, emergency
access, incompatibility issues with existing neighborhood, increased exposure to Covid, loss of
privacy, property values, and commercially-zoned property being proposed adjacent to residential.
November 13, 2020:
- An email from Ms. Jennifer Flor asking the status of these amendments.
January 7 and 8, 2021:
- An email from Mr. and Mrs. John and Cynthia Patelzick expressing opposition to the zone changes
and concerns regarding property values and traffic.
January 12, 2021:
- A phone call from Ms. Angela Swensen regarding the upcoming hearing. Ms. Swensen expressed
concerns regarding Torchwood Street and safety.
No other comments were received at the time this report was written.
SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
The following chapters containing the applicable criteria are listed in the order they are addressed in the
report.
18.790 Text and Map Amendments
This section contains all of the applicable city, state, and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to
the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 7 OF 16
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
Chapter 2: Land Use Planning
Chapter 10: Housing
SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
18.790.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments
A. Approval process.
3. A quasi-judicial zoning map amendment application that requires a comprehensive map
plan amendment is processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in
Section 18.710.080, which is decided by the City Council with a recommendation by
Planning Commission.
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also
requesting a zoning map amendment from C-G and R-12 to C-G and R-25. Therefore, a Type III-Modified
procedure is applicable.
B. Approval criteria. A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or
quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment will be based on the following:
1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations; and
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
Goal 1.1
Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all
phases of the planning process.
Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each
phase of the land use planning process.
Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be
appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-
section of the community.
Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of
the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.710 of the
Tigard Community Development Code.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 25, 2020. On August 3, 2020, public hearing notice of
the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On August 3, 2020, the proposal was posted on the
City’s web site. On August 4, 2020, the site was posted with a notice board. On August 24, 2020 the staff
report was made available.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 8 OF 16
The initial Planning Commission public hearing for this application was scheduled for August 31, 2020 and
was continued to September 14, 2020 to resolve issues relating to the Transportation Planning Rule analysis.
The September 14th hearing was cancelled due to the wildfire emergency.
On January 5, 2021, a public hearing notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to the
interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On January 5, 2021, the
site was posted with a notice board and January 7, 2021 the notice was posted on the city website. On
January 14, 2021 the staff report was made available. These policies are met.
FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5
are met.
Chapter 2: Land Use Planning
Goal 2.1
Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the
legislative basis of Tigard’s land use planning program.
Policy 1 The City’s land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply
with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens’ own interests.
The goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for the city’s land use
planning program. This policy is met.
Policy 2 The City’s land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall
be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s development code, Title 18, has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This
policy is met.
Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of
its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and
agencies.
Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that
were received are addressed in Section VIII: Agency Comments, below. This policy is met.
Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated
Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.”
The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a
“Corridor.” The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment for the subject site from
medium-density residential, R-12, to medium high-density residential, R-25, would promote more intense
urban level development than the existing zone. The R-25 zone allows more dense development with a
minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet per unit versus 3,050 square feet and, in addition, allows a limited
amount of neighborhood commercial uses. This policy is met.
Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land
use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and
advance the community’s social and fiscal stability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 9 OF 16
Policy 7 The City’s regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement
the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning
and regulatory tools are warranted; and
F. Public services
The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment for the subject site from medium-density
residential, R-12, to medium high-density residential, R-25, would promote more intense urban level
development than the existing zone. The amendments would result in increased residential density and a
variety of land uses that are compatible with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses. The site
does not contain any sensitive lands, would not benefit from natural resource protections nor warrant
special planning and regulatory tools. These policies are met.
Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed
applicable, amendments to Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be
subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or
committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land
uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
The site is already served by all necessary public facilities and services, which can accommodate the
proposed amendments, as detailed in 18.790.030.B.2, below. The site’s proximity to Highway 99W and
Torchwood Street, along with available transit service with three major bus lines (12, 64, & 94) and three
bus stops within 1,000 feet make this an appropriate location for increased density. The applicant also
submitted a Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis. Engineering staff reviewed the analysis and
agrees with the applicant’s findings. The TPR analysis states that the proposed zone change is expected to
increase the potential trip generation by 139 trips in the AM peak hour and 111 trips in the PM peak hour (a
total of 1,670 daily trips). Of these trips, Lot 2 would be expected to see an increase of 128 trips in the AM
peak house and 98 trips in the PM peak hour (a total of 1,501 trips). The trips on Lot 2 will access directly
onto SW Pacific Highway. The applicant is proposing a trip cap on Lot 2 to mitigate the significant increase
in trips.
With the following condition of approval, this policy is met:
The Lot 2, proposed to be zoned C-G, is limited to a maximum of 56 AM peak hour and 47 PM peak hour
trips with a total of 553 daily trips. If the applicant or future property owners wish to allow for more trips
on Lot 2, a Major Modification (Chapter 18.765) application with accompanying Transportation Planning
Rule OAR 660-012-0060 analysis will be required to determine whether the limit can be revised or removed.
The trip cap will be implemented as a condition of approval on subsequent land use permits for proposed
development and will be listed as a condition of approval in the ordinance adopting the zone change.
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities
and services;
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 10 OF 16
The application includes a traffic analysis showing the existing transportation facilities are adequate. Impact
on transportation and other public facilities and services has been addressed by a licensed engineer as shown
below in 18.795.030.B.2. At this time, development is not proposed. Because the applicant is proposing a
smaller overall amount of residentially zoned land the difference between the maximum density of the
proposed zoning and existing zoning is only an increase of four units. This is a negligible potential increase
in impacts for transportation and other public facilities. This policy is met.
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such
as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment,
housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,
versus other appropriately designated and developable properties;
According to the findings in the of the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Planning chapter:
• "One of the biggest growth management challenges that Tigard will face, as well as the rest of the
Portland region, is the need to accommodate up to a million new residents..."
• "Another growth management challenge that Tigard faces is the lack of large vacant parcels available
for urban development. This type of development is a thing of the past and most househo ld and
employment growth in Tigard will be the result of redevelopment and infill."
• "Future commercial, employment, and multi-family growth will likely occur through
redevelopment."
In addition, the Housing Strategies Report (adopted by City Council), which analyzed the city’s current and
future housing needs, included the following conclusion: “In general, there is a need for some less expensive
ownership units and rental units. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments from
Medium-Density Residential, R-12, to Medium-High Density Residential, R-25, will allow additional
needed housing located between existing commercial and multi-family uses, with close proximity to
Highway 99W and transit service including three major bus routes and three bus stops within 1,000 feet.
Increased density at this site contributes to accommodating needed housing and is an appropriate transition
from Commercial uses to Medium Density Residential uses. The needed housing, capacity of the existing
infrastructure and proximity to transit make this request timely and appropriate. This policy is met.
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable,
appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by
the new designation;
The findings in the Comprehensive Plan clearly state there is a lack of large undeveloped parcels to
accommodate additional residents and that there is a general need for rental units at the lower and middle
price levels. The proposed development is an infill project surrounded by commercial and medium density
residential development with adequate services for the use. Additionally, proximity to Highway 99W and
public transportation supports increased density at this location. This policy is met.
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could
be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the
purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled;
The proposal does not include an application for development. When development is proposed, the
development will comply with all applicable regulations. The site is not located within any overlay district.
This policy is met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 11 OF 16
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or
capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and
surrounding land uses; and
The proposed designation and zone would allow for a variety of land uses that are compatible with
environmental conditions and surrounding land uses. The site already had an existing commercial use (RV
rental business) on the south portion of the site (Lot 2 and 3). There is existing condominium development
to the north, which is also zoned R-25, apartments to the west, and single detached houses and commercial
development to the east. This policy is met.
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of
the City’s natural systems.
The subject property has commercial development on the southern portion of the lot. The site has slopes
less than 10 percent and does not contain any city-regulated sensitive natural resources. The proposed
amendments would not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems. This policy is met.
Policy 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to
minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and
adjacent existing and future land uses.
Lots 1 and 2 are currently vacant, however, there are existing apartment and condominium buildings
adjacent to the north and west, commercial uses to the south and east, and single detached houses to the
east. The commercial uses face away from the existing apartment building, and therefore have no functional
interaction with the uses on the subject site. The residential uses adjacent to the north, east, and west are
already compatible with the future housing type, apartments. This policy is met.
Chapter 10: Housing
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet
the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents.
Policy 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such
as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and
along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services,
transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population
densities are either present or planned for in the future.
The site is along a transit corridor where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other
public services are available to support higher population densities. Highway 99W is a transit corridor and
the site is within 1,000 feet of three bus stops. There are existing apartment buildings adjacent to the north
and west, commercial uses to the south and east, and single detached houses to the east. The requested
comprehensive plan and zone map amendments would result in a logical transition from commercial uses to
medium density multi-family residential uses. These factors combined make this location appropriate for
higher populations densities, although the actual net increase in density of the proposal is four units. This
policy is met.
GOAL: 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability
Policy 5. The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development
patterns by promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 12 OF 16
resources, easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of
transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient design
and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources.
The proposed amendments would allow more dense residential development on the subject site. The R-25
zone has a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet per unit versus 3,050 square feet in the R-12 zone.
However, because the overall amount or residentially zoned land is shrinking the net increase in density is
only four units. The subject site is located within 1,000 feet of three bus stops on Pacific Highway. The
proposal supports a sustainable infill development pattern that promotes the efficient use of land and easy
access to public transit. This policy is met.
Policy 7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to
locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural
hazards and natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and
existing land use patterns.
The site does not contain natural resources/hazards. The southern portion (Lots 2 and 3) of the site is
currently occupied by an RV rental business, while the north portion is vacant. New development on the
site is not proposed at this time. With the development application, the applicant will need to show that all
public facilities are available to serve additional development on the site. The proposed amendments allow
for additional density in an area with appropriate locational characteristics and site conditions where services
already exist. Public transit is available nearby and existing public facilities and services support the existing
and proposed land use pattern that provides for a transition between existing commercial uses and existing
medium density residential uses. The proposed residential density is appropriately related to the specific
locational characteristics and site conditions including availability of public facilities and services, and
existing land use patterns. This policy is met.
Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from
differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living environments, such
as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection
of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas;
and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening.
The proposed amendment to increased density on the site serves to transition from existing commercial
uses and existing medium density multi-family uses. The proposal will not have any adverse impacts on
adjacent development. This policy is met.
METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Title 1: Housing Capacity
The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to
meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by
requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity.
The City’s Housing Strategies Report indicates “in general, there is a need for some less expensive
ownership units and rental units.” This type of housing is possible in both the R-12 and R-25 zones, which
allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 and 1,480 square-foot lots, respectively. With this quasi-
judicial action, the zone change to R-25 on the subject site will result in a marginal increase of R-25 zoned
land in the City of Tigard resulting in an increasingly compact urban form and a contributing towards its
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 13 OF 16
“fair-share” of regional housing needs. The proposal increases Tigard’s housing capacity, consistent with the
purpose of Title 1.
Statewide Planning Goals
Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for the land use planning process, including
the adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing
documents.
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in
Section 18.710.080 (Type-III Modified Procedure). On August 3, 2020, public hearing notice of the
Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property
owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On August 3, 2020, the proposal was posted on the City’s web
site. On August 4, 2020, the site was posted with a notice board. On August 24, 2020 the staff report was
made available.
The Planning Commission public hearing for this application was scheduled for August 31, 2020 and was
continued to September 14, 2020 to resolve issues relating to the Transportation Planning Rule analysis.
The September 14th hearing was cancelled due to the wildfire emergency. Since then, the applicant has been
working with the City and ODOT to resolve issues relating to the TPR analysis and moving forward with a
partition (MLP2020-00009) application, which has been approved.
On January 5, 2021, a public hearing notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to the
interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On January 5, 2021, the
site was posted with a notice board and January 7, 2021 the notice was posted on the city website. On
January 14, 2021 the staff report was made available. This goal is satisfied.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code
implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to
review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other
applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process
and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is satisfied.
Statewide Planning Goal 10 – Housing:
This goal requires cities and counties to provide adequate capacity for needed housing. OAR
Chapter 660 Division 8, which implements Goal 10, states that “the purpose of the division is to
ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units, the efficient
use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the
development process so as to reduce housing costs.”
The city conducted an analysis of housing needs and capacity in 2012 as part of an update to Chapter 10 of
the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This analysis found the capacity to build 6,714 units on 600 acres
throughout the city. The analysis also found that 6,545 new units were needed by 2032. Once the types of
needed housing were compared with the inventory of buildable lands, the capacity dropped to 6,457, a
shortfall of 88 units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 14 OF 16
Subsequent to the city’s housing needs analysis, other studies conducted by regional public agencies have
detailed the dire shortage of both market-rate and affordable housing stock. A 2018 analysis by the Metro
regional government found that in Washington County alone, there are more than 1,300 households on the
waiting list for a Housing Authority unit, with an average wait time of 2.8 years. Of those households who
are eligible to take a Section 18 voucher into the private market, approximately 30% return them unused
because they cannot find an affordable unit within the time limit.
A 2020 report issued by Oregon Housing and Community Services as part of its implementation of House
Bill 2003 estimated that the Portland Metro region alone would need to produce over 294,000 units of
housing over the next 20 years to accommodate growth and unmet need. The same report estimated that
the City of Tigard alone will need more than 12,000 additional units of housing over the same period.
The proposed zone change will increase housing capacity and supply in an area of the city that already
includes increased density, supportive commercial development, and transit. This increase will help the city
to address its ongoing housing shortfall and meet the statewide planning goal to provide an adequate supply
of needed housing.
2. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of
proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property,
the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and
the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any.
The proposed amendments would allow more dense residential development on the subject site. The R-25
zone has a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet per unit versus 3,050 square feet in the R-12 zone.
However, because the overall amount or residentially zoned land is shrinking the net increase in density is
only four units. Development is not proposed at this time, however, there are adequate public services to
accommodate the development of an additional four units. The applicant provided the following findings
with respect to the adequacy of public services to serve the increased density:
Transportation System
The site currently has access from Pacific Highway and Torchwood Street. The commercial
development on Lots 2 and 3 will continue to take access from Pacific Highway. The future
development Lot 1 will be served by the extension of Torchwood Street.
The Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) for this project is based
on a use of Apartment. The City’s Transportation System Development Charges will also be
assessed at time of building permit.
The development will be required to provide additional dedication on Pacific Highway, as
well as improvements across the site for the extension of Torchwood Street.
Storm Drainage System
All storm water will be provided at time of development and in compliance with City and
Clean Water Service standards for treatment and detention. Any system wide impacts will be
offset by the payment of storm water SDC fees.
Sanitary Sewer System
The existing development on the south portion of the lot is already connected to the City’s
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 15 OF 16
sanitary sewer system. There are existing facilities near the site that are available and have
sufficient capacity to serve the development on the north portion. Any system wide impacts
will be offset by the payment of sanitary sewer SDC fees.
Water System
Water service is provided by Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing
water mains in Pacific Highway and Torchwood Street. At time of development, the
applicant will work with TVWD on obtaining water service.
Parks
Any system wide impacts will be offset by the payment of Park SDC fees.
FINDING: As shown in the findings above, applicant demonstrates that adequate public services exist
to serve the property at the intensity of the proposed R-25 zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council
APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments as complying with
all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations, statewide planning goals,
and Metro policies, and that the applicant has demonstrated adequate public services exist to
serve the property at the intensity of the proposed zoning.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they
had no objections to this proposal.
The City of Tigard Police Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no
objections to this proposal.
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not
respond: Metro Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation,
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation Rail
Division, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon
Department of Geo. And Mineral Ind., CenturyLink, Comcast, Frontier Communications, NW Natural,
Portland General Electric, and TriMet.
Clean Water Services issued a pre-screening site assessment (20-001667) stating that the project will not
significantly impact the existing or potential sensitive areas found near the site. No other comments were
provided.
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 reviewed the proposal and on August 10, 2020
provided the following comments:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001 AMAN PAGE 16 OF 16
- A traffic impact study (TIS) be submitted that shows a comparison between the land use with the
highest trip generation rate allowed outright under the existing and proposed zoning/comprehensive
plan.
- The submitted Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis needs to be revised to reflect a higher
trip generating use for the general commercial zone.
On August 19, 2020, ODOT submitted additional comments regarding requirements for the TIS and TPR
analysis and request for review and comment prior to the hearing. No additional comments were provided.
Staff did meet with ODOT about the revised TPR analysis and agreed with the proposed trip cap.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the proposal and provided a copy of the pre-application notes
from March 31, 2020 stating these would apply at time of development.
Tualatin Valley Water District was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no
objections to this proposal.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Proposed Amendments
Attachment 2: Agency Comments
Attachment 3: Public Comments
January 14, 2021
PREPARED BY: Agnes Lindor
Associate Planner
January 14, 2021
APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire
Assistant Community Development Director
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALGENERAL COMMERCIALParcel 32.57 acresParcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTALParcel 32.57 acresParcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresEXISTING COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONPROPOSED COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTALAttachment 1
EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-4.5EXTG. C-GParcel 32.57 acresEXTG. C-GEXTG. R-12Parcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresEXTG. R-12EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-4.5EXTG. C-GParcel 32.57 acresEXTG. C-GPROPOSED R-25Parcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresPROPOSED C-GEXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING Attachment 1
City of Tigard
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: July 27, 2020
TO: Affected agency
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division
STAFF CONTACT: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
Phone: (503) 718-2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment
from General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G
and R-12 / Proposed: R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential / Proposed: Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and Map Amendments; Comprehensive Plan
Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1.
Attached are the Application Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from
other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal
in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MONDAY,
AUGUST 10, 2020. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to
respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as
soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting:
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
August 10th, 2020
ODOT Case No: 10624
To: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
From: Marah Danielson, Senior Planner
Subject: CPA2020-00001 and ZON2020-00001: Aman Property Comprehensive
Plan Amendment & Zone Change
11655 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard, OR
We have reviewed the applicant’s proposal to change the comprehensive plan and zoning
designations for 4.41 acres (Lot 1) and 1.66 acres (Lot 2) of the property located at 11655
SW Pacific Hwy in Tigard. The applicant proposes to change the split zoning from R-12
and C-G to wholly C-G on Lot 1 and from R12 to R25 on Lot 2. The comprehensive plan
map would change from partially Medium Density Residential and General Commercial
to wholly General Commercial on Lot 1 and from Medium Density Residential to
Medium High Density Residential on Lot 2. The comments provided below are
consistent with the comments ODOT submitted for the pre-application conference.
ODOT has permitting authority for this facility1 and an interest in assuring that the
proposed zone change/comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the identified
function, capacity and performance standard of this facility. According to the 1999
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), this facility is classified a Statewide highway and the
performance standard is .99 volume to capacity (v/c) ratio.
For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments, local governments must make a
finding that the proposed amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), OAR 660-012-0060. There must be substantial evidence in the record to either
make a finding of “no significant effect” on the transportation system, or if there is a
significant effect, require assurance that the land uses to be allowed are consistent with
the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility.
In order to determine whether or not there will be a significant effect on the State
transportation system, ODOT requested that the City of Tigard require the applicant to
submit a traffic impact study (TIS) prepared by a transportation engineer registered in
Oregon. The requested analysis was for a comparison between the land use with the
highest trip generation rate allowed outright under the proposed zoning/comp plan
designation and the land use with the highest trip generation rate allowed outright under
1 OAR 734-051 website: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_700/OAR_734/734_051.html
Oregon
Kate Brown, Governor
Department of Transportation
Region 1 Headquarters
123 NW Flanders Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
(503) 731.8200
FAX (503) 731.8259
Attachment 2
the existing zoning/comprehensive plan designation (this is commonly referred to as the
“reasonable worst case” traffic analysis).
In our pre-application comments, we noted that it is important that the applicant’s
transportation engineer to provide ODOT the opportunity to review and concur with the
mix of land uses and square footage they propose to use for the “reasonable worst case”
traffic analysis for both existing and proposed zoning prior to commencing the traffic
analysis, particularly if the applicant chooses to perform their analysis using a trip
generation rate determined by any means other than ITE Trip Generation.
On July 9th, ODOT received the attached email from DKS and Associates with a draft
TPR assessment memo dated 7/2/20. The memo included a trip generation comparison
which assumed a shopping center as the reasonable worst case trip generation for the
commercial lot. Based on this assumption, the memo concludes that “No transportation
facilities are expected to be significantly affected and the level of traffic is consistent with
the current functional classification of impacted transportation facilities. Therefore, the
finding of no significant effect addresses OAR 660-012-0060 (TPR) requirements and no
additional analysis of the transportation system is expected for the proposed rezone.”
On July 20th, 2020, ODOT provided the following response to the DKS draft TPR
assessment memo:
Commercial: The proposal is to rezone 1.57 acres of property from residential (R-
12) to general commercial (C-G). You have assumed a shopping center as the
reasonable worst case scenario for the general commercial zoning. Given the size
of the parcel, ODOT thinks that a higher trip generating use allowed in the
general commercial zone would be more reasonable. We recommend the analysis
be updated to reflect a higher trip generating use. You may want to contact the
City of Tigard about the land use to assume for the general commercial zone and
informed them of ODOT’s response.
Subsequently, ODOT corresponded with Tegan Enloe, Tigard Senior Project Engineer
and agreed that shopping center was not the reasonable worst case trip generating use for
the general commercial zone. ODOT recommend the city require the applicant to revise
the TPR assessment memo using a 24 hour AM/PM store which would generate more
trips considering the size of the lot proposed to change to general commercial use. We
anticipated that the applicant would provide an updated TPR assessment memo utilizing a
higher trip generating use assumption for the general commercial use.
ODOT has not received an updated TPR assessment memo and therefore we are unable
to make a determination regarding whether the highway will be significantly affected by
the proposed CPA/ZC for this property. We recommend that the applicant be required to
provide the city and ODOT with an updated TPR assessment memo using a more
reasonable trip generating use for the general commercial zone prior to making a decision
on this land use proposal.
Attachment 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 503.731.8258.
Attachment 2
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>
Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:30 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:RE: Request for Comments: CPA2020-00001 Aman
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Agnes,
No comments on this request.
Thanks,
Jackie Sue Humphreys | Engineering Plan Review
Clean Water Services | Planning and Development Services
2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy | Hillsboro OR 97123
o 503.681.5101 | f 503.681.4439
engage permits | news | facebook | twitter
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:04 AM
To: Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>
Subject: FW: Request for Comments: CPA2020-00001 Aman
Hi Jackie-
Does CWS have any comments this comprehensive plan amendment/rezone? Thanks,
Agnes
From: Agnes Lindor
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 2:11 PM
To: Mark VanDomelen <markv@tigard-or.gov>; Joe Wisniewski <joew@tigard-or.gov>; Stefanie Kouremetis
<stefanie.kouremetis@tigard-or.gov>; Wolff, John F. <john.wolff@tvfr.com>; John Goodrich <johng@tigard-or.gov>;
landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov; ODOT_R1_DevRev <ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us>; Naomi Vogel
<Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>; Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com; 'Jackie Humphreys'
<HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>; BeavertonEngineering@ftr.com; Smith, Julia <Julia.Smith@ftr.com>;
brian.kelley@nwnatural.com; steve.hursh@pgn.com; ryan.smith@tvwd.org; Sarah Alton <sarah.alton@tvwd.org>;
Development_Review@trimet.org
Subject: Request for Comments: CPA2020-00001 Aman
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from
General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G and
R-12 / Proposed: R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and Medium-
Attachment 2
2
Density Residential / Proposed: Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and Map Amendments; Comprehensive
Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1.
Attached are the Application Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and
from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the
proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY:
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2020. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If
you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
This application requires two public hearings. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to
City Council. The hearings are schedule for:
Date and Time of Hearings: Planning Commission: 7 PM on AUGUST 31, 2020
City Council: 7:30 PM on SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
Attend the Virtual Hearings: www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/public_hearings.php
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 2
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Wolff, John F. <John.Wolff@tvfr.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:02 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:RE: Request for Comments: CPA2020-00001 Aman
Attachments:City of Tigard Aman Property Pre2020-00016 11655 SW Pacific Hwy.pdf
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Agnes,
As this request is for a comprehensive plan map zone amendment it doesn’t change TVF&R
conditions from the previous letter from the pre-app dated March 31 of 2020. I am attaching
that letter for the record for this comment request.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
John
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 2:11 PM
To: Mark VanDomelen <markv@tigard-or.gov>; Joe Wisniewski <joew@tigard-or.gov>; Stefanie Kouremetis
<stefanie.kouremetis@tigard-or.gov>; Wolff, John F. <John.Wolff@tvfr.com>; John Goodrich <johng@tigard-or.gov>;
landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov; ODOT_R1_DevRev <ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us>; Naomi Vogel
<Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>; Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com; 'Jackie Humphreys'
<HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>; BeavertonEngineering@ftr.com; Smith, Julia <Julia.Smith@ftr.com>;
brian.kelley@nwnatural.com; steve.hursh@pgn.com; ryan.smith@tvwd.org; Sarah Alton <sarah.alton@tvwd.org>;
Development_Review@trimet.org
Subject: Request for Comments: CPA2020-00001 Aman
***The sender is from outside TVF&R – Do not click on links or attachments unless you are sure they are safe***
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from
General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G and
R-12 / Proposed: R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential / Proposed: Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and Map Amendments; Comprehensive
Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1.
Attached are the Application Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and
from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the
proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY:
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2020. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If
you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your
comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
Attachment 2
2
This application requires two public hearings. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to
City Council. The hearings are schedule for:
Date and Time of Hearings: Planning Commission: 7 PM on AUGUST 31, 2020
City Council: 7:30 PM on SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
Attend the Virtual Hearings: www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/public_hearings.php
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 2
www.tvfr.com
Training Center
12400 SW Tonquin Road
Sherwood, Oregon
97140-9734
503-259-1600
South Operating Center
8445 SW Elligsen Road
Wilsonville, Oregon
97070-9641
503-259-1500
Command & Business Operations Center
and North Operating Center
11945 SW 70th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223-9196
503-649-8577
March 31, 2020
Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Aman Property PRE2020-00016
Tax Lot I.D: 1S136CA01600 11655 SW Pacific Hwy
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development
project. These notes are provided in regards to the pre-application meeting held on March 31, 2020.
There may be more or less requirements needed based upon the final project design, however, Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue will endorse this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS:
1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Access roads shall be within
150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the building or facility. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved
intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (OFC 503.1.1)
2. DEAD END ROADS AND TURNAROUNDS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Diagrams can be found in the corresponding guide that is located at
http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296. (OFC 503.2.5 & D103.1)
3. ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HEIGHT: Buildings exceeding 30 feet in height or
three stories in height shall have at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. (D104.1)
4. ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS – MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Projects having more than 100
dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having
up to 200 dwelling units may have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings, including
nonresidential occupancies, are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2. Projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and
approved fire apparatus roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
(OFC D106)
5. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ROADS: Buildings with a vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof
surface that exceeds 30 feet in height shall be provided with a fire apparatus access road constructed for use by aerial
apparatus with an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 26 feet. For the purposes of this section, the
highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to
the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. Any portion of the building may be used for this
measurement, provided that it is accessible to firefighters and is capable of supporting ground ladder placement. (OFC
D105.1, D105.2)
Attachment 2
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.5– Page 2
6. AERIAL APPARATUS OPERATIONS: At least one of the required aerial access routes shall be located within a
minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of
the building. The side of the building on which the aerial access road is positioned shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial access road or between the aerial access road and
the building. (D105.3, D105.4)
7. MULTIPLE ACCESS ROADS SEPARATION: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart
equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area to be served (as identified
by the Fire Marshal), measured in a straight line between accesses. (OFC D104.3)
8. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have
an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet (26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants (OFC D103.1)) and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (OFC 503.2.1 & D103.1) The fire district does
not endorse the design concept wherein twenty feet of unobstructed roadway width is not
provided.
9. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and
20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, “No Parking” signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and
in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read “NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” and shall be installed with a clear space above
grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective
background. (OFC D103.6)
10. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows (OFC D103.6.1-2):
1. 20-26 feet road width – no parking on either side of roadway
2. 26-32 feet road width – parking is allowed on one side
3. Greater than 32 feet road width – parking is not restricted
Note: For specific widths and parking allowances, contact the local municipality.
11. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and
marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by
six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background (or as approved). (OFC 503.3)
12. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus
access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet and shall extend 20 feet before and after the point of the hydrant.
(OFC D103.1)
13. TURNOUTS: Where access roads are less than 20 feet and exceed 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and 30
feet long may be required and will be determined on a case by case basis. (OFC 503.2.2)
14. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily
distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel
load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). Documentation from a registered engineer that the final
construction is in accordance with approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (OFC
503.2.3)
15. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet
respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4 & D103.3)
16. ACCESS ROAD GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 15%. Alternate methods and
materials may be available at the discretion of the Fire Marshal (for grade exceeding 15%).
Attachment 2
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.5– Page 3
17. AERIAL APPARATUS OPERATING GRADES: Portions of aerial apparatus roads that will be used for aerial
operations shall be as flat as possible. Front to rear and side to side maximum slope shall not exceed 10%.
18. GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following (OFC D103.5, and 503.6):
1. Minimum unobstructed width shall be not less than 20 feet (or the required roadway surface width).
2. Gates shall be set back at minimum of 30 feet from the intersecting roadway or as approved.
3. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel
4. Electric automatic gates shall comply with ASTM F 2200 and UL 325.
19. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Temporary address signage shall
also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1)
20. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES: Shall be prohibited on fire access routes unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC
503.4.1). Traffic calming measures linked here: http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1578
FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES:
21. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS – REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum fire flow and flow duration shall be determined in
accordance with OFC Table B105.2. The required fire flow for a building shall not exceed the available GPM in the water
delivery system at 20 psi residual. (OFC B105.3)
Note: OFC B106, Limiting Fire-Flow is also enforced, except for the following:
• The maximum needed fire flow shall be 3,000 GPM, measured at 20 psi residual pressure.
• Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue does not adopt Occupancy Hazards Modifiers in section B105.4-B105.4.1
22. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test
modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor
area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects, or
600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as no
adverse modifications have been made to the supply system. Water availability information may not be required to be
submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B)
23. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1)
FIRE HYDRANTS:
24. FIRE HYDRANTS – COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a
hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the building, on-site
fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.1)
• This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system.
• The number and distribution of fire hydrants required for commercial structure(s) is based on Table C105.1,
following any fire-flow reductions allowed by section B105.3.1. Additional fire hydrants may be required due to
spacing and/or section 507.5 of the Oregon Fire Code.
25. FIRE HYDRANT(S) PLACEMENT: (OFC C104)
Attachment 2
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.5– Page 4
• Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that
are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may
contribute to the required number of hydrants. (OFC 507.5.1)
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number
of hydrants unless approved by the Fire Marshal.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets may be considered when approved by the Fire
Marshal.
• Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants
only if approved by the Fire Marshal.
26. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT IDENTIFICATION: Private fire hydrants shall be painted red in color. Exception: Private fire
hydrants within the City of Tualatin shall be yellow in color. (OFC 507)
27. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from
an approved fire apparatus access roadway unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC C102.1)
28. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of blue reflective
markers. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the center line of the access roadway that the fire hydrant
is located on. In the case that there is no center line, then assume a center line and place the reflectors accordingly.
(OFC 507)
29. PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or
other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6 & OFC 312)
30. CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire
hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5)
31. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) LOCATIONS: FDCs shall be located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant (or
as approved). Hydrants and FDC’s shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway or drive
aisle, fully visible, and recognizable from the street or nearest point of the fire department vehicle access or as otherwise
approved. (OFC 912.2.1 & NFPA 13)
• Fire department connections (FDCs) shall normally be located remotely and outside of the fall-line of the building
when required. FDCs may be mounted on the building they serve, when approved.
• FDCs shall be plumbed on the system side of the check valve when sprinklers are served by underground lines
also serving private fire hydrants.
BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
32. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE: In new buildings where the design reduces the level of radio
coverage for public safety communications systems below minimum performance levels, a distributed antenna
system, signal booster, or other method approved by TVF&R and Washington County Consolidated Communications
Agency shall be provided. (OFC 510, Appendix F, and OSSC 915) http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296.
• Emergency responder radio system testing and/or system installation is required for this building. Please contact
me (using my contact info below) for further information including an alternate means of compliance that is
available. If the alternate method is preferred, it must be requested from TVF&R prior to issuance of building
permit.
• Testing shall take place after the installation of all roofing systems; exterior walls, glazing and siding/cladding; and
all permanent interior walls, partitions, ceilings, and glazing.
33. KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access may be required for structures and gates. See Appendix B for further
information and detail on required installations. Order via www.tvfr.com or contact TVF&R for assistance and
instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506.1)
Attachment 2
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.5– Page 5
34. FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION: Rooms containing controls to fire suppression and detection
equipment shall be identified as “Fire Control Room.” Signage shall have letters with a minimum of 4 inches high with
a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch, and be plainly legible, and contrast with its background. (OFC 509.1)
35. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers; building numbers
or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting
the property, including monument signs. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch. (OFC 505.1)
If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504.
Sincerely,
John Wolff
John Wolff
Deputy Fire Marshal II
john.wolff@tvfr.com
Cc:
A full copy of the New Construction Fire Code Applications Guide for Commercial and Multi-Family Development is
available at http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296
Attachment 2
August 19th, 2020
ODOT Case No: 10624
To: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
From: Marah Danielson, Senior Planner
Subject: DKS August 12th, 2020 TPR Assessment Scoping Memo
CPA2020-00001 and ZON2020-00001: Aman Property Comprehensive Plan
Amendment & Zone Change
11655 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard, OR
On August 10th, ODOT submitted comments on the findings of the draft DKS and Associates
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) assessment memo dated 7/2/20. As explained in these
comments, the TPR assessment analysis must be based on a comparison between the reasonable
worst case traffic generation under the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations
compared to what would be allowed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
designations.
The ITE code for Shopping Center was assumed for the draft TPR assessment memo and is not
the reasonable worst case scenario under the proposed land use designation. ODOT
recommended the city require the applicant to revise the TPR assessment memo using a 24 hour
AM/PM store which would generate more trips considering the size of the lot proposed to change
to general commercial use. We anticipated that the applicant would provide an updated TPR
assessment memo utilizing a higher trip generating use assumption for the general commercial
use.
In an email to city staff on August 11, DKS proposed to use a fast food restaurant with drive
through and a coffee/donut shop with drive through as the reasonable worst case scenario for the
commercial parcel. Since they were proposing two buildings on the site and a coffee/donut shop
has a significant number of pass by trips, ODOT provided comments to city staff recommending
the they be required to use a fast food restaurant with drive through and a 24 hour convenience
store (AM/PM) which generates more destination trips. We also recommended that the study area
include all intersections between the OR 217/OR 99W interchange and the 72nd/OR 99W
intersection (both included). Prior to conducting the TIA, ODOT and the city should be in
agreement on the scope of work.
ODOT has subsequently received the DKS August 12th, 2020 TPR Assessment Scoping Memo
for review. The Memo proposes to use fast food restaurant with drive through and a coffee/donut
shop drive through as the worst case scenario for the commercial parcel. The study area is
proposed to include OR 99W intersections at SW Dartmouth St and SW 72nd Ave.
Oregon
Kate Brown, Governor
Department of Transportation
Region 1 Headquarters
123 NW Flanders Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
(503) 731.8200
FAX (503) 731.8259
Attachment 2
We have the following comments on the scoping memo:
1. Proposed Trip Generation- Because the coffee/donut drive through has a significant
number of pass by trips it does not represent the land use with the reasonable worst case
traffic generation. ODOT recommends that this use be replaced with a 24hr convenience
store (AM/PM) which has much lower pass by trips.
2. Growth Rate-The Tigard TSP should be used to determine the annual growth rate (1 or 2
percent).
3. Study Area- The study area should include the OR 217/OR 99W interchange and SW
72nd/99W intersection.
4. Trip Generation- The scope assumes both a trip generation reduction to pass by trips as
well as a 10% reduction for being in a mixed use location which will underestimate the
trip generation. ODOT recommends that the trip generation reduction be limited to pass
by trips only.
We ask that the city require the scoping memo to be updated to reflect the above
recommendations. If not, ODOT would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with city staff their
decision regarding scoping requirements.
It is our understanding that DKS will be submitting a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to evaluate
impacts of the proposed land use regulation amendments on the transportation system and inform
the city’s TPR finding. As such, ODOT request the opportunity to review and comment on the
TIA and determine any significant affected on State highway facilities by the proposed CPA/ZC
for this property.
Local governments must make a finding that the proposed amendment complies with the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660-012-0060. There must be substantial evidence in
the record to either make a finding of “no significant effect” on the transportation system, or if
there is a significant effect, require assurance that the land uses to be allowed are consistent with
the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility.
Until a TIA has been submitted for city and ODOT review and comment, there will not be
enough evidence in the record for the city to make findings that the proposed amendment
complies with the TPR. There are only 8 days between now and the Planning Commission
Hearing on August 31st. City staff is working to complete the Staff Report to send to the Planning
Commission this week.
While ODOT makes every effort to review and comment on TIA’s in a timely manner to ensure
the land use record is sufficient for the city to make an informed decision, there is limited time
before the scheduled hearing. Provided ODOT receives a TIA by Friday August 21st, we should
be able to provide comments to the city in time for the Planning Commission hearing. However,
this may not provide city staff or the applicant the opportunity to respond to ODOT comments
prior to the hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 503.731.8258 or
marah.b.danielson@odot.state.or.us.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: December 21, 2020
TO: Affected agency
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division
STAFF CONTACT: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner
Phone: (503) 718-2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment
from General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G
and R-12 / Proposed: C-G and R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and
Medium-Density Residential / Proposed: General Commercial and Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and Map
Amendments; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan Titles 1.
Link to materials: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard-
or_gov/Eo__wLgyb95DiVYezdXhnokBYWtk02loWZQdfNqwZlJpvg?e=WpQ15i
From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and
recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment o n this
application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021. You may use the space provided
below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact
the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting:
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Wolff, John F. <John.Wolff@tvfr.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:29 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Re: CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001: Aman REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Agnes,
As this CPA and re-zoning request has no bearing on firefighting access or firefighting water
supply at this juncture, TVF&R has no objection or comments on this request
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
Have a great week-end!
John Wolff
Deputy Fire Marshal
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
503-259-1504
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 1:17 PM
To: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@tigard-or.gov>; Jeffrey Lain <jeff.lain@tigard-or.gov>; Mark VanDomelen
<markv@tigard-or.gov>; John Goodrich <johng@tigard-or.gov>; landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov
<landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov>; ODOT_R1_DevRev <ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us>; Naomi Vogel
<Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>; Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com
<Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com>; Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>; Smith, Julia
<julia.smith@ziply.com>; Wells, Russell <russell.wells@ziply.com>; brian.kelley@nwnatural.com
<brian.kelley@nwnatural.com>; steve.hursh@pgn.com <steve.hursh@pgn.com>; Wolff, John F.
<John.Wolff@tvfr.com>; ryan.smith@tvwd.org <ryan.smith@tvwd.org>; Sarah Alton <sarah.alton@tvwd.org>;
Development_Review@trimet.org <Development_Review@trimet.org>
Cc: Joe Wisniewski <joew@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001: Aman REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
***The sender is from outside TVF&R – Do not click on links or attachments unless you are sure they are safe***
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from
General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G and
R-12 / Proposed: C-G and R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and
Medium-Density Residential / Proposed: General Commercial and Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and
Attachment 2
2
Map Amendments; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan Titles 1.
Link to materials: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard-
or_gov/Eo__wLgyb95DiVYezdXhnokBYWtk02loWZQdfNqwZlJpvg?e=WpQ15i
From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and
recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021. You may use the space
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone
the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 2
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jeremy Tamargo
Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 8:58 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:RE: CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001: Aman REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Hi Agnes,
No comments from development engineering on the CPA proposal.
Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Tamargo, PE
City of Tigard
Principal Engineer
Direct: (971) 713-0281
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@tigard-or.gov>; Jeffrey Lain <jeff.lain@tigard-or.gov>; Mark VanDomelen
<markv@tigard-or.gov>; John Goodrich <johng@tigard-or.gov>; landusenotifications@oregonmetro.gov;
ODOT_R1_DevRev <ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us>; Naomi Vogel <Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>;
Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com; Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>; Smith, Julia
<julia.smith@ziply.com>; Wells, Russell <russell.wells@ziply.com>; brian.kelley@nwnatural.com; steve.hursh@pgn.com;
John Wolff (TVFR) <john.wolff@tvfr.com>; ryan.smith@tvwd.org; Sarah Alton <sarah.alton@tvwd.org>;
Development_Review@trimet.org
Cc: Joe Wisniewski <joew@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001: Aman REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
- AMAN -
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-
Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from
General Commercial and R-12 to R-25.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600. ZONE: Existing: C-G and
R-12 / Proposed: C-G and R-25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: General Commercial and
Medium-Density Residential / Proposed: General Commercial and Medium-High-Density Residential. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.710, Land Use Review Procedures; and 18.790, Text and
Map Amendments; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro’s Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan Titles 1.
Link to materials: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard-
or_gov/Eo__wLgyb95DiVYezdXhnokBYWtk02loWZQdfNqwZlJpvg?e=WpQ15i
From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and
recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021. You may use the space
Attachment 2
2
provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone
the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
Thanks!
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 2
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Deborah Milat (NW) <Deborah.Milat@dpispecialtyfoods.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:00 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:RE: 11655 sw pacfic hwy
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Thank you very much
Best Regards,
Deborah Milat
Sales Associate
DPI Specialty Foods
12360 SW Leveton Dr, Tualatin, OR 97062
phone: 503-612-8025 fax: 503-612-8022
www.dpispecialtyfoods.com
From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:49 AM
To: Deborah Milat (NW) <Deborah.Milat@dpispecialtyfoods.com>
Subject: RE: 11655 sw pacfic hwy
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links
from unknown senders.
Good morning Deborah-
The notice you received is for a change to the comprehensive plan map and the zoning map. The property is currently
split designated on the comprehensive plan as General Commercial (C-G) on the southern half of the lot and Medium
Density Residential on the northern part of the lot. The zoning is also split on the lot the same way (C-G on the southern
half and R-12 on the northern half).
The applicant is proposing to move the C-G portion further north (about ¾ of the way to about where Torchwood Lane is
stubbed on the east side of the lot) and change Medium Density Residential/R-12 to Medium-High Density
Residential/R-25 on the remaining part (about the northern ¼ or lot).
The southern portion is currently already developed with an RV rental business, which is not proposed to change. The
norther portion is currently vacant and development of this portion is not proposed with this application.
Hope this helps, please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
Attachment 3
2
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
Regards,
Deborah Milat
This message and its attachments, if any, are confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail
reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message and its attachments, if any, or disclose the contents to
anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines.
The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed
From: Deborah Milat (NW) <Deborah.Milat@dpispecialtyfoods.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: 11655 sw pacfic hwy
Importance: High
Hello Agnes, can you please tell me what development is planned for the address given in the
notice sent to me? It says it is an Auto shop. Thanks Deborah Milat
Regards,
Deborah Milat
Sales Associate Inside
DPI Specialty Foods - Northwest
12360 S.W. Leveton Dr.
Tualatin , OR 97062
Tel: 503-612-8025
Fax: 503-612-8022
www.dpispecialtyfoods.com
Attachment 3
3
This message and its attachments, if any, are confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail
reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message and its attachments, if any, or disclose the contents to
anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines.
The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jean Dahlquist <jdahlqu1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 20, 2020 2:44 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:PAPA CPA2020-00001
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Good morning,
My name is Jean Dahlquist and I am conducting some research for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO). I was
hoping to obtain the staff report and all corresponding attachments for CPA2020-00001 the “ comprehensive plan map
amendment from General Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential" when
available. We will be reviewing Goal 10 findings specifically, and submitting positive or negative comment letters when
appropriate. The goal of the Goal 10 project is to ensure cities/counties are fulfilling their Statewide Planning Goal
obligation in regards to Goal 10.
Thus, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I am available for any questions or staff report review. I'm
hoping this can be a collaborative process where we can both learn from each other. In the meantime, we have obtained
the following resource to help guide future staff reports: https://www.housinglandadvocates.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Goal-10-Guidance-Letter-to-Cities-and-Counties-signed.pdf.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail, and I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Very Respectfully,
Jean Dahlquist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Phone: (414) 477-1567
E-mail: jdahlqu1@gmail.com
Linkedin
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Erica Stevensons <erica.ja.stevenson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 24, 2020 11:10 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Cc:erica.ja.stevenson@gmail.com
Subject:Case Number MLP2020-00002 & Land Partition MLP2020-00007 | Written Comments
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Erica Stevenson
10970 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY | CASE NUMBER CPA2020-0001 / ZON2020-00001
Agnes and who it may concern,
As mentioned in my voicemail, I am requesting the staff report, and if you are unable to provide this by
Wednesday, I would ask that we extend the date of the hearing to allow ample time to review and speak to
the proposed changes.
The proposed re-zoning is a one-time benefit to the property owner, at the expense of the city of Tigard and
the taxpayers. The additional expense includes the monetary cost to the city and the loss of privacy and
additional risks to individuals who live in this area. Some of which are listed below.
Business Architecture and Commercial (thru) access to 99 via a narrow residential road, which
brings additional traffic, safety issues, and road maintenance
Parking. Additional housing will exuberate the already existing issue around parking on the street
Fire. What happens when there are too many cars on the street and the fire trucks cannot access a
house/residential unit?
Does not fit into the neighborhood. The extension of the commercial zoning and the move to R-25
(Medium to High Density) does not align with the zoning on 74th SW Ave (R-4.5) or Torchwood (R-12).
Also, the Tigard Woods Condos, which is the property behind/adjacent to Walter’s property, has the
look and feel of R-12 zoning. They are connected townhomes, and each has two floors, separate
entrance, and a garage.
Increase risk/exposure to COVID with higher density housing
Loss of Privacy. Taller buildings give view access into bedrooms
Valuation of Homes. Allowing R-25 zoning (which would include apartments) and extending
commercial property would decrease the value of homes on the street with the additional traffic, noise
from commercial property and increased crime rates
Sincerely,
Erica Stevenson
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Tom McGuire
Sent:Monday, August 24, 2020 2:44 PM
To:erica.ja.stevenson@gmail.com
Cc:Agnes Lindor; Carol Krager; Caroline Patton
Subject:RE: Written Testimony
Attachments:Tom McGuire.vcf
Hello Erica,
My name is Tom McGuire and I’m the Assistant Community Development Director for Tigard. Agnes
is out on vacation this week so I will respond to your email. Thanks for providing your bulleted list of
concerns. Agnes will review those when she returns.
Because the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change their
application has to be reviewed by both Tigard’s City Council and Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission meeting is held first. We have a Planning Commission hearing scheduled for
August 31. That was supposed to be followed by the City Council hearing that you reference in your
email on September 22. However, some issues have come up with the completeness of the
applicant’s transportation study and so Agnes was not able to finish her Staff Report. Because of
that, the Planning Commission will have to continue their hearing to a later date, September
14. Because we already sent out the notice for the 8/31 hearing we have to open that hearing and
formally announce that it is continued to a later date but that is all that will happen on the 31st. That,
in turn, means that the City Council hearing will also have to be delayed to a later date. We do not
yet have a date for the City Council hearing but we will send out notification to everyone on our list
again to let them know the new Council hearing date.
We make the staff report to the Planning Commission available for the public to review at least a
week before the Planning Commission hearing so we will have that available by September 4. You
are invited to provide your comments on the proposal and the staff report to the Planning Commission
in writing or you may testify at the hearing. Be aware that due to Covid related issues we are doing
both Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the Zoom platform online. You can watch
the Zoom meeting on video and call in to provide testimony.
Agnes will be back next week and will be available to answer any project specific questions you may
have. I encourage you to participate in the Planning Commission hearing as well as the later City
Council hearing.
Tom
Attachment 3
2
From: Erica Stevensons <erica.ja.stevenson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Carol Krager <carolk@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Written Testimony
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerend
RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR
CASE NUMBER CPA2020-0001 / ZON2020-00001
CASE NUMBER MLP2020-00002
AMAN/MLP2020-00007
I am requesting an extension of the hearing to allow for time to receive and review the staff report. This
report was not in the initial letters from the applicant’s rep or the hearing documents. I called and emailed
Agnes Lindor, and their out of office message indicates it could be a few days until I hear back.
Written Testimony
The proposed split of the property (MLP2020-00007) and rezoning (CPA2020-0001) is a one-time benefit to
the property owner, at the expense of the City of Tigard and the taxpayers. The additional expense includes
the monetary cost, the loss of privacy, and additional risks to individuals who live in this area. My concerns are
listed below.
Commercial (thru) access to 99 via a narrow residential road, which brings additional traffic, safety
issues, and road maintenance
Parking. Additional housing will exuberate the already existing issue around parking on Torchwood
and 74th
Fire. What happens when there are too many cars on the street, and the fire trucks cannot access a
house/residential unit?
Does not fit into the neighborhood. The extension of the commercial zoning and the move to R-25
(Medium to High Density) does not align with the zoning on 74th SW Ave (R-4.5) or Torchwood (R-12).
Also, the Tigard Woods Condos, which is the property behind/adjacent to Walter’s property, has the
look and feel of R-12 zoning. They are connected townhomes, and each has two floors, separate
entrance, and a garage.
Increase risk/exposure to COVID that comes with higher density housing
Attachment 3
3
Loss of Privacy. Taller buildings provide views into bedrooms
Valuation of Homes. Allowing R-25 zoning (which would include apartments) and extending
commercial property would decrease the value of homes on the street with the additional traffic, noise
from commercial property, and increased crime rates
Business Architecture. The commercial property will back up into residential property/zoning.
Would a noise ordinance and land buffer be put into place?
Sincerely,
Erica Stevenson
10970 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR 97223
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:SUSAN FROHNMAYER <susanfrohnmayer@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2020 3:49 PM
To:alexd@migcom.com
Cc:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Notice of Land Use Public Hearing tonight at 7pm
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Alex
I have tried to find a way to connect to the zoom meeting CPA2020-00001
Applicant Walter Aman. The website says it is not available.
Please let me know how I can connect to this meeting. It is 3:45 pm.
Thank You
Susan Frohnmayer
503-939-0243
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Ashley Pace <ashleyrenepace@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2020 7:25 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:MLP2020-00002
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hi Agnes,
My name is Ashley Pace (formerly Ashley Sova), and I own an investment property near the property that is proposed in
the following case numbers:
CPA2020-00001
ZON2020-00001
MLP2020-00002
MLP2020-00007
I attended the Planning Commission meeting this evening (8/31/20) at 7pm, and noted that the applicant’s
representative requested a continuance until 9/14/20. I have the following questions:
1. Does this request for a continuance mean that the comment period deadline will be extended? Currently, the
deadline is 5pm tomorrow (9/1/20)
2. Will the link for the 9/14/20 Planning Commission meeting be the same as tonight’s meeting?
3. Will the request for a continuance this evening also affect the date of the City Council meeting where this
application is discussed (according to the notice, this application is currently scheduled to go to the City Council
on 9/22/20 @ 7:30pm)?
On another note, could you also tell me where the city of Tigard obtains the names and addresses of property owners in
situations like this? I’ve changed my name, ownership structure and mailing address for my investment property some
months ago, but the notices from the City of Tigard (and the applicant’s representative) are still being sent to an old
address, are addressed to my previous name and include the names of previous owners. I would like to make sure that
I’ve updated whatever I need to, in order to ensure that I continue to receive these notices.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Ashley Pace (formerly Sova)
Owner of 10900 SW 76th Pl., #28
Tigard, OR 97223
Mailing Address:
15863 SE Anderegg Pkwy.
Damascus, OR 97089
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jenn Walsh <jenn.r.walsh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2020 6:54 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Aman (CPA2020-00001)
This is in regards to the application for zoning change of the above related parcel. My main concern is the traffic that
would be created from the additional housing. Primarily the access from the new community onto hwy 99. The access
would be via an already stressed Spruce/78th ave to the intersection by the Starbucks. Any traffic study conducted
would be lacking accurate numbers considering the pandemic and the high school off of Pfaffle being out. There are
times of day that the intersection is impassable already now. Adding this number of daily potential drivers would be a
heavy burden on the current homeowners in the immediate area. I would implore the planning commission to take this
into sincere consideration, and require a direct access to 99W from the new development in order to approve this
zoning change.
-Jenn
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Miriam Nelson <miriam_nelson@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:06 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Aman: MLP2020-00002
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hi Agnes,
My name is Miriam Nelson and I live with my family on 1196 SW Legacy Oak Way (the corner of Legacy Oak Way and SW
Torchwood)
I am sending this note to express our family concern about the re-zoning request of 11655 SW Pacific Highway, but
furthermore using SW Torchwood as a main entry to a high-density area.
SW Torchwood is a street that was definitely not developed for high traffic. It is a very narrow street where it is mostly
used for parking and local traffic. Traffic at the end side of Torchwood is local and speed is no higher than 10 mph.
In our neighborhood we have several kids that are normally playing on the street, riding bikes, playing with water or
going back and forth between the large green space on the other side of Torchwood and our homes. There are family
gatherings and neighborhood parties., it is a beautiful community. Opening SW Torchwood and increasing traffic posts a
huge risk for our kids. This neighborhood will not be ever again a safe place for kids to play outside and it is
heartbreaking.
SW Torchwood is the main parking street for our neighborhood as all of our homes are a one car garage an no street
parking allowed. Removing any parking on Torchwood will be an absolute chaos for us. Torchwood is such a narrow
street that it is even hard for garbage trucks to get in an out, so much that we have been skipped in the past from
garbage picked up due to parking and the sharp turn on the intersection with Legacy Oak.
Our neighborhood, although is on a private street, has a public easement that connects to Highway 99. Throughout the
years we have seen this path increase on walking traffic and with that we have seen increasing problems like homeless
trying to live there, finding drug paraphernalia, garbage, etc. We are VERY concern of additional walking traffic,
especially when our kids are outside.
Attachment 3
2
I am not opposed to rezoning the area, however, making SW Torchwood the main entry for a high-density (apartment)
area is portraying many problems from our community, most of them affecting safety. I truly believe that if apartments
are going to be built, the complex should have its own entry straight from 99 Highway and leave SW Torchwood as it is.
I appreciate your time,
Miriam Nelson
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Angela Swensen <angela@coraggiogroup.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:00 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Aman: MLP2020-00002
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hello Agnes-
My name is Angela Swensen and I live at 11074 SW Legacy Oak Way. We have received notice of Land Use Application
regarding the re-zoning of 11655 SW Pacific Highway.
We are very concerned about the extension of SW Torchwood Street on to the re-zoned property. Here are our concerns
around:
1. Traffic safety: SW Torchwood is a VERY narrow street. Because Legacy Oak Way is a one way street, one stretch
of Torchwood is essentially one way flow of traffic and with the sharp turn to SW 74th -- it is a blind corner.
Increasing traffic on both 74th and SW Torchwood would be very tight and dangerous.
2. Parking: Parking is an issue in our community. The original developer (who went bankrupt) created one-car
garages that don’t fit most vehicles and because there is no parking Legacy Oak Way (due to the street being too
narrow) our community relies heavily on parking on SW Torchwood. If we have other residents (from potential
future housing on the Aman property) needing to use that street parking it would create a SIGNIFICANT issue.
3. Our community space: Our HOA (White Oak Village) owns a large green space under the Legacy Oak Tree that is
along SW Torchwood. We already have found drug paraphernalia, dog poop and other non-ideal items in a
space where our young children play. This is private property and having to monitor and protect this area with
the potential expansion of adding in apartments and additional residents would again be a disruption to our
community.
4. Access to Public Easement: Legacy Oak Way is a private street that does have a public easement that connects
the neighborhood to Highway 99. We are concerned with having people enter our private property to access the
easement. We have had lots of trouble with this easement in the past with homeless living there, drug related
transactions taking place and people disposing garbage. We would expect these types of events to occur as
population would increase.
Overall we are a community full of first time homeowners with lots of young children. The safety of our children is what
is most important and we are very concerned that the change to SW Torchwood resulting in a significant increase in
traffic as well and access to our private street/community spaces. If Mr. Aman would like to re-zone the property it
would be desired by this community if they were to the access from his existing property. Otherwise consider re-zoning
to a medium density situation again to reduce the impact on our community.
Thank you for your time,
Angela
Attachment 3
2
ANGELA SWENSEN
HR Manager
2240 N. Interstate Avenue
Suite 300, Portland, OR 97227
503.493.1452
coraggiogroup.com
Download our latest whitepaper
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:cynthia patelzick <summerfieldcindy@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 3, 2020 2:16 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Aman property/case#MLP2020-00007
I am sending in writing, my opposition to the proposal at this property 11655 SW Pacific Highway. Once again I am
finding myself trying to protect my small neighborhood and a way of life. As in past projects traffic is probably our
number one concern. I am concerned with adding even more vehicles to this tiny, essentially one way street.I don’t
know how this street can handle a low density housing project, much less high density. I have seen many changes since
the Torchwood neighborhood was built at the end of our street. We have fewer numbers and species of birds. The
sunlight for our garden has changed. The amount of traffic is getting worse all of the time. The noise is increasing. The
livability is changing the values of ours and our neighbors properties.
We were a part of the informational zoom and phone call in June. We were told there was a traffic study being done.
We haven’t seen evidence of any traffic studies on our street or neighboring streets. There is an 18 home project going
in around the corner , as I write this letter ,that will be impacting the surface streets . We asked the city for a park at that
site. Unfortunately, the council chose to ignore the fact that there are no parks in our neighborhood. Perhaps the city
can buy the property and create a family neighborhood with a park? We at 10975 SW 74th Ave. , want to be on record
opposing the proposed changes to this property. We respectfully ask that you consider the dynamic of this
neighborhood and deny a high density designation. Ideally we prefer no continuation of Thornwood Street. Thank you
for considering our request. Respectfully John and Cindy Patelzick .
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jean Dahlquist <jdahlqu1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:01 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Re: PAPA CPA2020-00001
This sender is trusted.
Hi Agnes,
Thank you for your reply! Aside from the case where it is a zone map change but not a comprehensive plan map change
(which I do not believe this is, please correct me if I am wrong) Goal 10 findings as well as findings for the other
Statewide planning goals as applicable are required. The zone map only situation is under debate. There was some
misinformation being distributed for a while, but we have clarified this matter with DLCD for several other cities. I would
be happy to double check this matter with the board, then set up an email chain or a phone call if that would be helpful?
Respectfully,
Jean Dahlquist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Phone: (414) 477-1567
E-mail: jdahlqu1@gmail.com
Linkedin
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:53 PM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Jean-
Because our comprehensive plan has been acknowledged that it is in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals, we do
not need to address them specifically. We would however, if we were changing making language changes to the
comprehensive plan itself. The approval criteria for CPA/ZON also only requires addressing the comprehensive plan
policies.
Thank you,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
Attachment 3
2
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
From: Jean Dahlquist <jdahlqu1@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:48 PM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Re: PAPA CPA2020-00001
Good afternoon Agnes,
And thank you! I was able to obtain the staff report, and I notice you only provided findings for your Comprehensive
Plan but not the Statewide Planning Goals. May I ask why?
Respectfully,
Jean Dahlquist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Phone: (414) 477-1567
E-mail: jdahlqu1@gmail.com
Linkedin
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:24 AM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Jean-
I emailed the link out to Erica Stevensons on Monday, I believe you were copied on that email. Here is it, in case you
did not receive it:
Attachment 3
3
https://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/public_hearings.php
Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
From: Jean Dahlquist <jdahlqu1@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:00 AM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Re: PAPA CPA2020-00001
Good morning Agnes,
Just a friendly inquiry into the staff report. I hope you and yours are staying safe.
V/R
Jean Dahlquist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Attachment 3
4
Phone: (414) 477-1567
E-mail: jdahlqu1@gmail.com
Linkedin
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 4:06 PM Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Jean-
The hearing is actually going to be continued to 9/14. The staff report is not available yet, however, I am attaching
the applicant’s materials. Thanks,
Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner
City of Tigard | Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: 503.718.2429
Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
From: Jean Dahlquist <jdahlqu1@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 2:44 PM
To: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: PAPA CPA2020-00001
Good morning,
My name is Jean Dahlquist and I am conducting some research for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO). I was
hoping to obtain the staff report and all corresponding attachments for CPA2020-00001 the “ comprehensive plan
map amendment from General Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential"
when available. We will be reviewing Goal 10 findings specifically, and submitting positive or negative comment
letters when appropriate. The goal of the Goal 10 project is to ensure cities/counties are fulfilling their Statewide
Planning Goal obligation in regards to Goal 10.
Attachment 3
5
Thus, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I am available for any questions or staff report review.
I'm hoping this can be a collaborative process where we can both learn from each other. In the meantime, we have
obtained the following resource to help guide future staff reports: https://www.housinglandadvocates.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Goal-10-Guidance-Letter-to-Cities-and-Counties-signed.pdf.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail, and I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Very Respectfully,
Jean Dahlquist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Phone: (414) 477-1567
E-mail: jdahlqu1@gmail.com
Linkedin
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-
mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are
retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention
Schedule.”
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:JL R. <jerilynr123@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:29 PM
To:Carol Krager; Agnes Lindor
Subject:Proposed development and zoning changes, Ref:
Aman/CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001, Comments/Concerns
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Attn: Tigard Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Project at 11655 SW Pacific Hwy, Washington Co.Tax Map 1S136CA Tax lot 01600
Aman/CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001
From: Chris and Jeri Reinertsen, 10900 SW 76th Pl #25,Tigard, Or
As concerned citizens that live in the Tigard Woods Condominium complex at 10900 SW 76th Pl #25 we are writing to
provide comments and express our concerns. They are the following:
Our condominium is along the northern border of the proposed development site and is separated from the property by
a wood fence.The exterior wall of our condo is 4 and 1/2 feet from the property's border. Because we border this
property very closely our major concern is noise, bright outdoor street and parking lot lighting and loss of privacy that
comes with taller buildings and balconies. We would like to know how much of a border will be in place between our
property and the new planned residential buildings. Also, will any of the mature vegetation remain?
Other important concerns are the devaluation of our property, increased traffic, and decreased safety because of
increased ease of access to Hwy 99W.
Because of these concerns and potential impact on our quality of living, we are opposed to the R-25 zoning which would
add an excess of multiple stacked residential units within a limited area with very limited parking and green space.
Thank-you for your consideration of these issues.
Chris and Jeri Reinertsen
10900 SW76th Pl #25
Tigard, OR (Tigard Woods)
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Carol Krager
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 7:10 AM
To:Caroline Patton; Agnes Lindor
Subject:FW: Aman / CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
For September 22, 2020 Council meeting.
From: abbottinstrument@aol.com <abbottinstrument@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 6:58 PM
To: Carol Krager <carolk@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Aman / CPA2020-00001 / ZON2020-00001
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
sophospsmartbannerend
I am a resident here at 10850 SW 74th Ave and have some concerns regarding the proposed zoning change and use of
Torchwood and 74th Ave for access to the considered development property.
A) 74th Ave. is an under developed street that should not be asked to carry any more traffic than it has now
Spruce St is also overburdened with traffic and will only get worse with the residential units going in on Spruce
presently
B) The townhouses that were built at the end of 74th were ill conceived as far as parking and access
Due to the lack of foresight, residents are forced to park illegally and access for emergency vehicles is a very real
concern
C) This development of high density housing has had a very negative impact on our neighborhood.
I have lived here in our house with my wife for 40 years. We raised our children here and are very concerned
about the nature of our
neighborhood and the negative impacts of these poorly conceived, designed and then approved developments.
I want to strongly urge the City of Tigard to fully consider all aspects and ramifications of these proposed projects.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns
Bruce Abbott
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Rachel McCown <rachelmccown@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:57 AM
To:Carol Krager; Agnes Lindor
Subject:WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR CASE NUMBER CPA2020-0001 / ZON2020-00001 CASE
NUMBER MLP2020-00002 AMAN/MLP2020-00007
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
I am reaching out to you to dispute the proposal of increasing the property size/zone of commercial
property to 4.22 acres and giving the property access to Torchwood and 74th ave. I am also against
changing the residential zoning from R-12 to R-25
ODOT Findings – Insufficient Data on Traffic Report| On page 18, ODOT states they were unable to
verify that the existing plan would meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060. They reiterate that a
higher trip report number is needed to determine the true impact to traffic on page 30
Parking | On page 25 of the Staff Report, the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue state that parking on
emergency roads 20 to 26 feet wide should have no parking on both sides of the road, and 26 to 32
should only have parking on one side of the street.
Torchwood and 74th ave do not accommodate this, and there are no plans outlined in the report
how the city or property owner of the 5.28 acres will accommodate this need
Eminent domain is required to widen streets to allow for parking and adequate access in front
and to the side lot of 11005 SW 74th Ave (whose property line already extends directly into
Torchwood)
Traffic| As mentioned on page 7 of the Staff report, Engineering and ODOT findings after reviewing the
traffic report, indicate there will be off-site traffic impacts. The solution proposed by Tigard is a driving
cap that that is to be determined.
The cap and management of traffic needs to a part of the zone change approval process vs.
separate approval process that does not include the voice of the community
Covering the costs to provide access to a flag lot does is against Policy 1, which states policies
should..serve its citizens’ own interests. The owner/developer needs to be accountable for
setting up the infrastructure to support the proposed zoning and buildings. The solution to this
is to limit the commercial property to the existing access to 99W, putting in a light, and
Attachment 3
2
removing the barrier that prevents left-hand turns onto 99W (the cost to be covered by the
owner)
Also, on page 25, the fire and rescue state that residential property only needs two entrances if
over 30 feet tall or has over 100 dwelling units. The residential unit does not require access to
99W and Torchwood
Building Height over 30 feet tall | The totality of the 5.28 acres is surrounded on three sides by
residential property (2 stories) and is not directly on 99W (50 to 75 feet from the road).
Giving zoning approval for over 30 feet will remove privacy and would give viewable access into
bedrooms for the Tigard Wood Condos and the townhomes off Torchwood (SW Legacy Oak Way
– Privately maintained road)
Noise Ordinance | Per the call on June 25, with the legal team and Walter/owner, all 5.28 acres were
zoned commercial at one point. The back 3.23 acres became R-12 to resolve ongoing noise and
disturbance issues between Walter/his tenant and the residential units.
What is the city’s plan to negate ongoing noise associated with commercial property being
surrounded on three sides by residential property? Walter/owner has already shown existing
negligence on this point.
Sincerely,
Rachel McCown
Tigard Resident and Registered Voter
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:John Stevenson <jdastevenson@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 6:28 PM
To:Carol Krager; Agnes Lindor
Subject:WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR CASE NUMBER CPA2020-0001 / ZON2020-00001 CASE
NUMBER MLP2020-00002 AMAN/MLP2020-00007
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
I am responding to the proposal of increasing the property size/zone of commercial property to 4.22 acres and giving the
property access to Torchwood and 74th Ave. I am also against changing the residential zoning from R-12 to R-25
Current Zoning: Per the call on June 25, with the legal team and Walter/owner, all 5.28 acres were originally zoned
commercial. The north 3.23 acres were rezoned R-12 to resolve ongoing noise and disturbance issues between
Walter/his tenant and the residential units.
What circumstances have changed or been mitigated to justify reverting back to commercial zoning?
Why was this historical change either not researched or omitted from the planning analysis?
Traffic impact: I have concerns regarding the access from the proposed commercial zone to Torchwood and 74th. The
proposal does not appear to meet the requirements of ODOT for a complete analysis.
The proposal appears to benefit only the current owner at the detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
The owner creates additional commercial development property while increasing the capacity of the residential
development potential.
By allowing the commercial zone access to Torchwood, the proposal effectively turns Torchwood and 74th into a
commercial driveway for the property. Since there is no current left hand turn available to 99W, traffic will
utilize the residential access in order to avoid the lack of available alternative routes.
John Stevenson
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Carol Krager
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 7:11 AM
To:Caroline Patton; Agnes Lindor
Subject:FW: Reference Aman/CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001
For September 22, 2020 Council meeting.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Stillwell <jswnw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:42 PM
To: Carol Krager <carolk@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Reference Aman/CPA2020-00001/ZON2020-00001
My name is Jean Stillwell. I own the unit #35 and reside in the property of Tigard Woods Condos at 10900 SW 76th Pl,
#35,Tigard Oregon 97223. I have lived at this address for ten years. I strongly disagree with the proposed zoning change
and use of Torchwood/74th Ave for the commercial and apartments /residential property.
My entrance and exit door, and patio is located just 8’ from the fence that borders this property. Directly in front of this
fence is the property zoning change in question.
This change would directly affect my life and livability and also affect the lives of my near neighbors of Tigard Woods
Condos.
My life would be negatively affected by an increase in noise, pollution, commercial and additional traffic, safety issues,
parking issues, possible fire concerns,Increase in crime rates, loss of privacy, as my living room, bedroom, and patio
could be viewed. Also this plan does not fit into the neighborhood, and would decrease the value of my property. It
could increase the risk/exposure to COVID. This property change is directly behind my property. Would a land buffer or
noise ordinance be put into place?
Please do not approve their request for change.
Jean Stillwell
10900 SW 76th Pl. #35
Tigard OR 97223
Sent from my iPad
________________________________
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.”
Attachment 3
1
September 14, 2020
City of Tigard Planning Commission
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from General
Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High-Density Residential. The
applicant is also requesting a zoning map amendment from General Commercial and R-12
to R-25.(CPA2020-00001)
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is submitted jointly by Housing Land Advocates (HLA) and the Fair Housing Council
of Oregon (FHCO). Both HLA and FHCO are non-profit organizations that advocate for land use
policies and practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing for
all Oregonians.FHCO’s interests relate to a jurisdiction’s obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing.Please include these comments in the record for the above-referenced proposed
amendment.
As you know, all amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map must comply
with the Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a).When a decision is made affecting the
residential land supply, the City must refer to its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Buildable
Land Inventory (BLI)in order to show that an adequate number of needed housing units (both
housing type and affordability level) will be supported by the residential land supply after
enactment of the proposed change.In addition, the staff report contains no findings addressing
the Metro Housing Rule OAR 660-007-0060. Housing Land Advocates v. Happy Valley, __ Or
LUBA __, (LUBA Nos. 2016-031/105, March 24, 2017).
The staff report for the proposed comprehensive plan and zone map amendment recommends its
approval. However, the report does not include findings for Statewide Planning Goal 10,
describing the effects of the proposed changes on the housing supply within the City. For
Attachment 3
2
example, what kinds of housing units are needed by the City, and how will the change from R-12
to R-25 add or detract from potential needed units? The required Goal 10 findings must
demonstrate that the proposed zone change does not leave the City with less than adequate
residential land supplies in the types, locations, and affordability ranges affected.See Mulford v.
Town of Lakeview,36 Or LUBA 715, 731 (1999) (rezoning residential land for industrial uses);
Gresham v. Fairview, 3 Or LUBA 219 (same); see also, Home Builders Assn. of Lane Cty. v.
City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 422 (2002) (subjecting Goal 10 inventories to tree and
waterway protection zones of indefinite quantities and locations).Further, the report should
reference the City’s HNA to quantify how the potential housing units and types gained will
benefit the City. For example, the staff report does state that the proposed amendments will
increase the potential housing able to be provided by the land by 2 units. However, it is unknown
whether either medium density housing or high density housing is needed by the City, and in
what quantities. Only with a complete analys is showing any gain/loss in needed housing as
illustrated by the HNA and compared to the BLI can the public understand whether the City is
achieving its goals through CPA2020-00001.
HLA and FHCO urge the Planning Commission to defer adoption of CPA2020-00001 until Goal
10 findings can be made, and the proposal evaluated under the HNA and BLI. Thank you for
yo ur consideration. Please provide written notice of your decision to, FHCO, c/o Louise Dix, at
1221 SW Yamhill Street,#305,Portland, OR 97205 and HLA, c/o Jennifer Bragar, at 121 SW
Morrison Street, Suite 1850, Portland, OR 97204.Please feel free to email Louise Dix at
ldix@fhco.org or reach her by phone at (541) 951-0667.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Jennifer Bragar
Louise Dix Jennifer Bragar
AFFH Specialist President
Fair Housing Council of Oregon Housing Land Advocates
cc: Kevin Young (kevin.young@state.or.us)
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jim Long <bluepgs@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:45 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Cc:Jim Long
Subject:Public Hearing 9/14
Attachments:Great Blue Heron local.JPG
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Good morning Agnes -
Why was last night's hearing cancelled?
When will the next hearing be?
Jim Long
CPO-4M Chairperson
503-647-0021
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Leela Seeber <leelaseeber@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:18 PM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Regarding Aman/CPA2020-00001/Zon2020-00001
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hello-
My name is Leela Seeber. I am long time Tigard resident who has just move onto a house on 74th between Spruce and
Torchwood. I first heard of this planned development from a neighbor. I am not opposed to growth however I would
like to point out the problems that already exist in this area of Tigard.
TRAFFIC
Spruce and & 78th are already recognized as traffic trouble spots and speed bumps have been put in. Daily (before
COVID) rush hour at the intersection of Pfaffle and 78th is backed up.
INCONSISTENT SIDEWALK AVAILABILITY
Pedestrians face the challenge of varying terrain.
PARKING
Parking is already an issue on Torchwood because the narrow road servicing the tightly packed row houses on Legacy
Oak Way forces overflow and larger vehicles onto Torchwood.
HOUSING ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
More housing is already currently under construction at the corner of 72th and Spruce behind the Fred Meyer. Before
we even feel the crunch of that extra development, you are being asked to make this rezoning decision.
I was planning to attend the planning commission meeting this evening and was disappointed to learn it was canceled. I
would be interested in attending future meetings or hearings on this subject. Thank you
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:Jennifer Flor <jennflor77@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 13, 2020 9:30 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Public hearing question-ZMA 2020-00001
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender
Hello Ms. Lindor,
What is the status of the comp plan amendment and zone map amendment for the property located at 11655 SW Pacific
Highway (CPA 2020-00001/ZMA 2020-00001)?
The city website says hearing date TBD, so curious to know if there is a date set or if there have been any determinations
in the case.
Thank you,
Jennifer Flor
10915 SW 74th Ave
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:cynthia patelzick <summerfieldcindy@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:30 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Torchwood extension
We are appalled that this use of the land in question could even be considered for the proposed zone change. To
propose commercial property that’s only access is through an already difficult residential street is absolutely
unacceptable. We vehemently oppose changing the zoning of residential to commercial property. I pray the Tigard City
Council deny the zone change. I would ask each member of the city council to perhaps come to our neighborhood and
spend some time observing the traffic and parking situation and maybe consider how you might like this sort of change
to your to neighborhood. We have a great mix of first time buyers and long time residents. I am truly worried about
what this would do to our property values. There’s no question that traffic will impact negatively. I am considering
rallying my neighbors and getting a lawyer to present our interests. Again, we oppose any commercial use of the newly
created lot!!! John and Cynthia Patelzick. Please share with any other interested or affected parties.
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 3
1
Agnes Lindor
From:cynthia patelzick <summerfieldcindy@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 9:24 AM
To:Agnes Lindor
Subject:Torch wood
I appreciate you pointing that out. We are still opposed to changing to high density for the lot in question. For the same
reasons I have mentioned previously. Traffic and parking issues will be too much for this neighborhood. Single family
homes are more desirable than apartments. Please put us on record as opposed to the change from medium density to
high density. Thanks for your help.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 3
Attachment C – Existing Site Conditions
Existing Site Conditions
Transit and Access
The site’s main access is via a driveway off SW Pacific Hwy. Torchwood St dead ends at the site’s eastern
property line. When future residential development is proposed on the northern lot, Torchwood would
be extended through to the site’s western property line and would be built to City design standards and
road requirements. The commercial designated portion of the parcel would continue to have main
access off of the highway.
Topography
The site is relatively flat, and elevations range from 230 feet above mean sea level near the southern
property line to 245 feet above mean sea level near the northeastern property line. No portion of the
site has a slope greater than 10%.
Utilities
The RV rental business on the southern portion of the property is connected to existing sanitary sewer
and water on SW Pacific Hwy. Stormwater facilities are available along SW Pacific Hwy and starting and
Torchwood St and extending south along the site’s eastern property line. Utility connections are also
available for sanitary sewer and water on Torchwood St.
Vegetation
The southern portion of the site is developed with an RV rental business and is paved. The northern
portion of the site is undeveloped and contains grassland. The perimeter of the site contains a mix of
trees and shrubs and a line of trees divides the developed southern portion of the site with the
undeveloped northern portion. None of the existing onsite trees are identified on the City’s Urban
Forestry maps. No trees are proposed for removal under this application.
Hydrology
The site is not located within any designated flood zone or floodway. There are no known wetlands on
the site, the nearest known wetland is located to the northwest of the site at the corner of Spruce St
and 78th Ave.
Existing Structures and Uses
The site is developed with two buildings used as part of the RV rental business and a large portion of the
lot is paved for the outdoor storage of RV’s. The northernmost ¼ of the property is vacant and contains
grassland and a line of trees separating the undeveloped portion of the site from the developed portion.
Proposed Uses
The southern lot is currently developed with an RV rental business; no new commercial use is proposed
with this application. No development is proposed at this time on the northern lot which would be
rezoned from R-12 to R-25. Any future development or redevelopment on the northern and southern
lots would comply with the R-25 and C-G zones, respectively.
Page 1
Attachment D - Narrative
Application Narrative
Summary of Request
The applicant, Walter Aman, seeks approval for a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone
change for two lots of approximately 1.46 acres (Lot 1) and 1.33 acres (Lot 2). Currently, these lots have
not been recorded and a partition to create them is being processed under a separate application. The
zoning map amendment would change the zoning from R-12 to R-25 on Lot 1 and from R-12 to C-G on
Lot 2. The comprehensive plan map amendment would change the land use designation from partially
Medium Density Residential and General Commercial to wholly General Commercial on Lot 2 and from
Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential on Lot 1. The applicable approval
criteria are included below in bold with a response following each criterion.
Applicable Criteria
18.790.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments
A. Approval process.
3. A quasi-judicial zoning map amendment application that requires a comprehensive map plan
amendment is processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section
18.710.080, which is decided by the City Council with a recommendation by Planning Commission.
B. Approval criteria. A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map
amendment or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment will be based on the following:
1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations; and
Applicant Response: The applicable comprehensive plan policies and the application’s
compliance with them are discussed below:
Chapter 1 Citizen Involvement
Goal 1: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process.
Goal 1.2: Ensure all citizens have access to: opportunities to communicated directly to the City; and
information on issues in an understandable form.
Applicant Response: A neighborhood meeting was held June 25th, 2020 prior to the submission of the
application. The public will have additional opportunities to hear and comment on the project at the
public hearings. This policy is met.
Chapter 2 Land Use Planning
Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as
the legislative foundation of Tigard’s land use planning program.
Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated Centers and
Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
Page 2
Attachment D - Narrative
Applicant Response: The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that SW Pacific Highway is
designated as a ‘Corridor’. The proposed rezone of Lot 1 to solely general commercial would allow for
the existing commercial use to continue and the proposed rezone of Lot 2 from medium density
residential to medium-high density residential would meet market demand for residential development
and allow for higher density housing types along the SW Pacific Highway corridor. This policy is met.
Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which
are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community’s social and
fiscal stability.
Applicant Response: The rezoning of Lot 2 to solely general commercial would allow for the existing
commercial use to continue and resolve the split-zoning of residential and commercial. The rezoning of
Lot 1 to medium-high density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing
options available to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed change on Lot 1 would allow for higher density
and more affordable housing options, promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens
of Tigard. This policy is met.
Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments
to Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made
available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
Applicant Response:
An analysis was done by DKS Associates to address OAR 660-012-0060 Transportation Planning Rule
Requirements related to the proposed zone change. The analysis found that the zone changes would
generate about 22 additional a.m. peak hour and 25 additional p.m. peak hour trips, or about 1,662
additional daily trips. No transportation facilities are expected to be significantly affected and the level
of traffic is consistent with the current functional classification of any impacted transportation facilities.
Public services and utilities including emergency services, parks, schools, sanitary sewer, and water are
also available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map changes
and are discussed further on page 7. This criterion is met.
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or
planned transportation or other public facilities and services;
Applicant Response:
Most study intersections operate within the adopted mobility targets, indicating TPR compliance. The
OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp and OR 99W / Highway 217 Northbound Ramp intersections
are expected to operate with a v/c above the adopted target under both the Existing and Proposed
Zoning scenarios during one or both of the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. During the a.m. and p.m. peak
the v/c ratio is expected to change by 0.01 with the proposed zoning. The proposed rezone adds 39 total
a.m. peak hour trips and 31 p.m. peak hour to the OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp
intersection and 46 total a.m. peak hour trips to the OR 99W / Highway 217 Northbound Ramp
intersection (the v/c is met during the p.m. peak at this intersection). No
Page 3
Attachment D - Narrative
feasible improvements were identified at these intersections outside of an additional eastbound
through lane on OR 99W, so a trip cap is proposed to mitigate the significant effect on the operations of
the intersections. The trip cap will limit the total traffic generated by any future development on the
proposed Lot 2 to 56 a.m. peak hour and 47 p.m. peak hour trips and assures compliance with the
Transportation Planning Rule
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed
commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties;
Applicant Response: The rezoning of the subject property would allow for a needed increase in higher
density residential land and for more affordable housing options if the property is developed in the
future. In 2013, the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies Report prepared by Angelo Planning
Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review to update the Housing Goal. The report
analyzed the city’s current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: “In
general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units.” R-25 zoned land
would permit a variety of multi-family housing types, which contribute to the City’s needed variety of
more affordable housing stock. The rezone from R-12 to R-25 would not change the potential use of Lot
2 as it would still remain residential, but rather change the housing types permitted. The rezone from C-
G and R-12 to solely C-G on Lot 2 would correct the split-zoning and would allow for solely commercial
uses permitted in the C-G zoning district. This criterion is met.
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land
for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation;
Applicant Response: The City’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element states that a housing needs and
capacity analysis conducted in 2012 found the capacity to build approximately 7,000 new housing units
on buildable lands zoned for residential development. However, the housing element also finds that
there is a general need for rental units at the lower and middle price levels. Changing the zone from R-
12 to R-25 would allow for the construction of more of the missing middle housing identified by the City.
This criterion is met.
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in
compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled;
Applicant Response: This application does not include any specific development. When development is
proposed in the future, the lots would be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations as
they are adequately sized and could be served by public services and utilities. There are no additional
overlay districts on either proposed lot. This criterion is met.
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made
compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and
Applicant Response: The proposed C-G zone on Lot 2 would resolve the split-zoning issue of commercial
and residential zoning currently on the property. The C-G zone would allow commercial uses at a scale
that is compatible with adjacent commercial uses along SW Pacific Highway and surrounding residential
development. The proposed R-25 zone on Lot 1 would allow residential housing types at a scale that
would be compatible with adjacent medium and medium-high residential uses and the commercial use
on Lot 1 to the south. If development is proposed on Lot 1, Torchwood Street would be extended to the
Page 4
Attachment D - Narrative
western property line and provide a buffer between the commercial uses on Lot 2 and any future
residential uses on Lot 1. This criterion is met.
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural
systems.
Applicant Response: Lot 2 has been previously developed with commercial uses and currently contains
a recreational vehicle rental business. Lot 1 is undeveloped and contains a mix of grassland. Both lots
have a minimal slope and do not contain any city-designated natural resources. The proposed changes
would not detract from the viability of the City’s natural systems. This policy is met.
CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve water quality in the community and region.
Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protected and enhance the community’s water quality
Applicant Response: No specific development is proposed with the comprehensive plan map and zoning
map changes. Any future development or re-development would comply with all regional, state, and
federal standards for air and water quality. This policy is met.
Chapter 7 Hazards
Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather
hazards.
Applicant Response: Neither lot contains slopes in excess of 10% or is identified on City maps as an area
with landslide or slope instability hazards. Lot 1 does not contain any liquefaction hazards while Lot 2 is
mapped as having a low and medium liquefaction hazard. Lot 2 has a regional earthquake hazard
designation of A and B (A being the greatest hazard) and Lot 1 has a designation of B. Neither lot is
within a FEMA flood zone or a mapped wildfire hazard area. Any future residential development on Lot
1 or commercial redevelopment on Lot 2 would comply with all regional, state, and federal standards for
environmental hazards and all current building regulations in effect at that time. This policy is met.
Chapter 10 Housing
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the
diverse housing needs of current and future City residents.
Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide
opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meeting the needs, preferences and financial
capabilities of Tigard’s present and future residents.
Applicant Response: In 2013, the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report. The report analyzed
the City’s current and future housing needs and found that the land supply meets projected 20-year
need for approximately 6,500 new housing units in the city. However, that report found that there was a
documented need for less expensive ownership and rental units. R-25 zoned land would permit a variety
of multi-family housing types, which contribute to the City’s variety of more affordable housing stock.
The rezone from R-12 to R-25 would not change the potential use of Lot 2 as it would still remain
residential, but rather change the housing types and density permitted. This policy is met.
Page 5
Attachment D - Narrative
Policy 5 The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers
(Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors where employment
opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher
population densities are either present or planned for in the future.
Applicant Response: Lot 2 has driveway access to SW Pacific Hwy with Lot 1 located directly north. SW
Pacific Hwy is a transit corridor with employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other
public services. The rezoning of Lot 1 from medium density residential to medium-high density
residential would align with this policy and allow for high and medium density housing where there are
adequate facilities and services to support such a use. This policy is met.
Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
Policy 5 The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by
promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resource, easy access to public transit and
other efficient modes of transportation, ease access to services and parks, resource efficient design
and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources.
Applicant Response: The lots are adjacent to an area with commercial services and transit is available
along SW Pacific Highway, which Lot 2 has frontage on. Any future development or re-development
could be conducted in a sustainable pattern that promotes the efficient use of land while also
accommodating the higher residential density proposed on Lot 1. This policy is met.
Policy 7 The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational
characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources,
availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns.
Applicant Response: As discussed above there are no designated natural resources on either lot and the
public facilities and services have adequate capacity to serve medium-high residential densities. Lot 1
contains few natural hazards and compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would mitigate
fire and earthquake risk. Lot 1 would be adjacent to a mix of land uses including general commercial,
medium density residential, and medium high density residential and the re-zone to medium-high
density residential would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding land uses. This policy is
met.
Chapter 11 Public Facilities
Goal 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and
leisure needs of all Tigard residents.
Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the expansion and equitable, long-term funding of public facilities
and services with the overall growth of the community.
Applicant Response: No development or new public facilities are proposed with this application. At the
time of development there would be improvements to water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage
systems, street improvements, and payment of System Development Charges (SDCs). This policy is met.
Chapter 12 Transportation
Page 6
Attachment D - Narrative
Goal 12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of
the community
Policy 5 The City shall develop plans for major transportation corridors and provide appropriate land
uses in and adjacent to those corridors
Applicant Response: SW Pacific Highway is considered a major transportation corridor and there are
existing commercial, mixed use, and high-density residential land uses along it within the City. The zone
change to medium-high density residential on Lot 1 would be appropriate considering the adjacent land
uses and availability of public services and utilities along SW Pacific Highway and Torchwood Street. The
zone change from medium density residential and general commercial to solely general commercial on
Lot 2 is consistent with surrounding commercial land uses along SW Pacific Highway. This policy is met.
Goal 12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and
goods.
Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain transportation performance measures.
Applicant Response: As demonstrated in the TPR analysis prepared by DKS Associates, the zone changes
would not result in significant impacts to the existing transportation facilities and would not negatively
impact the facilities’ performance if a trip cap is implemented. The trip cap will limit the total traffic
generated by any future development on the proposed Lot 2 to 56 a.m. peak hour and 47 p.m. peak
hour trips, and assures compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. This policy is met.
Goal 12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of
the community.
Policy 5 The City shall develop and maintain neighborhood and local connections to provide efficient
circulation in and out of the neighborhoods.
Applicant Response: As demonstrated in the TPR analysis, the zone changes would not have a
significant effect on circulation. If development is proposed on Lot 1 in the future, additional
transportation analysis would be conducted for the specific development to ensure existing circulation is
not negatively affected. This policy is met.
Goal 12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
Policy 3 The City shall require new development to provide safe access for all modes to and from a
publicly dedicated street.
Applicant Response: When future development is proposed on Lot 1, Torchwood Street would be
extended through to the western property line, allowing both lots to have access from publicly
dedicated streets. The TPR analysis conducted for the zone change found that the changes would not
significantly affect existing transportation systems if a trip cap was implemented on Lot 2. Torchwood
Street when extended, would be built to meet city roadway design standards. This policy is met.
Chapter 14 Urbanization
Goal 14.3 Promote Tigard citizen’s interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional
and state growth management decisions.
Page 7
Attachment D - Narrative
Policy 3 The City shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single-family
residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in its regional and town
centers and within major transportation corridors to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and
the Metro Framework Plan.
Applicant Response: The existing residential neighborhood contains a mix of residential densities with
medium-high density residential to the north, medium density residential to the east and west, and
commercial uses to the south. The proposed zone changes would not conflict with this policy as the site
is not adjacent to any designated low-density residential lots. SW Pacific Highway is considered to be a
major transportation corridor. The zone changes to general commercial on Lot 2 and medium-high
density residential on Lot 1 is consistent with the Metro Framework Plan and Statewide Planning Goals.
The Metro Framework Plan provides policies related to allowing a diverse range of housing types,
allowing more affordable housing near centers and corridors, and infill and re-development within
corridors all of which these zone changes would meet. This policy is met.
18.790.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments Approval Criteria Continued
B. Approval criteria. A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment
or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment will be based on the following:
2. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity
of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the
property, the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future
use, and the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any.
Applicant Response: While no new development is proposed with this application, adequate public
services and utilities exist to serve the property at the intensity of the proposed zoning on Lot 2 and Lot
1 as discussed below. SDCs would be required for any future residential development on Lot 1 which
would offset any impacts to public services caused by the future use. This criterion is met.
Fire - The lots are within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue service area. TVFR currently provides
services to the site which would not be impacted by the zoning changes. Any future development would
comply with the adopted Building Code and any other applicable standards and policies related to fire
protection methods.
Parks - The zone changes on Lots 1 and 2 would not adversely impact the city’s ability or capacity to
provide parks. System Development Charges for Parks would be collected for any residential
development constructed on Lot 1.
Police - Police services are currently provided by the Tigard Police Department. There would be no
substantial increased need for police protection resulting from the rezoning. Existing police protection
facilities would be adequate to serve any future use.
Sanitary Sewer - The existing commercial development is connected to City sewer. Sewer connections
are available in the area and there is enough capacity to continue to serve the existing commercial use
on Lot 2 and any medium-high density residential use on Lot 1.
Schools - Both lots are within the Tigard-Tualatin School District and would feed into Metzger
Elementary, Fowler Middle School, and Tigard High School. The proposed medium-high residential
Page 8
Attachment D - Narrative
zoning would double the allowed density currently allowed on Lot 1. Enrollment in the Tigard-Tualatin
School District is not at capacity and approval of the medium-high density residential zone change would
not necessitate the expansion or construction of additional schools.
Stormwater: Stormwater facilities are available along SW Pacific Hwy and starting on Torchwood St and
extending south along the site’s eastern property line. If development is proposed in the future, any
treatment and detention would be required in accordance with Clean Water Services standards.
Streets - Both lots are currently only served by SW Pacific Hwy. Torchwood St would be extended as part
of any future residential development on Lot 1. No transportation facilities are expected to be
significantly affected and the level of traffic is consistent with the current functional classification of
impacted transportation facilities and would not cause the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan to be negatively impacted.
Water - Both properties lie within the Tualatin Valley Water District Area and the existing commercial
development is served by city water. There are existing water lines on SW Pacific Hwy and Torchwood
St. There is adequate capacity to serve future residential or commercial development on both lots.
18.790.020 Legislative Amendments
A. Approval process. A legislative amendment application is process through a Legislative procedure,
as provided in Section 18.710.110.
B. Approval considerations. A recommendation or a decision for a legislative amendment application
may be based on consideration of the applicable legal requirements. They may, but not necessarily
include: Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules, one or more Statewide Planning
Goals, Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and any other regional plans.
Applicant Response: The City’s Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Statewide Planning Goals and was
acknowledged by the state as in compliance with state law; therefore, the Statewide Goals are
addressed under the Comprehensive Plan Policies Sections. The following Statewide Planning Goals are
applicable to the application: Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Goal 6
Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 10 Housing, Goal 11 Public Facilities, Goal 12
Transportation, and Goal 14 Urbanization.
The applicable Metro regulations and compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule are discussed
below.
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Title 1: Housing Capacity
The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to meeting
regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city
and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity.
Applicant Response: The City’s Housing Strategies Report indicates that there was a documented need
for less expensive ownership and rental units. R-25 zoned land would permit a variety of multi-family
housing types, which contribute to the City’s variety of more affordable housing stock. The rezone from
R-12 to R-25 would not change the potential use of Lot 1 as it would still remain residential, but rather
Page 9
Attachment D - Narrative
change the housing types and density permitted and increase the City of Tigard’s housing capacity. This
policy is met.
Transportation Planning Rule Compliance
OAR Section 668-12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule,
unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9), or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use
regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Applicant Response: The proposed C-G zoning on Lot 2 and R-25 zoning on Lot 1 would not require or
result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facilities.
(b) Chance standards in implementing a functional classification system; or
Applicant Response: The proposed C-G zoning on Lot 2 and R-25 zoning on Lot 1 would not require or
result in any changes to the standards that implement the functional classification system.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on
projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As
part of evaluating project conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area
of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
Applicant Response: Two of the four study area intersections meet mobility targets under the Current
and Proposed Zoning indicating TPR compliance. The OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp
intersection exceeds mobility targets during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp intersection exceeds mobility targets during the a.m. peak period. The establishment
of a trip cap is proposed to mitigate the significant effect on the operations of the intersections. The trip
cap will limit the total traffic generated by any future development on the proposed Lot 2 to 56 a.m.
peak hour and 47 p.m. peak hour trips and assures compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule.
The trip cap mitigates the significant effect at the intersections, as the operations at the OR 99W /
Highway 217 Southbound Ramp intersection are not further degraded beyond the Existing Zoning
Scenario during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and at the OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp
intersection during the a.m. peak period. The trips from the proposed Lot 1 would take access off SW
Torchwood Street.
Page 10
Attachment D - Narrative
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not
meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
Applicant Response: No transportation facilities are expected to be significantly affected and the level
of traffic is consistent with the current functional classification of impacted transportation facilities. The
traffic analysis found that the Proposed Zoning with the trip cap on Lot 2 meets the requirements of the
TPR, as described in section 660-012-0060 of the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR).
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projects to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Applicant Response: The establishment of a trip cap on Lot 2 is proposed to mitigate the significant
effect on the operations of the intersections. The trip cap will limit the total traffic generated by any
future development on the proposed Lot 2 to 56 a.m. peak hour and 47 p.m. peak hour trips, and
assures compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 6, 2021
TO: Alex Dupey | MIG
FROM: Kevin Chewuk | DKS Associates
Ilana Burstein | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Tigard Aman Property Zone Change TPR Assessment P20110-00
The purpose of this memorandum is to address Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060,
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), requirements related to the proposed
zone change and partitioning of the site located at 11655 SW Pacific
Highway in Tigard, Oregon.
TPR OVERVIEW
The TPR provides a means for ensuring that future land use and traffic
growth is consistent with existing or planned transportation facilities. It
requires the proposed zone change/comprehensive plan amendment to not
create a significant impact on the transportation system beyond the
current land uses, and to be consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standard of the impacted facilities. The TPR can
be addressed through a variety of means, but typically compares the
change in vehicle trip potential (i.e., trip generation) between the existing
zoning and proposed zoning.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The proposed zone changes are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. The
northern portion of the 5.36-acre site is currently zoned Residential
Medium-Density (R-12) and the southern portion General Commercial (C-
G). The site is proposed to be partitioned into three lots, with the vacant
northern 1.46 acres (proposed Lot 1) proposed to be rezoned from R-12 to
Residential Medium-High-Density (R-25). The southern 3.90 acres of the
site (proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3) includes an existing Recreational Vehicle
Dealership, and a mix of R-12 (approximately 1.33 acres on proposed Lot
Proposed Lot 3
(2.57 acres)
No Rezone
(Existing C-G
Zoning)
Proposed Lot 2
(1.33 acres)
Rezone from R-
12 to C-G
Proposed Lot 1
(1.46 acres)
Rezone from R-
12 to R-25
FIGURE 1: PROPOSED
ZONING
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 2
2) and C-G zoning (approximately 2.57 acres on proposed Lot 3). The C-G boundary is proposed to
be shifted northward to align with the location of the existing business, with the proposed Lot 2 to
be rezoned to C-G (approximately 1.33 acres), and the current zoning being maintained on the
proposed Lot 3.
TABLE 1 : PROPOSED ZONING
TRIP GENERATION
The vehicular trips generated were estimated by applying assumptions about development types
and sizes to national surveys of trip generation for similar uses as reported by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE)1. As shown in Table 2, the existing and proposed zonings were
related to ITE land uses to develop trip generation estimates for the site. For purposes of the TPR
analysis, the portion of the existing recreational vehicle dealership on the proposed Lot 2 that will
be rezoned from R-12 to G-C (1.33 acres) will be assumed to be redeveloped to allowable uses
under the proposed zoning designation (fast-food restaurant and convenience market) to represent
a reasonable worst case. No change in vehicle trip generation will be assumed for the proposed Lot
3 where the zoning is not changing. The assumed ITE land uses may not necessarily reflect the
actual development that occurs, but is intended to represent the reasonable worst-case trip
generation potential for the land given the wide array of uses that would be allowed within the
assumed zoning.
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation,10th Edition
PROPOSED
PARTITION
LOTS
LOT SIZE EXISTING
ZONING
PROPOSED
ZONING EXISTING
USE
Lot 1 1.46 acres R-12 R-25 Vacant
Lot 2 1.33 acres R-12 C-G
Recreational
Vehicle
Dealership
Lot 3 2.57 acres C-G C-G
Recreational
Vehicle
Dealership
Total 5.36 acres
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 3
TABLE 2 : RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZONING AND ITE TRIP GENERATION LAND USES
PROPOSED
PARTITION
LOTS
LOT SIZE
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
ZONING
ITE LAND
USE/ ITE
CODE
ZONING ITE LAND USE/ ITE CODE
Lot 1 1.46 acres R-12
Multi-family
Housing Low-
Rise / 220
R-25 Multi-family Housing Low-Rise
/ 220
Lot 2 1.33 acres R-12
Multi-family
Housing Low-
Rise / 220
C-G
Fast-Food Restaurant with
Drive-Through Window / 934;
Convenience Market / 851
Lot 3 2.57 acres C-G N/A - No
Zone Change C-G N/A - No Zone Change
Total 5.36 acres
DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Several assumptions were utilized to determine the amount of buildable land and sizes of potential
development to base trip generation estimates (see Table 3). Average assumptions regarding
development densities that can reasonably be expected were utilized to estimate the net quantities
of potential development. The development assumptions were based on minimum lot size per unit
for the residential zones (R-12 and R-25) and maximum lot coverage and average building size for
the use in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the C-G zone.
TABLE 3 : DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
ZONING LOT SIZE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY NET SIZE
Existing Zoning
R-12
Lot 1 1.46 acres 3,050 SF Minimum Lot Size Per
Unit*
20 units
Lot 2 1.33 acres 19 units
C-G Lot 3 2.57 acres Existing RV Dealership Existing
Proposed Zoning
R-25 Lot 1 1.46 acres 1,480 SF Minimum Lot Size Per
Unit* 43 units
C-G
Lot 2 1.33 acres
85% Maximum Lot Coverage*;
Average Building Size for the use
in the ITE Trip Generation Manual
3,000 square foot fast-food
restaurant; 2,500 square
foot convenience market
Lot 3 2.57 acres Existing RV Dealership Existing
*Source: City of Tigard Municipal Code
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 4
NET NEW TRIPS
The potential trip generation from both the existing and proposed zoning is shown in Table 4. As
shown, the existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 18 (4 in, 14 out) a.m. peak hour
trips, 22 (14 in, 8 out) p.m. peak hour trips, and 285 daily trips. The proposed zoning is expected
to generate approximately 157 (74 in, 83 out) a.m. peak hour trips, 133 (71 in, 62 out) p.m. peak
hour trips, and 1,955 daily trips. Overall, the zone change is expected to increase the potential trip
generation by 139 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 111 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily
trips.
Of these trips, the proposed Lot 2 would be expected to see an increase of 128 trips in the a.m.
peak hour, 98 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 1,501 daily trips with the proposed zoning. The trips
from the proposed Lot 2 are assumed to access directly to OR 99W. The proposed Lot 1 would be
expected to see an increase of 11 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 13 trips in the p.m. peak hour and
169 daily trips with the proposed zoning. The trips from the proposed Lot 1 are assumed to take
access off SW Torchwood Street.
TABLE 4 : TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON FOR EX ISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING
PROPOSED
PARTITION
LOTS
ITE LAND USE/ ITE
CODE SIZE
AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY
TRIPS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Existing Zoning
Lot 1
(1.46 acres)
Multi-family Housing
Low-Rise / 220 20 units 2 7 9 7 4 11 146
Lot 2
(1.33 acres)
Multi-family Housing
Low-Rise / 220 19 units 2 7 9 7 4 11 139
Lot 3
(2.57 acres)
N/A - No Zone
Change - - - - - - - -
Total Trips with Existing Zoning 4 14 18 14 8 22 285
Proposed Zoning
Lot 1
(1.46 acres)
Multi-family Housing
Low-Rise / 220 43 units 5 15 20 15 9 24 315
Lot 2
(1.33 acres)
Fast-Food Restaurant
with Drive-Through
Window / 934*
3,000
square
feet***
31 30 61 25 24 49 706
Convenience Market /
851**
2,500
square
feet***
38 38 76 31 29 60 934
Total 69 68 137 56 53 109 1,640
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 5
PROPOSED
PARTITION
LOTS
ITE LAND USE/ ITE
CODE SIZE
AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY
TRIPS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Lot 3
(2.57 acres)
N/A - No Zone
Change - - - - - - - -
Total Trips with Proposed Zoning 74 83 157 71 62 133 1,955
Change (Proposed Zoning – Existing
Zoning) +70 +69 +139 +57 +54 +111 +1,670
Lot 1 Change (Proposed Zoning – Existing
Zoning) +3 +8 +11 +8 +5 +13 +169
Lot 2 Change (Proposed Zoning – Existing
Zoning) +67 +61 +128 +49 +49 +98 +1,501
Lot 3 Change (Proposed Zoning – Existing
Zoning) - - - - - - -
Notes: *Net trip generation includes a 50% pass-by trip reduction; **Net trip generation includes a 51% pass-by
trip reduction; ***Square footage based on the average size of the land use in the ITE Trip Generation Manual
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution for the proposed rezone was estimated based on the existing travel patterns as
determined by traffic counts at surrounding intersections and the locations of off-site
origin/destination points within the site vicinity. It is estimated that 35 percent of the trips will
originate or end from the west, 35 percent to/from the east, 15 percent to/from the north, and 15
percent to/from the south.
VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
The following study intersections were analyzed:
• OR 99W / SW 72nd Avenue
• OR 99W / SW Dartmouth Street
• OR 99W / Highway 217 Northbound Ramp
• OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp
Historical count data was obtained for the study intersections and adjusted to current conditions
based on ODOT’s 2038 Future Volume Tables. Volume forecasts project a growth trend in average
daily traffic (ADT) volumes on OR 99W adjacent to the project site around 0.4 percent annually2.
This growth rate was applied to the count data to adjust them to 2020 conditions.
2 Based on data along OR 99W, 0.20 mile east of SW Pfaffle Road and 0.05 mile east of Beaverton-Tigard Highway (OR217-
NB ramps).
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 6
Forecasted volume data from the Metro Travel Demand Model along the OR 99W corridor near the
Highway 217 interchange suggests annual growth rates between 0.50 and 0.80 percent3. As a
conservative approach, future traffic growth between 2020 and 2035 was estimated using a 1
percent annual growth rate. The volumes can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.
3 Tigard Triangle TPR Analysis (January 2018) and ODOT Interchange Atlas. Based on growth at the OR 99W/ Highway 217
interchange during the p.m. peak hour.
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 7
FIGURE 2: TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM PEAK HOUR)
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 8
FIGURE 3: TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOU R)
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 9
2035 MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS
Future traffic forecasts were prepared for 2035 for two scenarios:
• 2035 Existing Zoning – this scenario includes existing zoning and is assumed to match the
forecast of the current 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP)
• 2035 Proposed Zoning – this scenario assumes the proposed zoning
2035 BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS
The 2035 performance analysis does not assume any relevant projects. The Metro Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) financially constrained project list includes a project for intersection
improvements along OR 99W between SW 64th Avenue and SW Durham Road (RTP 10770). This
segment includes all of the study intersections, although specific improvements are still being
determined. The Tigard TSP includes additional details for the OR 99W intersection improvement
projects, although these were not assumed since these are either at intersections that meet their
current mobility target or do not improve the intersection operations.
2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 5 shows the future 2035 intersection operations at study area intersections. As shown, most
study intersections operate within the adopted mobility targets, indicating TPR compliance. The OR
99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp and OR 99W / Highway 217 Northbound Ramp intersections
are expected to operate with a v/c above the adopted target under both the Existing and Proposed
Zoning scenarios during one or both of the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. During the a.m. and p.m.
peak the v/c ratio is expected to change by 0.01 with the proposed zoning. The proposed rezone
adds 39 total a.m. peak hour trips and 31 p.m. peak hour to the OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp intersection and 46 total a.m. peak hour trips to the OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp intersection (the v/c is met during the p.m. peak at this intersection). No
feasible improvements were identified at these intersections outside of an additional eastbound
through lane on OR 99W, so a trip cap is proposed to mitigate the significant effect on the
operations of the intersections.
TABLE 5 : 2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
INTERSECTION MOBILITY
TARGET
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
TPR
COMPLIANCE LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C
AM Peak Hour
OR 99W / SW 72nd Avenue 1.10 v/c C 29.7 0.90 C 32.7 0.92 Yes
OR 99W / SW Dartmouth Street 1.10 v/c E 68.4 1.06 E 75.9 1.07 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp 0.85 v/c B 16.2 0.94 B 16.6 0.95 No
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 32.3 0.92 C 33.4 0.93 No
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 10
INTERSECTION MOBILITY
TARGET
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
TPR
COMPLIANCE LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C
PM Peak Hour
OR 99W / SW 72nd Avenue 1.10 v/c D 35.3 0.85 D 36.2 0.87 Yes
OR 99W / SW Dartmouth Street 1.10 v/c D 37.1 0.84 D 38.5 0.86 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp 0.85 v/c B 12.8 0.75 B 12.9 0.76 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 28.7 0.91 C 29.0 0.92 No
Bolded values indicate an intersection that exceeds the mobility target
FIN DINGS
Two of the four study area intersections meet mobility targets under the Current and Proposed
Zoning indicating TPR compliance. The OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp intersection
exceeds mobility targets during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp intersection exceeds mobility targets during the a.m. peak period. The
establishment of a trip cap is proposed to mitigate the significant effect on the operations of the
intersections. The trip cap will limit the total traffic generated by any future development on the
proposed Lot 2 to 56 a.m. peak hour and 47 p.m. peak hour trips, as shown in Table 6, and
assures compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule.
TABLE 6 : PROPOSED LOT 2 TRIP CAP
PROPOSED
PARTITION
LOTS
AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY
TRIPS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Lot 2
(1.33 acres) 25 31 56 25 22 47 553
Table 7 shows that the trip cap mitigates the significant effect at the intersections, as the
operations at the OR 99W / Highway 217 Southbound Ramp intersection are not further degraded
beyond the Existing Zoning Scenario during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and at the OR 99W /
Highway 217 Southbound Ramp intersection during the a.m. peak period. As a result, this analysis
finds that the Proposed Zoning with the trip cap on Lot 2 meets the requirements of the TPR, as
described in section 660-012-0060 of the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR).
TIGARD AMAN PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE TPR ASSESSMENT • JANUARY 2021 11
TABLE 7 : 2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH TRIP CAP
INTERSECTION MOBILITY
TARGET
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
WITH TRIP CAP TPR
COMPLIANCE LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C LOS DELAY
(SEC) V/C
AM Peak Hour
OR 99W / Highway 217
Northbound Ramp 0.85 v/c B 16.2 0.94 B 16.2 0.94 Yes
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 32.3 0.92 C 32.6 0.92 Yes
PM Peak Hour
OR 99W / Highway 217
Southbound Ramp 0.85 v/c C 28.7 0.91 C 28.8 0.91 Yes
Bolded values indicate an intersection that exceeds the mobility target
APPENDIX
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 1Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 10 45 2140 40 95 1365 25 75 45 145 70 60Future Volume (vph) 10 45 2140 40 95 1365 25 75 45 145 70 60Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1735 3505 1615 1719 4921 1752 1810 1513 1805 1752Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1735 3505 1615 1719 4921 1752 1810 1513 1805 1752Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 11 47 2253 42 100 1437 26 79 47 153 74 63RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 136 0 28Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 58 2253 26 100 1462 0 79 47 17 74 103Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 10 10Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 3% 0% 5% 5% 10% 3% 5% 4% 0% 0%Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NAProtected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4Permitted Phases28Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 86.8 86.8 12.3 90.1 10.9 14.9 14.9 8.0 12.0Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 87.3 87.3 12.8 90.6 11.4 15.4 15.4 8.5 12.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.65 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.09Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.1 5.1 2.3 5.1 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 117 2185 1007 157 3184 142 199 166 109 156v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.64 c0.06 c0.30 0.05 c0.03 c0.04 c0.06v/s Ratio Perm0.020.01v/c Ratio 0.50 1.03 0.03 0.64 0.46 0.56 0.24 0.10 0.68 0.66Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 26.4 10.1 61.4 12.4 61.9 56.9 56.1 64.4 61.7Progression Factor 1.34 0.54 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 16.1 0.0 6.8 0.5 4.7 0.4 0.2 13.5 8.2Delay (s) 84.7 30.4 7.5 68.1 12.9 66.5 57.3 56.2 77.9 69.9Level of Service F C A E B E E E E EApproach Delay (s) 31.3 16.4 59.3 72.8Approach LOS C B E EIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 29.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 2Movement SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 65Future Volume (vph) 65Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900Total Lost time (s)Lane Util. FactorFrpb, ped/bikesFlpb, ped/bikesFrtFlt ProtectedSatd. Flow (prot)Flt PermittedSatd. Flow (perm)Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 68RTOR Reduction (vph) 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr)Heavy Vehicles (%) 0%Turn TypeProtected PhasesPermitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s)Effective Green, g (s)Actuated g/C RatioClearance Time (s)Vehicle Extension (s)Lane Grp Cap (vph)v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Permv/c RatioUniform Delay, d1Progression FactorIncremental Delay, d2Delay (s)Level of ServiceApproach Delay (s)Approach LOSIntersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 3Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 25 100 2150 225 35 1270 10 155 85 30 155 180Future Volume (vph) 25 100 2150 225 35 1270 10 155 85 30 155 180Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1624 3124 1425 1562 4442 3060 1710 1362 1608 1660Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1624 3124 1425 1562 4442 3060 1710 1362 1608 1660Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 26 105 2263 237 37 1337 11 163 89 32 163 189RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 131 2263 177 37 1348 0 163 89 3 163 189Confl. Peds. (#/hr)9 9Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 2% 4% 5% 0% 3% 0% 4% 1% 3%Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NAProtected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4Permitted Phases28Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 89.5 89.5 7.1 81.0 14.4 14.4 14.4 11.5 11.5Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 90.0 90.0 7.1 81.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 12.0 12.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.58 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.2 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 2008 916 79 2585 325 181 144 137 142v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.72 0.02 0.30 c0.05 0.05 0.10 c0.11v/s Ratio Perm0.120.00v/c Ratio 0.73 1.13 0.19 0.47 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.02 1.19 1.33Uniform Delay, d1 60.1 25.0 10.2 64.6 17.5 59.0 59.0 56.0 64.0 64.0Progression Factor 1.17 0.49 0.28 0.82 1.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 59.7 0.2 2.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.0 136.8 189.1Delay (s) 74.6 71.9 3.0 55.5 34.2 59.8 60.2 56.1 200.8 253.1Level of Service E E A E C E E E F FApproach Delay (s) 65.9 34.7 59.5 199.4Approach LOS E C E FIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 68.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service EHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service GAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 4Movement SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 70Future Volume (vph) 70Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00Frt 0.85Flt Protected 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1398Flt Permitted 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1398Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 74RTOR Reduction (vph) 68Lane Group Flow (vph) 6Confl. Peds. (#/hr)Heavy Vehicles (%) 4%Turn Type PermProtected PhasesPermitted Phases 4Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5Effective Green, g (s) 12.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09Clearance Time (s) 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm 0.00v/c Ratio 0.05Uniform Delay, d1 58.8Progression Factor 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.1Delay (s) 58.9Level of Service EApproach Delay (s)Approach LOSIntersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: Hwy 217 NB Ramp & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 5Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 2480 285 0 1585 260 95Future Volume (vph) 2480 285 0 1585 260 95Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96Adj. Flow (vph) 2583 297 0 1651 271 99RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 7Lane Group Flow (vph) 2583 297 0 1651 271 92Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%Turn Type NA pm+ov NA Prot PermProtected Phases 2 8 6 8Permitted Phases 2 8Actuated Green, G (s) 106.1 130.5 106.1 24.4 24.4Effective Green, g (s) 106.6 132.5 106.6 25.4 25.4Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.18 0.18Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 4.6 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2668 1492 3834 324 286v/s Ratio Prot c0.74 0.04 0.33 c0.15v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.06v/c Ratio 0.97 0.20 0.43 0.84 0.32Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 0.2 5.9 55.3 49.8Progression Factor 0.74 0.33 0.76 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 0.0 0.3 16.4 0.4Delay (s) 18.2 0.1 4.8 71.7 50.2Level of Service B A A E DApproach Delay (s) 16.3 4.8 65.9Approach LOS B A EIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W10/28/2020Tigard Aman Property TPR AssessmentSynchro 10 ReportExisting Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak)Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 0 2190 510 45 1140 0 0 0 0 575 0 180Future Volume (vph) 0 2190 510 45 1140 0 0 0 0 575 0 180Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 76 3505 1681 1681 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2258 526 46 1175 0 0 0 0 593 0 186RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2258 419 46 1175 0 0 0 0 296 297 107Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 2 1 64 4Permitted Phases 2 64Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 101.0 101.0 29.5 29.5 29.5Effective Green, g (s) 92.6 92.6 101.5 101.5 30.5 30.5 30.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.72 0.22 0.22 0.22Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2318 1010 113 2541 366 366 344v/s Ratio Prot c0.64 0.01 c0.34 0.18 c0.18v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.280.07v/c Ratio 0.97 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.81 0.81 0.31Uniform Delay, d1 22.6 11.1 36.6 8.0 52.0 52.0 45.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.69 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 13.5 1.3 1.6 0.6 11.9 12.4 0.3Delay (s) 36.1 12.3 63.6 14.5 63.9 64.4 46.2Level of Service D B E BE E DApproach Delay (s) 31.6 16.4 0.0 59.9Approach LOS C B A EIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 127.3% ICU Level of Service HAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 50 115 1485 60 110 1895 30 180 140 230 110 65
Future Volume (vph) 50 115 1485 60 110 1895 30 180 140 230 110 65
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 3505 1580 1787 5021 1787 1881 1569 1770 1697
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1780 3505 1580 1787 5021 1787 1881 1569 1770 1697
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 53 121 1563 63 116 1995 32 189 147 242 116 68
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 28 01000207045
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 174 1563 35 116 2026 0 189 147 35 116 139
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 3 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 3% 0% 1% 3% 5% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5 76.3 76.3 13.7 64.5 16.9 19.9 19.9 12.1 15.1
Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 76.8 76.8 14.2 65.0 17.4 20.4 20.4 12.6 15.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.46 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.1 5.1 2.3 5.1 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 1922 866 181 2331 222 274 228 159 189
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.45 0.06 c0.40 c0.11 c0.08 0.07 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.81 0.04 0.64 0.87 0.85 0.54 0.15 0.73 0.73
Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 25.8 14.6 60.4 33.7 60.0 55.4 52.3 62.0 60.2
Progression Factor 0.64 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 2.6 0.1 6.3 4.7 25.5 1.3 0.2 14.0 12.6
Delay (s) 33.8 11.9 14.6 66.7 38.4 85.6 56.8 52.4 76.0 72.8
Level of Service C B B E D F E D E E
Approach Delay (s) 14.1 40.0 64.4 74.0
Approach LOS B D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110
Future Volume (vph) 110
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 116
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1%
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 45 130 1395 440 110 2005 10 490 225 95 140 130
Future Volume (vph) 45 130 1395 440 110 2005 10 490 225 95 140 130
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 3505 1554 1787 5033 3467 1863 1576 1805 1881
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1779 3505 1554 1787 5033 3467 1863 1576 1805 1881
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 47 135 1453 458 115 2089 10 510 234 99 146 135
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 225 010008100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 182 1453 233 115 2098 0 510 234 18 146 135
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 8 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 70.8 70.8 13.3 65.1 25.4 25.4 25.4 13.0 13.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 71.3 71.3 13.3 65.6 25.9 25.9 25.9 13.5 13.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.47 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.2 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 1785 791 169 2358 641 344 291 174 181
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.41 0.06 c0.42 c0.15 0.13 c0.08 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.81 0.29 0.68 0.89 0.80 0.68 0.06 0.84 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 58.3 28.8 19.8 61.3 33.9 54.5 53.2 47.0 62.2 61.6
Progression Factor 1.28 0.68 0.50 1.09 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 2.9 0.6 4.8 2.9 6.5 4.7 0.1 27.6 14.2
Delay (s) 82.9 22.5 10.6 71.4 31.7 61.0 57.9 47.1 89.8 75.8
Level of Service F C B E C E E D F E
Approach Delay (s) 25.2 33.7 58.5 77.5
Approach LOS C C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 75
Future Volume (vph) 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 78
RTOR Reduction (vph) 70
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3%
Turn Type Prot
Protected Phases 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0
Effective Green, g (s) 13.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 57.4
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Delay (s) 57.5
Level of Service E
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hwy 217 NB Ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1885 370 0 2620 245 165
Future Volume (vph) 1885 370 0 2620 245 165
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 1984 389 0 2758 258 174
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000021
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1984 389 0 2758 258 153
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Turn Type NA pm+ov NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 8 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 106.3 130.5 106.3 24.2 24.2
Effective Green, g (s) 106.8 132.5 106.8 25.2 25.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.6 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2673 1492 3841 321 283
v/s Ratio Prot c0.57 0.05 0.55 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.26 0.72 0.80 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 9.1 0.3 8.7 55.0 52.1
Progression Factor 1.31 1.35 0.67 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.0 0.7 13.0 1.3
Delay (s) 13.3 0.4 6.5 68.1 53.5
Level of Service B A A E D
Approach Delay (s) 11.2 6.5 62.2
Approach LOS B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment Synchro 10 Report
Existing Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak)Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1565 350 35 2120 00006900330
Future Volume (vph) 0 1565 350 35 2120 00006900330
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 151 3505 1681 1681 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1613 361 36 2186 00007110340
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 109 0000000036
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1613 252 36 2186 0000355356304
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 89.8 89.8 97.7 97.7 32.8 32.8 32.8
Effective Green, g (s) 90.3 90.3 98.2 98.2 33.8 33.8 33.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.24 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2260 984 150 2458 405 405 382
v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 0.01 c0.62 0.21 c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.16 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.26 0.24 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.80
Uniform Delay, d1 16.3 10.6 14.4 16.6 51.1 51.1 49.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.6 0.4 3.9 18.4 18.7 10.5
Delay (s) 18.3 11.2 13.9 21.2 69.5 69.8 60.4
Level of Service B B B C E E E
Approach Delay (s) 17.0 21.0 0.0 66.7
Approach LOS B C A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 133.3% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 31 45 2162 40 96 1401 25 88 45 145 70 60
Future Volume (vph) 31 45 2162 40 96 1401 25 88 45 145 70 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1753 3505 1615 1719 4921 1752 1810 1513 1805 1752
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1753 3505 1615 1719 4921 1752 1810 1513 1805 1752
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 33 47 2276 42 101 1475 26 93 47 153 74 63
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 136 0 28
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 80 2276 26 101 1500 0 93 47 17 74 103
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 3% 0% 5% 5% 10% 3% 5% 4% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 86.7 86.7 12.3 86.9 11.1 15.0 15.0 8.0 11.9
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 87.2 87.2 12.8 87.4 11.6 15.5 15.5 8.5 12.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.62 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.1 5.1 2.3 5.1 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 2183 1005 157 3072 145 200 167 109 155
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.65 c0.06 0.30 c0.05 c0.03 0.04 c0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.51 1.04 0.03 0.64 0.49 0.64 0.23 0.10 0.68 0.66
Uniform Delay, d1 60.8 26.4 10.1 61.4 14.2 62.2 56.8 56.0 64.4 61.8
Progression Factor 1.33 0.52 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 20.8 0.0 7.3 0.6 9.3 0.4 0.2 13.5 8.7
Delay (s) 80.7 34.5 6.2 68.7 14.8 71.5 57.2 56.1 77.9 70.5
Level of Service F C A E B E E E E E
Approach Delay (s) 35.5 18.2 61.2 73.2
Approach LOS D B E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.9% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65
Future Volume (vph) 65
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0%
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 100 2172 225 44 1273 10 155 85 30 176 180
Future Volume (vph) 25 100 2172 225 44 1273 10 155 85 30 176 180
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1624 3124 1425 1562 4442 3060 1710 1362 1608 1660
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1624 3124 1425 1562 4442 3060 1710 1362 1608 1660
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 26 105 2286 237 46 1340 11 163 89 32 185 189
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 131 2286 177 46 1351 0 163 89 3 185 189
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)9 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 2% 4% 5% 0% 3% 0% 4% 1% 3%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 88.8 88.8 7.8 81.0 14.4 14.4 14.4 11.5 11.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 89.3 89.3 7.8 81.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 12.0 12.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.06 0.58 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.2 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 1992 908 87 2585 325 181 144 137 142
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.73 0.03 0.30 c0.05 0.05 c0.12 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.73 1.15 0.19 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.02 1.35 1.33
Uniform Delay, d1 60.1 25.4 10.5 64.3 17.6 59.0 59.0 56.0 64.0 64.0
Progression Factor 1.17 0.49 0.29 0.82 1.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 68.6 0.2 3.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.0 198.0 189.1
Delay (s) 74.4 81.0 3.2 55.8 35.0 59.8 60.2 56.1 262.0 253.1
Level of Service E F A E D E E E F F
Approach Delay (s) 73.8 35.7 59.5 217.0
Approach LOS E D E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.7% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 91
Future Volume (vph) 91
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1398
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1398
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 96
RTOR Reduction (vph) 82
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 59.1
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3
Delay (s) 59.4
Level of Service E
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hwy 217 NB Ramp & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2502 285 0 1609 260 95
Future Volume (vph) 2502 285 0 1609 260 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2606 297 0 1676 271 99
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 7
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2606 297 0 1676 271 92
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Turn Type NA pm+ov NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 8 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 106.1 130.5 106.1 24.4 24.4
Effective Green, g (s) 106.6 132.5 106.6 25.4 25.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.6 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2668 1492 3834 324 286
v/s Ratio Prot c0.74 0.04 0.33 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.20 0.44 0.84 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 0.2 6.0 55.3 49.8
Progression Factor 0.74 0.34 0.70 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.7 0.0 0.3 16.4 0.4
Delay (s) 19.2 0.1 4.5 71.7 50.2
Level of Service B A A E D
Approach Delay (s) 17.3 4.5 65.9
Approach LOS B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W 10/28/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 2205 510 48 1154 0 0 0 0 582 0 180
Future Volume (vph) 0 2205 510 48 1154 0 0 0 0 582 0 180
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 77 3505 1681 1681 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2273 526 49 1190 0 0 0 0 600 0 186
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2273 420 49 1190 0 0 0 0 300 300 109
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 91.9 91.9 100.9 100.9 29.6 29.6 29.6
Effective Green, g (s) 92.4 92.4 101.4 101.4 30.6 30.6 30.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.72 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2313 1007 115 2538 367 367 345
v/s Ratio Prot c0.65 0.02 c0.34 c0.18 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.29 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.42 0.43 0.47 0.82 0.82 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 11.2 36.8 8.1 52.0 52.0 45.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.66 1.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 15.1 1.3 1.7 0.6 12.7 12.7 0.3
Delay (s) 38.1 12.4 62.8 14.9 64.8 64.8 46.2
Level of Service D B E B E E D
Approach Delay (s) 33.3 16.8 0.0 60.4
Approach LOS C B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 127.9% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65 115 1505 60 110 1922 30 189 140 231 110 65
Future Volume (vph) 65 115 1505 60 110 1922 30 189 140 231 110 65
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1782 3505 1580 1787 5021 1787 1881 1569 1770 1697
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1782 3505 1580 1787 5021 1787 1881 1569 1770 1697
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 121 1584 63 116 2023 32 199 147 243 116 68
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 28 01000208045
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 189 1584 35 116 2054 0 199 147 35 116 139
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 3 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 3% 0% 1% 3% 5% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5 76.3 76.3 13.7 64.5 16.9 19.9 19.9 12.1 15.1
Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 76.8 76.8 14.2 65.0 17.4 20.4 20.4 12.6 15.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.46 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.1 5.1 2.3 5.1 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 1922 866 181 2331 222 274 228 159 189
v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.45 0.06 c0.41 c0.11 c0.08 0.07 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.57 0.82 0.04 0.64 0.88 0.90 0.54 0.16 0.73 0.73
Uniform Delay, d1 51.9 26.0 14.6 60.4 34.0 60.4 55.4 52.3 62.0 60.2
Progression Factor 0.64 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 2.6 0.1 6.3 5.2 33.6 1.3 0.2 14.0 12.6
Delay (s) 34.7 12.2 14.6 66.7 39.2 94.0 56.8 52.5 76.0 72.8
Level of Service C B B E D F E D E E
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 40.7 67.6 74.0
Approach LOS B D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: SW 72nd Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110
Future Volume (vph) 110
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 116
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1%
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 45 130 1413 440 117 2007 10 490 225 95 157 130
Future Volume (vph) 45 130 1413 440 117 2007 10 490 225 95 157 130
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 3505 1554 1787 5033 3467 1863 1576 1805 1881
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1779 3505 1554 1787 5033 3467 1863 1576 1805 1881
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 47 135 1472 458 122 2091 10 510 234 99 164 135
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 228 010008100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 182 1472 230 122 2100 0 510 234 18 164 135
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 8 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 69.8 69.8 13.8 64.6 25.4 25.4 25.4 13.5 13.5
Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 70.3 70.3 13.8 65.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 14.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.46 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.2 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 1760 780 176 2340 641 344 291 180 188
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.42 0.07 c0.42 c0.15 0.13 c0.09 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.84 0.29 0.69 0.90 0.80 0.68 0.06 0.91 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 58.3 29.9 20.4 61.1 34.4 54.5 53.2 47.0 62.4 61.1
Progression Factor 1.28 0.69 0.52 1.08 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 3.3 0.6 4.9 3.0 6.5 4.7 0.1 42.3 11.1
Delay (s) 82.9 24.0 11.3 71.1 32.6 61.0 57.9 47.1 104.7 72.2
Level of Service F C B E C E E D F E
Approach Delay (s) 26.3 34.7 58.5 82.0
Approach LOS C C E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Dartmouth St/SW 78th Ave & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 92
Future Volume (vph) 92
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 96
RTOR Reduction (vph) 86
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3%
Turn Type Prot
Protected Phases 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5
Effective Green, g (s) 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 57.1
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Delay (s) 57.1
Level of Service E
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hwy 217 NB Ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1903 370 0 2639 245 165
Future Volume (vph) 1903 370 0 2639 245 165
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 2003 389 0 2778 258 174
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000021
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2003 389 0 2778 258 154
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Turn Type NA pm+ov NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 8 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 106.3 130.5 106.3 24.2 24.2
Effective Green, g (s) 106.8 132.5 106.8 25.2 25.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.6 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2673 1492 3841 321 283
v/s Ratio Prot c0.57 0.05 0.55 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.26 0.72 0.80 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 9.2 0.3 8.8 55.0 52.2
Progression Factor 1.32 1.34 0.67 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.0 0.7 13.0 1.5
Delay (s) 13.5 0.4 6.5 68.1 53.6
Level of Service B A A E D
Approach Delay (s) 11.4 6.5 62.3
Approach LOS B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning Scenario (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1577 350 37 2131 00006960330
Future Volume (vph) 0 1577 350 37 2131 00006960330
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 146 3505 1681 1681 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1626 361 38 2197 00007180340
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0000000036
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1626 253 38 2197 0000359359304
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 89.6 89.6 97.5 97.5 33.0 33.0 33.0
Effective Green, g (s) 90.1 90.1 98.0 98.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.24 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2255 982 146 2453 408 408 384
v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 0.01 c0.63 c0.21 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.17 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.26 0.26 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 10.7 14.9 16.9 51.0 51.0 49.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.6 0.5 4.1 18.7 18.7 10.2
Delay (s) 18.6 11.3 14.6 21.8 69.7 69.7 59.9
Level of Service B B B C E E E
Approach Delay (s) 17.3 21.7 0.0 66.6
Approach LOS B C A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 134.0% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hwy 217 NB Ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning w/ Trip Cap (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2487 285 0 1593 260 95
Future Volume (vph) 2487 285 0 1593 260 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1531 5036 1787 1577
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2591 297 0 1659 271 99
RTOR Reduction (vph)000007
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2591 297 0 1659 271 92
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Turn Type NA pm+ov NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 8 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 106.1 130.5 106.1 24.4 24.4
Effective Green, g (s) 106.6 132.5 106.6 25.4 25.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.6 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2668 1492 3834 324 286
v/s Ratio Prot c0.74 0.04 0.33 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.97 0.20 0.43 0.84 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 0.2 5.9 55.3 49.8
Progression Factor 0.74 0.34 0.70 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.0 0.3 16.4 0.4
Delay (s) 18.5 0.1 4.5 71.7 50.2
Level of Service B A A E D
Approach Delay (s) 16.6 4.5 65.9
Approach LOS B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning w/ Trip Cap (2035 AM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 2195 510 46 1145 00005770180
Future Volume (vph) 0 2195 510 46 1145 00005770180
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 76 3505 1681 1681 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2263 526 47 1180 00005950186
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 107 0000000078
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2263 419 47 1180 0000297298108
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 101.0 101.0 29.5 29.5 29.5
Effective Green, g (s) 92.6 92.6 101.5 101.5 30.5 30.5 30.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.72 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2318 1010 113 2541 366 366 344
v/s Ratio Prot c0.65 0.01 c0.34 0.18 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.28 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.42 0.42 0.46 0.81 0.81 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 11.1 36.9 8.0 52.0 52.1 46.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.78 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 13.9 1.3 1.6 0.6 12.4 12.6 0.3
Delay (s) 36.5 12.3 63.3 14.8 64.4 64.6 46.3
Level of Service D B E B E E D
Approach Delay (s) 32.0 16.6 0.0 60.2
Approach LOS C B A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 127.5% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Hwy 217 SB On-ramp/Hwy 217 SB Off-ramp & OR 99W 11/12/2020
Tigard Aman Property TPR Assessment 5:00 pm 03/07/2019 Proposed Zoning w/ Trip Cap (2035 PM Peak) Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1569 350 35 2123 00006910330
Future Volume (vph) 0 1569 350 35 2123 00006910330
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1527 1752 3505 1681 1681 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1527 149 3505 1681 1681 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1618 361 36 2189 00007120340
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0000000036
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1618 253 36 2189 0000356356304
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 89.8 89.8 97.7 97.7 32.8 32.8 32.8
Effective Green, g (s) 90.3 90.3 98.2 98.2 33.8 33.8 33.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.24 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2260 984 149 2458 405 405 382
v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 0.01 c0.62 c0.21 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.16 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.26 0.24 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.80
Uniform Delay, d1 16.4 10.6 14.5 16.6 51.1 51.1 49.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.6 0.4 3.9 18.7 18.7 10.5
Delay (s) 18.4 11.2 14.3 21.3 69.8 69.8 60.4
Level of Service B B B C E E E
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 21.2 0.0 66.8
Approach LOS B C A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 133.7% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALGENERAL COMMERCIALParcel 32.57 acresParcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTALParcel 32.57 acresParcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresEXISTING COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONPROPOSED COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALGENERAL COMMERCIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTALAttachment 1
EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-4.5EXTG. C-GParcel 32.57 acresEXTG. C-GEXTG. R-12Parcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresEXTG. R-12EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXTG. R-4.5EXTG. C-GParcel 32.57 acresEXTG. C-GPROPOSED R-25Parcel 11.46 acresParcel 21.33 acresPROPOSED C-GEXTG. R-25EXTG. R-12EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING Attachment 1
3.Owner Information
Name:
Company:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone/fax:
Email:
4.Applicant Information
Name:
Company:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone/fax:
Email:
1.Jurisdiction:
2.Property Information (example: 1S234AB01400)
Tax lot ID(s):
OR Site Address:
City, State, Zip:
Nearest cross street:
4.Development Activity (check all that apply)
Addition to single family residence (rooms, deck, garage)
Lot line adjustment
Residential condominium
Residential subdivision
Single lot commercial
Minor land partition
Commercial condominium
Commercial subdivision
Multi lot commercial
Other
This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits, Connection Permits, Building Permits, Site
Development Permits, DEQ 1200-C Permit or other permits as issued by the Department of Environmental Quality,
Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and
completed under applicable local, state, and federal law.
By signing this form, the Owner or Owner’s authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water
Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering
information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document, and to the best of my
knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete, and accurate.
Print/t ype titlePrint/type name
Signature Date
Clean Water Services File Number
6.Will the project involve any off-site work? Yes No Unknown
Location and description of off-site work:
7.Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project:
Revised 2/2020
Main Office • 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 • p: 503.681.3600 f: 503.681.3603 • cleanwaterservices.org
FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY
Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200’ of the site.THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural
Resources Assessment Report may also be required.
Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200’ of the
site. This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if
they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider Letter as required by Resolution and Order 19-5, Section
3.02.1, as amended by Resolution and Order 19-22. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable
local, State and federal law.
Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project will not significantly impact the
existing or potentially sensitive area(s) found near the site. This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to
evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service
Provider Letter as required by Resolution and Order 19-5, Section 3.02.1, as amended by Resolution and Order 19-22. All required permits and
approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state and federal law.
THIS SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS NOT VALID UNLESS ______ CWS APPROVED SITE PLAN(S) ARE ATTACHED.
The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 9/9/95 ORS 92.040(2). NO SITE ASSESSMENT
OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED..
Reviewed by Date
Once complete, email to: SPLReview@cleanwaterservices.org • Fax: (503) 681-4439
OR mail to: SPL Review, Clean Water Services, 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
SENSITIVE AREA PRE-SCREENING SITE ASSESSMENT
ONLINE SUBMITTAL
Tigard
1S136CA01600
11655 SW Pacific Highway
Tigard, OR, 97223
SW Pfaffle
Walt Aman
Aman Enterprises, Inc
PO Box 4127
Tigard, OR, 97208
503-956-5853
walter_aman@outlook.com
8
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Map am
Alex Dupey
MIG Inc
815 SW 2nd Ave, suite 200
Portland, Or, 97204
503-505-2227
alexd@migcom.com
No physical activities are proposed.
Alex Dupey Director
6/15/2020
20-001667
7/8/2020
EXTG. R-12
EXTG. R-25
EXTG. R-12
EXTG. R-4.5
EXTG.BUILDINGS
EXTG. C-G
Parcel 3
2.57 acres
NEW PARTITION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
NEW PARTITION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
NEW PARTITION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXTG. C-G
EXTG. R-12
PROPOSED R-25
Parcel 1
1.46 acres
Parcel 2
1.33 acres
EXTG. R-12
PROPOSED C-G
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
June 11, 2020
Re: 11655 SW Pacific Highway Land Division, Zoning Map Amendment, and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Dear Interested Party,
I am representing the owner of the property located at 11655 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard (Map 1S136CA
and Tax Lot 01600). We are considering proposing a land division to divide the existing 5.8-acre lot into
two lots of approximately 4.14 acres (Lot 1) and 1.66 acres (Lot 2); a zoning map amendment to change
the split zoning from R-12 and C-G to wholly C-G on Lot 1 and from R-12 to R-25 on Lot 2; and a
comprehensive plan map amendment to change the land use designation from partially Medium Density
Residential and General Commercial to wholly General Commercial on Lot 1 and from Medium Density
Residential to Medium-High Density Residential on Lot 2.
Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, I would like to discuss the
proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a
meeting on:
Thursday June 25, 2020
5:30-7:00 PM
Join online at https://zoom.us/j/94919778885
Join via telephone by calling: (669) 900-6833 Meeting ID: 949 1977 8885
Please note that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered
prior to the submittal of the application to the city.
If you or other interested parties are unable to participate in this meeting, please send contact
information to alexd@migcom.com and we will be sure to provide you with meeting minutes and
answer your questions individually.
I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503) 297-1005
ext. 258 or email me at alexd@migcom.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alex Dupey
Director of Planning Services, MIG
A vicinity map is enclosed.
Mailed and posted June 11, 2020
0.07
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 639-4171
www.tigard-or.gov
City of Tigard, Oregon
Vicinity Map
Scale: Miles
06/10/2020
Data is derived from multiple sources. The City of Tigard
makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee as to
the content, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any
of the data provided herein. The City of Tigard shall
assume no liability for any errors, omissions, or
inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of
how caused.
Map Created:
Vicinity Map
Lot 1
~4.1 acres
Lot 2
~1.6 acres
99W
ABALOS, BENJAMIN C &
CHARLENE K
7635 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
ABBOTT, BRUCE E & REBECCA A
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
10850 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
ABDALLA, ABDULRAHMAN
MUHUDIN, DOWLA
1102 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
ALEU, RICARD
4336 GLACIER LILY ST
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
AMAN, WALTER S CREDIT SHELTER
TR AMAN, WALTER S MARITAL
TRUST ET AL BY AMAN, STEPHEN
PO BOX 4127
PORTLAND, OR 97208
ANDERSON, JOHN R ANDERSON,
JOHN H
11067 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
ARGUELLO, LEOTA M & DAVID R
11037 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
ASHLEY, JESSICA R HOLT,
ZACHARY
11041 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
ATKINSON, ANDREA C
11005 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
ATTN: DONNY LEE
SECTOR HOUSING OFFICER
2185 SE 12TH PLACE
WARRENTON, OR 97146
BADALIAN, TONY
11145 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
BAILEY FAMILY TRUST
14361 EDENBERRY DR
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
BALL, JOSHUA R & RACHEL C
10233 NW 307TH AVE
NORTH PLAINS, OR 97133
BARTH, JEREMIAH H
10900 SW 76TH PL #55
TIGARD, OR 97223
BEILKE, SUSAN
11755 SW 114TH PLACE
TIGARD, OR 97223
BRIDWELL, ELIZABETH &
CARDENAS, MARIO ALEJANDRO
10900 SW 76TH PL #43
TIGARD, OR 97223
BROUILETTE, VIRGIBIA FAMILY
TRUST
10900 SW 76TH PL #45
TIGARD, OR 97223
BRUBECK, RACHEL JORDAN
10900 SW 76TH PL #53
TIGARD, OR 97223
BRUCE, SCOTT E & LISA J
7510 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
BRUNO, ARON & ROSS, ERIN
7655 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
BUCHANAN, MICHAEL & SHEILA
11030 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
BUEHNER, GRETCHEN
PO BOX 230268
TIGARD, OR 97281
BYRD, LISA M
11220 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
BZCENTER LLC
BY TACO BELL ATTN TAX DEPT
PO BOX 35370
LOUISVILLE, KY 40232
CAFFALL, REX
13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN
TIGARD, OR 97223
CANYON AUTO LLC
11643 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
CAROL RENAUD
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE -
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
254 N FIRST AVENUE MS20
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
CARRASCO, DANIEL & GARY, ELISA
11060 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
CENTURIONALPHACENTURION2
LLC
PO BOX 1171
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
CITY OF TIGARD
ATTN: AGNES LINDOR
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR 97223
COLUMBIA STATE BANK
PO BOX 2156 MS 3300
TACOMA, WA 98401
CONNERY, STACY
12564 SW MAIN STREET
TIGARD, OR 97223
CORWIN, NICOLE MICHELLE
10820 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
CRAGHEAD, ALEXANDER
12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OR 97223-6210
CRANE, TERESA
10900 SW 76TH PL #5
TIGARD, OR 97223
CUBIT, JAMIL R KNOWLES,
MICHELLE L
11085 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
CUE, JODI D
11047 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
DAHLMAN, STEPHANIE A
10900 SW 76TH PL #38
PORTLAND, OR 97223
DAVIDSON, CATHERINE SYDNEY
7577 SW TORCHWOOD ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
DEFILIPPIS, VICTOR
13892 SW BRAYDON CT
TIGARD, OR 97224
DEHNER, MICHAEL & MARYANNE
10900 SW 76TH PL #29
TIGARD, OR 97223
DELANCE, JOHN M
1355 SW MAPLECREST DR
PORTLAND, OR 97219
DORRELL, DONAL
10885 SW 74TH ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
DORRELL, DONAL V G & DELMA R
10885 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
DOUGHTY FAMILY TRUST
12220 SW FIRST ST
BEAVERTON, OR 97005
DROMMOND, EVAN
11063 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
ENGVALL, ANN
15461 SW 82 PL
TIGARD, OR 97224
FATHERREE, ROBERT & LISA
7302 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
FERGUSON, ADAM P & ALANA M
7640 SW SPRUCE ST #B
TIGARD, OR 97223
FKIARAS FAMILY TRUST
14020 SW MAVERICK CT
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
FLATLEY, RYAN & KATHRYN
11285 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
FLEMING, LINDA
10900 SW 76TH PL #4
TIGARD, OR 97223
FOLEY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
33091 SE REGAN HILL RD
ESTACADA, OR 97023
FOSTER, KYLE
7595 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
FRAZIER, GARY B
7535 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
FRED MEYER STORES INC
STORE #375
1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FROHNMAYER, SUSAN V
10900 SW 76TH PL #24
TIGARD, OR 97223
FROUDE, BEVERLY
12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
TIGARD, OR 97224
FRY, JUSTIN & BOLDRICK,
REBEKAH
11052 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
FUJIOKA FAMILY TRUST
13713 NW 46TH AVE
VANCOUVER, WA 98686
FURLONG, MARK
11115 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
GALVAN, SALVADOR R &
MERCEDES
PO BOX 23051
TIGARD, OR 97281
GAY, OLIVIA J
10900 SW 76TH PL #11
TIGARD, OR 97223
GGE TIGAR LLC
11619 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
GHOBADI, HAMID
11036 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
GILBERT, RONALD M II & MEGAN E
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 58
TIGARD, OR 97223
GILMAN, RACHEL M
10900 SW 76TH PL #37
TIGARD, OR 97223
GRAHAM, RHONDA L
10900 SW 76TH PL #32
TIGARD, OR 97223
HADLEY, BONNIE
16200 SW PACIFIC HWY
SUITE H BOX 242
TIGARD, OR 97224
HALL, BARBARA T
10900 SW 76TH PL #52
TIGARD, OR 97223
HAMILTON, LISA
13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD
TIGARD, OR 97224
HATTING, KATHRYN L
6100 SW RADCLIFF ST
PORTLAND, OR 97219
HAWTHORNE VILLA APARTMENTS
13489 NW TREVINO ST
PORTLAND, OR 97229
HERING, J. BLAKE.
NORRIS BEGGS & SIMPSON
121 SW MORRISON, SUITE 200
PORTLAND, OR 97204
HERKOMER, MICHAEL
11130 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
HILL, SUSAN L
606 BOBSTAY LN
FOSTER CITY, CA 94404
HILLER FAMILY TRUST
16121 PARELIUS CIR
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
HIMMELSBACH, JENNIFER A
11230 SW 83RD AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
HOGAN, KEVIN
14357 SW 133RD AVENUE
TIGARD, OR 97224
HOLTE, SECELIA E
10900 SW 76TH PL #23
TIGARD, OR 97223
HONG, SAEK JUN & CHRISTINE
10825 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
HOTCHKISS, RYAN T RESIDENCE
TRUST
8477 SW 69TH PL
PORTLAND, OR 97223
HOWLAND, HAROLD AND RUTH
13145 SW BENISH
TIGARD, OR 97223
HUTCHINSON, GABRIELLE N
10900 SW 76TH PL #34
TIGARD, OR 97223
ISHIDA, TATSUYE 2010 REVOCABLE
3322 NW 46TH AVE
CAMAS, WA 98607
JACKSON, NICHOLE M
CORNO, KEVIN M
11049 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
PORTLAND, OR 97223
JACOBO, PEDRO SALAZAR,
ESMERALDA
21887 SW BLACKFOOT DR
TUALATIN, OR 97062
JACOBSON, KEVIN
10900 SW 76TH PL #20
TIGARD, OR 97223
JJB INVESTMENTS LLC
1315 SW KARI LN
PORTLAND, OR 97219
JONES, JEFFERY R LIVING TRUST
10925 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
JORORET LLC
888 SW 5TH AVE STE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
KBF II LLC JGF II LLC
602 THIRD ST, SUITE 94107
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
KHOSRAVANI, FRED FAMILY TRUST
11076 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
KIMBALL, PAULA A
10900 SW 76TH PL #2
TIGARD, OR 97223
KOHLMAN, KYLE JAMES
10900 SW 76TH PL #14
TIGARD, OR 97223
KROGER, KATHERINE M
10900 SW 76TH PL #1
TIGARD, OR 97223
LIBY, TIERA ANN
10900 SW 76TH PL #51
TIGARD, OR 97223
LIM, JUSTIN LIM, CHUI SOO
1419 SW 131ST PL
TIGARD, OR 97223
LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT CO INC
PO BOX 42135
PORTLAND, OR 97242
LISA HAMILTON
16200 SW PACIFIC HWY
SUITE H BOX 242
TIGARD, OR 97224
LONG, JIM
10655 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR 97223
LOPEZ, RICARDO BELTRAN &
LOPEZ DEBELTRAN, DOLORES
7775 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD, OR
97223
LOWRY, THOMAS & KATHLEEN
11225 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
MACABEO, GLORIA L
8505 N FOSS AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97203
MAGLEY, PAMELA L
10910 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
MALICAD, MICHAEL K
7906 WILSON TER
MORTON GROVE, IL 60053
MANFREDI, ELIZIA E & DONOVAN J
10900 SW 76TH PL #31
TIGARD, OR 97223
MARSHALL, KRISTINA M
7675 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
MCCORMICK, IAN R & CASSONDRA
7730 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
MCLAREN, REBECCA
11045 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
MEHRA, ARUN FLOR, JENNIFER M
1505 CEREZA DR SE RIO RANCHO,
NM 87124
MENDONSA, TESSIE J
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 19
TIGARD, OR 97223
MICKLEY, WILLIAM
10880 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
MILANO, JENNA
7615 SW SPRUCE ST
PORTLAND, OR 97223
MILAT, DEBORAH JO
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 15
TIGARD, OR 97223
MILDREN, GENE
MILDREN DESIGN GROUP
7650 SW BEVELAND ST, STE 120
TIGARD, OR 97223
MILLER, DAVID C
11048 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
MILLER, JODI A
10900 SW 76TH PL #9
TIGARD, OR 97223
MISKA TRUST
745 THIRD ST
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
MITCHELL, PATRICK W
10900 SW 76TH PL #27
TIGARD, OR 97223
MONACO, JULIA L & PAUL BRIAN
11082 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
MOREAU, ROBERT CHARLES
10900 SW 76TH PL #64
TIGARD, OR 97223
MORGAN, RORY KYLE MORGAN, DAVID
C MORGAN, SHANNON M
28145 S ELISHA RD
CANBY, OR 97013
MORRISON, AARON
15316 SW PEACHTREE DR
TIGARD, OR 97224
MOTLAGH, MEHDI S & ZENAIDA F
10900 SW 76TH PL #7
TIGARD, OR 97223
MURDOCK, ANN B & NATHAN E
7415 SW SPRUCE ST
PORTLAND, OR 97223
NAANYANE, ABNER S & MOTLALEPULA
10900 SW 76TH PL #41
TIGARD, OR 97223
NEAL BROWN. GRI
MEADOWS INC REALTORS
12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET
TIGARD, OR 97223
NELSON WEST PROPERTIES LLC
12316 NW CORNELL RD
PORTLAND, OR 97229
NELSON, CHRISTOPHER W GUEVARA-
NELSON, MIRIAM
11096 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
NEWGARD, KIRK
11061 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
NICKLEN, JEAN C
10900 SW 76TH PL #6
TIGARD, OR 97223
NTN PACIFIC LLC
19830 NW DIXIE MOUNTAIN RD
NORTH PLAINS, OR 97133
OLSEN TRUST
10900 SW 76TH PL #10
TIGARD, OR 97223
ORI, JEFFREY F
10900 SW 76TH PL #22
TIGARD, OR 97223
PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES IN
BY WYSE INVESTMENT SERVICES CO
810 SE BELMONT ST #100
PORTLAND, OR 97214
PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES LP ATTN
ACCOUNTING
15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY STE 300
PORTLAND, OR 97224
PAPPAS, MICHAEL & CANDY
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 40
PORTLAND, OR 97223
PATELZICK, JOHN J JR & CYNTHIA A
10975 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
PEARCE, KAYLA PEARCE, LINDA M
REVOCABLE TRUST
2112 NW QUIMBY ST #336
PORTLAND, OR 97210
PICKRELL, CLARENCE B JR & KATHRY
807 CEIBA PL
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
POWERS PEARL LLC
11660 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
PROWITT, NANCY C 2001 REVOCABLE
809 NOE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114
PULSINELLI, CHRISTINE M
7515 SW SPRUCE ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
PURDIN, WESLEY BRYAN & TERI KOBI
9435 SW O'MARA ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
RACHEL - JAKE LIVING TRUST
11062 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
RAPPOLD, TROY K
7540 SW SPRUCE ST UNIT B
PORTLAND, OR 97223
REINERTSEN, CHRIS J & JERI L
10900 SW 76TH PL #25
TIGARD, OR 97223
REYNOLDS, ROBERT & REYNOLDS,
BRADLEY J
507 ALAMINE DR
REDDING, CA 96003
ROGERS, KATE
9527 SW BROOKLYN LN
TIGARD, OR, 97224
RONNIE, JULIE S & SCOTT A
10900 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
RORMAN, SUE
11250 SW 82ND AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
ROSTAMIAN, ELIJAH ROSTAMIAN, MOJGAN
MUTCHLER, FARIBA ROSTAMIAN
27999 SW LADD HILL RD
SHERWOOD, OR 97140
ROUSE, CHARLES L & DIANE M ROUSE
17684 SW FREDERICK LN
SHERWOOD, OR 97140
RUDNICK FAMILY TRUST
11026 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
RUEDY, ROBERT
14185 SW 100TH AVENUE
TIGARD, OR 97224
SATHER, RONALD A
11000 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
SAVANNAH EDSON, METROPOLITAN LAND
GROUP, LLC
17933 NW EVERGREEN PKWY, STE 300
BEAVERTON, OR 97006
SCHAEFFER LIVING TRUST
10900 SW 76TH PL #21
TIGARD, OR 97223
SCHMIDT, DAVID AND ANNETTE
7575 SW SPRUCE STREET
TIGARD, OR 97223
SCOTT, BRENDAN CHRISTIAN
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 50
TIGARD, OR 97223
SEARLES, WARREN & JACKIE
10900 SW 76TH PL #65
TIGARD, OR 97223
SENTHIRAJAH, PADMAN & SUSAN JANE
10749 SW NELSON ST
TUALATIN, OR 97062
SHEPHERD, JEAN E M
10900 SW 76TH PL #49
TIGARD, OR 97223
SIMPSON, ROZANE
11088 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
PORTLAND, OR 97223
SLOAN, EUGENE E & BARBARA G
11190 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
SOVA, ASHLEY R PACE, DENNIS W PACE,
BRENDA I
PO BOX 3212
CLACKAMAS, OR 97015
SPANGLER, JEROME
PO BOX 55394
PORTLAND, OR 97238
SPRING, BRAD
7555 SW SPRUCE STREET
TIGARD, OR 97223
SPRING, LINDA L
7555 SW SPRUCE ST
PORTLAND, OR 97223
SPRUCE TERRACE ASSOCIATES LLC &
TIGARD WOODS
5320 SW MACADAM AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97201
STEVENSON, ERICA JAN & JOHN D A
10970 SW 74TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
STEWART/BARI PROPERTIES LLC
STEWART TRUST BY US BANK
BOX 64142
ST PAUL, MN 55164
STICE, BRANDON L & JENNA R
11160 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
STILLWELL, JEAN
10900 SW 76TH PL #35
TIGARD, OR 97223
STONE, RAWN & JOANN
11255 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
SUMINSKI, ADAM D
10900 SW 76TH PL #13
TIGARD, OR 97223
SUNDBERG, ROSS
16382 SW 104TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97224
SVERDRUP, EILEEN
11072 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
SWENSEN, JERRY V & ANGELA B
11074 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
TAYLOR, GEORGE L AND SUE E
10965 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
THOMPSON, KRISTY L
10900 SW 76TH PL #60
TIGARD, OR 97223
TRAILBLAZER DEVELOPMENT LLC
BY CPS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC
333 S STATE ST STE V-144
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OR
4012 SE 17TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97202
TRUSCOTT, VICKI LYNN
11100 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
TSAI, DAVID L
10900 SW 76TH PL #3
TIGARD, OR 97223
TTSD
ATTN: DAVID MOORE
6960 SW SANDBURG ST
TIGARD, OR 97223
TURNER, JOHN A AND BALLARD-
TURNER, WENDY J
10950 SW 78TH
TIGARD, OR 97223
TYLER, C EDWARD & JOYCE L
2393 SW PARK PL #212
PORTLAND, OR 97205
UNDERWOOD, SHIRLEY
11015 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
VANDIJK, CAROLYN L
10900 SW 76TH PL #8
TIGARD, OR 97223
VENIEGAS, RUTH M
10980 SW 78TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97223
VOIGT, WHITNEY ANNE
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 56
TIGARD, OR 97223
WADE, DANIEL A
10900 SW 76TH PL #47
TIGARD, OR 97223
WALSH, JENNIFER & WALSH, KEVIN
11050 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
WASHELESKI, KRISTINE J
10900 SW 76TH PL #39
TIGARD, OR 97223
WATKINS, CAROLE M
10900 SW 76TH PL #57
TIGARD, OR 97223
WATSON, TRACY L
11044 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
WEGENER, BRIAN
9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE
TIGARD, OR 97224
WERRES, KATHLEEN MARIE
126 NE ATLANTIC PL
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
WESTSIDE HOLDING CO LLC BY
MELLANIE HENIFF
11632 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
WILDCAT INVESTMENTS LLC
333 STATE ST STE V-323
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
WILSAL LLC
7286 SW ASCOT CT
PORTLAND, OR 97225
WILSON, SHANE H WILSON, KIMBERLY E
11070 SW 78TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
WINANS, EMILY
3111 NE 165TH PL
VANCOUVER, WA 98682
WISCHMEYER, SARAH M
10900 SW 76TH PL #12
TIGARD, OR 97223
WOODWARD, RYAN D
6855 N CONCORD AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97217
WRIGHT, FALISHA
10900 SW 76TH PL #46
TIGARD, OR 97223
WU, ZHAO TRUST WU, BRYAN
8397 ALPINE RIDGE RD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
YASAVOLIAN, PIERROUZ
9 SPINOSA
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
YOKOO, SURATDA & TOSHIKI B
11032 SW LEGACY OAK WAY
TIGARD, OR 97223
ZAPP FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRU
TYSON FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 35370
LOUISVILLE, KY 40232
ZHANG, KUI
10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 42
TIGARD, OR 97223
ZSOKA, KENNETH G NICHOLS-ZSOKA,
TIFFANYE B
10945 SW 74TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97223
ZVAIGZNE, BRIAN
10900 SW 76TH PL, UNIT 18
TIGARD, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OR 97223
Meeting Sign In Sheet
Alex Dupey, Applicant Representative
Lauren Scott, Applicant Representative
John Southgate, Applicant Representative
Walter Aman, Property Owner
Susan Frohnmayer, Tigard Woods condominium
Miriam Nelson, Legacy Oak Way
Rachel Loftin, community partners with affordable housing, interested party
Rachel Duke, community partners with affordable housing, interested party
Cecilia Folty, Tigard Woods
Calista Fitzgerald, resident of Tigard, interested party
Jeri Reinertsen, Tigard Woods
Angela Swensen, Legacy Oak Way
Trish Nixon, interested party
Jillian Felton, CPAH, interested party
Erica Stevenson, Neighbor
Ashley Pace, Tigard Woods resident
Nina Huchinson, Tigard Woods resident
Becky, Legacy Oak Way
Julia Monaco, Legacy Oak Way
Ben, Tigard Woods
Catherine Davidson
Jennifer Walsh
Chase Long
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
5:32 introduction and overview of zoom and how it works
5:33-5:42 introduction of attendees
5:43-5:45 statement of purpose
5:45 Begin Presentation (Full presentation is included as Attachment 5.)
- Vicinity map overview
- Partition overview
- Comp plan amendment overview
- Zoning change to match comp plan overview
6:25 Adjourn Neighborhood Meeting
Questions and Concerns Raised During and After the Presentation:
Will Torchwood be extended at all and how?
Torchwood is going to connect people with new apartments/more traffic, how will this be handled?
Tigard Woods neighbors concerned about noisy neighbors on the property to the south in the past
Concern about change of neighborhood character
Torchwood is a one-way street that is overparked and over-trafficked, how will future development not
make that worse?
Is the owner of this property intending to sell it or develop it himself?
When will the applications be submitted?
Would the owner consider keeping the R-12 zoning in a good faith effort to existing neighbors?
Can we oppose the zone change?
Worried about HOA greenspace being used by others; drug paraphernalia found
Would Torchwood be widened or expanded without it encroaching on land up next to condos?
Concern related to Torchwood related utility trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
Can the recording of the neighborhood meeting be made available to the neighbors?
11655 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY LAND USE
APPLICATIONS
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
JUNE 25, 2020 5:30 PM
AGENDA
Statement of Meeting Purpose
Overview of Applications
Questions and Comments
MEETING PURPOSE
Statement of Meeting Purpose: Provide opportunity to discuss
the following proposed actions:
Submittal 1: Proposed property partition
Submittal 2: Proposed Comprehensive Plan and zone change
OVERVIEW
No development is proposed at this time, future development
would comply with City Code
Decisions must be compliant with Title 18 of the Tigard
Municipal Code
OVERVIEW
Additional opportunities to provide comments or testimony
Submittal 1: Partition -Property owners within 500 feet will be
notified of the partition decision
Submittal 2: Comp Plan and Zone Change -Property owners within
500 feet will be notified and have an opportunity to testify before the
Planning Commission and City Council
VICINITY MAP
SUBMITTAL 1: LAND PARTITION
Partition the existing 5.8-acre lot into two
lots.
Lot 1 ~ 4.14 acres
Lot 2 ~ 1.66 acres
Decision to approve or deny made by the
Community Development Director with
public notice
No street improvements required with
partition
SUBMITTAL 2:
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP
Decision to approve or
deny is made by the city
council with a hearing and
recommendation by the
planning commission
Medium –High
Density
Residential
Medium –High
Density
ResidentialLow
Density
Residential
Low
Density
Residential
General
Commercial
General
Commercial
Medium
Density
Residential
Medium
–High Density
Residential
Existing Proposed
SUBMITTAL 2:
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED
ZONING
Decision to approve or
deny would be made by
the city council with an
initial hearing and
recommendation by the
planning commission
R-25
R-12
R-12
R-4.5R-4.5
R-12
R-12
C-G
C-G
R-25R-25
R-12
R-4.5 R-4.5
Existing Proposed
SUBMITTAL 2: PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
A traffic analysis will be conducted
for the applications
General Commercial Zone permits a
full range of retail, office, and civic
uses
Max. height of 45 feet, 15% of the site
landscaped, 85% max. lot coverage
R-25 Zone permits apartments and
rowhouses
Does not permit ADUs, cottages,
single family detached housing
Zoning
Requirements R-12 R-25
Setbacks
Front: 20’
Side: 10’
Rear: 20’
No change
Max. Height 35’45’
Max. Lot
Coverage
80%No change
Landscape Area 20%No change
Max. Density ~24 ~50
TIMELINE
Submittal 1: Land Partition application expected to be
submitted within the next week
Submittal 2: Comp Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
application within the next two weeks
Applications typically take 6-8 weeks for review and decision
CONTACT INFORMATION
Send additional comments or questions to Alex Dupey,
alexd@migcom.com
City of Tigard
Pre-Application Conference Notes
Residential Developments
Meeting Date: 03/31/2020 PRE2020-00016
Applicant: Walter Aman; Aman Enterprises, Inc
Contact: 503-789-2157 / walter_aman@outlook.com
Agent: Nathaniel Riggle; The N.A. Riggle Company, LLC
Contact: 503-984-6882 /Nathaniel.riggle@gmail.com
Property
Location: 11655 SW Pacific Highway / 1S136CA01600
Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Partition for future
apartment development.
Base Zone: C-G / R-12
Sensitive Lands: None
Overlay Zone: None
Plan District: ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, which plan district: N/A
Required
Applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Partition
Planner: Agnes Lindor Contact: 503-718-2429 /
AgnesL@tigard-or.gov
Engineer: Joe Wisniewski Contact: 503-718-2433 /
JoeW@tigard-or.gov
Land Use Application Review Process
18.710 Land Use Review Procedures
The application is subject to a Type III- Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080. The
approval authority is City Council, which recommendation from the Planning Commission and the
appeal authority is Land Use Board of Appeals. Review the complete procedures in Chapter 18.710.
A neighborhood meeting is required, refer to Subsection 18.710.030.B and Pre-application packet
for requirements.
For submittal requirements, refer to Subsection 18.710.030.C and Pre-application packet for
requirements. Prior to submittal of the application, you will need to schedule an appointment with
the Permit Counter, 503-718-2421.
2
Applicable Chapters
☒ 18.110 Residential Zones ☐ 18.650 Tigard Downtown Plan District
☒ 18.120 Commercial Zones ☐ 18.660 Tigard Triangle Plan District
☐ 18.220 Accessory Dwelling Units ☐ 18.670 Washington Square Regional Center
☒ 18.230 Apartments ☐ 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures
☐ 18.240 Cottage Clusters ☐ 18.715 Adjustments
☐ 18.250 Courtyard Units ☐ 18.720 Annexation
☐ 18.260 Mobile Home Parks ☐ 18.740 Conditional Uses
☐ 18.270 Quads ☐ 18.750 Historic Resources
☐ 18.280 Rowhouses ☐ 18.760 Home Occupations
☐ 18.290 Single Detached Houses ☐ 18.770 Planned Developments
☐ 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading ☐ 18.780 Site Development Review
☐ 18.420 Landscaping and Screening ☒ 18.790 Text and Map Amendments
☐ 18.440 Temporary Uses ☐ 18.810 Lot Line Adjustments & Consolidations
☐ 18.450 Wireless Communication Facilities ☒ 18.820 Land Partitions
☐ 18.510 Sensitive Lands ☐ 18.830 Subdivisions
☐ 18.520 Significant Tree Groves ☐ 18.910 Improvement Standards
☐ 18.620 Bridgeport Village Plan District ☐ 18.920 Access, Egress & Circulation
☐ 18.640 River Terrace Plan District ☐ 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas
Applicable Standards
18.110 RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Applicable Zone: R-25 (Proposed)
18.230 APARTMENTS
Minimum Lot Size: 1,480 SF per unit
Lot Size: 1.66 acres / 72,310 SF
Please review the development standards for the applicable housing type in the chapter noted
above.
3
Density Estimate:
Total Site 72,310 square feet
Sensitive Land Areas - 0 square feet
Land Dedicated to the Public for Park Purposes - 0 square feet
Land Dedicated for Public Rights-of-Way - Unknown square feet
Land Proposed for Private Streets - 0 square feet
Net Development Area 72,310 square feet
Net Development Area 72,310 square feet
Minimum Lot Size ÷ 1,480 square feet
Maximum Number of Residential Units 48
Maximum Number of Residential Units 48
× 80%
Minimum Number of Residential Units 39
Please refer to Section 18.40.020 for calculating density.
18.410 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
o Apartments: 1 space for each unit less than 500 square feet
1 spaces for each 1 bedroom unit
1.25 spaces for each 2 bedroom unit
1.5 spaces for each 3 bedroom unit
1 bicycle spaces for every 2 units
See Section 18.410.040.I for parking dimensional standards.
18.420 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
Required Landscaping (Section 18.420.040)
Minimum Landscape Area: 20%
The minimum landscape area standard must be provided on the site and may be met by any
combination of the following:
1. Landscaping, including parking lot landscaping, that meets the L-2 landscaping standard (see
below);
2. Landscaping that meets the S-2, S-3, or S-4 screening standard where required by the
applicable development standards chapter;
3. Any required above-ground vegetated stormwater facility; or
4. Other areas as specified by the applicable development standards chapter.
Standard Requirements
L-2
• A minimum of 50% of the total required landscape area must include
small, medium, or large shrubs;
4
• A maximum of 50% of the total required landscape area may include any
combination of mulch, groundcover, lawn, or hardscape, except that
hardscape areas may not cover more than 25% of the total required
landscape area; and
• If tree canopy standards do not apply as provided in Subsection
18.420.020.C, then 1 tree must be provided for every 600 square feet of
total required landscape area.
Required Screening (Section 18.420.050)
Utilities/Service Areas (S-1 Standard): Required for all utilities and service areas
Perimeter (S-3 Standard): Required when the property abuts an R-1 through R-12 zone.
Parking Lots/Vehicle Areas (S-4 Standard): Required for any parking within 20 feet of a street property
line.
Required Tree Canopy (Section 18.420.060)
Minimum Site Tree Canopy: 33%
Minimum Parking Lot Tree Canopy: 30% (where parking lot is proposed)
Minimum Number of Street Trees: One Street Tree per 40 feet of frontage
An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with tree canopy standards. An urban
forestry plan must be prepared by a landscape architect or both a certified arborist and tree risk
assessor, as provided in the Urban Forestry Manual Section 10 (except for MLPs). The plan must
include:
o Tree preservation and removal site plan- Section 10, Part 1 of Urban Forestry Manual
o Tree canopy site plan- Section 10, Part 2 of Urban Forestry Manual
o Supplemental report- Section 10, Part 3 of Urban Forestry Manual
o Parking lot tree canopy standards- Provide the minimum effective tree canopy percentage
for all parking areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percentage of tree
canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard.
o Street trees- Include where right-of-way improvements are required at a rate of 1 tree for 40
lineal feet of frontage.
18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
18.910.030 Streets
F. Future Streets Plan and Extension of Streets
A Future Street Plan is required with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall:
o Shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the
proposed land division
5
o Shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and
o Shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land
division.
o Shall identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes
and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site.
Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be
extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed.
18.910.040 Blocks
The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceeds 2,000 feet measured along the
right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands
or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on
public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted.
ALL OTHER ITEMS IN 18.910 ARE ADDRESSED IN ENGINEERING’S CHECKLIST.
18.920 ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION
Table 18.920.1
Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements
Housing Type
Minimum
Driveways
Required
Minimum
Access
Required
Minimum Pavement Width
Apartments, 3-49
units 1 30 ft
24 ft if two-way
15 ft if one-way
curbs and 5 ft walkway required
Apartments, 50-100+
units 2 30 ft 24 ft
curbs and 5 ft walkway required
Additional requirements for Apartments (Subsection 18.230.040.E):
1. Paths must provide pedestrian access from public sidewalks abutting the site to all required
building entrances on the site.
2. Paths must provide pedestrian access between all common open space areas, vehicle and
bicycle parking areas, building entrances, and service areas designed for use by residents.
Paths within parking areas or along drive aisles are subject to additional standards in
Subsection 18.410.040.B.
3. Paths must extend to the perimeter property line to provide pedestrian access to existing or
planned pedestrian facilities on adjacent properties, such as trails or public access easements.
4. Paths must be constructed with a hard surface material and have a minimum unobstructed
width of 5 feet.
18.930 VISION CLEARANCE AREAS
Vision Clearance Areas must be:
6
o Maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at intersections of roads with driveways, railroads,
and other roads.
o The size of the vision clearance area depends upon the abutting street's functional
classification and any existing obstructions within the vision clearance area.
o Vision clearance areas must be shown on the site plan and identify any obstructions in these
areas.
Service Provider Letters and Additional Contacts
The following service provider letters are required:
☒ Clean Water Services
☒ Tualatin Valley Water District
☒ PGE
☒ Waste Management
Building: Mark VanDomelen, Building Official; 503-718- 2448 / markv@tigard-or.gov
Fire: John Wolff, Wolff, Deputy Fire Marshall II; 503-259-1504 / John.Wolff@tvfr.com
ODOT: Region1_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us
Additional Comments or Issues
Fees:
-Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $4,795
- Zone Change: $4,795
- Partition (2-lot): $4,567 / Final Plat: $1,275
A Site Development Review (SDR) application is required for the apartment development.
The application will be processed through either a Type I or II review depending on
whether a transportation impact study is required.
18.820.040 Approval Criteria
The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions an application for a land partition when
all of the following are met:
A. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations;
B. There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal;
C. The proposed improvements meet city and applicable agency standards;
D. The proposed lots comply with the following:
1. Each lot created for residential development must meet the density standards for the housing type
proposed.
7
2. The minimum lot width is met. The minimum lot width for residential and nonresidential
development is provided in the applicable development standards in Chapter 18.200, Residential
Development Standards or Chapter 18.300, Nonresidential Development Standards. In the case of
a flag lot, the minimum lot width and depth is 40 feet and is measured as provided in Section
18.40.080.
3. The minimum lot size is met. The minimum lot size for residential and nonresidential development
is provided in the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development
Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. In the case of a flag lot, the flag pole
is not included in the lot area calculation as described in Section 18.40.080.
4. Each lot for quad, rowhouse, or single detached house development is rectilinear in shape with
straight side lot lines at right angles to front lot lines, and straight rear lot lines parallel to front lot
lines, except where not practicable due to location along a street radius or because of an existing
natural features or lot lines. Side and rear lot lines that are segmented may not contain cumulative
lateral changes in direction that exceed 10 percent of the distance between opposing lot corners, as
measured using the process of Subsection 18.40.060.C.
5. Each lot has a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public or private right -of-way, except for the
following types of lots:
a. Flag lots and rowhouse lots have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a public or private right-
of-way;
b. Lots with curved frontages along cul-de-sacs or eyebrows have a minimum of 20 feet of
frontage on a public or private right-of-way as measured along the arc of the front lot line; and
c. Lots at the terminus of a private street have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a private right-
of-way.
6. All setback requirements are met. The setback requirements for residential and nonresidential
development are provided in the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential
Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards.
7. Lots created using the density and dimensional standards for cottage cluster, courtyard unit, quad,
and rowhouse development must record a deed restriction that prohibits any type of development
other than the type proposed with the partition application. This deed restriction cannot be removed
except through another land division process.
E. With regard to flag lots:
1. The applicant may determine the location of the front lot line, provided that no side setback is less
than 10 feet.
2. A sight-obscuring fence must be provided along the property line of a lot where the paved access
is located within 10 feet of an abutting lot.
F. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will
ensure access and maintenance rights must be recorded with the approved partition plat;
G. Any access must comply with Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation; and
8
H. Where landfill or development is allowed within or adjacent to the special flood hazard area, the city
will require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjacent to and within the special
flood hazard area. This area will include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a path,
sidewalk, or trail with the special flood hazard area in compliance with the adopted trails plan or
transportation plan. (Ord. 19-09 §1; Ord. 18-28 §1; Ord. 18-23 §2; Ord. 17-22 §2)
18.790.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments
A. Approval process.
1. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments that do not require a comprehensive plan map amendment
are processed through a Type III-PC procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.070.
2. Quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendments are processed through a Type III-Modified
procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080, which is decided by the City Council with a
recommendation by Planning Commission.
3. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments that require a comprehensive map plan amendment are
processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080, which is
decided by the City Council with a recommendation by Planning Commission.
B. Approval criteria. A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or quasi-
judicial comprehensive plan amendment will be based on the following:
1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations; and
2. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of proposed
zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property, the ability of the
existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and the characteristics of the
property and development proposal, if any. (Ord. 19-09 §1; Ord. 18-28 §1; Ord. 18-23 §2; Ord. 17-
22 §2) ◼
Additional Information
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (Chapter 18.910 and 18.920)
All requirements relating to street and utility improvements are provided in the Engineering
Checklist.
SUBDIVISION/PLAT NAME RESERVATION
Applicant must complete and file a subdivision/plat name requires with the Washington County
Surveyors Office. The approved Subdivision Name Reservation must be submitted to the City at
time of application submittal.
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT
9
Your property may be in a sewer reimbursement district and may require additional fees upon
development. Please contact the Planning Department at 503-718-2421 in order to find out if your
property is within a sewer reimbursement district and the associated fee.
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
Development permits will not be accepted until a land use approval has been granted. Comments
from the Building Department are not included in these notes. For specific questions, please contact
a Plans Examiner for any building code related questions or issues. Final inspections will not be
granted until all land use conditions of approval are satisfied.
REGULATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SDC EXEMPTION
If the proposal includes regulated affordable housing, the development may be eligible to receive an
exemption of the City’s Transportation and Park System Development Charges (SDC). Please
contact the SDC Administrator at 503-718-2460 or sdc@tigard-or.gov for more information.
DISCLAIMER
The pre-application conference and notes cannot cover all applicable requirements related to the
proposed development. Failure of the staff to provide information required by Title 18 does not
constitute a waiver of the applicable criteria, regulations or standards. It is recommended that the
applicant read Title 18 or contact city staff with any questions prior to submittal.