The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA1997-00005 0 __ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON FILE NO: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0005 FILE TITLE: DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICANT: City Initiated OWNER: Various REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., REVIEW CRITERIA: 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 11/17/97 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 12/9/97 TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Nadine Smith (503) 639-4171 x388 ` . ., .1 _..-.. ._ _. _ . ______, _ .__ _ ... . _ . UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail i Postage&Fees Paid LISPS Permit No.G-10 •Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box • i A City of Tigard Planning Division 17rAJ 1//V/RA/ ' 1i l 13125 SW Hall Boulevard CITY OFTIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223 r I . F CPA 91-01; CPA 92-07; ZOA 92-04;ZOA 93-01; 1 CPA 93-09; ZOA 93-07; CPA 94-02;CPA 94-04; t . CPA 96-01; CPA 96-04; ZON 96-06; CPA 94-01; ZOA 97-03; ZOA 97-05 ai SENDER: ' I also wish to receive the V •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. following services(for an ii a Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. ,r in •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. a) i . d ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address ° tt w permit. 6 2.❑ • Restricted Di•Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. Delivery to ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. p delivered. 0 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number d t. z j71/43 ...23-7 3 9,2. < E▪ DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION&DEV 4b.Service Type E ❑ Registered ❑ Certified 1 8 1175 COURT STREET NE o, SALEM OR 97310-0590 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD. g ' 7.Date of Delivery .4-/M/' %A71 Kea') o E 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested 2 and fee is paid) m t r 6.Signa e: (Addy ssee or Agent) 1- F 1, PS Form 3811,December 1994 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt • . 0 • T PLALNZING DIVISICNV AirrAL. 1//W44/ Z 463 251 392 US Postal Service Pi Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) R DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION&DEV i '- 1175 COURT STREET NE R SALEM OR 97310-0590 Postage $ 3.0 Aj ' Certified Fee ,''5'-- ,, Special Delivery Feely t"-- Oej Restricted Delivery Fee „c 23 S„, Q tr, �i /------fir nl Return Receipt Sho 141 "77 i� Whom&Date Deliv rem I Return Receipt Showing 'r� `-� UQ Date,&Addressee's f ,Y.ba d1 O TOTAL Postage&Fee �/j �C�` •�` O co Postmark or Date .L7 M LL Kt a U o ~i 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon, and X That I mailed a NOTICE OFADOPTION FOR: • City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the ADOPTED AMENDMENT, _ZOA 97-0005, a copy of which is attached, was mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, on the 11th day of December , 1997, postage prepaid. / Pre•1 red Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the eiday of - 197 LA! I -- I 61lar4 NOTARY PUBLIC 41/OREGON, My Commission E . res: ( 97,1 f��.■� OFFICIAL SEAL ,fir's DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 • 0 NOTICE OF ADOPTION This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File# ZOA 97-0005 Date of Adoption December 9. 1997 Date Mailed December 10. 1997 Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD October 22. 1997 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment X New Land Use Regulation Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." Amend the Tigard Triangle design standards to create a Design Evaluation Team and to create an adjustment process to allow alternative proposals to the adopted design standards. Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment, write "N/A." Same Plan Map Change From n/a to n/a Zone Map Change From n/a to n/a Location: Generally south of 99W: west of 1-5: north of Hwy 217 Acres Involved: Approx. 340 Specify Density: Previous Density n/a New Density n/a Applicable Goals: 1. 2 Was an Exception adopted? __ Yes X No DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deadline • r Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing? X Yes __ No: __ The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply __ Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: ODOT. Metro Local Contact: Nadine Smith Phone: 503-639-4171 Address: City of Tigard. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 1. Send this Form and One (1) Copy of the Adopted Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street,N.E. Salem,Oregon 97310-0590 2. Submit three(3) copies of bound documents and maps larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches. 3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five(5)working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD,you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. If you need more copies of this form, please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form may be duplicated on green paper. ,. • .. • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -e- ORDINANCE NO. 97-13 AN ORDINANCE ADDING A DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM TO PROVIDE REVIEW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant City of Tigard has requested approval of legislative Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request provides a process to allow review by a Design Evaluation Team of requests for adjustment to the design standards within the Tigard Triangle. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing specifically on the zoning amendments on the Design Evaluation Team process at its meeting of December 9, 1997. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendments are consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order(Exhibit A); SECTION 2: The specific text amendments attached to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because development requests have been on hold throughout a lengthy process as development standards have been developed. The property owners in the area have been awaiting the availability of this process. PASSED: By U 0 an•Irrnatcrote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this q'- ' day of , 1997. (1a,tliefLi Catherine Wheatley, City Reco r APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this -7- day o Do Cciw-i12en-- , 1997. ,k:: f I opfes Nicoli,Mayor Approved as to form: ORDINANCE No 97-13 Page 1 ,gc.f_.A70 (0 City Attorney /9/. Date is\citywide\ordinanc.dot ORDINANCE No 97-13 Page 2 • • (� Exhib-1' A -t--o Ocdin mu. t\fo. a-1 • t 3 CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM PROCESS A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM PROCESS FOR AN AREA KNOWN AS THE "TIGARD TRIANGLE". A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: FILE NAME: DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM -TIGARD TRIANGLE Zoning Ordinance Amendment: ZOA 97-0005 REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Various LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway 99 West. 2. Vicinity The affected parcels are within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The area is generally bordered by Interstate 5 to the east, Highway 217 to the west and Highway 99W to the north. 3. Background Information On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for development within the Triangle. After several meetings with Council it was determined that City Council wanted to retain the standards and good design in the Triangle, but wished to allow flexibility on how this was achieved. To add flexibility to the standards while assuring good design, staff was directed by City Council to create a new process that provides an optional adjustment procedure that includes a new Design Evaluation Team. On November 17, 1997,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal and recommended approval. City Council held a public hearing on the proposal and approved it on December 9, 1997. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description 1 • The site is approximately 340 acres in size. The proposed land use action includes amendments to the Development Code to include an optional adjustment process using a Design Evaluation Team for the Tigard Triangle. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2,. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. STATEWIDE GOALS 1. Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and Department of Land Conservation and Development. The proposals were subject to a public hearing before the city council which included citizen testimony. That testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. This goal is satisfied. 2. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires that land use plans must be the basis for specific implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. • COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 3. 1.1.1a. -This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments and had earlier commented in a letter that they recommended approval. This policy is satisfied. 4. 2.1.1 -This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. 5. 2.1.2-This policy requires the opportunity for citizen involvement on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. This policy is satisfied. 6. 2.1.3-This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since November 5, 1997. This policy is satisfied. 7. 8.1.2-This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. Metro has sent a letter of support. No other agencies have commented in writing on the specific proposals. This policy is satisfied. 2 • 1 ~ COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Design Standards: The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility under specific circumstances will continue to meet the goals and intent for development of the Triangle in that it provides flexibility while still requiring excellent design treatment within the Triangle. The public process would remain much the same as exists today in that the applicant is still required to hold a neighborhood meeting and the City will still hold a public hearing on the proposal. Procedure for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. 8. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. The applicable goals are addressed in these findings 9. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. No other federal or state standards or guidelines are applicable to this application 10. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. Metro has stated by letter that the proposed adjustment process is appropriate. 11. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed under"Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies." 12. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. Having followed the appropriate procedures and addressed the criteria necessary for legislative amendments to the development code, the proposed design standards are consistent with the requirements of implementing ordinances. C. DECISION The City Council APPROVES the amendments to ZOA 97-0005. 3 • ExEra311 18.620.090 Design Evaluation A. Purpose. It is recognized that the above design standards are to assist in upgrading and providing consistency to development within the Tigard Triangle. It is recognized that different designs may be used to meet the intent of the standards and purpose statements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. With this in mind, applicants for development in the Tigard Triangle may choose to submit proposed projects which demonstrate compliance with the design standards or to request adjustments from the Triangle design standards and submit design plans for review and recommendation by a City Design Evaluation Team. This option allows applicants to propose alternative designs to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards that are consistent with the purpose of the standards. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the structure may be rebuilt using the same structure footprint without receiving an adjustment from design standards. B. Design Evaluation Team (DET). Evaluation of the adjustment to allow an alternative design is made by a three person professional design team contracted by the City for professional design review. The DET shall consist of design professionals with experience in architecture, landscape architecture and civil engineering. This team is charged with balancing the purpose statements, goals and standards of the Tigard Triangle Design process with the alternative proposal submitted by the applicants. The DET shall accept design proposals that vary from any of the Triangle Design Standards. This process is to be applied only to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Applicants must comply with all other development code standards according to the regular development review requirements of Title 18 of the City code. The DET will prepare a report outlining conditions and recommendations in response to the applicant's proposal(s) for submission to the Planning Commission within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. C. Approval Criteria For guidance in evaluating the purpose of the design standards, the DET shall refer to Planning Director's Interpretation that provides purpose statements for the Tigard Triangle design standards. All adjustments to allow an alternative design are subject to the following criteria: 1. Granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner; and 2. The proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and S. 3. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and 4. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; and any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. D. Review Process. The following steps must be followed by applicants to gain Design Evaluation Review: 1. Applicants choosing the Design Evaluation process must submit a Design Evaluation and Adjustment request according to a list of requirements provided by the Director; 2. Members of the Design Evaluation Team are available to meet with applicants as part of the preapplication process, however, applicants shall pay for the entire cost of the review of the Design Evaluation Team. A deposit of $1,000 shall be paid upon application. The applicant will be billed for any additional cost. The DET report shall not be issued until all costs are paid. No request for design evaluation review using the alternative design will be accepted until all costs are paid in full; 3. The applicant will receive a review date for a DET work session which shall be within 30 days of Step 2 above. No public notification is required although the review session is open to the public. The review is designed to allow the applicant to present and explain design intent and adjustment proposals to the Design Evaluation Team. This is not intended to be a public hearing and no public testimony will be taken. 4. Upon completion of the DET review and payment of all costs, the DET will forward a report and recommendations to the Director and the applicant within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. At the request of the applicant, this time period may be extended. 5. The applicant may proceed to schedule and hold a pre-application neighborhood meeting with the adjacent property owners at any time during this process according to the provision provided by the Director at the Development Review pre-application conference required by Chapter 18.32.040. It is recommended that the development design to be reviewed at the pre-application neighborhood meeting include the recommendations of the DET; 6. Upon completion of the neighborhood meeting requirements and receipt of the DET report, applicants may proceed to file the appropriate development application according to the provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Said application shall include the recommendations of the DET. \ft 7. Review of a DET recommended plan and/or conditions shall be made part of the staff report prepared by the Planning Director and shall be made available at a public hearing before the Planning Commission according to the provisions of 18.32; 8. The Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application considering the DET recommendation and evaluating the development and the design plan to ensure consistency with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Approval of the Planning Commission must also be based on compliance of the development plan with all other development code requirements governing the application. 1:1LRPLN W ADINEITRIANGLEIDE SEVAL CDE ,Ilb 0 - • P 474 569 763 US Postal Service 01� Receipt for Certified Mail i \ No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to DEPT OF LAND CONSV & DEV Str1ar5m OURT ST. NE Li PoVSf Liafe,&McD de 97310-0550 Cil Pzi Postage $ 01 Certified Fee , 1 1 5 0 k Special Delivery Fee Z O Restricted Delivery Fee Z rn_� ) t 1 0 Return Receipt Showing to Whom&Date Delivered .� Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Date,&Addressee's Address °oao TOTi,--,'psta.-,C‘1&.Fees \_14,,'\Z-&3 C'7 Postmark or Dater' j;` \1= �, 0 i`e/ l d SENDER: 1 v •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the i •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an d •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. ei r, ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address Z I 1 ` permit. c. 1 l m ■Wnte'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery a r « ■ I The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date a Z delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. e 0 .o 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number a0i • d P 474 569 763 c E 0. DEPT OF LAND CONSV & DEVEL 4b.Service Type « o . 0 1175 COURT ST. NE ❑ Registered XL Certified cc rn j SALEM, OR 97310-0590 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c N❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD 2 I 7.Date of Delivery •° 1 � 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested c and fee is paid) t ) 6- 6.Sign- +_( ddressee o Age t) I— i X � I � i PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) I, ( CuwU&Q , hereby certify: Please Print aC That I am a A for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council Ce ( P n aJ V OrC? L -- 2 D °1- ODD 5 Deeln.1;VCc,Q,i \n—r_r2a.v c C0 4 . of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the /v day of � 6.-arc , 19 q7 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto / Lam► attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the(C)— day of ace i►.12-1_ ;- 19 , postage prepaid. CaitheA(Ak Prepared Notice • Subscribed and sworn to before me this ilk day of ., 19 41/ . -.P. OFFICIAL SEAL M JO ANN HAYES VA 'n '^ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �..� Notary ublic of Oregon o" COMMISSION NO 042148 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05,1999 My Commission Expires: t S; iq Q 7/ h:\login\cathy\afofmail CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL Concerning Case Number(s): ZOA 97-0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICANT: City Initiated OWNERS: Various REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Action: jRc. Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ❑ The applicant and owner(s) ❑ Owners of record within the required distance The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® Affected governmental agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON lJ-) 7Cern be/t_ q , 1997, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON CwY\b-ui q , 1997. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A.review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. •,J •CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • ORDINANCE NO. 97-13 AN ORDINANCE ADDING A DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM TO PROVIDE REVIEW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant City of Tigard has requested approval of legislative Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request provides a process to allow review by a Design Evaluation Team of requests for adjustment to the design standards within the Tigard Triangle. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing specifically on the zoning amendments on the Design Evaluation Team process at its meeting of December 9, 1997. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendments are consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order(Exhibit A); SECTION 2: The specific text amendments attached to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because development requests have been on hold throughout a lengthy process as development standards have been developed. The property owners in the area have been awaiting the availability of this process. PASSED: By U(1an inCtiSiote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this g'. 1 day of , 1997. dt-f/le-/Li ru COl'ILOW---e-t-i___ Catherine Wheatley, City Recoridkr APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this -7 day o DO Ce rthe/t--' , 1997. .i_a.i el i A d(Zil 1/' oples Nicoli,Mayor Approved as to form: ORDINANCE No 97-)3 Page 1 441-ae,f ,S.642A7 I City Attorney Date is\citywide\ordinanc.dot ORDINANCE No 97-13 Page 2 • Exh t b ilk -1-0 ocdinc-nQ.52_ \lo. ari • I3 CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM PROCESS A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM PROCESS FOR AN AREA KNOWN AS THE"TIGARD TRIANGLE". A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: FILE NAME: DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM-TIGARD TRIANGLE Zoning Ordinance Amendment: ZOA 97-0005 REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Various LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217,west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway 99 West. 2. Vicinity The affected parcels are within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The area is generally bordered by Interstate 5 to the east, Highway 217 to the west and Highway 99W to the north. 3. Background Information On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for development within the Triangle. After several meetings with Council it was determined that City Council wanted to retain the standards and good design in the Triangle, but wished to allow flexibility on how this was achieved. To add flexibility to the standards while uring good-design, staff was directed by City Council to create a new process that provides an optional adjustment procedure that includes a new Design Evaluation Team. On November 17, 1997,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal and recommended approval. City Council held a public hearing on the proposal and approved it on December 9, 1997. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description 1 • • • The site is approximately 340 acres in size. The proposed land use action includes amendments to the Development Code to include an optional adjustment process using a Design Evaluation Team for the Tigard Triangle. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2,. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. STATEWIDE GOALS 1. Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and Department of Land Conservation and Development. The proposals were subject to a public hearing before the city council which included citizen testimony. That testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. This goal is satisfied. 2. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires that land use plans must be the basis for specific implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. • COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 3. 1.1.1a. -This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments and had earlier commented in a letter that they recommended approval. This policy is satisfied. 4. 2.1.1 -This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. This policy is satisfied. 5. 2.1.2-This policy requires the opportunity for citizen involvement on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. This policy is satisfied. • 6. 2.1.3-This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since November 5, 1997. This policy is satisfied. 7. 8.1.2-This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. Metro has sent a letter of support. No other agencies have commented in writing on the specific proposals. This policy is satisfied. 2 • • COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Design Standards; The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility under specific circumstances will continue to meet the goals and intent for development of the Triangle in that it provides flexibility while still requiring excellent design treatment within the Triangle. The public process would remain much the same as exists today in that the applicant is still required to hold a neighborhood meeting and the City will still hold a public hearing on the proposal. Procedure for Decision Making: Legislative Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. 8. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. The applicable goals are addressed in these findings 9. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. No other federal or state standards or guidelines are applicable to this application 10. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. Metro has stated by letter that the proposed adjustment process is appropriate. 11. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed under"Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies." 12. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. Having followed the appropriate procedures and addressed the criteria necessary for legislative amendments to the development code, the proposed design standards are consistent with the requirements of implementing ordinances. C. DECISION The City Council APPROVES the amendments to ZOA 97-0005. • 3 • • A 1l 18.620.090 Design Evaluation A. Purpose. It is recognized that the above design standards are to assist in upgrading and providing consistency to development within the Tigard Triangle. It is recognized that different designs may be used to meet the intent of the standards and purpose statements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. With this in mind, applicants for development in the Tigard Triangle may choose to submit proposed projects which demonstrate compliance with the design standards or to request adjustments from the Triangle design standards and submit design plans for review and recommendation by a City Design Evaluation Team. This option allows applicants to propose alternative designs to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards that are consistent with the purpose of the standards. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the structure may be rebuilt using the same structure footprint without receiving an adjustment from design standards. B. Design Evaluation Team (DET). Evaluation of the adjustment to allow an alternative design is made by a three person professional design team contracted by the City for professional design review. The DET shall consist of design professionals with experience in architecture, landscape architecture and civil engineering. This team is charged with balancing the purpose statements, goals and standards of the Tigard Triangle Design process with the alternative proposal submitted by the applicants. The DET shall accept design proposals that vary from any of the Triangle Design Standards. This process is to be applied only to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Applicants must comply with all other development code standards according to the regular development review requirements of Title 18 of the City code. The DET will prepare a report outlining conditions and recommendations in response to the applicant's proposal(s) for submission to the Planning Commission within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. C. Approval Criteria For guidance in evaluating the purpose of the design standards, the DET shall refer to Planning Director's Interpretation that provides purpose statements for the Tigard Triangle design standards. All adjustments to allow an alternative design are subject to the following criteria: 1. Granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner; and 2. The proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and • • • 3. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and 4. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; and any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. D. Review Process. The following steps must be followed by applicants to gain Design Evaluation Review: 1. Applicants choosing the Design Evaluation process must submit a Design Evaluation and Adjustment request according to a list of requirements provided by the Director; 2. Members of the Design Evaluation Team are available to meet with applicants as part of the preapplication process, however, applicants shall pay for the entire cost of the review of the Design Evaluation Team. A deposit of $1,000 shall be paid upon application. The applicant will be billed for any additional cost. The DET report shall not be issued until all costs are paid. No request for design evaluation review using the alternative design will be accepted until all costs are paid in full; 3. The applicant will receive a review date for a DET work session which shall be within 30 days of Step 2 above. No public notification is required although the review session is open to the public. The review is designed to allow the applicant to present and explain design intent and adjustment proposals to the Design Evaluation Team. This is not intended to be a public hearing and no public testimony will be taken. 4. Upon completion of the DET review and payment of all costs, the DET will forward a report and recommendations to the Director and the applicant within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. At the request of the applicant, this time period may be extended. 5. The applicant may proceed to schedule and hold a pre-application neighborhood meeting with the adjacent property owners at any time during this process according to the provision provided by the Director at the Development Review pre-application conference required by Chapter 18.32.040. It is recommended that the development design to be reviewed at the pre-application neighborhood meeting include the recommendations of the DET; 6. Upon completion of the neighborhood meeting requirements and receipt of the DET report, applicants may proceed to file the appropriate development application according to the provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Said application shall include the recommendations of the DET. r . • 7. Review of a DET recommended plan and/or conditions shall be made part of the staff report prepared by the Planning Director and shall be made available at a public hearing before the Planning Commission according to the provisions of 18.32; 8. The Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application considering the DET recommendation and evaluating the development and the design plan to ensure consistency with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Approval of the Planning Commission must also be based on compliance of the development plan with all other development code requirements governing the application. I:U.RPLNINADINEITRI NGLEIDESEVALCDE • y • .'' '-'• . -I- • MICHAEL ROBINSON • • • STOEL RIVES LLP • 900 SW FIFTH AVE., SUITE 2300 • • • PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 • STEVEN HILL • MILLER NASH • 111 SW FIFTH AVE., SUITE 3400 • PORTLAND, OR 97204 • DARLENE WOZNIAK 14200 SW FERN . .. TIGARD, OR 97223 Y RECE BLY STOEL RIVES LLP • 900 SW FIFTH AVE., SUITE 2300 . • • PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 • • ' • GORDON MARTIN 12265 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 GERALD CACH • CASH'S REALTY • 12525 SW MAIN ST • TIGARD, OR 97223 . • • • • • • • • 06. • qi c. Agenda Item No., , Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Ftr:' 0 MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Mayor Nicoli arrived during the Executive Session. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:34 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:26 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the study session. > Agenda Review Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that staff received correspondence from Commissioner Linda Peters at Washington County in response to Mayor Nicoli's letter suggesting that the County purchase the Tiffany Court property as a County housing project. Commissioner Peters informed the Council that Community Partners for Affordable Housing has asked the County to partner with them to acquire this property. Commissioner Peters suggested that Tigard work with the Community Partners on this project and leave the County out of it. Mr. Monahan suggested telling the County that, while they agreed that Community Partners should be part of the project, the City was suggesting that the County purchase the property. The Council discussed what action to take. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that with the possibility of Federal agents seizing the property, they might be able to negotiate a fair price with the current owner. He suggested talking with Commissioner Roy Rogers regarding this situation. Mr. Monahan said that staff would find out what the status of the Federal action was, and draft a response letter for Council review. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. Girl Scout Troop #989 led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli and the Council presented the troop members with City of Tigard pins. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 1 • • > Councilor Moore wished his wife"Happy Birthday" and thanked her for her support. > Councilor Hunt reported that the meeting with City of Tualatin representatives, City of Tigard representatives, and the new owners of the Willamette& Pacific Railroad went very well. He said that the owners were cooperative and willing to work with the cities to achieve their mutual goal of removing one of the lines. In addition,they were amenable to allowing use of the former railroad bridge as a pedestrian crossing to connect Cook Park with the Tualatin Park across the Tualatin River. > Councilor Rohlf thanked the staff and citizens involved in the tree lighting. He commented that it caused him to reflect on how much fun it was to be part of a smaller community. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None. 2. SPECIAL RECOGNITION-POLICE EMPLOYEE COMMENDATIONS Ron Goodpaster,Police Chief, explained the procedures by which officers were commended, the second highest recognition in the department. He read the commendation given to Sergeant deSully, Officers Featherston, Heaukulani, LaFranchise, Newman, Ranum, Detectives Boothby and Fischer for their work in solving a string of robberies in the Tigard area. He read the commendation given to Sergeant Hal Merrill for his work in resolving a potential suicide situation. The Mayor and the Council thanked the police officers for their excellent work. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 7:46 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 7:58 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA Kenneth Waymire,9005 SW Waverly Drive, spoke to the City maintaining street lights on private streets in subdivisions. Mr. Monahan mentioned that Council directed staff to return with a recommendation on the issue of private streets. He said that the staff interpretation in these situations was that those getting the benefit of the private street also had the responsibilities that went with it. Council has stated that they would not accept private streets unless they were brought up to Code. He explained that on private streets staff had no ability to control where and how many street lights were put in. The Council agreed to discuss the issue of private streets at the January 21 workshop. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, stated that he wanted to review the record and the regulations prior to responding to Council questions. Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Waymire had contacted the homeowners regarding this issue. Mr. Waymire said no, he wanted to try to resolve the issue this way first. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hunt requested to pull Item 4.5. CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 • • Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Consent Agenda items 4.1 to 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Receive& File: Tentative Agenda 4.2 Approve CIS Urban Services Area Insurance Pool Membership with CIS - Resolution No. 97-50 (Self-Insurance Pool) and Resolution No. 97- 51 (Liability Risk-Sharing Pool) 4.3 Approve Washington County Intergovernmental Agreement— 1997-98 Waste Reduction Work Plan -Resolution No. 97-52 4.4 Approve City Attorney Contract 4.5 Approve Budget Adjustment#9 -Building Security- Resolution No. 97- (pulled for separate consideration.) 4.6 Authorize City Manager to Sign Documents on Behalf of the City of Tigard and Proceed With and Finalize Process for the Hickox Dedication/Donation of Greenway Land 4.7 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Tigard Police Department Addition and Remodel to Woodburn Construction Company • Consent Agenda -Items Removed for Separate Discussion 4.5 Approve Budget Adjustment#9 -Building Security- Resolution No. 97- Councilor Hunt stated that, after reflection, he has decided to change his vote in favor of installing a security system to not installing a security system at this time. He mentioned the public facilities review currently underway and spoke to waiting until that committee made its recommendations. He argued against spending $80,000 on a security system for buildings whose current internal configuration and use could change based on the committee's recommendations. He said that he supported installing a security system but believed that they should wait until the facility space issue was settled. Councilor Rohlf concurred that this matter was better put at a different time in the cycle. Councilor Moore commented that he thought they had directed staff to look at further expansion of the system. Mr. Monahan explained that this resolution was for the budget authorization needed to get serious bid attention from vendors. It was a housekeeping measure to get the City into position to go to bid. Councilor Moore spoke in support of installing the system at this time, citing the City's responsibility to protect its employees. He commented that the system components could be reused in other locations. Councilor Rohlf said that, while he was not against installing a security system, statistics showed that people needed to be protected from relatives and friends more than they did from the public. He noted that there was no indication of a problem, and supported waiting until the facilities improvements were made. Councilor Scheckla spoke to allowing the Budget Committee to review this request. He mentioned that he has not heard employees say they were in dire need of a security system. He commented that this system would protect only those who worked in these buildings and did not cover those who worked offsite on streets, etc. CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 3 • • Mr. Monahan explained that the City took safety measures already for employees who worked offsite. He noted that it appeared that Councilors Hunt and Scheckla both wanted to hold off on this decision but for different reasons. He pointed out that the security system was not only for employee protection but for facility and property protection also. Mayor Nicoli asked if they had to appropriate the money in the budget before going out to bid. Mr. Monahan said that they were not required to do so but staff had felt actually having the money available would present a more serious intention on the City's part to potential bidders. The Council agreed by consensus to continue this resolution to a future work session for further discussion. 5. SW NORTH DAKOTA UPDATE Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reviewed the history of the SW North Dakota traffic control project. He reported that staff bid out the project on October 19 per Council direction. Berning Construction submitted the low bid of$18,118 for the traffic revisions(which was under the estimated $25,000). This did not include the two speed humps which would be done in-house. He-said that they were holding the contract in abeyance until they received direction from the Council to proceed. Councilor Rohlf asked about installing a barricade instead of a diverter for the six month trial period. Mr. Duenas said that the extruded curb was actually easier to install than a barricade and could be easily removed or more permanently installed. Councilor Hunt reiterated his objections to the traffic diverter, as it contradicted the City's stated intent to provide for greater connectivity in its streets. He said that with a diverter they could not know if the other traffic control measures by themselves would cut down traffic because the diverter by itself would reduce traffic. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt. He commented that people all over the City would want these diverters which would constrict traffic movements. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to direct to proceed with the construction of traffic-control revisions to SW North Dakota Street. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes." Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET To discuss a proposed supplemental budget for 1997/98. The first notice of the supplemental budget hearing published in the Tigard Times on Thursday,November 20, 1997. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report: CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 4 • • Wayne Lowry,Finance Director, explained that this supplementary budget provided the authorization to make the settlement payment for the Dolan case and to allow the City Manager to order that the payment be made. He recommended approval. d. Public Testimony: None e. Council Questions: None f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 97-53 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 97- 53. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-53, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR THE 1997-98 FISCAL YEAR. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 97-0001/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0004 QUASI-JUDICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA REQUEST: Proposal to amend the adopted comprehensive plan text and zoning ordinance criteria for quasi-judicial plan map amendment. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a., 2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.3,8.1.2 ZONE: n/a a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Laurie Nicholson,Associate Planner, reviewed briefly the history of the plan amendment. She explained that the staff has added language to clarify what"changes" could justify a plan amendment. The current criteria was a change was allowed if it was consistent with applicable plan policy, if there was a change in physical circumstances, or the applicant could demonstrate that a mistake had been made in the original land use definition. Ms. Nicholson said that the new language added"if there was a change in adopted City of Tigard land use or transportation policy or in regional land use or transportation planning policy or the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed change can meet a community need." In addition, the proposed change could have no significant negative impacts on planned or existing public infrastructure. She recommended approval. Councilor Scheckla asked if this was discussed at the CIT meetings. Mr. Monahan and Ms. Newton reviewed the CIT notification process. Ms.Newton explained that the CITs did not choose to place this item on their agendas for further discussion. d. Public Testimony: None e. Council Questions: None f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 5 • • g. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore,to direct staff to initiate the legislative change. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, and Moore voted "yes." Councilors Rohif and Scheckla voted"no.") 8. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97- 0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W,west of I-5, and north of Highway 217 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a.,2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.3, 8.1.2 ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment(MUE) a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx briefly reviewed the history of this item. He mentioned that staff has worked diligently with property owners and interests in the Triangle to develop the proposal before the Council. Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, referenced the earlier workshop in which she reviewed this item in detail for the Council. She said that the process would provide a peer review for projects requesting an adjustment to the design standards of the Triangle. The Design Evaluation Team would be comprised of professionals who were architects, landscape architects, or civil engineers. Ms. Smith noted the comparison of the existing system with the proposed system as depicted in Figure 1. She mentioned that they worked with the property owners and the City Attorney to arrive at the specific language. She said that the Planning Commission recommended approval with minor changes, and that the City Attorney made some minor changes following the Planning Commission review. d. Public Testimony Michael Robinson supported the Planning Commission recommendation. He noted how well staff worked with all interested parties. e. Staff Recommendation: Ms. Smith recommended approval. f. Council Questions: Councilor Hunt raised the issue of who appointed the Design Evaluation Team members. He disagreed with leaving it to the mayor, pointing out that they might not always have a mayor with Mayor Nicoli's expertise in this area. Mayor Nicoli agreed. He suggested using the same process they used for Board appointments. Mr. Monahan suggested a three member team made up of the mayor, a city councilor, and a staff person to make a CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 6 • recommendation to Council. Councilor Hunt suggested approving the request with the provision that staff return next week with a proposal on how to appoint the team members. Councilor Scheckla asked how a citizen could propose adjustments outside the Design Evaluation Team process. He asked what happened if the Planning Commission overruled part of the Team's recommendation. Ms. Smith explained that the recommendation went before the Planning Commission in a public hearing format. The Planning Commission's decision could be appealed like any other land use situation. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-13 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, for the adoption of Ordinance No. 97-13 with the provision that staff bring back a recommendation on the process for appointing members. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 97-13, AN ORDINANCE ADDING A DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM TO PROVIDE REVIEW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the business meeting at 8:50 p.m. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. Attes Catherine City Recorder ayor, City of Tigard Date: //00/Q6 CITY COUNCIL MEEITNG MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 7 2_ 01q CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes November 17, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting-to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, DeFrang Griffith, Holland, and Neff Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Collson, Scolar, and Padgett Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff updated the Commission on filling the upcoming vacancies. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner DeFrang moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve the October 20, 1997, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Holland and Commissioner Neff abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 97-0005/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PDR) 97- 0004NARIANCE (VAR) 97-0008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 97-0003/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 97-0010/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 97- 0004NARIANCE (VAR) 97-0012 OLSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 20. 1997 PROPOSAL: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.32 acre parcel into 14 lots ranging between 5,656 square feet to 9,360 square feet; 2. Planned Development Review to allow lot sizes less than the minimum 7,500 square feet required by the zone; 3. Zone Change to record a Planned Development Overlay Zone on the Zoning Map; 4. Variance request to allow a 480 and 420-foot cul-de-sac, whereas, the maximum allowed by Code is 400 feet; 5. Variance request to allow a maximum street grade of 17.5%, whereas, the maximum allowed by Code is 15%; 6. Sensitive Lands Review to allow fill within drainage ways; and 7. Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two (2) parcels of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 1 • • approximately 89,527 and 25,573 square feet into two (2) parcels of approximately 89,342 and 25,758 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; 'R-4.5. LOCATION: The site is located west of SW 118th Avenue, east of SW 121st Avenue, on the south side of SW Gaarde Street, and east of the Arlington Ridge Subdivision. WCTM 2S110BA, Tax Lot 02100; 2S110BB, Tax Lots 00300 and 00400. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162 and 18.164; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1 and 3.2.4. President Wilson asked for declarations of conflicts of interest, bias, ex parte contacts, or site visits. Commissioner Holland declared that he met the developer once when he attended neighborhood meetings regarding a subdivision built behind his property by the developer's father but it would not affect his decision. Commissioner DeFrang declared a site visit. STAFF REPORT Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He mentioned that during the continuance the applicants revised their plan in order to provide private streets and to not fill in the drainage ditch. He recommended approval with conditions. Development Review Engineer Brian Rager, explained that the public streets originally proposed by the applicant did not meet the criteria that grading for public streets would not exceed 15% for more than 250 feet. However, forcing the grading to 15% significantly impacted the adjacent properties by creating an eight foot cut for the majority of the site with an eight foot retaining wall. Private streets allowed the applicant more flexibility in the vertical alignment. He noted that specific language • would appear on the final plat stating clearly that the streets were privately owned and maintained by the property owners in the subdivision. Mr. Rager said that the applicant also needed a variance to the fire code standard which allowed a maximum of a 15% grade for only 200 feet. The fire code allowed a variance, provided additional fire fighting measures were added to the development, in this case a sprinkler system in all houses. Mr. Rager said that the revised sanitary sewer plan adequately addressed staffs concerns with access to the sewer lines by re-routing the lines up 117th Place. The private streets would have a blanket public access and utility easement to allow access to the public sewer lines. He mentioned the sewer line located in a backyard to which the City would have access via the downstream manhole. Staff imposed a condition of approval requiring a 10 foot wide driveway to that manhole to allow access by trucks. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 2 • • • Mr. Rager reviewed the changes in the storm drainage plan. The applicant would leave the drainage ditch open but make improvements to insure that it could handle the increased flow: Because the streets were now private, the City has reclassed the storm drainage and water quality facilities as private also Specific language would be included on the final plat to indicate that these facilities were privately maintained. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Dave Deharrport, Four Construction, 14985 SW Ruby Street, Beaverton, 97007, - explained that he had requested the continuance in order to resolve several issues raised by the conditions of approval which impacted adjacent property owners. He reviewed the changes they made to address the concerns, as explained by Mr. Rager. He mentioned that maintaining the 17% cut made a more attractive street and saved several trees on the east side of the project. He pointed out that the project connected to Gaarde Street by a 40 foot wide stem lot. Mr. Deharrport reviewed several items in the current staff report for which he wanted clarification. He asked that they be allowed to build the entrance on SW 119th and SW Gaarde Road to meet the Washington County Commercial driveway approach rather than to the City's private roadway standard (Condition 6). He explained how Condition 6 and Condition 5 (a requirement to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right- of-way along SW Gaarde Road) worked to encroach on adjacent property. He explained how the Washington County approach would allow construction of the entrance without encroaching on adjacent property owners' land. Mr. Deharrport asked that they be allowed to build a sidewalk only on the west side of 119th, as opposed to meeting the city standard of sidewalks on both sides of the street (Condition 9). He referenced their cross-sections that showed only one sidewalk. He suggested modifying the condition to read "per cross-sections indicated on preliminary plans or per the applicant's proposed plans." Mr. Deharrport asked to add on to the end of Condition 18 the phrase "or that Tract B complies with the Uniform Fire Code", similar to Condition 12. Mr. Deharrport asked for clarification on Condition 22, to provide sanitary sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped property. He pointed out that Tax Lots 2200 and 2300 were under the same ownership, and that Tax Lot 2000 had sewer access from Gaarde Street. He asked to modify the condition to specify providing a lateral to Tax Lot 2300 only. Mr. Deharrport asked what the sentence in Condition 23b meant: "the access shall be physically separate from the private driveway to Lot 13." He expressed concern for the impact to Lot 13, noting that to get access to Lot 13, they had to cross the right-of-way. He proposed either deleting this sentence or adding a second PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 3 • • sentence to read "access to Lot 13 shall be allowed through the maintenance access road." President Wilson asked how Mr. Deharrport proposed preventing parking on that driveway. Mr. Deharrport said that they would differentiate between the driveway and the accessway through different types of paving material. Commissioner DeFrang asked about street widths. Mr. Deharrport referenced pages 2 and 5 of the construction drawings, noting that Tract B was 20 feet wide while the main access (Tract D) would be widened from 12 feet to 22 feet. Mr. Deharrport mentioned the concern of the property owners to the east of Lots 13 and 14 regarding surface runoff from this project onto their properties and possible underground springs. He explained the piping system they would use to handle the surface runoff and any underground springs. He noted the concerns of residents to the west (in Arlington Ridge) regarding lot sizes. The lots ranged in size from 5600 square feet to 9360 square feet. He proposed building homes in the $200,000 to $300,000 price range. He said that they went through the PUD process in order to make the most efficient use of this land that had steep grades. Commissioner Holland asked if there were any guarantees that the residents would not eventually ask the City to take over the private streets. Mr. Deharrport said that there were not any guarantees but there would be a homeowners association formed to maintain the streets and documentation on the plat stating that these were private streets. President Wilson asked for staff clarification on Mr. Deharrport's points. Mr. Rager said that it was not the staffs intent to require the developer to encroach on his neighbors' property with the driveway. He said that he did not have a problem with modifying the language in Condition 6 to allow more flexibility but he did not want to commit to meeting the County standards rather than the City standards. He explained that Condition 9, requiring sidewalks, etc., to city standards, was a standard condition placed on all subdivisions. He said that they could tweak the language to clarify that while the applicant was to provide the stated items for a private street, there were certain things that did not have to meet public standards. Mr. Rager said that Condition 12 and Condition 18 were not redundant, they did address separate issues. He said that the additional language suggested by Mr. Deharrport (that Tract B would comply with the Uniform Fire Code) was acceptable to staff. He disagreed with Mr. Deharrport's suggestion on Condition 22 (requiring a lateral only to Tax Lot 2300). He pointed out that even if Tax Lots 2200 and 2300 were owned by the same person, they could develop separately and needed sewer laterals. He concurred that Tax Lot 2000 had sewer access from Gaarde Road. Mr. Deharrport clarified that Tax Lot 2200 already had city sewer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 4 • • Mr. Rager said that staffs concern with Condition 23b (the manhole accessway) was cars parking on the driveway. They needed unencumbered access and felt that an accessway physically separated from the driveway would help insure that. He suggested splitting the accessway along the property line of Lots 12 and 13 to give sufficient room for driveways on both lots. Mr. Deharrport said that he preferred to inconvenience only one property owner with the necessary access easements. He reiterated using different pavement materials to distinguish between the two uses. In response to several questions from Commissioner Holland, Mr. Rager said that maintenance accessed the manhole once a year to clean it, using the heavy cleaning truck. Maintenance access roads had to meet higher standards than private driveways. It was unlikely that maintenance would have to access this sanitary sewer manhole in an emergency situation. Mr. Deharrport pointed out that maintenance problems rarely occurred in sewers on slopes. Mr. Rager said that if they compromised on this condition, he suggested allowing some compromise to the flag pole portion of Lot 13 but separating the driveways out as soon as the driveway crossed the right-of-way. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR There was none. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION > Bruce Tilley, 14210 SW 121st Avenue, stated the concerns of the Arlington Ridge neighbors regarding lot size (under 6000 square feet), the drainage way on the west • side of the property, and whether or not sensitive land issues were involved. > Bob Norin, 11900 SW Gaarde Street, submitted a letter(Exhibit A) detailing his concerns. He explained that he owned Lots 2200 and 2300. He confirmed that Lot 2200 was connected to sewer. He expressed concern about changing the public streets to private streets. He pointed out that Tract D already accessed two homes. He questioned whether Tract D was adequate to serve this development (even widened to 22 feet) given the potential for a total of 30 houses accessing Gaarde Street from this road at some point in the future. He asked why Tract C was 24 feet wide, serving 9 units, while Tract D was only 22 feet wide, serving 16 units. Mr. Norin expressed concern with the sight distances from Tract E turning on to Gaarde Street. He questioned Conditions 12 and 18, asking how a fire truck would turn around on the streets. He asked if the CC&Rs would apply to existing property owners (Conditions 13 and 14). The existing lots were Tax Lots 400, 500, 2200, and 2300. Mr. Rager confirmed that the CC&Rs would not apply to the existing lots because they were not part of the subdivision. The existing property owners would not have to contribute to the maintenance of the private streets. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 5 • • Mr. Norin asked to change the 15 feet frontage access granted to his Lot 2300 to the standard 25 feet (Condition 16). He asked if the existing lots would become another "island" when the subdivision annexed into the City (Condition 24). He questioned why street trees were planted only on 119th.and Drive C and not on Drives A & B (Condition 37a). He concurred with the intersection concerns raised regarding Condition 37b. He mentioned that the tree in Condition 37d sat on the property line between his property and Mr. Deharrport's. He asked whether or not it would be removed. Mr. Norin questioned installing a cul-de-sac in an area where the future development showed 30 lots when the cul-de-sac standard limited cul-de-sacs to providing access to no more than 20 units. He mentioned that the creek on the west side of the property flowed year round. He said that his main concerns were shortchanging the area by adding a small street with difficulties in accessing Gaarde Street. President Wilson pointed out that the 22 foot wide street would be expanded to 28 feet wide once Tax Lot 2000 developed. Mr. Norin reiterated his concern that this plan created a problem for future development by not building the access street to city standards initially. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Mr. Deharrport mentioned that the creek whose channel they would improve with a rock lining was located solely on their property, and did not extend on the west edge of Arlington Heights. He reviewed how this development helped the potential development of Mr. Norin's property through the provision of sewer and water. He concurred that the 22 foot road would be widened upon development of the other properties. He explained that they went with private streets because it was essentially recommended by staff. He confirmed that the CC&Rs would apply only to the subdivision. Mr. Deharrport referenced a study done by Washington County which found that with minor improvements, the sight distance on Gaarde would be adequate. He reiterated that they were complying with the Uniform Fire Code, and would provide either a hammerhead or a turn around or a deadend street that met the Code's criteria. Commissioner Neff commented that Oregon law on the maintenance of easements might allow Mr. Deharrport to require Mr. Norin or a homeowners association to contribute to the maintenance of the easement. Although they were not part of the CC&Rs, they did share the easement with the subdivision. He asked if Mr. Deharrport would waive his right to do so until such time as Mr. Norin developed his property. Mr. Deharrport said that they would make a statement on the plat to do so. Commissioner Neff said that he thought it would be fair to require a contribution by the owners once Mr. Norin developed his property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 6 • • Commissioner Griffith asked about the street trees not planted on Drives A & B. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the staff report was in error and that street trees were required on all the streets. President Wilson asked staff to address Mr. Norin's concern about access to Lot 2300. Would granting only 15 feet access potentially render the site undevelopable if Mr. Norin chose to sell off the site? Mr. Bewersdorff said that the access requirements only applied to a subdivision of the land. It could be developed as a nonconforming lot with a single family home. Mr. Deharrport pointed out that his subdivision gave access to Tax Lot 2300 which currently had no access at all. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith raised the issue of sight distance on Gaarde. Commissioner DeFrang said she visited the site to clarify that issue. She reported that she had no difficulty seeing in both directions. Mr. Rager referenced the Washington County report (page 34) which stated that there would be adequate sight distance with removal of the existing bank and vegetation. Staff put a condition on the project requiring certification that adequate sight distance has been met. The Commission discussed the issues on the conditions raised by the applicant Mr. Rager suggested modifying Condition 6 to read "or a modification to the standard as approved by the City Engineer." President Wilson added "which does not encroach on neighboring properties." The Commission agreed to modify Condition 9 by deleting the last sentence, and changing the language to "concrete sidewalk." They agreed to add "or comply with the Uniform Fire Code" to Condition 18. For Condition 22, the applicant would provide sanitary sewer laterals to Tax Lots 2300 and 400 (2S110BA and 2S110BB - Washington County) The Commission discussed the compromise on Condition 23b extensively. They agreed with Mr. Rager's suggestion to rewrite the sentence as "the access, beginning from the north portion of the flag pole of Lot 13, shall be physically separate from the driveway to Lot 13." Mr. Rager suggested adding wording to Conditions 16 and 17 to indicate that Tax Lots 2200 and 2300 would not be obligated to own or maintain any portion of the private street until such time as development of these tax lots occurred. Commissioner Neff suggested that the developer formally waive his right to enforce the obligation. The Commission discussed what wording should be used. They agreed to add to Condition 16 the sentence "The developer shall affirmatively waive his right to enforce the easement maintenance laws created by Oregon statute until such time as Tax Lots 2200 and 2300 develop", and an identical sentence to Condition 17 substituting Tax Lots 100, 400, 500 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 7 1 (Washington County 2S110CB) and Tax Lots 2000, 2200, and 2300 (Washington County 2S110BA) for Tax Lots 2200 and 2300. Commissioner Griffith raised the issue of the tree located directly on the property line. Mr. Rager said that whoever owned the majority of the tree was responsible for caregiving and removal. Jay Harris, Harris McMonagle Engineering, stated that the pine tree would suffer significant root damage during development. He suggested that an arborist review the plans but doubted that they could move anything sufficiently far away to minimize damage to the trees. President Wilson said that he was inclined not to put a condition on this. He commented that if it was damaged, then the develop might as well cut it down. If there was an issue of property rights, then the developer should leave the tree standing unless he worked something out with the neighboring property owner. Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to approve SUB 97-0005/PDR 97-0004NAR 97-0008/ZON 97-0003/MIS 97- 0010/SLR 97-0004NAR 97-0012 with the changes as discussed by the Commission. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous vote. President Wilson recessed the meeting for a break. President Wilson reconvened the meeting. The Commission took Item 5.3 out of order. 5.3 APPEAL OF TRI-COUNTY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 22. 1997 Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded to continue the appeal of the Tri-Count Director's interpretation to January 5, 1998. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a unanimous vote. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 8 • • STAFF REPORT Planning Supervisor Nadine Smith presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She reviewed the Design Evaluation Team .(DET) process that would allow for an alternative to complying with the design standards as written. She explained that the DET, composed of three design,professionals, would act as a peer group to review adjustments to the Tigard Triangle standards. This was a means of providing flexibility in the design standards while at the same time maintaining a high standard of design value. Ms. Smith directed the Commission to the illustration in the staff report (pages 2 and 3) showing the existing design review process in comparison with the DET process. In the DET process, the DET would be available for the pre-app conference. At that time the applicant would decide whether or not to go through the DET process in lieu of meeting the design standards. An applicant could meet with the neighborhood prior to the DET meeting if he so wished. • Ms. Smith explained that while the public could attend the meeting between the DET and the applicant, it was not a public hearing and no public testimony would be allowed. She said that following this meeting, the DET would write up their recommendation for inclusion in the staff report done for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could accept, modify or deny the recommendation. The Commission had the final decision making capability. Ms. Smith explained that the purpose statements for each of the design standards currently under development by staff still needed refinement. Staff proposed to refine the statements using the Planning Director's interpretation process. Commissioner Griffith raised the issue of the DET members. Ms. Smith said that while staff suggested an architect, a landscape architect and a civil engineer serve on the Team, they meant people with experience in those fields, rather than limiting Team members to registered professionals. She said that the Team members would be on a City Council approved contract. President Wilson expressed concern that the language was silent on how the DET worked within itself. He questioned how they would settle differences of opinion or how long they had to make their recommendation. Ms. Smith said that the DET evaluation was limited to evaluating the adjustment to a particular design standard, they were not reviewing the entire project. She stated that the Team would present a written report on how they felt (as professionals) that the adjustment met the intent of the original design standards. Staff felt that as design professionals, the Team members would understand the parameters within which they had to work and would work out an appropriate process. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 9 • • President Wilson commented that he thought that it was reasonable to expect a design professional to react more quickly than within 30 days. Ms. Smith pointed out the difficulties with coordinating the schedules of three design professionals to set up a meeting. She said that she doubted that there would:be sufficient use of this alternative process to justify asking the Team members to be available at a particular time every week. Planning Director Dick Bewersdorff concurred. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR > Michael Robinson, Stoel Rives, 900 SW Fifth #2300, Portland, representing Eagle Hardware, stated that in general his client supported the staff proposal but they did have some minor concerns. He expressed his appreciation for the staffs willingness to listen to their concerns. Mr. Robinson noted that while Section C-3(c) stated that the Team had 30 days to make their decision following their meeting with the applicant, there was no requirement on how quickly that meeting with the applicant had to occur. He asked that once staff judged the design adjustment application complete, the meeting be held within 14 days. Mr. Robinson expressed concern that the language in Section C-8 implied that the Planning Commission's review of an application would include the DET recommendation with the Code criteria as a focus for evaluation instead of focusing solely on the Code criteria. He suggested deleting the wording relating to the DET recommendation to clarify that it was not a criteria for approval. Mr. Robinson asked that there be a clearly defined opportunity for the Council to hear these applications, rather than making the Commission the final decision making authority. He said that he did not think an appeal to City Council would run afoul of the 120 day rule because so much of the work occurred prior to the start of the 120 day clock. He explained that he thought that the Council should be included in the process because, despite staffs best efforts to use clear and objective standards, the purpose statements would have ambiguous phrases that needed interpretation. He said that under Oregon law, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) granted deference to interpretations by City Councils but little to none to those coming from Planning Commissions. > Steven Hill, Miller Nash, 111 SW Fifth Ave., #3400, Portland, representing Waremart, Inc. and Tigard-Tualatin School District, provided copies of a letter detailing his clients' concerns with the DET process. He concurred with Mr. Robinson's comments that the staff worked hard to provide flexibility. He said that while they generally disagreed with some of these standards applying to the Commercial-General zone in the Triangle, they did appreciate staffs attempts to provide flexibility to modify the standards. He reviewed their concerns with the staff proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 10 • • Mr. Hill noted that the Cub Foods store in the Triangle was a nonconforming use. He said that Waremart was concerned that, in the event of rebuilding from a catastrophic loss, they would be subject to full conformance with the standards, something that they did not want to do. He pointed out the apparent exemption provided by staff in the last paragraph of the purpose statement but requested that this language be set off separately from the purpose statement and make reference to the Code sections containing the application provisions for non-conforming situations. Mr. Hill stated their position that the DET recommendation was a permit under state law and therefore subject to the 120 day rule. He compared it to a variance request. He said that his client's concern with this matter would be reduced if there were some specific timelines included in the process to move it along quickly. He supported the 14 day timeframe suggested by Mr. Robinson. Mr. Hill expressed concern that the language of the second approval criteria listed in Exhibit A was unclear. He asked what"significantly detract from livability or appearance" or"consistent with desired character" meant. He asked that either the Commission or the Council clarify the intent of that particular criteria. Mr. Hill stated that his clients did not believe that the purpose statements should be adopted through the Planning Director's interpretation process. He argued that the defined limits of the Director's authority did not extend to adopting purpose statements that would in fact be criteria by which the DET would review a proposal. He spoke to adopting these purpose statements through the City's legislative decision making process (Chapter 18.30). He held that the purpose statements were the basic underlying issues in the process, providing direction to applicants as. to what they needed to do to have some opportunity for success. He cited an example on page 4 (building setback standard), in which he questioned how anyone would know what determined whether or not someone met the statement. Commissioner Griffith noted (in regard to the non-conforming issue) that in one letter, the correspondent spoke to using language similar to the City of Portland. Mr. Hill said that staff did use language similar to Portland's. He stated that he was not commenting on the language or its presentation in the proposal, rather they wanted the language to be set in as a separate provision with reference back to the Code Chapter on non-conforming situations. > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Avenue, said that while he supported the DET process, he thought that it needed further refinement along the lines suggested by Mr. Hill. He agreed that they needed to include some criteria or standards to serve as a benchmark for the DET. He recounted a situation in another city in which the recommendation of their equivalent of a DET to allow modification to the standards was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council but then appealed to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 11 • LUBA on the grounds that the DET had no authority to allow modification to the standards. The City lost the appeal and they had to write a standard giving the DET the authority to deviate from the standard. He reiterated the need to have some criteria for the DET to justify deviating from the standard in order to hold up their decisions if they were appealed to LUBA. Mr. Martin referenced his letter in the record. He spoke to having certified architects, civil engineers, and landscape architects on the DET, not simply people with experience in these fields. He contended that registered professionals dealt with these problems on a daily basis in their businesses and had the expertise necessary to understand the problems and to explain them adequately to the planners PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION > Darlene Wozniak, 14200 SW Fern, stated that she had served on the Task Force. She expressed her disappointment that some of the understandings that the Task Force had regarding the original design standards did not come out in the final document. She spoke to working with the original design standards to clarify wording and include flexibility, rather than developing another process with other people's opinions on what the standards meant. She cited an example of the confusion in the meaning of the standards in her understanding that the 300 foot walkthrough in a building was a fire exit, not a permanent open access. She contended that they have seen enough of the potential problems now to do the fine- tuning the Council had expected when they adopted the standards that would allow flexibility while still maintaining quality standards. She mentioned that the Task Force had liked the design of Sequoia Parkway. President Wilson asked when the change between the Task Force's understanding and the language in the document took place. Ms. Wozniak said that she missed the last two meetings of the Task Force. She commented that in the future she would not depend on the design professionals to raise issues but would speak up regarding her concerns. She mentioned the impact that a $3000 fee for the DET would have on small businesses. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Wilson closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeFrang asked for staff comment on Ms. Wozniak's comments on working out the problems that have arisen within the original design standards rather than creating a new process. Ms. Smith said that staff has tried many times to develop a consistent interpretation on how to use the design standards. She explained that the intent of the DET process was to provide a flexible treatment of the standards. She pointed out the Council's stated desire not to open up the design standards again. The Council wanted flexibility in the standards, and to allow review by a design professional to interpret the standards so that an application would meet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 12 • • • the intent of what was proposed for the Triangle as a whole. Ms. Smith pointed out the timeframe within which the original design standards were developed was such that missing one meeting meant missing significant discussion.: She mentioned that other jurisdictions have now adopted similar design standards . Ms. Smith stated that she worked with the City Attorney in creating the DET proposal. She stated that Ms. Beery felt that the document was very defensible, and that purpose statements could be adopted through the Planning Director's interpretation process. She said that the adjustment recommendation was not a permit and not subject to the 120 day rule. Mr..Bewersdorff said that staff would not recommend this process at all if it fell under the 120 day rule. He stated that if the standards were written in detail, then no basis existed for the process. Commissioner Holland concurred with the concerns raised about timeliness in scheduling a meeting with the DET. Ms. Smith reiterated her concerns with scheduling three professionals together within 14 days. Mr. Bewersdorff pointed out that staff tried to get applications through as quickly as possible now. They needed flexibility to schedule the professionals. He requested leaving the timeframe open ended with the understanding that staff would work the process as quickly as they could. Commissioner Anderson noted Mr. Robinson's comments regarding Section C-8. Ms. Smith said that staff did not object to wording that clarified the intent that the Commission consider the DET evaluation. President Wilson asked about the purpose statements. Ms. Smith clarified that the purpose statements were not intended as criteria, they were intended as guiding language. She explained that the language, such as cited by Mr. Hill in the building setback standard, was typical design language understood by the design professionals but not necessarily understood by attorneys. She said that they have been working with Lloyd Lindley, an original author of the design standards, in writing these purpose statements. President Wilson said that as a design professional himself, he thought that they made decisions based more on intuition. He commented that to the extent that staff could clarify items to make them less arbitrary, writing these purpose statements was a valuable exercise. He did not support sending the statements to the Commission or Council for adoption. The Commission discussed whether the professionals serving on the DET should be registered or simply have experience in the fields. Commissioner Holland did not support restricting Team members to registered professionals. President Wilson pointed out that certification was intended to insure that the professionals were minimally competent in their fields. He supported using registered professionals. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 13 • • Commissioner Neff expressed concern regarding the 120 day rule. He asked if the City's position was that they did not have a complete application until the DET process was concluded. He asked for Mr. Hill's comments.-Mr. Hill reiterated his comparison with a variance, contending that under state law applicants had the right to have all decisions for an application made in one decision subject to the 120 day rule. He said that they interpreted the adjustment decision as a permit (per state statute definition). He argued that once the staff decided that an application was complete to go the DET, then the 120 day rule,applied. He said that he did not understand staffs reasoning on this process being outside the 120 day rule. He pointed out that the big issue was getting a timely process. The Commission discussed the issue, noting concerns with dragging the process on and with making a decision too quickly. They discussed the possibility of asking developers to waive the 120 day rule if they went through the DET process (similar to the Portland process). Ms. Smith explained that staff did not consider the application complete when submitted to the DET. The information received back from the DET itself became part of the application. The Commission discussed alternative language for Section C8. Commissioner Neff suggested changing it from the original language to "considering the DET recommendations and evaluating the development and the design plan to insure consistency with the Tigard Triangle design standards." The Commission agreed by consensus to the modified language. Commissioner Griffith returned to the discussion on how to have a timely process while allowing staff sufficient time to work with the professionals. President Wilson suggested setting a time limit of 30 days within which the meeting with the DET had to occur. The DET still had 30 days following that meeting to make their written recommendation. Ms. Smith noted that the time limits would be written into the contract. Commissioner Griffith noted that a 60 day delay when nothing happened cost developers a lot of money in the interest they paid. President Wilson said that he thought such a delay would be rare. _ The Commission noted the request to separate the nonconforming language. Mr. Bewersdorff said that he would prefer to put the language in where it was relevant only to the Triangle. The Code sections on non-conforming situations applied to the entire city. The Commission discussed whether or not the adjustment decision should be appealable to the Council. Ms. Smith confirmed that the issue was reviewed by the City Attorney. She said that she understood that in the present Code rewrite the City was trying to move towards having appeals end at the Planning Commission. She said that the Council has indicated that they thought that it would be better to have the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 14 • .. Commission in the design review role, as that was their area of expertise. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Neff said that he still had a concern about the 120 day rule. He concurred with Mr. Hill that the language as written implied that the application was complete upon submittal to the DET. Ms. Smith said that she would work with the City Attorney and Mr. Hill to change the language to make the DET process not part of the 120 day rule and to add the 30 days plus 30 days requirement for the DET to set up a meeting and make a recommendation. Ms. Smith said that she understood the intent of the Commissioners and would send them copies of the revised language before it went to City Council. Staff would incorporate any comments that the Commission had on the revised language in the report to Council. Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner DeFrang seconded to approve ZOA 97-0005 Design Evaluation Team Code Amendments with the changes as discussed and to direct staff to rewrite Section d-3 to reflect concerns with making sure that the DET met in a timely fashion and concerns.-- with the 120 day rule. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed , unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Jerree nor, Planni Commi/ssion Secretary t / dtfim 1-TES i ' i rent 1 ick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 17, 1997 - Page 15 (y: I•TTT:T.".r7r7Tr•r.r.".T.7.77.7.7".!r7.77.r!!!r..=.=.r.rrr.rr.7.77.r.=rrr.T.!=Allk77.r.ry City of Tigard TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION community DCVCloyment NOVEMBER 17, 1997 - 7:30 PM Shayine A Better Community TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL • 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL • 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS • 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 97-0005/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PDR) 97-0004NARIANCE (VAR) 97-0008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 97-0003/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 97- 0010/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIE (SLR) 97-0004NARIANCE (VAR) 97-0012 OLSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 20. 1997 PROPOSAL: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.32 acre parcel into 14 lots ranging between 5,656 square feet to 9,360 square feet; 2. Planned Development Review to allow lot sizes less than the minimum 7,500 square feet required by the zone; 3. Zone Change to record a Planned Development Overlay Zone on the Zoning Map; 4. Variance request to allow a 480 and 420-foot cul-de-sac, whereas, the maximum allowed by Code is 400 feet; 5. Variance request to allow a maximum street grade of 17.5%, whereas, the maximum allowed by Code is 15%; 6. Sensitive Lands Review to allow fill within drainageways; and 7. Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two (2) parcels of approximately 89,527 and 25,573 square feet into two (2) parcels of approximately 89,342 and 25,758 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. LOCATION: The site is located west of SW 118th Avenue, east of SW 121st Avenue, on the south side of SW Gaarde Street, and east of the Arlington Ridge Subdivision. WCTM 2S110BA, Tax Lot 02100; 2S110BB, Tax Lots 00300 and 00400. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162 and 18.164; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1 and 3.2.4. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: • • Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) 5.3 APPEAL OF TRI-COUNTY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 22. 1997 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7 ADJOURNMENT • • • Agenda Item: S. 2 Hearing Date:November 17, 1997 Time: ,7:30 PM ■. STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: Design Evaluation Team Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97-0005 PROPOSAL: . Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments according to the findings found in Section III of this report. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for development within the Triangle. After several meetings with Council and a workshop with design professionals from around the region, Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97-0003 Page 1 it was determined that CI Council wanted to retain the stand's and ood design i g g in the . Triangle, but wished to allow flexibility on how this was achieved. To_add flexibility to the , Y standards while assuring good design, staff was directed by City Council to create a new process that provides an optional adjustment procedure that includes a new Design Evaluation Team. The Design Evaluation Team (DET) is intended to provide an early peer review in the process when an applicant chooses to request an adjustment from the design standards for the Triangle. An applicant could meet with the DET the prior to making official application to the City for site development review to request an evaluation of any requested adjustment to the Triangle design standards. The DET would be a three person technical review committee made up of design professionals in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture and civil engineering. Their charge would be to evaluate a request for adjustment to the design standards to determine whether a request meets the purposes of the design standards and meets the specific criteria for granting an adjustment. The recommendations of the DET would be included with the application submitted for site development and incorporated into the staff report submitted for Planning Commission review on a particular project. The Planning Commission would consider the recommendations of the DET as part of review of the project, and either accept the • recommendations of the DET or modify them as they see fit. It should be noted that this procedure is the option of the applicant rather than meeting the design standards and it would be the responsibility of the applicant to pay all fees associated with the DET review. A comparison of the existing process and proposed DET process is shown in Figure 1. The DET process shows the applicant submitting for DET review prior to holding a neighborhood meeting. It should be noted that at the applicants discretion, the neighborhood meeting could be held prior to meeting with the DET. This would allow applicant's to receive neighborhood comment prior to approaching the DET. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LCDC Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and all other impacted agencies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97-0003 Page 2 • Figure 1 • COMPARISON :. Existing Development Review Process in Triangle with Proposed Design Evaluation Option PURPOSE: The purpose of the Development Review Process is to ensure that Development Code Standards and public facility requirements are addressed by each development plan. This is the same for any application within the City. A Design Evaluation process is being proposed as an option to strictly meeting the Design Review Standards of the Tigard Triangle for Triangle properties only. Design Evaluation Alternative Existing Process: Pre-Application Pre-application Conference 1 Applicant decides to submit Neighborhood Meeting application to Design Evaluation l Team (DET) in lieu of meeting Development Application Triangle Design Standards Submitted .j► Applicant submits design to DET Development Application l Reviewed including Triangle DET. makes recommendation in Design Standards writing Notice of Decision made by Applicant holds Neighborhood Director or by Planning Meeting Commission if Planned 4 Development Development Application submitted with DET report Project reviewed by Planning Commission at Public Hearing i ♦ Planning Commission makes decision • • 1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals - and the regional- development plan. -. -The findings above address - -- statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments and had earlier commented in a letter (attached) that they recommended the use of skinny streets to meet connectivity standards and could accept the use of private streets -to meet those standards under certain circumstances. 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. 2.1.2 - This policy requires the opportunity for citizen involvement on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. 2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since November 5, 1997. 8.1.2 - This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. Metro has sent a letter of support (see attached) No other agencies have commented in writing on the specific proposals as of this writing. Community Development Code: Chapter 18.30 -This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code. Tigard Triangle Design Standards The provisions of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards have not yet been codified into the Development Code. The first two paragraphs of the introductory comments to the provisions express the intent of the design standards. They are as follows: "Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. • All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer,water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvements projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle." Staff Report City of Tigard2OA 97-0003 Page 3 • The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility under specific circumstances will continue--to meet-the goals and intent for the development of-the -Triangle;- in -that it provides flexibility while still requiring excellent design treatment within the Triangle. The public process would remain much the same as exists today in that the applicant is still required to hold a neighborhood meeting and the City will still hold a public hearing on the proposal. The specific code language to be added after the existing Design Standards are indicated in attached Exhibit A. • V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Planning, and Public Works have reviewed this proposal and offer no comments specific to the proposal. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, staff has received comment from METRO which is attached. 11/6/97 PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Supervisor Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97-0003 Page 4 • it 18.620.090 Design Evaluation A. Purpose. It is recognized that the above design standards are to assist in upgrading and providing consistency to development within the Tigard Triangle. It is recognized that different designs may be used to meet the intent of the standards and purpose statements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. With this in mind, applicants for development in the Tigard Triangle may choose to submit proposed projects which demonstrate compliance with the design standards or to request adjustments from the Triangle design standards and submit design plans for review and recommendation by a City Design Evaluation Team. This option allows applicants to propose alternative designs to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards that are consistent with the purpose of the standards. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the structure may be rebuilt using the same structure footprint without receiving an adjustment from design standards. B. Design Evaluation Team (DET). Evaluation of the adjustment to allow an alternative design is made by a three person professional design team contracted by the City for professional design review. The DET shall consist of design professionals with experience in architecture, landscape architecture and a civil engineering. This team is charged with balancing the purpose statements, goals and standards of the Tigard Triangle Design process with the alternative proposal submitted by the applicants. The DET shall accept design proposals that vary from any of the Triangle Design Standards. This process is to be applied only to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Applicants must comply with all other development code standards according to the regular development review requirements of Title 18 of the City code. The DET will prepare a report outlining conditions and recommendations in response to the applicant's proposal(s) for submission to the Planning Commission within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. C. Approval Criteria For guidance in evaluating the purpose of the design standards, the DET shall refer to Planning Director's Interpretation that provides purpose statements for the Tigard Triangle design standards. All adjustments to allow an alternative design are subject to the following criteria: 1. Granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner, and 2. The proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and • • 3. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and 4. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; and any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. C. Review Process. The following steps must be followed by applicants to gain Design Evaluation Review: 1. Applicants choosing the Design Evaluation process must submit a Design Evaluation and Adjustment Application according to a list of requirements provided by the Director; 2. Members of the Design Evaluation Team are available to meet with applicants as part of the preapplication process, however, applicants shall pay for the entire cost of the review of the Design Evaluation Team. A deposit of$1,000 shall be paid upon application. The applicant will be billed for any additional cost. The DET report shall not be issued until all costs are paid. No development application using the alternative design will be accepted until all costs are paid in full; 3. Upon acceptance of a complete design evaluation adjustment application and deposit, the applicant will receive a review date for a DET work session. No public notification is required although the review session is open to the public. The review is designed to allow the applicant to present and explain design intent and adjustment proposals to the Design Evaluation Team. This is not intended to be a public hearing and no public testimony will be taken. 4. Upon completion of the DET review and payment of all costs, the DET will forward a report and recommendations to the Director and the applicant within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. At the request of the applicant, this time period may be extended. 5. The applicant may proceed to schedule and hold a pre-application neighborhood meeting with the adjacent property owners at any time during this process according to the provision provided by the Director at the Development Review pre-application conference required by Chapter 18.32.040. It is recommended that the development design to be reviewed at the pre-application neighborhood meeting include the recommendations of the DET; 6. Upon completion of the neighborhood meeting requirements and receipt of the DET report, applicants may proceed to file the appropriate development application according to the provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Said application shall include the recommendations of the DET. • 7. Review of a DET recommended plan and/or conditions shall be made part of the staff report prepared by the Planning Director and shall be made available at a public hearing before the Planning Commission according to the provisions of 18.32; 8. The Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application considering the evaluation of the development and design plan's consistency with the DET recommendations and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Approval of the Planning Commission must also be based on compliance of the development plan with all other development code requirements governing the application. I:LLRPLMNADINEITRU NGLEEDESEVALCDE • 0 6 0 0 N O R N E A S T T G R A N D A V E N U E P O R T L A N D, O R E G O N 9 7!3 2 2 7 3 5 T E L 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 I P A X 5 503 7 9 7 1 7 9 7 VIII ). t . %, • � - it METRO October 30, 1997 Ms. Nadine Smith Planning Division City of Tigard 13121 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Smith: Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 97-0005 Design Evaluation Team Code Amendments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Having been included in the City's committee drafting the Tigard Triangle Plan and the Design Standards, we certainly appreciate the hard work the City has done and the complexity of the trade-offs that were made in this planning process. The proposed Design Evaluation Team is a good planning tool for the City to meet its design goals and standards for the Triangle while providing an adjustment process for those instances where the Code did not anticipate obstacles. The Design Evaluation Team could function as a pro-active tool for the City to resolve conflicts arising from the design standards. If the City finds this a successful tool, it could be used in other mixed use areas of the City, specifically, the town center and the regional center. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Weber at 797-1735. Sincerely, 77:C---/ /.......".........2. --,---- John Fregonese Growth Management Services Director JF/MW/srb 1:\GM\MW\TIGARD-2.DOC cc: Mary Weber www.metro-region.orq • Recycled paper • • IN1j[ L •t .I \ I. 1..` C T Miller,Nash,Wiener, J - •-Hager&Carlsen LLv MILLER.NASH.'MENER.HAGER A CARLSEN UP A T T O R N e T S AT LAW 3500 U.S.Bancorp Tower 1 1 1 S.W.Fifth Avenue Portland.OR 97204-3699 Steven F. Hill (503)224-5858 Admitted in Oregon and Washington (503)221-0155 Lax hills @millnash.com 1503) 205-2456 direct Tine 4400 Two Union Square 60t Union Street Seattle.WA 98101.2352 October 13, 1997 12CG1 G22 8484 I2CG16:72-:4A5 t aA Ms. Nadine Smith Planning Supervisor City of Tigard 9025 S.W. Center Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Design Evaluation Team Code Provision Draft for Tigard Triangle Dear Ms. Smith: We represent Waremart, Inc., which owns and operates the CUB Foods store located on Dartmouth Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. We testified at the September 16, 1997, City Council meeting regarding the proposal to adopt a design evaluation process for development within the Tigard Triangle that cannot meet strict compliance with the new Tigard Triangle street and design standards. At that meeting, we encouraged the Mayor and City Council to recognize the unique impact that the new street and design standards have on the existing commercial development within the Triangle, including the CUB Foods facility. We noted that upon adoption of the new standards, the existing commercial developments within the Triangle became nonconforming developments under Tigard's code. We addressed the need for special recognition of these-unique interests in any future process adopted by the Council. It was my understanding, based upon these discussions, that the Mayor and City Council expected the staff to include in the design evaluation process provisions responding to the nonconforming development issue created when the new standards were adopted earlier this year. Unfortunately, the proposal dated October 3, 1997, not only does not reflect the unique issues relating to the existing commercial development within the Triangle, but fails to put forth any provisions to accommodate such nonconforming development in the event of partial or total damage to the structure by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner. In order to respond to the concerns of Waremart and the other existing commercial developments within the Triangle, we had proposed in our letter dated August 26, 1997, adopting special rules for nonconforming structures which are substantially • • LLER I NAS 1 Mry,LER,NASM.NaENER.MAGER 8 CARLSEN LLP 1 ATTORNEYS A T LAW Ms. Nadine Smith - 2 - October 13, 1997 destroyed by casualty. We pointed out that there was precedent in the Metro area for a provision that allows the pre-existing development to redevelop, utilizing the same site plan (regarding building footprint and profile) that was used at the time of the initial development. The City of Portland, in its nonconforming situations section of its code (chapter 33.285), adopted the following language: "E. Loss of nonconforming development status. * * * "2. Destruction. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is removed or intentionally destroyed, replacement structures and other nonconforming development must comply with the development standards of the base zone. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the structure may be rebuilt using the same structure footprint. An adjustment is required to allow the replacement structure to be more out of compliance with the development standards than the previous structure." We recommend adoption of a similar standard in Tigard's Municipal Code, at least with regard to the commercial development that is subject to the new Tigard Triangle design standards. Waremart has other concerns regarding the process and the proposed purpose statements identified in your memorandum dated October 3, 1997. We are unable, however, to detail our concerns and provide suggestions for modification of the process and purpose statements by October 15, 1997. Therefore, we intend to submit additional written materials a week or so prior to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 17, 1997, so that Staff, the Commission, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to review our comments prior to the hearing. Very truly yours, ei\ F tii4k Steven F. Hill 1t/k cc: Mr. Paul Simmons • OCT 29 '9T 14:42 FRQM:STOEL RIS 50322024 T-179 P.01/03 F-691 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW MT3i AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone (S03)224-3380 Fax (S0.3)220-2480 Name: Fax No. Company/Firm: Office No. TO: Nadine Smith (503) 684-7297 City of Tigard Community (503) 639-4171 Development Pete Galllna (206) 204-5158 Eagle Hardware & Garden (206) 227-5746 Mark Weisman (206) 322-1799 Weisman Design Group (206) 322-1732 iFLt136 John Hallstrom (206) 455-9351 Sconzo/Aalstrom Architects (206) 455-3203 0 (206) 455-9351 Sconzo/Hallstrom (206) 455-3203 Tom Scoaz ( 06) ( �3 Architects Steve Hill 224.0155 Miller Nash Wiener 224-5858 (' "r Rece Bly 224-0155 Miller Nash 224-5858 Pam Beery • 243-2944 O'Donnell Ramis, et al. 222-4402 Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 294-9194 Client: 21097 Matter: 6 1 DATE: October 29, 1997 No. of Pages (including this cover): 3 Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: `l First Class Mail 71 Overnight Delivery 7 Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us Immediately by telephone, and ranrrn this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please see attached. OCT 29 '97 14:42 FROM:STOEL R41110 5a3Z2Q24 T-179 P.OZ/03 F-691 STOEL. RIVES «P A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-t264 Phone 003)22443w Fax tstut_a-sieo TDD 15031221-100 Internet w.-w.tc*I.eote October 29, 1997 MICHAEL.C.Rte IRISON Direa Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsoaetneel-com • VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Nadine Smith City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Design Evaluation Team Code Provision Draft Dear Nadine: Shown below are additional comments on the draft Design Evaluation Team Code amendment that you faxed to me on October 20. I have two remaining issues, both related to provisions in Section (C), "Review Process". Also, please provide me with any written comments or notes of phone conversations that you have from others, including but not limited to, Lloyd Lindley, Metro, DLCD and ODOT. 1. Subsection (C)(3). This subsection provides: "Upon acceptance of a complete application and deposit, the applicant will receive a review date for DET work session." Who will determine what constitutes a complete application at the pre-application stage? Further, how will it be possible to prepare a complete application at the pre-application stage, which is prior to formal submittal to the City, and which may result in changes to the application? My client is concerned that this requirement will have several bad results. First, it will mean that the application may be revised two or three times, adding significant costs to the PDXI A-91341.1 21497. OCT Z9 '97 14:43 FROM:STOEL ES 5032205 T-179 P.03/03 F-691 STOEL RIVES «Y Ms. Nadine Smith October 29, 1997 Page 2 application process. Secondly, a wrangle over completeness will add extra time to this process. Finally, this process ought to focus on good decision, not the technicalities of completeness. I think that a better alternative would be the following language: "Upon acceptance of a draft application and deposit, the applicant will receive a review date for DET work session. The work session shall be scheduled within 14 days of the application and • deposit." Another acceptable alternative regarding completeness would be to require a complete application concerning the design evaluation elements only, but not a complete application for all approval criteria at this stage. 2. Section (CUM. This section provides that the Planning Commission must evaluate the development's and design plan's consistency with the DET recommendations and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. As we pointed out to you in our last meeting, the DET recommendations are a staff report. There is no requirement in either the Tigard Community Development Code or state law requiring an application to be consistent with a staff recommendation. ORS 227.173(1) provides that a decision on a permit is based on standards and criteria in the Code. A staff report is only the staffs view of the criteria, not a criterion itself. An acceptable revision is to delete the words "with the DET recommendations and ***" from this subsection. I would like to receive a copy of the staff report which is due on November 10 for the Planning Commission hearing on November 17. Also, please let me know how your meetings with Metro, ODOT and DLCD have gone. Very truly yours, N1LL. i c Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh cc: Mr. Pete Gallina (via facsimile) Mr. Mark Weisman (via facsimile) Mr. John Hallstrom (via facsimile) Mr. Tom Sconzo (via facsimile) Mr. Steve Hill (via facsimile) Mr. Rece Bly (via facsimile) Ms. Pamela J. Beery (via facsimile) PDXI A-98541.1 210974006 From : AIR Incorporated • PHONE No. : 503 620 1842 • Oct. 15 1997 4:36PM P01 AT3R Incorporated 17265 C.W.72nd Avenue Tigard,Oregon 97221 Phone:(501)620-2477 • Fox/Menge:(503)620-1842 • TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: 14 (6./CD • _ TIME:J L. Art / Tt9 TO: 1 V C 4 o, Use .S IAA_r C-' 7 '.11119 t'+r.Y CITY/STATE (`( TELEPHONE t/ (_____....) 03'1/-7,,2 ?? CONFIRM: 6 Z O g--• (? PAGES: (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) SUBJECT: E i Y4 S-740, t c!✓ fM P.A S- SPEC I AL INSTRUCTIONS: FROM: GORDON S. MARTIN From : ABR Incorporated • PHONE No. : 503 620 1842 • Oct. 15 1997 4:36PM P02 ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 - Phone: ($03)620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 September 23, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard • Tigard, OR. 97223 RE: Development Evaluation Team for the Tigard Triangle Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council: • After considering the Staff's proposal for a Development Evaluation Team (DET) to review developments in the Triangle that do not meet the Triangle Design Standards as specifically interpreted by the staff, I have the following concerns: 1. If the DET is to be made up of city staff and consultants there is no reason to believe that the design standards will be interpreted any differently than they have been in the last six months. The staff is trained to interpret the standards and codes exactly as written. The fact that Eagle Hardware and Tri-County Center cannot meet, under any circumstances, certain critical design standards under staff's interpretation itt evidence that flexibility and original intent arc not being considered. Furthermore, when future generations of city staff members and consultants are reviewing projects as part of the DET process, they will not have the benefit of current discussions, or the knowledge and understanding of the problems we are • currently facing with the design standards. Under these circumstances, the design standards will become increasingly impossible to meet. 2. It'there is to be a DET to evaluate projects, then flexibility criteria must be established which grants the DET the authority to interpret the standards with flexibility and to consider intent. Adoption of the following five points of flexibility and clarification will allow proposed and future developments to come closer to meeting the design standards. A. Topography and Environmental Flexibility. These universal flexibility criteria were priginaily.represented...and intended to be applied to all the design standards. Topography and environmental flexibility was to allow exemptions from the design standards where topography, harriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers, prevent the projects from meeting the standards. From : ABR Incorporated • PHONE No. : 503 620 1842 • Oct. 15 1997 4:37PM P03 Mayor and City Council September 23. 1997 • page 2 B. Building setback. The 0-10 foot building setback is for Major and Minor Arterials only. C. Street circulation. Under the Performance Option the "point of local origin" for.vehicles is at the street, and at the entrance door for pedestrians. The straight line distance is treasured from the point of local origin to the collector or greater facility by a straight line ignoring strueaurcc. D. Building facade. The 300 foot building facade limitation between or through the buildings is for emergency exit only as originally represented_ E. Existing Development Conformance. All new development is subject to the design standards and DET review, however, existing improvements on approved developments arc not subject to the design standards. New development is defined as buildings or improvements placed on undeveloped ground, or radical redesign of existing developments. 3. Considering the property owners to be the only constant throughout the years of planning for development in the Triangle, it is only logical to have the DET made up • entirely of property owners who were task force members. All task force members have a vested interest in the Triangle and have the most to gain if the intent of the design standards are implemented. Furthermore, the task force members are the most knowledgeable concerning implementation and Intent of the standards. Most importantly, the task force members have demonstrated continuing long term interest in seeing to it that the design standards are properly and equitably implemented. • Sincerely, Gordon S. Martin • 10/13/1997 10: 30 5036849 89 CASHS RLT'V • PAGE 01 .‘ FAX NO: 684-918' & ai . : : - �,:• ;r, �; �;�• Phone: 639-4137 12525 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET PLEASE D IVER THE FOLLOWING TO: NAME: L a ' LOCATION: Fick V FROM: �Iy RE: DATE: /a ./ 3 —. 9, TIME //. ).. r NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet) : If you do not receive all of the herein described material , please telephone immediately to: Business Phone: (503) 639-4137 11/41/13/1997 10: 301 503684 '9 CASHS RLTY • PAGE 8? •eadt 1.1 Rity. Phone: 639-4137 12b26 S.W. Main Street REAL ESTATE & BUILDING SERVICE Tigard, Oregon 97223 October 13, 1997 Nadine Smith Long Range Planning City of Tigard Fax: 684-7297 I am a Task Force member representing Don Pollock because • of his absence from the area. I feel the Task Force should be DET (Development Evaluation Team) due to the following reasons : ( 1) The time & energy put into the project. (2) Most have vested interest in the area and want to see a plan that works. (3) Seems that the group is most knowledgable. Thank you, f Geral C. (Jerry) Cach CASH'S RLTY INC. cc : Don Pollock NOV 10 '97 14:48 FROM:STOEL RI• 50322024811111 T-072 P.01/04 F-227 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone 003)224-3380 Fax (503)220-2480 Name: Fax No. Company/Firm: Office No. TO: Nick Wilson, Chair 684-7297 Tigard Planning 639-4171 Commission Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 294-9194 Client: 21097 ` Matter: 6 DATE: November 10, 1997 No. Of Pages (including this cover):t'J Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: In First Class Mail L l Overnight Delivery I-7 Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: See attached. NOV 10 '97 14:48 FROM:STOEL RI 50322024/ T-072 P.02/04 F-227 STOEL RIVES up * A T T O R N E Y S STANDAno INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW Ft Fill AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(5031224-3380 Pax(5031220.2480 TDD(503)221-1045 lntcmet:www.stoel.com November 10, 1997 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson@stocl.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair City of Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 Re: ZOA 97-0005, Design Evaluation Amendments Dear Mr. Wilson: This law firm represents Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc. As you know. Eagle is very interested in building a store on the Phil Lewis school site. We have worked with staff on the proposed Design Evaluation Team language. Eagle supports the Design Evaluation Team concept. However, Eagle has three issues that have not been resolved with staff: • The Design Evaluation Team meeting should occur quickly. • The Planning Commission is not required to defer to the staff report. • Appeal to the City Council is needed. 1. A Speedy Process Should be Assured. Proposed Section C(3) provides that upon acceptance of a complete design evaluation adjustment application and deposit, the City will provide the applicant with a review date for a Design Evaluation Team work session. Eagle suggested that the City require that that meeting be within 14 days of submittal of a complete application. The Design Evaluation Team process is entirely outside of the 120-day period in ORS 227.178(1). Thus, delays in completing this process are not counted against the 120 days in which the City of Tigard has to make a final decision. The-process would be NOV 10 '9T 14:48 FROM:STOEL R1V S 5032202480 T-0T2 P.03/04 F-22T • STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair November 10, 1997 Page 2 improved if both the City and the applicant understand:that the Design Evaluation Team meeting must occur within a short time frame. Without this assurance, this process can be a long process, even before the applicant is able to submit a formal application to the City. Also, the applicant is paying entirely for the Design Evaluation Team process. If the applicant is expected to pay all of the City's costs, the process should move quickly and should be responsive to the applicant's schedule. 2. e Ala _ in' Commission is . . ; - • 'K-1 • refer o the S .ff Re.ort. Proposed Section C(8) requires that the Planning Commission consider the application's consistency with the Design Evaluation Team recommendations. As I pointed out to Ms. Nadine Smith in my October 29, 1997 letter, the only approval criteria for a permit or limited land use application are those found in the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"). The Design Evaluation Team recommendation, while important, is simply another staff report. The Planning Commission's action cannot be required to be consistent with a staff recommendation. If that were the case, then the Design Evaluation Team (which is merely staff) is actually in a position of dictating to the Planning Commission how the application should be treated. Further, nowhere else in the TCDC is there a requirement that an application be consistent with a staff report. 3. Appeal to the City Council is Needed. Finally, proposed Section C(8) makes the Planning Commission the final decision maker at the City of Tigard. Because the adjustment•process is likely to involve the interpretation of ambiguous phrases, the City Council should make the final decision. Only the City Council's interpretation of the adjustment language is entitled to deference under ORS 197.829(1). Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or 308, P2d (1994). NOV 10 '97 14:49 FROM:STOEL RIVES • 5032202480 T-072 P.04/04 F-22T • • is STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair November 10, 1997 Page 3 • Eagle supports the Planning Commission's adoption of the design evaluation amendments with the changes above. Very truly yours, L.. Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. Pete Gallina (via facsimile) Mr. Tom Sconzo (via facsimile) Mr. John Hallstrom (via facsimile) Mr. Mark Weisman (via facsimile) Mr. Rece Bly (via facsimile) Mr. Steve Hill (via facsimile) Mr. Scott Madsen (via facsimile) NOV 10 '97 14:37 FROM:STOEL RI 503220244D T-072 P.01 F-228 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone(503)224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 Name: Fax No. Company/Firm: Office No. TO: Nick Wilson, Chair 684-7297 Tigard Planning 639-4171 Commission Tom Sconzo 425/455-9351 Sconzo/Hallstrom 425/455-3203 Architects John Hallstrom 425/455-9351 Sconzo/Hallstrom 425/455-3203 Architects Mark Weisman 206/322-1799 Weisman Design Group 206/3224732 Mr. Scott Madsen 279-1790 Cushman & Wakefield 279-1722 Mr. Rece Bly 224-0155 Miller Nash 224-5858 r3O! Mr. Steve Hill 224-0155 Miller Nash 224-5858 Pete Gallina 206/204-5158 Eagle Hardware & 206/227-5746 Garden Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 294-9194 Client: 21097 Matter: 6 DATE: November 10, 199'7 No. Of Pages (including this cover .L1 Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: L 1 First Class Mail 1..1 Overnight Delivery Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. !f the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Scc attached. NOV 10 '97 14:37 FROM:STOEL RI 503220241 T-072 P.02 F-228 STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARP INSURANCE CENTF.R ' 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.126A Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(S031220-2480 TDD(503)2214(J45 Internet wwwetoel.com November 10, 1997 MICHAEL C. ROBINSot Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Pete Gallina Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc. 981 Powell Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 Re: Tigard Store No. 425 Dear Pete: Please find enclosed a staff report for the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for November 17, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in Tigard. The staff report includes the final proposed version of the design evaluation process. Section C(3) reflects our amendment requiring acceptance of a complete design evaluation adjustment application only and not an entire complete application. Section C(8) still contains two troubling aspects. First, the language still appears to make the Design Evaluation Team recommendations a criterion for approval. Secondly, the process ends with the Planning Commission, meaning that interpretations will not receive the same deference under Oregon law that an interpretation by the City Council would. PDX IA-100783.1 21097-0006 .. _-...._ u,. n.,ar Wn.n:vi.TON.D.C. NOV 10 '97 14:37 FROMI:STOEL RIV 5032202480 7-072 P.03 F-228 III 410 STOEL RIVES LLB Mr. Pete Gallina November 10, 1997 Page 2 Also find enclosed a letter that I have sent to the Planning Commission regarding these issues. If you have any questions after reviewing the staff report, please call me. Very truly yours, Mua.da e - 0,1 ''',.,4.--- Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. Mark Weisman (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. John Hallstrom (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Torn Sconzo (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Hill (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Rece Bly (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-100783.1 21097-0006 • COMMUNITY NEWSPAP S, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(5037104-0360 Notice TT 8 9 7 9 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd, *Tigard,Oregon 97223 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTzgard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti acrd in the aforesaid county and state; that the • Hearing-Design Amend.Tigard Triangle a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: November 27 , 1997 '°j1&6a'P' "--- Subscribed and sworn before me this 2 7th day of November, 19 9 7 �OC.XI - (mot. 6,c ry> �!° OFFICIAL SEAL '�` '' � ROBIN A. BURGESS No Public for Oregon ^NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON `I..-..or COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT _t.,.. .sn=..,r_..r •�%;~s•rr , a�W9-.,'..,�T �a=•cs:�f'-%i�- 3ci=42i-^'Cti.4."v"i TThe followin"gwill be co idered by'the Tigard CityCouncil'on Thes 414,December 9,1997.at 7:30 P.M.,at:the Tigard Civic Center-;Town_ ':;HalI;Room, 13125,SW Hall:Blvd,Tigard,Oregon:Both oral and:,j wntten.testimonyis invited KThe,public hearing'on hiis`'matter willybe con;, ::ducted-in"accordance Aiffthe of PChapter-18 32:iht,Tiga`rd.; :`Municipal Code"and trules and-procedures of the City;:C o ii-ei:;Failureto. 'raise an issue in person or by-letter at'some point prior.,to�the�close�of'the;. hearing-on'the request or failure to-provi le statements or evidence;suffi-, cientto affordthe-decisionmaker an opportunity to espondto ti issue. ;prior-to the close of the.hearirig on`the.request,precludes;an_appeal to the j Land_Use;Board of Appeals based on that issues Fnrtherinformatioon may -_be obtained=fromr the Planning Division:at:13125iSW Halt<Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223,;or by;calling:639=4171-. : `$t{ ' '`. v;;PUBLIC HEARINGS - : ��r' "x�= =�t6; - r:; 'r- ` ' '"`«....::,ZONE.ORDINANCETAMEND ` ZOA)-97-00071.01.,-'0.--;-'. s" -DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM-COD AwNI 11�If r- -REQUESTs':Request,o aad code language"to the tediu~TriangleYdesign-. ,standards thatprovides;a.process�for:review of adjustments{bya_Design,: 'Evaluation.Teani:LOCATION Generally'south of�Highwayi99W:west Hof I-5," ort ''' ''' APPLICABLE REVIEW" z and north,of li ghway•2I 7E r "CRITE Ai a �`.`n rgI Tigard' m he ts„ive;,Plan` RI �Staiewiile:Plamm�gcGoals�;;.2"',, ` ,.=C�„ Pre_.. s� j Policies�;1 1:2a,2I- 2:, 2,211:3,81 2 Community Dc blo•me' Code �, .fi -....�- � es�sx �` t'Ctiapters?18.30and adopted design ndaids: or,th G g__ _r tang`i-• <-+ — ,sxs •s. sae*; st?,' [tzar 4' 'ZONE Corimmerciax' ueral°Co and imgkif Use L ip y ' r sI''E TT8979-Publish,Noember27,_ 1997»;: }. '-, N ` -_:-A .-,,,, .aa— .. _?IR.,-. r..:...k--.-:iv aw::Y--•-":=Z;,;_._ ?3:1! - 3:.sk t,. _ ..rBE"" 3.- • 0 1 A f..i_'i'IJ I CfTYO OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon, and X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the day of n/a , 1997; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 27th day of October and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of n/a , 1997, postage prepaid. '/ ✓, / Pr=oared Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the o0,da of al i9v. . Y OFFICIAL SEAL # . 111166411 1 /,� '' DIANE M JELDERKS �` NOTARY PUB OF ORE O "",; ' NOTARY PUBLIGOREGON �, � COMMISSION NOOa614z MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commissio xpires: 9 7 •PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBIT' / NOTICE //H ,9Ni 1 ?\ �„ ��I� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, November 17, 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, December 9, 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF), NO LESS THAN ONE (1) WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO, OR AT, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE HEARING BODY WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARING BODY MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER October 27. 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING [ORS 197.763(6)]. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL* THE REQUEST BY THE HEARIODY WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THES RITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEA �S IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Nadine Smith. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • • • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Per Attached List DATE: October 22. 1997 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Nadine Smith Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0005 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM CODE AMENDMENTS • REQUEST: Request to add code language to the Tigard Triangle design standards that provides a process for review of adjustments by a Design Evaluation Team. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.2, Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: Commercial General (CG) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Attached is the draft narrative 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: November 3, 1997. 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: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: a QUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTI ■ ION LIST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICA S Lr1W) (s ( ' CI IZE,N INVOLVEMENT TEAMS ca Placed for review in Library CIT Book CITY DEPARTMENTS _BLDG.DEPT./David Scott.8.,.o.,,office _POLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings.C,Yn.Ravenna%orfl[. _OPERATIONS/John Roy,Rwp.Wh...g. _CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,DRYRxaw. _ENG.DEPT./Brian Roger.Development Renew Emblem _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S _ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, ek,nn.w M«wo. WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,op..6 .Mp./oo.olldb 6b.Rp. SPECIAL DISTRICTS _FIRE MARSHALL _UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY _TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST. Gene Birchell SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745 Wa.County Fire District 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 97075 (pick-up box) Hillsboro,OR 97124 • AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE&TRANSP. ETRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION _METRO-GREENSPACES 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) Hillsboro,OR 97124 Portland.OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland,OR 97232-2736 _Brent Curtis(CPA's) V STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION + / _Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi V_METRO _Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Mary Weber _Scott King(CPA's) Portland.OR 97225-0412 600 NE Grand Avenue _Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) Portland.OR 97232-2736 _Lynn Bailey(Current Planning App's) OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) 1 175 Court Street,N.E. Y ODOT/REGION 1 CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem,OR 97310-0590 Transportation Planning Larry Conrad.Senior Planner 123 N.W.Flanders PO Box 4755 _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97209-4037 1 120 SW 5th _CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland.OR 97204 _ODOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A Mike Matteucci,Neighborhood Coordinator Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. PO Box 4755 _CITY OF DURHAM 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412 Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director Portland,OR 97225 Beaverton,OR 97076 City Manager PO Box 23483 _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard.OR 97281-3483 City Manager PO Box 369 PO Box 369 Tualatin.OR 97062 _<POTHER% Lake Oswego.OR 97034 _CITY OF KING CITY City Manager 15300 SW 1 16th King City,OR 97224 SPECIAL AGENCIES _GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC _PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Paul Koft,Engineering Brian Moore Craig Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Beaverton.OR 97007 Beaverton.OR 97005 _NW NATURAL GAS CO. phone cswtm•:«r _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Scott Palmer FOX(933)72I-2502 Jason Hewitt Kim Knox.Project Planner 220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street Portland,OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 Portland,OR 97232 Beaverton.OR 97006-4886 _ICI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Clifford C.Cabe,Const.Engineer 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 5424 SE McLoughlin Portland.OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204 Portland.OR 97202 _BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION _BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD PO Box 3621 Attn: Administrative Offices _ Routing TTRC-Attn: Renae Ferrero 1313 W. 11th Street Portland.OR 97208-3621 Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 • STATE AGENCIES FEDERAL AGENCIES _AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS —US POSTAL SERVICE _COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH&WILDLIFE Randy Hammock.Growth Cord. _PUC _DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station _DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY _U.S.ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS Portland.OR 97229-9998 _OTHER R��nM,nasrc,.vrtcnpric.m.i August 23.19061 • • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard,, Oregon, and X That I mailed a NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR: X City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PROPOSED AMENDMENT, Zoi q7-000s , a copy of which is attached, was mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, on theme n d day of O -, , 1997, postage prepaid. c____:____ / Pre•=red Notice - v itor Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of 9 / III I/ / NOTARY PUBLI' •F OREGO L,. OFFICIAL SEAL s.s DIANE M JELDERKS My Commissio expires: I^ 7 ,., NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON � COMMISSION NO.046142 MISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 NOTIC1F PROPOSED AMIDMENT This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing December 9, 1997 Local File # ZOA 97-0005 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? ___Yes X No Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment X New Land Use Regulation Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." Request to amend Tigard Triangle design standards to create a Design Evaluation Team and to create an adjustment process to allow alternative proposals to the adopted design standards. Plan Map Change From n/a to n/a Zone Map Change From n/a to n/a Location: Generally south of 99W: west of 1-5: north of Hwy 217 Acres Involved: Approx. 340 Specified change in Density: Current Density n/a Proposed Density n/a Applicable Goals: 1. 2 Is an Exception proposed? Yes X No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: ODOT. Metro Local Contact: Nadine Smith Phone: 639-4171. ext. 388 Address: City of Tigard. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 DLCD File# _ Date Rec'd _ #Days Notice _ • °SUBMITTAL • REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 1. Send this Form and Three(3) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310-0590 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2), proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before thefinal hearing on the proposal. 3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. A legal description,tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. 5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373- 0050. • • DRAFT 18.620.090 Design Evaluation A. Purpose. It is recognized that the above design standards are to assist in upgrading and providing consistency to development within the Tigard Triangle. It is recognized that different designs may be used to meet the intent of the standards and purpose statements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. With this in mind, applicants for development in the Tigard Triangle may choose to submit design plan for review and recommendation by a City Design Evaluation Team to request adjustments from the Triangle design standards. This option allows applicants to propose alternative designs to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards that are consistent with the purpose of the standards. B. Design Evaluation Team (DET). Evaluation of the adjustment to allow an alternative design is made by a three person professional design team contracted by the City for professional design review. The DET shall consist of an architect, a landscape architect and a civil engineer. This team is charged with balancing the purpose statements, goals and standards of the Tigard Triangle Design process with the alternative proposal submitted by the applicants. The DET shall accept design proposals that vary from any of the Triangle Design Standards. This process is to be applied only to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Applicants must comply with all other development code standards according to the regular development review requirements of Title 18 of the City code. The DET will prepare a report outlining conditions and recommendations in response to the applicant's proposal(s) for submission to the Planning Commission within 30 days of meeting on the proposal. C. Approval Criteria For guidance in evaluating the purpose of the design standards, the DET shall refer to Planning Director's Interpretation that provides purpose statements for the Tigard Triangle design standards. All adjustments to allow an alternative design are subject to the following criteria: 1. Granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner; and 2. The proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and 3. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and • • 4. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; and any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. C. Review Process. The following steps must be followed by applicants to gain Design Evaluation Review: 1. Applicants choosing the Design Evaluation process must submit a Design Evaluation and Adjustment Application according to a list of requirements provided by the Director; 2. Members of the Design Evaluation Team are available to meet with applicants as part of the preapplication process, however, applicants shall pay for the entire cost of the review of the Design Evaluation Team. A deposit of $ shall be paid upon application. The applicant will be billed for any additional cost. The DET report shall not be issued until all costs are paid. No development application using the alternative design will be accepted until all costs are paid in full; 3. Upon acceptance of a complete application and deposit, the applicant will receive a review date for DET work session. No public notification is required although the review session is open to the public. The review is designed to allow the applicant to present and explain design intent and adjustment proposals to the Design Evaluation Team. This is not intended to be a public hearing and no public testimony will be taken. 4. Upon completion of the DET review and payment of all costs, the DET will forward a report and recommendations to the Director and the applicant within 30 days of the review session. At the request of the applicant, this time period may be extended 5. The applicant may proceed to schedule and hold a pre-application neighborhood meeting with the adjacent property owners at any time during this process according to the provision provided by the Director at the Development Review pre-application conference required by Chapter 18.32.040. It is recommended that the development design to be reviewed at the pre-application neighborhood meeting shall include the recommendations of the DET; 6. Upon completion of the neighborhood meeting requirements and receipt of the DET report, applicants may proceed to file the appropriate development application according to the provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Said application shall include the recommendations of the DET. 7. Review of a DET recommended plan and/or conditions shall be made part of the staff report prepared by the Planning Director and shall be made available at a public hearing before the Planning Commission according to the provisions of 18.32; • • . 8. The Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application considering the evaluation of the development and design plan's consistency with the DET recommendations and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Approval of the Planning Commission must also be based on compliance of the development plan with all other development code requirements governing the application. • I:ILRPLN\NAD INE\TRIANGLE\DESEVAL.CDE • •• y vV • c.)) 6,6.111‘ --- P 335 805 142 • US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) Sent to DEPT OF LAND CONSERV/DEV Street&Number 1175 COURT ST NE Post Office,State,&ZIP Code o SALEM, OR 97310-0590 >1 Postage $ i if • C7 Certified Fee 1,35 W W Special Delivery Fee a pd Restricted Delivery Fee W u2 h rn Return Receipt • t Whom&D _j redd1/49,7 1, 16 n, Return Rec < Date,&Addr s s f'I'. C 0 TOTAL Pd ge&FF! $ ' . :T3 • CO Postma ` hyyl o�� • a `J/1 HO a • �- - ---- it d SENDER: I also wish to receive the I D ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. it rn ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an d •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. w d •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address '� I permit. d I d •Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery N t •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. .°. d 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number is P 335 805 142 a DEPT OF LAND CONSV & DEVEL 4b.Service Type 0 1175 COURT ST. NE u ❑ Registered ) Certified ¢ . N SALEM, OR 97310-0590 ❑ Express Mail ' ❑ Insured S. N cc ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD p 7.Date of Delivery G z a. 5 v-d By: (P ' t N,41;10:- 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested w / r and fee is paid) t cc / ii'�� I H g 6.Sign- re: (Addre see`/•gent) IT X y PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt •