Ordinance No. 96-41 ( t
� F
r
ro
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
.
ORDINANCE NO96A
1 ,
La f ✓
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A
t r COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
AMENDMENT, REZONE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE AREA
KNOWN AS THE TIGARD TRIANGLE(CPA 96-0008/ZON 96-0008 AND ZOA 96-0005)
YT+
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
AD
WHEREAS, the applicant City of Tigard has requested approval of legislative Comprehensive
Plan Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle.
Specifically,
therequest includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density
Residential,and Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. The � MR
1 proposal further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial '`-
Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 unitsr acre), R-3.5 � ;
pe ) (Residential, 3.5 units per acre)to `r.��,:`� � !
new zoning designation of MUE(Mixed Use Employment). k
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 3,
�x r
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts,findings
h
and conclusions noted in the attached Final Order. 4q
SECTION 2: The
specific text and mar)amendments _tacked tot . lui
's _-'---
adopted and approved the Citf Council. = �+
SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because of the need to resolve
use designation within the Triangle to nrnvidP immwtigtn .91:-F t� : g
� st •... r.vy�;.iy Owners Who have _
been unable to make plans for the future use of their land. Therefore, this ordinance shall be
in full force and effect upon its passage by the City Council.
{
PASSED: By: U I)Q Yll MOUS vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this "day of�Ctmlut , 1996.
k
x
Catherine Wheatley, City Reco
�.
€tg.
* A,
Q M
y ORDINANCE NO. 96- � t
Pa2eI
1 �
•.: - s} �M
t i
t �
e`.
d
r r L st
t ,
ng low
�Zo MIAMI
��FjRN3R,jKlow Am"o
7 �
MAYOR
3..-. -
�fLr`�z t
flaw. ��..waw.+.a,�vax_n....e...._o...,....saF�Vk.w,�.t,�..:cs...a:'FS��rra..�...........�..�.._._. ..._• ___. — w�n. -" ��
ix_ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this of of CP,06 096. 01 4y.
; . �
"
Al
T
Mayor
WON
}� Approved as to form: s
V
JtyaAtt=y '
ar Date € . 0
r
Nil, gas I
r
^ a
- - p
tico
-
4-7
�1 � ) ti
]j
St
d
MEN
s
Nf
r. y
4�
ME ' ORDINANCE NO. 96-
=tA Page 2 s �
�ff
,LEI
gg
was
1
� TWO
"`"my too
��
» a
J s' am '` ru
2
r,
7 �
ieiaG i3:3i luno Fnuii: 503 onv 12d7 -f0• 2473 PAGE: 2
1 r
l x '�,. t� .13/30/98 13:27 ' 503 88! 7287 CITY OF TIGARD +»» CITY ATTORNEY IpJ002/013
Attachment A
d � $
Eollewing are;he spec:nC changes to the Cemprehenswe P! S
d=urnent as related to the-riigard Triangle',and to include ariguageto allow 4
implementation of the Ntixed Use Employment tone, —
�t
bold.Racommended deletions are inCic3ted by s6;1c2 yf vith new language shown in
bald. ' Ft t� ��� t �►
Volume 1,Economy,Section 1-152-g
t
Delete:
Ai
The X
at o-�A .moi 5
i .
PlanA
F.l � '
T � LM,q SMS F
13 1
f
-- ---
-- �� 1
Ay 91 a
R 1
i x.14
Staff Comment With the revisions proposed to the Comprehensive Plan,this
section e'the Plan will be implemented and the need for a study of the Triangle 3
will no Icrger he necessaryto he '
expreseed in the
plan.
�V,
Volume If.Implementation Strategies,If-7 t'
ADD:
l
I. Mixed Use Employment District-Areas with a development concept that
r
�4
?1 is characterized by retail,office and service commercial
uses,with
✓f�k25y 1
J
k
2 I } F
EXHIBIT
r
? fY rxU,s
w�
rr r Y
L t
xx : r
r a r
} l�
N
? t
FIV
a"s �t.4 "•r�..- �*. '' Ssssca,"�'�.-'�����_M'�..a..x"t,.e�.^:a..<.,,»._._ .__ :.:.,_,. _, ,.,_ �...�.,�...,_... .........�..�,_ _, ..___.. _____ t l' # �#,:
1V1/30.13:31 1606 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 3 r i
k�i 4 '12/90/98 19:27 2503 884 7207 CITY OF TIGARD »++ CITY ATTORNEY 19003/019
7�- 4 y<.
{g x
, 'business park and research facilities. High density residential
(development will be encouraged. °
Staff Czainnent: Tris areral tar. uta a 1s::ecessa tc all w r „
4 5 g g ry c ;he adciticn cf a x
Mi,
new zoning district to t:e inc:uded in the Cevelopment Code. w�m
rt E r 1/Glume 11,C:rcrry,II•�0. n
� K
5.d i�.E CITY SHALL PRON.191T RESICENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT:
COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL Be PER&JITTED
k
fi a
ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE CEVTR,IL BUSINESS DISTRICT,AND
# ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL
DISTRICTS. (THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVEL OPMENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 DISTRICTS),AND
I EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT
ZONE SHALL HE
CONSIDERED PERMITTED USES AND NEW MULTI- � ?
FAMILY DENSITY DEVELOPMENT SHALL SE PERMITTED AND l a
I ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT R40 DENSITIES,
Staff Comment: This language wi0 clarity that the existing single-homily homes
s within the Triangle will be considered penri t e d uses and therefiue can be
r^
,1 refinanced,remodeled,rtburlt,etc It also clarifies that new high
rasdential development is permitted within the Triangle—
Y,
Volume 11,Urbanization,I1-73
11.4.1 IN i HE TIGARD TRIANGLE(t.!`THAT AREA SOUNDED BY PACIFIC
HIG?NVAY,HIGHWAY 217.AND THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY), IN THE
IMIXED USE EMPLOYMENT ZONE" ^^- •'—'+_,:P:
3
HIGH DENSI~RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(1.=.20 TO 40 UNITS PER #�
ACRE)SHALL BEA USE ALLOWED OU` RIGS ^^
= �s
I{ S,—. Corm-err Previously this standard was intended to allow multi-`amily uses a
cr.:y in cznjunc:ion with=mrnercal professional uses within the Commercial N, y
i Professional ane. The ne',v standard would allow multi-family residential within at
i.
any par.of the M""aced UseEmpfoyment zoning area
�T
zxu
f ; :v} y
5-4
f
`'u 1
Fp
"J,
s
�y z
r N �(� l G ✓Y`
,
Uf
`zr r4
A7
r
K 1 f t A ? 5nd
FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 4 .
12/3D 13:32 1998 CITY OF TIGARD »»» CITY ATTORNEY X004/O10 fC $ ,. ,;
F r `'x 12/00/98 10:28 $000 884 7297 r � ,..,
,Mr,,. t d xL2t
RA
Volume II Urbanization If-74 14W
r4,1k7"t " A
Ill.•s.3
- II
i PAR-
1V OT,
r
y
• T I
S9
� 4
t M
E.
S i1cF 'y
ocA eveleen
Th 1J16T-
COMPASMSAISIVE
:4g.ksx
r � v or►1 r �s`sd� '�
F t ,W.AM=2111 X BY-AN AGGESS 90 NO
a W.AWS ACC -P4
} T A S
c:HE
..,.
•1 ,x�F�n* t
Staf Ccrnment This can be deleted as an update of the Comprehensive Plan.
This referred to a requirement that Dartmouth be completed prior to any further e r
ccmmerc°.al development This the time that this was written,Dartmouth has
beenw^m leted.
p
>, g
r
f
r"d
r�' ,+• .r t �gx
x '
x4 1.7
3
1 F'¢
u I
L
K
{
N ,
s
12/30,13:34 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 T0: 2473 PAGE:
n� '12/30/98 1J.28 13505 88t 7287 CITY OF TIGARD +» CITY ATTORNEY �1008/01J
'}- era s mgt
${ T' DRAFT
Chapter 18._ WE:MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT.
18._ 010 ' Pa osa "
18. 020
Procedures and Approval Proc
meas 1& 030 Permitted and R trieted Uses
ess
18., 040 Conditional Uses(See Chapter 18.130).#3
h a F e
18. 050 Dimensional Requirements.
F } I& 060 Additional Regairemenb
x 4 s 1&_ 070 Design Standards. '"
18._ 010 Purpose.
3
trl'p05 t���``+� �Ya�•.
A. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is:
r ; L To Create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the test of the '
�.
community and the region;
< 2. To provide opportunities for employment and for neve business and professional _
s services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities; vt
fir,f 3. To provide for major retailgoods and services accessible to the general public,and a
minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE
r district: -
4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers; * s
5. To provide for residential cues which are compatible with 21113 Supportive of retail and
employment uses.
B. Guiding principles for the Tigard Triangle: u
f a2z f
k 1. To support the Tigard Triangle's position as a sa&nagy significant location for a # �
'r s variety of commercial,office,bininess park and research uses;
t 2. To capitalize ou and improve the Ti �` a
Pt P gard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific G
Highway,Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the
� ea*e-regiesI.Bmtnaaitx:
3. To recognize that accessibility �u a
is the key to a successful mixed use employment area
and that the automo}"le will accommodate the vase majority of trips to the Triangle;
EXHIBIT
k 1 {
Ram
qL
3
�"'
tfi
a ,A
v r T
a-
v�
r�xM -
a
? ti
3 r t
15
4. To support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential:
r
. S ; " �g `h'k»*4�lex;•
6. To create a complementar% land use pattern that allo%vs for a number of trip purposes w
to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle.and distributes those trips over a broad �r�� v4• 0
s a period of the day: p
h 6. To add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth:
7. To include a safe,secure and convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the
Tigard Triangle that links internal uses.and connects to the city-wide system: A3� -
8. To integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the
Triangle;
9. To use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and
to establish people-friendly spaces: t � •`"`3'
10. To assure that transitions from existine low density•residential uses to mixed use
employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas:
11. To allow for the oppurtunit•for residential uses within compatible employment .
areas.
18. 020 Procedures and AaorozalProcess. �.
A.^ A permitted use,Section 18._.030.is a use which is allowed outright,but is subject to
all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use outright,it may bei
held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 15.43.Unlisted Use.
B. A restricted use,Section 18._.030.is a use which is allowed outright.but is subject to
specific restrictions and all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a restricted E s ~
use outright.it may be held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43.
Unlisted Use.
C. A conditional use.Section 18.6.1.030.is a use the approval of which is discretionary with
the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter
18.130.Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a conditional use.it may be held to be a similar ?
unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.33.Unlisted Use. �A
t ,
18._ 030 Permitted and Rcstricted Uses =,
M.
x �
y a
f
t �
4
1
¢ E
�+! S {' ,
ILL
Xf'M'"i L -
r v im aOE
MT
` F ~
A. Permitted and Restricted Uses in the MUE district are as follo—s:
(P-permitted;R-permitted with restrictions)
•
' Use Categories a rf
Commercial Use Types $,
.amusement enterprises including cinemas P [�
Animal sales and services R(I)
i Automotive and equipment R(1) :'
i = Building maintenance services P
t` 5 - Business equipment sales and services R(1)
c k
Building support services p
A Communication services p
v3
" r Convenience sales and personal services R(1) w
�r
3
RE
Children's day care P °
} x z h
w ; 3 Eating and drinking establishments P '?
a
>"r3:- Financial,insurance and real estate services PM14 g
k '.
Food and beverage retail salesIE
R(1}
s'4
zM' 4/�
a
Funeral and internment sericesv� P as
General retail sales R(1) Y
Medical and dental services P
VA
Participation sports and recreation P1w K
' 4
L� 8
Personal services,general P #
zx.a
Professional and administrative services P
Y 7
� ts a Consumer repair services p r
'x''�k-. Fa
� * Religious assembly P
{
.$z Research services P
Transientlodging Pfr�
° i f X14,
,
V
A"
� zx
P� ��fi 1•f'rwt> s"'>:..'�'a3A.N*..#.,a .; r=.i# K ld"+rfi�
T 3YS�
�f'7 11
r �frEZ
& z 3
v
� t'
f
aaattdlCRAr.kez,sJ�,m.>..4esw.sw., ,... ._. ......_..d......a..w.,�.�s.«�..vc Y •"c"`r � � ,��-.. '� _
alaev.
z
Use Categories _ g
r, Civic Use Types w
4N
Public agency administrative services p �#-
s £ ? (�
` ( Cultural exhibits and library services Pv
"`*�#,�`'�-sem`�'" � •���r
a s 01Public support facilities p gf
"•r r`
��, s� € Lodges,fraternal and civic assembly p
Parking facilities P M1
a � Y Postal Services p
'JOPublic safety services p
VRi
p ;
Residential Use Types
r ,
Single fLmilyattaehed p
y'-`, Multiple-family residential p
rr z s .
nv 73,g; c Single family residential R(2)
3 ' z Home occupations p y�
R, ar '
r Family day care p
Industrial Use Types
a xs Manufarnuing of finished products R(3) #
3
Packaging and processing R(3) t
Ogc
3
LightAMMR(3) t,
s t
Wholesale,storage and distribution R(4)
}
Vi ? B. Use restrictions referenced in the table above are as follows: ¢7
y 1. Retail and sales uses larger than 60.000 square feet of cross leasable area per building KY
p or business shall be prohibited '�"4
P -�4�ae within the Tigard Triangles_xcept for tho.�
areas Toned C-C.at the time-this h
slpter is ado uteri, f �s�'��x
r v
pi ,'4
2. Pre-existing housing units ermitted. f ;g,13 ,
^7\
h z x d
4 W ",
,r %r F
`x L
L
# Y 'r,
On C q ✓';
' i
Wa
M ka.> ..,ia 1 •_...a .4�._n._, a r.....,,..^S«rytxna.s............ ��.,...,,..mv...m.3mtusvea.uw S `% 1
Po g3
x � 1 „§
i
Aill
NARI
a aYtrs '
x
3.All actin ities associated with this use,except employ ee and customer parking.shall be
r contained within buildinc(s). _x h,
vu v�k r}
� � � � � 4. Permitted as an assessor to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the 40
same building as the permitted use,and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use.
v•ti' s a'� �` w ux.>#'�' `x� '' s, s
p f 18._ 040 Conditional Uses(See Chapter 18.130). 'MW
gg
A. Conditional uses in the MUE district are as follows:
1.Communite recreation including structures:
�, f ,
VRI
#x 3. Religious assembh;
3. Schools and related facilities: �" ;
4. Hospitals; Q
f �� 5. Parking facilities;
kr 6. Utilities.and x �
L
F y
{„ �4 f °•s � ;� 7. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. _
18._ 050 Dimensional Requirements. <
9, Dimensional reauirementc for all o mer ial use 1-,=S civic res ma_ uct c� K
3, v
s toes and meed rcedevelopments mel.din th cP ncP�r._pes shall he the same ae rhe
district
Dimensional reauirementc for residential ,sr*. * ' d
r �+�hall be rhn came as the K L dismlCt
z 18._ 060 Additional Requirements. '}
A. The maximum floor area ratio(FAR)for all commercial and industrial use tN es shal I not
€Kr exceed 0.40. Residential uee•t�p c incl fdi tranci_ent hoL_c;��chill nrn he cub' c �
requirement. Jest to tht + W
' J
AVi-
g�
B. On lots greaten Pe scree general retail sales uses al e miled to ,0.000 square feet
' barea plus
of gross leasable_ one addtnon�51 cqu�re forn nf�ross leasable area of gen
s al retail sales Zli,41,
use for each addmoml fo,r cgsare fee of non-gen ral r ra;l sales„sr t_ '
RM Jr
M'I�, a
lvauzo,
w •;, s §r
W
IM
yg
37�
ay� .9 s cF k
T O'er' F d
s"u ry
NO
_ 070 Design Standards.
mom
IM
t
7y 1
#y �✓a
3 x„yHeyf
x ata � d
_ A
�5 V, g.
' a
ert y c k `jam.
Yz
,!
IN
'x3�a+8✓a�i�� �,'`�N
ice►
rt
74
gwo
ON N
-_'tl q
PR
LIS FWA
{ TIGARD TRIANGLE _ W . [•
�� z4 5 ,
� ' " ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
��
3 c Fes " r
"� I �t � �
g „?
+ { / _ rs
moos gnu,w"
i
t ia MEMO
�
- 95
Ar
�XVSIW
- C-G
General Commercial \ —�—
r MUE �� f
Mixed Use Employment A _ �
(PD)
f Planned Development — §
'•, tib_ �, � , �,x,. #. F
r " MINE I 0 400 800 Feet 8 � $
MMIs ��I Or
an Wow look
CIT/OF TIOARD
.,.,a.�,.77
"a _...
Rk # D�
gym
�Y ,:.sYt°Y 1 r
so A
M
r � �
by
-cum Www""', ^-r
�' tt Y y3.FY
6
oMWO 0,
lif
r z *, t
� 4
$��rrf.
iP'{ ��, 4
�� 1
$ -71, to
�>¥x
� a` - r `..
Fi
j
€,11 I
' •
s � ,,
st } r� ,:�
E
S 4 { F IA-Rn;,;- ��
%a
'4:
.
,i -�" -1k
J ` } k t �t ;
.. % I
'.S' I } _ 2
} E,r' �1...+ 1 z-1 V ,f��9 .� ,� + :^s S f t-3" C `s i'"'`�'`.
1. I
11
t 1 F 3� �r 1 � r .
y AnnHeHies a rti 1 3
% t d.� � f C ( ( t i. a r tz >
. -.-.
:. �1.111. ll,��_:.:Z�::�.'.Z, 1:ri&"��,�, � �l �
� . ..Zz�z, ,... 'l, ,q,% I , , -TITE. �.','-,
7
1
o �JT71 ' }t -..f �..
e-t 7 7 f N "? .zit �a' ,r�
I 1�� �,, �'., .I".�11. "�. - %... ,��::Ml .81�[ ( I. ;, ,fi
�� 4 ►:
�m c o I � 1 _
�!
G 3
moo % ?y (� , '�.1.
s.,
� t. g ` -�� ,,t �r
.-
.A`' R ,o �
.- {.. -11 `',
L t4
` i .,4 �
f) � .
t
�y Y� t � t t s
■ aFP .0 } '. �fllE � } �"
y } r t 'jk�� '
' t 3 p.,a.� y.
1 + +T }Y,,
n, U f , r11
L!./ , rhe
�� m 'c 'r ,$ I ,I
r `� I `e ��
� yid ,
- ,I ,- ," F_ 2 N C 1 R'
51,01E,-,�:�:
��-�i���,� ,. 7t{
� 'I��`�";�;_' .�
"�-%l 4-,'-,�",3"*� I,,�,s ,:,-,,"',,,,� ,,t �Z�Z,, Z. �.. ,���,',�,�;:, 'a-,,-",��ls.!�t,tL'_, �
'.;'t'".��'_`L
- , -- ,�,I � I " I I I 1.11 1-1 111111� I
-� -
-�_i�� -1�I" -,,",," --,'�',,�', _, 3I.,....z I..I I I I. � ,j�I I I I I � . �" �1,�I�I��,I
a
11�
,,,,
",��A-Z,�i,I,
,;-,�,
%I I
,,
- ,
.-
_�'�,
1
F ",
T_. , -:�.t ,,�,�z��t,,,,� ,,,?,;',�,,�I I I
, -��,t�,',�I'�,��, -, k I "I�-- , ," .,
, -�., ,i: �,n. -,,,,�',"Z��, ,",,, ,,—,-o�,x��5�,�,
. - F .",
c--�4-,'-."-�,,�l�I I I ---`�-4���',�,�f_ _��,:_,, �.,.;",,� ti...�,,;�,J ,�
! o,�,,�:,,,��';2��,,�JLe�v,,�Z�-q k
-;��'%�,',7..-�,-, �-- , ,:_',��;-.�r';,`�,.-',�-�'- ,I,�, �z,�',-I I�"��,_,4��,'%��'��'"��,"_�__ L11 I,�,'�' �,,:",-,��',i2,',��'L,��'f"J.P , I�i
-,
'T,�,
,-
, ,
"�,
,4,
--"',� - , �.�-"'.,, ,;�-",,,7:-,;�t,�;-,,�g,
,Yll,-,, I
,,-,��,.���,��'r",����,.�-"!";%,'�,--���,,.',-,,-,,-,'�, 1,I - ,`�:,.���,I,,,',-,,�,-j_,t�,��,-,e,4
t �, � ,
f 1
,_ �,f���,�,�"�,��,,,;��,�-"�:�", _1�1.71- �..-_ I I I.-1.I'll—-�- I -II 11
, 'MICAll I
I I I-_�l- � I �. ,
:��, " , �, ,
..,',�,ta,�f .. rf
'Il�
��,I'll',�,I--,��,�'��,�,�,�_�, -" �,, ,:, , I �
11�.
_ - ,;,,,,�',�.,2�q ;�
- , -. ���,��,, _4w�, , -I-I , ��,��
�..�
.., 11
�..
I I
, , ,-% ,
'Ili I
� I
,,, , ,l�_111112�"
� -;�,�';��,;��,t:,;,,,��:�-.�,,�,, :-: --�, , ,,
'L I
�,:��; "'�,��:;�,�,'.�;�IL,"�w�
,-
�;I�t t,zl�l� I - I I�, I I
-" I I � I I I I�, ,,, I,�,, _2,_,��I�ll j
��;11�'-�, -%,',.,L".'�,,'�� _, . I
I � I r -I�,�
�,_I�_,�, ........L I
I % � �, I-1 -,11�
,,�.��n�,,, 1.,�- �� I I
,-,,�,,I �,_ ,',,
'�'L ' , � �
I I ...- 'I�,4,"',,,_�',_�"" -,
_��, �,,'�',I,��_ _�"I� I � I I ,
, I I I � ,� ,';,.,f �,
,;, . I , �.,, � ,, ��,�,2�
rI I, � � - .- - , � ,.,,4��
, I ,� I I I ,I I I
s.
5 F
,v�,,',;z,�,:,,%,',- ,��',_% � � . I I �j I ,,���JA- ,�:��, , 5}
,,
,7�,-�, - � L" �l ` I �:I I I �l
.,',' `
xz 1 {,, 7 '6,
r
,.„ - - ,
TP,tt x -
r W i
...
`x
V = x r
t tt,._ oaf �,Ta' �$ s•
; s '.
vM
� �„+�i'ar.sy�;� �r s I ^cum"'�>" �.��a+�u��•
y oda s ' e �
i t. .
AV 09 —
3 .Hl
t _
x
7
C i..
�e
1 a
.t'*r42
e
` Z Z Z
' LL
#"tt z
kn
t., T 3, r
' r o
-zji i z
m
t
, }
re
k '
t 3 Z.
S 7 f 1 1 i� 0 0) - - c s
y E
t�
A ~ p "
r w En
kr 1 is 11i R
v-
Qw f
CL 8s
'ft V
� Q
imm e
MOM
7,
r l� t
A x.
r
r u
��arN ti
F ,,
,
i t�
j' ;� r
ISOM
A Vi
k `" ,c CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL .
`3 `�°"' FINAL ORDER
f
� » TIGARD TRIANGLE
.p#7
551-
z� A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD r
ft, x z
'DU
," TO AN APPLICATION FOR A LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN R
AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR AN .,y
tp `r
NOR
AREA KNOWN AS THE"TIGARD TRIANGLE".
�,-
a
A. FACTS
l 1. General Information
E zax
r, CASE: FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE`
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008/ZON96-0008 --
ZOA 96-0005 k`:
't 1 REQUEST: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map,Rezone �L
and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle.
Specifically,the request includes redesignation from Low Density
Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional to ;
a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. ]
r ` A separate and independent request, which was heard concurrently with
this application, involves certain transportation related amendments to
' the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
' Transportation Map. The subject matter of this Final Order is separate
3
4 s, from those amendments and not dependent upon them. While the
matters were heard concurrently,the transportation related amendments f
have been adopted in a separate final order.
x The request further includes a request for approval of a zone change t
1r, from C P(Commercial Professional), R-25(Residential, 25 units per
MR-
acre),and R3.5(Residential,3.5 units per acre) to new zoning r +` �
r qX,' ' designation of MUE(Mixed Use Employment).
The request also includes amendments to the Community Development
2, < Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment"to f
x �r n
provide a new zoning district.
;ffvKn 6tk� y' 1 a
y` hi
q d S f
}
Eli
z r '
-tu ,raP - r g4 .5"
' ax s
r
c. r,
r
lk
.` .L
S C y
r APPLICANT: City of TigardOvx
v
#k ` 13121 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 972231`
ilk OWNER: Various Y� r*
Y �
LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5,and southxI � :.
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. '
-N ..F
3. Background Information
p `
` The Tigard Triangle has been the subject of various past planning efforts. The Tigard
Triangle Master Plan was completed in 1992 and provided a land analysis, Y� a
assessments of development trends and development potential of the Triangle. After r
over a year of study and public input, the Planning Commission approved and the
City Council arrrntrd a magter nlan man for the Tri—Ie:n November of 19992
(Resolution 92-54). The master plan map showed generalized areas of land use
( categories which reflected the decision. In early 1993, the City was awarded a grant
i from the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD)to conduct a s '4
more detailed planning study of the area. The study, which covered land use,
xx� k
u a.uwrsu anu oE,en,yaCc issues resulted in the Tigard Triangle
4 ; Specific Area Plan,dated January of 1994. The Planning Commission held a hearings ,
r, on the proposed amendment and zone change on June 20, 1994. After further '
F '.
discussion on July 18, 1994, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend
x against approval of the plan. After a public hearing on the proposal on January 24, {
1995,the City Council withdrew CPA 94-0002 and ZON 94-0002 from consideration.
In February of this year,the City Council authorized staff to proceed with hiring
X �
consultants to assist in a new effort to bring resolution to issues associated with land
use in the Triangle. At that time, a resolution was passed by Council to not accept
Comprehensive Pian Amendments within the Triangle until after December 31, 1996. n
g
r With the assistance of the consulting team,a task force was formed made up of
representatives of area residents, business owners, developers, ODOT,and Metro. A L "
series of meetings have been held throughout the summer to come up with
tik recommendations that are detailed in the staff report. An open house was held in ! ',
August to solicit public input and a second public work shop was held inOctober tom,,
r allow public input into the recommendations provided by the Task Force.
fix{
0
E41y.y �q. 'Z 2
, s i to f
'k"{ U1,t1w
}
� 2
z
aa...nTY
d.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The site is approximately 340 acres in size. The proposed land use actions include
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to update references to the Tigard Triangle,
include a description of the Mixed Use Employment zone,and amend the
k: Development Code to include a new zoning designation of Mixed Use Employments ,
Y+' B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS :-
dtai
xec t
;. The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13:
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1,2.1.1 and 6.1.1,6.6.6., 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, .
v
12,1.1 and 12.2.1 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32.
'. STATEWIDE GOALS }
17
4N,a ,
3 1. Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures
a #} the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard'
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapterh �
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
r ,
newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of ,
o p uu�Land Conservation and Development. The proposals were the ou"ca is
j hearings before the planning commission and city council which included citizen ,
= j testimony. That testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. Information `
was mailed out to all property owners within the Triangle as it was available _
"s regarding workshops and other actions being considered. In addition,the proposal
s a was presented to the CITs. Additionallv,two public open houses were held, one in
i August and one in October of 1996. This goal is satisfied.
2. Land Use Plannin : Goal 2 requires, in part,that adopted comprehensive plans
be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. These ` F
amendments respond to this requirement by taking into account Metro's adoption of a
"Growth Concept" map indicating this area as"Mixed Use Employment", y a1 x ,
The changes also reflect the results of lengthy debate and analysis over the « e
# ' appropriate uses within the Tigard Triangle. The evidence indicates that the effect of
large scale commercial development in the area has made long term continuation ofk.
r housing in its current location and form inappropriate. This change in circumstances, .'
coupled with Metro's action,creates the need to revise the plan and zoning for the µ�
area.
sZg� }
3
`-
;(}y`
a a i a
r
4 1. f, h
a sis
j
UW
LI Y 5
{
4
v fE
qtr a
y IX
Goal 2 also requires that land use plans must be the basis for specifics
k !"' implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and ff
' k:k .
w � adequate to carry out the plans. The proposed plan amendments are the basis for
F
specific implementation measures. The proposed plan text identifies uses and i
characteristics of a mixed use employment district which serve as the basis for the
- specific implementation measures found in the zoning code amendments.
4
Those zoning code amendments specifically carry out the changes to the plan and are ��,,,�� �§ ti•
consistent with the plan amendments. The new zoning code text provides the criterias�
and process framework to carry out the plan. Together, the comprehensive plan, yry 'wr
zoning code text and map changes meet the requirements of the goal. fr
Goal 2 also requires that the plan and related implementation measures shall be
coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. The initial step
required in coordination is to engage in an exchange of information between the
req
planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units,or at least invite such an r
exchange. The record demonstrates that the city has complied with this requirement. f,-
l The process has included contacts with Washington County,Metro,and ODOT. �
Washington County declined to participate but Metro and ODOT were included in the
task force which guided the work of consultants and staff. The record indicates that r
Metro and ODOT exchanged information with city staff and consultants, expressed r r
their concerns,preferences and cooperatively developed factual information used to
s i evaluate the proposal.
The second aspect of coordination is to use the information provided by affected
jurisdictions to balance the needs of all governmental units as well as the needs of the
Citi ans in(IP,.VP.lnpinE the plan.
The outcome of the work of the task force was a recommendation,not opposed by x
ODOT and Metro,to adopt the amendments before us for consideration. In enacting
the amendments we are therefore not taking unilateral action inconsistent with the > h
3 Y desires of those units of government. We have instead accommodated the interests of µ '
other agencies. The balancing of interests aspect of the coordination requirement is
therefore met.
Goal 2 also requires the identification of issues and problems for each applicable
statewide planning goal and evaluation of alternative courses of action and t
ultimate policy choices. As the text of these findings documents,the city council
undertook identification of issues and problems,evaluated options and made the
ultimate policy choice. Once it was determined that the proposed amendments would
generate no greater traffic impact than the current plan and zoning designations, the ..
principle issue became the defining of the uses and character of a Mixed Use ".
4 Employment district and the role of housing within that district. These matters are '
described in more detail under the discussion of Goals 9 and 10. psc�,�'r .
F
✓'S�. k :. � fie' i
gi.. b,!tea}
t g} t
k
Y d
f ! Y f )
. t
# L
3d - -
y � d
x r
-
`� .�
L
yr
gyp'Ta
ui
3. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires the provision of adequate opportunitiesf r
(" for a variety of economic activities. This goal has been met because the plan x
continues to promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the '
{ health, welfare and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The mix of uses will encourage a
diversity of development with emphasis on employment based uses. '
The fundamental issue with respect to the triangle for many years has been ,
determination of the proper mix of uses which should be developed there. We have ax v
before us in the record various options for resolving this question which have been
generated by this and previous planning efforts. These options include a Mixed Use
Employment district, maintenance of the current plan, and increasing housing in the i * �
s area. x
In evaluating these proposals we are most heavily influenced by Metro's decision to a
designate the triangle "le as"Mixed Use Employment"menton its Growth Concept map. The a
S S P Y eP P
Mixed Use Employment District best carries out this designation.
The buildout development concept for a mixed use employment district is } �
characterized by retail, office and service commercial uses, together with business ' `•
park and research facilities throughout the Tigard Triangle. High density residential
development is integrated with employment uses, with some apartment/townhouse
i J;I developments. Larger scaled commercial uses are located west of 72nd Avenue in the
` area that is largely already committed to large commercial facilities. This new land } x
x use concept is proposed in the form of a new Mixed Use Employment Zoning District t"
(MUE)for the Tigard Triangle. Attachment B at the end of the staff report indicates
jthe uses permitted, not permitted and permitted with restrictions for the MUE district. s
11 The proposed MEU district will also include a maximum density limitation for retail
i
3 and officc dices, -�
We find that in addition to meeting the direction of Metro's Functional Plan,this u
designation takes into account other important planning considerations. The mixed
use approach will create a needed and vital economic center for the area. The density ' £
} cap will allow the creation of jobs but prevent this geographic area from undermining 4
economic development at the Regional Center located to the north. The integration of
uses will also have social,energy and environmental benefits by encouraging 4
consolidation of automobile trips and reinforcing opportunities for pedestrians. s }
Maintenance of the current plan has clear drawbacks as a policy option. The current
plan has had the effect of slowing down potential economic development in the w
p S Po P
4 triangle area for many years. There is substantial opinion from owners of land in the
area and developers familiar with the area that the current designations have not f
worked to create opportunities for economic activity. Based upon this evidence we 1' t
reject the option of maintaining the current designations.
r` F�V�d
W 5
f t
r
N
l 1
�fi�t
r iti: y ,
We likewise reject the option of designating the area primarily for housing t a
development. Not only is this option inconsistent with Metro's concept map, it would
k be contrary to the creation of economic opportunity because the area is no longer well
x 'r suited for large scale housing development or the maintenance of single family x
neighborhoods. This is due to the encroachment of large commercial uses east of ¢
S.W. 72nd with associated lights,activity and traffic. This is also due to the loss of x x,
j the Phil Louis School which no longer serves families in the area. , #
We therefore conclude that the proposal before us best carries out the objectives of F
c i s Goal 9.
-*n
4. Housine: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate z?, ;
numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and _
` allow for flexibility of housing location,type and density. Metro has chosen not to
designate this area for predominantly residential use. Housing, however,is note .
Z.
prohibited in a Mixed Use Employment area. The proposal before us therefore
permits housing to occur within the zone. While housing will not be the predominant ^�
use,location of some housing in the area will assist the City in carrying out Goal 10. E� h
i The new Mixed Use Employment zone will encourage high density housing
ii
r development by allowing multi-family development to occur at the rate of 40 units to
tIIG Ql1G. iwill ulso provide the nInj..rh...n.� thex .,b u�:un. t.o.fa flj t^
` remain in that existing single family units will become listed as an allowed use.
Currently, single family homes are not allowed in the CP zone and are restricted in
the CG zone which makes it difficult to refmance or obtain financing for remodeling
in the Triangle. The new zoning will provide provisions that allow retention of
j existing residences thereby preserving affordable housing, while still providing the
opportunity for high density housing. Goal 10,Housine, is,therefore, met because
the proposal provides for additional housing opportunities as called for both in the w'
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
5. Goal 11: Goal 11 requires a timely,orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban development. r, 1
This proposal does not change the acknowledged provisions of the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code with respect to the adequate £
provision of public facilities and services. As development occurs within the Tigard `; r
x Triangle those provisions will be enforced to require adequate provision of public
facilities and services. For example, as development occurs within the Triangle the r
Community Development Code, chapter 18.164, identifies how rights-of-way for
streets are created and what improvements result from development. This chapter
r P P P t Gf
also requires the installation of sanitary sewers to serve each new development and r
contains the requirement for connection of developments to existing mains(section
18.164.090). Storm drainage is required and implemented through section ;
6y
eol
.... tin.... t . .. ,..
r
P
}
� z
� }M
-SE �� s
54� fir' I F 2
f
3 i
r v k}fir
U� },
%
Kl
- �,
18.164.100 which makes specific requirements for storm water drainage system 's ,
approval through the issuance of a development permit.
The availability of services for development within the Triangle is not a disputed
subject on the record before us, with the exception of the Department of Land ' �k
t a Conservation and Development's claims with respect to transportation infrastructurer
which cite Goals 2 and 12. Those claims are discussed in the context of Goal 12.
J 6. Transportation: Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation r
system. "
a. The Problem and the Policy Choice
{ The central problem presented by comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in the ,
area of the Triangle is how to assign various land uses and intensities of development
while maintaining a safe,convenient and economic transportation system.
i
Several alternatives are before us for consideration. One option is to adopt measures
which will prevent development which occurs under the amended plan and �*
implementing measures from creating transportation impacts that exceed the level of
impact that would be created by the land use designations which have previously been # ,
y acknowledged by LCDC:and which are now contained in the city's comprehensive 4
plan,zoning map and community development code. Another alternative is to allow * �
greater intensity of use but to provide for increased transportation infrastructure,
transit and other measures to address the increased impact consistent with the f ;
Transportation Planning Rule. Still another option is to impose a moratorium or t ,
adopt a public facilities strategy. The City has employed this type of planning
technique to address development
Q Within the Triangle in the past.
In evaluating these options we have determined that relying on moratoriums and
related planning tools provide only short tern solutions and do not effectively cavy
out Metro's designation of the site for Mixed Use Employment. These kinds of
limitations on development also undermine the region's ability to use the land within -I
the Urban Growth Boundary most efficiently in order to reduce the total demand for .
urban land. Inefficient use of land within the boundary will have negative energy and
j environmental consequences occasioned b 3
eq y sprawl development. The moratorium h
approach also fails to address the city's and region's social and economic needs. The
Tigard Triangle is well located as an employment destination and we conclude thatk ;
this opportunity should not be lost.
t �
i
y7
7 �� R-
7
s
Y -
1 ` 2v' 1 '
say � k
x
F �
I
€
Zy
t �
I - ii
4
r �
13
We also reject the option of increasing the intensity of development, and therefore the
;�V r transportation impact, over that which is anticipated to result from the cur Tent x1
€ comprehensive plan. Metro has cautioned that increasing the intensity of development #
t will conflict with Metro's objectives for intense development at the Regional Center
i which lies to the north of the Tigard Triangle. Such development would also require .
f} improvements to the transportation system that go beyond the improvements now s�
t . , f .
C ; recommended by ODOT and Metro.
3�
We conclude that the best option is to designate the area for the Mixed Use
Employment types of uses called for by Metro but to limit the transportation impact * *�w
of this type of development to the same level that would be produced by development
under the acknowledged provisions of the current plan. This option permits the city
to use the area of the Triangle efficiently for the provision of employment and
housing but does not require further amendment of transportation plans. This option P-'
also permits the city to meet Metro's objectives for the use of the property without
r<
violating the provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule(TPR). Metro has also
urged a limitation on Floor Area Ratio(FAR)as a means of limiting competition with
the nearby Regional Center. An FAR also achieves the purpose of limiting the r'
transportation impact of these amendments so that they are not significantly different x
than would be experienced under the existing acknowledged comprehensive plan. Wetz� R
r therefore conclude that the proposal before us, including the FAR cap of 0.40, is the
r
� { Rt1nt_rinrnnliry t'�,,.
l op.iv^
°i
The mixed use employment zone,as presented, contains features which carry out
other aspects of Goal 12. Compatible land uses such as office and high-density "
residential are clustered in central locations to promote ease of access, as well as the f
potential for use of non-motorized modes. Mixing land uses that can comprise related "
Ge.—;c5 to sriw coir trip lengths and reduce the number of vehicle trips. ��� _•
The mixed use employment zone facilitates the potential for trip capture by providing
i choice of residential uses(single or multi-family residential)and locating these
allowed uses in close proximity to office, commercial and general commercial uses. :
Also addressing Goal 12 are the proposed amendments to the circulation element of
the Plan. These changes call for a specific pedestrian and transportation
improvements that are needed to reduce the reliance on the automobile. Street
spacing standards identified in the Functional Plan are part of the package of
amendments. Together, with the other changes, a more pedestrian friendly
environment will be created. Street improvements will also create better access for
Tri-Met. We take notice of these changes and our adoption of them. moi.
i
iS
' We conclude the proposal implements the objectives of Goal 12.
M 3{c
n,
4 p t
O N
i
� x
51;
t
4,a„1E-r e4}A v
IAV
A 5 .�
ik
rrAA3 � �
r:
C '�y�nyy��" i+u �1
i_
q ., t `€.1�i4:P '."'#h'4'. #iz,1t3s3..cS,kr:.s:�.c....____ -....,. .__ -,<_..v.�x ..�..z e.: v v.ti. .i•wt,�ea„+.+w.,..._,.. ----..............iu,sxr 5 `,;�^ ',za��
vs, fi
§ _ b. Applicability of the Transportation Planning Rule `
n r t ".";r
{ Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendmentsh � �,.
which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land � �
uses are consistent with the identified function capacity,and level of service of
the facility. We must therefore determine whether the amendments will fc.
significantly affect a transportation facility. {
m ,r OAR 660-12-060(2)reads: C r"
S' A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility
if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planted
transportation facility;
''
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c)Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in
levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the
arNW
functional classification of a transportation facility;or
s:
(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the itx? a ,
minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
We find that subsections a
( ), (b)and(c)do not apply to these amendments. We �
' adopt as fact the expert opinion that traffic volumes produced by the proposed land
j use amendments will not create an increase in traffic over traffic volumes generated
under the current plan and regulations. The amendments do not change the functional
y classification or standards for any transportation facility. Nor do the amendments
}} F allow levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of any
transportation facility. With respect to subsection(d) we find that the plani
z amendments will not themselves cause a reduction in the level of service of any s
transportation facility below levels of service identified in our Transportation Plan. rwy
In the event these amendments are found to significantly effect a transportation facility r
'Y 4 pursuant to OAR 660-12-060-(2), we also find that the proposed amendments comply z
x with OAR 660-12-060(1). The plan amendments along with other provisions of our
code expressly limit allowed land uses, and alter design requirements to ensure that .
a t development is consistent with the function,capacity and level of service of affectedF
�a Ak '' transportation facilities, in compliance with OAR 660-12-060(1)(a)and(c). ,
` 'm
01
01
�ar
F r
i R ��r� s
t"It
liog
s dta 5� �`rs xi -rj �
A,
Mi
k4"a`
x
a ted s e tidat ,x,
-
a
i
a
�r x Yk
Y 9 fl
y N
r
lY _ ipA
ff
The evidence presented by our staff and consultants concludes that the proposed land €�a
use designations will not have a significant effect on a transportation facility because ja
v x the projected traffic volumes produced by development which would occur under thea "
amended land use designations would not exceed the traffic impacts projected to occur j g
from development under the current acknowledged land use designations. Traffic r _ `
generation from the proposed amendments has been extensively analyzed to evaluate ,,
the impacts that the proposed mixed use employment zoning would have on
transportation systems. As documented in exhibit B to the staff report and presented f204N #
to council at its December 17, 1996,hearing, the consulting Tums of Kittelson `
s Associates and Spencer and Kupper analyzed previous studies, interviewed currentOEM
property owners and developers in the Triangle and applied current and future ` s" �{ *
development trends to establish an analysis of impacts of the proposed MUE zoning �Wii
on the transportation system. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed
comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments do not result in
significant changes to trip generation over that currently allowed by existing plan and
code regulations.
R
The methodology employed by the consultants began with estimating the amount of �� �
square footage of development that would occur for each of the uses permitted under
the current land use designations. Based upon these estimates, anticipated traffic
volumes were nrojected. Xzr
`.
This result was then compared to traffic volumes anticipated under the proposed '3
designations,using the same methodology. The consultants estimated the various
square footages of use that would occur at buildout and generated expected traffic
volumes from those estimates. Based upon their analysis of these numbers, and the g^`'
i characteristics of the transnortation svctem, the.transportation and planning consu!tant3
have offered their expert opinion that the amendments proposed would not
significantly affect a transportation facility. j ;a
The project team has worked closely with the Tigard Triangle Task Force, has
reviewed past transportation and land use studies for the triangle,and have conducted r
sketch planning analysis of the 2015 traffic volume forecasts for the area-wide A
roadway system. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive i
{ plan and development regulation amendments do not result in significant changes to
1 trip generation than is currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations.
Therefore, the plan amendment dr:s not represent a change aunt would significantly
impact transportation facilities.
k Attachment G, which was submitted to the Planning Commission,and made an s F
r attachment to the staff report, provides further comparison of buildout of the Tigard t r
it
Triangle under existing zoning code regulations and the proposed regulations. The
buildout scenario labeled "unconstrained" represents the buildout of the Triangleit
--p .
10 rE
VSx"ri
uta+ .
0
_.. . a
£°���..-fi .,.:.. ... ,:s„. r•��.a cif€ t,} �~t�t r
x
r d
r r
r
4
k P t
�A
k
�N-
or
01
r J
'ti
an
c ;
8' Ux, ate't 4 • ...'; '?;, u,�.. ,..,�:._ -` -' w ... .-.r. ..,,a~u_� �_..�._,.._ .._..._ _.___v_.,...M.,.an..uWs 3... s s{ r [
V.
k� £ XM
tit' NKA'�.M.
u which is most likely under existing zoning.' This scenario is based upon a projected ,
development density
p�based ed buidou of tn an he Miof xed Use Employment eon g designation s level of development isI L W- .1
R com ared to the ex
5 which caps allowable FARs at 0.40 and which further carries restrictions on allowable
cr £ square footage of retail buildings. The conclusion of this analysis is that the Mixed , .`
4 7Use Employment district buildout scenario and the unconstrained existing zoning # v«
scenario would result in about the same overall levels of development within the w�
f Tigard Triangle.
j After reviewing the analysis presented to us we find that it is persuasive that a
proposed amendment would not significantly effect a transportation facility. We also
find that the process employed to develop the analysis was conducted in a fair and
openmanner and that it yielded a thoughtful and analytically persuasive result.
r
J 4
K c. Factual Dispute
t In the record before us the consultants'methodology and the data supporting it ist"�
undisputed except in one respect. DLCD has indicated its disagreement with one ofPi
{{ .
the assumptions in the analysis,thus leaving the methodology and the assumptions
undisputed in all other respects. i <
In a letter of December 17, 1996, Mr. Steve Outman of DLCD states"we disagree
with the assumption that existing zoning will result in buildout averaging 0.60 floor
area ratio(FAR)." While the letter offers no further explanation,our understanding
of the claim is that DLCD believes that the current zoning would build out at a lower
jfloor area ratio, thus creating less intensity of development, and therefore generating ^-
less traffic volume. The implication of DLCD's dispute with respect to projected
buildout intensity is that the transportation and planning consultants overestimated they
traffic volumes that would result from development under the current zoning. If these ,
5 volumes have been overestimated then the ultimate conclusion of those experts would , a
be undermined because the volumes that could be expected from the amended land *' }
use designations would exceed those that would be expected under the current land r�
use designation. �
f;.
4T,
r
' Table two of Attachment G provides projected development scenarios labeled"constrained"andy
d "unconstrained". The"constrained"analysis was based upon a projected FAR of 0.40. The firm of Spencer {
3' and Kupper concluded that this scenario under estimated the density of development that would be expected in YX °
+h� the Triangle under the existing zoning regulations. It was therefore not considered to be the proper basis for
w comparison to the impacts of buildout under the proposed zoning regulations. The"unconstrained"scenario isRE
,,+
y based upon a projected buildout of the existing zoning regulations at an FAR of 0.60. r ,
Y
^ � :1Jrs- y
l J
25-r > ?x
c i
tM S l
f
� ' a
Me
4 J
S �
5'
1
q f
'..``-- •
j In the case of a disputed assumption we must determine which evidence to rely upon. ; ,
Based upon our review of the record we find that the FAR estimate provided by
Spencer and Kupper is the most credible and reliable evidence. Mr. Spencer K>:".
' appeared at our hearing and explained the basis upon which he recommended the use
a of that number. His opinion was based upon his professional expertise as well
` interviews with owners and developers in the Triangle and his knowledge of levels of
` development in other similar areas in the region. We found him to be a credible
witness with strong credentials. In opposition to his opinion we have only the flat
statement that"we disagree" without any further explanation. No representative of ta .
DLCD appeared before us and therefore we were unable to inquire further into their i%
analysis or to compare their testimon and credibilitywith the live witness that
appeared before u s We therefore acce t the ex rt opinion of Mr_ Spencer that a `' 4 �
PP P Pe P Pe 0
0.60 floor area ratio is the correct assumption to make regarding intensity of
development in the Triangle over the planning period.
trs _
Based upon the evidence and record we conclude that the amendments wno '
Po illt '
I significantly affect the transportation facility and therefore OAR 660-12 060 does not
apply to this case. The conclusion of the credible expert analysis in this record is that
the Mixed Use Employment district buildout scenario and the unconstrained existing to
zoning scenario will result in about the same overall levels of development within the .
Tigard Triangle. In fact, it is possible that development under the existing zoning
scenario could be even higher than projected because under current regulations there
is no cap on the FAR that can be achieved within the Triangle. The 0.60 FAR � '�� '
estimate employed by the consultants is an estimate of the level of intensity which is Yt
likely, but there is no guarantee under existing code that buildout will be at an FAR > ,
that is this low. The proposed zoning, on the other hand, contains a specific FAR }'
'
cap for retail and office development of 0.40. This will assure that development } z+
intensity will not exceed that which was estimated by the consultants in evaluating the t
a,
transportation impacts from the proposed amendments. '� `i � ��� 1r,.
- -'r ,s. _
7. Energy Conservation: Goal 13 requires that land and uses be developed to �k .,
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The proposed amendment
provides a mix of uses within one geographic area and connects those uses both
internally and externally with street systems,pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths. f ,:
With this arrangement automobile trips will be fewer and there will be more
opportunity for alternative modes of travel. Ultimately this will reduce the number of
auto trips necessary and will result in increased energy conservation. The then of .
P rY rgY theory
providing a mix of uses within one geographic area and connecting those areas both -ax ifY
internally and externally with street systems,pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths is
that automobile trips will be fewer and there will be more opportunity for alternative fi:<
modes of travel. Ultimately,this will reduce the number of auto trips necessary and
will result in increased energy conservation. '
1 E�
i
12
- a
ix-
LLGt d
s
K
G
t �
;
J
a
ty{;
€ T� ��.`
r
X as
t COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 3g
8. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent `
x with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is , ^`
3 consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under`Statewide Goals'. s
The proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro "Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan" that was approved for the adoption on October 24, � dw
,c 1996 by the Metro Council. The "Growth Concept" map associated with the a r
A.
Functional Plan indicates this area as"Mixed Use Employment". The adopted •�
"Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives" that are implemented by the
Functional Plan discuss Employment Areas as:
"Other employment center would be designated as employment `
areas,mixing various types of employment and including some
residential development as well. These employment areas would >y
provide for about 5 percent of new households and 14 percent oa <.
new employment within the region. Densities would rise • .
substantially from 1990 levels of about 11 people per acre to
about 20 people per acre. Employment areas would be expected 4 ,
to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to
serve the needs of people working or living in the immediate
employment areas, not larger market areas outside the
employment area. Exceptions to this general policy can bea ..
3 made only for certain areas, indicated in a functional plan." �
(Page 32, Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, T
adopted December 14, 1995). _ r'
By rezoning the Triangle to a Mixed Use Employment zone with an emphasis on ; � t
XF
employment uses the City is moving toward implementing this design concept. We c=
will be providing the opportunity for an area where high density residential will be '�
allowed along with commercial and office/employment uses. Originally,the Task �c-
Force had proposed to rezone the entire Triangle to Mixed Use Employment. As
noted in the above language and further amplified within the adopted Functional Plan, E
Title 4, the intent of Metro's design concept for Mixed Use Employment zones is to ;
' limit the amount of retail. Within the adopted standards for Title 4, is a requirement fi t fi
that limits retail uses larger than 60,000 sq.ft.per business or building in Mixed Use r 1
Employment areas. The final adoption of the Functional Plan exempts the
Commercial General and Commercial Professional zones from this allowance if the {�
zoning districts currently allow retail uses with a greater area than 60,000 sq.ft.
' The city's Commercial General zoning districts currently allows retail uses over } " F
N =0rl�
60,000 sq.ft.and to assure preservation of that allowance it was determined that areas , �* ;
5 k of the Triangle currently zoned Commercial General not be rezoned to Mixed Use
f Employment. The areas that are currently zoned Commercial Professional,R-25 and "
13r
fi , i Y s'•- h 'G
...
x
s t
k" �
e x i
" ,
0083,
R3.5 would be rezoned to Mixed Use Employment, with limitations on the ability for
1 lace retail uses.
rr sr,
M a
s .
fg 3 Retail uses in the Mixed Use Employment zone would be limited to 60,000 sq.ft. with r
.`t the additional provision that on sites over three acres in size, retail use is limited to
30,000 sq.ft. of gross leasable area plus one additional square foot of gross leasable } 1
x rG area of general retail sales for each additional four square feet of non-general retail ;
r� sales use. In addition to this requirement, with the exception of residential and
� w � req P
transient housing, the maximum floor area ratio(FAR)for all commercial and
industrial uses will not exceed 0.40.
The limitations are intended to provide assurance that a mix of uses will occur in the .
Mixed Use Employment zone,and that the entire zone will not become retail. It ist-
' also intended to assure that transportation impacts are limited and that the area does '
f not detract from the future development of the Regional Center at Washington Square.
i
z
This policy is satisfied. w`
9. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for
comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally k y
advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during Y `
s ' November, and two work shops were held and extensive mailings were made to
Y
property owners within the Triangle. This policy is satisfied. � � r
a F
a 10. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity °.
for r
7 diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent
levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07,the Metropolitan
`\ Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable k
s land to provide the opportunity for at least 50%of new units to be attached single a
family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per
acre. The City is currently in compliance with this rule. The proposal for a Mixed
Use Employment zone will allow further development of high density residential in s
the Triangle. This will not take the city out of compliance. ` A
c
t k
511
v
\� jt 14 '
yl33�tt'' l 3 a ei 7 Y y-.
F $"!�4,
4�k ' * +r«tee .�x. - - - .z, z, ..x ?„�.ti..» 'i z' e✓ `' r�
M77 { ss
j vi
gr' em
.r
{ 4
1A '
� 3 l 0
3:#.''t" 74�kkz aass.....�..�.,.u......>._.._ .___..,_ ._-.,. ., ..�.. . .....,._...>_ ,.,.._.....-.�........,....a....�....K,as�.w.. t {z W.
`�J?_' y f y't
3 •a.� .�'$�� { � '�Uri f���x2.. �
�3� 5 z • K = � fk �;'
a COMPLIANCE WITH CObIlVnlPii'PY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: A ��
p x" Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedure for
n� �ae consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, y,
.i implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the
Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and t ,
yr sy 3 , 3 .. �d
responses are as follows: � 44 Ac��Y•w,�,'3}��� <4
` 1 11. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised ' �!
Statutes Chapter 197. There standards are addressed in these findings. These -:
standards are addressed in Section IV under Statewide Goals' in the staff report datedr" e, x
December 17, 1996.
' 12. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The applicability oft,`=
Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in these findings. r
r
13. Applicable pians and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District.
Plans recently adopted by Metro are addressed in these findings. The applicable plans
and guidelines adopted by Metro are discussed above under General Policy 1.1(a). �
14. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are
# addressed under`Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. ��� -
15. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The proposal is
consistent with the city's implementing ordinances which are contained in the Tigard ?�
3 Community Development Code. The implementing ordinances are contained in the 4
Tigard Community Development Code,which are addressed in this section of then.
staff report.
16. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or
community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or
r implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. x�
' This criteria is optional for consideration. Clearly, the area has changed from the
time that the existing single-family homes were developed. Traffic has increased
dramatically in and around the area and much of the once single family area has g a'
redeveloped to commercial. The resulting noise and automobile impacts have made Z'
much of the area unsuitable for single-family residential. These circumstances '
support the proposed changes which recognize that the area is more suited to
j employment uses. Metro's designation of the area for a mixed use employment 4 4!
center supports our conclusion that a change has occurred which justifies the proposed
6 1 a� ,s,d r'�� -
~� amendment. B
�
t� R
a ^ ' 4
1"'02-
t 15
{{ J
����'4�aY
� •.
kk a
5x�.kes`, i'n' a'X,.Cvek i' Zell
W
.r
d
t �MY _ �
[ �h
-y..
24Y
71
�• ���rra � � r
S +
WOO,
} a
t
c�T ���c� .4 -+"��.�,.+v...-r:.,s s,.n.•+_,..w� ..... _ ,.,._ . a. _,...u.....-...,....�...,..�.__ ..�__ ..�..........,o...,......ti..a..aiu`�.:_*Su"'�Atil'� } � i`
a
0-1
N z zz
L
vr
C. AGENCY COMMENTS
r
' a
1. Metro reviewed this proposal ann t;le attached letter dated November 18, 1996 was }
entered into the record at the Planning Commission public hearing. It should be
r noted that the letter from Metro recommends that transient housing not be exempted
z ' from the 0.40 FAR as is proposed by the Task Force and staff. The reason that an L �'
exemption is proposed for transient housing is the recognition that it is appropriate to ' u
provide hotel facilities that could service the area as it develops as an employment
center. These hotels should have the ability to provide conference facilities and k , ' , t
j f business suites and should not be limited to what would result from the 0.40 FAR ' #" �
lim
ion. These
' es and
lodging surrounding facilities
a employment ent seen
roviding restaurant,and we seen no thatctheir inclusion on 1 Y V
4 H
in the zone would detract from the regional center. �2
2. Washington County reviewed this proposal and had no comment. Y <�
3. ODOT has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a letter dated November 18, 4
1996 that was entered into the public record at the Planning Commission. The letter
recommends that the area be identified as an employment center. , m;
4. A letter was received from DLCD on December 2, 1996. That letter was attached to51
the staff report dated December 17, 199 A second letter was faxed to the City on -.
December 17, 1996 and was entered into the record as Exhibit A. That letter z .
expresses disagreement with the assumptions of the "unconstrained" scenario that
assumes a 0.60 FAR for fuc.re development in the Triangle. No evidence is provided
J from DLCD that outlines why there is disagreement with the assumption. The City 4
has received expert analysis and testimony from Spencer&Kupper and Kittelson&
iAssociates regarding this issue and accepts the validity of the assumptions. ODOT
and Metro were also provided these assumptions as part of the information to support v.,
the transportation recommendations of the City and neither agency questioned the a
j
assumptions provided. x
The City, therefore, does not agree with DLCD's conclusion that OAR 660-12-060 of �
the transportation planning rule applies. The City has found through its land use and
transportation analysis that impacts on the transportation system will be virtually the t
same under buildout of the new Mixed Use Employment district and what could be g
i built out under current zoning. With this finding, 060 does not apply in that the `
a planned changes to the Comprehensive Plan will not have a significant impact on the
function, capacity and level of service of the transportation system. '
r' The record indicates that the principal argument advanced by DLCD in its December
s .
2, 1996, letter, that the TPR applies event though the status quo is being maintained r i
for traffic volumes, was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Benner, Director of DLCD,ata
r
meeting with city staff which took place on December 16, 1996.
16
24
A n7
i �
t� w
U
eli
.i
r f
}
; t
S V n
h
a Y' 1_
`hRik am S
f
Mg'jW
r D. DECISION
The City Council APPROVES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008/ZON #
9�
96-0003/ZOA 96-0005 `
Wy
.ry e
�s
yxs 's k.
i 3' y ar
t' 3.
.g l�
v � _
J5
3 iH
n-K,
17
t
.j
M
a
�•Y $ - F-x.5'2 ��..
I E'
t
a
t=