Loading...
City Council Packet - 12/15/1992 r CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA Nf N f ' N PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an Y A agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM) - Joint Workshop with Planning Commission: Community Commercial Zoning District (4t' 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 24, 1992 3.2 Approve Selection of MSTIP Project for Bull Mountain Road Improvements 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Approve Consultant Contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Study and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign the Contract 4. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT - ORDINANCE NO. 92-3~ C Community Development Staff COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 1 r A d 5. CONSIDER MERGER OF FUNCTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WITH THOSE OF PLANNING COMMISSION - ORDINANCE NO. 92-25 • Community Development Staff 6. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - RESOLUTION NO. 92-5F • Administration Staff 7. REVIEW SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE - LENGTH OF FRANCHISE TERMS • Public Works Staff - 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT =1215.92 v C- COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 2 q:511 I low Council Agenda Item -3j T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Council President Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Council President Schwartz; Councilors Judy Fessler, Valerie Johnson, and Joe Kasten. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordw.nator; Jerry Offer, Associate Planner; Michael Robinson, Legal Counsel (arrived at 7:00 pm) ; Randy Wooley, City Engineer; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. STUDY SESSION • Joint Workshop With Planning Commissions; Community commercial zoning District Planning Commissioners Boone, Moore and Hawley met with Council in a workshop discussion on the proposed Community Commercial Ordinance. City Administrator Reilly advised that the purpose of the workshop was to review the changes resulting from Council discussion at the November 24, 1992, meeting concerning Community Commercial Zoning. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the issues with regard to those changes which included: • Tying the site plan to the proposed zone change. • Conditional Use provisions with regard to the grocery store size and the amount of square feet allowable for general retail. • Density requirements: reinstate the requirement that there be an average of 8 units per acre to exist within one-half mile of a Community-Commercial site. • Strengthen the proposed design guidelines. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 1 i Comments during the workshop included the following: • Commissioner Boone noted several areas in the guidelines' section for which mandatory wording was substituted for non-mandatory wording. He advised that in some cases conflicts were created. For example, it appears that there is no logical place for a loading dock to be built. Councilor Johnson noted that these guidelines should be discussed. With changing the word "should" to "shall" in the design criteria, conflicts have resulted. Council would discuss these areas and modify the wording where appropriate. • With regard to conditional use for the size of a grocery store and the general retail uses, there was discussion on whether the square footage should be an outright specified number. • Councilor Schwartz noted that density transfers would be required if the area is rezoned from residential. Discussion followed on past problems with density transfers. • Councilor-elect Hunt noted his concern that some of the decisions that are to be made by Council on a Community Commercial zone would be better administered by staff. He noted that the staff's technical ability to deal with items such as density transfers and some of the other specifics of the ordinance would be preferable to him. Councilor Johnson noted that she favored a Council public hearing because this process would provide an opportunity for the neighborhood to say whether they want a Community Commercial Development nearby. • Community Development Director noted that density requirements would limit the number of potential sites available for Community-Commercial zoning. 'He advised that Community-Commercial should be designed for more densely populated areas to provide an opportunity for people to walk their shopping areas. Community Development Director noted that tying the site plan to the zone change amendment rather than to the change in the Comprehensive Plan would be preferable. This recommendation was made because of the State's 120- day limit for decision making on zone changes and permit applications. (See Staff Report on file with the Council packet material.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 2 i MEN Community Development Director Murphy noted the changes to the proposal with regard to the mandatory standards which he thought would be workable. Councilor Johnson s advised that the burden for arguing the value of a C-C development should be borne by the developer rather than the existing neighborhood. There was discussion on the need to protect the residential property. It was noted that the Community Commercial Zone process was somewhat different from the other requirements in the Code because of the impact the zone could have on residential property. (Michael Robinson arrived at 7:00 pm) Commissioner Boone noted that he could not see the advantage of the conditional use language with regard to the size of the grocery store use or the general retail. He noted that conditional uses lend themselves more to appeal and he thought it was not in keeping with the intent of establishing guidelines for this Community Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Boone noted that he supported a 30,000 square foot maximum size for the grocery use. There was discussion on reasoning for limiting the density to 12 units/acre. It was noted that the height limit for buildings was set at 35 feet; therefore, the density was, essentially, self- restricting. (Commissioner Wendi Hawley arrived at 7:10 pm) Commissioner Hawley referred to the trade area density requirement and noted that the Planning Commission had { studied this thoroughly and felt that the Code should be silent on the density issue. She noted their concern with the fact that this ordinance should be applicable to the whole City; the density requirement limited the application of this zone to only two sites. She expressed reservations with the mandatory standards and tying the Comprehensive Plan Map change or zoning changes to the site plan. She noted that this requirement would mean extraordinary up front costs which would make a Community Commercial Zone unavailable for a smaller business to develop. Commissioner Hawley urged Council acquiescence to the Planning Commission's recommendations which represented thoughtful, thorough review of this issue which included substantial citizen input. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 3 i • Councilor Fessler responded that because this is a special zone and one which could impact residential property, she felt that the City owed the citizens an opportunity to review what a proposed development would look like and give comment. • Councilor Johnson advised that even though there were many mandatory requirements in place, the Code would not be able to address all potential aspects unique to each development proposal. For this reason, she felt that tying a specific site plan to a zone change or Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be preferable so that the citizens would know exactly what could be built on that property if approved. She reiterated that the burden of proof should be on the developer for a C-C zone change, because the surrounding neighborhoods would have been there first as residential property. She also advised that other sites would be able to use this zoning as the City experiences redevelopment in the next 10 to 20 years. • Community Development Director reviewed the hearing process. He suggested that the public hearing be reopened to receive testimony specific to the changes outlined at the Council Meeting on November 24., 1992. • Agenda Review City Administrator Reilly advised that Agenda Item No. 7 (Solid Waste Ordinance) would be set over to December 22, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. This was in keeping with Council direction to hold a public hearing on this issue. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • There were no visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA' Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to approve the following consent agenda items. 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 24, 1992 3.2 Approve Selection of MSTIP Project for Bull Mountain Road Improvements 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Approve Consultant Contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Study and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign the Contract The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 4 F 4. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91- 0005fZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT LOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT - ORDINANCE - NO. 92-34. a. Councilor Schwartz reopened the public meeting and noted that Council would be reviewing the community commercial Plan designation with regard to changes which had been proposed by the Council at their November 24, 1992 meeting. b. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to reopen the public testimony portion of the hearing with testimony to be limited to five minutes per person; people were asked to comment on those items pertinent to the changes outlined in the staff report. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. C. Associate Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the staff report. (A copy of the staff report is on file with the meeting packet.) d. Public Testimony: • John Shonkwiler, 13425 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, submitted a letter dated December 15, 1992. (A copy of this letter has been filed with the Council packet material.) • Tim Sercombe, (attorney representing Mr. Ed Sullivan who had been previously before council on this item), 111 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR, advised that he opposed the staff report recommendation that the grocery store square footage could be as much as 50,000 square feet (Conditional Use). He noted that in his estimation this was a bad policy with insufficient controls present in the conditional use permit. He noted that allowing stores of this size would not bring t. to a close the debate over the issues. He noted this would be a "mega-store" and was not in keeping with the intent of the zoning district. He noted the criteria set forth was vague and would set the stage for future controversies. • Cal Woolery, NPO #7 Chair, 12356 SW 132nd Court, Tigard, OR, noted that the NPO supported 40,000 square feet for the grocery store as a compromise position. A 30,000 square foot limit would be preferred. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 5 I 's 's i F He noted the locational criteria with regard to density did not represent a problem to the NPO and they could support this. He advised he did not support conditional use criteria on the size of grocery stores. • Don Duncombe, 17001 NE San Rafael, Portland, OR, advised he was a real estate manager for the Albertson's chain. He noted that a 30,000 square foot limit on the grocery store use would not be workable. He advised that prior testimony by Mr. Marcott of Thriftway was simply that of a competitor speaking. He noted in the Community Commercial zone, the grocery store would be the anchor and it would be a draw for shoppers of up to i 1-1/2 miles. He urged the Council to adopt at least a 40,000 square foot store with a conditional use to 50,000 square feet. He noted that anything smaller than 40,000 would not be workable and cited their unsatisfactory experiences with smaller stores. There was discussion with Council on the size of store and auxiliary uses (i.e., a bakery) with regard to profitability and ultimate success of the overall business. • Wendi Conover-Hawley, 14790 SW 79th, Tigard, OR, advised she was a Planning Commission member. She reminded Council that the Planning commission was the applicant and asked the Council to consider the proposal which was presented to them at their November 24, 1992 Council meeting. She noted that recommendation was sent to them with the following items in support of that recommendation: All the NPOs had an opportunity to submit information to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. She noted there was participation by a number of people within the community on the issue. Throughout the process there had been arguments over store size. She noted that a lot of issues, which had been worked through, were extraneous to the commission's application. She noted there was a difference between what the two rivalry stores were saying and what the people were saying. Larger stores belong in a General Commercial CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 6 mom zone. The NPOs were more comfortable with the 30,000 square foot grocery store. She noted that a compromise (40,000 square feet) would t not be necessarily welcomed by a neighborhood. Commissioner Hawley noted that since the Council decision at the November 24, 1992 meeting, she had been in contact with several of the Commissioners with regard to the changes proposed by Council. She reported that the Commissioners she talked to advised her of concerns with creating a zone for use by a particular developer, in this instance Albertson's, rather than creating a zone which ! is truly of benefit to the City as a whole. • Craig Petrie, 9600 SW Capital Highway, Portland, OR, testified that the community Commercial zoning would be of benefit because it would allow people an opportunity to shop in their neighborhood. He noted that the need was there and that a 50,000 square-foot grocery store would serve local needs. (See letter submitted by Mr. Petrie, dated December 8, 1992, which was been filed with the Council packet material.) Mr. Petrie noted that this would be on opportunity to do some good planning. • Pam Garcia, 14555 SW Teal, Beaverton, OR, advised that she was a member of the Marcott family who owned several grocery stores. She advised of the family's involvement in this issue early in the process because they were concerned with competition elements associated with approval of a larger grocery store use at the locations identified. Ms. Garcia agreed with Commissioner Hawley with regard to the issues of concern to the neighborhoods. She noted that the 40,000 square foot size was a compromise position by the neighborhoods. A 40,000 square foot store, she advised, was a very large store. She compared this size to their Murray Hill Thriftway Store which was 42,000 square feet and two other stores they owned which were 30,000 square feet. The smaller stores were large enough for neighborhood use. She advised she did not think a compromise was fair to the neighbors with regard to store size. • Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Creek Road, Scappoose, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 7 x OR, advised that he owns a piece of property which would be eligible for the Community Commercial Zoning. He noted that he had been involved with this issue for the last 1-1/2 years and had attended meetings from the NPO #7 to the Planning Commission, and then to the City Council during this time period. Mr. Russell said he was in agreement with the recommendation from Mr. Shonkwiler with regard to the recommendations for design standards. He noted that those recommendations would provide a means for Council control of the standards applicable to a development. He also noted that 40,000 square feet, if that were a maximum, would not necessarily mean that all the stores would develop to that size. He also noted that some people preferred living near to a full- service grocery store. He advised he had no problem with a language change to go back to the 40,000 square feet maximum as was offered by the NPO to the Planning Commission and had been recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and considered at the November 24, 1992 meeting. e. Public hearing was closed. Council meeting recessed at 8:43 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m. f. Staff response: Associate Planner Offer noted that he had received the Shonkwiler latter just prior to the hearing. He noted many of the suggestions with regard to the guidelines and mandatory standards appeared to be workable and could be incorporated into the language of the ordinance if that was the Council's desire. g. Council discussion followed: • Councilor Kasten noted the issue to be whether the community desires a Community Commercial Zone and, if so, what criteria should the Zone contain (as desired by the citizens of Tigard)? • Councilor Johnson said she was appreciative of the volunteer time and hours spent reviewing this issue. Of concern to her was the fact that Mr. Russell, an affected property owner, had been involved in this process for 1-1/2 years. She INN" CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 8 (i .B pointed out that at one time this property had been located in Washington County (outside City limits) and was zoned to allow a grocery store as was now being proposed. If the City had not annexed this property, this store would have been built by now. She noted there would have been no limit on the store size under Washington County's zoning. Councilor Johnson then reviewed different areas of the changes which had been noted at the last council meeting: • She said would be willing to review the mandatory and non-mandatory guidelines. • She advised that she preferred density requirements be placed on adjacent property as locational criteria for a C-C zone. • She informed that she would be willing to remove the conditional use portion of the language with regard to grocery store size. She noted that 30,000 square feet appeared to have been favored and there had been testimony submitted that the 40,000 square feet (maximum) would be acceptable. • She said she had no problem with the site plan being tied to the Zone Change rather then to the Comprehensive Conference Plan change as per the staff recommendation. { • She noted they were considering the issue for 3 the entire community, but this did not necessarily mean that the proposal would be applicable in all areas. She advised there were residential areas that needed to be protected. • Councilor Fessler commented on the process noting that it was a visioning exercise with this new zone and that there was a need to be sensitive to y residential areas. She advised she agreed that the site plan should be tied to the zoning change so that the neighbors would have an opportunity to see what kind of a neighbor this C-C development would be. She noted the need to work through this new FAM zone process together. She said she would also be willing to review the mandatory guidelines to determine what should be noted as "should" instead of "shall" in the language. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 9 3 a 3 3 i • Councilor Schwartz commented on the guidelines, noting that some of the mandatory language was too restrictive and review of this section was necessary. He noted that the purpose of the limitation on the store size was to maintain a commercial development which was in keeping with the neighborhood area. He noted he would favor language which would protect a neighborhood, yet was flexible enough to allow a developer the opportunity to propose a commercial venture which would be acceptable to a neighborhood. He noted that the maximum size of 40,000 square feet for the grocery store was acceptable. He agreed with the s density limitation. Council discussion continued with review of the design guidelines with regard to the language (i.e., "should" or "shall") (Changes are reflected in the signed ordinance.) Councilor Johnson reiterated that the burden of proof should be on the developer rather than the neighborhood. h. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to make the following amendments to the proposed ordinance: 1. The existing ordinance amended to reflect the changes in the proposed mandatory and non-mandatory guidelines as was reviewed by Council. 2. The eight units per acre density requirement would be reinstated. 3. The zoning will be linked to site development approval as recommended. 4. The grocery store would be limited to 40,000 square feet with no conditional use provisions. 5. Clarification language approved by inserting language contained in Mr. Shonkwiler's recommendation with regard to the site and building design standards. 6. The general retail would be limited to 10,000 square feet with no conditional use provisions. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 10 's .q i. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson to table this agenda item until later in the agenda. (Staff prepared changes outlined by Council and revised the proposed ordinance.) Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Note: Staff revised the ordinance and returned later in the meeting, as announced by the Council President, with an amended version for council consideration. The following represents a synposis of Council action on this item.) j. Community Development staff reviewed the sections of the ordinance as amended by Council motion. Council agreed that all amendments had been properly completed by staff. k. ORDINANCE 92-34 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91-0005/ZOA 91-0006). Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Ordinance No. 92-34. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. CONSIDER MERGER OF FUNCTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WITH THOSE OF PLANNING COMMISSION - ORDINANCE NO. 92-35. a. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. b. There was brief discussion of elements of the ordinance. C. Councilor Fessler noted that two Planning commissioners were being appointed later on this agenda. These positions were being filled by Transportation committee members. The standard process for Planning Commission appointments will resume for future appointments. d. Councilor Johnson commented that two positions on the commission could be filled by residents outside of the City. She questioned whether the other councilors were comfortable with this proposal. This was discussed briefly. Council consensus was that this was probably acceptable at this time because of the City's urban area of interest boundaries and the need to include planning d' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 11 i OEM for this area. This may be an issue that Council would cant to revisit at a later date if circumstances change. e. ORDINANCE NO. 92-35 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 2.08 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 2.08, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 84-62 AND 87-35. f. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-35. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - RESOLUTION NO. 92- 58 a. RESOLUTION NO. 92-58 - A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS. b. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Resolution No. 92-58. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. REVIEW SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE- LENGTH OF FRANCHISE TERMS • Set over to December 22, 1992. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Update on Board and Committee Structure - CIT Concept Community Relations coordinator reviewed the feedback from boards and committees received over the last eight weeks. With the exception of the Park & Recreation Board, Planning Commission and NPO's 3 and 7, all groups have reviewed the CIT concept. (Those Boards and Committees which have not yet reviewed, will be asked for their input in the near future.) ; The CIT concept was generally well received. Ms. Newton reviewed some of the suggestions. The following recommendations were agreed to by Council: RECOMMENDATIONS: • Meet with NPO #3 and #7 in January to present CIT concept. • Council review existing roles and responsibilities of the Park and Recreation Board, Solid Waste i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 12 i 3 i 1 n Advisory Committee, and Library Board in January. • Council discussion of the role of public participation in land use issues in January. • Develop land review process with planning staff. • Review land use review process. Planning staff. Planning Commission. • Develop training package including general topics and estimated costs. • Prepare draft CIT agreements that include: Boundaries for the purpose of selecting Steering Committee members. Responsibilities of Steering Committee members. Responsibilities of the City: Notice of meetings Resources (staff, information) Training Coordination with school district and other agencies • Review CIT agreements. City Council Staff liaisons Boards and Committees 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:40 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:59 P.M. A Oofat Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder i and Date • =1215.92 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1992 - PAGE 13 i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 7409 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 L I Notice Advertising e city of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397]E( 'The following meeting highlights are published for your inforinati~~n Full 'Tigard, OR 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate AM agendas maybe obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S w Hall Boulevard, Tigard,'Oregon 97223 ar by calling 6394171 ° cily. Of. 11 WO ° CITY COUNCIL:BUSINESS 1viEETIlVG DECEMBER 15;1992 TIGARD CITY HALL TOYM HALL 13125 S ~V. HIiL1: BOULEVARD, TIGAIH); ORFG0N AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Study Session (Town Hall Cgnference Room) (6-_36 P.M ) STATE OF OREGON, )as Bttsuiess'Meeting Hall) -(7;30 P.M.) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) Council Consideration I, Judith Koehler "Merge functions of Tranc] . 11.a1 Comimttee with those of the being fist duly sworn, depose and say that Ia~iihe Advertising Planiim$ Commis ion Director, or his principal clerk, of the T& Imes PlaanTg Conunissioa Appointments enent =Create Comraiiiiity Cam a newspaper of general circ4tion as defined in ORS 193.010 Zhe~neive Plan Amdm and 193.020; Published at ilara in the af~io~u1~tla%1j-%%slsha'eeting • Executive Session The Tigard City Council may go intb Execs tlve Session under the provisions of OI2S 192660 (i)' (d;1,:(e); & a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the (h} to discuss labor:reladons` real proFie transactA ctarrent hagataon issues Ons~ pen successive and 'din entire issue of said newspaper for One consecutive in the `following issues: TT7409 Publish Icemlrer''10,1992 x.- December 1021992 Subscribed and sworn to efore me this loth day of December, 1992. V Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 3 AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Q -A I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose arul say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) q Z - 3S , 0~ t). - 3 S which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated la~ 15 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the a day Of ~~.rr~W.~ , 19 'A a- 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 92 Nota Public or Oregon My Commission Expires: 4111 q4 C login\io\affpost >s i a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 92-13~ ( AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COA:[PREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91- 0005`1-JOA 91-0006). WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the guidance of land usage and development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission has initiated the proposed amendments and has held public hearings on the proposed amendments on March 2, 1992, April 6, 1992, and November 2, 1992 and-has recommended approval of the amendments to the Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on June 23, 1992, September 8, 1992, November 24, 1992, and December 15, 1992 to consider the proposed amendments. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Plan Policy 12.2.1, at #4 of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit A (new section shown in its entirety); SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit B (new Chapter 18.61 shown in its entirety; amendments to existing sections of the Code shown with additions underl-ined and ,deletions bracketed SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U n QLylL YYIU+-UJ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of ~J 2-i-en~►.¢~ 19 9 2 r. ~Zw 4D w C herine Wheatley, City Re rder . APPROVED: This day of 1232 ohn Sctiw~r'~"3, nG l Pr•e r Approved as to orm: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 92-~~ MENEM t EXHIBIT A - DECEMBER 15, 1992 x y •fi fi i 4. Community Commercial The community commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. It is further the intent of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities and that the community commercial plan designation should not be located in close proximity to other commercial areas so as to avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development. a. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one-half mile of a site to be designated for community commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre (as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community commercial site). The intent of this criterion is.to locate community commercial sites within -a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential frequent users of the establishments within the commercial center. This also will provide the residents of the surrounding area with an opportunity to provide for their commercial and service needs within a distance that is reasonable for walking or bicycling. Lesser residential densities may or may not exist within the assumed trade area at further distances from the site . - 1 - (2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial floor area. Food sales up to 40,000 sq. ft. per establishment; General retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment as permitted uses; Other commercial sales and service facilities shall be allowed »r to 5.000 sa. ft. in size per establishment. b. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non- commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and. projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. - 2 - (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a Site Development Review application contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, any of the site building and ; design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety and other building and site design standards imposed by the City in the plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification to the site plan, as determined by the Community Development Code, shall be processed as a zone change. Other modifications shall be processed in accordance with existing Code provisions. (b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site, however, may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Q - 3 - 9 i 1 The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (d) Access needy of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. (f) Exterior lighting, noise, and activities associated with the Community Commercial district zhall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise, light, and nuisances. Operating hour restrictions may be placed on uses within the district, either through restrictions within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular site. jo/Com-Com.Mst - 4 - MMIBIT B - DECEMBER 15 , 199_2_ Chapter 18.61 C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sections: 18.61.010 Purpose 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process a 18.61.030 Permitted Uses 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses 18.61.050 Dimensional "Requirements 18.61.055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards 18.61.060 Additional Requirements 18.61.010 Purpose A. The purpose of the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district is to provide locations for convenience shopping facilities that provide for the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. It is intended that the community commercial center be ideally developed as a unit with adequate off-street parking for customers and employees, and with appropriate landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor area in community commercial centers typically range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and land area ranges between 2 to 8 acres. Community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one half mile. The designation of a site with this district should not create or contribute to a commercial strip development pattern. This district is intended to be located adjacent to several - i - C MIF t i 's i f EXHIBIT -B - DECEMBER 15, 1992 .4 t Chapter 18.61 C-C %OiveMUNi i y COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sections: 18.61.010 Purpose 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process 18.61.030 Permitted Uses 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements 18.61.055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards 18.61.060 Additional Requirements 18.61.010 Purpose A. The purpose of the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district is to provide locations for convenience shopping facilities that provide for the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. It is intended that the community commercial center be ideally developed as a unit with adequate off-street parking for customers and employees, and with appropriate landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor area in community commercial centers typically range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and land area ranges between 2 to 8 acres. Community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one half mile. The designation of a site with this district should not create or contribute to a commercial strip development pattern. This district is intended to be located adjacent to several residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street. The district is to be applied in only one quadrant of an intersection. The intended service area of the district is up to one and one half miles from a site. - 1 - The community commercial development shall be compatible with surrounding uses as determined through the review and approval of a Site Development Review plan, including conformance with the site and building design standards contained in this Section, contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site or through the Site Development Review process. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, access limitations, special setbacks, .increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, and special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access. This Chapter shall provide building and site design guidelines and mandatory site design standards intended to minimize site development impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods and to promote pedestrian and bicyclist friendly development. It is preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site may be developed independently, however, the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. With respect for the district's primary neighborhood orientation rather than to the travelling public, signage will be strictly limited in size and height. 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A permitted use, Section 18.61.030, is a use which is allowed outright, but which is subject to all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. B. A conditional use, Section 18.61.040, is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings officer, or in the case of a Conditional Use proposed as part of the original rezoning or a major change to an approved site plan, is discretionary with the Planning commission or city council. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. It is also incumbent upon the applicant - 2 - for conditional use approval to demonstrate that the Ago intended use is consistent with the purposes of the Community Commercial zone and that the proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying district(s). If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a a"' •+..7 i ei-earl Mallsted use under 1`e pro-vi 0-S 0-P n1. i. ua au vi vsaiap ~.Gr si wiles 18.43, Unlisted Use. C. It is required that a request to rezone a parcel with the C-C zoning district be accompanied by a Site Development t Review application and/or Conditional Use application, depending upon the proposed usage of the site. The Site Develop::senu Review or Conditional Use plan approval shall include review of the proposed development's consistency with the site, building, and sign design guidelines and standards cf Section 18.61.055. Conditions of approval of the development plan may also include, but are not limited to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, and special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety as determined to be necessary to assure compatibility with existing or potential neighboring uses. Any major modification to the approved site plan, as specified by community Development Code Sections 18.120.070 and 18.130.050, or proposed modification to the conditions of development approval, shall be processed as a zone change. Other modifications shall be processed as a Director's decision in accordance with Community Development Code Sections 18.120.080 and 18.130.060. 18.61.030 Permitted Uses A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as-follows: 1. Civic use types: a. Public agency administrative services; b. Community recreation c. Cultural exhibits and library services; d. Public support facilities; e. Postal services; and - 3 - f; ',ii f. Public safety services; C 2. Commercial use types: a. Animal sales and service: (i) Grooming; b. Consumer repair services; c. Convenience sales and personal services; d. Children's day care; 3 e. Eating and drinking facilities; f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of 40,000 square feet); g. General retail sales (maximum size of 10;000 square feet).; h. General offices, such that where these uses are combined in one structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in size. (i) Medical and dental services; (ii) Financial, insurance and real estate services; (iii) Professional and administrative services; i. Participant sports and recreation: (i) Indoor; 3. Single or multi-family residential dwellings, as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units per gross acre. 4. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.142. 5. Temporary uses; - 4 - r; V NEW 6. Fuel tanks; or l 7. Accessory structures. 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chanter 18.130) A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Automotive and Equipment: NEM (i) Cleaning; 2. Vehicle fuel sales; 3. Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly; 4. Parking facilities, including transit centers. 5. Religious assembly; 6. Uses operating before 6:00 a.m. and/or after 11:00 p.m., unless extended hours have been specifically permitted as an outright use through the establishment of the zoning on the site; 7. Drive up windows. 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses A. Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows: 1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except for outside play areas for children's day, care facilities, and as allowed in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section; 2. Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet; 3. Accessory open air sales/display/storage shall be permitted for horticultural and food merchandising uses only and shall constitute no more than five percent of the gross building floor area of any individual establishment; 4. Accessory open air dining or drinking areas shall be permitted for approved eating and drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted within 200 feet of any developed residential area. Public or private sidewalk areas around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway. - 5 - ti, 18 61 050•DiMensional Requirements ' HIM A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 1. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet; 2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet; 3. Except as otherwise rr^93d..d In 111-apter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: a. No front yard setback shall be required, except a 20 foot front yard setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district; b. No corner yard setback shall be required; however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied; C. No side yard setback shall be required except a 20 foot building setback shall be required from a residential zoning district; and C d. No rear yard setback shall be required except a 20 foot setback shall be required from a residential zoning district; and e. All building separations shall meet Uniform Building Code requirements; 4. No building in the C-C zoning district shall exceed 35 feet in height; 5. The maximum site coverage shall be 80 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces; and 6. The minimum landscaped area requirement shall be 20 percent. 18.61.055' Site and Buildings Design Guidelines/Standards A. Design Guidelines The following design guidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C-C (community commercial) district. Conditions of approval of the development plan - 6 - MORMONS= i i may include, but are not limited to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. 1. Building Design Guidelines a. The design of buildings within a community commercial development should incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color schemes, special art and other features, which are sensitive to aiiC1 ant-sauce the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in the city. b. All buildings within a multi-building complex should achieve a unity of design through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, colors, and window pattern. C. Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows and doors, on all sides of the building to achieve a unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street should include public entrances to the building and windows to provide visual access to the activity within the building. The sides of a building which face toward an adjoining property, but not toward a public street, should include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to provide visual interest and prevent-the development of a long continuous blank wall. 2. General Site Design-Guidelines a. Loading areas should not be located on the side of a building which faces toward a residential use. Loading areas, if located between the building and the street, should be oriented away from the street_and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. \ - 7 - i iff M_ mum B. Design Standards The following mandatory design standards apply within the .community commercial district: 1. Internal Walkways. a. Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of- way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points of'pedestrian activity such as transit stops and street crossings to the major building entry points. b. Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be ; provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated internal walkway system along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of { pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. i. Walkways shall be provided along the full length of the building on any side which provides building access to the public or where public parking is available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to the building. ii. on the sides of the building which provide public access into the building, the walkway should be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be provided at a minimum at the entrance -area and, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. C. Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. 5 i J s 2. Other Site Development Standards a. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut- off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties. b. Mechanical equipment, if located on the building, shall be located within tha roof form of the building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design of which is consistent with the design of the building. C. Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be screened from views from the public street, sidewalk, and properties outside the district with a durable, solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the above. d. All refuse and recycling containers within the district shall be contained within structures enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest container within the structure. e. Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall be provided for developments having 100 or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Code Section 18.106.020.P. For each 100 additional stalls, facilities for five additional bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. It is strongly encouraged that bicycle parking areas be covered. f. The site development plan shall incorporate a special feature at the corner of the site. A special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or water feature. The feature shall provide a visual landmark and some amount of seating area. g. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Parking area landscaping shall be used to define and separate parking, access, and pedestrian areas within parking lots. - 9 - man MEMO= 1011MANiEM h. The landscape design for the site shall include plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. i. Site features such as fences, walls, refuse and recycling facility enclosures, and light fixtures shall be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural design of the primary structure(s). Such site features shall be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development. j. In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to facilitate safe 'and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building location shall be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent properties. Consideration should be given to locating buildings closer to the public street with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk, with no intervening } parking or driving area. Corner locations are ` particularly appropriate for this treatment. k. Opportunities shall be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters and lay- over areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated into the site development. 3. Sign Design Standards. a. All signage shall be an integral part of the architectural design. 18.61.060 Additional Requirements _ A. Additional related requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned s Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; t - 10 7, 1016 2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; :r 3. Site Development Review, Chapter.18.120; 4. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 3 5. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters + 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Y / . 'A : i'i I4"'~. :~.iC^ o •'»'^+u•Cf rr'.. A,u, :.,p>•:Ft^l:xa.;.,~ ..'.y~j'..., ' ? ~~~f3 ~ h v.~,; V'. :a < k~ . ~ w ~ c. '.!-c~~,,~' `3s" >:~:s•:r.-as2c~s,;:~t:~^'•..c. \ '.\.!,},1>n (1' "iNPiiJiO.."mOS.K' ~.ti.`}N m}iNY YAM. Y"uw!}i'i)v "MYM'A4T YA'AM$~~A a:w:"«.-N,aa,.,ova.wa.,.sr..:a~cw..,wYosoacs~uL.c~CGVb~wYao'x'it»io£ 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations E. 'Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Zones 1. No sign shall be permitted in (a] the C-N or C-C zones except for the following: a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned C-N or C-C: (1) One multifaced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted r s,-,bject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and - 11 - { } u OWN! i I (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; (ii) Area Limits: 't (1) The maximum square footage of freestanding signs shall be 32 square feet per fade or a total . of 64 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; (iii) Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (iv) Height Limits: (1) ;Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each ten feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum _ of 22 feet in height; b. Wall Signs (i) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs, including illuminated reader-boards, may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area ten percent of any building face on which the sign is to be mounted; C., - 12 - i (ii) Wall signs shall be parallel to the face C of the building upon which the sign is located; and (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign,'s visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this subsection, "copy" includes symbols, logos, and letters; C. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, visual Clearance Areas; d. Temporary signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; e. Lawn signs ,in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and B.2. f. Special condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and g. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). III. Zoning District Classifications and Requirements 18.61 Community Commercial District - 13 - -M MEMENNO ~ffil' MENEEMMEM 18.40.010.a Classification of Zones (matrix) Zoning District Map Symbol Dwelling Units Minimum Per Net Acre Lot Size community commercial C-C 32 5,000 sg. ft. 18.100M71- J y 18.130.150 130 Buffer Matrix rea+.ci•.'. Standard Dimensional Requirements for Conditional Use Types 18.130.150.C.19 Parking Facilities ' a. Applicable Zones: R-12, R-25, R-40, C-C and C-N zones 18.130.150.0.29 Drive-up Windows a. Applicable Zones: CBD and C-C zones. jo:c-czone.ord ( - 14 - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 92-35 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 2.08 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 2.08, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-62 AND NO. 87-35. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was established by Chapter 2.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee was established by Resolution No. 84-62 and amended by Resolution No. 87-35; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to combine the duties of the Planning Commission and Transportation Committee; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the general public to have the Planning Commission study, recommend, and make decisions on transportation related issues, as well as land use related issues. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 2.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code relating to the Planning Commission is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2: A revised Chapter 2.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code relating to the Planning Commission, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby adopted. Section 3: Resolution No. 84-62 and No. 87-35 are hereby superseded by the adoption of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By LA nOtn'l''YIOULS vote of all Council members present after bein.~ read by number and title only, this day of J~2 ~rr~ best , 1992. AD 60 therine Wheatley, Cit Recorder APPROVED: This day of G r Approved as to form: .Sohn Schcr3, ~u,,«~ PrQS'~~l pa1~ - M~lj M~_~ City Attorney 12-15 - .9 2 Date br/Ordinance.PC C ORDINANCE No. 92- 35 Page 1 NEW Elm EMEMEM Exh b; - A Chapter 2.08 PLANNING COMMISSION Sections- 2.08.010 Purpose 2.08.020 Appointment--Membership 2.08.030 Commission Removal 2.08.040 Vacancy - 2.08.050 Voting Members 2.08.060 Election of Officers 2.08.070 Meetings--Quorum-Voting 2.08.080 Conflict of Interest 2.08.090 Disclosure 2.08.100 Powers and Duties 2.08.110 Hearings Officer 2.08.120 Hearing Procedures 2.08.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Tigard Planning Commission is to advise the City Council on general land use and transportation planning issues; long range capital improvement programs; and to act as a hearings body for applications of permits, land use applications and land use appeals; or other matters as directed by the City Council. 2 08 020 Appointment--Membership. The city Planning Commission shall consist of nine members, not more than two of whom may be nonresidents of the city, to be appointed by the council, to serve a term of four years. Commission members shall receive no compensation but shall be reimbursed for duly authorized expenses. [Ord. 76-12 §1, 1976: Ord. 73-30 .§2(part), 1973.] n 2.08.030 Commission Removal. A member of such a Commission may be removed by the appointing authority, after hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty. 2.08.040 Vacancy. Any vacancy in such a commission shall be filled by the appointing authority for the unexpired term of the predecessor in the office. 2.08.050 Voting Members. No more than two voting members of the commission may engage principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or, be members of any partnership, or officers or employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession. 2.08.060 Election of'Officers. The Planning commission, at its first meeting in each odd-numbered calendar year, shall elect a president and a vice president, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission. The president and vice president shall be voting members of the Commission. The vice president shall preside in the absence of the president. [Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973]. 2 08 070 Meetings--Quorum--Voting. The Commission shall meet at least once in each calendar month or as necessary. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. A majority vote of those members present at an open meeting of the Commission shall be necessary to legally act on any matter before the Commission. 2.08.080 Planning Commission Member Conflict of interest Activities. A member of a Planning -Commission shall not participate in any Commission proceeding or action in which any of the following has a direct or substantial financial interest: The member or the spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in- law, mother-in-law of the member; any business in which the member is then serving or has served within the previous two years; or any business for which the member is negotiating or for which the member has an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment. Any actual or'potential interest shall be disclosed at the meeting of the commission where the action is being taken. 2.08.090 Disclosure of Pre-Hearing Contact. A member of the Planning Commission shall disclose to the Commission, prior to any hearing on a petition for a permit or with respect to any contested case, any pre-hearing or ex parte contacts with the applicant's officers, agents and employees, or any of. the parties to a contested case concerning the permit sought or the question at issue. A member of the commission shall disqualify himself or be disqualified by the remaining members of the Commission present at a hearing when it appears that the impartiality or objectivity of any member has been compromised by pre-hearing or ex parte contact. fIb [Ord. 85-28 §1, 1985; Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973]. i 2.08.100 Powers and Duties of Commission. Except as otherwise provided by the City Council, a City Planning Commission may: Make and alter rules and regulations for its government and procedure consistent with the laws of the State of Oregon, the City Charter, this chapter and other ordinances of the City. -The City Council shall assign to the Commission such facilities and services as necessary to enable the Commission to hold its meetings, transact its business and keep its records. (Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). (a) Recommend and make suggestions to the City Council and to other public authorities concerning: (A) The long range comprehensive land use plans for the City, as well as any land use plans for specific areas within the city. (B) Plans for the City-wide transportation system, including the laying out, widening, extending and locating of public thoroughfares; relieving traffic congestion conditions; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; transit facilities and routes; design standards for transportation facilities; and parking lot regulations. ROEMER= arm (C) Any proposals to adopt or amend planning documents for the City-wide transportation system, including the 1 Transportation Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Capital facilities program. (D) Establishment of districts for limiting the use, height, area, design, bulk and other characteristics of buildings and structures related to land development, including the creation of and amendments to the Tigard Development Code and the Zoning Map. (E) Betterment of housing and sanitation conditions; (F) Protection and assurance-of solar access. (b) Recommend to the Council and other public authorities plans for regulating the future growth, development and design of the City in respect to its public and private buildings and works, streets, parks, grounds and vacant lots; and plans to secure to the City and its inhabitants sanitation, proper service of public utilities and telecommunications utilities, and shipping and transportation facilities; and appropriate measures for energy conservation. (c) Recommend to the Council and other public authorities plans for promotion, development and regulation of industrial and economic activities in the community. (d) Do and perform all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of ORS 227.010 to 227.120, y and 227.160 to 227.180. (e) Study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare of the City, including the area that is expected to eventually become a part of the City through annexation. 2.08.110 Hearings Officer. The Council may appoint or designate one or more qualified persons as planning and zoning hearings officer(s), to serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The hearings off icer (s) shall have the power to conduct hearings on applications for permits. (Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973]. 2.08.120 Hearing Procedures. Procedures for the conduct of quasi-judicial hearings as prescribed by Section 18.32.160 of this code shall apply with respect to the conduct of hearings by the Planning Commission and Hearings Officer. (Ord. 74-4 §1, 1974: Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). Procedures for the conduct of legislative hearings as prescribed by Section 18.30.100 of this Code shall apply with respect to the conduct of legislative hearings by the Planning ( Commission. br/Can i ss. TMC AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 Y - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: December 15. 1992 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED r. i og n o s ors.s - 911- 000V"Ar 31-000(o GoMMV N/Ty c rrAM AL N W15 r , -7 i m Se,-c o d L s c~) ~GD )~v55L7-L ~~°~J~ /1•0~f'~1D~~ (%~i~ JG.d~' , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 15, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: December 3, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bull Mountain PREVIOUS ACTION: Road MSTIP Improvements PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Gar AlfsonUNAI SS BEFORE THE COUNCIL Selection of MSTIP project for Bull Mountain Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the selected project, directing staff to work with Washington County to prepare the formal agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY Washington County's Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) includes an undefined project for improvements to Bull Mountain Road. The County has requested that Tigard manage the project including selection of the specific project. In September a meeting was held to discuss how best to use the $500,000 MSTIP funding available for Bull Mountain Road. The consensus at the meeting was for a pedestrian/ bike path along one side of the road. Based on that meeting and subsequent input, staff recommends that the MSTIP funds be used to construct a path on one side of the road beginning at Highway 99W, extending west as far as funding allows. The west limit will be determined during the detailed design process. The next step in the process is to prepare and adopt a formal interagency agreement with C Washington County, allowing the City to proceed with the selected project using MSTIP funds. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Approve the selected project and direct staff to prepare an interagency agreement with Washington County. Reject the selected project and direct staff to work with Bull Mountain residents to select another project. Reject the project and turn the project back to Washington County. FISCAL NOTES The project is funded by the County MSTIP Program. C ga/bullmtn.ss I COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3 l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: December 15, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Consultant select- PREVIOUS ACTION: ion for Hall Greenbur Scholls Tra fi Stud PREPARED BY: City Enaineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE B THE COUNCIL Approval of a consultant contract f r the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Needs Analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the consultant selection and authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. INFORMATION SUMMARY In September the Council approved an agreement for funding of a traffic study to address transportation needs in the Washington Square area. At the same time, the Council also reviewed and accepted a draft scope of work for the study, to be known as the "Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Analysis". Following Council approval, the consultant selection process was begun and a selection committee was formed from staff members of the funding entities. After reviewing written submittals, the selection committee interviewed three potential consultants. Based on the written submittals and interviews, the Portland firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates was selected as the best qualified. A contract has been negotiated with Kimley-Horn to complete the work for the lump-sum amount of $50,000. The contract will use the City's standard contract document for engineering services and will incorporate the scope of work reviewed by the Council in September. Kimley-Horn expects to be able to issue a final report in June 1993. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract. 2. Direct staff to continue negotiations or to resume the selection process. FISCAL NOTES The proposed contract fee is identical to the estimated amount in the funding document approved by the Council in September. The project is funded jointly by the City (funds budgeted in the Planning budget for FY 92-93), Washington {l Square, Lincoln Center, Embassy Suites, Forum Properties, and Washington County. ffm i s COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 15, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: December 3, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Comp Plan Amendment PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from CPA 91-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendme November 24, 1992 ZOA 91-0006 o unit Commercial PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer, Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK/JMJ REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CDD ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial plan designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the City Council amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare ordinances for a future Council meeting adopting the proposed amendments to the Plan and Code with further revisions to what is currently proposed. Staff recommends deleting the locational criterion requiring a surrounding area residential density opportunity of eight units per acre. Staff also recommends deleting the requirement of requiring Site Development Review or Conditional Use review of the development plan at the time of zoning map amendment. (See attached memo for additional comments). INFORMATION SUMMARY Last December, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid- range commercial Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district which have been referred to as the Community Commercial districts. On November 2, 1992, the Planning commission sent a revised proposal package to the Council with a recommendation for approval. On November 24, 1992, the Council reviewed the last Planning commission proposal. The Council directed staff to draft several major revisions to the proposed amendments for Council review at this meeting. The revisions requested by the Council are listed below with a summary of how the proposals have been modified: 1. Require that the site plan for development of the site be submitted and reviewed as part of the Plan Amendment/Zoning map amendment application. Tie approval of the Plan/Zone amendment to approval of the site plan. The::prdpsed.lan> text andCQd? chapter amdmTxs hive betr:d;a''ts require that <a Sita Development . evlew' or..:*additional Use''aPp1 'c~at~~~ Sae filed with a zone! change appl i cat on. The can q cla ran Frith the c change application rathex than the Plan amendment application xs d e tr difficulties in dealing with the states 224-day ilimit: decasian t klnc requirement on zone< changes and permit applications as well e difficultie$ am tying Site p1an ppror i4 td the same < S an d Comprehensive Plan map' amendments. Nevertheless, it tirould be antzzpater that most app l ications: c~r zone 'capcle tQ the c-c (roan°at designation would be C. ifib ned with the Plan map amendment for t1a~ sxt~~. t 2. Reduce the permitted size of grocery stores to 30,000 square feet. Provide for grocery stores of up to 50,000 square feet and general retail sales of up to 25,000 square feet as conditional uses; !?lf'r;:x94:';9. ;c::::!.c:: ri!:Y. <5?s,^^•n>• h>r1.:{+<.::.,?`•'Lti%^••h•.vcr~,r,<'.r,: p• ::,Y• ,w•;..`/.•';~?+nr,7<.: n,k•;;?c y.: xti.ra . , f ' 3~:r»`. ' .Q ':"f~s~cr ['r''"~i f::a~>~~ig'R:::,...asvs :xi4asxx> L.'c•. f:°3~',~5?~%r,.,x,.~.a.:YY4x<r „ ..h.44,. ; ;..y.y--•h;... ; .Fh.:: '~."+ft.~ ~i~~` ,.,.,.w:n,:.:..:.h.:4•,.•. /s.:..:::: ~«,LC. n~,:..•... YxZ.4~ n:Yx4<.:,xt.:Y.h».cu,.,, Lc4..LC4„»n.~thr,rrf4</.L4.k:..C•~.;;L:+I9ri.'{::i7rr.•'»•Lk;r! ;fiY: kYt:9,9.'Gd:i.9:r~i:}:%i,':%LLr/,.,,+,LL:f.,?4rb.LC:.r>x t r,:k.;}Y, ~.~~:.'~Y. 3. Delete the reference to possible.limits on site size below the maximum permitted site size from Site Characteristics of the proposed Plan text amendment. This in response to a comment from Mr. Craig Petrie. >+}.•u..:.wny\,A}+yfhry~ 4nY:9::,L:y,.n.n:yw:.n,:!4(?ti::?v k4x'+:~::.%y;9:y;>,{nkv{.v:h~,.:?49 ^>im}:•:h>}y.: 1.. :4:n'+l {,vv{ vvnx4M}:L:xNn;.F<ry,H nyn;{xy;n;nn.}Yx:nw.+.w.!:m:C+}•n...?'1N1•'^C•}: M. ^'.y,}. .q••!x ,k : ' .~S.~~:'.s'~:~'k~~v ':'~r"~'vk. :N:~3.4~,;'" ; i:'~'..''::4«~.£~~'.....k~,:~~.~.~%~':.~s.~`.: ' ~~i~',:c~«. „'.".:,.,y ,.:.{.n. n.:.:;:^.;::: }:,,c: n,". ::"'.:,w:.,,•••^}xri:.+4~Y•::~4'':"''r.'4.~:~xh}»}:aw»:La»Yh>x•:,.>:r.r:..x.4>;r.4m>::{ucri4;x4~}>r}r+>}}YSn4:mr.4Yi•. imrm~.~ y,w>f 4. Restoring previously proposed locational standard that would require that an average residential housing opportunity of eight dwelling units per acre exist within one half mile of a Community Commercial site. Restoring this standard would have the effect of significantly reducing the number of potential Community Commercial sites within Tigard's planning area; and ky~^;"w;y+,.y~:}+,w~v7y.:kk',"nv„i,."^.k^:v~wy..w,g..•Q'.{4yx y+~:]any;:y:ny::is.v.,'wC}:'k:.^..b.!y~w~xw,M1nn>W~l.[::,x.nuv ~.;4q~;y{r..wv.,, w~.y.{y,, Yfy.(y~.. ,may ,,y~.v~Mµ.~v,«,h:hw,n}>kj,}w.,}~,n.•4>;.y»Cy,.>yf.Jwlvyvyw: :'v^.•'v.^+:K:£Cnkky".: n.ir'r. .W.~: ~<`Y•4..:l'i•.'K '.~~if,V~ ~:i4~1VIV~ ~~~~l1ll:., {~~1~ ~iet~) ..~i~:~r."%£:`[':'~1'I.~l~^.y.~./~: ' > ~ +^^},>g~"4 ~.w , LfA:•.:.:,::: .:::x:.: :~:.:.;.}...{:.}:..,.....{.x4.y..:.{.}~ mx{<LLLL.:.x.;::4:4::<...{{4.:.4..}:.;..}..,{{4{<:L{.,:<4:::,.x{;.y,xk44.,;,.}':•.::.::{•}>:4::<L<~,,..:. { , ':kn:.y , x: n.p~.. ..f , :.,.Y.'"q:..::y{.•L{::: ...;>x~ :.•:'•''•Y9:y,:: :v:.'."r.!4'iv,Vf,G„•%M:~YA`Oh '4~..4Yrtf4 5. Strengthen the proposed design guidelines into mandatory design standards. n.: n.::: n . , . . . . . . :.}:••x,r:,,:{h:;'4}::i:.Y:'!h:L.is4•;•:'.:h:,r4Y:.:44•}Y•:<:.}}:.}>:,• n .:}}}xauo•: •:•:h>++ :,..:.:::Y»k:~}}..: Y: Y: 9;.}. ,:t n•;Y a..•n•4{k.•,".r+... 4..h:: .xa:•. n;nwn4wl.:n}.:.:.:„4hh:•: Y{{.}.::.>' yy {:.yv...,"y': {4.~ •y n;n n.. h.. n.... x, n...,.., .....:.....:n n. n ..........:n,{n. nv: m::.v.M}. n..,:,n. n n.. \4.... rr:) .4..YY:h.,,;~; ;.L;. n:n nxrv.n,. n;,.. n;:: ::::n n,4n. .:n; .nw:::..;n n:rn:•:»n::•{{.; ,:.h:s rw.. 9.'CR:r:'\v.L.wY»•C•.k:<u~9Y: i,!r..;;PJr.;~At?4:!~F7:^•':2:i.!~....... ~1'A::: e.,.+`eF' }.Tw•7i!?:I' };::?rk~~'i~:::cLCCm. ~)r :iF7'YiiAA~?4~f... v.vnKVi.•:.v::.v:,<h:m..::::ih{v:L:4:K.:«4%«4.>:<h:<hY:;4}}}>:<•xvrii4x{R{{i{ix.:,i'{4:v:{2i~n+:','..,vnvnvnv:n+ri{{{{•:vi>}}n •..4• ' The responses to these directives are contained in the attached proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan district and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C zoning district. Additions subsequent to November 24, 1992 are highlighted and deletions are bracketed. No other changes have been made. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinances amending the Plan and Community Development Code as presented in the attachments. 2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for a future Council meeting adopting the proposed amendments to the Plan and Code with further revisions. 3. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES None. C. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directo iDATE: December 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Community Commercial Plan District/Zone The attached exhibits A and B for creating the C-C (Community Commercial) Plan and zoning districts were redrafted in response to the Council's directives from the November 24th hearing. While the staff thinks that the proposals.as now written are workable, the following comments are intended to clarify staff's recommendations for further modifications. 1. Site Plan: Combining the site plan or conditional use review with the zone change application would make the review process more cumbersome and time consuming than existing City site plan review processes. Additionally, this would put the City Council or Planning Commission in the position of reviewing site improvement details that could be left up to the staff or hearings officer. Previous direction from the Council indicated a desire to move development review responsibilities from the Council and Planning commission to the Hearings Officer and staff. This previous direction was understood to be intended to free up Council and Planning commission time, and create a more streamlined process. The recent directive related to the Community Commercial proposal appears to move in the opposite direction. 2. Conditional Use review for larger store sizes: Allowing grocery stores up to 50,000 square feet and retail sales area up to 25,000 square feet as conditional uses, again adds another review process, and one that has little criteria to go by except the "general purpose of the zone." Staff would suggest just picking a size for all such uses, whether it is 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 (or alternatively, having no limits on size of stores), rather than allowing larger store sizes by a conditional use permit. Ultimately, the hearings body will have to review the proposed store's information on trade area characteristics to decide whether or not a certain size can be considered "neighborhood" in scale. i C 3. Density standard: In addition, staff continues to recommend deleting the surrounding area density standard from the Plan text. The surrounding area dwelling unit density standard was proposed to significantly limit the number of possible community commercial sites and assure that there would be a substantial nearby population base to support businesses within the development. Staff joins the Planning Commission and several NPOs in finding that this requirement is unnecessary in light of all of the other approval standards for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. At present, it is unlikely that this standard would have an effect on the number of sites that realistically would be considered for redesignation to Community Commercial; in the future, however, this standard may stand in the way of Plan map redesignations that may otherwise be warranted. 4. Tying the site plan to the Comprehensive Plan map change: Although the Council asked that the site plan review for a Community Commercial development be attached to the Council's review of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment, staff has taken the liberty, after discussing it with legal counsel, to propose alternative language tying the site plan review to the zone change instead. It would therefore be possible that an applicant could apply for Plan map amendment approval (with the council's review) prior to separate zone change and site plan review (with the Planning Commission's review, unless called up by the Council or appealed to the Council). However, in most cases, it would be anticipated that all three applications would be consolidated for review by the Council. Tying the site plan review to the zone change rather than the Plan amendment review has been proposed to ensure that the City Council does not unintentionally limit it's review time when making a decision on the Plan amendment. State law prescribes that zoning and permit applications are subject to a 120 day decision-making process. Plan map amendments are exempted from that time limit. Community Development Code Section 18.32.100 requires the consolidation of hearings whenever an applicant requests more than one approval, except that secondary applications need not be combined with a Plan map amendment. If the City required that the zone change and site plan review applications necessarily be combined with the Plan map amendment, the City would be requiring itself to decide the Plan map amendment within the 120 day limit. It is therefore important to allow separation of the site plan review from the Plan amendment. Code Section 18.32.100.C, however, allows the Director to consolidate the review of proceedings with a Plan map amendment if the applicant signs a waiver of the 120-day time limit prescribed by state law for zone change and permit applications. Practically, staff would anticipate that most applicants would want to avoid multiple hearings and multiple exposure to legal challenges and NOR would therefore gladly waive the 120 day limit in order to tie all applications together for one review. Since the Council is the decision maker for all Plan amendments, most if not all site plan reviews and zone changes would be reviewed by the Council. Otherwise, the Council would decide the plan amendment and the Planning Commission would hear the combined zone change and site plan review. In the case of major modifications to approved development plans or existing developments, the Planning commission would review the proposed modification in a public hearing. Neighboring property owners would be provided notice of that hearing. 5. Process: Due to the major changes that are now proposed to the Community Commercial Proposal, staff has sent copies of the proposed revisions and this staff report to all who testified on this application at the November 24th meeting. At that meeting, the Council closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. The Council therefore need not take additional testimony on this matter. However, due to the significant nature of the changes that have been made to this proposal, staff recommends that the Council re-open the public hearing for additional comments. r EXHIBIT A► - DECEMBER 3, 1992 DRAFT ~ nsr+::~:o;.~Vrun.::'.:!J:+ .rrn• ~ . J . J:• m J•JS•+n;~..,s+:n r +ssew .u: }~,..:;.,.q>sr.:.,cy:n>+r/;:..}:K•.,•:,.;.v~,'>:..,~~r.: .»r..~~rY.,,..r+9~3Jy~y~y,~.;.~x.f~,:}.J~.w;~~;:'?: .`fryY'.~~).f` .ys+r~YO~:<r3cr,:.aN~?.'`./}''.~i~,./:`yrJn:Sar.?~' ':.$~''°~':.r:~'~{'V.r.'':.,in-~"'~:`.'.'J'~'>.'e ~'..YJ:. .gE:'~ '>''~i~"q.'•.,~Z.':~~%~~~''~,'.~'~'~'%}:J~~.<.,.~`;5'~'~.~'i'~.'~'+rt~~#~`.~~'a'. •+~meaz:u°,aJ.:i~..YSa:;aaocasr;scaw.o~e• ..,,9,,ec;s~~az~ ,~w~.,«w:o:d..Nw...»;J~•;n~ 'w'4.xusar~az~a + Proposed additions since November 24, 1992 are and deletions are [bracketed]. 4. Community Commercial The community commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. . Such .facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. It is further the intent of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities and that the community commercial plan designation should not be located in close proximity to other commercial areas so as to avoid the P appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development. a. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential neighborhoods generally within'a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. Ot n^!u N..KL:: u?Y..vy: S:. vyii":'fV1 xJ~?..n};CJ: :.ntt.},vn nnv v, iM:4:4i<r }.}N~{ :..~fn•:.,.: %:K.:;y, ~{Y.y,},.:: <....; y, A>,J.ns. r s V+ 2• ~l„y:<.;:.a5} ki.J. r. t`¢ idy:' }t"'Y} .y .c )...,2i>. ~ sF'•; ~ . Yfi • ' ~.:'e :;w w ,tic ~ ~ J~k:x3 t }~~:ry:?;Fy.w:>.~vy far ; fi`..n, ro;la"\\r`. .~a}J..i:•+:~:..,i,-,i3~,,s:. ":.~;ti v.o~,.,n, ..yn~ } J :k}>;Y;u~t'`': ;GCSz, 1yyyyf: `"l:iaya: }'t..' } <;ti, i+:',tT.ii;R: ;~:I.ai:,f✓`.pr, .,t ~v v.{y.T;aT:Ohhy V.•..: ~u-r V':,•::'}.`q3 _+J,' :y}tii..'y+n: V,. ..t Ty~}1yy...{{~{a~yy~~i~,,~~•S..n~{~v:. ~i ~a,~ s ,SC.1yy,~ ^t ~a., JkJ:!!NiJic~ii.1;A'FI~ `liif^ ...;~Jg.: ~ w~o:.:~..`'~o~..,~'~z~~...':v.~• I.~ #e,.v?3ec~,:.::J.;}~'~3; ~a,:z~ : :.~•tit"c; J •:'v#i5\ ' R NuYJ}J}v;}}}~:"~.<vv ...CJya~K:};..J} '~i.:f}}-. Jv°<:iti,:.>~4:~:.at .?~t`v::::. i Z ? ::..;,,.,,...an, '#t%:alb....~:.~~,.?..:>}',~~;:...~~•>}:~.,v`~:S~.:t.Jnk.;,J:::c:....."~•:::: SFi':fw; . `F:i:~i~'.. ~V•~GI!6i77v . .~SJ:."'~:, "'y, µ~.,~iµ.7, .,`,iEi:~~~AN4{'i%N~:k~ . a J.. , . ~i ' ' ~'nT .f•~~ Vi~'h+tiYJ2~{~1.Jj,.vn.~ 1\ti.t: `:::i: :.}iv}\ '}iii\';: ~}%48 >C. ::Z t~~:: ~n}: J:'h~C#.:\3\::,+}'•~ •'~::~:}'t},}# n>S :n:.\~~i''~£~~`.':`,\,4 •.a. ~~,i ......y..~..~..y?.%,"P v.. hJ\4. ,;4~~.,+4\\ s~.~}. v eya" t 1'?}'tiv.\c4:y~'k~jy'~: tiJ'.~,.}~v'•'~,sn::" k0'.C<n .K yc::>.,;}~:@. y;<,.'• ,c f. <8?st. `~°iiE8: •'~~''r. no'te's;: tirYJ'"~}.~A:'~y~... :f:~~J'F# Jz . ,ret<°' at further istances from the site C - 1 - (3[2])Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial floor area. • Food sales up to 40,000 sq. ft. per establishment; General retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment as permitted uses; other commercial sales and service-facilities ' ' up to 5,0 0 0 sq. ft. in size per establishment. i b. Locational Criteria . . (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non- commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed-use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with nqn-retail uses. (2) Access i r (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and-the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. (3) Site Characteristics C - 2 - t n iz i t MEN q&M- (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. [The City may limit the size of a community commercial site to less than the maximum site size if it is found that a smaller site is necessary to ensure consistency of community commercial development with other Plan policies and locational criteria.] (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall uses be compatible with surrounding( Mmv'.y.. f3~:' 2''~~C+~}~~~ ~ r^.x.,{<~~ . "`s„~x•?~u.!.:~:^'y- '~.M This uang W. JJSxrbo A:. rc . fiuN ` ~ :baJ25?4+..,n 4 .J:. may s be accom fished throu h e ' _ Yd.)A~IA4 < : 5 .`2342 M{`'A.'`•.axJ"` : r DO`. >:J Jyr~},:q::: E;j' s,'s Ec. R'- ,N}~ .MSS~;:.a ;•4; .~4 Y::.~y 3k:-GV A'i'.t`.:4, :`iii;.k''?'~, ?,a•.'M-'v.y iG.S.' iii %jk::f x'ko-;c`bF.~%:ik•:A;.o• t: ;.5..~.. rw::i•'zvEEll:~s:%2".rr:?;~:f•»%~,^•,:'~. '~~~~.'see ~x•S.Sc;i _ ~4::'. we xcd~:vn. %:SJ\Rw..JS~;..:,aitnv..v yk;L: £`0,:.5~•,c~^f°•R:%?..` ;r2., [special] site a~, w~,~~~' development [considerations to be pYaced on a particular site] through conditions of approval of a [Plan map amendment] k Y for the site [or through site and/or building design standards]. Such considerations may include, but are not limited t ,~[[yy~:x,~~++jjV.y:." KMr4 5; o a Ky'~'t~f: y •.Y-:. -k5j3 .33s•X;.'~P ;7 ~,v:.,tiJ Sx;2:.'.~ ^J 3• ~...~...u5xc F fi'b'-7..•, :'.2 a. .°y.::;!: f~i ~~~~at5.,;;~~a'~4~ .35 ay .Q, ` 'L~iob3a.'C~~u~~• access i:mitations, specia5 fse acks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, [and] special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safetyxz ;'~t.~x:~•<~~>a s~J^,r.:: ""'%d%f%"~+"'~ ,wM. ;2::;.,,.,,2V::J~ ~.y.•.~.:~?•s:~ M.-MIN 'WHIM, fit ..fir %J.;... ,2l Jmti •.';S::2fi ::!;,r:.: y:. 011 i:.?u ::2:5 N5•a.`•2..?S}?.o<!.2 uw tti' f• '":,'S``':°•.:'i'X"~'•~.- .;a5,. •'S;i~3%'.G,::;,S.E ?5?t?:.F...::..~'..f .;n:.xJ.%>.. th-: . "'?$Si» `'`~i;`RCa` vFZ.AvS %;•v v;55.J1r'~.JJ ,v4'^~a2J^V - .'c..: . .n ::>~:~.,aa . Kt.:.;•::o 4: ;2,[}~ xi3cs «sEai>s *,.aQ;;cSi• x;q% shy v 2:' Sr.*y.; Y a M. :X M". S><?!u3~}yS•xrk:`4+:'uC~:\aa xJ~':.-Y,:S. tw s~ 'y'~ ,..!f.C ~i``'E'?.µ<c ` J`^k-ae`~:L~,}. M1,,.-\~~C2J : a•':; a5J»::~:,-ix.:.::..,..•J.J.55:..•a...::..;v::.c:E...:.:ti'a~.:Ji~hS:..oxra55.,<~:.i:?::ic..~::'t~:.:a:`.iwvr :3:.~..,,:. . ~a'; V4 2-:;' \4i4:ivx,Wix+'riN?vi2 - (b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site, however, may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the 3 i development review process. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community .commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be-considered on a case-by-case basis. The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that.privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses i shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number. of access driveways to adjacent streets. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. f Y > a v v W.% ~Sy..~o-(Kj."s'.>i~ri.:)j%~, t ~•((,r 3yS:jr>>4.c~t¢atiir.'~;y.'`4 ATTik~ `fq x""~ k. ~wii~~l6~i.. ,04%:~;5:u3>.:;%1'°'.•'%:'i.;;•'~~.. #%>.i':a;•s.,,~':,:g^rr :s3` ..?tiyati~'XG7: C < G:fii...'• ieyT":i(..•S,`•F1:3i3c"~"G~ +i~.iF:if ~ .:~~Rt.:' t~:.'.i:'3>~,~y~i~'~`•'Y., ,..~',~.,y:°.a~''~.:~'i~;~.~'.Y .:i.»x:; S:.>~~~.~..',s ~'..'..':i:A?`~~~?1~f'._,i .%;%>,>%r'f:xq`:a°v4~°. .::3";. :i:o%>?.> i>i'`"'' oria: ••^:~:i~ [Associated lagh~ noise, anc`i ac iva es shall not be anticipated to, significantly affect adjoining residential uses.] Operating hour restrictions may be placed on uses within the district,' either through restrictions within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular site. jo/Com-Com Ast t i 4 - 4 i EXHIBIT B - DECEMBER 15, 1992 10 PM DRAB' c~6~i.'~:>~":P:.xS,~iG."{ •~c~,i 6::o- U..a,. ...VCa. n• ^,:W'ac.:cf'>c>kt'E Chapter 18.61 C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. DISTRICT Sections: 18.61.010 Purpose 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process 18.61.030 Permitted Uses 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements 18.61.055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards 18.61.060 Additional Requirements 18.61.010 Purpose A. The purpose of the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district is to provide Ibcations for convenience shopping facilities that provide for the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. - It is intended that the community commercial center be ideally developed as a unit with adequate off-street parking for customers and employees, and with appropriate landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor area in community commercial centers typically range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and land area ranges between 2 to 8 acres. Community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one half mile. The designation of a site with this district should not create or contribute to a commercial strip development pattern. This district is intended to be located adjacent to several 1 EHNEN= residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street. The district is to be applied in , only one quadrant of an intersection. The intended service ! area of the, district is up to one and one half miles from a site. -7 The community commercial development shall be compatible with surrounding uses;" '~i throw h ~ RYA ?p.............. :iv #:ij'F:i y .::4:<.v: <<:'~~nµ}];}:qy..''i[<:tj4Y":j.YY:^:Y ..Yy>q??p~Y.}y..r :gj.jj.~, /y:;l#;::•: .i.iY::!Yi' .<::•:r..::::},• M#..1:i:..i..:111'9MM!'fY•'.4 nNY'1M.~A::+s'Yi { yyKKyy'>Y ~h::C: j 01, <.,,<;:::>: w. 2< a>Y+` n:s,:::,z:.v:z:xlK. #s'v# ,~zx:,e<..:: iy4,4?::.Y.Y„a;.`;;:> . t .::.Y.. ..:,:.>#5:..«.5555..,<,,,Y :,.,r..:.>,:4:<...>.n:.4•:<~:... . >r :.<;<..,,...„.:':«.. ,r:.x.: <Y:4r•/4: :•:>::.;:...Y:.::::;..:y:.Y:>»:.YY<::'7z:,. Y>a:r.~Y:::.:YY;w< Y.:..p,..,,:::.,..:::.<.:..Y::.p;.,,~ ~:y.. :c - . g4:':,•.ra:>.f.~. a `:,?gr.4;?;:k::4y`>.Y,:a,:<; #t~sn€..4 ste`k;#;_>: develo went thr u(~h n:...4:koi.4Y;::a. x•>x• .,:.:..:...,.:...x:.w.:.:<3Y::.6! p o .7 conditions of approval of a zone change for the site or through the Site Development Review process. Such Z-- considerations may include, but are not limited to, access ~y limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, and special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access. - This Chapter shall provide building and site design guidelines and mandatory site design standards intended to minimize site development impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods and to promote pedestrian and bicyclist friendly development. It is preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site may be developed independently, however, the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. With respect for the district's primary neighborhood orientation rather than to the travelling public, signage will be rr strictly limited in size and height. r 2 - _18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process A. A permitted use, Section 18.61.030, is a use which is allowed outright, but which is subject to all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use; it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. B. A conditional use, Section 18.61.040, is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the h A „ Hearings ®fficeri 1.11. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. It is incumbent upon the applicant for conditional use approval to demonstrate that the intended use is consistent with the purposes of the Community Commercial zone and that the proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying district(s). 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 18.43, Unlisted Use. y;:;;::Y::<v •;}»....:.:;:},:::.,};}'i: Y:c:::`Y:'ii:::Y:;:::::^:.:;;:;,:.:::Y:;S;:i'<o::x:;xs.:Y}:a:}:.}};:.}.}}},::?:}:a:;.}}}:::.}:}}:}}:':: »:.r Ned,. Sf:< f MIA ACC F; ii::: :}fit....... fi :rt P., 4...~.~.~d. f. Aq)R'A.M.~'•..:::~4~,.':~;p}:'t.jy~:`;Lei::is`:`r;:C:::;~~`;'}:j;:S:::}:::I?_.}.:.y_`j~~. ::<::j::. ;yj::;$:2;v::;:0i: Doi : ndl;:>: g ; s#iddt v. +~yy~1tl ~.~i~i J{v i•: `Y7v siee#.:_:. ridgy. ;:s aces <c h ' k. cal. < . E . Y .49 ~,y, .i.:M•~'. ~£.,,,'r>''~>L• `•h~?>- '`y ;u't '.,,s` +.'h➢~. ~L< h •OSr~i~ v.C ro ~2 R ' `wav5:`vh.+~NrvAt .61.030 Permitted Uses 16 A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Civic use types: a. Public agency administrative services; b. Community recreation c. Cultural exhibits and library services; d. Public support facilities; e. Postal services; and f. Public safety services; 2. Commercial use types: a. Animal sales and service: (i) Grooming; b. Consumer repair services; C. Convenience sales and personal services; d. Children's day care; - 4 - 4 , ( e. Eating and drinking facilities; f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of 40,000 square feet); g.. General retail sales (maximum size of 10,000 square feet); h. General offices, such that where these uses are combined in one structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in size. (1) Medical and dental services; (ii) Financial, insurance and real estate services; (iii) Professional and administrative services; 1. Participant sports and recreation: (i) Indoor; 3. Single or multi-family residential dwellings, as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units per gross acre. 4. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.142. 5. Temporary uses; 6. Fuel tanks; or 7. Accessory structures. 5 - r 18 61 040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18130) A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows: -'Automotive and Equipment: (1) Cleaning; 2. Vehicle fuel sales;. 3. Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly; 4. Parking facilities, including transit centers. 5. Religious assembly; 6. Uses operating before 6:00 a.m. and/or after 11:00 p.m., unless extended hours have been specifically permitted as an outright use through the establishment of the zoning on the site; 7. Drive up windows: 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses A. Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows: 1. ' t'he' use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except for outside play areas for children's day care facilities, and as allowed in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section; 2. Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet; 3. Accessory open air sales/display/storage shall be permitted for horticultural and food merchandising uses only and shall constitute no more than five percent of ( the gross building floor area of any individual - 6 - k establishment; . 4. Accessory open air dining or drinking areas shall be permitted for approved eating and drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted within 200 feet of any developed residential area. Public or private sidewalk areas around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway. . i 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 1. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet; 2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet; 3. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and r Section 18.100.130, the. minimum setback requirements are as follows: a. No front yard setback shall be required, except a 20 foot front yard setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district; b. No corner yard setback shall be required; however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied; C. No side yard setback shall be required except 'a ` 20 foot building setback shall be required from a residential zoning district; and d. No rear yard setback shall be required except a 20 ~ foot setback.shall be required from a residential zoning district; and C - 7 - Ing e. All building separations shall meet Uniform Building Code requirements; 4. No building in the C-C zoning district shall exceed 35 feet in height; 5. The maximum site coverage shall be 80 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces; and 6. The minimum landscaped area requirement shall be 20 percent. - 8 - t, v4 ~ u ~~jl,• L 18.61.055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards , c/ej~ A. Design Guidelines b•• RrrrWrat;:••.. •c rr.~ ^rsr ~~:o7s .s:,~.w~?'p'?' >rfxw ~rtt• vim: ~ ~L; followin desi n . ,:$r., 4 ROM C-C (community commercial) district: 1. Building Design Guidelines a. The design of buildings within a community commercial development should incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color schemes, special art and other features, which are sensitive to and enhance the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in the city. b. All buildings within a multi-building complex should achieve a unity of design through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, colors, and window pattern. C. Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows and doors, on all sides of the building to achieve a unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street should include public entrances to the building and windows to provide visual access to the activity within the building. The sides of a building which face toward an adjoining property, but not toward a public street, should include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to provide visual interest and prevent the development of a tong C - - 9 - f I - continuous blank wall. 2. Site Design Guidelines a. Loading areas should not be located on the side of a building which faces toward a residential use. Loading areas, if located between the building and the street, should be oriented away from the street and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. S. Design Standards The following mandatory design standards apply within the community commercial district: 1. Internal Walkways. a. Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points of pedestrian 3 activity such as transit stops and street crossings to the major building entry points. b. Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated internal walkway system .along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. L Walkways shall be provided along the full length of the building on any side which provides building access to the public or where public parking is available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to - 10 - y i I i . the building. ii. On the sides of the building which provide public access into the building, the walkway should be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be provided at a minimum at the entrance area and, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. C. Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. 2. Other Site Development Standards a. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut-off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties. b. Mechanical equipment, if located on the building, shall be located within the roof form of the building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design of which is consistent with the design of the building. C. Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be screened from views from the public street, sidewalk, and properties outside the district with h durable, solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the above. d. All refuse and recycling containers within the district shall be contained within structures enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest container within the t. structure. e. Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall-be provided for developments having 100 or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Code Section 18.106.020.P. For each 100 additional stalls, facilities for five additional bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. It is strongly encouraged that bicycle parking areas be covered. f. The site development pland incorporate -a special feature at the corner of the site. A special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or water feature. The feature provide a visual landmark and some amount of seating area. g. Parking areas l be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular tlv/ft movements. Parking area landscaping be used to define and separate parking, access, and pedestrian areas within parking lots. h. The landscape design for the site include plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. 1. Site features such as fences, walls, refuse and recycling facility enclosures, and light fixtures be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural design of the primary structure(s). Such site features be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development. C. -12- a j. In multiple building complexes, buildings located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building location w be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent properties. Consideration shout l . be given to locating buildings closer to the public' street with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk, with no intervening parking or driving area. Corner locations are particularly appropriate for this treatment. k. Opportunities o be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters h••p.Kxr and lay-over areas for transit vehicles ~j be incorporated into the site development. 3. Sign Design Standards. a. All signage '.I be an integral part of the architectural design. 18.61.060 Additional., Requirements A. Additional related requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive lands; 2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 landscaping and - 13 - Screening, 113.102 Visual ClQarance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 3. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 4. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 5. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. ii, Q 1: .W-M~'~ ,1st~'`-yam. `e_'.` _ w.jYf titt?tM1t^>:J vw.Lrv..':~r'vr.J.ttAnvnvm4'wvS:nVx..wi,tn`vrv.,.:. m.vv... :JSi3n4:Y 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations E. Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Zones 1. No sign shall be permitted in [a] the C-N or C-C zones except for the following: a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned C-N or C-C: - 14 ss i I r 1 One multifaced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and i (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; t t (ii) Area Limits: t (1) The maximum square footage of freestanding signs shall be 32 square F feet per face or a total of 64 square ! feet for all sign faces. No part of -any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; (iii) Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a. point which is 15 feet, from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (iv) Height Limits: (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each ten feet of setback from the property Q. - 15 - 11all =111110 I all!g line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height; b. Wall Signs (1) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs, including illuminated reader-boards, may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area ten percent of any building face on which the sign is to be mounted; (ii) Wall signs shall be parallel to the face of the building upon which the sign is located; and (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this subsection, "copy" includes symbols, logos, and letters; C. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; - 16 - r ( e. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.080 A.6 and R.2. f. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and g. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush pitched "roof' sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). Ill. Zoning District Classifications and Requirements 18.61 Community Commercial District 4}}ti h4\,`i}rM•lr:J:Wki}:3}\`n',ti.. VJ4ti4:{3S.W .3}ii\:\:i\v}Ji}ny>ihW W: \v}%i{{vv \\M1ti3}:: }}it:3ii}ntiG{v}: ti3n'4:4:1 18.40.010.a Classification of Zones (matrix) Zoning District Map Symbol Dwelling Units Minimum Per Net Acre Lot Size Community Commercial C-C 12 5,000 sq. ft. ;,c,. _?.ia p~~y['}" f ''7~ .4• ~.,cf. y~r~. $tj~¢~ . :Y`.:J};z}.5:3a : '~WI:Y.:AY.~{.. :fN•~.~~ t :RiS4X v v:' ~Nht ~IG'kG'\A ,..::.....Ja.ra.•. ..,•..-.o:: a:.:v uuw~~„w:aau;:{a3:w.:....:^}.u:.{{3:{4:,,~w>.:3:{3G}}:;A:.~..•w::..i,..oiaa:a3xw:aca:{a:::w:.:3av'{4.wxa~v:a.R.' t.ako:{• 18.100.130 Suffer Matrix ....:..v ..4.... . _ C-C ZONE \,n^n:,~n..v..X :::vvvv{xv.• n :A„' - 17 - INN •::.,v:.,,::•:::: r.,:,v:,•: r:.,•.v: r:,:.,...,•::..:•:::,::::.v:::.v:fcvn.,::.v::.:.r.vw::.c:.::: r.•..:..,.....:.:....:». r..,:,.....v.v:: n,.,:....vx::::::::,... 18.13CUM and Dimensional Requirements for Conditional 18.130.150.C.19 Parking Facilities a. Applicable Zones: R-12, R-25, R-40, C-C and C-N zones 18.130.150.0.29 Drive-up Windows a. Applicable Zones: CBD and C-C zones. jo:c-czone.ord r i~ rage.......d[<7~<~tiss<s~.. s:>;t ?Lanr ' :3r tar:.:::;pie r.. gnes<:Lt a at:>sto >lae:<:: :ma ar>: taxi ;K>s : ?fit h xge<:s .5 - h... d ?l<*!?aor:::<::>:€#: Y c~tange:<the;. st vs. ar #tage of t ate af; 6am►erc use.rar Ong; ~r ire ~ <<s: ' .:e::: :::::1:•:<:~hsn s.:~ha:aacasa>..7nts:v~<. ::;t~ie:>~.aric~~"v~ss:vf::~i~u..:i~ir>:.:'::;::.i€>; ::::1~:~reFLVi':<:€~e~e#'m?=sat >'38i>3~`1~Q»of«t~i=~`:`>::.'::. s nt shall e seal A. o o unity commercial devel me n::..,.:.t,....,:,.. be ompatib a it round" uses. This jQmay] accomplished throe VA 18 - CL)LL ✓AC- t M.U- i !l C- 115 P5 2 JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. ` q ATTORN.EYATLAW 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 far 684-8971 624-0917 December 15, 1992 City council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Community Commercial (C-C) Zoning and Planning Amendments Dear City Council Members: The following are my comments and suggested language for ordinance changes and comprehensive plan changes. I am basing my comments and suggested language changes on the discussion I heard from the City Council during the last meeting and the city staff's December 3, 1992 draft. A. Exhibit A - December 3, 1992, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Draft. 1. Section 4 (a) (1) - INScale: Trade Area,'. This proposed change reintroduces the eight units per acre density requirement for establishing a C-C zone. I believe the inclusion of this requirement is appropriate. This requirement would limit the number of sites within the city available for C-C zoning. Where the densities are eight units or more per acre, such planned densities incorporate the types of development impacts that are somewhat consistent with inclusion of a more intensive commercial zone. Also, the density requirement would aide the city in planning for future: redeveloped areas. As the area in the city increases in density for redevelopment, it than might be appropriate for some acreage being allotted for C-C service. In contrast, both the Planning Commission and the NPO organizations agreed that the inclusion of the density requirement was not necessary. As I testified before you at the last hearing, it was my impression that these bodies were not interested in this requirement because they had been satisfied by the inclusion of both mandatory and non-mandatory standards in the ordinance. These new provisions gave them a "much clearer picture" of what the C-C zone would produce. a f " City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 Page 2 2. 4(a)(2) - "Gross Floor Area'$. The City Council seemed to seek a motion that would limit food sales to an outright maximum of 30,000 sq. ft. with a conditional use to allow food sales from 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. In addition, general retail would remain the same with the conditional use from 10,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. The proposed staff language in the December 3, 1992, draft seems to accurately reflect that intent. Albertson's believes that this will not prove workable. Contrary to some of the testimony that you have already heard, all the major food store company's agree that no one is constructing a store for less than 40,000 sq. ft. As a result, virtually every grocery store application would be a conditional use application. Given the market opposition of certain competitors outside the city, this provision would invite protracted litigation for no significant benefit to the city. Therefore, Albertsons recommends that food sales be allowed up to 40,000 sq. ft. and between 40,OOP - 50,000 sq. ft. on conditional use. I recommend the following language: "Food sales up to 40,000 sq. ft. per establishment as permitted uses; food sales of up to 50,000 sq. ft. may be allowed as conditional uses: General retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment as permitted uses; general retail sales of up to 25,000 sq. ft. may be allowed as conditional uses: Other commercial sales and service facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size per establishment." 3. 4(b)(4) - "Impact Assessment". Albertsons has no objection to the proposed language in the December 3, 1992 draft as it complies with the apparent City Council intent from the last hearing. However, I believe that there are certain problems that arise by turning the site and building guidelines into mandatory standards. Those "guidelines" were never drafted with language that is specific s r City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 Page 3 enough to make them standards. Merely changing the "shoulds" to "shalls" does not resolve the conflicts and ambiguities. I believe that a better solution is to allow the City Council to impose conditions during the zoning of the specific property that are drawn from the "guidelines." This way the City Council can avoid all conflicts and ambiguities that would be inherent in the "guidelines/standards." The City Council would be specifically identifying during the zone change precisely the type of zoning development that they foresee at the particular site. As a result, I propose the follow language: "(a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a Site Development Review application contemporaneously with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, any of the site building and design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety, and other building and site design standards imposed by the city in the plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification to the site plan, as determined by the Community Development Code, shall be processed as a zone change. other modifications shall be processed in accordance with existing code provisions." 4. 4(b)(4)(f) - Exterior Lighting, Noise and Activities. I have no objection to the proposed language in the December 3, 1992 draft. This new language seems to add better specificity to the requirement that is being imposed. The sentence that is being eliminated by the substitution language was not specific enough in its requirements. City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 Page 4 B. Exhibit B - December 3, 1992 Zoning Ordinance Draft. 1. 18.61.020 B. - Procedures and Approval Process. I have no objection to the proposed language in the December 3, 1992 draft in this section and preceding section 18.61.010A - Purpose. 2. 18.61.020 C. I have previously proposed that the City Council resolve the dilemma of turning the "guidelines" for building and site design (that are inherently ambiguous and broad) into , standards, by leaving the "guidelines" as non-mandatory standards. The text should then designate that the City Council has the right to impose them as conditions of approval on zone changes as they feel appropriate. This would allow the City Council to make the kinds of selections that they feel are appropriate among the variety of "guidelines." As a result, the language of subsection C should be modified as follows: "C. It is required that a request to rezone a parcel with the C-C zoning district be accomplished by a Site Development Review application and/or Conditional Use application, depending upon the proposed usage of the site. The Site Development Review or Conditional Use plan approval shall include review of the proposed development's consistency with the site, building, and site design guidelines and standards of Section 18.61.055. Conditions of approval of the development plan may also include, but are not limited to, any of the site building and design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, and special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety as determined to be necessary to assure compatibility with existing or potential neighboring uses. Any major modification to the approved site plan, as specified by Community Development Code Sections 18.120.070 and 18.130.050, or proposed modification to the -I t ~i City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 7 Page 5 i conditions of development approval, shall be processed as a zone change. Other modifications shall be processed as Director's decision in accordance with Community Development Code Sections 18.120.080 and 18.130.060." 3. 18.61.030 A.(2)(f). This language would limit food and beverage retail sales to maximum of 30,000 sq. ft. Albertsons proposes that this be returned to 40,000 sq. ft. 4. 18.61.040 A.(1). This section would provide for a conditional use of food and beverage retail sales between 30,001 and 50,000 sq. ft. in size. Albertsons proposes that this be changed to 40,001 and 50,000 sa. ft. in size. 5. .18.61.055 Site and Buildinct Design Standards. I understood that the City Council Members wished to find some way of imposing some of the "guidelines" as if they were "standards" when a Site Development Plan was submitted with a zone change for a specific piece of property. The problem is that the "guidelines" do not practically and legally change into "standards" without some problem. First, the guidelines were drafted to be general and provide a spotlight to issues that needed to be addressed in the design. Many of these separate guidelines are conflicting with each other, as well as, internally conflicting. For example, the very first "guideline" (A)(1)(a) sets its purpose at the end of the sentence (that designs are to be "sensitive to and enhance the surrounding area and service to distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in the city"). However, the redraft of this requirement would now make the examples of how to satisfy this intent into specific requirements that would have to be met for each building: "Special architectural details, distinctive color schemes, special art and other features." Quite clearly, "other features" is not a clear and objective standard that can be applied for every building. However, by making this language mandatory each building%,would be required to include "other C features" (whatever that could possibly mean). f { i " City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 Page 6 Another conflict is between the language order of subsection (1) (a) and all the other subsections. All the other subsections give there purpose first and then a laundry list of ways that the purpose may be achieved by the preamble language of "such as." However, in subsection (1) (a) the laundry list is put first as a requirement modifying the intent language at the end. An example of the many conflicts between sections is subsection (2) (a) which would require a special feature at the "corner of the site." This special feature would be a kind of landscape "mini-park" with possible water features and seating arrangements. Please note that as a guideline this section was intended to provide a special feature within each project. It was not intended to provide this feature at virtually every corner of the site. Some corners would be landlocked and next to residential with no possible access. Under the current language of being made mandatory, it might be deemed that these little "mini-parks" are required at all corners of a site even though it would attract traffic right next to residential. This subsection (a) appears to be in conflict with subsection (f) which would require buildings to placed next to public streets with no intervening parking or driving areas. If the building is placed at the corner with a sidewalk between the building and the street, there is no room for the corner mini-park." Furthermore, subsection (f) was intended to assure that buildings placed near a street would have features that would render the building also street oriented. However, subsection (f) being made mandatory now suggests that all buildings should be place near a street with the parking on the interior. This would the exact opposite of almost every shopping center in the city and state. It would also preclude the ability to place substantial landscaping between the street and the massive size of the building, thereby eliminating any chance of adequate buffering. As a result of these types of conflicts and internal inconsistencies in the "guidelines", I recommend that the guidelines remain guidelines and that the City Council be r' entitled to select among the guidelines that it feels appropriate when imposing conditions on the Site Development III! i :s t a 3 City Counsel Letter December 15, 1992 Page 7 j i i Plan (at the time zoning is applied to the property). The conditions of approval can be clear and objective in their language thereby avoiding all of the ambiguity and conflicting Provisions that occur in the overall body of the "guidelines." I In the event that the City Council elects to make the "guidelines" mandatory, I would suggest that the alternative language that I have attached to this letter be adopted. This alternative language should aide in eliminating ambiguities and avoiding some of the conflicts. s t S erely, { John W. Shonkwiler JWS : j lfr 7 y 4 't Alternative language for "guidelines being made into "standards." 18 61 055 Site and Building Design rGuidelines/1Standards A. Design [Guidelines] or inappropriate, ['~he~# following [non-mandatory] design [guidelines are""" strongly encouraged for develo ments within the];sa5hll oe cooed y::. i pan accaFtc: q~~e?~p~r~~:necxus ~ua.th, mod..:~~•~... ~f~ a de~xszon to ' re~o~e It C=C (community commercial) district. 1. Building Design [Guidelines] f a. The desicjn of buildings within a community commercial development shall be sensitive to and enchance the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail ' complexes in the city by incorporating elements such as special architectural details distinctive color schemes, special art and/or other features. b. All buildings within a multi-building complex [should] kz achieve a unity of design through th6'"use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, colors, and window pattern. C. individual buildings [should] sha;1 t incorporate similar design elements, such as surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows and doors, on all sides of the building where practical to achieve a unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street [should] strl;I include public entrances to the building"' **an' windows to provide visual access to the activity within the building. The sides of a building which face toward an adjoining property, but not toward a public street, [should] shah: include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to provide visual interest and prevent the development of a long continuous blank wall. 2. i;!;<Site Design [Guidelines] a. The site development plan [should] s11a1 incorporate a special feature at the corner of the site where adjacent to a public intersection of streets or side walks.. A - 7 - y x 1 .5 4 e- special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, { sculpture or water feature. The feature [should]?t provide a visual landmark and, where practical, some amount of seating area. . b. Parking areas [should] l?`1 be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Parking area landscaping [should] sa be used to define and separate parking, 'access, and pedestrian areas within parking lots. C. The landscape design for the site [should] 7s include plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. d. Site features such as fences, walls, refuse i and recycling facility enclosures, and light fixtures [should] f31€ be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural i. design of the primary structure(s). Such site features [should] ths1:'I be designed and ; located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development. e. Loading areas [should] sha3.l:not be located on the side of a building w1iich faces toward an adjacent residential use. Loading areas, if located between the building and the street, [should] sY:a11 be oriented away from the street and screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. f. In multiple building complexes, unattached buildings [should] shall- be located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building location [should] shall be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent properties. Where buildings are proposed to be located near a public street, consideration [should] ? be given to locating buildings closer to`' ''public street with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk, with no intervening parking or driving area. Corner locations are particularly appropriate for this treatment. C -8- i t s g. Opportunities [should] :k4j be found for C safe, convenient, and peasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters and lay- over areas for transit vehicles [should] a X be incorporated into the site development: [B. Design Standards The following mandatory design standards apply within the a community commercial district:] r 3. Internal Walkways. a. Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of- I way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points of pedestrian activity such as transit stops and street crossings to the major j building entry points. t b. Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated internal walkway system along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. i. Walkways shall be provided along the full length of the building on any side which provides building access to the public or where public parking is available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to the building. ii. On the sides of the building which provide public access into the building, the walkway should be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be provided at a minimum at the entrance area and, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. C. Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface a C. -9_ THE PETRIE COMPANY 12-~ /e? 2, COMMERCIAL (SEAL ESTATE t (503) 246-7977 December 8, 1992 TO: Jerry Offer-City of Tigard Planning Dept. All Tigard City Council Members FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Community Commercial Zoning District Dear Jerry and Council Members, At the November 24, 1992 City Council meeting Matt Marcott. (grocery store operator at Murrayhill) testified at great length that if you enacted this zone that "it would be the only place in the greater metropolitan area where a retail use zone would be surrounded on all sides by residential zoning"- With that in mind I went to the City of Beaverton in person, 3 examined the Beaverton zoning map, spoke with a planner and discovered that the middle zone (NS in Beaverton) that exists at Murrayhill (where marcott is located) is surrounded on all sides by residential zoning. Marcott's testimony is blatantly incorrect and intentionally misleading, his goal is to effectively prohibit competition through manipulation of the new Tigard CC zone. Also note that the middle zone he is located in in Beaverton has no maximum limit on grocery store size. I have recently taken an October 6, 1992 summary by Keith Liden (hired by Matt Marcott) u of other commercial districts in the surrounding metropolitan area and have visited each city or county; His memo does not accurately represent what I found in the codes at the various municipalities----He left out and 'misstated many items contained in those \codes. Ed Sullivan (Marcott's Lawyer) on November 27, 1992 has submitted more language for consideration for the code which would effectively rule out building an Albertsons store in western Tigard. The sole purpose of Marcott, Liden, c& Sullivan's participation is to stop competition. They have suggested in the past repeatedly to kill the zone and then since they have not been able to do that then manipulating the code to prevent competition and prevent Albertson from building is their sole goal. Mr. Sullivan's most recent suggestions for the CC zone are an abridgment of the facts, of the council's direction, and of comments made by council members at the last council meeting. Where on the surface it might appear that Sullivan is being cooperative and helpful, in fact he is attempting to manipulate the staff, the council and the process. He has taken huge license with the council's direction, and Councilor's comments. He will say "Oh I must have misunderstood" I am very confident that he did not misunderstand-his comments and wording is very specific and very detailed. C 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY ® PORTLAND, OR 97219 PAX: (503) 2440123 REM 1 "t None of their suggestions are made with the intent of contributing to a good zone for Tigard; none of their suggestions are made with a positive or productive goal in mind. The suggestions Marcott, Liden, and Sullivan make are made so that they can obstruct and tie up in appeals for years any proposals which might compete with them. This will cost the City economic growth, viability and livability In addition it will cost the City Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council needless time and money. On grocery store size again I will state that people shop locally. I live in Lake Grove and don't drive to Tigard, Beaverton, or to the new 50,000 Sq. Ft. Thriftway in Wilsonville to do my grocery store shopping. I am sure that the people living in Murrayhill shop at the 43,500 Sq. Ft. grocery store in Murrayhill, they shop locally. Up to 50,000 square foot j grocery stores are local stores. I do go out of area to shop at Costco, Fred Meyer, G.Y. j Joes, Cub Foods, The Incredible Universe, etc. which are stores we all recognize as regional stores. In the Community Commercial zone I am asking you to allow grocery store size of 40,000 Sq. Ft as an outright use and allow under a strict conditional use permit up to 50,000 Sq. Ft I believe requiring all of the design guidelines as mandatory is both excessive and prohibitive. Sites should be required to be both bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The design and construction of a project should be cohesive with care given to colors, roof lines, placement of HVAC units, loading and unloading areas as well as a number of other things. Y -If you have design regulations which are excessive and prohibitive no project will be built As this relates to Albertson and their interest to locate in western Tigard. Albertsons should be required to adhere to requirements which make the store an asset to the area. Albertsons sloes not sell Penthouse, or Playboy magazines, They do not pump gasoline, what they do is provide goods and services that everyone of us purchase and utilize, and their stores do it on a local basis. Consumers (that's all of us!) shop our grocery stores locally. No one goes out of area to shop a Thriftway, an Albertson, or a Safeway. All of those stores are shopped locally by people in the local trade area.. Suggesting that people go out of area to shop at Thriftway, Albertsons, or Safeway is a farce-It just doesn't happen. Throughout the United States everyone is screaming about the poor economy, and the creation of jobs. During this Community Commercial Zone process no one to date has discussed the economic benefits of a workable CC zone. s 4 s r, Nqe, z Below is a summary of the economic effects of a 75, 000 square foot shopping area. (note E this is 25% less than allowed by the new CC zone) Property Taxes 85,000 ----Permanent Jobs--- -180 Value of goods purchased for sale in stores S 2.25 million (obviously the ripple effect takes place with purchases of goods from manufactures) Traffic Impact Fees- a 221,000 building permits & fees, business licenses The total value of the stores, goods, land , etc., prior to operating is 8.5---9 million On the construction side a project like this will employee 125-150 people for between 7-9 months and will generate a payroll of close to two million dollars. In addition is all the construction materials purchased for the project The economic benefits of a zone which will be utilized are tremendous. The lost opportunity of economic benefits are just as great for a zone which will not be utilized. Having 30,000 sq. ft. as a maximum outright use for grocery stores will result in needless conditional use applications ---a site which is zoned at the upper end of the 2-8 acre range is well suited for a grocery store 40-50,000 Sq. Ft in size and should not be burdened with this additional governmental hearing. A store of at least 40,000 sq. it in size would be reasonable and realistic on a site like this as an outright use. Please have grocery stores of 40,000 Sq. Ft. as an outright use, with conditional use up to 50,000 Sq. Ft; 10,000 Sq. Ft as an outright use for retail with up to 25,000 Sq. Ft. under a strict conditional use permit and do not imposed all the design guidelines as mandatory. You can do these things and still have a very stringent site and design review, still have all the necessary controls that you desire and are necessary. .I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing these candid comments. Sincerely yours, Q / G Craig trie PA~.3 mom 'C COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 15th. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: December 4, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Planning Commis- PREVIOUS ACTION: none sion Trans o Cation Committee 11.411 PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City Council - ISSUE B THE COUNCIL Should the functions of the Transportation Committee be merged with those of the Planning Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance, which would repeal the ordinance establishing the Planning Commission, and adopt a new ordinance in its place. The new ordinance would supersede the Resolution establishing a Transportation Committee. INFORMATION SUMMARY As part of its review of Board and Committee structures, the City Council indicated its interest in combining t'ie functions of the Planning ' Commission and Transportation Committee, and directed staff to prepare the necessary documents to accomplish that goal. Staff has prepared an ordinance which outlines the structure and role of the Planning Commission. The ordinance is based on sections from the Oregon Revised Statutes dealing with Planning Commissions, the existing City Code which established the Planning Commission, and the Resolution establishing the Transportation Committee. The ordinance is intentionally worded broadly, to cover a wide range of issues that may be directed towards the Planning Commission. If adopted, the Transportation Committee's duties and functions would be redirected to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and Transportation Committee members have been advised of this action, and are generally supportive. A copy of the proposed ordinance was made available to them at a joint meeting on December 7th. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Modify the ordinance and then adopt it. 2. Adopt the ordinance as proposed. 3. Take no action. FISCAL NOTES There are no particular fiscal ramifications of this action, other than the Planning Commission would become responsible for reviewing and recommending capital improvement programs, which would include the annual street improvement program. mm, Chapter 2.08 PLANNING COMMISSION* Sections: 2.08.011 Appointment--Membership. 2.08.021 Election of officers. i * For statutory provisions concerning city planning and zoning, see generally ORS 227. i 12-2 (Tigard 1/15/79) 2.08.011--2.08.031 1 _ I Sections: (Continued) 2.08.031 Meetings--Quorum--Voting. 2.08.041 Powers and duties. 2.08.051 Definitions. 2.08.061 Hearing officer. 2.08.071 Hearing procedures. 2.08.011 Appointment--Membership. The city planning commission shall consist of nine members, not more than two of whom may be nonresidents of the city, to be appointed by the council, to serve a term of four years. Commission members shall receive no compensation but shall be reim- bursed for duly authorized expenses. (Ord. 76-12 S1, 1976: Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). 2.08.021 Election of officers. The planning commis- sion, at its first meeting in each odd-numbered calendar year, shall elect a president and a vice president, who shall hold office during the pleasure of the commission; and the commission shall elect a secretary, who need not be a member of the commission, and the secretary shall keep ac- curate records of all commission proceedings. The commis- sion shall, as of the first day of October of each year, make and file a report of its transactions with the city council. The president and vice president shall be voting members of the commission. (Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). 2.08.031 Meetings--Quorum--Voting. The commission shall meet at least once in each calendar month. A majority of the members of the commission shall gonstitute a quorum. A majority vote of those members present at an open meeting of the commission shall be necessary to legally act on any matter before the commission. A member of the planning commission shall not partici- pate in any commission proceeding or action in which any of the following has a direct or substantial financial inter- est: The member or his spouse, brother, sister, child, par- ent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, any business in which he is then serving or has served within the previous two years, or any business with which he is negotiating for or has an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partner- ship or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the meeting of the commission where the ac- tion is being taken. A member of the planning commission shall disclose to the commission, prior to any hearing on a petition for a permit or with respect to any contested case, any pre- hearing or'ex parte contacts with the applicants, officers, agents and employees, or any of the parties to a contested C case concerning the permit sought or the question at issue. 2 13 (Tigard 2/86) i a 1 1 s t 2.08.041--2.08.051 y I r i (l A member of the commission shall disqualify himself or be disqualified by the remaining members of the commission present at a hearing when it appears that the impartiality or objectivity of any member has been compromised by pre- hearing or ex parte contact. (Ord. 85-28 §1, 1985; Ord. { 73-30 §2(part), 1973). i 2.08.041 Powers and duties. Except as otherwise 4 provided by law and subject to the provisions of the city's ordinances, the planning commission shall be vested with all powers, duties and procedures as set forth in Chapter 227 of the Oregon Revised Statutes as now in effect or hereafter amended, and particularly those set forth in ORS 227.090, exclusive of those reserved to the hearings officer, if any, and to the city council. y The commission may make and alter rules and regulations for its government and procedure consistent with the laws of the state of Oregon, the City Charter, this chapter and a other ordinances of the city. The city council shall assign to the commission such facilities as necessary to enable the commission to hold its meetings, transact its business and keep its records. (Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). 2.08.051 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless ' the context otherwise requires: r (1) "Contested case" means a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties under general rules or policies provided under ORS 227.230, or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, are required to be determined only after a hearing at which specific parties are entitled to appear and be heard. (2) "Hearing" means a quasi-judicial hearing, authorized s i 14 (Tigard 2/86) yY ji r{ 2.08.061--2.08.071 or required by the ordinances and regulations of a city adopted pursuant to ORS 227.230: (A) To determine in accordance with such ordinances and regulations if a permit shall be granted or denied; or (B) To determine a contested case. (3) "Hearings officer" means a planning and zoning hearings officer appointed or designated by a city council under Section 2.08.061. (4) "Permit" means authority or approval of a proposed use of land for which approval is a matter of discretion and is required pursuant to ORS 227.230, or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, and the term includes, but is not limited to, conditional use, special exceptions, variance, special design zone and other similar permits. (Ord. 73-30 52(part), 1973). 2.08.061 Hearings officer. The council may appoint or designate one or more qualified persons as planning and zon- ing hearings officer(s), to serve at the pleasure of the city council. The hearings officer(s) shall have the power to conduct hearings on applications for permits or of contested cases under rules and regulations adopted by the council pursuant to ORS 227.230, when directed by the council or upon request of the planning commission. (Ord. 73-30 §2(part), 1973). 2.08.071 Hearing procedures. Procedures for the conduct of hearings as prescribed by Section 18.84.091 of this code shall apply with respect to the conduct of hearings by the hearrings officer. (Ord. 74-4 §l, 1974: Ord. 73-30 §2 (part) , 1973) . Chapter 2.12 PARK AND RECREATION BOARD Sections: 2.12.010 Appointments. 2.12.020 Meetings. 2.12.030 Advisory capacity. 2.12.040 Terms of office. 2.12.050 General functions and responsibilities. 2.12.060 Specific responsibilities. `f l.. 15 (Tigard 8/80) 8 CITY OF 'TIGARD, OREGON t RESOLUTION NO. 87-3f A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REDEFINING THE STRUCTURE AND GOALS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee was created by Resolution No. 84-62 on August 27, 1984; and WHEREAS, in a workshop meeting with the Transportation Advisory Committee on January 26, 1987, the City Council determined that it was appropriate to redefine the structure and goals of the Committee; and WHEREAS, it apF-2a-s that the Transportation Advisory Committee can be of greatest benefit to the City by concentrating its efforts on planning for transportation improvements of city-wide benefit; and WHEREAS, neighborhood transportation improvements can be coordinated through the various Neighborhood Planning Organizations; and WHEREAS, regional transportation improvements are coordinated through the County, the Metropolitan Service District, State agencies and other organizations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: ' Section 1:. Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Resolution No. 84-62 are hereby repealed. Section 2: The purpose of the Transportation Advisory Committee shall be to review any proposals to adopt or amend planning documents for the city-wide transportation system and to make recommendations to the City Council regarding such proposals. The city-wide transportation system shall mean the arterial and collector street system, the bicycle routes system, and mass transit system within the City of Tigard. Planning documents shall mean the Transportation Capital Improvement Program, the Transportation Public Facilities Plan, the Transportation Map of the Comprehensive Plan and roster planning documents for city-wide transportation facilities, along with proposals for funding of the proposed transportation systems. r Section 3: The Committee shall consist of up to nine members appointed by the Council. All appointments made subsequent to adoption of this resolution shall be for two year terms except where an appointee is competing an unexpired term of a previous committee member. Committee members shall receive no compensation. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 87-35 Page 1 lFi,:. 1. .r...'.. The Committee membership shall include the following a. At least one resident of Tigard residing north and west of Pacific Highway. b. At least one resident of Tigard residing south and east of Pacific Highway. C. A representative of the Tigard Planning Commission. The City Engineer and a member of the City Council shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members. The Committee is authorized to create special subcommittees and enlist the aid of private citizens in reviewing areas of special concern. Section 4: At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Committee shall elect a chairperson and a secretary. Section 5: The Committee shall meet mon.hly unless the meeting is changed by Chairperson or the City Engineer. PASSED: This c-23P-4 day of " l1~Ru_ft 1987. ~r 5,uc Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Qk'4 IAA;, Ci y Re order - City of Tigard RRW:cn 0817W i a i RESOtUTRA NO. 87- k Page 2 mom COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM LJ' C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 15. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: December 7. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Planning Comm. PREVIOUS ACTION: Oct. 22 L 1992 C C o tents 14. consolidate PC and trans. planning PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton`UJV DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton - = I5SUE BEFORI ' THE COUNCIL i Appointment of Transportation Advisory Committee members to Planning commission vacancies. r STAFF RECOMMENDATION j Approve the attached resolution make appointments to the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 22, the City Council agreed to incorporate the transportation planning function into the Planning Commission and appoint members of the Transportation Advisory Committee to fill two unexpired terms. Ron Holland and Joe Schweitz who have served on the Transportation Committee have agreed to fill the vacant positions. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Delay action. FISCAL NOTES i i I i i NINE L'©un~l Q~Pn~~ ~~errz VJ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly FROM. Loreen Edin DATE. December 7, 1992 SUBJECT.• SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE TERM REVIEW HISTORY Council began to express a different philosophy regarding length of franchise terms as early as the rate Increase hearings In the Spring of 1991. On 11117192, the Council requested a public meeting be scheduled for 12115192 for the consideration of the term of the Solid Waste Ordinance. Specifically, Council wished to discuss whether to allow the automatic renewal of the 10 year franchise to continue or whether to terminate the automatic renewal. Council may act to continue the automatic renewal or may, by majority vote, decide to terminate the automatic renewal before 12131192. This process does not require a public hearing and Is described In TMC Section 11.04.050 (attached for your reference). AC77ON SINCE 11/17/92 Since Council has expressed a desire to have a shorter franchise term (5 to 7 years being discussed at the 11117192 meeting), staff has been working with the Solid Waste Franchisees to negotiate alternative language proposals for Council consideration. Staff and Franchisees have discussed amending the ordinance to allow the set term of 10 years to begin a 'count down, should Council terminate the automatic renewal. When a time certain is reached in the count down process (i.e. when a 5 or 7 year term Is left) amendment language adopted now could become effective again inserting an automatic renewal clause. This plan could be adopted as a franchise ordinance amendment, amending Section 11.04.050B. Attached Is a comparison of Tigard's franchise ordinance term with 13 other cities in the tri-county area. Since there are three franchisees with :different management philosophies, staff has been unable to obtain consensus for one proposal for an ordinance amendment. Therefore, the process for franchise ordinance amendments has not been met to allow a change in the language before December 31, 1992. TMC Section 11.04.080C requires proposed amendments be presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). After the Committee prepares a recommendation for Council, a Council public hearing must be held prior to adoption of amendments. The franchisees may, but are not required to, accept the proposed amendments if Section 11.04.050B is modified. 12115192 COUNCIL OPTIONS At the public meeting on 12115, the Council can take action to continue or terminate the automatic renewal terms of the Solid Waste Franchise Ordinance. Should there be a desire to consider adoption of amended language regarding the franchise term, Council should direct staff to begin the process of amending the existing franchise. The negotiations, presentation to SWAC, and then scheduling of a Council public hearing is anticipated to take 45 to 60 days. BMW= 4. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the franchisees from instituting on-route recycling prior to a council determination nor from including income and expense in the rate justification section. 5. Section 11.04.070(11) requires franchisees to provide the opportunity to recycle, to include on-route recycling, in accordance with applicable law. This subsection is intended to provide a process by which the Council may create on-route recycling requirements in addition to those found in other applicable law. 11.04.050 Franchise--Term-Automatic renewal when. A. The rights, privileges and initial franchise granted herein shall con]nand be in full force to and including the thirty-first day of December 1988to terms, conditions and payment of franchise fees to the city as set this chapter. B. Unless the council acts to terminate further renewals of the franchisgranted, each January 1st, the franchises are automatically renewed fof ten years from the January 1st renewal. 11.04.060 Franchise--Fees. A. Effective July 1, 1978, as compensation for the franchise granted to each franchisee and for the use of city streets, the franchisee shall pay to the city a fee equal to three percent of gross cash receipts resulting from the solid waste services conducted under the franchise. Such fees shall be computed on a quarterly basis and paid within thirty days following the end of each quarter calendar year period. Each franchisee shall maintain an adequate bookkeeping system showing the gross cash receipts resulting from the solid waste services conducted under the franchise. Records shall be open at all times for audit by authorized personnel designated by the city administrator. B. Wilful misrepresentation of gross cash receipts by a franchisee shall constitute cause for immediate revocation of the franchise, pursuant to Section 11.04.080 Y t" of this chapter. ~k C. The franchise fee shall be in lieu of any business license or regulatory fee or tax, but shall not be in lieu of any ad valorem tax, imposed by the City of Tigard. 11.04.065 Franchisee Records. A. Franchisee shall keep accurate books and records related to all solid waste activities. Such books and records shall be open to inspection by the City, its attorney, or other authorized agent at any time during the franchisee's business hours. B. The City may audit or review said books and records as it deems necessary. Information obtained from such audits or reviews may be used to determine the amounts due to the City under the provisions of this franchise agreement. Such information may also be used by the City to determine costs of particular services, to determine changes to the schedule of solid waste rates, or for any other regulatory purpose related to the administration of this chapter. The City shall maintain the confidentiality of such records to the extent allowed by the Oregon Public Records Law. However, the City may provide information obtained pursuant to this franchise to other governmental agencies involved in the regulation of the provision of solid waste services. If such information is shared, the City shall, prior to delivery of the information, receive a written assurance from the receiving agency that the confidentiality of the information shall be maintained to the extent allowed by the Oregon Public Records Law. 11.04.070 Responsibility of franchisee. ! A. The Franchisees shall: ( 1. Resource-recover or dispose of wastes collected at sites approved by the city that are in compliance with Chapter 459, Oregon Revised Statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder; Effective 1/16/92 Page 6 i SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE COMPARISONS CITY FRANCHISE TERM AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE a BEAVERTON 5 year No DURHAM 5 year No FOREST GROVE 5 year Yes GRESHAM 5 year No HILLSBORO 7 year No KING CITY 5 year Yes LAKE OSWEGO 7 year No MILWAUKIE 20 year No OREGON CITY 10 year No SHERWOOD 10 year Yes TIGARD 10 year Yes TUALATIN 5 year No WEST LINN 10 year No WILSONVILLE 3 year Yes FOLLOWING IS A BREAKDOWN OF FRANCHISE TERMS FOR THE 14 CITIES. 3 YEAR - 1- with it being automatically renewable 5 YEAR - 6 - with 1 being automatically renewable 7 YEAR-2 10 YEAR - 4 - with 2 being automatically renewable 20 YEAR - 1- with termination consideration available every 5 years THE AVERAGE IS 7.6 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF GRANTING THE FRANCHISE. SINCE 5 OF THE 14 CITIES GRANT AUTOMATIC RENEWALS, THE ACTUAL TIME LEFT ON THE AGREEMENTS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THIS REVIEW OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. Dated 12f4192 - L. Edin LE:CC12.15 s i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator v DATE: December 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Board and Committee Structure Feedback After Council discussion on October 20, 1992, consensus was to go back to the Boards and Committees, review the decisions made by Council and get feedback on the "CIT° concept and how the standing committees might fit in. Over the last eight weeks, most of the NPOs and standing Committees have had an opportunity to provide feedback. The Park and Recreation Board, the Planning Commission, and NPOs 3 and 7 have not reviewed the information, primarily due to scheduling conflicts. The decision made by council to incorporate transportation planning into the Planning Commission was enthusiastically supported. As a result, Ron Holland and Joe Schweitz from the Transportation Advisory Committee will be appointed to the Planning Commission. The Council's decision to defer filling any vacancies was accepted with no comment. The decision to reappoint existing members whose terms expire for six months to retain continuity was also accepted with little comment. Everyone contacted whose term expires at the end of the year has agreed to serve an additional six months and many expressed enthusiasm at being involved in the restructuring. The "CIT" concept was generally well received. There were positive comments about the ability as citizens to become involved in a broader variety of issues and to determine what these issues might be. There was also interest in a stronger commitment on the part of the City for specific training. The suggested "CIT" agenda was well received because of the opportunity in one meeting to share information, discuss issues, and express concerns. Although there was general consensus for the concept, some concerns were also raised. In discussing boundaries, most people preferred more (four) gather than fewer (three) CITs, believing that there may be too many issues for larger geographic areas. Boundary lines should be based on some defined criteria. A primary concern was ( whether resources would be more available (staff, information). Questions were also raised about how land use issues would be reviewed. r In regard to standing committees, consensus was that Council review all of them and assign specific tasks or disband them. Several people suggested sunset clauses for any remaining standing committees. The Board and Committee liaisons also met to review the CIT concept. As a result of the discussions, it was suggested that the boundaries be dropped, that the CIT meetings be held at different locations throughout the city, and that CIT facilitators be Tigard residents. The reason for eliminating boundaries is to avoid the appearance of excluding people from one CIT or another because of their particular geographic location. In addition, going from eight groups to four was not viewed as neighborhood based, so specific boundaries seemed unnecessary. Under the CIT concept, a separate, distinct process for review of land use issues is important. RECOMMENDATIONS: • Meet with NPO #3 and #7 in January to present CIT concept. Council review existing roles and responsibilities of the Park and Recreation Board, Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and Library Board in January. • Council discussion of the role of public participation in land use issues in January. • Develop land review process with planning staff. • Review land use review process. Planning staff. y Planning Commission. • Develop training package including general topics and estimated costs.k ' • Prepare draft CIT agreements that include: Boundaries for the purpose of selecting Steering Committee members. Responsibilities of Steering Committee members. Responsibilities of the city: Notice of meetings Resources (staff, information) Training Coordination with school district and other agencies • Review CIT agreements. City Council Staff liaisons Boards and Committees C