The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/14/1993 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON i PUBUC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an 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. f 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 M order aftr 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 AGENDA • STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE CHAMPIONS - Mayor Edwards 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. 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: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to Enter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve Strips as Right-of-Way - Resolution No. 93- 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge t Subdivision - Resolution No. 93- 4.6 Approve Dartmouth Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes - Resolution No. 93- 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Ouasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93- 0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 41313, tax lots 100 and 200) (Item 5 Continued to Next Page) COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 71 (Agenda Item 5 Continued) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report d. Public Testimony - Proponents (in favor the requested development approvals) - Opponents (Opposed to the requested development approvals) - Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93-_ 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report - City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: • Proponents (Favoring Amendments) • Opponents (Opposing Amendments) C. Council Questions/Comments d. Close Public Hearing e. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93-_ 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT cca1214.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel (present for Executive Session only); Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • EXECI7TIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:31 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Executive session adjourned: 7:21 p.m. • Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) - Council consensus was for approval of appointment of Councilor Hawley as representative, replacing Mayor Edwards, to WCCCA. BUSINESS MEETING 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMENIS SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE CHAMPIONS a. Council President Schwartz presented the team with a small gift and congratulated them on their achievement. The team has won this title three years in a row. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Cal Woolery, 12536 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted concerns with the Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) process with regard to land use issues. He advised he had requested that a land use issue be placed on the December agenda and it was not done. City Administrator Reilly responded he would consult with Community Relations Coordinator Liz Newton. He noted that Ms. Newton contacts the facilitators after meetings and the concerns noted by Mr. Woolery had not been expressed (by the facilitators) to City staff prior to this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilor Fessler requested Item 4.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent Agenda, less Item 4.5: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to E,yter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve strips as Right-of-Way - Resolution No. 93- 61 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Subdivision (This item was removed from the agenda - see Council packet file for letter dated December 14, 1993, from Craig A. Petrie, requesting withdrawal of the issue.) 4.6 Approve Dartmouth Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes Resolution No. 93-62 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "Aye.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200) a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or Challenges: Council President Schwartz asked the following questions: - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 Councilor Fessler reported she visited the site. Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Councilors advised they had familiarized themselves with the application. Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? There were no challenges. C. Staff Report Council President Schwartz advised the following: - For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. - Senior Planner Bewersdorff and City Engineer Wooley summarized the staff report. d. Public Testimony Legal Counsel Ramis advised Council on process relating to testimony noting the Council must determine during deliberation what parts of the record were to be considered. In addition, he outlined the rebuttal procedure available to the parties participating in the hearing. - Proponents (In favor of the requested development approvals): • John Shonkwiler, 13425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, gave testimony as a representative of the applicant. Mr. Shonkwiler summarized the NPO process and, after the NPO's disbanded, the process with the neighbors to date. He described the attempts to provide notice to the neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the site plan (see slides contained in the Council packet material as well as exhibits used by Mr. Shonkwiler during his Council presentation.) He addressed the access points for vehicle traffic as well as the pedestrian access. Mr. Shonkwiler review the application and answered questions about site elevations, noise abatement (i.e., screening from air conditioners, fans, etc.). A representative from the traffic engineering firm, Kittleson & Associates, reviewed the traffic analysis and conclusions which resulted in the proposed access and traffic flow to and from the site. Mr. Shonkwiler, at the conclusion of his presentation noted he was reserving his rights with regard to rebuttal and examination of the testimony offered for the record. • Mr. Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Creek, Scapoose, OR 97056 advised he owns the subject property as well as some adjacent land. Mr. Russell advised he has been involved with the land use and development of this property for a number of years. He supported approval of the application. • Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon 97219 recounted the length of time he has been involved in this real estate development proposal. He reported that land use notification signs on the subject property had been removed without permission. He said spreading the number and location of shopping areas would help alleviate problems (i.e., traffic/congestion) by dispersing people. He encouraged support of the application. • Garry P. McMurry, Benjamin Franklin Building, Suite 435, One S.W. Columbia, Portland, Oregon noted the citizen involvement process including the NPO's and meetings with citizens and staff. He commended the City's involvement throughout the process. Mr. McMurry cited the City's and owner's efforts to accommodate the concerns. He noted this development would ideally suit the land for the next 25 years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 4 Opponents (Opposed to the requested development approvals) • Edward J. Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, No. 3200, Portland, OR 97204 distributed information to Council (see Council packet for pages titled "Before the City Council of the City of Tigard... 11 and packet which begins with the Staff Report, dated July 12, 1983). Mr. Sullivan advised he had not been notified of the hearing. Mr. Sullivan submitted testimony to support his concern that this was not a neighborhood-oriented site. • Greg Wintrowd, Planner, Wintrowd Planning Services, Suite 210, Office Courts Building, 700 North Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR 97217 presented a packet of information to the Council. (See Council packet material for the information containing Mr. Wintrowd's "Land Use Report and Appeal.") Mr. Wintrowd gave lengthy testimony, summarizing from the submitted report which was offered as support to his concern that the proposed land use request did not conform substantially to the guidelines and standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, Chapter 18.61. Mr. Wintrowd contended that the proposed development was a "basic strip mall design." Council discussion followed on the site development review process. Legal Counsel Ramis noted Council deliberation of Code interpretation can be conducted at the end of the process. 9:40 p.m. Council meeting recessed. 9:57 p.m. Council meeting reconvened. (Public testimony continued - opponents): • Pam Garcia, 14550 S.W. Teal Boulevard, Beaverton, OR 97005, (representing interests of the Murray Hill Thriftway store) testified that there had been a communication breakdown with the neighbors and there were residents who opposed the proposed development. Ms. Garcia advised that it appeared there was a problem with communication because of the NPO and CIT transition. She advised she did not feel all input for the issue had been received. Ms. Garcia registered her concern with the notification process; advising that the lack of testimony at the Planning Commission should have been indicative that something went wrong with the communication process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 5 71 Ms. Garcia submitted photographs and referred to a map (see photos and Columbia Research Associates map which has been filed with the Council packet) to support her claim that the development was neither suitable for this area nor met the criteria of the Code. She noted her concerns with the impact that this development would have on two, nearby family-owned business (Murray Hill Thriftway and Howard's). She said the proposed development was a regional _ shopping strip mall and not a neighborhood-oriented development. She also noted concerns with noise. In response to a question by Councilor Schwartz, Ms. Garcia advised she would be opposed to any grocery store in the area. She questioned whether the proposal was in keeping with the "vision" of a Community Commercial zone. (Note: Testimony sheet indicates several people who signed in to speak, but did not stay to testify.) • Chris Rullan, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified in opposition to the proposed development. He referenced lack of notification to the neighbors about the proposed development. There are new homeowners in the neighborhood. • Scott Van Dyke, 14111 S.W. Northfield, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised he was opposed to the development. He said the proposed application was not intended to serve the surrounding community but would draw from a five- to seven-mile radius. The sign he saw notifying of the development said it would be a "community grocery store." • Shannon Rullman, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that the neighbors do not want this development. • Bruce Tilley, 14189 S.W. Stardust Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised this would impact his residence. He said property values would go down and cited the 24-hour use of the commercial property as an adverse impact. Mr. Tilley said there could be more compromise. • Ted and Tiffani Trecker, 14061 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ms. Trecker testified as to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 6 her concerns with the notification process advising they had not been informed about the development and the process has been unfair. She reviewed her issues with the traffic pattern and access to the shopping center (in particular the Northview Drive entrance which she said should not be there.) Ms. Trecker questioned whether emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood would be adequate for the residential area. She also noted concerns with the congestion to Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Trecker said a grocery store as large as the one being proposed "...doesnIt fit." Ms. Trecker advised that a "Charboneau-type of development" would fit in more with the neighborhood. • Larry Westerman, 13665 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 testified that he was generally in favor of the development; however, he advised he was concerned about the site design with regard to pedestrian access. • Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd court, Tigard, OR 97223, submitted to Council a letter dated December 14, 1993, outlining his concerns with the citizen- input process. He requested additional time for citizen review and for the CIT to set this on an agenda. CIT agenda items are set by CIT members; Council policy is still formative, but consensus by the Council was not to place issues on a CIT agenda. • Marlin Hopfer, 8924 S.E. Alder, Portland, Oregon noted he owns 4.5 acres to the north of the subject property. He suggested this property, now zoned Neighborhood Commercial, be rezoned to Community Commercial. Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) After discussion, it was the consensus of Council and representatives of the applicant and opponents that the hearing will be continued to January 25, 1994. All evidence and rebuttal remarks are to be submitted to the City by 5 p.m., January 14. 11:20 p.m. Council meeting recessed 11:29 p.m. Council meeting reconvened CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 7 1 i I 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to ~ the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the i Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz b. Declarations or Challenges - None C. Staff Report was summarized by City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: None r d. Public hearing was closed by Council President Schwartz e. Council Consideration: i 3 • RESOLUTION NO. 93-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 17, 1994. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Resolution No. 93-63. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley and Hunt voted "Aye.") 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Mega Foods Director's decision - Councilor Fessler ! requested discussion on the recently issued Director's decision for the Mega Foods development in the Triangle area. Of concern to Councilor Fessler was the tree removal and traffic. After brief discussion, there was no motion for Council call-up of this issue. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. Attest: Ca herine Wheatley, City ecorder Cityy of, Tigard CD~AnGIl I~RP_S-aP.tl~' Date: 1IisIG y can1214.93 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 8 c COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 7729 LICHBARilJG P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 The following .wl be considered by `ihd Tigard City Council on December 1.4 199il3. at 7:30 P:M., at Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall Legal Notice Advertising Room. 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard; Oregon. Further information City of Tigard maybe obtained from the Community. Development DirectororCity ° 1312 5 SW Ha 11 Blvd . ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice Recorder at the same location or by calling 639-4171. You are invited to submit written testimony in advance of the public hearing; written and ° Tigard,Gregon 97223-8199 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit oral testimony will be considered at theheanng.Thepublic hearing will be conducted in accordance with the applicable Chapter 18.32 of the i Tigard Municipal Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council ° • I. and'available at City Hall. cO ZO1VBt~j~tgHFNST+>E PLAT AMEtI~IDMENI CPA 93-(N)09! . 1 SrM DEVE pFMENTREVIEVIP^ SDR 93 0014/ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION, ,S 1MMNAi.USE Crm 00021 3 1 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 93-0013( STATE OF OREGON, ) ALBERTSON'SIDUNCOMBE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of: : a` w.f r ` = 1 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street: (WCfM 2S14BB ta)6 KyrcnyP, ✓ lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1); ai-rl being first duly sworn, depose and say that I mTthe Advettisin Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redestgnate Director, or his principal clerk, of the TiQartl-ualatin- ~imes approximately eight acres ofa 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density, a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate, and 193.020; published a in the an'approximutely 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to, aforesaid county and state. thata (Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes: U,1, uc+ar;„cj.irPA 9I-nnOA-AlhPrtsong jaclomanyingtheaboveplan changes includoazone change- from R a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the l(PD),EResidentia1;.25 units/acre, Planned Development) to, - entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) toR (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval tot consecutive in the following issues: i allow the construction of a 53550 square foot multiple-use commercial, retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of A' December 2 ,19 9 3 y4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to. divide the 12 acrd parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2.9. 10, 11. and 12- Comprehensive Plan Policies, 1.1.1, 1.12,4.1.1,4.21,5.1.1,5.1.4,6.1:1,6.4.1,7.1:2,7.2.1,7.4.4,7.5.2,74.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3,12:1.3,12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code 2 d day of December AMY Chapters 18.22,18.32,18:56,18.60,18.61.18.98,18.100,18.102,18.106, Subscribed and sworn to ore ma thi18.108,18.114,.18.120,18.130,18.162, and 18.164. OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS TT7729-Publish Dcccmber2,4993. /li Nh L 't NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary lb%ilc (or Oregon CoklmisSiUN NO. 024552 COIA!,ItssiON rXPIRES MAY '6 16.1997 7 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - G~EC:F.tvr.i. - G 0 X993 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal CI P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 NotlceTT 7731 ()F. J1GAkL BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 C61,E Legal Notice Advertising 0 City of Tigard 0 ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SVI Hall Blvd. 0 Tigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 0 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 0 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say bat f ardn t~e Acivetising Director, or his principal clerk, of the lgar - ua a in Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at Ti gam in the afo es id county and state; that the rPu Hearing-Charter Amendment a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: December 2,1993 Subscribed and sworn t ore me this 2nd day o D _ mber 1 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBW A. BURGESS o - NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024552 Notary Pu for regon M'i COMMISSIONt EXPIRES MAY 16, 1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TIGARD CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT The Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive comments from Tigard voters on proposed amendments to the Tigard City Charter. This hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 14, 1993, at 7:30 P.M., in the Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. During the hearing, Council will consider forwarding to the voters, on May 17,1994, the following changes to the Charter. • Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term. p' • Eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. Further information may be obtained from the City Recorder at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171, Extension 309. TT7731 -Publish December 2, 1993. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 NotlceTT 7 7 3 4 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 i Legal Notice Advertising e City of Tigard e ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd, e Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 e ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I,Xai-h~ SnTr7er ,EC L being first duty sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising ~rF Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard- ual at-i n Times a newspaper of general circ}~f ation a defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at lgard s in the I aforesaid county and state; that the a s iM colinrri 1 AuS Mtc~ t a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and / consecutive in the following issues: 3 December 9,1993 i f I Subscribed and sworn t ore me this 9th day of December, OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P is for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by'calling 639-4171. s CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 14.1993„ TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL t31~5 S W HALL BOULEVARD' TIGARD OREGON Study session (Town Hall Conference Room) - 6c30 P.M. Business Meeting - 7:30 P.M. Public Hearings - • • Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA' 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/ML P.93-0013 Albertson's. Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1)Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate. approximately eight acres. of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, { 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of _a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW WalnuiSireet.•(WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). • Proposed amendments to the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. Local Contract Review Board Meeting. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may 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. M734 - Publish December 9, 1993. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: December 14.1993 (Umited 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 e~ze Ax dog o s ors.s t NOV-29-1993 07:5e FROM TIGRRD HIGH SCHOOL TO 96847297 P.02 •f. .f. VErN ME • ' XXXXXXXX: #(W/G) NAME POSITION GRADE 1 Ryann Furrer Goal 12 3 Kristin Ott MID 11 4 Erika Anderson DEF 12 5 Erin Anderson MID 10 7 Tanya Loucks FWD 12 8/2 Lindsay Allori DEF 12 9 Holly Pierce MID 12 10 Heidi Smith DEF 10 11 Joni Abel FWD 12 12 Kendra Allori FWD 9 13 Sarah Bowder MID 11 14 Elizabeth Oliver MID 11 15 Sherilyn Swartwood MID 11 16 Jenny Howell MID 10 17 Kelsey LeBrun DEF 17 18 Alison Boyer DEF 11 HEAD COACH: Kit Pierce ASSISTANTS: Hope Glenn, John Purkiss PRINCIPAL: Mark Kubiaczyk ATHLETIC COORDINAROR: Barb Proctor ATHLETIC TRAINER: Eric Kautzky, A.T., C. CHEERLEADER COACH: Lisa Peterson, Cindy Rochester 1991 S 1999 AAAA State Champions { WoV1 S'1 . G~-t Prrn fhpr~5i-4 l Q lqq l , 019 2 , 19, 9,5 ? Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: December 14, 1993 ; PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection ( of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 41313, tax lots 100 and 200) PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS C~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) ~ Name Name (~5 L-d,-~ d, ,a 44 rJ W S N- o N -c U I i- c= ►2 S Address Address 1 F3 ~5 S lnJ -7 N i (s*A-R qi 7 at 3 nl o y Name e -<-c a v-SSEZL (-r r w teas rose 0 z /29 /Q~ oN S~~Pv E9~vs -70a +1 ~~eN )s. -DfL. p Name 79 Address dress/0~5j 5w eel te lvol 9600 56) 7 970 Name Name f~ C7 , , ~ lI Address Addra ^ - C!a /Vl Name N 4, Address Addr Name Nam ~v VI Address rasa Sv, Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address XL-I N 16 -,'...r 1~ Name Name GHti ~e 1 410') Nor++n ► o r . Address Address Name Name Aa-17nOy-7 Address Addre7y 0 77 - v n/ ~ Cam/ Name Name/-5,(--,,,,- Address Address PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) GL g G Address Address c c 9 LZ3 Name 0 Name HAddress Address s so S t `1 ! 22~ Address Name Addres Name rAddreas s Z Name Name Address Address -name Name Address Address a Name Name t Address Address Name Name s Address Address i i h:\login\{o\tesUfy a l Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: December 14, 19933 PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address Address ame e Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address { Name Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address 9 ~ 91 1 1 f PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address Address i.e e s 4 Address Address S Name Name Address Address e Name FAMMN Address Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address h:\Iogin\jo\testify ;~r Council Agenda Item !il MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: December 1, 1993 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, December, 1993 - February, 1994 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. December '93 1-6 Wed- National League of Cities Conference Mon * 14 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 24 Fri Christmas Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed * 28 Tues Council Meeting - Tentatively Cancelled 31 Fri New Year's Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed January '94 * li Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting STATE OF THE CITY - MAYOR EDWARDS EXECUTIVE SUN14ARY - CITY ADMINISTRATOR REILLY 17 Mon Martin Luther King Jr. Day - City Hall Offices Closed *18 Tues EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS RECEPTION (4-5 p.m.) Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) *25 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting February 194 * 8 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 15 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 21 Mon President's Day - City Hall Offices Closed * 22 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting h:\login\cathy\cccal AGENDA ITEM # 4'3 For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB - Award contract for yard debris program design authorize staff to enter into contract with Hardin Lawson Associates--7- PREPARED BY: L. Edin DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award contract to Harding Lawson Associates with a high quote of $18,610? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend award of contract to the high bidder, Harding Lawson, for $18,610 for the following reasons: • broadest expertise in solid waste program design specifically focusing on recycling; • clearly defined scope of work with issues of concern addressed up front; • ability to explain solid waste and financial issues in an easily understood manner by the solid waste novice; • ability to negotiate successfully with the haulers and regulators in the solid waste arena; • ability to educate staff, Council and citizens to then make the best program design choice for Tigard; and • references stressed their expertise in being able to maintain a clear focus to accomplish recycling mandates while balancing the political realities in their work. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council requested staff hire a consultant to design a residential yard debris recycling program and appropriated $20,000 for the study on 10/26/93. The City received three quotes. • EMCO from Portland $15,765 • Gale & Associates from Hillsboro $ 8,722 • Harding Lawson Associates from Portland $18,610 After thoroughly reviewing the proposals and checking references for all three firms, the firm of Harding Lawson was high in the following rating elements: solid waste experience in program design, financial expertise, political sensitivity, clearly articulated scope of work, and reference reports. Staff recognizes that the firm recommended is the high bidder. However, in ` reviewing the importance of this issue and the potential for a large financial impact on our citizens, we believe we need a firm that has the most well rounded experience and demonstrates a balanced approach to the issue. C Staff believes that Harding Lawson can best provide that to Tigard based on the number and type of program design projects they have accomplished to date. Attached is a copy of the task summary and timeline from Harding Lawson for your review. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 A. Award to another consulting firm. Staff is concerned that the other two firms do not have as well rounded experience in this particular arena. >'y B. Go back out for responses to another scaled down RFP. The timeline is too tight to make the July 1, 1994 DEQ deadline for program implementation. f FISCAL NOTES This is within the budget appropriation amount. le/surtmary 1 I r' i i I low Summary of Tasks and Deliverables Task 1. Determine Yard Debris Program Design. Requirements and/or Performance Standards • Technical memo provided to City of Tigard . summarizing results and outlining alternatives to be considered in Task 2. F Task 2. Review and Assess Task 3. Review and Verify/Modify Program Cost the City of Tigard's Assumptions Provided by Franchised Yard Debris Program Haulers Alternatives • Provide interim list of Memo to City staff detailing issues and program alternatives to City questions relative to the haulers' proposed rate staff. adjustment request. • Final list of alternatives HLA available to participate in discussion with made. haulers if requirest byu City. Follow-up memo • Technical memo identifying summarizing discussion and items of agreement advantages, disadvantages, and/or disagreement for decision-makers in and relative cost impacts of evaluating the recommended collection program various alternatives. and associated rates. Task 4. Develop Decision and Rate Recommendations for the City of Tigard's Yard Debris Program • • Draft recommendation. • Council and City staff comments. • Final recommendation. Task 5. Prepare Reports and Make Presentations to Support the Yard Debris Recovery Program. Decision-Making Process by the Tigard City E. Council • Attend and participate in three meetings to present findings and recommendations of the review. • Support City staff in preparing to make presentations at citizen input meetings. \24527\1\PO3PR002.W51 Harding Lawson Associates 31 ter ® r~ ~ ~ ~ i i i ~ PROPOSED HLA PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD YARD DEBRIS COLLECTION PROGRAM DESIGN AND REVIEW 1993 1994 TASK November December January February March April May Task 1 • Determine Fcugram Requirements Elm Task 2 • Review & Assess Alternatives Task 3 • Review Hauler Cost Assumptions Task 4 • Develop Design and Rate Recommendations Task S • Prepare Reports and Make Presentations Citizen Additional Project Milestones ® MiSus Contract Council Award Adoption ® = Planned Presentations This schedule assumes that work can commence within the week following November 19th, the targeted date for project award. AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of /Z -/7-f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Dedication of reserve strips as right of way PREPARED BY: John Hadley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Dedication of existing reserve strips as public right of way to allow extension of streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the dedication. - - INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Code requires the dedication of reserve strips at the temporary dead ends of street at the boundaries of new subdivisions. When the streets are extended, it is necessary to dedicate the reserve strips as public right of way. Currently, two plats are being processed that involve the extension of streets and require the dedication of the reserve strips in adjoining subdivisions. Previous approvals by the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer have authorized the street extensions. The attached ordinance will authorize the City Administrator to dedicate the reserve strips as public right of way so that the street extensions can be completed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES johnrh\dedlc.ss i AGENDA ITEM # y'~ For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - E ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed for the Pacific Ridge Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by The Petrie Company to serve a subdivision they are developing at S.W. 74th and Cherry. The sewer line also provides service to seven adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Petrie Company has requested that a district be formed. The engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. No public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office has drafted revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owner, Mr. Petrie has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to form a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by The Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. 4 dJ/RH:Pac-R1dge.ss - :i 01 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 511, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is December 14, 1993. The right of reimbursement shall end on December 14, 2003, unless extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 1 Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1993. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS f RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 2 Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. ( (D ~~~Gwoo45 d Background 7fA A6 v A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve sae/~'ge n located adjacent to S.W. 94th Avenue e. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing ~2evsG~ /;L4- AV All costs of constructi n of the sewe extension have been paid by ~re~ y as requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that y will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is All of this cost has been paid by 2lip_ Reimbursement Rate 9 West of 7Rth Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in'the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new ^ ^ currently under construction ) occupies T,ax LotK ~3A9~ This stab a will ~ngLe-fam~',• ' with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Loth 2a-gGj 32G4r a~-re currently fully developed with single- family residential structurex and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. i t~4e lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. ~~~ese lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than /on structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that -t4ae~ lotg' with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable request, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. PriV'E7e to'U'tiax,s 711e The applicant has requested that the finance char 4e be i3'€, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance n . This seems reasenable, as-t-he opment Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established c nnection charges shall be increased by this amount. 7 b Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted December 3, 1993. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-R1dge.SS t • EXHIBIT uBn REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 7 0 ' 49 (L .5601 TL 3501 r r` w z TL 3600 a 3 vi NEW SA I A Y S WE ' 0 TI3 00 00 NEW SANITARY SCWCR TL 3200 44 TL 3302 (L 3300 L 40 CHERRY STREET 00 ROLUNC HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 461 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 011 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 021 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. jchnrh\pac.ben Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units Charge 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. dj/RW:Pac-R1dge.SS THE PETRIE COMPANY ,1z~L_ 3 ~ llq COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (receivcd 4:45f-) (503) 246-7977 December 14, 1993 TO: Randy Wooley FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Reimbursement District No. 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you withdraw the above issue from the City Council agenda at this time so that I may have more time to discuss the district with some of the owners of the tax lots within the district. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, Q Craig A. trie 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND. OR 97219 FAX: (503) 2440123 r AGENDA ITEM # 7 (P For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 'Dartmouth Bond Anticipation Notes PREPARED BY: Mary'Gruss DEPT HEAD OK IJLVJ~ CITY ADMIN 0 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council authorize the issuance of up to $3,300,000 i new Limited Tax Bond Anticipation Notes to refinance the 1992 Dartmouth notes and give the Finance Director or City Administrator the authority to complete the sale of such notes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose for the sale and issuance of the notes is for continued interim financing of the improvements for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District. t On January 28, 1992, the City Council passed Resolution No. 92-05 authorizing the issuance and sale of Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1992. The 1992 Notes mature on February 1, 1994 however the project will not be completed in time to issue long term bonds by that date. The attached resolution authorizes the Finance Director or the City Administrator to proceed with the sale of new series 1994 Bond Anticipation notes. The proceeds of the new notes will be used to pay off the 1992 notes. The 1994 Notes will remain outstanding until the project is completed and long term bonds can be issued for those property owners wishing to pay in installments The resolution also designates our Financial Advisor as Public Financial Management, our Underwriter as US National Bank of Oregon and Davis Wright Tremaine as Bond Counsel. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED * none FISCAL NOTES Issuance of the 1994 Notes will provide funds to pay off the 1992 notes which mature on February 1, 1994. The 1992 Notes carried an interest rate of 4.5% and a twenty four month term. It is anticipated that the 1994 notes will carry a rate of 3.5% and will mature within 23 months and be callable at 12 months. PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT NEW ISSUE - NEGOTIATED RATING: Non-rated In the opinion of Davis Wright Tremaine, Bond Counsel, under existing federal law and assuming compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Notes is excludable from the gross income of the owners of the Notes for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable income for individuals and corporations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). In the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Notes is exempt from present personal income taxation by the State of Oregon. See "Tax Exemption" herein. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DRAFT $3,120,000 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES (Dartmouth Street LID Project) Series 1994 DATED: January 1, 1994 DUE: As Shown below The Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1994 (the "Notes"), which are being issued by the City of Tigard, Oregon (the "City") are fully registered notes in denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof. The Notes shall be payable only at maturity or prior redemption upon presentation and surrender thereof through the principal corporate trust offices of the registrar and paying agent of the City, currently First Trust Oregon. l Note proceeds will be used to refinance the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1992 (the "1992 Notes"). The Notes are limited tax general obligations of the City and are secured by and payable from Assessments and the proceeds of permanent financing to be sold upon completion of the projects. The Notes are secured by the full faith and credit of the City and any taxes which the City may levy within the limitation of section 11 or l lb, Article 3G of the Oregon Constitution. MATURITY SCHEDULE Maturity Principal Interest RM Amount Bats Yield 02/01/96 $3,120,000* Redemption Provision - The Notes are subject to redemption as more fully described herein See "Optional Redemption of the Notes". Bank Designation - These notes, combined with all other anticipated tax-exempt issues of the City, total less than S10,000,000 for calendar year 1994. Therefore the City has designated the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Legal Opinion - The Notes are offered when, as and if received by the Underwriter, subject to prior sale, or withdrawal or modification of the offer without notice, and to the approval of legality by Davis Wright Tremaine, Portland Oregon, Bond Counsel. Certain legal mattes will be passed upon for the City by the City Attorney. Notes will be available for delivery in Portland, Oregon or about January 1993. UNDERWRITER: UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON Dated: December , 1993 *Preliminary subject to change i OFFICIAL STATEMENT l OF CITY OF TIGARID, OREGON f Relating to $3,120,000* j Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes Series 1994 ! I i CITY COUNCIL i Gerald Edwards, Mayor i Paul Hunt Judy Fessler Wendi Conover Hawley John Schwartz i City Administrator: Patrick J. Reilly Director of Finance: Wayne Lowry j Professional Services O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott & Crew. Legal Counsel Davis Wright Tremaine, Bond Counsel Public Financial Management, Inc., Financial Advisor This Official Statement has been designed to conform, where applicable, to the guidelines presented in Disclosure Guidelines for Offerings of Securities by State and Local Governments, published by the Government Finance Officers Association in 1976 and revised in 1979, 1988 and 1991. This Official Statement is intended only to furnish information in connection with the public invitation for bids for the purchase of these Notes. The Official Statement DOES NOT constitute a recommendation, expressed or implied, to purchase or not to purchase these Notes or any other previous Notes of the issuer. The date of this Official Statement is 'Preliminary, subject to change. T Representations Neither the City nor the Financial Advisor have authorized any dealer, broker, salesperson or other persons to give any information or make any representations other than those made in this Official Statement, and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the City or the Financial Advisor. This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell, nor shall there be any sale of the Notes by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such a sale. The information contained in this Official Statement has been obtained from City officials and other sources believed to be reliable. Neithera representation, warranty nor guarantee is made by the Financial Advisor as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this Official Statement and nothing contained in this Official Statement is or shall be relied upon as a promise or representation by the Financial Advisor. The delivery of this Official Statement does not imply that the information contained herein is correct as of any time subsequent to the date of the Official Statement as shown on the cover page. Disclosure Statement The City will deliver to the Underwriter at the time of delivery of the Notes, a signed statement to the effect that this Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date of delivery of the Notes, neither contains any untrue statement of a material fact nor omits to state any material fact necessary to make the ( statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in any material respect and that there has not been any material adverse change in the normal operations or financial condition of the City nor, to the best of the City's knowledge, in the general economy of the City since the date of the Official Statement. Securities Laws The Notes have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in reliance upon a specific exemptions contained in such act nor under the securities laws of any state. i This Official Statement, as of its date, is in a form "deemed final" by the City for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1). The final Official Statement will be available to the Underwriter within seven (7) days of the sale date. i { TABLE OF CONTENTS l INTRODUCTION Description of the Series 1994 Notes Purpose of the Notes Nature of the Notes Authorization Payment and Security for the Notes The Optional Redemption of the Notes THE CITY OF TIGARD Government Table City Council and Other Officials of the City Administration Staff Table-: Bargaining Units and Contract Status Table-: Facilities The Local Improvement Project The Project Legal Issues Related to Dartmouth LID Project Table Sources and Uses of Fund DEBT INFORMATION Debt Summary Debt Ratios Debt Limitation Debt Authorization Debt Management Future Debt Plans Table Outstanding Obligations Table Combined Debt Service Requirements Table Overlapping General Obligation Debt TAX INFORMATION The Property Tax Limitation Measure Synopsis of Property Tax Administration Table Principal Taxpayer Table Consolidated 1992-93 Tax Rate FINANCIAL INFORMATION Basis of Accounting Fiscal Year Audits Budgeting Table Summary of 1993-94 Adopted Budget Table General Fund Consecutive Balance Sheets Table Consecutive Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Table General Fund Balance Sheet Table Operating Funds Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Table Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund Consecutive Balance Sheets Table Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund Consecutive Statement of Revenues & Expenditures ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Land Use Planning Population Employment Utilities Public Facilities Transportation Agriculture Housing Information Sources Economic and Demographic Tables Table Population Estimates Table Average Annual Unemployment Table Labor Force Table Employment Table Major Employers Table Retail Trade Table Income Estimates Table Gross Farm Sales Table Building Activity RATING LEGAL MATTERS TAX EXEMPTION R FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDERWRITER MISCELLANEOUS C CONCLUDING STATEMENT APPENDIX APPENDIX i I t I 1 OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Relating to $3,120,000* Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes Series 1994 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Official Statement is to set forth certain information concerning the City of Tigard, Oregon (the City), the Dartmouth LID Project (the Improvement Project), and the City's Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1994, dated January 1, 1994 (the "Notes"). Capitalized terms not defined in this Official Statement have the meanings as established in the Resolution. All quotations from and summaries and explanations of provisions of the Resolution do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to the Resolution for full and complete statements of its provisions. A copy of the Resolution is available upon request. Description of the Series 1994 Notes The Notes are limited tax general obligations of the City and are secured by and payable from Assessments and I the proceeds of permanent financing to be sold upon receipt and execution of all benefited assessment contracts as further described herein. The Notes are secured by the full faith and credit and any taxes which the City may levy within the limitation of section 11 or llb, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. The Notes will be paid at maturity or at prior redemption by check or draft upon presentation and surrender of the Notes at the office of the Paying Agent/Registrar, currently First Trust Oregon. Purpose Of The Notes The Notes are being issued to refinance the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1992 (the "1992 Notes"). Nature Of Notes The Notes are being issued as frilly registered form. The Notes will be dated as of January 1, 1994 and will mature on the dates and in the amounts shown on the cover of the Official Statement. Interest on the Notes will be due semi-annually on February and August of each year commencing August 1, 1994. Interest on the Notes will be payable by check or draft mailed on each interest payment date to the person whose name appears as the registered owner thereof on the registration books of the City, as maintained by the Paying Agent. Notes may be transferred upon the books of the Paying Agent/Registrar by the registered owners thereof, in person or by a duly authorized attorney, upon surrender thereof at the office of the Paying Agent/Registrar, accompanied by delivery of a written, duly executed instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Paying Agent/Registrar and the City. Notes may be exchanged for Notes of other authorized denominations of the same term and amount. Authorization The Notes are being issued pursuant to the authority established in ORS 287.502. et seq., which provides general authority for cities to borrow money to provide interim financing for capital projects Resolution No. adopted by the City Council on 'Preliminary, subject to change. 1 Payment And Security For The Notes The Notes are limited tax general obligations of the City. The full faith and credit of the City and any taxes which the City may levy within the limitation of the Oregon Constitution are pledged to the punctual payment of the ` Notes. The City has covenanted in the resolution to establish a fund to which shall be deposited all proceeds of permanent financing, the proceeds of unbonded assessments, the foreclosure of improvement liens for unbonded assessments realized from the Improvement Project and any unspent note proceeds which may be available on the maturity date of the Notes. The deposits in the fund shall be applied to the payment of such Notes and such funds shall not be transferred, borrowed, diverted, or used for any other purpose. It is currently the intent of the City, upon completion of the Improvement Project, to issue special assessment bonds to provide long-term financing for the Improvement Project. Should the City be unable to market special assessment bonds, the City will issue limited tax general obligation bonds to provide long-term financing for the Improvement Project. The Optional Redemption Of The Notes The Notes are subject to optional redemption prior to maturity on the fast day of each month, commencing , 1995. All Notes called for redemption shall cease to accrue interest from the date of redemption designated in the redemption notice. The amount payable upon redemption of any Note is an amount equal to the principal amount of such Note and accrued interest to the date of redemption. Notice of redemption will be mailed to the registered owners of the Notes by first-class mail not less than thirty (30) days prior to the intended redemption date. l 2 CITY OF TIGARD ( The City of Tigard has an estimated population of 32,271. The City was incorporated November 1961, and encompasses an area of 10 square miles. The City is located in the southeasterly portion of Washington County, in the State of Oregon, and is part of a rapidly developing suburban area within the Portland metropolitan area. The terrain is gently rolling and hilly, with elevations from 110 to 710 feet above sea level. It is drained by the Tualatin River and Fanno Creek and their tributaries. It was a farming area until the 1950s, but has grown as population and industry have moved out along major state and federal highways heading south and west out of the metropolitan center. GOVERNMENT The government of Tigard is vested in a Mayor and Council. The Council consists of four members who are elected at-large biennially to four-year terms. The Mayor is elected for a two-year term. The Council appoints the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and the City Administrator, who is responsible for the daily management of the City and for the implementation of policy, which is set by the Mayor and City Council. Table_ CITY OF TIGARD City Council and Other Officials of the City Mayor: Gerald Edwards currently serves with the Washington County Sheriffs Department. Mr. Edwards has served on the City Council since 1985. His service as Mayor began January 1, 1991, and his current term will expire December 31, 1994. Current Current Council Member Occupation Term Began Term Expires Paul Hunt Retired 01/01/93 12/31/96 Wendi Conover Hawley Co-owner, Hawley Construction 01/01/93 12/31/96 Judy Fessler Community Activist 04/14/92 12/31/94 John Schwartz Retired 01/01/91 12/31/94 City Administrator: Patrick J. Reilly Finance Director: Wayne Lowry Legal Counsel: O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan Source: City of Tigard. ADMINISTRATION Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator, has been with the City since October 1988. Prior to that, Mr. Reilly was City Manager for Gladstone. Missouri (1984-88), City Administrator for Clinton, Missouri (1980-84), and City Administrator for Richmond Heights, Missouri (1978-80). He received a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Missouri at St. Louis, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Benedictine College at Atchison, Kansas. Mr. Reilly is a member of the International City Management Association and has served as president of the Missouri City Managers Association. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, has been with the City since February 1985. He served as the City's Accounting Manager through August 1986 and was then appointed Finance Director. Prior to his employment by the City of Tigard, he served as an Internal Audit Manager for Orange County, Califomia, for four and a half years. Mr. Lowry received his Bachelor of Science degree in business administration, with a concentration in accounting, from Long Beach State University, Long Beach, Califomia, and is a Certified Public Accountant. 3 Loreen Edin, (Acting) Maintenance Services Director, has been with the City since April 1971. Prior to that Ms. Edin worked for Publishers Paper Company. She attended George Fox College, received her Human Resources Manager Certification, and is a Certified Municipal Clerk. Randy Wooley, City Engineer, has been with the City since March 1986. Prior to that Mr. Wooley was self- employed. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New Mexico and Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of California. Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director, has been with the City since October 1987. Prior to that Ms. Deardorff worked for the City of Beaverton. She received a Bachelor of Arts degrees from Lewis and Clark College and a Master of Science degree in Public Administration from the University of Oregon. Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, has been with the City since August 1989. Prior to that Mr. Goodpaster worked for the City of Milwaukie. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Portland State University and Master of Arts degree in Justice Administration from University of Portland. Ed Murphy, Community Development Director, has been with the City since May 1988. Prior to that Mr. Murphy worked for the City of Grants Pass. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Withworth College and a Master of Arts degree in Urban Studies. STAFF As of February 1993. the City employed 171 people; 150 are full-time regular, 12 part-time regular employees, and 9 temporary employees. Listed in the table below are the bargaining units representing 117 City employees. Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Bargaining Units and Contract Status t Number of Termination Date Status of Collective Bargaining Unit Employees of Current Contract Negotiations Tigard Police Officers Association 42 06/30/94 Settled Tigard Municipal Employees Association; Oregon Public Employees Union 75 06/30/95 Settled Source: City of Tigard. Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Facilities Insured Facility Year Built, Improved Replacement Value City Fall Annex 1992 S 200,000 Civic Center Building 1985 3,275,000 Senior Citizens Center 1982 517,000 Operations Office 1969 43,700 Public Works Annex 1978 60,000 Old City Hall 1969 201,000 Maintenance Building # 2 1969 72,500 Burnham Police Building 1973,1979 123,800 Public Works Pole Building 1984 71,500 Carpentry Shop 1969 13.600 Total $4-578,100 City of Tigard. 4 THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROCEDURES Under their home rule authority, cities may prescribe their own methods of financing local improvements by special assessment, or may utilize the procedures in ORS 223.387 to 223.399. Local improvement projects are initiated either by petition of property owners or by resolution of the Council. Projects must conform to those local improvements described in ORS 223.387 or in the City Charter. The Council sets the boundaries of the area to receive special benefits from the improvement projects; this area is referred to as a local improvement district (LID). If the project is initiated by petition, the petition describes the boundaries. The Council passes a resolution or ordinance declaring its intention to initiate the improvement project and orders the preparation of an engineering report. This report describes the project, estimates the cost and lists the affected properties. It may also specify the formula for apportioning the cost. Before the improvement project is approved, a public notice and hearing is required (ORS 223.389). Notices are usually mailed to the affected property owners as well as published or posted. At the hearing, owners may remonstrate and, if a certain percentage remonstrate, the project may be terminated or delayed according to City charter or ordinance provisions. After the hearing, the Council makes the final decision to proceed by enacting an ordinance or resolution. The City is then authorized to issue bond anticipation notes in the amount of the estimated cost of the improvements. Thereafter, the assessed property owners may file litigation against the City regarding the assessment formula for allocation of cost, but may not litigate the eventual assessment. When the estimated cost to the City is ascertained on the basis of the contract award, or after the work is done and the cost actually determined, the Council levies assessments on each benefited property by ordinance. The assessing ordinance creates a lien on each property. When a property owner receives a Notice of Assessment, he or she has the option of making a cash payment in full or signing a "bond application." This "bond application" is a legal contract whereby the property owner agrees to pay the assessment in installments. Principal is paid in equal semi-annual installments. There is no prepayment penalty. Pre-assessments may be levied before the project is constructed. The property owner has the same options of signing a bond application. The applicant waives all irregularities or defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause the improvement and assessment thereof (ORS 223.215). If the assessment is made before the total cost of the improvement is known and is found that the amount of the assessment is insufficient to pay the costs of the improvement, the Council may, by motion, declare such deficit and instruct the manager to prepare a deficit assessment. The Council sets a time for hearing objections to deficit assessment, and notices are mailed to affected property owners as well as published or posted. After the hearing, the Council, by ordinance, levies deficit assessments, and notices are mailed to property owners. If the assessment levied is greater than the actual costs of the improvements, the Council determines the amount and declares it by ordinance. The excess amounts are entered on the lien docket as a credit against the appropriate assessment. if the assessment has been paid, the amount that exceeds the original assessment shall be refunded to the property owner who paid the assessment. A delinquency in payment of assessments occurs one year after failure to make payments when due. and in that event all unpaid installments, including interest, shall become immediately due and payable, and the total amount may be collected in any legal manner, including foreclosure of lien. ORS 223.270 and ORS 223.505 to 223.595 provide that one year from the date an assessment installment is delinquent, the City may collect unpaid assessments by advertisement and sale in the manner provided by law for sale of real property on execution. Bonds are sold under the provisions of Oregon State Law that collectively are known as the "Bancroft Act," to finance all assessments to be paid in installments. "Bancroft bonds" are backed by the full faith and credit of the City as well as the pledge of the uncollected liens and interest thereon. 5 THE PROJECT The Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District (the "LID") was formed in the early 1980's. Located in an area known as the Tigard Triangle, the Dartmouth Street LID occupies approximately 60 acres at the junctures of Oregon Highways 217 and 99. The project consists of a 44-foot wide paved and curbed street within a 70-foot wide right of way extending approximately 3,250 feet from S.W. 69th Avenue at its intersection with the existing Dartmouth Street to Pacific Highway (Oregon 99) at its intersection with S.W. 78th Avenue. Construction was financed by the issuance of over $2,600,000 in limited tax general obligation bond anticipation capital appreciation notes in 1992. The notes mature on February 1, 1994 in the amount of $2,890,000. A construction contract was awarded on April 27, 1993 and actual construction began shortly thereafter. Over $300,000 has been spent for construction and engineering this fiscal year through September 1993. The City does not yet own the road right of way. The City does, however, have signed right of entry agreements with all but one of the property owners. The City has condemned the right of way of the one owner and has posted the appraised value with the Court pending the final outcome of the condemnation litigation. Dartmouth Street is currently under construction. The project includes three lanes with curbs and street lighting. As development continues, the street will be widened to five lanes between 72nd Avenue and Highway 99. Sidewalks and landscaping are being installed as well. The City has approved a modification of the project which will widen the Dartmouth Street along the entrance ways to both Cub Foods and the proposed Costco discount chain stores. The widening of Dartmouth Street will be the financial responsibility of the adjoining property owners, and will not be assessed against the LID. In addition, the street improvements the LID also includes the right-of-way for a 200 foot street extension to the south, street lights, storm drains, waterlines, sanitary sewers, and other underground utilities as required to minimize excavation. LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO DARTMOUTH LID PROJECT Since the inception of the LID there have been a number of lawsuits filed against the Improvement Project by certain land owners within the local improvement district. All such lawsuits have been ruled in favor of the City or have been dismissed. The litigation has been filed in both Washington County Circuit Court, Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, and Marion County Circuit Court. The following provides a brief summary of the suits filed against the Improvement Project. 6 • Martin v. City of Tigard, 78 Or App 181, 714 P2d 1115 (1986). This case was the Martins' initial challenge to the LID. They claimed that the formation of the LID was illegal in a number of respects. The trial court ruled against them and for the City on all claims. The Oregon Court of Appeals found the Martins' challenges to the formation of the LID to be without merit, and affirmed all of the trial court's rulings. The Court of Appeals did discover a defect, not raised by the parties, in that a small section of the proposed roadway was located outside of the LID bommdaries, but the cost of that section of the roadway was mistakenly included in the LID assessments. The Court of j Appeals remanded the LID to the City for reassessment. This case established that the City followed proper procedures in forming the LID. • Gordon R. Martin, et al. v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 88-034 (September 19,1988). In this case, the s Martin's, filed an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), challenging the City's adoption of Ordinance 88-08, which amended the 1984 ordinance that had established the LID. Ordinance 88-08 was adopted, in part, to correct the deficiency pointed out by the Court of Appeals in the case discussed above. LUBA agreed with the City, determining that Ordinance 88-08 was not a land use decision within LUBA's jurisdiction, and, even if it were, the Martins' challenge was actually based upon a superseded draft agreement between the City and the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Martins' had provided no basis for LUBA to review Ordinance 88-08. • Gordon R. Martin, et al. v. City of Tigard, 101 Or App 676 (1990), review denied 311 or 60 (1990). { In this case the Martins' challenged the validity of the local improvement district on the basis that there had been "substantial changes" to the LID subsequent to its formation, thereby necessitating the f City Council to reinstitute the LID formation process. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. • Gordon R. Martin v. State of Oregon, et al. Marion County Circuit Court No. 91 C10659-1. This C case, brought by Gordon R. Martin against the State of Oregon and the City of Tigard, is now pending in Marion County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs claim is based solely on the assertion that the State, through ODOT, illegally renewed a road approach permit that had been granted to the City of Tigard. It is the plaintiffs position that because the renewal was effected after the period that the initial permit had expired, the renewal itself was invalid and the City must reapply for a new permit. Both the City and ODOT argued to the court that OAR 734-50-050 provides explicit authority for the permit extension. In his letter ruling of October 31, 1991, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Robert McConville determined th :t the extension would be found valid if ODOTs District Engineer properly determined "whether in the interim since the issuance of the permit there has been a substantial change in the circumstances and conditions which were material to the issuance of the permit, and. if so. whether under such changed circumstances the continuation of the permit and the extension of the completion date are proper." The Court ruled in favor of the City, by fording the extension to be valid as authorized through the permit. • Current Litigation Summary. 7 Potential Impacts Resulting From Litigation The City has prevailed in the principal legal challenge to the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement Project. The ® City fully expects that it will prevail in any additional legal proceedings. The City anticipates that it will be able to levy assessments to the benefiting properties and issue bonds in a timely manner. There are 10 landholders within the LID. The following table summarizes the current land holdings. $Q~rty Owner Approx.Acres 1994 AV (to be uWated) Alexander 0.49 Hedgepeth 0.53 Martin 26.49 New West Savings 16.91 Pollock 7.98 Probsfield 0.85 Randall 5.94 Vasey 0.17 Western 2.00 Williams I.QQ Total §~,,Qg There are other developments which are currently under way within the Tigard Triangle region. These include: • SuperValu Stores is currently building a commercial center that includes a Cub Foods Store as the major anchor. The 85,000 square foot Cub Foods store is currently under construction, as is a 25,400 square foot "Petsmart" store. Two additional retail stores are also planned for this center, but specific retail users have not yet been identified. The plans for this center include over 150,000 square feet of the total retail commercial space. • Costco Wholesale store has submitted an application for a 156,000 square foot store on the opposite side of Dartmouth Street in relation to Cub Foods. This application has not been approved, but is expected to be approved in the near future. The project is estimated to begin in the spring or summer of 1994. The specifications for project construction include the following: Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Sources and Uses of Funds Sources of Funds Amount Note Proceeds Total sources of funds Uses of Funds Deposit to 1992 Note Defeasance Fund Underwriter's Discount Cost of Issuance Deposit to Capitalized Interest Fund Total uses of funds 8 DEBT INFORMATION DEBT SUMMARY - As of January 1, 1994 (includes this issue) Outstanding debt Short-term $3,120.000* Long-term: Gross bonded debt (all debt with a general obligation pledge) $11,116,000 Net direct debt (all debt paid in whole or in part by taxes) $ 8,920,000 Net overlapping debt (as of June 30,1993) $38,352,369 Total net direct and overlapping debt $47,272,369 DEBT RATIOS Percent of Per Capita Assessed Value Assessed Value (TCV) $64,282 --`T:o Gross Bonded Debt $356 0.55 Net Direct Debt $285 0.44 Net Direct and overlapping debt $1,512 2.35 NOTE: 1993-94 assessed value is $2,009,784,217 Assessed value equals true cash value. ( Estimated 1993 population is 31,271. DEBT LIMITATION Oregon Revised Statutes 287.004 provides that the aggregate amount of general obligation bonded debt of cities shall not at any time exceed three percent of the true cash value of all taxable property in the City. 1993-94 True Cash Value (TCV) $2,009,784,217 Debt limitation (3% of TCV) 60,293,527 Applicable bonded debt 8,920,000 Debt Margin 51,373,527 Percent of limit issued 14.9% DEBT AUTHORIZATION No election is required to issue the notes. DEBT MANAGEMENT The City has not defaulted on any debt obligation. *Preliminary, subject to change. 9 FUTURE DEBT PLANS The City plans to issue approximately million in local improvement bonds in fiscal year 1994-95 to redeem the Notes. Debt Service Funds All outstanding Bancroft bonds issued prior to 1986 are secured by a fund within the City's Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund. This fund receives assessment payments for all Bancroft bonds issued prior to 1986. The City currently projects a $200,000 shortfall in this fund through the year 2000 caused by a mismatch in the anticipated cash flows. The City has undertaken corrective actions to remedy this shortfall. The City has instituted an aggressive investment policy to maximize earnings on all prepayments and the City is exercising early redemption provisions for outstanding high-coupon bonds. The City has also increased pursuit of delinquent accounts and has budgeted for transfers from other City funds which have benefited from Bancroft construction. The City anticipates that the fund will begin repayment of transfers beginning in FY 1994-95. For all Bancroft bonds issued after adoption of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the City has established a new fund to act as the debt service fiord. This fund holds all assessment payments on bonds issued since 1989. Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Outstanding Obligations As of January 1, 1994 Date Due Amount Amount GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS of'Bonds Date Issued Outstanding Tax Supported G.O. Bonds, Series 1984 (non-callable) 06/1/84 0611/04 $2,20,000 $90,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1987 (non-callable) 01/1/87 06/1/04 2215,000 345,000 G. O. Road Bonds, Series 1989 (non-callable) 05/1/89 07/1/'99 8,500,000 1,700,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds 1993 Series A 05/1/93 07/1/04 6,935,000 6.785.000 58.920.000 Bancroft Bonds Series 1975 08/1/75 08/1/94 $57,840 $6,000 Series 1984 09/1/84 09/1/94 492,000 75,000 Series 1989 (non-callable) 1211/89 12/1/99 340,000 80,000 Series 1990 (non-callable) 08/1/90 08/1/05 2,244,000 1,375,000 Series 1993 B Bonds 05/1/93 12/1/05 660,000 660.000 $2.196.000 Total SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS Lincoln & Locust Street Project 08/1191 06/1/01 $ 405,000 $ am SHORT TERM NOTES Dartmouth Notes 01/1/94 02/01/96 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Certificates of Participation 05/01/90 06/15/95 $1,26,000 $630,000 1. 10 ACCRUED VACATION As of June 30, 1993 the total vacation liability for the City was $325,362. Source: City of Tigard Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Combined Debt Service Requirements Total Fiscal Total All Year Tax-Supported, Bancroft Bonds Bonds 1993-94 $1,314,121 $303,043 1994-95 1,442,903 301,310 1995-96 1,490,594 216,890 1996-97 1,380,645 218,428 1997-98 1,571,165 199,898 1998-99 1,622,925 201,285 1999-00 1,642,823 255,873 2000-01 246,515 199,758 2001-02 251,994 29,560 2002-03 241,813 137,030 2003-04 250,819 24,500 2004-05 24,500 2005-06 502250 $2,61 Total $11 A56,317 Source: Derived from annual financial statements. City of Tigard. 11 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Overlapping General Obligation Debt As of June 30,1993 Overlapping Nett Nell 1993.94 Direct Direct Assessed Debt Percent Debt Overlapping District Valuation (in $000) Overlap (in $000) Port of Pordand2 $54,907,906,892 $75,245 3.4% $ 1,718 Unified Sewerage Agency3 14,826,014,631 8,560 12.5 1,067 S.E. Washington County Joint Water Agency 1,812207,427 440 71.2 313 Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 10,900,590,192 2,145 16.9 364 Washington County 15,781,554,943 12,285 11.7 1,439 Metropolitan Service Districe 49,921,091,336 69,940 3.7 2,405 Tigard School District #23-1 3,132,730,728 42,160 52.0 21,925 Beaverton School District #48 8216293,001 73,520 2.7 1,968 Tri-Metropolitan Transport District 27,197,131,459 125,000 3.7 4,618 Portland Community College 19,591,483,725 36,033 4.8 1,718 Total W5,328 $377,5355 NOTE: There are three overlapping districts which have no outstanding general obligation debt 1. Net Direct Debt includes all tax-supported bonds. Bancroft Act general obligation improvement bonds and self-supporting bonds are excluded. 2. The Port of Portland had $442,939,578 in revenue bonds outstanding as of June 30, 1993. 3. The Unified Sewerage Agency had $194,794,197 in revenue bonds outstanding as of June 30, 1993. 4. The Metropolitan Service District had $54,755,000 in revenue bonds outstanding as of June 30, 1993. Source: Municipal Debt Advisory Commission, Oregon State Treasury. C 12 TAX INFORMATION I THE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION MEASURE (This summary of Article XI, Section l lb of the State of Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5) does not purport to be a complete explanation of this constitutional provision or any legislation enacted to implement Article X1 Section Ilb.) On November 6, 1990, Oregon voters approved a 1.5 percent property tax limitation measure, Ballot Measure 5 (now Article M. Section I lb of the Oregon Constitution). Therefore, beginning in fiscal year July 1, 1991, taxes imposed on property were separated into two categories: (1) property tax revenues raised to fund the state's public school districts defined as "educational services, provided by some unit of government at any level from pre- kindergarten through post-graduate training," and (2) "revenues raised to fund government operations other than school systems." Property taxes for non-school government operations are limited to $10.00 per $1,000 of Real Market Value (defined herein). For public school systems collections, Article XI, Section 1 Ib of the Oregon Constitution phases in the property tax limitation rates over a five-year period from $15.00 per $1,000 of Real Market Value ("RMV") in fiscal year 1991-92 to $5.00 per $1,000 RMV in fiscal year 1995-96. Exemptions from Property Tax Limitations Sections l lb(3a) and (3b) of Article XI specifically exempt taxes imposed to pay principal and interest on bonded indebtedness provided bonds are: (1) authorized by a specific provision of the Oregon Constitution, (2) outstanding on November 6, 1990 and were for "capital construction or improvements," or (3) are approved by the voters of a government unit and offered as general obligations for "capital construction or improvements." Capital construction and improvements are not defined in Article XI Section l lb itself, but in new law which is described in the next section. Implementing Legislation Chapter 459, 1991 Laws (House Bill 2550) is the statutory implementation of Article XI Section l lb and became effective on September 26, 1991. Chapter 459, 1991 Laws prescribes the overall tax assessment, administration and collection methods and procedures which conform to the tax limitations and requirements of Article IX Section l lb. In regard to bonded indebtedness, the new law also defines key terms including "Exempt Bonded Indebtedness," "Capital Construction," and "Capital Improvements." ORS 310.140(15)(b) exempts general obligation indebtedness issued before or on November 6, 1990, for capital construction or improvements. ORS 310.14005)(c) exempts general obligation indebtedness issued after November 6, 1990 which is voter approved and used for capital construction or improvements. ORS 310.140(17)-(19) defines capital construction and improvements to include all activities related to the construction, modification, replacement, repair, remodeling and renovation of structures which have a useful life of over one year, the acquisition of land, or legal interest in land, in conjunction with the capital construction of a structure; the acquisition and installation of machinery, equipment, furnishings and equipment which have a life of over one year, and activities related to capital construction such as planning, design, studies, permits, and obtaining financing. Structure is defined to mean any building or improvement to real property. ORS 288.160 provides that under certain conditions general obligation refunding bonds that replace general obligation bonds outstanding on November 6, 1990, may be issued and shall be deemed issued as of the date of the general obligation bonds being replaced. The Bonds satisfy ORS 310.140 (15)(c); therefore the ad valorem tax levy pledged for payment and security of the Bonds will not be subject under the limitations of Article M. Section l lb of the Oregon Constitution. 13 Real Market Value Under law, property taxes are calculated based on the "Real Market Value" (RMV) of each property. The { property identification date, the date on which the value of property is determined for tax purposes is now July 1, the beginning of each tax year. Section l lb(2)(a) of the measure defines Real Market Value as "the minimum amount of cash which could reasonably be expected by an informed seller, acting without compulsion, in an arms- length transaction during the period for which the property is taxed." The State of Oregon Attorney General has opined that the measure requires Real Market Value to be the minimum market value during the current tax year. Chapter 459, 1991 Laws specifies that Real Market Value is based on the minimum market value of property during the fiscal year. For 1991-92, interim procedures for calculating Real Market Value were developed by the Oregon Department of Revenue (the "Department"). For subsequent years, the Department has developed permanent rules and procedures for determining a property's Real Market Value. For the purposes of tax calculation Real Market Value equals Assessed Value. In the event that valuations decrease over the tax year, a reduced value appeals process is available to taxpayers, commencing at the end of each fiscal year. (For further discussion, see the section titled "Assessment and Equalization".) SYNOPSIS OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION The property tax is used by Oregon cities, counties, schools and other special districts to raise revenue to defray the expense of local government. The State of Oregon has not levied property taxes since 1941 and obtains its revenue principally from income and excise taxes. Property tax administration, governed by the Oregon Constitution, the state's taxation laws and regulations of the Department of Revenue, involves the process of assessment, equalization, levy and collection of taxes. Assessment and Equalization The process of identifying and assigning a value to taxable property is termed assessment and the process of maintaining uniformity of values between property owners and various classes of property is termed equalization. Assessment of property is administered by the County Assessor, except for public utility property. which is assessed by the State Department of Revenue. All property is reappraised in six-year cycles, and values are adjusted annually to maintain assessments within a specified range of county-wide market value. Equalization of values is performed by the County Board of Equalization. Administrative and judicial remedies are available to property owners who disagree with assessments. House Bill 2550, Chapter 459 of 1991 Laws, establishes a permanent equalization, notification and appeals process effective fiscal year 1991-92. The property identification date is July 1, value notices and tax statements are sent together in October, and valuation appeal proceedings commence after tax statements are received. Under the new law there are two appeals processes, one which begins in December which permits property owners to appeal the real market value shown on their October tax statements and a second appeals process beginning the end of each fiscal year which allows property owners to challenge that the RMV of their property, determined as of the prior July 1, was not the minimum RMV during the year. The law establishes county Boards of Ratio Review (BORR) to take over sorne functions which were previously the responsibility of the County Boards of Equalization. Each BORR performs ratio review and equalization and is responsible for the fiscal year end valuation appeals process. County Boards of Equalization remain responsible for hearing the regular RMV appeals which begin each December. Property which is assessed for taxation includes all privately owned real property (land, buildings and improvements) and personal property (machinery, office furniture, equipment and livestock). There is no property tax on household furnishings (exempt in 1913), personal belongings, automobiles (exempt in 1920), crops, orchards, business inventories or intangible property such as stocks, bonds or bank accounts. Property used for religious, fraternal and governmental purposes is exempt, and reductions in assessments are granted for veterans' homesteads, certain open space farm lands and historic buildings. The assessment roll, a listing of all taxable property, is prepared as of July 1 of each year. 14 Ballot Measure 5 and House Bill 2550 (Chapter 459, 1991 Laws) do not affect fully exempt property. Taxes on partially exempt property such as historic buildings and certain farm and forest lands are calculated by a statutory valuation formula, which, depending on each property, may be less than if the taxes were based on RMV. Tax Levy The process of ascertaining and declaring the amount of taxes to be raised from taxpayers is termed making the levy. Authority to levy property taxes is vested with the governing body of each local government unit. The governing body determines the levy annually before July 15th as part of the budget process. Annual budgets for local units are based on a fiscal year which begins July 1st and ends the following June 30th. Constitutional and statutory limitations on the amount that a governing body may levy are: 1. Levy Within 6% Limitation (Tax Base Levy). A tax base, approved by a majority of voters at a general election, represents permanent authority to annually levy a dollar amount which cannot exceed the highest amount levied in the three most recent years in which a levy was made, PLUS six percent thereof. Tax Base levies may also be increased in proportionate amounts for annexed territory. A local unit is permitted to have but one tax base levy and proceeds may be used for any purpose for which the unit may lawfully expend funds. 2. Levy Outside 6% Limitation (Special, Serial or Continuing Levy). Special and Serial levies are temporary taxing authority permitting the levy of a specific dollar amount for one year (Special) or for two to ten years (Serial). Continuing levies are those approved by voters prior to 1953, are permanent in nature and are limited in amount by the product of the voted tax rate and the assessed, or real market value of the unit. Since 1978 Serial levies may also be established based on a specified tax rate but the term may not exceed three years; not more than four serial levy measures may be proposed in a given year. Special levies are limited in size by the net tax rate freeze described later in this section. Ballot Measure 5 and the new laws to implement the measure do not affect the existing tax levying authority of local government units. However, Measure 5 does impose caps on total amounts of property tax revenues local government units may collect. Should the local government and its surrounding government units' combined taxes exceed the rate limits imposed by Ballot Measure 5, new law specifies that the taxes owed to each jurisdiction will be reduced by an equal percentage in order to bring the total rate in line with the measure's maximums. 3. Levy Not Subject to 6% Limitation (Debt Levy). Local units are required to annually levy an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest costs for a bonded debt. Bond measures to be paid from future tax levies must first be approved by a majority of those voting unless otherwise provided by law. Proceeds from a debt levy cannot be diverted to another purpose. Collection The County Assessor extends authorized levies and computes tax rates. The Tax Collector bills all taxes and makes periodic remittances of collections to tax levying units. To comply with Article M, Section llb of the Oregon Constitution, assessors are charged with calculating public school and other local government unit taxes separately, calculating any tax rate reductions to comply with the measure's limits, and developing percentage distribution schedules. The tax collector then reports to each taxing district, within five days, the amount of taxes imposed. As each year's taxes for all taxing bodies within a county are collected, the money is segregated into one pool, with each taxing body sharing in the pool on the basis of its tax rate, regardless of the actual collection experience within each taxing body. Therefore, in application, the amount of each taxing body becomes a pro rata share of the total tax collection record of all taxing bodies within the county. Thus, an overall collection rate of 90 percent of the county-wide levy indicates a 90 percent tax levy collection for each taxing body. 15 Taxes are levied and become a lien on July 1 (the lien date for personal property is July 1) and tax payments are due November 15 of the same calendar year. Under the partial payment schedule the fast third of taxes are due November 15, the second one-third on February 15 and the remaining one-third on May 15. A 3 percent discount is allowed if full payment is made by the November 15 due date, 2 percent for a two-thirds payment. For late payments interest accrues after each trimester at a rate of 1.33 percent per month. Property foreclosure proceedings are initiated four years after the tax due date. Tax statements mailed to property owners disclose the current and prior year's real market value of property, the tax rates and the amount of taxes due and the amount levied by each taxing unit, segregated by public school district and other local government districts. Tax rates, expressed as an amount per $1,000 of the assessed real market value, are obtained by dividing the taxable real market value of a local unit into the taxes levied. Additionally, tax statements show the taxes are due if levied without limitation to the rate limits imposed by Article M, Section l lb of the Oregon Constitution. Should reductions be required, tax statements show the tax reductions for each segregated group and provide the actual tax amount due. t ~y 16 Table CITY OF TIGARD Principal Taxpayers C dune 30,1993 Estimated Percent Assessed of City Name Product or Service Valuation AV Seiyu International Lincoln Center Office Park $54,042,400 2.70% Nesbitt Partners Embassy Suites Hotel 40,307,800 2.00 Square Land Co., Ltd Shopping center development 26,003,800 1.29 GTE Northwest Communications 18,109,490 0.00 Pacific Realty Company Business park 15,902,470 0.79 Real Estate Equities Commercial real estate 11,431,500 0.57 Chester L. Robinson Koll Business Center 10,435,800 0.52 Durham Park Partners Shopping center 9,495,900 0.47 Portland General Electric Utility 9,079,200 0.45 PFI Sunflower Limited Apartments 7.992.400 0.40 Total principal taxpayers $202,800,760 10.09% All other taxpayers 1.806983.457 89,91% Total Assessed Value $2.®009.7® / Source: City of Tigard. t Table CITY OF TIGARD Consolidated 1993-94 Tax Rate Code Area 23-74 Government School GO Debt Total SD #23-Tigard $ - $13.8567 $1.7201 $15.5768 City of Tigard 2.0255 03401 2.7656 Tualatin Fire & Rescue 1.8427 0.0383 1.8810 Washington County 1.3011 0.0541 1.3552 Portland Community College 0.7783 0.0959 0.8742 Road Improvements 0S679 0S679 Co-Op Library 0.3670 0.3670 911 Emergency 0.3148 03148 Tri-Met 02109 02109 METRO 0.1116 0.0929 02045 ESD-Washington County 02048 02048 Bonds-Unified Sewerage Agency 0.1209 0.1209 Port of Portland 0.0813 0.0928 0.1741 Water-Tigard 0.0750 0.0750 Total Tax Rate $6.6119 $14.8398 $3.2410 $24.6927 Limited Tax Rate $6.6119 $10.0000 $3.2410 $194529 NOTE: Code Area 23-74 represents the highest assessed value, 53.7 percent of the total assessed value of the City. Source: Washington County Assessor's Office 17 FINANCIAL INFORMATION r BASIS OF ACCOUNTING The govemmental fund types are maintained on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The propriety fund type (enterprise fund and Pension Trust Fund) are accounted for utilizing the accrual basis of accounting. The City's accounting practices conform to generally accepted accounting principles. FISCAL YEAR: July 1 to June 30 AUDITS The Oregon Municipal Audit Law (ORS 297.405 - 297.555) requires an audit and examination be made of the accounts and financial affairs of every municipal corporation at least once a year. Unless the municipality elects to have the audit performed by the State Division of Audits, the audit shall be made by accountants whose names are included on the roster prepared by the State Board of Accountancy. The City audits for the fiscal years 1983-84 through 1992-93 were performed by Coopers and Lybrand, CPAs, Portland, Oregon. The auditors did not review the tables and offer no opinion regarding the tables. A complete copy of the City's annual financial statements may be obtained from the City's Finance Department. BUDGETING The City prepares annual budgets in accordance with provisions of the Oregon Local Budget Law, which provides standard procedures for the preparation, presentation, administration and appraisal of budgets. In the months of January through May of each year a proposed budget is prepared under supervision of the City's Budget Committee. This committee consists of the Council and an equal number of electors of the City. These electors are appointed to the Committee. All members of the budget committee have an equal vote and final approval of the budget. ( Prior to adoption, a proposed budget must be approved by the budget committee. In an advertised public meeting, the budget committee reviews the budget and the "budget message," which explains the budget and significant changes in the local government's financial position. All budget committee meetings are open to the public. Following budget approval by the budget committee, another public hearing is held. A budget summary and notice of hearing are published prior to the hearing. Publication is governed by strict requirements as to time and mode. A public hearing is then held after which time the Council adopts the final budget, makes appropriations and declares tax levies. Prior to the public hearing, a budget summary and notice of hearing are published. Publication is governed by strict requirements as to time and mode. After the budget hearing, the Council considers the citizen's testimony and, if necessary, alters the budget subject to statutory limitations upon increasing taxes or fund allocations without further publication and hearing. An election must be held to approve the City's tax levy to the extent that the levy exceeds the City's "Tax Base." A tax base is equal to 106 percent of the largest regular tax levy within the prior six percent limitation for the prior three years. The 1992-93 tax base for the City was $3,795,275. In addition, the City also levied $1,400,410 for debt service. The 1993-94 tax base for the City is estimated to be $4.022,991. The City will also levy approximately $1,481,000 for debt service. After the operating levy election, if one is required, the Council prepares a formal resolution which adopts the budget, authorizes taxes to be levied and sets out a schedule of appropriations. This resolution must be adopted not later than June 30. Two copies of the budget are submitted to the Assessor's Office before July 15 so that the tax levy may be certified. Supplemental budgets may be prepared as needed during the fiscal year utilizing transfers between the ' appropriation categories which are approved by the Council. Supplemental budgets are considered and adopted by the same process as the regular budget, including public hearings and notices of hearings. 18 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Summary of 1993-94 Adopted Budget r Percent Fundl Allocation Major Revenue Sources Amount of Fund General Fund #10 $10,105,600 Property taxes2 $3,833,000 37.9% From other agencies 1,256,000 12.4 Fees & charges 919,200 9.15 Franchise revenue 1,348,000 13.3 Beginning fund balance 2,320,600 23.0 Sanitary Sewer Fund #30 3,834,800 Beginning fund balance 2,632,800 68.7 Charges for services 900,000 29.5 Storm Sewer Fund #31 1,820,300 Charges for services 645,000 42.0 Beginning fund balance 1,020,300 56.1 Gas Tax #21 1,770,700 State Gas Tax Share 1,416,000 80.0 Beginning fund balance 323,700 18.3 County Gas Tax #22 146,200 County Road Tax 145,000 99.2 Water Quality/Quantity Fund #24 101,700 Beginning Fund Balances 78,700 77.4 Charges 20,000 19.7 Traffic Impact Fee Fund #25 1,430,400 Traffic Impact Fee 802,000 56.1 Beginning Fund Balance 608,400 42.5 Parks SDC Fund #52 385,900 SDC - Parks 186,000 48.2 Beginning fund balance 196,900 51.0 General Obligation 1,477,000 Property Taxes2 1,503,000 101.8 Debt Service Funds #60,61 Bancroft Bond Debt Service 4,483,000 Assessments and Collections 615,000 13.7 Funds #40,41,42,43 Beginning Fund Balance 662,000 14.8 Bond Proceeds 3,000,000 66.9 Certificate of Participation 356,100 Current Taxes 320,000 89.9 Debt Service Fund #62 Beginning Fund Balance 23,100 6.5 General Obligation Debt Service 8,789,000 Fund #63 Escrow Account Advance Refunding Bonds3 Special Assessment CIP Fund #45 2,207,600 Beginning fund balance 2,182,600 96.4 Road Improvement Fund #50 200,900 Beginning fund balance 197,400 98.9 Other Funds 166-500 Beginning fund balance 197,400 98.3 Total $37.2s NOTE: Columns may not foot due to rounding 1. Summarizes revenue sources greater than 5 percent of fund. 2. Includes current and delinquent taxes. 3. This fund was set up to account for those funds held in escrow related to several advance refiutdings. The, escrow account services the debt on the callable portion of the 1984, 1987 and 1989 refundings. Oregon budget law requires the proceeds and earnings, as well as disbursements paid out of the escrow account, to be included in the budget. t Source: Adopted 1993-94 Budget City of Tigard . 19 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD General Fund Consecutive Balance Sheets As ofJune 30 i (Draft) Assets 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Cash andinvestments $1,426,387 $2,292,079 $2,129,019 $2,719,395 $3,123,840 } Accounts receivable 7,224 118,887 93,640 5,850 Property taxes receivable 265,045 244,687 245,530 276,843 266,102 Contracts receivable 28,884 14,443 - Due from other funds 445,939 198,007 369,503 Deposits 49,902 Prepaid Insurance 77,729 77,750 74,630 80,623 94,940 Inventory of gasoline 10.286 15.659 24.331 18.430 18.272 Total assets 311.39 $2,9961~512~ $2~843.M WU= 1r192=4 Liabilities and fund equity Liabilities Accounts payable & Accrued Liabilities $302,874 $448,206 $475,066 $699,892 $497,903 Deposits 59,974 100,909 95,169 67,284 56,672 Due to other funds 16,000 - 220,458 Deferred Revenue 219,206 - 195,654 186,990 210,920 205,635 r Contracts receivable 28,884 14,443 Total liabilities 626,938 .22.2" 977,683 978,096 210 Fund equity Designated 15,659 98,961 219,053 113,212 Undesignated 1.684.458 2.186.641 1,766369 _1241182 2,635-582 Total fund equity a:id other credits 1,684,458 2,202,300 1,865,330 2,210,835 2,748,794 Total liabilities an I fund equity $2.311.30-6 •961512 S2~3~ 88,931 350 Source: Derived from annual financial statements. l 20 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD General Fund Consecutive Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Fiscal Year Ended June 30 (Draft) Revenues 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Taxes $2,234,650 $2,428,620 $2,554,087 $3,446,324 $3,761,694 ! Franchise fees 949,576 1,100,181 1,179,833 1,287,794 1,320,686 Licenses and permits 1,052,712 910,147 875,251 812,322 990,963 Intergovernmental revenues 625,031 1,032,489 1,187,120 1,587,773 1,537,538 Charges for services 20,652 39,818 48,150 85,936 92,396 Fines and forfeitures 240,849 232,332 259,497 322,618 316,947 Miscellaneous 364.877 543.105 438.493 284,276 216.489 ' Total revenues 5,488,347 6286.692 6542.431 7.827.043 8,236213 Expenditures Community services 3,264,482 3,504,825 4,312,354 4,517,483 4,740,579 j Community development 1,146,773 1,366,032 1,610,172 1,431,750 1,550,326 Policy and administration 96,964 217,672 241,351 1,072,616 1,134,955 City-wide support functions 437,812 456,067 329,631 227,869 171,107 Capital projects 195.161 224.2 385.893 231.820 101.787 Total expenditures 5.141 "192 5.768.850 6,879A01 7.481538 7.698.754 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 347,155 517,842 (336,970) 345,505 537,959 i Beginning fund balance 1,337,303 1,684.458 2202300 1.865.330 2210,835 Ending fund balance I Source: Derived from annual financial statements. t i 1 i } 21 i 1 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD General Fund Balance Sheet As of October 31, 1993 (unaudited) Assets Cash and investments $1,646,499 Receivables 250,968 Inventory 11,069 Prepaid Insurance 159.310 Total assets ~2® i Liabilities and fund equity Liabilities Deposits 162,595 Deferred Revenues 205.635 I Total Liabilities $368.230 Equity Fund Balance $2,210,836 I Excess (deficiency) of revenue/expenses (511217) i Total fund balance S1.699.619 Total liabilities and fund balance 52.0 Source: City of Tigard. I 22 I i oil Table _ CITY OF TIGARD C Operating Funds Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For the Period Ended October 31, 1993 (unaudited) September 1993.94 Year to Percent Revenues Budget Date of Budget General Taxes $3,833,000 $45,504 1.0% Other agencies 1,256,000 349,048 28.0 Fees and charges 919,000 520,721 57.0 Court fines 297,000 89,413 30.0 Franchise fees 1,348,000 342,278 25.0 Use of money/property 94,000 19,207 20.0 Other revenues -8MQ 26.835 71.0 Total general fund revenues 7.785.000 1.393.006 18.0% Special Revenue Funds State gas tax 1,447,000 438,327 30.0 County gas tax 146,000 47,206 32.0 Water Quality/Quantity 23,000 2,413 10.0 Traffic Impact Fees 822,000 293,704 36.0 Parks SDC 189,000 150,886 80.0 Criminal Forfeiture 22.5 62 0.3 r Total Special Revenues Funds 2.649500 932598 35.0 Enterprise Funds Sewer Fund 1,202,000 511,914 43.0 Storm Drainage Fund 800.000 272.042 34.0 Total Enterprise Funds 2.002.000 783.956 39.0 Total Revenues 2.436500 $3,109360 25.0 Expenditures Community Services $5,120,900 $1,754,698 34.0 Field Operations 1,423,100 687,718 48.0 Development Services 2,134,300 889,429 42.0 Policy and Administration 1,783,700 570,815 32.0 City Wide Support 296.700 83,327 28.0 Total S10.758.70 37.0 Source: City of Tigard. t 23 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund Consecutive Balance Sheets For the Period Ended June 30 (Draft) Assets 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Cash and investments $805,588 $297,062 $465,167 $557,127 $721,695 Assessments receivable 828,575 892,780 3,181,495 2,890,873 2,196,388 Accrued interest on delinquent assessments 56.358 -IBM 49.022 52.498 52.698 Total assets 1 ,90 1 $1.2,59 21¢U ,x,500498 $2= Liabilities and fund balances Liabilities Accounts payable & Accrued Liabilities $ 3,974 $ 2,044 $ 2,580 $ 2,044 $280 Accrued interest & Delinquent Assessments 56,358 38,117 49,022 50,026 52,619 Assessment liens receivable 793,212 817,992 3,170,132 2,884,007 2,192,972 Due to other Funds 293,004 293,004 Total liabilities 853,544 1,151.157 3514.738 2936.077 2.245.871 Unreserved Fund balance 836.977 76.802 184.2462 564.421 724.910 Total liabilities and fund balances S1,690,521 $1.2a= $3,695,694 LINLiM $2.9~ 72= Source: Derived from annual financial statements. 24 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund Consecutive Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For the Period Ended June 30 (Draft) 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Revenues Special assessments $372,584 $818,094 $297,468 $288,574 $688,664 Miscellaneous 147.871 42.779 280.945 271.038 254.056 Total revenues 520.455 860.873 578.413 559.612 942.720 Expenditures Debt service 515,899 2,178,012 2,696,635 979,003 966,369 Other Total expenditures 515.899 2.178.012 696.635 479.003 966.369 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 4556 (1.317.139) (2.1182221 j419.3911 (23.649) Other Financing Sources: Bancroft bond Proceeds 474,014 2,157,366 324,862 7,765,557 Operating transfers in 79,950 65,000 478,004 75,000 Bond Refunding - - (656.419) 1 Total other financing sources - 556.964 2,222,366 $92.8 184,138 Excess Revenues and other Sources over(under) expenditures 4,556 (760,175) 104,144 383,475 160,489 Adjustment to eliminate Special Assessment Fund 637,484 Beginning fund balance 832.421 836.977 76.802 180,946 564.421 Ending fund balance ,$836,977 $70 $180.946 JULJU $724.910 NOTE: The positive fund balance figure results from a change in financial reporting standards from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 6, which went into effect July 1, 1987. Source: Derived from annual financial statements. 25 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION The City of Tigard, located in northwestern Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area, began as a small town, developed as a bedroom community, and now has a diverse economic base. Major employers include manufacturers of machinery, fabricated metal, and wood products, as well as newspaper publishers and trucking. LAND USE PLANNING State law requires comprehensive land use plannng to be accomplished at the city and county levels. To provide common direction and consistency within each city and county comprehensive plan, the Oregon Legislature directed the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to adopt state-wide planning goals and guidelines. All zoning and development within a city or county must conform to the appropriate comprehensive plan. Nineteen statewide planning goals have been adopted, dealing with matters which include: Economy Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Housing Agriculture Lands Urbanization Public Facilities The Washington County comprehensive plan for the urban areas was adopted in June 1983 and acknowledged by LCDC in October 1983. The rural portion was adopted in April 1982. After revision, it was acknowledged in April 1984. The City of Tigard submitted its plan to LCDC in 1983; it was acknowledged in 1984. The most recent comprehensive plan update was performed in 1991. As part of a comprehensive plan, an urban growth boundary for the year 2000 must be established. This boundary is designed to contain urban sprawl and should encompass adequate land in each zoning category to support predicted population growth. In the Portland Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Service District has responsibility for adoption, amendment and maintenance of a regional urban growth boundary. Local comprehensive plans must conform to the regional urban growth boundary. POPULATION In 1970, nine years after its incorporation in 1%1, the City's population was estimated at 5,302. Ten years later it had nearly tripled in size, to 14,900. Between 1982 and 1992, its population increased by more than 73 percent, to an estimated 32,000. which was an annual growth rate of 5.7 percent. The population of Washington County increased from 259,700 in 1982 to 340,000 in 1992; this represents a 5.2 percent compounded annual rate of growth. The County is the fastest growing in the State. EMPLOYMENT The City is located in the Portland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). Current employment and unemployment data are available for the PMSA only, which consists of Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas and Yamhill counties. However, until 1985, the Portland MSA included Clark County in Washington and did not include Yamhill County. Thus, data before 1985 are not comparable with current data. The major trend in the Portland economy since 1978 has been greater diversification. Employment in manufacturing, construction, mining, and government is proportionately lower in Portland than in the United States. But employment in trade, services, finance, insurance, real estate, and transportation is proportionately greater in Portland than in the United States. Between 1982 and 1992, employment in non-manufacturing increased by 124,300 jobs, while employment in manufacturing decreased by 2,100. In 1992 manufacturing employment accounted for 15.6 percent and non- manufacturing 84.4 percent, of total wage and salary employment The preliminary unemployment rate for the PMSA was 6.2 percent. 26 3 Trade. Employment in wholesale and retail trade accounted for 25.7 percent of the jobs in the Portland PMSA in 1992, making this the second largest employment sector. Strength in domestic warehousing and distribution owes to Portland's geographic location at the hub of interstate freeways and railroads in the Pacific Northwest. International trade further enhances the domestic distribution business in Portland. Being located along the Columbia River with a deep draft channel to the Pacific Ocean has made Portland one of the West Coast's leaders in yearly export tonnage. Service and Miscellaneous. This is the largest employment sector in the Portland PMSA, with 26.2 percent of the jobs in 1992, reflecting Portland's importance as a service center for the region. Manufacturing. Employment in manufacturing accounted for 15.6 percent of the jobs in the Portland PMSA in 1992. Durable good manufacturing accounted for 65 percent of all manufacturing jobs and 10 percent of all wage and salaried employment. Although there have been decreases in employment in the wood products industry many have been offset by growth in the electronics industry. The state's economy is largely based on the lumber and wood products industry, which accounted for about 26.6 percent of the state's manufacturing employment in 1991, and on food and kindred projects, which accounted for about 11.8 percent. The Portland economy is less dependent on these sectors (6.1 and 8.3 percent) because of its increasing diversification. The four most important manufacturing sectors in the Portland PMSA are instruments and related products, machinery, electronic and other electrical equipment, and metals. Government. The fourth largest sector in the Portland PMSA is government, with 13.7 percent of the jobs in 1992. Local government is the largest of the governmental employers, including school districts, counties, cities, and special districts. Economic Development As industrial land in Portland became increasingly scarce and costly, the greater supply of industrial land in the City of Tigard attracted a variety of manufacturing firms. Most of the industrial land in the City is zoned for light industry. Currently, the total amount of vacant industrial land in the City is approximately 200 acres. Of this amount, three sites are 30 acres or larger. Industrial development is concentrated west of Interstate 5, along the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific railroad tracks, and along Southwest 72nd Avenue south of Highway 217. A number of business and industrial parks have been developed in these and other locations over the past few years. Tenants include many high tech industries. Among the major business/industrial parks are: Name Square Footage Usage Oregon Business Park 1.500,000 Mixed Lincoln Center 530,000 Office Koll Business Center Tigard 276,940 Mixed Park 217 245,000 Mixed Tigard Industrial Center 120,000 Mixed R & B Commerce Plaza 77,850 Office Plaza West 66,000 Office Atrium West 60,000 Office PacTrust is constructing a mixed-use development on 60 acres adjacent to the firm's Oregon Business Park. The park is being developed and should be completed within the next couple of years, with 800,000 to one million square feet of space at completion. The S40 million park will incorporate office, retail and flex space, as well as a restaurant and hotel. This bond sale will finance the construction of infrastructure improvements to the property. 27 UTILITIES Northwest Natural Gas supplies natural gas to the area; electricity is provided by Portland General Electric Company; and General Telephone Company provides telephone service. PUBLIC FACILITIES Sewer The Unified Sewerage Agency provides treatment facilities for a 102-square-mile urban area of Washington County, including most of the incorporated areas. The Agency, which was formed in 1970, operates seven treatment plants. The City owns and maintains its own collection system. Water Residents of the City receive their water from the Tigard Southeast Washington County Joint Water Agency and the Metzger Water District. Tigard Water District draws its water from the Clackamas River, and from Bull Run Reservoir, through the City of Portland's system. The water source for Metzger Water District is also Bull Run Reservoir. Fire Protection Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was formed in early 1989 by a merger of Washington County Fine District #1, and Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District, which has provided the City with fine protection. The new district serves much of urban Washington County, including the City, and employs 295. Police The City Police Department has 29 swom officers, 9 dispatchers and 2 other personnel. It has a dispatch center which serves Tigard City police and dispatches police service on contracts to Tualatin, Sherwood and King City. Health Care Meridian Park Hospital is the closest major health care facility, located within minutes of downtown Tigard. Many other health care facilities can be found in the metropolitan area, including public health facilities, hospitals and private clinics. Education Tigard School District No. 23J, serving the Tigard and Tualatin area, enrolls approximately 9,427 students. Because several retirement communities are located in the Tigard area, the School District makes extensive use of retired volunteers as classroom aides. Additionally, the City overlaps approximately two percent of the Beaverton School District. T'he main campus of Portland Community College is located four miles east of Tigard. Approximately 30,000 students are enrolled each term at this campus. Other post-secondary education facilities in the metropolitan area include the Oregon Health Sciences University, Northwest School of Law, Portland State University, Lewis and Clark College, Reed College, and numerous other private colleges and training centers. 28 TRANSPORTATION Major highways through the City include Interstate 5 which runs the length of the Pacific Coast, and State C Highways 217 and 99W. The suburban areas formed mainly along these highways west of the Portland metropolitan area Street patterns have grown up on a rural base, resulting in some inconvenience and congestion. The southern terminus of the Interstate 205 Beltway is located two miles south of the City and provides access to Clackamas County and East Multnomah County, as well as to Clark County, across the Columbia River in Washington. Rail freight service is provided in the City by the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad. Major airlines operate out of Portland International Airport, approximately 17 miles from the City. Air transportation is also available at the Hillsboro Airport, 15 miles northwest of the City. These airports are operated by the Port of Portland. AGRICULTURE Although over time agriculture has become less important as a source of employment in the County, it still contributes to the economy of the County. The rich soil, abundant rainfall and mild climate of the Tualatin Valley provide appropriate conditions for a variety of crops, including ornamental plants, wheat, berries and nuts. In 1991, gross farm sales in Washington County were over $162 million. Although the Oregon wine industry is relatively young, the vineyards and wineries of Washington County have grown rapidly since their beginnings in the 1970s. In 1984, 186 acres of grapes were bearing fruit; another 232 acres had been planted but had not reached fruiting maturity, according to the Oregon State Extension Service. By 1986, the bearing acreage had increased to 422, with an additional 240 planted. In 1987 total acreage increased to 739, with 280 harvested acres (data for acres of bearing age are no longer available), and total production of 1,118 tons of grapes. There are presently nine bonded wineries in the County. including the largest berry wine producer in the Stats. Oak Knoll Winery of Hillsboro. The premier red wine in the County and State is pinot noir. The Washington County Wine Growers Association has joined with the statewide organization in the promoting of local products both within Oregon and to the broader national audience. HOUSING Major housing subdivisions under development over the past three years include: Dover Landing, with 84 lots; Cotswald No. 3, with 75; Cotswald Meadows, with 72; Morning Hill, with 144; Village at Summer Lake park, with 204; and Chalford, with 128 lots. In 1986, the Greenfield Apartments were built, with 100 units. INFORMATION SOURCES Historical data have been collected from generally accepted standard sources. usually from public bodies. In Oregon data is frequently available for counties and also, to a somewhat lesser degree, for cities. Because the City is located within the Portland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, this statement presents data for that area, as well as for the County and the City when available. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TABLES The tables that follow provide further information about the economic and demographic nature of the City. A 29 Table _ CITY OF TIGARD Population Estimates City of Percent Washington Percent Percent Tigard Change County Change Oregon Change 1940 39,194 1,089,684 1950 61,2.69 56.3% 1,521,341 39.6% 1960 92,130 50.4 1,768,687 16.3 1970 5,302 157,920 71A 2,091,533 18.3 1980 14,900 181.0 247,800 6.3 2,639,915 2.2 1982 18,000 20.8 259,700 4.8 2,656,185 0.6 1983 18,200 1.1 257,400 -0.9 2,635,000 -0.8 1984 18,450 1.4 260,200 1.1 2,660,000 0.9 1985 20,250 9.8 268,000 3.0 2,675,800 0.6 1986 20,765 2.5 273,300 2.0 2,661,500 -0.5 1987 23,335 12.4 280,000 2.5 2,690,000 1.1 1988 25,510 9.3 287,000 2.5 2,741,000 1.9 1989 27,050 6.0 295,000 2.8 2,791,000 1.8 19901 29,650 9.6 313,000 6.1 2,847,000 2.0 1991 30,835 4.0 328,500 4.9 2,930,000 2.9 1992 31,271 1.4 340,000 3.5 2,979,000 1.7 1982-92 Compounded Annual Rate / of Change 5.7% 2.7% 1.2% l 1987-92 Compounded Annual Rate of Change 6.0% 4.0% 2.1% L 1990 Federal Census figures are as follows: City of Tigard 29,344 Washington County 311,544 State of Oregon 2,842,321 Source: Under State law, the State Board of Higher Education must estimate annually the population of Oregon cities and counties so that shared revenues may be properly apportioned. The Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University performs this statutory duty. 30 1 i Table _ WASHINGTON COUNTY Portland PMSA Average Annual Unemployment As a Percent of Labor Force Year Portland PMSA Oregon United States i 1973 5.4% 6.2% 4.9% 1974 6.2 7.5 5.6 1975 9.5 10.6 8.5 1976 8.7 9.6 7.7 1977 6.8 7.3 7.0 1978 5.2 6.0 6.1 1979 5.4 6.8 5.8 1980 6.3 8.2 7.1 1981 7.9 9.7 7.6 1982 10.1 11.5 9.7 1983 9.8 10.8 9.6 1984 8.0 9.4 7.5 1985 7.4 8.8 7.2 1986 7.1 8.5 7.0 1987 5.3 6.2 6.2 { 1988 4.7 5.8 5.5 1989 4.5 5.7 5.3 1990 4.2 5.5 5.5 1991 4.7 6.7 6.0 1992 6.4 7.5 7.2 Source: State of Oregon F nployment Division, Department of Human Resources. C 31 I'M Table PORTLAND_PMSAI Labor Force 1981-92 By Place of Residence i Resident ' Civilian Unemployment as a Total j Labor Force Unemployment Percent of Employment2 Year (000) (000) Labor Force (000) 1981 659.4 52.4 7.9 607.1 1982 659.1 66.5 10.1 592.6 1983 615.5 60.1 9.8 555.4 1984 600.6 48.2 8.0 552.4 1985 594.7 44.0 7.4 550.7 1986 608.1 43.8 7.1 564.3 1987 632.9 33.4 5.3 599.5 1988 649.0 30.8 4.7 618.2 1989 675.0 30.2 4.5 644.8 1990 683.0 28.7 4.2 647.0 1991 699.0 33.0 4.7 666.0 1992 713.7 45.4 6.4 668.3 1. The Portland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) includes Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. Data for 1985 are not comparable to prior years because of the inclusion of Yamhill County and the exclusion of Clark County, Washington. 2. Includes non-agricultural wage and salary, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, agricultural workers, and lzbor disputants. Source: State of Oregon Department of Human Resources, Employment Division. 32 Table PORTLAND_PMSA Employment Annual Averages and Percent Distribution by Indus:: y (By place of employment) 1982 1992 Average Percent Average Percent Annual of Total Annual of Total Total Wage & Salary 5233 100.0% 649.6 100.0% i Manufacturing total 99.4 19 101-5 15.6 Durable goods Instruments & related products 17.5 3.3 9.7 1.5 Machinery 11.6 2.4 11.9 1.8 Electronic & other electrical equipment 7.6 1.5 12.5 1.9 Lumber & wood products 7.4 1.4 6.2 1.0 Metals 13.6 2.6 14.9 2.3 Transportation equipment 6.9 1.3 9.8 1.5 Non-durable goods Food and kindred products 8.4 1.6 8.4 1.3 Printing and publishing 6.0 1.1 8.9 1.4 Paper and allied products 6.9 1.3 3.7 0.6 Other non-durable goods 2.3 .4 3.3 0.5 i Non-manufacturing total 423.9 81.0 548.2 84.4 Trade 136A 26.1 167.1 25.7 Services and miscellaneous 109.9 21.0 170.3 26.2 Government 80.9 15.4 89.2 13.7 Finance, insurance and real estate 43.9 8.4 55.8 8.6 Transportation, communications & Utilities 35.6 6.8 38.7 6.0 Construction 17.2 3.3 26.4 4.1 Mining and quarrying NA 0.0 0.6 Labor disputes 0.1 0.1 NOTES: Columns may not foot due to rounding. The Portland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) includes Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties. Data for 1985 are not comparable to prior years because of the inclusion of Yamhill County and the exclusion of Clark County, Washington. Source: State of Oregon Department of Human Resources, Employment Division. 33 L Table _ CITY OF TIGARD C Mayor Employers 1992 Employer Product or Service Employment Sentrol, Inc. Security equipment 502 Farmer's Insurance Insurance 427 Key Pacific Corp. Bank operation & 2 branches 235 Fskars Cutlery 230 Coe Manufacturing Company Veneer plywood, machinery 205 Precision Interconnect Cables for electronic medical apparatus 204 Puget Corp. of Oregon Plastic injection molding 200 GTE Communications service 195 Williams Controls Air brakes and valves 165 FLIR Systems, Inc. Thermal imaging systems 157 Northwest Landscape Industries Landscaping 110 Avia Sport shoes & apparel 125 1. Includes some seasonal employment. Source: Contact with each employer. Table _ WASHINGTON COUNTY Retail Trade (in $000) C Year Washington County Oregon 1982 1,708,679 14,487,767 , 1983 1,775,460 14,879,990 1984 1,794963 14,267,550 1985 1925998 15,159,386 1986 2,051,133 15,872,208 1987 2,16086 16,183,394 1988 2,373,691 17.724,240 1989 2,894,343 20,225,882 1990 3,205,427 22,416,935 1991 3,392,408 23,262,179 ; 1992 3,679,578 25,235,324 1982-92 Compounded Annual Rate of Change: 7.97% 5.71% Source: Sales & Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power. 34 Table _ WASHINGTON COUNTY Income Estimates f Per Capita Income Median Household Total Personal Effective Buying Income Income Washington Washington Year (in millions) County Oregon U.S. County Oregon 1980 $2,896 $11,689 $9,866 $9,919 $23,284 $17,953 1981 3,156 12,386 10,448 10,949 24,143 19,036 1982 3,291 12,743 10,589 11,482 26,860 19,571 1983 3,475 13,305 11,281 12,100 29,106 20,825 1984 3,823 14,492 12,069 13,116 31,900 22,796 1985 4,030 15,028 12,641 13,899 30,898 21,385 1986 4,265 15,525 13,228 14,609 33,035 22,306 1987 4,590 16,350 14,018 15,484 32,392 22,309 1988 5,079 17,459 15,002 16,600 33,482 22,464 1989 5,700 18,891 16,258 17,738 33,780 23,624 1990 6,281 19,932 17,182 18,696 36,320 26,804 1991 NA NA NA NA 37,739 29,300 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business. Sales & Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power. Table _ WASHINGTON COUNTY Gross Farm Sales (in $000) Washington County Oregon Year Crops Livestock/Products Total Crops Livestock/Products Total 1981 $58,863 517,842 $76,705 $1,136,904 $598,017 $1,734,921 1982 65,287 19,549 84,836 1,076,495 656,993 1,733,488 1983 72,608 18,745 91,353 1,154,481 598,468 1,743049 1984 74,280 19,506 93,786 1,178,167 639,792 1,817,959 1985 83,858 18,579 102,437 1,188,638 625,739 1,814,377 1986 91,216 19,897 111,113 1266,969 661,385 1,928,354 1987 99,561 19,229 118,790 1,333,924 680,650 2,014,574 1988 121,001 17,669 138,670 1,564,836 741,674 2,306,510 1989 124,409 18,928 143,337 1,767,943 767,924 2,535,867 1990 133,113 20,373 153,486 1,749,060 818,087 2,567,147 1991 144,131 18,749 162,880 1,734,676 817,235 2451,911 Source: Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 35 Table _ CrrY OF TIGARD Building Activity City of Tigard Total Total Residential Non-Residential Number of Permits Costs: Construction Costs: Construction Single Multi- and Alterations and Alterations Year Family Family (in $000) (in $000) 1981 184 5 $11,391 $6,439 1982 117 0 13,344 6,117 1983 231 10 17,937 3,194 1984 175 34 15,889 3,053 1985 283 338 28,473 6,818 1986 396 126 31,274 11,465 1987 372 286 36,533 20,601 1988 297 229 30,333 24,364 1989 289 386 34,606 23,471 1990 303 287 40,012 18,133 1991 176 0 20,942 27,950 1992 298 0 32,130 20,375 Washington County Total i Total Residential Non-Residential Number of Permits Costs: Construction Costs: Construction Single Multi- and Alterations and Alterations j Year Family Family (in $000) (in $000) 1981 1,310 936 $94,105 $83,680 1982 865 372 64,063 62,039 1983 1,260 156 89,621 55,019 1984 1,338 414 107,471 124,423 1985 1,548 2,287 180,901 135,741 1986 1,834 1,273 177,678 92,426 1987 1,946 1,407 203,413 120,911 1988 2,113 1,355 240,009 130,708 1989 2,584 4,563 411,348 159,972 1990 2,694 2,371 407,656 111,614 1991 2,110 516 267,463 196,328 1992 2,828 327 356,190 145,311 Source: State of Oregon Housing Agency. t, 36 RATING No rating for the Notes has been or will be applied for. LEGAL MATTERS Davis Wright Tremaine of Portland. Oregon, Bond Counsel for the City, will render an opinion with respect to the validity of and tax exemption on the Notes. A copy of such opinion of Bond Counsel is included in Appendix B of this Official Statement. . Certain legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of the Notes are subject to the approval of the City Attorney. UNDERWRITING The Underwriter has agreed, subject to certain conditions, to purchase the Notes from the City less an Underwriter's discount of $ from the Original Principal Amount set forth on the cover page of this Official Statement. The Underwriter will be obliged to purchase all such Notes, if any such Notes are purchased. The obligation to make such purchase is subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Notes Purchase Agreement, the approval of certain legal matters by counsel and certain other conditions. TAX EXEMPTION Tax Treatment of Original Issue Discount. The initial public offering price of the Notes is less than the i principal amount thereof payable at maturity. As a result, the Notes will be zonsidered to be issued with original issue discount. The difference between the initial public offering price of the Notes, as set forth on the cover page of the Official Statement (assuming it is the fast price at which a substantial amount of Notes is sold), and the amount payable at maturity of the Notes will be treated as "original issue discount." With respect to a taxpayer who purchases a deferred interest note at the initial public offering price (assuming it is the first price at which a substantial amount of the Notes is sold), and who holds such deferred interest note to maturity, the full amount of original issue discount will constitute interest which is not includable in the gross income of the owner of such deferred interest note for Federal income tax purposes and such owner will not, under present Federal income tax law, realize taxable capital gain upon payment of such deferred interest note upon maturity. The original issue discount on each of the Notes is treated as accruing daily over the term of such Notes on the basis of a constant interest rate compounded at the end of each six-month period (or shorter period from the date of original issue) ending February 1 and August 1 (with straight line interpolation between compound dates). Section 1288 of the Code provides, with respect to tax-exempt obligations such as the Notes, that the amount of original issue discount accruing each period will be added to the owner's tax basis for the Notes. Such adjusted tax basis will be used to determine taxable gain or loss upon disposition of the Notes (including sales, redemption, or payment at maturity). The owner of a deferred interest note who disposes of such deferred interest note prior to maturity should consult his/her tax advisor as to the amount of original issue discount accrued over the period held and the amount of taxable gain or loss upon the sale or other disposition of such deferred interest note prior to maturity. As described above regarding tax-exempt interest, a portion of the original issue discount that accrues in each year to the owner of the deferred interest note may result in certain collateral Federal income tax consequences. In the case of a corporation, such portion of the original issue discount will be included in the calculation of the r corporation's alternative minimum tax liability and the environmental tax liability. Corporate owners of the Notes should be aware that the accrual of original issue discount in each year may result in an alternative minimum tax liability or an environmental tax liability although the owners of such Notes will not receive a corresponding cash payment until a later year. 37 Owners who purchase Notes in the initial public offering but a price differing from the first offering price at which a substantial amount of the Notes was sold to the public should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of the ownership of the Notes. The Code contains certain provisions relating to the accrual of original issue discount in the case of subsequent purchasers of notes such as the Notes. Owners who do not purchase Notes in the initial public offering should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of the ownership of the Notes. The original issue discount on the Notes of a taxpayer who purchases Notes at the initial public offering price (assuming it is the fast price at which a substantial amount of the Notes is sold) is exempt from present personal income taxation by the State of Oregon. Owners of the Notes should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning the Notes. It is possible that under the applicable provisions governing the determination of state and local income taxes, accrued interest on the Notes may be deemed to be received in the year of accrual even though there will not be a corresponding cash payment until a later year. FINANCIAL ADVISOR The City has retained Public Financial Management, Inc., Portland, Oregon, as financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor") in connection with the Notes and with respect to the authorization and issuance of the Notes. The Financial Advisor is not obligated to undertake, and has not undertaken to make, an independent verification or to assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of the information contained in the Official Statement. Public Financial Management, Inc., is an independent advisory fun and is not engaged in the business of underwriting, trading, or distributing municipal securities or other public securities. Public Financial Management, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marine Midland Bank, N.A., New York, New York. ( MISCELLANEOUS All quotations from and summaries and explanations of provisions of law herein do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to said laws for full and complete statements of their provisions. This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract or agreement between the City and the purchasers or holders of any of the Notes. Any statements made in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion are intended merely as opinion and not as representation of fact. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the City or its agencies, since the date thereof. CONCLUDING STATEMENT The undersigned certifies that to the best of my knowledge and belief, (i) the Official Statement, both as of its date and as of the date of delivery of the Notes, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit any statement of a material fact necessary to make the statements herein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii) between the date of the Official Statement and the date of delivery of the Notes there has been no material change in the affairs (financial or others), financial condition, or results of operations of the City except as set forth in or contemplated by the Official Statement. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By: Finance Director 38 AGENDA ITEM # J For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comm, Plan Amend, 93-0009/Zone Change 93-0002/Site Review 93-0014/Cond, Use 9-3-0002/Minor Land-Par, 93-0013-=Albg PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OK ac~cc=~~~o=~===c-ao=sa~a.=::~.a~eo~oo==~~==a~ca~aaaaa~s=a~a==aaQ~oaa~ oa ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments to redesignate 8 acres to Community Commercial and 6.93 acres to Medium-High Density Residential concurrently with site development review, conditional use and minor'land partition approval to allow development of a convenience shopping center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached ordinance adopting the findings, conclusions and Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Site Development Review, Conditional Use and Minor Land Partition as recommended by the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY To comply with the requirements of the newly adopted Community Commercial plan and zone designation, Albertson's Inc. has requested the above listed approvals. The request involves changing 8 acres to Community Commercial ;CC) from Medium-High Residential (R-25PD & R-12) at the southeast corner of the intersection of SW Walnut and Scholls Ferry Road. The request also includes redesignating 6.93 acres of Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Medium- High Density Residential (R-25) at the northeast corner of the same intersection. The plan and zone requirements for the Community Commercial zone also require a concurrent submittal and review of the Site Development Plan. In addition, the applicant has submitted Conditional Use requests to allow 24 hour operation of the proposed grocery store and to allow a gas station at the northeast corner of the shopping center site as well as a minor partition to separate the 8 acre shopping center parcel from the original 12 acre parcel. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a public hearing on November 15, 1993. There was no opposition at the hearing. The proposed plans incorporate much of the suggestions provided through the neighborhood meeting process. Comments were presented about the need to provide for additional pedestrian ways. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal as indicated in the revised staff report as attached. Included in both the staff and Commission recommendation are numerous conditions including; a requirement for a driveway access between the shopping center site and SW Northview Drive, an additional sidewalk/stairway to the grocery store at the intersection of SW Stardust and SW Northview, a revised site plan which requires providing an enhanced sidewalk system from Scholls Ferry and Walnut with interconnections between all buildings, an access plan for vehicles and pedestrians for the remainder of the 12 acre parcel, and denial of the conditional use request for the service station. 1 The applicant's statement and traffic study, draft minutes of the Planning } Commission hearing, the staff report and a proposed ordinance approving the request are attached. The proposed ordinance includes provisions (Section 3) that make the comprehensive plan and zone change effective at the time of issuance of building or development permits. The thought was that if the development does not occur, the plan and zone changes should not be effective because the Council adopted Community Commercial plan and ordinance provisions that call for concurrent review of the site plan. The other side of the issue is that if the development location is a good site for this type of zone, maybe the comp plan and zone change should be effective in thirty days so that all concerned including neighbors know that the property will ultimately be developed for Community Commercial purposes. There is also the alternative of making the approval of the plan and zone change null and void within a specific period of time if no development occurs. Alternative for Section 3 of the proposed ordinance are attached to the proposed ordinance. aaaaaaaaomaaaaaa- """"'~aaaaaaaaaaaa=aao j OTHER? ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached ordinance approving the request according to the recommendations and findings listed in revised staff report. 2. Modify the approval and direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance and findings as necessary. 3. Deny the request according to appropriate findings. ` o®aaaaoaaaaaaama C FISCAL NOTES None CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENTS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE AND MINOR PARTITION APPROVALS FOR A SHOPPING CENTER REQUESTED BY ALBERTSON'S (CPA 93-0009/ZC 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013) WHEREAS, the applicants have requested Comprehensive Plan and Zone map approvals to change approximately 8 acres of a 12 acre parcel from medium-High Density Residential (R-25PD & R-12) to Community Commercial (C-C) on tax lot 200, and to change a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-25) on tax lot 100 and concurrent approval of Site Development Review for a 57,550 square foot shopping center, conditional use approval for the 24-hour operation of a proposed grocery store, conditional use approval of a gas station and minor partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into parcels of approximately 4 and 8 acres; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on November 15, 1993 and unanimously concurred with the Planning Division recommendation as revised at the hearing and as indicated in the revised staff report; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the request on December 14, 1993, to review the applicant's statement and traffic study, the staff report, staff and Commission recommendations, and to receive public testimony; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in the attached staff report, (Exhibit A), the minutes of the Planning Commission's November 15, 1993 meeting (Exhibit B), and the applicant's narrative and traffic study (Exhibits C & D). SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning commission and staff recommendations and approves the following: 1.) amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps as indicated on Exhibit A of the staff report; 2.) site development review of the plans for the 57,550 square foot shopping center; 3) conditional use approval of the 24 hour operation the grocery store; 4) minor partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 8 and 4 acres each; all with conditions listed in the staff report; and 5) denial of the conditional use request for a 4,000 square foot gasoline station. ORDINANCE No. 93- Page 1 SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective at the time a building permit or other development permit (e.g., grading permit) is issued after passage of this ordinance by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the city Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1993. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of 1993. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney a Date ORDINANCE No. 93- Page 2 r , i ALTERNATIVES FOR SECTION 3 Section 3: (as is) f Section 3: (slightly modified for clarity). s This ordinance shall be effective at the time a building pen-nit or other development S permit (e.g., grading permit) is issued after passage of this ordinance by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. In the event that a building or other development permit is not issued, the ordinance shall not become effective, and the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation will remain as it is currently. z 1 Section 3: (modified to be a reversal). t 'i This ordinance shall be effective in 30 days after passage of this ordinance by the , Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. In the event that a } building permit or other development permit (e.g. grading permit) is not issued within 18 months from the effective date of this ordinance )or 30 months if the Community Development Director approves a 12 month extension as allowed under Section 18.120.040 of the Community Development Code), then the approval of this ordinance shall be null and void, and the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations shall be automatically changed back to the designations existing on these properties prior to the passage of this ordinance. i Section 3: (modified to allow Comprehensive Plan/Zoning to continue). This ordinance shall be effective in 30 days after passage of this ordinance by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. In the event that a building permit or other development permit (e.g. grading permit) is not issued within 18 months from the effective date of this ordinance (or 30 months of the Community Development Director approves a 12 month extension as allowed under Section 18.120.040 of the community Development Code), then the approval of the Site Development Review, Minor Partition and Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void. The Comprehensive Plan-Amendment and zoning Map amendment shall still be valid; however, any new site plan proposal shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. bdOrdix o Ekki bi4" A STAFF REPORT TO no PLANNING COMMISSION i HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1993 o FEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN FYAI~ j 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON i A. FACTS { S 1. General Information i Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0009 s Zone Change ZON 93-0003 Site Development Review SDR 93-0014 Conditional Use CUP 93-0002 Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013 A request for the following development approvals: : i:%4;. . ` 3? C `kY y<t;,:. ?,tv...:cw:y.s::Y •~%f•„. .x9,:~ 'Et Comprehensive ` PYan and Zone V` Change approva redesignate a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12(PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12/25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 57,550 square foot multiple-use commercial retail center; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot service station; and 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 8 acres and 3.95 acres each. Applicant: Albertson's, Inc. (Don Duncombe) 17001 NE San Rafael Portland, OR 97230 Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C. Attorney at Law 4040 Douglas Way PO Box 1568 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 1 C w Owner: Margery Crist, et. al. Route 1, Box 792 Beaverton, OR 97007 Vocation: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 7.8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.31 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.1; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. 2. Background Information An area that included the subject property was annexed to the City of Tigard on June 12, 1983. In August 1983, the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area, including Medium-High Density Residential (R- 20, now R-25 zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 zone), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone). The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N designation in a number of locations in the vicinity between 1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA 4-85/ZC 4-85, CPA 1.-86/ZC 3-86). The current C-N designation is located on Tax Lot 100. A complete summary of past City actions pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of the N-C designation is presented in the staff report for an earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Albertson's for this property (Case File CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006). A number of single family and multi-family residential developments have been proposed for all or a portion of the subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files SDR 4-86, S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90- 04/ZON 90-04/VAR 90--08). Development has recently occurred following the approval of Castle Hill Subdivision. In 1991, Albertsons applied for a comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to establish an 8 acre Commercial General (C-G) site on Tax STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 2 Lot 200. The request also involved the redesignation of the existing C-N site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-High Residential (R-25). A final decision by the City Council has been stayed at the request of the applicant. Following this application, the City considered including a new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. After a lengthy review, the City adopted the Community Commercial designation in December 1992. 3. Vicinity information single family residential development in the Castle Hill Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast is the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar character and density. A day school is on the west side of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A few large lot single family residences also exist to the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry Road. R-25PD zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N. The area south of the proposed C-C designation is zoned R-12PD and R-25PD. The area across SW Scholls Ferry Road from this area is zoned by the City .of Beaverton as R-2 (multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot / area/unit). The average allowable density within a 1/2 mile radius of the site is approximately 15 units per acre. Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include: - Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately 3/4 mile north on Murray Boulevard; - Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately 1--1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road; - Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles east; and - Several commercial areas along Pacific Highway, including the Tigard Central Business District, located approximately two miles to the southeast. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 3 4. site Information There are two properties involved in this application. Tax Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N, and located on the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut: Street. This parcel is a vacant, grassy field with a relatively moderate grade. Tax Lot 200 is 11.95 acres in size, zoned R-12(PD) and R-25(PD), and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and .L.:ut Street. This property is also a vacant, grassy but it slopes significantly downward toward from the Castle Hill Subdivision to Scholls Ferry Road. 5. Proposal Description The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which describe the various facets of the application. Proposed findings and a traf f is study are also provided in support of the request. The application includes four separate components which are: a. CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0003 Change the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R-25, and change the R-25(PD) designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 to C-C, leaving the remaining land use designations on the property as they are (see Exhibit A). This change is proposed to be consistent with the requirements associated with the City's C-C designation and the obligations of the City to maintain an adequate inventory of multi-family residential land. b. SDR 93-0014 The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with a total of 57,550 square feet of floor space. This space includes a 40,000 square foot grocery store, two separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet, and 9,550 square feet of additional commercial space adjacent to the grocery store (see Exhibit B) The applicant has provided preliminary site, grading, utility, and landscaping plans. Building elevations and conceptual design features are supplied only for the proposed grocery store. The grocery store and 9,550 square feet of commercial space are proposed for the southern STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 4 f ' I portion of the site. The truck access and loading area will be on the south side of the building. The south and east portions of the site are to be graded extensively and the south side of the main building will have a floor elevation that is as much as 24 feet below the existing grade. One pad site is located on the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street, and the second pad is intended for the corner of SW Walnut and Northview Drive. Though the applicant indicates that this second pad is the location for a service station, the site plan and traffic report describe it as a retail or service commercial use. The applicant has not submitted development plans for any of the residential areas on the subject properties. in addition to the specific uses shown on the site plan and referred to in the applicant's statement, approval of other uses is requested. This is because all tenants of the center have not been ' committed, and it is expected that tenants will t change over time. The additional uses (all permitted in the C-C zone) for which the applicant requests approval are: - Animal sales and services; Consumer repair services; Convenience sales and personal services; - Children's day care; - Eating and drinking facilities; - General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet; - General offices (medical, dental, financial, insurance, real estate, professional and administrative services); and - Indoor participant sports and recreation. Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road and one driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street. Internal sidewalks are shown immediately adjacent to the commercial buildings. Sidewalks link the two pad sites with the public sidewalks on the perimeter of the project, and one sidewalk connection is shown between the grocery store and SW Northview Drive. C. CUP 93-0002 Conditional use approval is requested to allow a service station on the northeastern pad site, near STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 5 SW Northview Drive. A second conditional use approval is necessary to allow the proposed 24 hour operation of the grocery store. d. MLP 93-0013 The applicant wishes to create a separate 8 acre parcel for the shopping center. The other 3.95 acre parcel is intended for future residential development. This parcel will have both R-12PD and R-25PD zoning designations (see Exhibit A). 6. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: Findings: a. Access The proposed site plan shows driveway access to SW Schools Ferry Road and Walnut street, but not driveway access to SW Northview Drive. We feel that a driveway is needed to SW Northview Drive. Also, pedestrian and bicycle access to SW Northview Drive should provide a more direct connection to C the adjoining neighborhoods. The CC zoning is intended to serve the immediate neighborhoods rather than regional customers. The proposed retail center can be expected to draw many of its customers from the adjoining Castle Hill subdivision (64 lots), the proposed Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision (123 lots), and the adjoining residential areas. While we hope that many of these customers will walk or bike to the center, we can expect that many will drive. Trips for major grocery purchases are likely to be made by car even though customers may live quite close to the center. If the center is intended to serve the neighborhood, it should have a more convenient access to the neighborhood. SW Walnut Street is a major collector street. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the street to be extended east to connect with existing SW Walnut Street at 135th and extended northwest to connect with SW Murray Boulevard near Old Scholls Ferry Road. As the area continues to develop, Walnut will carry substantial traffic volumes, similar to STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 6 EW, the traffic volumes on SW Durham Road in the vicinity of an existing Albertson's store. In order to protect the safety and capacity of SW Walnut Street, it is desirable to eliminate traffic and turning movements on SW Walnut Street where possible. The site plan as presented will require traffic from the Castle Hill area to make a left turn onto Walnut from Northview and a left turn off of Walnut into a driveway in order to reach the center. If a direct driveway access is provided to Northview, left-turn movements on Walnut will be reduced. In some neighborhoods, direct access to retail facilities is resisted due to a concern that direct access will lead to additional traffic in the neighborhood. This does not appear to be a problem in this instance. The proposed alignment of Northview and the connecting streets of Castle Hill No. 2 discourage the use of the street for any through traffic. SW Walnut Street will remain the most direct access for through traffic. However, Northview does provide a principal access route for the Castle Hill development and is a logical route to the proposed Albertson's facility for Castle Hill residents whether there is a direct driveway or not. For these reasons, we recommend that the center be required to provide a driveway access to Northview. b. Streets The site is located between SW Northview Drive and SW Scholls Ferry Road south of SW Walnut Street. SW Walnut Street and Northview Drive are City streets. These streets were previously dedicated and fully improved in conjunction with the Castle Hill subdivision. A traffic study has been submitted by the applicant that indicates that the existing improvements on SW Walnut Street and Northview Drive can adequately accommodate the traffic expected from the proposed development. SW Scholls Ferry Road is a Washington County major collector and is classified as a city arterial. Improvement standards for Washington County major collector include 37 feet of right-of-way from centerline, 21 feet of pavement from centerline along with curb and sidewalk. Currently, the STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 7 { frontage is improved with 14 feet of pavement without curbs or drainage. The required 37 feet of L right-of-way appears to exist but should be i confirmed. Washington County has recommended these improvements but has recommended that a non- remonstrance agreement be accepted. The City recommends that full half-street improvements be donstructed. C. Sanitary Sewer The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing eight inch public sanitary sewer within SW Scholls Ferry Road. The line is operated by the City of Beaverton so the applicant should show evidence that the City of Beaverton has reviewed and accepted this proposal and that any special requirements of the City of Beaverton have been met. d. Surface Water Run-off : The applicant proposes to collect run-off into a private storm sewer and discharge it to an existing box culvert in SW Scholls Ferry Road. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the l City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) surface water management regulations requiring the construction of on site water quality facilities or fee in lieu of their construction. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by constructing an on-site water quality facility along the SW Scholls Ferry frontage. The Public Works Department has no objection to the request. The Building Division has no objection to the request. The City of Beaverton has reviewed the proposal and has no objection. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation indicates that an access report must be prepared by the applicant. The applicant has been advised and the Department estimates that an additional response regarding access will be available soon. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 8 The Department also has the following comments: - This proposal includes a partition request with both parcels having frontage on SW Scholls Ferry i Road. As proposed, Parcel 1 (8.00 acres) will be zoned commercial and contain an Albertsons Store and several associated commercial businesses (restaurant, video store, etc.) and Parcel 2 (3.95 ' acres) will be zoned multi-family residential. The proposal does not contain any specific development plans for Parcel 2. All of the conditions of approval outlined in this report pertain to both parcels (i.e., sidewalks, waiver, etc.). since Parcel 2 does not include a request for access to SW Scholls Ferry Road, specific access related issues for this parcel are not reviewed at this time, The County may deny a separate access to Parcel 2 from SW Scholls Ferry Road and require shared access with the shopping center or access only from SW Northview Drive. SW Scholls Ferry Road is designated as a major collector on the County Transportation Plan. Resolution and Order (R&O) 86-95 and the Community Development Code limit access to 100 feet. The proposed access points meet the spacing requirements. However, there are significant safety concerns dealing with access to the site / from SW Scholls Ferry Road, primarily concerning l left turn stacking queues. Since these issues cannot be determined until the County Traffic Analyst has completed his report, this letter does not approve any access to SW Scholls Ferry Road at this time. The County Traffic Analyst's access report will determine the appropriate number and spacing for access points to the site. Resolution and Order 86-95 also requires a minimum 450 feet of sight distance at the proposed access location. This site has over 700 feet of frontage and sight distance can be obtained or is acceptable at several possible access locations. As discussed above, specific access points for this site will be determined as a part of the Traffic Analyst's review. There are a couple of vertical curves along the frontage which limit sight distance in some locations, particularly at the northeast end of the site. The applicant will be required to provide certification of sight distance by a registered professional engineer for all access locations prior to occupancy. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 9 01 A traffic analysis for this development proposal is being performed by the County Traffic Analyst, whose findings and recommendations will be forwarded to the City at the time of completion of the review. This review and the recommended conditions of approval which will be developed as a part of that review are required by Resolution and order 86-95 and Section 501.5.2.B. of the Community Development Code. The Tigard Water District states that although the water agency does not have any objections to the proposal, it should be noted that: - All exterior portions of the buildings must be within 250 feet of a fire hydrant; - Backflow prevention devices (minimum of double check valve assembly) will be required on all water services; and - The agency will require proper line protection for automatic fire sprinkler systems. Washington County Fire District requests a meeting with the applicants engineer to discuss access requirements to hydrant locations and fire flow. In a phone conversation with Gene Birchill of the District, concern was expressed regarding the provision of future access to 1 the proposed 3.95 acre parcel. Portland General Electric has no objections to the application. School District 7#48 (Beaverton) states that the proposed zone changes and development will not have a student impact on the District. !'2tRxlGQt reviewed the proposal on July 30, 1993, anc ' notes `from the meeting have been submitted by the applicant as an exhibit. Issues raised included buffering, views, traffic, truck deliveries, multi-family development on the proposed 3.95 acre parcel, and 24 hour operations on the site. At the conclusion of the meeting the group suggested four changes: a. A brick fence (4 or 5 feet high) should be constructed along SW Northview Drive with landscaping. The fence could extend up to or just past the proposed pathway leading to the shopping center. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 10 b. A small gas station should not be included. C. Require by covenants and restrictions that tenants maintain property so as not to have litter, teenage loitering, etc. d. Allow weekend or evening use of portions of the site and parking area for special neighborhood functions and activities. No other comments have been received. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 11 B. MAJOR ISSUES / This section of the report provides an overview and evaluation of the major issues pertaining to the four parts of the application. Findings and conclusions regarding the applicable criteria are found in Exhibit C. 1. Comprehensive Plan-and Zone Change a. Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) to Medium-High Residential (R-25PD) As noted earlier in this report, the C-N designation has been moved several times since 1983. Before it was applied to Tax Lot 100, this property was designated R-25. In order to meet the applicable locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, the C-N designation must be changed in order to have commercial use (C-C) on only one quadrant of an intersection. Also, this redesignation to R- 25 helps offset the "loss" of R-25 zoning caused by the proposed C-C designation. b. Medium-High Residential (R-25PD) to Community Commercial (C-C) 0 Compliance with the locational criteria for the C-C designation, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and compatibility with the surrounding residential areas is of key importance. The locational criteria are satisfied as described in the draft findings and conclusions (Exhibit C). The proposal will result in a net loss of 1.07 acres of R-25 land, for an impact of 26 units. The City's inventory shows that presently there are 1,300 acres of undeveloped residential land with a total potential of 13,362 dwelling units. This yields an average allowable density of 10.278 units per acre. The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of 10 units per acre. This change will have a minimal impact that results in 1,299 undeveloped acres, 13,336 potential units, and an average possible density of 10,266 units per acre. Redesignation to C-C requires that the necessary Site Development Review and/or Conditional Use applications be processed with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments. Compatibility issues are addressed using the applicable code criteria. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 12 2. Site Development Review for the Shopping Center There several issues relating to the development of the site that are of special importance. a. Vehicular Access The applicant proposes four driveways to serve the project. A fifth driveway onto SW Northview is suggested by the Engineering Department to provide more convenient access between the center the adjoining residential area, and to reduce the number of turning movements in and out of the SW Walnut Street driveway and SW Northview Drive. This will reduce potential congestion on SW Walnut, and due to the design of the streets in Castle Hill subdivision, through traffic is not anticipated as a result of this additional driveway. Although development is not currently contemplated for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel, access should be considered now. This parcel has a limited frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road. This situation will be complicated further by Washington County driveway spacing standards. The options for driveway access (multi-family development), public street access (single family development), and emergency access should all be considered before the site plan, shopping center access, and partition are C finalized. b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The proposed internal system of sidewalks does not connect all destinations on the site or with surrounding public streets and sidewalks. The following revisions are recommended: - Provide a sidewalk along one side of the eastern and western driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road, and the SW Walnut street driveway. - Provide an internal system of sidewalks that connects these driveway entrances, the pad sites, and the main building in a safe and convenient manner. - Amend the design of the proposed sidewalk to SW Northview Drive so that it connects with Northview at its intersection with SW Stardust Lane to enhance convenience to the STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-00091ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 13 4` neighborhood and to encourage proper pedestrian crossings at the intersection rather that at mid-block. This may require a switchback as well as an amendment to the grading plan and the parking layout near the sidewalk. Two of the handicapped parking spaces near the front of the grocery store should be moved to be adjacent to the building so that crossing the driveway will not be necessary to reach the entrance. C. Landscaping The conceptual landscaping plan appears to be consistent with the landscaping and buffering r standards in the Code. More detail is necessary prior to final development approval to ensure that specific Code provisions are satisfied. d. Noise The issue of noise impact needs further evaluation. While the loading area is well below grade and it will be visually screened, potential noise from loading operations and rooftop equipment must be carefully reviewed and appropriate mitigation measures taken. Sound barriers, location and type of equipment, and hours of equipment operation should all be considered. It is recommended that after this information is available, that it be evaluated by an acoustical engineer to confirm compliance with the City noise ordinance (TMC 7.40.130-210) and Code criteria. e. Design The C-C provisions in Chapter 18.61 include design guidelines pertaining to design and architectural details. The only building design provided is for the grocery store. It is not clear how the appearance of the remaining structures will harmonize with each other. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 14 i 3. Conditional Use Requests C a. Service Station While a service station may be appropriate on this site, the applicant has not provided sufficient j information to justify an approval of this use. b. 24 Hour Operation of the Grocery Store A primary purpose of the C-C designation is to provide convenient commercial services in residential areas while maintaining a compatible relationship between uses. Many of the evaluation criteria noted in this report are intended to achieve this result. Evening operations are usually problematic because of noise, lights, and traffic. Due to the orientation of the grocery store, the distance of the store entrance from nearby residential properties, and the buffering provided by the grading and landscaping, a 24 hour operation appears to be appropriate. Chapter 18.130, j Conditional Use has general criteria that have been addressed by the applicant (or will be as required by the recommended conditions of approval). There are no specific review criteria in Chapter 18.130 for 24 hour operation. 4. Minor Land Partition i This portion of the application is consistent with the dimensional requirements for the R-25 and C-C designations. The only issue related to the partition is future access as discussed above. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 15 C. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93- 0009, SDR 93-0014, CUP 93-0002, and MLP 93-0013 subject to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits. 1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA93-0009 to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 100 from Neighborhood commercial (C-N) to Medium-High Residential/Planned Development (R-25PD), and to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and Medium-High Residential/Planned Development (R-12PD and R-25PD) to Community Commercial (C-C). The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be finalized at the time a building or other development permit (e.g., grading) is issued. 2. Approve the Site Development portion of the application with the following conditions: a. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval which includes the following modifications: (1) A driveway access between the site and SW Northview Drive tr<;:::<k=--ou r (2) Sidewalk system which has sidewalk entrances along one side of the east and west SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways, one sidewalk along the SW Walnut Street driveway, and direct interconnections between all buildings on the site. If the allowed number of driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road is less than three, a minimum of two sidewalk entrances shall still be provided along this street frontage. (3) A proposed sidewalk/', from the grocery store shall connect with SW Northview Drive at the SW Stardust intersection ..y1,'+:i:•'.>r..>.».`.':'42;;::r.,::%'..:....,2`„,: ..":yK^):.,:5si#i7,.7+.' ::,t;w»r,..•••::a.:.,, (4) Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces in front of the grocery store shall be moved to be adjacent to the building. b. The applicant shall supply a report detailing the nature of loading activity at the rear of the STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 16 C grocery store, the location and type of mechanical equipment to be used on the perimeter of the building or on the roof, and the design of the visual and noise buffering to be used. This information shall be evaluated by an acoustical engineer for compliance with the Community Development Code and TMC 7.40.130-210. C. All rooftop equipment on the site shall be visually screened. Also, noise buffering shall be provided as recommended by the acoustical engineer (2. b. above). d. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided showing the size and species of landscaping material to be used throughout the development. e.ka,e building design details shall be provided for the entire development. Of key importance will be consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. f. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted that shows the location and type of all exterior light fixtures. of primary importance will be the prevention of light being cast onto adjoining properties. g. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the centerline. If the existing right-of-way is currently of the required width, submit survey information to confirm. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional information contact Washington County survey Division. h. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Washington County Engineering Department. For additional information contact Washington County Engineering Department. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 17 i. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. J. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." I I k. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to _ the City of Beaverton for their approval. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City of Tigard prior to the construction of any public improvements. 1. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information shall include an operation and maintenance plan. M. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. n. The proposed privately operated and maintained sanitary sewer and storm drainage system plan- profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. o. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. P. All public facility improvements shall be installed and/or financially assured prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site. q. An _P d e v ---r' w - - n Pla v'''ts • shall be submted for" ie proposed 3.95 acre parcel. Gf _u=o_ impertan analysis eire-aees~te the Bite. Prior to approval of the final site plan and/or minor land partition, the City, County, and Fire District shall be satisfied that a suitable option(s) is available for providing future access to this parcel. C STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 18 3. Approve the Conditional Use application for 24 hour operation of the grocery store. 4. Deny the Conditional use application for a service station. 5. Approve the Minor Land Partition subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the final survey; or if not recorded with Washington County but has been approved by the City of Tigard the applicant shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to submit the copy. b. Any additional road right-of-way required by Washington County along SW Scholls Ferry Road shall be dedicated prior to recording the partition. C. Condition 2. q. above shall be satisfied. PREPARED BY: Dick-Bewersdorff DATE Senior Planner br/a:CPA93.09.144 ( STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 19 s .f I 0051=1111 Aql. N O i• 3AV t - Jt~ I rrA. U 1 c 1~ 1~ ~yy"ld 311s Q350da8d Ica • : ;-'l ~ , ' ~ ~ ✓ ` !fit ~ ~ i lk, I 'A t Ott u 15 g EXHIBIT C - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's, Inc. Application for Site Development Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community Commercial (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The applicant has also submitted a traffic study and supplement prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. in support of the li7 application. Staff finds that the following Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community Development Code chapters are applicable to the request: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 7.8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.3.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.1; and ( Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. 1. Statewide Planning Goals and Related Plan Policies The Planning Division concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the following findings: a. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all land use and development applications by nearby property owners and residents. Washington County has established Community Planning Organizations (CPOs). NPO #7 and CPO #4B have been provided with an opportunity to review the proposal. Policy 2.1.3 is satisfied because information regarding the new C-C designation was explained to the public at numerous public forums. In addition, notices and information about this proposal has been provided so that the basic STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-00091ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 20 planning issues are understood by the public. Comments received have been included in the staff report and applicant's statement. In addition, all public notice requirements related to this application have been satisfied. b. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the quasi-judicial plan an'zone change approval standards of Code Section 13.22.040 are satisfied because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Citv of Tigard Comprehensive Plan ?clicies, and Community Development Code requirements to the review of this proposal, as described in this report. The City of Tigard has notified oche: affected units of government including the City of Beaverton, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of the proposal. Service and utility providing agencies have also been notified of the proposal. C. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because - that proposed C-C zone and the surrounding residential properties will result in fewer and shorter automobile trips to obtain commercial goods and services. The proposed center, as designed and conditioned, will provide easy access for the surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help satisfy Policy 4.1.1 by reducing potential air quality impacts from the new residents and their automobiles. Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development review and building permit processes at which time a development proposal for this site must be shown to comply with applicable federal, state, and regional water quality requirements including preparation and implementation of a non- point source pollution control plan in compliance with the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's temporary rules for the Tualatin River Basin. The proposed redesignation would not by itself affect compliance with this Plan Policy. d. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210 can be satisfied if the potential noise impacts created by the commercial center are identified, evaluated, and mitigated as required by the conditions of approval. This Policy will be implemented through the development permit process ` STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 21 in which building placement and landscaping are reviewed with respect to minimizing noise impacts on neighboring land uses. t e. Goal 9 (Ecr?r>omy of the State) and Policy 5.1.1 are satisfied because the proposed redesignation would increase the City's inventory of developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment opportunities in the City. The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.1.4 because the proposed C-C designation will maintain a compatible relationship with nearby residential properties as required by the Community Development Code standards. In addition, the site is physically separated from residential uses by streets on three sides of the property and a steep slope to the south. A commercial service center of modest size has been contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The.proposed C=C designation will -replace the C-N designation and therefore, no encroachment into a residential area will result. f. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are satisfied because the proposal will result in a loss of 1.07 acres of R-25 land for a net residential opportunity of 26 units. As discussed earlier in this report, this has an insignificant impact on the City's ability to comply with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The average potential density of the undeveloped residential land in the City has historically varied as land was developed and as Comprehensive Plan Amendments were approved. This represents a reduction in the amount of developable residential land in the City of only 0.07%. g. Policy 6.6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed design and related conditions of approval are intended to provide excellent buffering and visual separation between the center and nearby residential neighborhoods. As noted in this report, specific landscaping noise mitigation details must be provided to ensure that this policy and related Code and TMC provisions are met. h. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 22 i Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, and 7.8.1 are satisfied because adequate public service and educational capacities are available to serve future development of this site, under either the existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Extension of necessary public facilities to serve the site are the responsibility of the developer, at the time o= site development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public and private utility providers of pending development applications- No adverse comments were received from service providers with respect to the current application. s i. Goal 12 (Transportation)' and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on SW Walnut Street or Scholls i Ferry Road. :although commercial development of this site might be expected to result in some increase in total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared to what would be expected under the current designations, the impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems should s be beneficial through providing commercial t" opportunities closer to users' residences than is currently available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic is anticipated. j. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 which encourage energy conservation through a balanced and efficient transportation system. Because a reduction in the number and length of automobile trips will be reduced, the amount of energy consumed will also be less. k. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of development approval under either the existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Completion of necessary street improvements along the site's frontages will be required to be installed by the developer at the time of development. The Engineering Division and Washington County will review final development plans for the site with regard to necessary road improvements adjacent to the site and on other affected roadways. 1. Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses, such as commercial and multi-family, in locations that can be served by transit. Though Tri-Met STAFF R=?ORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 23 ( service does not serve the immediate area know, an extension of service along SW Scholls Ferry Road appears to be very likely. M. The locational criteria for Medium-High Residential (R-25) specified in Policy 12.1.1 (3) are met for the following reasons: (1) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation are vacant and are not committed to low density development. Since 1983, these properties have been designated for multi- family and commercial use. Prior to being - - designated C-N, Tax Lot 100 was designated R- 25. (2) The two areas intended for R-25 density are well buffered or separated from single family residential neighborhoods. Tax Lot 100 abuts R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area north is undeveloped and the eastern property line is bordered by Cotswald Subdivision. Because of the properties size and lack of physical constraints, adequate buffering can be provided along the property boundaries. The R-25 area south of the center will be adjacent to R-25 and R-12 zoned areas that developed as single family neighborhoods. This 3.95 acre parcel will provide a transition between the single family development and the shopping center. (3) Both proposed R-25 parcels have direct access from major collectors streets. (4) The properties have a moderate grade and do not appear to have any development limitations due to natural features of Code requirements. (5) As noted in this report, existing facilities have adequate capacity to serve the development- (6) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from the nearest Tri-Met route. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line #62. However, SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are logical routes for expansion in the future as the area grows and the demand for bus service increases. C- STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 24 t i 's (7) The two proposed R-25 areas will have excellent access to shopping. (8) When the residential properties develop, common and/or private open space will be required as a condition of development. s n. The locational criteria for Community Commercial uses specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for the following reasons: (1) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area averages over 8 units per acre. Supporting information is supplied in the applicant's statement and in the staff report information on file as part of' the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create the C-C designation. (2) The proposed center and its components all ; meet the maximum gross floor area standards of 100,000 square feet total, 40,000 for grocery stores, 10,000 square feet for general retail, and 5,000 square feet for other uses. } (3) The proposed commercial designation will apply to only the southeast corner of SPJ Scholls 9 Ferry Road and Walnut Street. f (4) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other commercial retail land use designations. (5) The site is located at the intersection of two major collector streets. The traffic analysis presented by Kittelson and Associates and the subsequent evaluation by the Engineering Division and Washington County indicate that no adverse traffic impacts will result. (6) The commercial site is 8 acres which coincides with the maximum allowable size for a Community Commercial center. (7) Design issues, such as vehicular access, pedestrian and bicyclist access, coordinated development, local street connections between the commercial use and the neighborhood, lighting, and noise, have all been addressed using the applicable Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code policies and standards. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 25 2. Community Development Code a. Chapter 18.22 In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040(A)). The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9) addresses these considerations. The staff concurs with the basic analysis presented by the applicant. b. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential At this time, no development is proposed for Tax Lot 100 or the proposed 3.95 acre parcel south of the shopping center. Both parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone (Section 18.56.050) and it appears that both parcels can be suitably developed in the future. C. Chapter 18.61 - C-C Community Commercial Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses proposed by the applicant are either permitted with the exception of the service station and 24 hour grocery store operation which are subject to conditional use approval criteria (Chapter 18.130). The proposed improvements for the site can accommodate all of the permitted uses shown on the site plan and proposed as alternate tenants in the center. Section 18.61.45 is satisfied because all primary commercial activities shall be conducted inside; all uses, except for the grocery and video stores will be less than the 5,000 square foot maximum; and any outdoor displays and open air dining shall be conducted within the limits of this section. Section 18.61.050 is satisfied because the proposed center meets all applicable standards for lot size and dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaped area. STAFF REPOR= - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 26 Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design guidelines and standards for C-C development. The basic design concepts presented by the applicant are generally consistent with these Code provisions. In some cases design concepts need to be amended and in others more detailed information needs to be provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure compliance with this Code section. - Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building design guidelines which have been partially satisfied. The applicant has provided a proposed design for the grocery-store, but not for the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail space adjacent to it or for the two building pad sites. Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing SW Northview Drive and Schools Ferry Road. However, both of these building elevations will be screened from view by landscaping and should result in a reasonably pleasing appearance. - Section 18.61.055 A. 2. discourages loading areas that face toward residential uses. The proposed loading area abuts an undeveloped residential parcel and is near Castle Hill Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading of the site, the loading area will be approximately 8 to 24 feet below the existing grade. This, along with landscaping and screening will provide a satisfactory visual buffer. - Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal walkways to facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site. The site plan shows sidewalks in the vicinity of the building locations and one walkway to SW Northview Drive. This Code section can be satisfied if additional walkways are provided as recommended in the conditions of approval. - Section 18.61.055 B. 2. can be satisfied with the submission of additional information regarding lighting, mechanical equipment, refuse and recycling containers, bicycle parking, pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping, screening, and special site features (e.g., walls) as required in the STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 27 Nil f ' S f conditions of approval. i d. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening The provisions of this Chapter can be satisfied provided the conditions of approval are met. The conceptual plan is found to be consistent with the j criteria in this Chapter, but the details need to be confirmed prior to issuance of development permits. i - Section 18.10D.030 - 040 requires street trees as part of= new commercial development. The landscaping plan submitted indicates that street trees will be planted with 40 foot spacing. A list of trees to be used is provided, buz the tree to be used is not identified. ::ith 40 foot spacing, the street trees will need to have a mature height of 40+ ' feet. Section 18.1C0.070 - 080 requires screening between different uses, such as commercial and residential- The proposed landscaping plan - includes ve=etative screening that is consistent %':ith the standards of these sections. Only more detailed information regarding the size and species of plantings, as required in the conditions of approval is needed to ensure compliance. Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and walls. The applicant discusses the construction of a wall along a portion of the perimeter of the development, but no plans are included in the application. Using walls as a unifying design element is encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C Zone. Plans must be submitted if a wall(s) is to be constructed. A wall along the SW Northview Drive frontage as suggexted by NPO #7 is encouraged. Section 18.100.110 requires screening for parking and loading areas. The landscaping plan satisfies the relevant requirements for landscaped islands in the parking area and the number of trees in the parking area. However, in order to accommodate the pedestrian walkways noted elsewhere in this report, some of the landscaped features will have to be STAFF REPOR - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 28 i i i C modified. - Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix that prescribes the minimum width and type of buffer required in different circumstances. The proposed minimum buffer area of 20 feet with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the standards for commercial development abutting residential uses. e. Chapter 18.102 - Visual Clearance Areas s All intersections meet the visual clearance provisions of this Chapter. f. Chapter 101.106 - Off-Street and Loading Requirements Although the exact number of required parking spaces in Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined because all of the tenants have not been identified, the applicant's estimate of 255 required spaces is reasonable. A total of 299 _ spaces is provided. Section 16.106.050 describes the dimensional t standards for parking areas. All of these requirements for parking spaces and aisle widths are met or exceeded, as shown on the site plan. g. Chapter 18.108 - Access, Egress, and Circulation The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways meet the provisions of this Chapter. Section 18.108.060 discourages direct access onto arterial and collector streets. While the number of dri,,eo-:ays _or the commercial development appears justified ipending Washington County's final analysis and recommendations) , based on the traffic study and the findings of the Engineering Department, the future access for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel must be addressed as noted in this report. h. Chapter 18.114 - Signs The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one freestanding sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, as allowed by Section 18.114.130 E. A sign drawing has been submitted without dimensions. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 29 Sign permits shall be required as a condition of approval to ensure compliance with Code standards for the C-C Zone. i. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review The relevant design standards in Section 18.120. 180 A. have been addressed elsewhere in this report, with the exception of noise (18.180.180 A. 5.). As discussed earlier, the loading area on the south side of the grocery store is visually screened from adjoining residential properties. However, noise from_truck traffic, trash collection and compacting, and rooftop equipment has proven to be a source of conflict between commercial and residential uses. Sufficient information is not presented to confirm whether the noise issue is resolved. The applicant should submit detailed plans regarding the type and location of all mechanical equipment, the anticipated noise created, the hours of operation of the equipment, and the methods to be used to protect nearby residences. These plans should include an analysis and recommendation of an acoustical engineer. The applicant should note ( that the City's noise ordinance (TMC 7.40.130-210) has specific requirements regarding the responsibilities of commercial uses to mitigate noise impacts. j. Chapter 18.130 - Conditional Use The proposed service station should not be approved at this time because of insufficient information. The pad site near the SW Walnut Street and Northview Drive intersection should be approved for one of the permitted use types proposed by the applicant. k. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning The proposed partition complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones, and the requirements of this Chapter shall be satisfied by the conditions of approval. 1. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards These shall be satisfied as required by the City STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 30 f ® Engineering Department and the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation. i 1 i i i STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0009 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 31 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes - November 15, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Saporta called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Castile, Holland, Moore, Saporta, Schweitz. Absent: President Fyre, Commissioners Boone, Saxton (one vacant position). Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Commission Secretary Lorraine Campbell. 3. APPROVE MINUTES • Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to approve minutes of November 1, 1993, as corrected. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Castile and Schweitz abstained. t 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS • There were no Planning Commission communications. 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0009/ZONE CHANGE ZON 93- 0003/ SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes include a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) ; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 57,550 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building shopping center; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and i 't i f four acres each. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.130, and 18.164. • Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed major issues and background information on the request for Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval; Site Development Review; Conditional use approval and Minor Land Partition approval. • Commissioner Holland thought there should be a pedestrian access to the shopping center from Northview Drive. • Commissioner Schweitz felt there were too many driveways to the shopping center from Scholls Ferry Road. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Mr. John W. Shonkwiler, 13425 SW 72nd, Tigard, Oregon 97230, reviewed the background and zoning of the application. He discussed how the NPOs'and neighbors'input had been utilized in the design of the shopping center and talked about the topography, access, landscaping and the different businesses which might operate in the shopping center in the future. • Mr. Norm Schoen, Architect, 1330 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, reviewed the building and site design. • Commissioner Saporta asked why there wasn't any access provided on Northview Drive. • John Shonkwiler responded that the NPO had requested that there not be any access on Northview. Discussion followed. • Mr. Evan Dust, Kittelson & Associates, 610 SW Alder, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon 97205, responded to traffic issues. • Commissioner Schweitz raised concern that the driveways to the shopping center on Scholls Ferry Road were too close together. Discussion ensued regarding traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. The issue of queuing was examined and discussed. • Ms. Jody Westerman, 13665 SW Fern Street, Tigard, 97230, had no objection to the shopping center but wanted it made safer for pedestrians by installing raised walkways through the parking lot. She felt there should be a staircase access on Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - November 15, 1993 Northview and a sidewalk put in along the truck access entrance from Scholls Ferry. • Mr. Craig A. Petrie, 9600 SW Capital Highway, Portland, Oregon 97219, said he represents the property owners and supports the proposal. • Mr. Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Creek, Scappoose, Oregon 97056, is a member of the family who owns the property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED • Commissioner Holland said he agrees with the City that the ramp is not sufficient and that there should be a staircase access for pedestrians on Northview. He agrees that there should be vehicle access on Northview. • Commissioner Moore said that sidewalks for pedestrians across the shopping center are a good idea and concurs with staff's recommendation that the conditional use for a gas station be denied. He thinks there should be an access on Northview and that the half street improvement should be put in on Scholls Ferry. He agrees with staff's overall recommendations. • Commissioner Schweitz said he agrees with Commissioner Moore and is concerned that the shopping center's design will not be satisfactory after build-out of the whole area. He does not feel that the neighborhood has enough access to the shopping center and that there are too many accesses on Scholls Ferry. His main concern is that the shopping center will draw traffic. He would like to see an access provided on Northview. • Commissioner Castile liked the design of the shopping center but was against any vehicle access on Northview other than the stairway access. His concern was that another access for vehicles would open up the shopping center to too much traffic. • Commissioner Schweitz suggested eliminating the Walnut Street access to the shopping center. General discussion followed. • Commissioner Saporta did not favor granting the conditional use for the gas station. He raised concern regarding pedestrian flow throughout the entire site and that there has not been any provision made for pedestrian access within the interior of the site. He would like to see pedestrian walkways installed. He has mixed feelings about a driveway on Northview. He agrees that there should be a staircase from Northview to the shopping center and agrees with the rest of Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - November 15, 1993 the recormendations in the staff report. • Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner Holland seconded - to approve the application and to forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009, SDR 93- 0014, CUP 93-0002, and MLP 93-0013 per staff recommendations subject to the following changes to some conditions as follows: C.2. a. (1) A driveway access with a right out and left turn design between the site and SW Northview Drive with a right-out and left-in design. (3) A proposed sidewalk/stairway from the grocery store shall connect with SW Northview Drive at the SW Stardust intersection and shall be combined with the applicant's proposed ramp. x k e. Conceptual building design details shall be provided for the entire development. Of key importance will be consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. x q. =n access plan for vehicular and cedestrian traffic shall be submitted for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel. Prior ;.o approval of the =_nal site pla- and/or minor land Uartition, the City, County, and sire District shall be satisfied that a suitable option(s) is available for providing future access to this parcel. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2 AMENDMENT O: CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW , SDR 93-0002/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 93-0001/SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 93-7002/SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 93-0001 CUB Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes - November 15, 1993 FOODS/SUPERVALU LOCATION: 7500 SW Dartmouth Street (WCTM 1S1 36DC, tax lots 600, 2500, 2501; a portion of WCTM 1S1 36CD, tax lot 2000; and a portion of WCTM 2S1 1BA, tax lots 100 and 101). To amend condition of approval ##11 in the March 25, 1993 Planning Commission Final Order, thereby allowing the westbound lane of SW Dartmouth Street from 72nd to the site entrance to be constructed by the developer. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, and 18.120. ZONE: C-G and C-G (PD) (General Commercial, Planned Development) The C-G zoning designation allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, eating and drinking establishments, general retail 3 sales, and single-family residential units among other uses. ' • Director of Community Development, Ed Murphy, reviewed the staff report regarding request for an amendment to the i conditions of approval imposed upon the Cub Foods shopping plaza. Ed Murphy said that staff recommends approval of a modification of Condition ll of the Final Order, to allow the construction of an additional westbound lane on Dartmouth Street. • Commissioner Schweitz asked if ODOT had commented. He also raised concern about installing a median. • Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve Amendment of Condition of Approval for Site Development Review SDR 93-0002/Planned Development PDR 93- 0001/Sensitive Lands SLR 93-0002/Sign Code Exception SCE 93- 0001 Cub Foods/Supervalue. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. Lorraine Campbell Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Commissioner Saporta Ic/PCII-15.min Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - November 15, 1993 1 r r _ Traffic Impact Study r. Tigard L. Albertsons t. r t 1 N 7777-- f f-. z3 p; t ! ~ by f ~,vS jYx KIT'TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning/Traffic Engineering K6<, FAIRM mom= August 1993 mom I l { Traffic Impact Study Tigard 1 Alberts®ns Prepared for: Musil Perkowltz Ruth, Inc. I 9150 SW Pioneer Ct., Suite T Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 685-7350 i Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 l Project No.: 1050.000 I August 1993 i i l ~ I j l Tigard Albertson Table of Contents i~ i I 'T'able of Contents y Section 7 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Section 5 Conclusions And Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ! {1{ Section 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendix A Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ii Tigard Albertsons List of Figures List of Figures f Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 f Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Existing Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and LOS . . . . 11 I Figure 5 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and LOS . . . . 12 Figure 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment: With Walnut Extended . . . . 20 Figure 7 Trip Distribution and Assignment: Without Walnut Extended . . . . 21 I Figure 8 Other Developments in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . 22 I Figure 9 1994 Background Traffic Volumes: With Walnut Extended . . . . 23 Figure 10 1994 Background Traffic Volumes: Without Walnut Extended . . . 24 Figure 11 1994 Total Traffic Volumes and LOS: With Walnut Extended . . . . 26 ( Figure 12 1994 Total Traffic Volumes and LOS: Without Walnut Extended . . . . 27 Figure 13 Year 2010 Roadways, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls 30 I Figure 14 Year 2010 Traffic Volumes and LOS . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service . . . . . . . 13 t Table 2 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Level of Service . . . . . . 14 11 Table 3 Trip Generation and Pass-By Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 4 1994 Background P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service . . 25 I Table 5 1994 Total P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 6 Year 2010 Peak Hour Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 7 Queuing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. iii I f z 7`7 T] 717 ~ t y K" ~ ACS ,';l uz~ IK Section 1 Executive Summary INS! Tigard Albertsons Executive Summary I Executive Summary I Albertsons, Incorporated is proposing to construct a neighborhood grocery-anchored retail center at the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street, in Tigard, Oregon. This 12 acre site is presently zoned Multi-family residential (MF), which would require a zone change by the City of Tigard to Community Commercial (CC). Current development plans call for a grocery-anchored retail center of approximately 57,600 square feet of gross leasable floor area, including two pads of approximately 4,000 square feet each. { One pad is anticipated to be used as a high-turnover sit-down restaurant, the other as general retail space. The developer is proposing three site accesses onto SW Scholls Ferry Road, with the east site entrance being a right-in/right-out only driveway and the remaining two full-access driveways. A fourth entrance is proposed onto SW Walnut Street as a full-access driveway. All full-access driveways are proposed with a minimum of 150 feet of throat depth and the east site entrance is proposed with a throat depth of approximately 100 feet. The developer is proposing to construct a right-turn taper on the northbound approach to the { SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut Street intersection. Further, the developer will meet all l jurisdictional standards for development under the requested Community Commercial zoning, including the facilitation of multi-modal access. This study evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed neighborhood grocery-anchored retail center during the critical weekday p.m. peak hour. Specific findings include: l • The weekday p.m. peak hour is the time period when the combination of site traffic and background traffic is highest for the roadway system considered in this study area. • All key study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS B or better) during the critical weekday p.m. peak hour. • Analysis of past traffic accident trends within the study area reveal there are no traffic safety problems that must be addressed by the developer or brought to the attention of the jurisdictions. • It is estimated that the proposed neighborhood grocery-anchored retail center would ` generate approximately 565 vehicle trips during the critical p.m. peak hour, with 285 being inbound trips and 280 being outbound trips. Furthermore, it is estimated that at { least 35 percent of these vehicle trips would come from vehicles already on the roadway system, as part of another trip. • All key study area intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) under the near-term condition, including full buildout and occupancy of the site and surrounding developments, regardless of whether SW Walnut Street is ex- tended from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW 135th Avenue. • Based upon year 2010 traffic volume projections provided by Washington County, the proposed roadway system assumed by the County in their projections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) without modification, with this site developed as proposed. I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 i 1 l r r F ..u~,_... j C..__.. SAY I F 7 ~ 1 4r ~ A l I Qs 1 _ l 1 Section 2 I Introduction l C 7lgard Albertson Introduction 1 Introduction SCOPE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the expected on-site and off-site transportation impacts associated with the proposed construction of a neighborhood grocery- anchored retail center in the City of Tigard, Oregon. The proposed site for the project is on a I . vacant parcel, generally bounded by SW Scholls Ferry Road (ORE 210) to the west, SW Walnut Street to the north, and SW Northview Drive to the east. Figure 1 illustrates the site and the { existing roadway system serving the surrounding area. I_ Specific traffic related issues addressed in this report include: • Existing traffic conditions and land use within the project study area. • Trip characteristic estimates for full development of the site, in accordance with the proposed site plan. • Access design and location analysis for the proposed development. • Traffic impact of the proposed development on near-term and future p.m. peak hour operations at the site driveways and key intersections within the study area. • Comparison of estimated traffic impacts for existing zoning of site and proposed zone change to "Community Commercial". I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The current site plan, shown in Figure 2, calls for the construction of a neighborhood I grocery-anchored retail center containing approximately 49,600 square feet of gross leasable floor area and two pads, each having 4,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Initial construc- tion activities are expected to begin in 1993, with completion occurring in 1994. I l I I i i Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. 4 j r 01 i NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) I a W j O ~ D I = Q M 3 3 N N 1 ~ V! Q ( N ~ 1 YORN►~ H1 DR- f R SITE sw " S~'~O sr co FERR ~ vi S.W. SCHOLLS LN ST. 0 W J N I I i i SITE VICINITY MAP TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE j TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ' AUGUST 1993 ii 1050F001 -F-_ f j r~!ir' 1 1 s I I o. I II -jI „ 1 I \i 1 I • ` LLj 1> \V {I {i } I I J ' I ti I i < I I ' 4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AUGUST 1993 2 7USUFUU2 I I-. a f _ i { 1 ' `s v17 l S~ sf4 '35. <`p`yl ~j,f Y~~''~. I A y s MEE f Section 3 Existing Conditions NINA= Tigard Albertson Existing Conditions Existing Conditions SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USES The project site is currently vacant and covered with light vegetation. Therefore, no measurable traffic is being generated by the site and no businesses or buildings would be displaced or removed with development. Land use to the east (across SW Northview Drive) is primarily single-family residential with I construction occurring in the Castle Hill and Rose Meadows residential developments. Across SW Walnut Street, north of the site, land use is comprised of single-family and multi-family residential in combination with some commercial. West and South (across SW Scholls Ferry Road) land use is a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Currently, the primary roads providing access to the site are SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Northview Drive, and a newly constructed portion of SW Walnut Street which intersects with Scholls Ferry. Adjacent roadways, providing circulation and connection to regional facilities, include Old Scholls Ferry Road (ORE 210), SW Murray Boulevard, and SW 135th Avenue. Figure 3 details the existing lane configurations and traffic controls at the key intersections within the study area. Old Scholls Ferry Road (ORE 210) is a five-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction and a median turn lane. The posted speed is 45 mile per hour, in the vicinity of the site. Extensive improvements, including widening, resurfacing, curbing, and sidewalks, have re- cently been completed and the State has turned jurisdiction of this roadway over to Washington 1 County. Under Washington County's road classification standards Old Scholls Ferry Road is 1 a Major Arterial. New Scholls Ferry Road is classified by Washington County as a Major Collector with one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed of 45 mile per hour. Each travel lane is approximately 13 feet wide with 2 to 3 foot shoulders on each side. There are no curbs or sidewalks adjacent to this roadway. Southwest Murray Boulevard has a six-lane cross section, at its intersection with Old Scholls Ferry Road, providing dual left-turn lanes in the south-to-east direction. In addition, there are two travel lanes in each direction with curbs and sidewalks on each side. The south leg of the Murray Boulevard/Old Scholls Ferry Road intersection dead ends, providing local access to adjacent land uses. This facility is classified by Washington County as a Major Arterial. f Southwest 135th Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified as a Minor Collector. This roadway has a three-lane cross section with a median turn lane and one travel lane in each direction. South of its intersection with Morning Hill, 135th Avenue narrows to one travel lane in each direction. The posted speed is 40 miles per hour. i Kittelson & Associates. Inc. R r- i N01 ORTH (NOT TO SCALE) d5 D La ; Q > f 3 RD I Tn FERK N SGNO\"~S I Lo o MORNING DR. FALCON R\51 DR. NVl SITE s~ I LEGEND WALNUT ST. ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL i STOP SIGN EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Z AUGUST 1993 J IN'd 1050F003 Tigard Albertson Existing Conditions I PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTIVITY Field observations in the vicinity of the site, during the weekday p.m. peak hour, showed very little pedestrian or bicycle activity within the study area. The site plan would, however, j facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movements to/from the site. I TRANSIT FACILITIES Mass transit is currently unavailable along the roadways adjacent to the site. The nearest bus service, provided by Tri-Met is located on Old Scholls Ferry Road, approximately 3 miles from ( the site. SAFETY An examination of the accidents on record with the State of Oregon revealed no roadway segments or intersections within the study area which demonstrate inherent safety problems. This examination of the most recent three years of accident data covered the period of time during which the State was widening and improving Old Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, I accidents which may otherwise have indicated possible facilities deficiencies must be dis- counted. Insufficient time has past, since the completion of the improvements, to provide statistically significant data for examination of the safety characteristics of this improved roadway. I TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS Given the nature of the application for a zone change to Community Commercial and the land use which would follow, both the weekday p.m. peak hour and the Saturday midday peak hour of operations on key roadway facilities within the study area were examined. This was done to verify the peak hour of operations for the roadway system providing service through the site vicinity. Traffic volumes were counted at the following key intersections during both time periods: • SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferrry Road • SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut Street • SW Walnut Street/SW 135th Avenue These manual traffic counts were conducted between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. during a midweek day and 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on a Saturday in June 1993. Figures 4 and 5 show the existing traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak and the Saturday midday peak hour, respectively. A comparison of these two Figures revealed that traffic volumes overall are higher during the weekday p.m. peak hour than the Saturday midday peak hour. i Kittelson & Associates. inc. in Aso ~~o`Z5 p'00W 8, yO`~ ~Sp t4 9~*syr"®. l p 4 LOS B 1 1 l05 B ! a oa~Q. o gyp. i ~ 3 c,G~C`'~s y4 • •`s N ~4- r ©~O y r v~ N FALCON DR. o DR• ~ g y MORNING ryto o k. 275 CS-, /15 St V,~ 1 00 yy ti CjIT E LOS A LOS A S, h; yT. WALNUT 1 1 WEEKpAY EXIST~PEAK HOURS AN 4 C) LOS FlG uME 4 ~ P•M• TRAFFIC Is t ERTSONS Y ,oso TIGARD A M ER STuD TRAFFIC 993 AIJG i i NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) X80 "ho 0 ao o d A-*o X95 LOS B %c,15 j~ LOS B j o w 1 a o cy- l ~ N FERR I ~ SG ~Q. < Z~. C-2 I F- O P *N mho 67* MORNING H~U DR. FALCON RASE OR. NO^ 10 5-X 41 r <5-► a 520 f ry^O~~ ~s SITE <5-14t ,5 I LOS A 'N t r n s4- LOS A t WALNUT ST. EXISTING SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE ~J TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AUGUST 1993 J lubuloU5 Tigard Albertsons Existing Conditions Since the weekday p.m. peak hour is the time period when the greatest total traffic demands are placed on the surrounding roadway system, this was the time period that was used in all i subsequent analyses. Experience has shown that while retail center traffic by itself may be as much as 50 percent heavier, later in the evening and on weekends, the combination of background and retail center generated traffic is typically at its maximum during the weekday evening peak hour period. Current Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a concept quantifying the degree of comfort experienced by drivers travelling through an intersection or a roadway segment. An explanation of this concept and how it is determined for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided in Appendix A. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described in Appendix A. Copies of the analysis forms may be obtained from the Consultant, under separate cover. In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst-case conditions, the peak 15 minute period flow rate during the weekday evening peak hour and the Saturday midday peak hour were used in the evaluation of all intersections levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average weekday or weekend. For the remainder of each weekday or weekend, traffic conditions within the study area are likely to be better than described in this report. Table 1 identifies the results of the LOS calculations for existing weekday evening conditions at all major intersections within the study area. Table 2 identifies the LOS results for the Saturday midday conditions for the same intersections. Figures 4 and 5 display turning volumes and LOS grades at the intersections, for weekday and Saturday conditions, respectively. As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, all major intersections within the study area operate at acceptable levels of service. Further, the volume-to-capacity ratio for each signalized intersection reveals ample ' residual capacity. A comparison of these results indicates that the weekday evening conditions are worse than the Saturday midday conditions Table 1 Existing Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service ' Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Reserve Delay we LOS Capacity LOS Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 15.0 0.71 B SW 135th Ave. Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 11.0 0.48 B SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd./ 440 A SW Walnut St. Walnut St./ 410 A SW 135th Ave. Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 19 9 f Tigard Albertson Existing Conditions Table 2 I Existing Saturday Midday Peak Flour Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Reserve Delay V/C LOS capacity LOS Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 11.9 0.56 B ! SW 135th Ave. w ` x : P s Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 9.3 0.37 B ~a sF, u N , r SW Scholls Ferry Rd.»~~ t Scholls Ferry Rd./ 545 A SW Walnut St.;; I Walnut St./ 615 A SW 135th Ave. 1 An initial examination of these two background conditions, combined with estimated site-generated trips for the proposed development, revealed that the combination of weekday p.m. peak hour conditions plus site-generated trips resulted in the most critical traffic volume conditions for the roadway system within the study area. Therefore, the weekday p.m, peak hour condition, which represents the worst-case scenario for traffic conditions within the study 1 . area, will be the condition examined for the remainder of this report. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Washington County's Transportation Plan includes the extension of SW Murray Boulevard to I the SW Walnut Street/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection. In addition, the realignment of the eastern end of SW Scholls Ferry Road to intersect SW Old Scholls Ferry Road at SW Davies Road is included. Neither project is a committed (funded) project, however both are expected I to be in place by the year 2010. Oregon Department of Transportation has a committed project to reconfigure the western intersection of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This project, scheduled to begin in 1994, will provide Old Scholls Ferry with uncontrolled through movements and stop sign controlled access as a "T" intersection for Scholls Ferry. I The City of Tigard, in its Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study, January 1990, indicates the Preferred Alternative includes the extension of SW Walnut Street from SW Scholls Ferry Road to a realigned intersection with SW 135th Avenue. In addition, connections I between SW Walnut and SW Gaarde Street and Bull Mountain Road are proposed. I r I f l Kittelcnn R AcenriatAc Inr I f l a~ 3 - } d f Ego ~P~•^~~. € n°y~'±~}x~"y11~ ~~4~~i+-S; i Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis f I Tigard A/bertsor..; Traffic Impact Analysis I Traffic Impact Analysis The weekday evening peak hour of traffic generated by the proposed development was analyzed as follows: • The placement and size of the proposed neighborhood shopping center were con- firmed. • The total number of future weekday evening peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development, were estimated for complete buildout of the site. • Background traffic volumes on each key road segment in the study area were estimated based on observed 1993 weekday evening peak hour conditions, established growth rates for the study area, and other developments known to be proposed and approved within the study area. • Two scenarios were developed to examine the impact of extending SW Walnut Street from SW Scholls Ferry Road, past the site, to SW 135th Avenue. I • Geographic, demographic, and regional market area information was to obtain an estimate of trip distribution patterns within the study area. • Site-generated traffic predicted for the weekday p.m. peak hour was assigned to the roadway network and added to near-term background traffic volumes. • Traffic demands on each roadway facility were analyzed to identify any capacity or level of service deficiencies under projected 1994 conditions. • Projections of traffic demands for the horizon year 2010 were obtained from Washing- ton County, combined with site-generated traffic, and analyzed to identify any capacity or level of service deficiencies. A detailed discussion of this methodology and the analysis results is contained in the remainder of this report. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Current site plans call for the construction of a neighborhood grocery-anchored retail center containing approximately 57,600 square feet of gross leasable floor area in three buildings. Initial construction activities are expected to begin in 1994. The proposed development site is currently vacant. Four public access drives are proposed for the development, as shown in Figure 2. Three public access drives connect to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The fourth driveway connects to SW Walnut Street. The most eastern access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. The remaining three driveways are designed as full access, with two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The most westerly driveway on SW Scholls Ferry Road is oriented both to the loading docks at the rear and to parking areas at the side of the main building. The access onto SW Walnut Street provides entry between the two 4,000 square foot pad buildings located at the northern end of the site. Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 16 I Tigard Albertsons Traffic Impact Analysis SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES l Current development plans call for approximately 53,600 square feet of gross leasable space (main building and one pad) to be dedicated to grocery-anchored and other retail uses. The final 4,000 square feet of gross leasable space is planned for a high-turnover, sit-down restaurant. t Estimates of p.m. peak hour driveway volumes for the proposed retail center and outlying buildings were developed from empirical observations at many similar-sized shopping centers located throughout the United States. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual titled Trip Generation, 5th Edition, and published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 3 shows the ITE code and land use description for the proposed site along with the trips generated by each use, both inbound and outbound. Also shown in Table 3 is the "pass-by reduction" assumed for the proposed site. A detailed description of pass-by trips is presented below. li Table 3 Trip Generation and Pass-By Reduction Size ITE Weekday P.M. Peak Flour Trips Land Use (Sq. Ft.) Code Total Inbound Outbound Shopping Center 53,600 820 440 215 225 High Turnover Sit-Down 55 Restaurant 4,000 832 125 70 SUBTOTAL 565 285 280 Less 35% Passby Reduction (200) (100) (100) NET NEW TRIPS 365 185 180 I Analysis of Shopping Trip Types In evaluating the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding street system, it is important to realize that for commercial developments, there are different types of vehicle trips, and that each type has a different effect on the street system. Generally, there are four I basic types of trips associated with any retail/commercial development: 1. Pass-by Trips - These retail trips already exist on the roadways that provide primary access to the new retail center and are being made for some purpose other than shopping at the proposed shopping center (for example, home-to-work). Pass-by or drop-in trips do not result in any increase in background traffic volumes within the study area. In fact, the only impact of these drop-in trips occurs at the site driveway(s), where they become turning movements into and out of the proposed retail center instead of through movements. Therefore, drop-in trips have no additional effect on the road system beyond the development's driveways. Tigard Albertsons Traffic Impact Analysis 2. Diverted Trips - These shopping trips are currently being drawn to other I commercial activities that compete with the proposed retail center, but are redi- rected to the new store when it opens. This redirection usually occurs because of an improvement in shopping convenience and proximity for the affected drivers. Diverted trips will result in an increase in traffic volumes within the immediate vicinity of the site, but will also result in a decrease in traffic volumes at other locations within the area (i.e., in areas where they used to shop). Therefore, this component of the total generated demand causes no change in the total number of vehicle trips within the area, even though it may add to the number of trips within the immediate vicinity of the site. Another side benefit is that by diverting, these trips often cause a net reduction in total vehicle miles traveled on the area-wide transportation system. This is a common sense observation, since it is difficult to imagine that many drivers would divert to a new retail center in order to travel a greater distance than they did previously. 3. Captured Trips - In the absence of the proposed retail center, these vehicle trips 1 would be made by the adjoining residences, neighborhoods, and businesses to more distant retail centers requiring travel on major arterials such as SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW Murray Boulevard. But because of the presence of the proposed retail center, these vehicle trips are captured and thereby prevented from traveling on the nearby arterial system. As an example, persons living in the adjoining residential developments referred to as Castle Hill and Rose Meadows will be able to make at least some of their shopping trips by walking or bicycle mode rather than by vehicle. The net effect is a reduction in the amount of traffic on the immediately adjoining arterial street system that offsets, to some degree, the additional traffic brought into the immediate area through the diverted trips described above. i 4. New Trips - These retail trips would not have been made without the existence of the proposed retail center. Therefore, this is the only trip type that results in an increase in the total number of vehicle trips made within the area. These are also the only vehicle trips that represent additional vehicle miles of travel on the area-wide transportation system. Although traffic engineers have long recognized the existence of these four different types of retail trips, until recently very little research has been conducted to determine what proportion of the total retail center-generated traffic demand can be attributed to each of these trip types. Because this issue is critical in determining the likely traffic impacts of the proposed center, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has conducted several independent investigations to better define the probable breakdown of site-generated vehicle trips among these categories. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published a summary of other similar investiga- tions conducted across the United States that is also useful to this analysis. Based on both the results of these special investigations as well as an engineering review of the transportation system serving the study site, it was assumed for the purposes of this traffic analysis that 35 percent of all weekday evening peak hour vehicle trips to the proposed retail center can reasonably be assumed to be pass-by trips already passing by the site on both SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. The remaining 65 percent are assumed to be representative of new and diverted trips within the study area. Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 'A Tigard Albertson Traffic Impact Analysis These assumptions are considered conservative, and it is likely the actual traffic impacts of the proposed retail center will be even less than indicated within the remainder of this report. WALNUT STREET SCENARIOS I Due to the rapidly developing nature of the study area, the roadway system near the site is experiencing significant improvements and expansion. As a result of this, the Consultant was requested to examine the impact of extending SW Walnut Street from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW 135th Avenue. This extension is currently a condition of development for Phases 2 and 3 of the Castle Hill development, immediately east of and adjacent to the proposed site. Under the near-term conditions, the proposed development was examined with and without Walnut extended. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT i The distribution of site-generated trips onto the roadway system within the study area was developed based on geographic, demographic, and anticipated market area information relative to the existing street circulation system. Pass-by or drop-in trips were assigned according to the existing volumes on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. As a result of these analyses, the estimated trip distribution pattern and assignment are shown in Figure 6 with Walnut extended and in Figure 7 without Walnut extended. I BACKGROUND VOLUME DEVELOPMENT The Bull Mountain area of Tigard has been identified as a rapid-growth area by the City of Tigard. Significant residential development has been applied for and approved for sites within the study area. Hence, to convert existing traffic volumes to near-term background volumes, 1 planned and proposed developments were identified and considered to be built out in the near-term. Figure 8 depicts identified developments within the area of the site and indicates the proposed development size and related roadway expansion. Existing traffic volumes were grown at an annual rate of two percent to match current growth patterns for the area. This growth factor was applied to volumes not impacted by area ! development, in order to consider a worst-case, rapid growth condition. Finally, area develop- ment and growth factored traffic volumes were combined to estimate 1994 background traffic volumes. Given, that Phases 2 and 3 of the Castle Hill development are dependent upon the developer extending SW Walnut Street from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW 135th Avenue, the following assumptions were made: • Walnut Extended - Full buildout of all phased development will occur, including any roadway expansion, in the near-term. • Without Walnut Extended - Full buildout will occur for all phased developments except i Phases 2 and 3 of the Castle Hill development, including any roadway expansion, in the near-term. Figure 9 shows the 1994 background traffic volumes assuming Walnut Street is extended. Figure 10 shows the 1994 background traffic volumes without Walnut Street extended and traffic volumes related to Phases 2 and 3 of the Castle Hill development. Kittelson 8 AssociatAc Inr: Yo i NORTH f sip. (NOT T SCALE) v ~ f W ~ W Ix ~ O f Lo 3 N Ln R~ 3 fRRR{ f H 5 O' _dl, SCNO`~ OHO 44.~~ in f S~ • vy L"t) in 3 yo P `~0 0 CORNING H111 DR. FA ON R15E DR. 109. ' ~lro f o~ s s s% ,o? ~-to ry Lo WAL UT i f iytih ~o ~ ~ d O 4 44. h NOTE: THIS DISTRIBUTION IS FOR tJ NEW TRIPS ONLY. NEGATIVE ~J NUMBERS REFLECT PASS-BY TRIPS. 4VOLUMES ROUNDED TO NEAREST f 5 TRIPS. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT: WITH WALNUT EXTENDED TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY V AUGUST 1993 a ~ 00 1 (NOT TOOSCALE) ! 6~"g ~ ~ 0^'14 Qr $ o D Oe 0 W 15~ O' a b\ t o ~ u) { o N th R~ RO 3 FER ~~~o SCN 4~~ a in 7'~ • ~pvh y tiG .~~IL t 3 j~ h y t 0~~' MORNING H11L DR. FALCON RISE DR- er ,o ~ . • ,ng 30 ! 4- t 15~ WALNUT r { t~ $r~ rj 'J1 Z h° f~ ~i°J y~ r 0.10 ,s s r; NOTE: THIS DISTRIBUTION IS FOR NEW TRIPS ONLY. NEGATIVE t J NUMBERS REFLECT PASS-BY TRIPS. 1 y~~..-J VOLUMES ROUNDED TO NEAREST 5 TRIPS. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT: WITHOUT WALNUT EXTENDED TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIG RE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 7 AUGUST 1993 Soso 00 I ~ NORTH (NOT TOO SCALE) ° W a > a ° D 3 RD _ ~ N EERY I ai SGNO~'~-`' < I OHO ~v~ = Lf) MORNING DR. FALCON RXSE DR. S k, GT . ST 0 s~ WALNUT ST. I I - LEGEND ® - -PROPOSED STREET O WOODSIDE VILLAGE: 65 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I O UNITS (SFU'S) WITH MORNING HILL DR. EXTENDED 5 CASTLE HILL: ZO PHASE 1: 61 SFU'S, COMPLETED PHASES 2 & 3: 126 SFU'S, WITH WALNUT EXTENDED O ROSE MEADOWS: 20 SFU'S BULL MOUNTAIN: ® PHASE 1: 152 SFU'S, COMPLETED PHASES 2-4: 177 SFU'S O KERRON'S CREST: PHASES 1-4: 153 SFU'S OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE ®(~O TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Q WA AUGUST 1993 v N 1050FOOB tNOj 10 ;CAE) O .t+ ~jtip- 1 N ~ X OG F - ~ SG~~ ~44cr _ a o OHO v M O-W i rd '`y7► ` to DR. 1 co DR' FALCON F 6 t ►IORNING 1 ' rr► r"ss A~yUr St as1'~° :n t ,moo WALNUT 1 1 Q~ ID TRAFFEXTENpED ' 994 BACKG TN WALNUT FiGUR~ VQLUMES. . W ,050 CaElr I %C MPpT'~ ASS G~ T1GAR C TRAFF 1993 l f_ NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) a X30 I Sao I a Lfij O` I } a a ~ 3 `C R~ f g to EERR 3 O~~,S (n SGN moo' f a O~~ tv~ s M ^o MORNING DR. FALCON RISE DR. f ~s s~ } 4 ~Y,4~NGT in an;; 'O Sr <S 'd; 4 ~ *'1- 355 f h <5.--► <5 c5~ ~5 `u t r' V-- s~ f WALNUT ST. I 1994 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES: WITHOUT WALNUT EXTENDED TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AUGUST 1993 O o of Tigard Albertson Traffic Impact Analysis I NEAR-TERM CONDITION INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Using the estimated trip distribution and assignment pattern shown in Figure 6 or 7, and combining them with the 1994 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 8 or 9, the projected I total traffic volumes at all key intersections within the study area, under weekday evening peak hour conditions, were developed. Figure 11 depicts these total traffic volumes with Walnut Street extended and Figure 12 shows the total traffic volumes occurring at the key intersections without Walnut extended. I Level of service analyses were then conducted for each of these intersections under 1994 l background and 1994 total traffic conditions, with and without Walnut Street extended. Table 4 I summarizes the LOS results for the 1994 background traffic volumes with and without Walnut s Street extended. Shown in Table 5 are the LOS results for the 1994 total traffic volumes with i and without Walnut Street extended. All key intersections within the study area are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the site fully built out, regardless of the Walnut Street extension. i I i i I Table 4 1994 Background P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service 1994 Background 1994 Background Signalized Without Walnut Extended With Walnut Extended Intersection Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 17.1 0.74 C 16.3 0.71 C SW 135th Ave. Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 9.5 0.59 B 11.4 0.61 B 1 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. I 1994 Background Without 1994 Background Walnut Extended With Walnut Extended Unsignalized Intersection Reserve Reserve I Capacity LOS Capacity LOS Scholls Ferry Rd./ 270 C 200 D I SW Walnut St. 1 Walnut St./SW 135th Ave. 690 A 690 A (South Leg) I Walnut St./SW 135th Ave. 440 A 3.. (North Leg) r Ki"o.lenn R tlccnript c Inr r 1 ~ ,b (NOT 7O SSE %vot ~;lp~m o ~-pS a N SG*rO~ 4~~~ C t 3 DR. • N FA ON t DR d i _;t . ORNING 4~\~Y L0$ ~3s c~ Qtv``'. orb ''r"so • • ~'~Lt'1?' a :r-s'~da WALNUT L05 A j to ~ r,. Its .r ls~ 1 ~ry l o""o-9.5 ` q t k'° ° cos r ..-ss q s o`' ' is v r~,.~-s v AL TRAFF1C 994TOTD LOS: VOLUME S AN EXTENDED FIGURE COQ II~► WITH WALNUT 1 o RTSCS v0 T1GAF CA MPACT Y ' auGSZ 199 f .9~y34 a R.4~0 NORTH 0 d' j ~~Sp (NOT TO SCALE) a p W ~QS ~ d d D vi StrN o~~ a g:~ x :2 s ORNING Hlu DR. F ON RISE DR. c%l °o~ a•~J o 0 : ' s,~ d Off' : <s-' .-<5 X %t f Mme LOS A es WALNU f r r j ss~ r~ q t, 1994 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS: WITHOUT WALNUT EXTENDED TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE P TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2 AUGUST 1993 NIN 1050 012 I Tigard Albertsons Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5 1994 Total P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service 1994 Total 1994 Total Signalized Without Walnut Extended With Walnut Extended Intersection Delay WC LOS Delay V/C LOS Old Scholis Ferry Rd./ 17.8 0.75 C 16.4 0.72 C 4 SW 135th Ave. Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 13.2 0.72 B 13.4 0.70 B SW Scholis Ferry Rd. 1994 Total 1994 Total Without Walnut Extended With Walnut Extended Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Reserve Capacity LOS Capacity LOS Scholls Ferry Rd./ 140 D 130 D SW Walnut St. Walnut St./SW 135th Ave. 615 A 615 A (South Leg) Walnut St./SW 135th Ave. 365 B (North Leg) East Site Entrance/ 475 A 510 A SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Center Site Entrance/ 130 D 145 D SW Scholls Ferry Rd. West Site Entrance/ 260 C 245 C SW Scholls Ferry Rd. North Site Entrance/ 845 A 620 A SW Walnut Street 1 INTERNAL CIRCULATION The key issues addressed in this report, with respect to internal circulation for the proposed development, include the following: 0 The major access driveways should provide clear and unobstructed access throats with sufficient depth to ensure that parking/exiting maneuvers will not create significant conflicts with drivers entering /exiting the site. l • The interaction between customers of the retail center and delivery or service vehicles should be reduced as much as possible. • The number of driveways provided to the site are adequate to disperse the site-gener- ated traffic such that substantial congestion is not likely to occur at any one driveway. 1 Based on a review of the current site plan, it is concluded that the proposed development adequately addresses each of these issues. The three primary access driveways have more than sufficient throat depth to accommodate predicted traffic volumes. Ki}}PiCnn R AcanriatAC /nr'~~ Tigard AlbeKsons Traffic Impact Analysis The delivery/service driveway located at the west end of the site, and aimed at the rear loading dock area of the main building, focuses these vehicles at this driveway and easily identifies the driveway as a secondary access point for customers of the development. Therefore, the interaction between customers and delivery vehicles will be minimal. The east site driveway onto SW Scholls Ferry Road is proposed as a right-in/right-out only access. This limitation of access at the east site driveway minimizes its impact on the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut Street intersection. The remaining two primary access drive- ways are proposed as full access driveways with sufficient distance from the intersection to store the predicted left-turn in movement. f The operational analysis indicates that an adequate level of service will be provided at all of the proposed site driveways. Further, several alternate ingress/egress routes are available, minimizing the potential for congestion developing ar any single driveway. Considering these factors, it is concluded that the number of driveways provided to the site will be adequate to ensure that substantial congestion will not occur at any single driveway location. 4 ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS i Site Distance Existing site distance at the proposed access driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road is in excess I of the required 400 feet in each direction. Site distance for the proposed driveway onto SW Walnut Street extends to the terminus of SW Walnut to the west and beyond the 250 feet required to the east. Left-Turn Storage The left-turn-in storage requirements for each of the three full access site driveways was examined for compliance. Based on project traffic volumes at each driveway, adequate storage can be provided to protect the left-turn movement without inhibiting access to other driveways or the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut Street intersection. i YEAR 2010 CONDITION INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Projections for year 2010 weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for key intersections within the study area were obtained from Washington County. These projections assumed several 1 roadway improvements including the SW Murray Boulevard extension to SW Walnut, SW Gaarde Street extension to SW Walnut, alignment of SW Scholls Ferry Road with SW Davies at SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, and the realignment of the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Old Scholls Ferry Road intersection. Figure 13 shows the future roadways, lane configurations, and traffic controls assumed by the County with these projections. The County's year 2010 traffic volume projections on SW Scholls Ferry Road were found to be lower than the estimates used for 1994 background traffic volume projections. Therefore, in order to examine a worst-case scenario, traffic volumes on SW Scholls Ferry Road for the year 2010 were assumed to be the same as those studied under 1994 background traffic conditions. Figure 14 represents these adjusted year 2010 traffic volume projections at key intersections within the study area. 1 Kittelson & Associates. Inc. ~O r A- ® / d NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) -A I ~ > r a o vi ( w Sc~O~~S 'i 1 ! M ti ORNING HILL OR• F ON RISE DR. O NG ~Q~ hG~ l I I WALNU eel I r Je t rt ~ f d j LEGEND I ~t ® SIGNAL + STOP SIGN YEAR 2010 ROADWAYS, LANE CONFIGURATIONS, AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Q z AUGUST 1993 ,usoFCn.c O p`L~ NORTH q0 Y r 2 (NOT TO SCALE) 61 Ao-la I M rN o 1 `p5 CS 6 ~ W Q Q~ O N ScN0~~,5 O~~ a S~ S QQ M f >J cn ORNING NIL OR. F ON R~gE R. f ^ry^qo 0 v ~`,?J 'Oy~~ a ssp C.1 0.•'S 'o O` sl LOS D Jp ` ~ Sw a ~cP WALNUT ,5p~ A a q, I .sf'~ t•J ~ LOS C .500 '~J y1b, J ~ d-► `f6 O~ ~o o y, 0 40 a t, a 0 ti f YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS TIGARD ALBERTSONS FIGURE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 141 AUGUST 1993 1050FU14 i Tigard Albertsons Traffic Impact Analysts Table 6 Year 2010 Peak Flour Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized ( intersection Reserve Delay V/C LOS Capacity LOS Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 12.1 0.49 B SW 135th Ave. Old Scholls Ferry Rd./ 12.4 0.49 B SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd./ 17.0 0.68 C SW Walnut St. Walnut St./ 135 D I SW 135th Ave. (South Leg) Walnut St./ 275 C I SW 135th Ave. (North Leg) East Site Entrance/ 510 A SW Scholls Ferry Rd. t ~ b I Central Site Entrance/ 145 D SW Scholls Ferry Rd. West Site Entrance/ 250 C SW Scholls Ferry Rd. North Site Entrance/ 200 D SW Walnut St. A summary of the LOS analyses conducted for each study area intersection is shown in Table 6. As can be seen in Figure 14 and Table 6, all key intersections within the study area are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the year 2010, based on these adjusted traffic volumes provided by the County. 1 Queuing and Turn-Lane Storage Analysis As part of this investigation, a queuing analysis was conducted using a 95-percent confidence level to determine the potential for traffic movements to back up from the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut Street to any of the site driveways. Note that a storage length of 25 feet per vehicle has been assumed. Table 7 displays the results of this examination. These results indicate there would be sufficient storage at the intersection in question, to facilitate proper operations without impacting the site driveways. Approximately once during the p.m. peak hour northbound through/right traffic on SW Scholls Ferry Road may queue past the East Site Entrance. Under this circumstance, vehicles turning right from the site drive would naturally store themselves, on site, until the main-street queue cleared. Kittelson & Associates. Inc. q9 4,. Tigard Albertson Traffic Impact Analysis Table 7 Queuing Analysis Intersection/Lane Group Queue Required Length Available Length (Veh./Lane) (Feet) (Feat) Scholls Ferry RdJSW Walnut StJSW Murray Blvd. Northbound Through/Right 7 175 200 Northbound Left 4 100 200 ' Eastbound Through/Right 8 200 1601 { { 6 Eastbound Left 150 165 j --T (1) Note: The East Site Entrance is proposed as a right-in/right-out only driveway and would therefore act as storage for the right-out movement, if the driveway were blocked. 1 j Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 33 r i Now i i y i S 1 i 7 ~1 1 t 6 1 + ] F7, 7 A R t}' ' f t~^z a` t, y x Y.s Rr ~r^., .:s., sC' Ilk .::alts t ~ t r "ty 7 aaf t ~.•i=v'~•(r; i`} 'Ptil itiN~-•a ~+ti 1~ X.~ Ellis ice ,yp [11 1- E I Section 5 ~ I Conclusions And KN%<~, [7 Recommendations 71 Tigard Albertson Conclusions And Recommendations I Conclusions And Recommendations Based on the results of the traffic analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed Tigard Albertsons can be developed while still maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service and safety within the surrounding transportation system. Further, the near-term condi- tions with or without the Walnut Street extension do not adversely impact the overall roadway systems' ability to facilitate the traffic generated by this proposed development. Specific conclusions include: • The weekday p.m. peak hour is the overall highest peak hour of the roadway system considered in this study area. • All key study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS B or better) during the critical weekday p.m. peak hour of operation. • Analysis of past traffic accident trends within the study area reveals there are no traffic safety problems that must be addressed by the developer or brought to the attention of the jurisdictions. • It is estimated that the proposed neighborhood grocery-anchored retail center in Tigard would generate approximately 565 vehicle trips during the critical p.m. peak hour, with 285 being inbound trips and 280 being outbound trips. Furthermore, it is estimated that at least 35 percent of these vehicle trips would come from vehicles already on the roadway system, as part of another trip. • The near-term condition, including full buildout and occupancy of surrounding devel- opments, will leave adequate capacity available on the roadway system to adequately facilitate this proposed development, regardless of whether or not SW Walnut Street is extended from Sw Scholls Ferry Road to SW 135th Avenue. • Based upon year 2010 traffic volume projections provided by Washington County, the proposed roadway system assumed by the County in their projections, would operate at acceptable levels of service without modification (LOS D or better), with this site developed as proposed. I I Kittelson & Associat©s, Inc. 35 i I I r ! sn ~t • ~f~.t~'~ Y~!t•~ r7~ Y ~'£J~"'h Y41~1~4C .a♦ . ~,;'~r <~rF R C^i ,dAl, 1 Y i I I Section 6 'Fir I I References I I Tigard Albertson References References i 1. Transportation Research Board: Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report #209, (1985). 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers: Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition, 1991. 3. Kittelson, Wayne K. and T. Keith Lawton, Evaluation of Shopping Center Trip Types, ITE Journal, February 1987. 4. City of Tigard, Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study, January 1990. i ii i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. i i i i { }f 1 - 3 I Y yzz ~n 7~ r4~ x. 'puRd'... - ev..se~.'zuiY 4.uet'S~'.t~:• wlw I ii h~r~ ''.'F Il" ~tC p'`r ~ •t'Vi ~5 r ~t u r 04- W~ M.tj ~q ~M~Y4 jT~q •i(„ f Appendix A I Level of Service y August1993 Tigard Albertson Appendix A Appendix A Level of Service Concept Level of Service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various LOS from A to F.al Table Al I Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street 1 Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely A favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. I Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good B progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for a LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from C fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehiclesstopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.9 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion D becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavaorable progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticable. Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit E of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurances. Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most F drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation. It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing causes to such high delay levels. I I I t al Most of the material in this appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (1985). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 39 August 1993 Tigard Albertsons Appendix A y Table A2 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) A 5 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 l C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 I E 40.1 to 60.0 1 F > 60.0 t.. Signalized Intersections The six LOS grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table Al. Additionally, Table A2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the ( minimum acceptable design standard. l I 1 1 I i L Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 40 i August 1993 Tigard Albertson Appendix A I Table A3 General Level of Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. • Occasionally there is more than one vehicla in the queue i C • Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue. • Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so. ) i D Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue. } • Divers feel quite restricted. j E • Represents a condition In which the demand Is near or equal to the probable maximum j number of vehicles that can be accomodated by the movement. S • There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue. ; • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. F • Forced flow. • Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. i Unsignalized intersections The calculation of LOS at an unsignalized intersection requires a different approach. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the LOS at two-way stop-controlled intersections. For these Unsignalized intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve Capacity" (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table A3. A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table A4. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41 I August 1993 Tigard Albertsons Appendix A I Table A4 I Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Capacity Expected Delay to Minor Street ( (pcph) Level of Service Traff ic 5 400 A Little or no delay 1 300-399 B Short traffic delays f 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays I 0-99 E Very long traffic delays * F i * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queueing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the LOS, capacity, and expected delay of all the individual movements has been calculated, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. An "E" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. I Past experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates this methodology is very conservative in that it tends to over-estimate the magnitude of any potential problems that might I exist. This is especially true for minor street left-turn movements. For example, the Highway Capacity Manual methodology does not take into account the effects of vehicle flow platoons that result from upstream signalization. Vehicles traveling in platoons tend to create greater gaps in the traffic flow that sometimes provide additional capacity for the side closest to the signal. Therefore, the results of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Generally, LOS E for the minor street left turn movement is considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 42 August 1993 Tigard Albertson Appendix A .All-Way Stop Controlled lnter"ctfonsez There is no accepted procedure for a level of service analysis of an all-way stop controlled intersection. The procedure used for determining LOS for a four-way or three-way stop controlled intersection differs from that described for unsignalized intersections. This meth- odology, which is being reviewed by the Unsignalized Intersection Committee of the Trans- portation Research Board, uses a capacity estimation method based on headways observed at all-way stop controlled intersection in the western United States. The procedure incorporate several important variables, including volumes distribution, number of lanes on each approach, and the percentage of right and left turns at the intersection. Intersection performance is measured in parameters similar to signalized intersections: delay, volume-to-capacity ratio, and Level of Service using a scale of "A" through "F". Approach delay on any given leg of the intersection is calculated using the following equation: D=exp (3.8x C Where- D = vehicle delay on a given approach (sec/veh) f SV = subject approach volume (vph) 1 C = calculated approach capacity (vph) exp = base of natural logarithms In this equation, the quantity S V/C is simply the volume-to-capacity ratio on the approach under consideration. Table A5 presents the LOS criteria for all-way stop controlled intersections. Table AS Level of Service Definitions (All-way Stop Controlled Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A <5 Seconds B 5 to 10 Seconds C 10 to 20 Seconds I D 20 to 30 Seconds l E 30 to 45 Seconds F > 45 Seconds 1 a2 Kyte, Michael, Estimating Capacity and Delay at an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection. University of Idaho, Department of Civil Engineering Research Report, September 1989. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 43 I f I- ' j S t Yom. ~ 1 I SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I Fro: K i KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING K610 S.W. ALDER. SUITE 700 PORTLAND. OR 97205 • (503) 2285230 FAX (503) 273.8169 I September 15, 1993 Project Number: 1050.00 i Randy Wooley PE Traffic Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall B1 Post Office Box 23397 Tigard OR 97223 RE: Supplemental Information for Traffic Impact Study, Tigard Albertson Is, dated August 1993 Dear Randy: After our review of the traffic impact study for the proposed Tigard Albertson's (Walnut/Scholls Ferry), we felt that there were three issues related to trip generation of the site and one issue related to access that may not have been addressed as explicitly as we would have liked. In that light, we are submitting this supplemental information for your consideration. The three issues related to trip generation discussed in this letter are: 1. Weekday A.M. peak hour versus P.M. peak hour trip generation for the site as proposed. 2. Weekday P.M. peak hour versus Saturday peak of generator trip generation for the site as proposed. 3. Weekday P.M. peak hour trip generation for the site as proposed versus for the site under existing zoning. The fourth issue is whether or not left-turn storage is required on Scholls Ferry Road for access into the site. These issues are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Versus P.M. Peak Hour In our original scoping discussions, your staff indicated that they wanted to have us examine a.m. peak hour conditions as well as p.m. peak hour conditions. Our August 1993 report only examines p.m. peak hour conditions because the expected trip generation from this site is significantly lower in the a.m. peak. l BELLEVUE PORTLAND SACRAMENTO I Mr. Randy Wooley, P.E. September 15, 1993 Page 2 Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic difference in trip generation for this site as proposed. The 1 expected p.m. peak hour trip generation is 565 trips while the a.m. peak hour trip generation is only 175 trips. Given this disparity, it was logical to only examine the p.m. peak hour future conditions with the proposed development. I ~ i P.M. Peak Hour Versus Saturday Peak of Generator It is expected that the site would generate more trips on a Saturday during its peak of generation than during the p.m. "street peak" hour. However, these new trips are being added to a transportation system which is not as highly utilized during that Saturday peak of generation than during the p.m. peak hour. To illustrate this point, the new trip generation for the site during j its peak of generation is added to the existing total entering traffic volumes in the study area and compared with similar volumes for the p.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, according to Table 3 of our report, a total of 365 new trips will be added to the roadway system in tine study area. During the peak hour of generation for the site on a Saturday, a total of 435 new trips are predicted to be added, an increase of 70 trips. I Figure 2 illustrates how that 70 trip increase relates to the total entering volumes at the study area intersections. During the p.m. peak hour, the site is expected to generate 365 new trips which will be added to the existing 6,950 trips passing through the study area intersections for a total of 7,345 trips. On a Saturday, during the peak hour of the generator, the site is expected l to generate 435 new trips which will be added to the existing 5,010 trips passing through the study area intersections for a total of 5,445 trips. This value is lower than the p.m. peak hour total by 1,900 trips. Hence, our study of p.m. peak hour conditions represent the worst case for the examination of the likely traffic impacts for this center. Existing Versus Proposed Zoning The existing zoning of the 8-acre site is MF25 which permit multi-family residential development at a maximum density of 25 units per acre. The proposed zoning is Community Commercial (CC). In making a comparison between the existing and the proposed zoning, consideration must be given to a 6.93-acre parcel of land across Walnut from the site; that property is currently zoned for Neighborhood Commercial (NC). One of the requirements of the CC designation is that no other commercial zoning would be permitted within a 1/4-mile radius of the site. If the proposed zoning was to take place, it is reasonable to assume that the NC designation on that 6.93-acre parcel would revert to MF25 (to replace the housing i opportunities "lost" with the designation of the subject property). I 1 Mr. Randy Wooley, P.E. September 15, 1993 Page 3 Bearing in mind that assumption, we have compared the p.m. peak hour trip generation of the site and the adjacent property under existing and proposed zoning scenarios, namely: 1. Existing: 6.93 acres of shopping center at 20% site coverage (60,375 gross leasable building area) and 8 acres of apartments at 25 units to the acre (200 units) 2. Proposed: 6.93 acres of apartments at 25 units to the acre (173 units) and the proposed Albertson's shopping center. Figure 3 presents the comparison of p.m. peak hour trip generation and illustrates the components of that trip generation. As is shown in that figure, the current proposal would generate 175 more p.m. peak hour trips than what the current zoning would permit, however, our traffic impact study clearly indicates that this additional trip making can be accommodated within the proposed transportation system. Left-Turn Storage Analysis We conducted, but neglected to report, our analysis of the requirements for left-turn storage on Scholls Ferry Road. Our warrant analysis was conducted using the techniques described in Aspects of Traffic Control Devices published by the Highway Research Board'. This technique utilizes the arrival rates of left-turning vehicles, the capacity of the left-turning movement given the opposing flow, and the prevailing traffic flow speed. Based on our analysis, left turn storage is warranted at the main access to the site under 1994 traffic conditions. According to that analysis, approximately 125 feet of left-turn storage is required for the main access to the site. The approximately 400 feet of distance available for left-tum storage for both the eastbound left at Murray-Walnut, which has a requirement for 150 feet of storage under 2010 conditions, and the inbound left turn to the site (the 125 feet of storage previously mentioned) will be adequate to accomodate back-to-back left turn storage. 'M.D. Hartnelink. "Volume Warrants for Left-'rum Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersections". Aspects of Traffic Control Devices. Highway Research Record 211. Highway Research Board. Washington, D.C. 1967. 1 1 Mr. Randy Wooley, P.E. September 15, 1093 Page 4 I trust that this additional information will be of assistance in malting your determination of findings. Please call me or Mark Vandehey if you have and, questions. Your truly, I Evan Dust Transportation Planner I Attachments: Figures 1, 2 and 3 CC: Norm Schoen, MPR,.Inc. f John Shonkwiler H APROIFILE\10i0\915-RW.LTR 4 1 l . I i 0 1 Figure 1 Trip Generation A.M. Peak Versus P.M. Peak Legend High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant,; 600 Shopping Center 500 t 400 Q % 300 WAO t " 200 100 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak AWPNIWM i ' t i Figure Trip Generation P.M. Peak Versus Saturday P-_--- - Legend j ❑ Shopping Center (New Trips) Existing Background (Total Entering Trips) 8000 - - 7000 - Q 6000 - - ~ 5000 i5 a) 4000 3000 2000 1000 -1 - - Saturday 0 P.M. _-----Peak rte- . ► ► tjol Geneva °T r p~ oSed - - - V:jgure zoning Vet-sus PC°~'-- _ _ - - E,Xisfiin~_----- _ l ^Ix, 700 9 600 5 G '4~w1•"i' ~ 'c ~ 4 y~~Sq 0 500~ 0 400 t a 300 100 proposed _ fx,.~gpwrn 0 EXISt►ng ~egend 0 Residential - J f ~7 Nlulti-Fam Y _ - ghoppin9 Center PR£LINI~tAi~'Y PA~'7I7I~i PLAT isrr s6i 1rnC►t ; ~ ei'cT€~ lr Tif Barr tip 5~ a 2 SQtfl# PA11~ T 157, Y~1 T~iR$ - 9GYitT CMG AE7i1E / ~ ti ~S G = '~'X+~a0" ~ ~ ~ _ ~1T i?` k7974'S6~E ~ 4? 43' 4~A kIF 25t l~aIER ^i ~ a = t7.t~6" L = 2fi.Z€~' ~"J6 24.4' ~ ~ 3~' ~ ' Q = PI"I~'34' 4 . x:00" ~R 30 61 S25 s2'3~'tM ~ . PAF?GI~L t iz0.13" ao' awe QO ACRES 1 t4~fY£NT f ~ ~ $ & 4~ ' n P. §46 A / ' NIO'4~'7~'A' Z 93.04" ' e 3. i~P - ~ (?0' SANE TAa k ~ III ESMI ssj , ~ 1 o = ?9 ~B'S2" . (I I `7~~9pw, R • 100.00" . I I sd`• ~ .W 3J3 46' S - ?08. t4' . ~ ~ VV S1a.42 5T 02'0956'W ~I 205.80' ` ~ ' r, I ~ 15' SANfTARY PARCEL 2 I ~ ~ esMT I ~ ~ 3.95 ACRES st2'4a'3o"E I 76.3T h I N8838't0"w 1p~ ti ~,W „ ` I Jp ~ 105.00' bg'A5 5 I I ~ ~ 1~ tiS6~A2 5 I .A6 p0 S)~,q• 519'47'44"E I y9"~~p• S~, 60.02' - I /Y 110.00' w I N88'S8'14"W I PGE 41.49' ~ I EASEM£N7 v 588'45'54"W N I B. 483 h o P. 451 ~ Z I a I`- 15` 3 ' I PIPE LINE SCALE 1" = 100' v AUGUST. 12, 1993 I ESMT ~ I B. 377 20' I P. 71 o PIPE LINE I y ESMT _ _ _ B. 377 ~ ' 125.04' P. 71 'wD8 9.11. NU(BU9 AvDNUS ' P.O. BOY BOwO N8858'14"W 4-2949-D3-Ol PORr[IwND. ORBCON 97280 ' 2949PR01.DWG (soa) ue-wss Pl.yruf! ~'f~'^°I' 9~lbn `LOtli~p A~cWl~elan 12~14;9G HGEPIDA6N0.•S t OF Mw_.rw.^nr .-*.xw'n2r!mA~%PX .+b%..H^~"a. .....~+.~tii+~F ~n.~~~~1Y.9v5`= ....:.'rli .w::S•,7,:. ~s i.Y X^ )r+,: y::_ i'w __u.~ IF THIS DOCUMENT IS LESS Tffif(f IIIII(f IIIIIII Illhill III III III I(1 7~1 f(1 rIII III III III III III III III III III III III III IIIIIII Ih I I I f I I I I I I I I I I' ~ ' LEGIBLE THAN THIS NOTATION, II I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I I I III MA 1 2 3 ~ ~ RCH 4 S 6 I 3 IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF' ? g 9 10 11 12 ~ " ~.99T ' .fi„ . HE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. • ~ E Z SZ LZ 9Z Z YZ EZ Z IZ OZ 6I BI LT 9i SI I~ 6T ET ZT TT I 6 8 L 9 S ti £ Z~~I Imrun ~ IIII IIII IIII (IIIIIII IIII IIII (IIIIIII Illl~lllhllll~llll IIII~IIII IIII~IIII IIII~IIII I luluu (IIIIIII uullul (IIIIIII Illllllu IIIIIII III( ulll uullm cull uu~ul~ II(~ ~lllllJ IIIIIWII 1 .J~ .,,y`71. : i 1 V ~C P x S , ~ ~ 9 ~L `iS.~ , y +k ~ yR., tP ~•Kµ$~ t r 1F ~t ~ P ~E , NO 42949 Ot D DMC Rlf 2949GRO1.OWG %REF: 2919517E 2919TOPD ~~r~, yam, 3 ' y 1 y p ~ + y ■ 1 j m~.,~+wv+~n.+~vm+•~amevr+.vmeawn.carmammxias.xumu.u..+xmew~+m e.: ~,n .ne<w~.a+.AFi4A RAW,„~.Awe.M.~,N.~.ll.~.~4+16.4aR„N~. R 3-~" r,, : a ~ ~ d ~ _J~,t i ° I I 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a , , g D 7I'r; a T 1 , ;f. ? 1 ~ ~ _ W„ 4, t ~ ~ A~ d ~ , am~q 'V Ss~ / \ ~ w 1q~rA apn i 1I { - ) ` ~ ~ `pD ~ N~ ~ ~ f may„ i l O z tF s`AA 1 ~i f I 11 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ' _ 1 ~ ~ ~1 1 I ~ I ~~yy \1 1~ / . 4V~ ' 1 I . ~ a~ F / ~ ~ 11,1 , ~ i ~ ~ ¢f ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ' I ~ ~I' o - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'III ' a~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 's1 i ~ 1 i~ ~ c{ ~ fir, t ''q i H r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i~ - m .M ~ _ ~ 1~ ~ w,~ ~ ~ I , t, Yw. a.:~,. ~ b ~ ~ ~~i I- _ A' ~$Q ~ ~ , I ti, /.~rj i r= ,1 ~ _ ~ ; j.~-~ ~ .-.i a _ ~ ~ wax:va~wmwm.,;~mE,~r.,:maa,m<,x: ..n.n.au~.aw~""~ f ,a'~ _ ~ lrw.. Y~. f. s. ~ ;~r~,~~r _ - i~ n t ~^.i vi S o o m Nm M~~~~~~~j in +NbMMIWM ~ . , Z ~4y m ~ uo ALBERTSONS ~~AAnlli ►NNNI«1M cwPewlr~n ~;p:,. ' ~ ~~m ~ ~ TIGARD, OREGON Mcl~itrctun ~ NIA wr hrw ol, a i f~ , _ £y ,(~~~S n y~ r. i, r ~ u ' j~~'~ry23E7e~Ci93u-3~~M.~~.:ia~'.::-::-'~3¢`.Lit:. ~i>.~:Y t..+o.~+:✓'~~k. _ . ~ _ ~ ~ «t'% 8"ac# w, .{p, -y,. autv+4 ~ w~ tk.?~r~~.lm ~'v ~ y~,~:. - a:,; ,4 u~ ~ .~r. , I a ~ ~ ' ~t ~ I ~ ~ i v • M M ~ ~ ~ ~D a~ r: r ? • i ~ ~ ~ ! , ~ 1'RI - ~ ~ ~ ; ! ✓ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~I . 1~ N 1 It ~ 3 i I )W yLlq f'Y r i 9y~H ~ ~ I i ~ ~ YY { .~~i~ ~ ~S~NE t"s`~1 ~ i~ i ZZ~qq y ~ I I ~ ~ :HCH! { ' ~,CC ..........a,..-.....r. ' ~ oz~ i II 1 i' , q+~...,. w., ~ , ( ~ y~~ ..xrf V',..rv:' M ~R c, m aaMM. r f~ M q'~'MIT A r ~q a p I k . - , - ~ t ~ rr _ ~ t m ~ ~ v ~ Y. r ; _ ~ _ a a~ a k M/ s s S~ ~ m ~ y, ~ - ~ ..m,,.m , ~ ~ O " f~ '.{fir`" ~ , ~ ~ fir' ~ a~~" ~ ~ ~ .!>t ~yyn ~ ~y, .~~...~i~..«~~,.i.m.~ss y~* s+wa~wws,aMmas~//s. a , • ,d , fi .S rf r y ~ { v qAj 2 ~ ~ ~ z ~~RYNWe+UOWYi {1+ ' ° s~ ~ ~ b ~ ALBERTSONS ~~~'~NJIIrItL Rt+#~ M i r ~ r T~ ORELiON IrrW ! a. Mww~ M + ,q5 xr~r a A t ~ 9W BCFIOLLB FEirHI ND •YL WILMR tt1![T ~ i e n trn a ~~'t~ G .N r { ~h ry., Jd~s1 p ~,.y r ? ati i{ ~..„p ril~P rq t•v!✓; Siia k••.{.. l'lw i. >,i, ,3~- ti .<b'• ~ ~y: ~~-7 ,r.,: ~ {R?• `7 4 ` ».3, ri~%>~'~F.~,f~m'~S~:t~i:?c1,~.' :tl~l~t~r,;:';a.er ~ ~r ~ + ~ ~~NN14W+~.~ ~-u~. d „ i. _~x a~ ~y Rr, k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K \ Rr _ K M r y . - ~ - b 41I 9 i } - ~ . ii R r, ~ - - - F ~ ~ ~s~ L _ ~ ~ - ~ ` ~ ~'C'11QNi T~IAl~iii GtM1~R I ~ ~ B e d g h P r I 4YAd3 { B #P~R - p ~ F B 6 j I n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ u ~ ~ E ° f _ - _ i . I~ I ~y " f . 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1a w e ~ I ~ r I I f ._....1 1 i ".e ~~~pp I 1 OIVY~P1i I 9~IOYV10~ CORf~ER ELEMENT g i; Z N Wa e W W Gl \ Q N PROJECT SIGN. I DAIS: JC9 N0. 95-540 PlOIiED: ~W PLOP SCPIE: ' OflANN qY: AKO SNEEt PRE: ''~~:lp ' agLHITEC1LgAL ' SHEET N0. nago A-2,~ ' ..t~~' ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS scaLL: NonE ~ . 12114/G3 AGENdI N0. 5 F 4 OF 6 Si ~ I ~ ~IP TI119 VGCUNBN4 IB L888 1 I t 11 I I I I .,I ~ LeGIBLe TIAN 41118 AtlTAT30N } I1 I I rl I I~ 6 it MAROH 30 j... 1994 ~ ~ ) - - - ~ ~ 4~ I P IT 36 RU6 40 4118 nVAL3TT OP 1..~~;q r~ R,,~~ TIIB ORIGINAL OOLUKLM. ?i:. " i L I I I I i f I B ouoihoioidioioo6oiiioliiuoidmilmVmiolmm~oioo6mimlimiodiolau6miodiaiouliioaulliiioVmoibolls _m ,,.uiuiuii t; f' Y~~ A ~ tt - _---i g +y f^ _ s. £ _ ~ ~isF, ~~r^^ d i ~ ~^3 iYaeet rues 9~ 4~tG ~ - - - t _ } ~ ~ } ~ _ ~t~reaE r • , g - _ ~ 4 _ , e i 1 f s . i rL~rt~e ~~Ilrre - , _ a . f ; y , € _f 4t 3~ ~ ~ .a a - 4 '----5 \ r-'t - - a i :tar r ~s,-€3r~ dr.~a \ ~ \ - i g P ~ i€ { Slt6er~r M ~ X ~ P F s 4 ~ ,w,. ~~K ~ E h ~ s ~ ~tfiEO ! /R_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i \ ~ ~ ~ f~ ' tf9' l I ~i a 7 o- c. 1 a le r " a fm- € s f+a - - _ _ ~ " 4 a ~ r . , u ~ _ . _ ~ t y Y L ^ _ F, ao,0oa sF. , ~ ~4 ~ t ' ~ I• tri ~ ° PAD BLO E _ , ~ - 4,000 SF. irre Plantmq tt*•r.l~ r PISk5lrian Accrhs ~p ~ ~ ~ "getativeSlopePtanting t . , s@ 3, is ~ r, g ~ ~ ~ ~I Z l~ ~ •a' II~ u i !n ~ Typical Evergreen Screen ~ '.~..,D~: ~ Hi Ivlm Me,epreer lnrw lierel EGEN ~ SUGGES ED PL PLANT L D ! ~ w ° x Stree Trees u' O.G N r T ANT LIST R w. „,1 ` m --III F°I _I :;7 -'K.~~, a F ~ . Ste Tree Shrub Planting Detail ~ ~ ~ ^ „~:r":~; t~~,`~ww„k PEFEn 70 SPECIFICATIONS ~ / - ` ""'•"K Lrn """~'N` ' Conifer /Screening Tree ,w r.7ctu;'x~;v~. N,F,T7 ~ Park;ng Tree o„ ~ :%oj ~ . 2°t'7,ygMBLGN m, , Specimen Tree o.~ r . ~g .pF7np:b 'aSGZf~',U \ ~ / nneYrMe~roq.ut , ~ JOB ~ ~:ecs) ~ , ; ^°'^~0 O Accent Tree aorTEO; t 1:`• j - .:I'. ~.i ,"m rte" IAN vLOrxAtE: li6U1L1SJL29 o bo ,,,H,~, , ~ Shrubs & Croundcovers ~0 9C Groundcover Planting Detail / m'd h~ REFEP TO SPECIFICATIONS iVjel s"..,+..i..+,i.+".u" s"°'""' Iao, nrtc UNtISCAPE RWr ~ Lawn ' NOTE: Landscape To Be Irrigated Wilh An Autanatic Underground Irrigation System. s1EEr Na r 1>~ A-3. ]-"P•°- gGE110N L PRCLIMINARY LANDSCAPE .PLAN • of n eCA1C 1'.70'-0• . ~ ~ ( I I ~ ~G,' IP TIIIS E000NENP IS LE69 p Ip qrt~"r~~yn tl tit I I ii r I liliit I ' • LSGIOLS TITAN TIIIS NOTATION I 1 I r ~ 4 6 8 ~ 111 MARCH i 30 1994: I ' A' IT IS OU6 TO TIIE pUALITY OP. " C~ x. I, THE ORIOLNAL DOCUNSNT. 6 L i t 1 1 I[ 1 1 6 L S 1 ' II~ I I II~ - IIII IIUNIIIVuIIIIIIIUIuIIIlu6m 1111 6 111 11ullunldllullldull llllolllmVlllllldl~l lluul llulull Idlu1114111 IIII~III Ulllllll hull W~ ulllllllu ~ I IIWIII IIOiNII` ~ i I -~!~crac s~A~c f • ~ ~ e€ } _ _ _ _ ~ a~~r `Y .g -R I _ _ ~ - r. I sa,rK ~ Z~~ FN W (D Q m ' OAIE JOB N0. PLOTTED: PLOT SCALE OBANN BY: WEST SHaT nT~E: E%RRIIXt ELEV. ' SHEET N0. 2/19/95 AGENLPlro. S ~ nGMD A-1.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ~ I ~ ~ - IP THI9 DOpNxeNTI L¢69 ~~ry~} fps ~r r.~,,.--..~. _ t.'.'? ' ' I 1 ~ Leclece rxnx'nils xorxxxox ' I' I ~ 4 I ~ 11 MARCH 30?.i 1994 I ~ I IT I9 DUE TD TN6 ppALITY OP ry-. w ' r TNe DRIDINAL 00411x¢NT. iioioilooio~oiuuVoiiiollmooliopuVoimihoioi6ioioloiimiluuuolouii~aiioiVoigidioiouli iuiWoioiVmmilu i uVoomuii r ~ J ~ Y ~ ~ ~ Q ~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2 ~ 2 t~ x ~ ~ ~ yy ~ ~ ~ ~ tr ~ a ~ ~ ~ e A d: 9 G A A Q \,fr - A - . ~ - X. f. ~ - - ~ ,r _ - ~ - - - _r , b~_s y F?r?^ n i 1. F r ~ f r... D ~ r Y e E 6 _,__...j I A B L ERTSONS MARKET TI A G RD f E A 4 i _ ~ •15 1 1 t , . ~ , . > B ~ B t , I~ ~Y^,~' ~ hflr i ' ' - b¢R,~'Sbns ~ Exhibft • Used darin hearlnp... r unbti~ .,ra h m No. g12 14 93 ~ ~ Agenda e b / / ~ PUBL.IC HEARING (Quael,ludldN) 12/i4/-93 AGENDf, #5 ~ CPA B~OOP/~DN ~'~014/CAP 1 _ of s ~ 9O•pOG2/ML,P 900018 IF TAIS DOCUMENT IS LESS Cry LEGIBLE THAN THIS NOTATIO N, 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11. 1 MARCH 30 1994 n, , :IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. w.ae E 9Z LZ 9Z Z Z Z I OZ 6I 9I LI 9I 4 i~t i ZI i I 6 L 9 4 4 ~ E Z Touue ii ii imluu ou uu im im uuhi i i uolim l m ~ , ~ iiliu ~ luu iloii ~ uluu m i~iiluu iiii6ii uhoi milli mom iu~m iml w~ - - - ~ _ s~a~lr'+AC - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - _ ~ ~ t -s. , } - _ I rtyrxac,~le~sa~y .,~.........r~,..4~ ~OCIC ~iJSTER s~ Vt}EO ,~r: p - ~ ~ ~ . , ~ , ~ _ Ns ~ ~~A< ►T- ~1UI.T1 - FAiw11iLY I „a ALBERTSONS € _ 40 000 SF. I ~ P - - r Vj ; AD BL ~ ,/~ry~pwF F lrM~' St~ 1 I Prdrst Acs - E - ~ ~ tativp Slope Plantlr~ I 0 I iypical Ever~een Saeen • i' ~ I Stree Trt!es O.C 1 A PROJECT FOR A CO MMERCIAL PROJECT AT ~ ~ A T ~ LBER SONS, ING S.W. SCROLLS FERRY AND S.W. WALNUT 250 PARKCENTER BLVD. ~ i ~ i BOISE, IDAHO 83726 NOVEMBER 1983, AKO 5490ASE 0 30 90 N N M~~oC P~~~~o~~ R Architecture nw iwe~,q sur dtll .yea l~yY~ q~~f ldiasrvsl Planning wn~acamum 'aOMIG~IMm N0.0 9R. M9/17 Rapne~s suveesruo i^./14/S. LGZHaF p5 ^y.~+YO~-001GFBBf~". 4 ltc. r.u...... _ .~4.,=.. .,.r r. 1P 1HI8 LaCWePf IB L888 ~ ..'j o ~ ~ 46GIBLB rNAN TIlIB NOTATION• MAflCH SC 1994 - ~ ~ I . A 3T IB'OVL tU 3H8 OVALITY OP YAK ' . TNe~O.RI~INAt WCUM9NY'. ~ t. 'miioilii~iiilluglpiuo4gl.o~i oViupliioq~iiimlmiouVgllpil~p"oliNiii~i~pmilmipii ~Woio~iiud I ~ U r i - ~t:. : II , . _ _ - ~..:~a Ww._, - _ _ NTH WEST SOUTH - A hR0)ECT I:OR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT ALR~RTSbN5, ING S. ' W, SCROLLS FERRY AND S.W. WALNUT 25U pARKCENTEk ~1~. $015; TDAliO X3736 NOVF&IBER 7993, ~IfO i 549RA9E I _ . b ~ 24 I o ~III~~oG p~ . ~ . ~~b~9o~5 --!p"in~s A'rchkedlUre '~+~~'~N'ase.T vmnaa.'a'swia IPlanriing wintls7iw• ' ~Bibit .9nle4NinnblMtineb- 1:/19/93' HEENOP"q5 ~ R~(tIhl~Mb.R'•1?t~11f99.~ , ' ~Ri~:` I ~ ' _ 2H,.~e~0NIU1N9L E000N&!T. C t.. _ _ _ ` III~IIIIIIIEm Nd,_ . ' IIII IIIII~), I II IIII lp~l9 VIII III II Illl~ltll tlll~l IIII~III ~Iltl tll1@ III I IIII qt I C~~ ' . ~ ~ U~ r 1. _ 3 , , _w, ..u ~ - ; . f 1, , s.„_. ~ _ ~ ~ ti _ - - _ _ _ .y a ~ _ 4ik saaM~ oMa ~MI~N►I+eilt lire _ , - _ . _ ~ - - !f. t. r , ~ t , , 1~ ~ ~ _y i^ _ ~ . e- . PRQ CT 5lG~I 1- -X = _ , _ t - ~ - _ e - _ a _ - _ ~ • 4 _ ~ f - ! '+r'PIFr/ ~ t E A~ ~ ~*+~+FtA1k' - • ~Y ? t } . ~ fCW Wl~ti AreA ~ _ I MtM' 91iN WE~ ~ ! Wl . 1l~1~RAi~ IEMIIIE CORNER ELEMENT ~ ,,Iwm~b G~ . SECTION THROUGH CORNER A PROJECT FOR A C ME L P OM RCIA ROJECT AT r ALBERTSONS ING S.W. SCROLLS FERRY AND S. . W W ALNUT 250 PARKCENTER BLVD. BOISE, IDAHO 83726 f NOYFMRER 1993, AKO 5499A9E en Aamsw M~~o~ P~~~~~~ P~.~~.~ R~ ' Architecture suo sw.mvgs~et - way ~ Plennin8 way s?.sye. Ae9,M I M ~1~; , ~ w:'• IT t8 DI19 1p TN6 W:Iifr 1110 OP tt"3LC OPI(:[MAL OOl1Y~rP. r• "ogl~l~io~m~iiiglpiiiido ml~ iVoimdiii mViimdiiili~lualg~ oVol dmi~lrir~i'.; p i~ u~ u .x - _ ~ ~ u.. _ - `;f i l ~ , ~ ~ - - r f ~ } ~ il rt'~. Ea~MEQFliE~N~11l,ME. ~ " , _ ~ ~ " _ ~ ~ .R t ~rM"_- r ~ r~ _ r f/,a~ t ~ ~ ~ - ~ r r.t . TO►Qf fi~EITA>i ►IORIINxW s~E~f ~ F SITE SECTION • NORTH /SOUTH VIEW A PROJECT FOR A COMMERCIAL PRO ECT AT 1 ALBERTSONS INC. S.W. SCHOLLS FERRY AND S.W. WALNUT ,250 PARKCENTER BLVD. BOISE, IDAHO 83726 ' ~ ~ NOVFMBE0.1993, AKO 599BASE . en aaA:w • PalwbiYCapvetlon M~~oG P ~~o~~ R~~~ ' ~ rvcnlcflcwre ~~~:..T ` Planning wvmsmo ' albAair• Apirgi nem xo. a • tytgp PUBt1C NENtlxO 1 ~p~A ~~M~^~t>NBR p-0afa/CUP ~ 12%19/SJ ~NGENdP MS "mow 5 OF 5 ,W:..tm..~, .,,.__N.ud. . .,r A ~ t a,,.,, LipIPLS 4HAN 'fNIN NpTAi]ON~ ~ 4 MARC ~ 30 I'994 ~ , ~ . ~ k , . IP ]i We TO THB CW.LITY OP ~.~C THE ORIG AL IN NOQINBN} r i _ .v.. _ i i I I [ ~1 ~1~ i i::. T P iwiin~iiiiin~~ii~iplilVOupiim~i~miiiglpiilpiiigmdp ou~ii ip~uliloiiiiu q i it uw~ m~uu mew , i , j,, ' , ~ . ; ~n - r . 3 t 1t TSp11S ~1--_- p,I,gER Lpp~ENT pI'P'CI3 IpN FOR SITE DEZTE ZpNING CAT ANp .1v 's PLAN CpMM I, t C ERCIA pIVSSERsll , TS FOR COW01, AM's,wMEN P -Memos .i 1 9 S a ALBERTSONS°, INC. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT • 3 ~t i S ri ~l i f i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NATURE OF APPLICATION 1. Current Zoning and Planning Designations 2. Proposed Changes in Zoning and Planning Designations 3. Other Application Approvals Requested 4. Application Procedure Followed B. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR QUASI-.JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS 1. Inconsistency 2. Mistake 3. Change in the Neighborhood or Community C. COMPLIANCE WITH SCALE AND LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1. Scale 2. Locational Criteria 3. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access 4. Access Needs of Parcels and Uses 5. Unique Features 6 Erterior Lighting, Noise and Activities D. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS { AND GUIDELINES 1. Permitted Uses - CDC18.61.030(A)(2) 2. Conditional Uses - CDC18.61.040(A) 3. Special Limitations on Uses - CDC18.61.045 4. Dimensional Requirements - CDC18.61.050 4. Site and Building Guidelines - CDC18.61.055(A) 5. Site and Building Design Standards - CDC18.61.055(B) , E. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE - OTHER PROVISIONS 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2. Other Applicable Code Provisions F. STATEH7DE PLANNING GOALSAND GUIDELINES 1. Goal No. I - Citizen Involvement 2. Goal No. 2 - Land Use Planning 3. Goal No. 3 - Agricultural Lands 4. Goal No. 4 - Forest Lands 5. Goal No. 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources 6. Goal No. 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 7 Goal No. 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards 8. Goal No. 8 - Recreational Needs 9. Goal No. 9 - Economy of the State f ` 10. Goal No. 10 - Housing IL Goal No. 11 - Public Facilities and Services 12. Goal No. 12 - Transportation 13. Goal No. 13 - Energy Conservation 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization G. EXHIBITS A Planned Development Plan and Order B Housing Density Shortfall Calculation C Site Development Plan and Elevations D Affidavits of Posting Notice and Mailing E Neighborhood Meeting Minutes F Neighborhood Meeting Sign-Up Sheet G Photographs of Signs H Preapplication Conference Staff Notes I City Staff Report on Possible "CC" Sites J Washington County Code on "Neighborhood Commercial" K Population Survey and Map L Landscape Plan M Area Zoning and Density in Trade Area N Area Zoning and Population West of Site O ATEP Traffic Report P K Meson Traffic Report .s ALBERTSONS', INC. r~ APPLICANT°S STATEMENT l A. NATURE OF APPLICATION 1. Current Zoning and Planning Designations The subject property, comprising approximately 14.93 acres, is the northern 8.00 acres of Tax Lot 200 (Castle Hill Subdivision Plat Lot 65) and 6.93 acres of Tax Lot 100 (Castle Hill Subdivision Plat Lot 66) in map reference 21E-4B. These two parcels are located, respectively, in the southeast quadrant and the northeast quadrant of the intersection of (Old) Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon. The parcel to the south (Tax Lot 200) is designated Medium Density Residential (R-25(PD)J with a planned development overlay imposed as part of an overall 54.7 acre parcel approved by the Tigard Planning Commission on May 11, 1990. The parcel to the north (Tax Lot 100) is designated Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). Since annexation of the area into the city on July 12, 1983, the "Neighborhood Commercial" zone has shifted locations within the planned development area. However, in 1986 the landowner proposed locating the C-N designation to a parcel of approximately 5 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the future extension of Walnut Street. The City Council approved this proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of this designated C-N parcel would be modified to conform in size with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard (designated Walnut Street at this location). See Exhibit "A". The approved Planned Development identifies the location of Murray Boulevard extension and the boundary locations for the C-N parcel (shown on Exhibit "A" as "Commercial Parcel- Parcel C"). The total actual acreage measured for this approved C-N oarcel after S.W. Walnut Street was constructed is 6.93 acres. 2. Proposed Changes in Zoning and Planning Designations Albertsons', Inc., proposes exchanging zoning locations upon the 14.93 acre property by: (1) moving the commercial zoning and planning from the northeast corner of Scholls and Walnut extension to the southeast corner of Scholls and Walnut extension; and (2) moving the multi-family zoning and planning from the southeast corner of Scholls and Walnut extension to the northeast corner of Schools and Walnut extension. The applicant then proposes to change "Neighborhood Commercial" (C-N) zoning and planning designations to "Community Commercial" (CC) and expand the 6.93 acres of commercial to an 8-acre parcel. This would effectively reduce the multi-family designated units by 1.07 acres or 25.68 units (see Exhibit "B" for this calculation 1 - APPLICATION STATEMENT of housing density change), and create an 8 acre "Community Commercial" site. 3. Other Application AQprovals Reauested In addition to the above Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Code Map changes requested, Albertsons', Inc., also is applying for approval of: (a) Site Development Plan - for a shopping center complex to include a 40,000 square foot grocery store and a mixture of other commercial uses for an additional 17,550 square feet (total commercial square footage is 57,550). See further description of the "other" commercial uses hereinafter. (b) Grading Plan (c) Landscaping Plan (d) Sign Permits (e) Conditional Use - approval for vehicle fuel sales (f) Twenty-four (24) Sour Operation of the Grocery Store Use - as an.allowed condition of approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Code Map change. The "other" commercial uses contemplated for the shopping center are identified in alternative choice listings for each of the site's structures. With the exception of the grocery store use, the Applicant is requesting an approval of a list of potential uses for each structure because we are unable to obtain legal commitments from the market for these "other" uses until the Community Commercial zoning and Site Development Plan are approved. In addition, a list of allowed uses is appropriate due to the concept that this community shopping center is intended to last for a very long duration. However, individual commercial tenants within the complex may come and go as their leases terminate. It should not be necessary to re-approve the entire shopping center complex each time a tenant is replaced (for example, a shoe repair shop replacing a watch repair shop). The following are the principle intended uses requested by site structure location (see "Site Plan" shown Exhibit "C"): (1) Structure "C" - A 4,000 square foot restaurant (eating and drinking facilities). (2) structure "D" - A 4,000 square foot gas station (conditional use for a vehicle fuel sales). 2 - APPLICATION STATEMENT (3) Structure 'NE" - A 5,950 square foot video store (general retail sales). (4) Structure "F" - A 40,000 square foot grocery store (food and beverage retail sales). As alternative commercial uses, the applicant seeks approval for structures "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" the following uses: (a) Animal sales and services (grooming) (b) Consumer repair services (c) Convenience sales and personal services (d) Children's day care (e) Eating and drinking facilities (g) General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet) (h) General offices (medical, dental, financial, insurance, real estate, professional and administrative services) (i) Indoor participant sports and recreation 4. Application Procedure Followed (a) prior Application On August 15, 1991, Albertsons', Inc., filed an application for a comprehensive plan and zone change for the same property to seek approval for a 50,000 square foot grocery store and a 35,000 square foot drug store. The application sought a change to general commercial zoning and, in the alternative, requested that the city council adopt a new intermediate commercial zone - "Community Commercial". Albertsons' application was stayed pending the city council's agreement to adopt a new "Community Commercial" designation. After numerous public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council unanimously adopted the new "Community Commercial" comprehensive plan and zoning code text on December 15, 1992. Albertsons', Inc., in effect, has modified its previous application to now seek placement of the new "Community Commercial" plan and zoning designation upon their property. (b) )IPO-CIT Meetings 3 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Throughout 1991 and 1992, Albertsons', Inc., met with NPO-7 and CP04 B-Bull Mt. on numerous occasions to discuss its ~j development plans and cooperate on suggesting draft language for the new "Community Commercial" zoning text. After the city adopted the new "Community Commercial" plan and zoning text, Albertsons', Inc., preliminarily revised its development plans for a "CC" shopping center and presented them to NPO-7 on January 6, 1993. Members of the neighborhood association made several suggestions for the design of the shopping center, including: incorporating a sloping partial roof on the grocery store structure, modifying the grocery store facade so that it does not have a "flat wall" appearance, provide brick entry walls for the parking lot and brick appointments in the building designs, and dividing a single structure into three or more structures. All of these suggestion were ultimately incorporated by Albertsons', Inc., in a subsequently revised development plan. The members of the NPO-7 also suggested that the shopping center uses might include a grocery store, gas station, restaurant, laundry and children's day care. The first three of these potential uses have been incorporated in the design plan, and the remaining two uses are still being sought for a commitment in the market place. The revised plan was reviewed with the neighbors on February 3, 1993, resulting in favorable responses. Prior to this application, NPO-7 was disbanded by the city and a new CIT has not yet been formed. In accordance with the city's new ordinances for notices, the property was posted and a written notice was mailed to neighboring properties within 300 feet of the property (which is in excess of the ordinance requirements of 250 feet) to identify a meeting with the neighbors for review of the development proposal. The neighborhood meeting was held in the evening on July 30, 1993. Exhibit "D" is a copy of the notice and affidavits. The minutes of the neighborhood meeting and a list of interested persons are included in Exhibit "E" and "F" respectively. In addition, the property has been posted with signs since the beginning of 1993 that identify the site as being under consideration for development of a grocery store and commercial shops. See Exhibit "G". (c) Preapplication Conference Albertsons', Inc., has had two preapplication conferences with the city staff for development of this site. The first meeting was held on July 11, 1991 and was prior to the application requesting that the city adopt comprehensive plan and zoning code text to create a new commercial zone - "Community Commercial." The second conference was held on March 23, 1993 and covered changing the comprehensive plan and zoning mapping for the site to "Community Commercial" with the corresponding 4 - APPLICATION STATEMENT site development plan of a.moderate size shopping center. The preapplication conference staff notes are attached as Exhibit B. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS The application satisfies the standards of CDC18.22.040. The requirement that the application is consistent with the applicable planned policies and code provisions is addressed in Section "C'", "D" and "E" of this Application. Compliance with statewide planning goals is addressed in Section "E" of this Application. The last standard requires evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community, or in a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map. 1. Inconsistency On December 15, 1992, the City Council recognized that the city had a need for medium-size shopping centers tailored to residential needs, and adopted the comprehensive plan and zoning designations of "Community Commercial". Presently, there are no areas within the city that are actually zoned "Community Commercial" to satisfy this need. In 1992 and during the City Council's review of the proposed "Community Commercial" designation, the city staff completed an inventory of all sites within and outside the city that would potentially satisfy the locational criteria for "Community Commercial" zoning. The city staff issued a report dated August 26, 1992 that found: "Exhibit C shows that only two sites within the city limits and two sites within the city's future urban growth area meet both the surrounding area dwelling unit density standard and the previously proposed intersection locational standard (the standard actually adopted by the City Council on December 15, 1992)." The city staff report included a map showing the location of these four sites (the circled stars on page 3 of page Exhibit "I"). The Applicant's site is one of the two sites within the city that is identified as satisfying the density and locational criteria. The residential density within one-half mile of the Applicant's site was inventoried by the city staff and was found to be 15 dwelling units per acre. See page 3 of Exhibit "I". The Applicant's site has the highest residential density setting as compared to all of the other three potentially qualifying sites. As a result, the current comprehensive plan and zoning code ,r maps are inconsistent with their text as no sites within the city 5 - APPLICATION STATEMENT are designated "Community Commercial". The Applicant's site was and is the prime site within and without the city for a change to r. "Community Commercial". t 2. Mistake Another justification for the comprehensive plan and zoning changes is that there are a series of mistakes with the present designations and provisions of the comprehensive plan and zoning code. (a) Mistake in Originally Designating site as $'Neighborhood Commercial" When the original property (approximately 63 acres) was under Washington county jurisdiction, it was zoned for residential with a "Neighborhood Commercial" center. The property was annexed on June 12, 1983, with the city merely adopting its own "Neighborhood Commercial" designation to replace the Washington County designation. However, the Washington County "Neighborhood Commercial" is not the same as the city's "Neighborhood Commercial". The city's zone is far more restrictive and intended for a much smaller market or trade area. In essence, a 6.93-acre site (identifiable after construction of the Murray Boulevard-Walnut Street extension) is far too large a parcel to have been considered under the city's "Neighborhood Commercial" zone. First, the Washington County "Neighborhood Commercial" zone (NC) allows food markets with a gross floor area of up to 50,000 square feet (see Wash. Co. Code §311-4.5 attached as Exhibit "J"). In contrast, the City's "Neighborhood Commercial" zone (C- N) allowed food and beverage retail sales [CDC18.060.030(2)(E)] in a building with a maximum gross floor area of only 4,000 square feet. Essentially, when the property was annexed, the city mistakenly down-zoned the use of the property for food market purposes by 92 percent. This downgrading of the zoning is in direct contrast with the city's policy of adopting city zoning for the newly annexed property that fairly matches the former zoning in the county. Second, the Washington County 'INC" district was intended to include "medium-sized shopping and service facilities" for the "shopping and service needs of the immediate urban neighborhood" (Wash. Co. Code §311-1). The County's 'INC" zone fit the subject property as the immediate 14,300-populace neighborhood needed a modern grocery complex and a five to eight acre site was consistent for that purpose. In contrast, the city's "C-N" limits a neighborhood commercial site to a trade area of only 5,000 people and a maximum area of only two acres [City Comprehensive Plan, Vol. II, 6 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Ch. 12.2.1.A(1) and (2)]. A consistent carry-over of the Washington County zoning would have required that the city apply t its "General Commercial" designation for the property. It may be argued that the city's "General Commercial" was too broad a scope for the site back in 1983, in which case, the city mistakenly zoned the property "C-N" when it should have adopted a new zone (such as "Community Commercial") to allow a zone midway between the too-restrictive "C-N" and too broad "C-G" zones. The city has now adopted such a "Community Commercial" zone and the original mistake can now be properly rectified. (b) Mistake in Site Size for a "C-N" Zone Because of the mistake in labelling this site as "C-N" after annexation, we now have a 6.93-acre parcel designated for Neighborhood Commercial. Unresolvably inconsistent with the "C- N" designation for this site, the City Comprehensive Plan provides that the maximum site-size shall not exceed two acres for a "C-N" district. Prior to transferring the "C-N" site to its present location, the five-acre site was already 250 percent larger than the Comprehensive Plan allows. After the Murray Boulevard-Walnut Street extension was established resulting in a 6.93-acre "C-N" site, the subject property is now approximately 350 percent larger than the Comprehensive Plan allows. Again, the proper conclusion is that the "C-N" zone for this site must be changed to the new commercial zone "Community Commercial". i.{ (c) Mistake in Designated Trade Area As previously identified, the city's "C-N" district assumes a maximum site of two acres with a maximum growth floor area of a store of 4,000 square feet. This small-scale use would serve a neighborhood area of one-half mile radius or a maximum of 5,000 people. However, the subject property is 6.93 acres of "C-N", and this size of commercial property parcel would support a trade area of a one and one-half mile radius and approximately 14,300 people (see Exhibit "R"). The neighborhood surrounding the subject property (and trade area) consists of approximately 14,300 people and is projected to increase to 19,200 people by 1995. See Exhibit "R". The trade area for the Albertsons' site effectively comprises an area roughly the northwest quadrant of the city where the only commercial designation in the city's comprehensive plan and zoning is the applicant's "C-N" district. Under both the applicant's and the city's Comprehensive Plan trade area calculations, a single two-acre "C-N" site for this entire trade area would be entirely too small and clearly a "mistake". The applicant's proposed eight-acre Community Commercial designation is consistent with the parcel size needed to serve 7 - APPLICATION STATEMENT this 14,300 populace market area. See Exhibit "R". Combined with proper landscaping, access and parking, the minimum site needed for this modern grocery store complex is eight acres. See the site development plan attached as Exhibits ''C" and "L". In summation, the zoning and comprehensive planning for the subject property needs to be changed to correct mistakes and inconsistencies with the plan and code. The developmental history of this property is replete with failed attempts at making the "mistake" work under current zoning. These attempts have all failed because you cannot fit the proverbial round peg of an over-sized community commercial need into the small square hole of a "C-N" district. The mistake must be rectified. The Applicant's proposed changes are realistic and consistent with the intent, policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Code. In contrast, the city cannot simply reduce the present "C- N" zone to a two-acre site. First, there are not enough other "C-N" sites in this area to serve the neighborhood market. To be consistent with the Plan, the city would still need to re-zone another six acres of residential to commercial to serve this northwestern one-quarter of the city. Second, the downzoning of this property from approximately seven acres to two acres of commercial would interfere with the development and investment- backed expectations of the property owners; and, thereby causing a "taking" under both the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. Compensation for the "taken" property would have to be paid by the city to the landowners-investors. See, First English Evangelical Lutheran church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S.Ct. 2378 ~i (1987) ; Lucas v. So. Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). 3. Change in the Neighborhood or Community Since annexation of the property into the city, sewers have been extended adjacent to the site on the east and to nearby areas in the west ("football area" designated on Exhibit I'M"). The neighborhood market or trade area has substantially filled-in to the west and north on previously vacant land. Exhibit "M" identifies housing densities projected for these areas. Maximum residential densities allowed by zoning within a one-half mile radius of the site could potentially provide for 9,600 units or approximately 25,000 people (2.67 people per household). Within one and one-half mile to the west of the Applicant's site (western hemisphere of the trade area located generally in the City of Beaverton), actual "build out" densities have resulted in 6,331 dwellings with a projected population of over 16,900. See Exhibit "N". As a result, the existing trade areas at the time of annexation was limited to the eastern side of the subject property. In the very near future, the subject property will be surrounded by a trade area covering the northwestern one-fourth of Tigard and a part of southeastern Beaverton. The trade area 8 - APPLICATION STATEMENT involves 14,300 people as of 1993 and is projected to grow to over 19,000 by 1995, thereby establishing a need for a modern- A .0 grocery store complex to serve this substantially formed market. See Exhibit "R". C. COMPLIANCE WITH SCALE AND LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL t. Scale (a) Trade Area Comprehensive Plan Vol. II, Ch. 12.2.1.4 sets forth the criteria for locating Community Commercial zones within the city. The trade area is to be "surrounding residential neighborhoods generally within a 1 and lk mile radius." Exhibit "K" identifies the trade area within the 1 and li mile radius of the site. Within this trade area there are approximately 14,300 residences with a projection of 19,200 by 1995. This market study conducted by Albertsons', Inc., based upon U.S. census track and Population Research and Census Center figures, identifies population densities that substantially exceed the 8-9,000 population range generally associated with grocery store and medium-size shopping center trade areas. The build out of the area immediately west of the site (1 and 1h mile hemisphere) has resulted in 6,331 dwelling units with a projected population of 16,904 (Exhibit nNn). The Albertsons' property is bordered by industrial uses (Morris Brothers Portland Metropolitan Division Quarry, Bonneville Power Administration power lines and a petroleum pipeline valve station) to the west. Scholls Ferry Road separates the property from vacant lands in Beaverton designated for high density residential. The Greenfield Village Apartments and the Cotswald subdivisions (zoned "R-2511) are within the city and located to the north. The Morning Hill and Castle Hill subdivisions are within the city and located to the east. The area to the south is mostly developed as an unincorporated single-family residential district of Washington County. (b) Trade Area Density The surrounding area potential residential density within one-half mile of the Albertsons', Inc. site to be designated Community Commercial averages 15 dwelling units per acre (exceeding the "CC" zoning minimum requirement of eight units per acre by 187 percent). This one-half mile area surrounding the Albertsons' site was previously inventoried by the city's planning staff and the results were set forth in a report to the City Council dated August 26, 1992 (Exhibit "I"). The maximum residential densities allowed by zoning within one-half mile of the site is then projected from Exhibit "I" calculations to establish a potential for 9,600 units or approximately 25,000 9 - APPLICATION STATEMENT people. In addition, the city's staff study found that the Albertsons' site was one of only two sites within the city that would "meet both the surrounding area dwelling unit density standard and the ("Community Commercial") intersection locational standard." The Albertsons' site has the highest surrounding area density of all the potential sites considered. This factor is particular significant as the new "CC" zone is intended to serve "within a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential frequent users" who might also access the site by "walking or bicycling". The Albertsons' site and development plan, along with public streets, integrates pedestrian and bicycle access paths with surrounding multi-family and single- family developments and planned areas. (c) Gross Floor Area Albertsons', Inc. is proposing a shopping center complex comprising a 40,000 square foot grocery store (food sales), a 5,950 square foot general retail store (primary choice of use being a video store), a 4,000 square foot restaurant (as the primary choice of use), a 4,000 square foot gas station as a conditional use (as primary choice of use) and two other commercial units of 1,200 square feet and 2,400 square feet for uses allowed in the "CC" zone. All of these uses total 57,550 square feet of commercial uses specifically allowed under the "CC" zone, and fall midway in the allowed gross floor area range of 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. With the exception of the t specifically allowed grocery store and general retail sales uses, all other commercial uses shall, individually, not exceed the 5,000 square foot maximum set forth in the "CC" zone. 2. Locational Criteria (a) Spacing and Location The proposed "CC" development site is limited to only one quadrant of a street intersection - the southeast quadrant of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street. The Albertsons' site is over one-half mile from all other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. One possible exception is a small site designated "CV" and located on "new" Scholls Ferry Road in the City of Beaverton. This site is over one-half mile distance from the Albertsons' site by public roadway, but is just less than one-half mile to the north by a straight line measurement. This "CV" site is developed for the business entitled "National Self Storage" at 11430 S.W. Murray Boulevard, Beaverton. The National Self Storage use, however, is a non-retail storage unit business, and as such is allowed to be located within one-half mile of the proposed Albertsons' "CC" zone under Plan Policy 12.2.1.4.b.(1)(b). The Murray Hill { 10 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Marketplace (City of Beaverton "Neighborhood Service" district) is a retail commercial site located approximately three-fourths of a mile away and the Greenway Town Center (General Commercial) is approximately one and one-fourth mile away. Therefore, the Albertsons' site satisfies all the spacing and locational requirements for adoption of a "CC" zone. (b) Access (1) Traffic Analysis The proposed community commercial district shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Albertsons', Inc. has had two separate traffic studies made to support this conclusion which is, in each study, 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. The first traffic study was prepared by Associated Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc. (ATEP), and evaluated the site for traffic generation related to "General Commercial" - allowing more intensive uses than are included in the "Community Commercial" zone. See Exhibit "o". In effect, this traffic analysis found that, even if the Albertsons' site was developed with the more intensive uses allowed in the "General Commercial" zone, the Albertsons' shopping center would not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. For purposes of analysis, the ATEP report utilizes traffic volumes and characteristics on a "worse case" or maximum vehicles possible basis. The report concludes that, with full development of the Albertsons' property as "General Commercial", all existing and proposed intersections will operate well within city standards (Level of Service "D" or better). Service Level "D" is generally utilized as a standard for assessing urban traffic operations and design of urban roadways. It is also the adopted policy of the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) to maintain a level of service "D" on its major roadways within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary during peak periods of operation. At Level "D", there generally is at least 10 percent more capacity for traffic within the design characteristics of the roadway. As previously stated, the ATEP traffic analysis was completed using data for a "worse case" application. It is reasonable to assume that full development of the subject site as "General Commercial" will not reach the "worse case" impact on roadway systems. Traffic generation for the subject property will not add 100 percent new traffic to the existing vehicular trips along Scholls Ferry Road, 135th Street and Murray Boulevard-Walnut extension. Many of the projected trips would be 11 - APPLICATION STATEMENT for uses that are more intensive and not allowed in the "Community Commercial" zoning. In addition, many of the customers to the Albertsons' shopping center would be "drop-ins" t already on these roads for other reasons, such as commuting to and from work or shopping. Many of these vehicular trips will also involve customers changing their shopping habits and choosing Albertsons' grocery store or adjacent retail commercial services over other such business located within one and a half to five miles from this area. The second traffic study was prepared by Kittleson and Associates, and is attached to this statement as Exhibit e1p11. The Kittleson traffic report is based upon an evaluation of the "worse case" or most traffic generation possible for "Community Commercial" uses at the Albertsons' site. As previously noted, the potential adverse traffic impacts for "Community Commercial" uses are actually less than for "General Commercial" uses. Thus, the Kittleson traffic report finds that the proposed Albertsons' "Community Commercial" shopping center unequivocally will not create any traffic congestion or traffic safety problems at the site or in the surrounding traffic network. (2) Location Along an Arterial or a Major Collector Street The Albertsons' site is bordered on the west by Scholls Ferry Road which was previously designated as an arterial in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. On or about August 18, 1992, the city redesignated this portion of Scholls Ferry Road as a "Major Collector" (CPA 92-0004 and 20A 92-0002). The Murray Boulevard extension is designated as a "Major Collector" and is partially completed by the construction of a segment now named S.W. Walnut Street. Thus, the location of the Albertsons' "Community Commercial" zoning at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut satisfies the code requirement that the site 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". The city planning staff previously studied the Albertsons' site for compliance with this requirement and found that it satisfied all the intersection locational standards. See Exhibit "I". (c) Site Characteristics CP12.2.1.4.b.(3) requires that a "Community Commercial" site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. The Albertsons' site is eight acres in size and satisfies this requirement. (d) Impact Assessment (1) Scale and Intensity 12 - APPLICATION STATEMENT CP12.2.1.4.b.(4)(a) requires that the scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. The site development plan, elevations and landscape plan, have been submitted contemporaneously with, and as a part of, this comprehensive plan and zone change application. These documents establish that the scale and intensity of the proposed "CC" shopping center is compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with provisions of the city's plan. See Exhibit "C" (Site Development Plan and elevations) and "L" (Landscape Plan). The size of the buildings within the 57,550 square foot gross floor area shopping center have been divided into three isolated structures. These include two 4,000 square foot structures located at the northwest and northeast portions of the site, and the main structure at the southern end.of the site. See Exhibit "C". This division of structures is in response to the neighborhood request for the commercial building to be separated where possible and the remaining large building to be visually divided by design to prevent a "flat wall" appearance. The Albertsons' main building (grocery store, video store and structures "A" and "B") have also been designed to comply with this neighborhood compatibility characteristic. The facade of the main building gives an "upscale" appearance with formal columns, extension outward structures, recessed structures, and sloped roofline accents at both the first and second story levels. This gives the appearance that the main building is a multi-structure complex with units similar in size to residential structures in the area. The facade surfaces will consist of brick block, painted exterior plaster, painted metal coping and concrete roofing shingles - the types of materials requested by the neighborhood residents as compatible with existing residential structure designs. Residential structures in the surrounding area are both multi-family and single-family buildings generally two-and-a-half stories in height. The Albertsons' main building will have the appearance of a height compatible with this two-and-a-half story character. The proposed buildings "C" and "D" will be smaller or one-and-a-half stories in height. This provides a progression of height from lower in the front of the site (north end) to higher at the rear end of the site. In addition, the Albertsons' site will be excavated and graded to effectively lower the main building. The resulting elevations should create a view from Northview Drive (the residential dwelling area immediately to the east) that exposes only about 10 to 15 feet of building structure. Planned landscaping along Northview Drive should then adequately buffer the shopping center from the single family residential neighbors. Brick border fencing and brick accents in the facades of all 13 - APPLICATIO14 STATEMENT the structures will be used at the proposed shopping center. Although there does not appear to be a consistent common architectural feature among developments in the neighborhood area, the use of brick and brick blocks for buildings and now entrance or border fencing is common. The developments of Greenfield Village, Brittany Square and Castle Hill provide some examples of this feature. Neighborhood citizens also expressed desire that the rooflines of the commercial buildings have at least partial sloped roof accents rather than a simple flat roof appearance. Albertsons' proposed elevation design for the main building in Exhibit "C" illustrates the sloped roof accents to be incorporated in the building designs. That will avoid a "simple flat roof appearance." Roof mounted equipment will be screened by the sloped roof facade and/or by covering equipment with compatible housing structures. See Exhibit "C" elevations. The Albertsons' shopping center design will also reduce commercial activity impacts upon neighboring residential uses. The loading dock and truck turning area are hidden behind the main building at the southern end of the property. The loading dock area is buffered toward the south by a steep slope and a landscaping area ranging in depth between 40 and 85 feet. Access to the loading area is by the entrance at the southwestern corner of the property, and truck movement will be screened by the steep slope to the south and the main building to the north. Placing the primary vehicular accesses to the shopping center along Scholls Ferry Road and one secondary access off S.W. Walnut Street will substantially assist in reducing adverse traffic impacts to neighboring residential dwellings. All accesses are from a major collector street or streets that are designed to accommodate such traffic flows. No vehicular accesses are provided from Northview Drive (a residential street to the east). However a pedestrian and bicycle access way is provided to Northview Drive on the east and the residential developments to the south. This preclusion of vehicular access to Northview Drive and alternative provision of pedestrian- bicycle accesses was specifically requested by the surrounding neighborhood landowners. (2) Development Characteristics CP12.2.1.4.b.(4)(b) provides that "it is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage and landscaping." The Albertsons' application effectively, seeks to develop the entire 8-acre community commercial site as one unit. Common accesses along Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street provide entry to all commercial uses within the "CC" site. Similarly, the traffic circulation system for the site serves all the proposed commercial uses and is r 14 - APPLICATION STATEME14T 71 compatible with the nearby.traffic network. See Exhibit "C11, 11011 and 11P11. The landscaping plan serves the entire site and coordinates buffering for all uses. See Exhibit 01L11. Signage permit designs are included with the Albertsons' application. The materials, style and design characteristics are to be common for all commercial use signage in the shopping center. Signage identifying the shopping center name shall be located at the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street with similar entrance signs for the accesses for these two streets. Individual commercial uses will be identified by building or wall signs and, where appropriate, a pylon or monument signs. Common design elements will be required in building designs. These features are incorporated in the main grocery store structure as illustrated in Exhibit "C11, and further described in Section D of this application. (3) Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access CP12.2.1.4.b.(4)(c) provides that convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to the site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. The Albertsons' site development plan provides pedestrian and bicycle access for neighboring property to the east (pathway connection to Northview Drive) and to the south (pathway connection along Northview Drive and Scholls Ferry Road). Connection to the western and northern neighborhood uses are by sidewalk access along S.W. Walnut Street. ` The access to the street system is designed to maintain privacy to adjacent non-commercial uses. The pathway eastward connects to the intersection midway up the hill along Northview Drive. (4) access Needs of Parcels and Uses CP12.2.1.4.b.(4)(d) requires coordination of access needs of individual parcels and uses. The Site Development Plan only provides for common or coordinated accesses to the shopping center. Although portions of the site may be partitioned in separate ownerships, no individual parcels will have independent access. (5) Unique Features CP12.2.1.4.b.(4)(e) provides that unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. This site does not have any of the usual "unique features" contemplated by this provision. There are no tree groves or special vegetation, no stream corridors, wetlands or protected wildlife habitats. The single distinctive feature of the site is a long medium 15 - APPLICATION STATEMENT slope that causes the property to generally face northwest or at the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street. A little farther uphill from the site and running generally parallel to the southern border of the site is the B.P.A. and P.G.E. power line easements, including a power line tower. Albertsons', Inc., proposes to incorporate these features to help buffer the commercial uses from the single family residential dwellings to the south and east. The site will be excavated to effectively lower the main building (grocery store complex) and place it near the southern boundary. As a result, only the top 10 to 15 feet of the main building should be visible from the east. From the south, the top of the building should be approximately the same height as the elevation of the southern property line for the site. The approximately 20 foot landscaping strip proposed along Northview Drive, should significantly reduce visibility of the upper portion of the commercial buildings. Similarly, to the south a steep slope will be cut behind the main building resulting in a landscaped buffer area varying in depth from 20 feet to 85 feet. The overall design should successfully buffer nearby residential uses on the east and south from view of the main commercial building, most of the other two smaller commercial buildings and the parking lot area. (6) Exterior Lighting, Noise and Activities CP12.2.1.4.b. (4) (f) provides that exterior lighting, noise and activities associated with the Community Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with city codes. The Site Development Plan achieves this control. The excavation for and placement of the structures into the slope area assure that the new residential areas to the east and south will be buffered and their views of the valley unobstructed. The resulting rise to the Northview Drive and the steep excavated slope at the south end of the site will obscure most or the building's visibility and noise generation. In addition, landscaping border on this higher ground (ranging from 20 feet to 85 feet in width) will provide additional screening to filter out light, noise and activities. The parking lot lights and building exterior lights shall be shielded to provide only light in commercial use areas. Traffic accesses are along Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street (major collectors) and away from developed and currently developing residential areas. As a result, the community commercial uses at the site will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses. D. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES ® 16 - APPLICATION STATEMENT 1. Permitted Uses - CDC18.61.030(A)(2) (a) Primary Choice Uses Albertsons', Inc., is requesting the following permitted uses under the "CC" zone as the primary choice uses for the following structures: (1) Structure for" - a 40,000 square foot grocery store for Albertsons', Inc., [food and beverage retail sales under CDC18.61.030(A)(2)(f)]. (2) Structure "E" - a 5,950 square foot video store for Block Buster Video [general retail sales under CDC18.61.030(A)(2)(g)]. (3) Structure "C" - a 4,000 square foot restaurant for Shari's [eating and drinking facilities under CDC18.61.030(A)(2)(e)]. (b) Alternative Use List Albertsons', Inc., is requesting the permitted uses listed in CDC18.61.030(A) (2) (a) through (i) as allowable uses to occupy the following structures: "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E". 2. Conditional Uses - CDC18.61.040(A) Albertsons', Inc., is requesting a conditional use permit as a primary use for a small gas station to be located at the 4,000 square foot Structure "D" [vehicle fuel sales under CDC18.61.040(A)(2)]. 3. Special Limitations on Uses - CDC18.61.045 (a) All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure in compliance with CDC18.61.045 (A) (1) . In the even the restaurant use for Structure "C" intends to provide open air dining or drinking areas, that use shall comply with CDC18.61.045(A)(4). (b) With the exception of Albertsons' grocery store in Structure "F" and Block Buster Video in Structure "E", all other uses shall have a gross floor area not greater than 5,000 square feet in compliance with CDC18.61.045(A)(2). The grocery store use of 40,000 square feet is permitted under CDC18.61.030(A) (2) (f) and the video store use of 5,950 square feet is permitted under CDC18.61.030(A)(2)(g). (c) At this time, Albertsons' grocery store use does not include open air sales or display functions, but if they are included at time of building permit application, the design will 17 - APPLICATION STATEMENT comply with the 5 percent limitation in CDC18. 61.045 (A) (3). (d) At this time, the restaurant use for Structure "C" does not include open air dining or drinking areas. In the event the restaurant use intends to provide these services, such a use would comply with CDC18.61.045(A) (4). The location of Structure "C" and its adjacent grounds are over 200 feet from the nearest developed residential area (actual distance is approximately 340 feet east to Castle Hill subdivision). All public or private sidewalk areas around potential dining areas will not be less than five feet of clear walkway. See also Exhibit I'C". 4. Dimensional Requirements - CDC18.61.050 (a) The site lot size exceeds the minimum of 5,000 square feet. The proposed "CC" site is actually eight acres or 348,480 square feet in compliance with CDC18.61.050(A) (1) . (b) The minimum lot width of the site is approximately 430 feet which exceeds the "CC" minimum lot width of 50 feet under CDC18.61.050(A)(2). (c) A 20 foot minimum setback is provided in the Site Development Plan for all yards (front, side and rear) of the project. Setbacks along Scholls Ferry Road range from 20 feet to 110 feet, along S.W. Walnut Street from 45 feet to 70 feet, along Northview Drive from 30 feet to 45 feet and along the rear lot line from 20 feet to 85 feet; all in compliance with CDC18.61.050(A) (3). The improvements near the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street are in compliance with CD18.102 (Vision Clearance). See Exhibit "C'e. Distances between all buildings exceed the Uniform Building code minimum separation requirements. (d) No building proposed for this site shall exceed the maximum height requirement of 35 feet under CDC18.61.050(A) (4). The proposed grocery store building (Structure "F") shall have a maximum height of 35 feet at the highest roof peak (entrance structure) with all other prominent roof heights intended to be approximately 26 feet high. (e) The Site Development Plan establishes that the site coverage, including all buildings in impervious surfaces, does not exceed the 80 percent maximum set forth in CDC18.61.050(A)(5). (f) The landscaping area for the Site Development Plan identifies that the plan complies with the 20 percent minimum requirement under CDC18.61.050 (A) (6) . See also Exhibit +'L". 4. Site and Building Guidelines - CDC18.61.055(A) ( (a) The designs of the buildings within the "CC" 18 - APPLICATION STATEMENT development incorporate special elements which are sensitive to and enhance the surrounding area, and distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in compliance with CDC18. 61. 055 (A) (1) (a) . The ornamental fencing for the entrances and the borders shall be made of brick to follow similar accent elements in the nearby Castle Hill, Brittany Square and Greenfield Village developments. These brick accents are carried-over into the facade of the proposed structures in the shopping center with a light-brown surface color to provide contrast. The architectural elements also include partial sloping roof elements at both first and second story levels to be more compatible with nearby residential structures, and include distinctive columns and archways to provide an "upscale" appearance and enhance the neighborhood. . The "CC" development is unique in its rendering of the commercial uses into three structures and modifying the facade of the larger structure to give the appearance of many smaller buildings linked together. This avoidance of a single large block structure appearance also serves to be more compatible with the neighborhood. The site also provides a unique brick border fence and special public "mini-park" feature at the corner of the site (Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street). This feature incorporates the shopping center monument sign with a park bench, circle island walkway and garden, special art layout feature and seasonal color plantings. In addition, the entire site is being excavated into the sloping hillside to provide a low profile and allow residential neighbors to the east and south to "look over" the center (without obstructing their view of the valley and Beaverton area hillsides). (b) The buildings within the "CC" complex shall achieve a unity of design in compliance with CDC18.61.055(A)(1)(b). Common features of color, roof form (partial sloping rooflines), use of brick block, concrete roof tiles, window patterns, arches and columns will be used, where practical, throughout all of the structures at the shopping center as illustrated in the elevation for the grocery store. See Exhibit "Col. (c) Individual buildings will incorporate similar design elements on all of the buildings to achieve unity of design. The sides of buildings facing a public street shall provide public entrances and windows where practical. The side of buildings facing toward the east and south (grocery store building in particular) shall incorporate elements such as color, texture, brick block, special wall treatments and extensive landscaping to provide visual interest and obscure or screen the appearance of a long continuous wall. Thus, the Site Development ( 19 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Plan and design of individual buildings will comply with CDC 18.61.055(A) (1) (c) . t (d) The loading areas shall be located and screened behind the main building complex (Structures "A", "B", "E" and "F") and a steep slope excavated out of the south end of the overall sloping hillside. The south slope shall vary in width from 20 feet to 85 feet (generally in excess of 40 feet) and shall be densely landscaped with sight obscuring plantings. Both the excavated level and landscaping shall minimize views of the loading area from streets and sidewalks, all in compliance with CDC18.61.055 (A) (2) (a) . 5. Site and Building Design Standards - CDC18.61.055(B) (a) Internal Walkways (1) All walkways, eight feet minimum width, are provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the buildings in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B) (1) (a). Walkways along the front access of the main building (Structures "A", "B", "E" and "F") will vary in width exceeding 12 feet to 20 feet. Walkways are placed to connect focus points of pedestrian activity from the main building eastward to Northview Drive. Similarly, walkways at the corner Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street coordinate the special mini-park feature with the proposed restaurant facility and the sidewalks along Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. ( (2) Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties along Scholls Ferry Road, S.W. Walnut Street and Northview Drive to create an integrated internal walkway system in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B) (1) (b). All sides of buildings providing public access or where public parking is available shall be provided with walkways along the building side's full length. The walkways on the sides of buildings providing public access shall be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel. For example, in front of the main building, the grocery store walkway shall have a width exceeding 20 feet and the walkways in front of the other structures shall have a width exceeding 12 feet. In addition, weather protection of the walkways will be provided, at a minimum, at entrance areas for all buildings. See Exhibit "C" and the front building elevation for the grocery story. Thus, the proposed plans are in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(1)(b)(i) and (ii). (3) Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as bricks, pavers and/or scored concrete to 20 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Mill enhance pedestrian safety and comfort in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B) (1) (c) . (b) Other Site Development Standards - CDC18.61.055(B)(2) (1) All lighting fixtures on buildings, in the parking lot and near walkways shall incorporate cut-off shields to prevent the spill over of light to adjoining properties in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(a). (2) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be located within the roof form of each building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design of which is consistent with the design of each building in the shopping center complex as a whole, all in compliance with CDC18.61.055 (B) (2) (b) . (3) All mechanical equipment for buildings, not located on the building, shall be screened from views from the public street, sidewalk and properties outside this "CC" site with a durable, solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the above in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(c). (4) All refuge and recycling containers located within the shopping center project shall be contained within structures enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest container within the structure in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B) (2) (d) . (5) Bicycle racks shall be provided on site and for each building open to the public. Facilities for the entire shopping center site for a minimum of 10 bicycles shall be provided for the first 100 parking stalls, and for each 100 additional stalls, facilities for at least five additional bicycles shall be provided. All bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways; and shall be covered where practical; all in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(e). (6) The site development plan (Exhibit "C") incorporates a special feature at the corner of this site (corner of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street). This special feature has been given an "upscale" design, and includes brick accented walkways and circle garden court area with provision for sculpture and seasonal color plantings. A public seating area is incorporated with the reverse side of the brick wall-shopping center identification sign. The whole feature is integrated with the circle garden court and the nearby restaurant use, all in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(f). (7) Parking areas are designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Principle 21 - APPLICATION STATEMENT parking for Structures "C" and "D" are isolated from the main structure's parking area by a movement aisle and an entrance access off S.W. Walnut Street. Primary parking areas for the main structure provides north-south movement aisles to provide unobstructed pedestrian access to the main structure. Parking area landscaping has been used to define and separate parking, access, pedestrian areas within the parking lots; all in compliance with CDC18. 61.055 (B) (2) (g) . (a) The landscaping design for the site, as illustrated by Exhibit "L", includes plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site in compliance CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(h). In addition, areas of this site that are potentially visible from the east and south by existing residential dwellings will be screened by more intensive and higher profile plantings. (9) Site features such as fences, walls, refuse and recycling facility enclosures, and light features are and shall be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural design of the primary structures. Such site features are and shall be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development, all in compliance with CDC18. 61.055 (B) (2) (i) . (10) All buildings within the shopping center complex are located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings and to avoid conflicts with parking and pedestrian movement for each building. Consideration shall be given in the public access locations for Structures "C" and "D" (located near public sidewalk) for providing direct access to public sidewalk; all in compliance with CDC18.61.055(B)(2)(j). (11) There are no present or proposed transit facilities for this site or the immediate neighborhood area by Tri-Met or any other transportation authority. However, the applicant believes that when required by the transit authority, a bus pull-out lane could be provided at the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Walnut Street that incorporates use of the special mini-park corner feature for pedestrian safety and convenience; and thereby, complying with CDC18. 61.055 (B) (2) (k) . (c) Oign Design Standards - CDC18.61.055(B)(3) All signage shall be an inegral part of the architectural design for the individual uses and the overall "CC" center. Exhibit "C" identifies signage for the Albertsons' grocery store (both building or wall and free standing). This exhibit serves as an example of the building signage style th6t idll have common features throughout the shopping center. Albertsons', Inc., will have the only free standing sign at the site. Along with specific designs for signs (found in the sign permit application filed contemporaneously with this application), Albertsons 22 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Inc., has and will comply with CDC18.61.055 (B) (3) (a). E. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE - OTHER PROVISIONS 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies (a) Citizen Involvement - CP2.1.1 The city has an on-going citizen involvement program that assures citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Section A.4.b of this Application identifies the neighborhood association planning organization meetings and other related neighborhood association meetings that were held prior to the filing of this application. Upon filing the application, citizens are provided an opportunity to participate in the public hearing process before the planning commission and the city council before final decision is made on the application. Therefore, this application and the involved process complies with the citizen involvement policy. (b) Natural Features and Open Space - CP3.2 through 3.7 The subject property does not contain physical limitations and natural hazards identified in CP3.1.1. The subject property is not contained within the 100 year flood plain under CP3.2.1. The site does not provide nor is designated for a rock and gravel ` extraction under CP3.3.1. Neither is the site designated as a significant wetlands, having educations research value, nor possessing areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas under CP3.4.1. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with these comprehensive plan policies. In relationship to parks, recreation and open space, the site will provide a private open space mini-park facility for the public at the corner intersection, as well as, at least 20 percent open space for the overall shopping center project; all in compliance and compatible with CP3.5.1. The proposed "CC" shopping center will also provide a pedestrian and bike path system through the project and allowance for connection to adjacent properties in compliance with CP3.5.4. However, the site is not designated for a public park nor required under the applicable ordinances other than the corner mini-park feature; all in compliance with CP3.6.1. Finally, the city has not identified nor does the site possess any historically or culturally significant structure, site, objects and/or districts within the city. Thus the proposed plan is in compliance with CP3.7.1. (c) Air. Water and Land Resources Quality - 4.1 23 - APPLICATION STATEMENT through 4.4 The site will not contain any uses that create a detriment to air quality other than access to the site by motorized vehicles and parking of such vehicles on site. Both the "CC" zoning and the applicant's proposed development provide for alternative forms of transportation that are non-polluting (pedestrian and bike ways). The proposed plan places the "CC" zone within a highly dense planned residential area (15 units per acre) to enhance the opportunity for walking or riding a bicycle to and from the proposed shopping center. Adequate walkways and biking pathways are provided to these neighboring residential densities. Thus, the proposed plan complies with CP4 and will be in compliance with all applicable air quality requirements. Redevelopment shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including waste water. Adequate public water and sanitary sewer are available at the site. Storm water treatment shall be in compliance with city and U.S.A. requirements. Improvements and buildings at the site will be placed on the site where the noise levels will have a minimal impact and/or landscaping and other techniques are incorporated in the development plans to lessen noise impacts to surrounding land uses. All noise standards will be met. Solid waste shall be managed and disposed of by existing adequate facilities and services. Thus, the proposed development is compatible with CP4. Y (d) Economy - CP5.1 Presently the property is vacant with no economic use derived from the site. The proposed shopping center will add to the diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents and will place an opportunity for growth in the local job market, both during construction and during implementation of the commercial uses at the site. Tpe proposed "CC" zoning and related development is specifically designed to be compatible with surrounding residential areas and not an adverse encroachment. In addition, 6.93 acres of commercial already exist in this area and the conversion to "CC" will have a negligible conflicting impact to nearby residential areas. As a result, the development proposal is in compliance with CP5.1. See also Section F.9 hereinafter. (e) Rousing - CP6 Conversion of the subject property, after substituting the nearby Neighborhood Commercial zone, shall result in a net loss of 1.07 acres or 25.68 possible residential units. The loss of this small amount of residential units will not jeopardize the city's compliance with CP6 nor LCDC Goal No. 10. The city will be able to maintain its minimum requirements for population 24 - APPLICATION STATEMENT density per acre. In addition, a variety of housing densities and housing types are provided within the immediate neighborhood area of the proposed development. The proposed project is located in a "developing" area of the city where most of the surrounding property is presently vacant. The proposed "CC" designation and development plans for the property are compatible with the developing residential elements in the area and aid in encouraging flexible and efficient development within this neighborhood. Finally, the proposed project provides greater than the minimum requirements for buffering between the project and residential uses. The technique of excavating to lower the impact is being utilized and specific features are targeted for being screened on a year round basis. Thus, the proposed application complies with CP6. (f) Public Facilities and Services - CP7 Adequate public water, sewer, and design of storm drainage treatment facilities are either available to the site or will be incorporated within the development of the property. These facilities are capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and will be designed to city standards. All new development utilities will be placed underground and the site will be engineered for storm drainage and waste water management and treatment. Police protection, service and facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the developed site. Identification signs to assist emergency vehicles, utilization of defensible space concepts are t; incorporated in the development proposal; and the city police department review of the application shall occur as part of the overall approval process. Similarly, fire flow with adequate water pressure for fire protection is available to the site, the development shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below an adequate level for fire protection purposes, and the fire district shall review the application as part of the approval process. The planning and development of the site shall be coordinated with private utility agencies and these services are adequate and available for phone, gas, electrical, cable and other related services. Schools shall not be adversely impacted by the development. Local governmental services are adequate to serve development of the site including health, local governmental administration, library, and solid waste disposal and recycling. Thus, the proposed development will comply with CP7. (g) Transportation - CP8 The proposed development complies with CP8. The development abuts a publicly dedicated street, as a condition of approval rights-of-way will be dedicated to improve adjacent street(s), the applicant commits to construction of required transportation improvements in accordance with city standards including applicable signs and signals, transit facilities, parking spaces 25 - APPLICATION STATEMENT designated for disabled persons in appropriate locations and land dedicated to implement bicycle-pedestrian corridors in accordance with city requirements. Coordination with Tri-Met is addressed ' in the process for reviewing the application and the plan encourages expansion and use of public transit along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (h) Energy - CP9 The proposed development is in compliance with CP9 as it incorporates an encouragement to reduce energy consumption through building design, layout and provision of alternative modes of transportation. (i) Urbanization - CP10 The site is already incorporated within the city urban growth boundary and does not require extension of any services outside the city boundaries, thereby complying with CP10. (j) Other The proposed project and its location are not within any other special areas of concern identified in CP11. The proposed project and the proposed "CC" designation are in compliance with the locational criteria applicable for the commercial designation. See Sections B and C of this Application. 2. Other Applicable Code Provisions (a) Conditional Use Standards and Conditions The application includes a request for a conditional use of a gas station use for Structure "D". This conditional use is a primary choice use that is being requested, along with, approval for alternative uses allowed in the "CC" zone as "permitted uses" (previously identified in Section A of this Application). The proposed gas station for vehicle sales use is associated with the pad identified as Structure "D" in the Site Development Plan and consists of 4,000 square feet for the gas station structure. In essence, the proposed use is a very small gas station facility and the area is adequate for the needs of the proposed use. There is also adequate area to allow for aesthetic design treatment to mitigate possible adverse effects from the use on surrounding properties and uses. The location is isolated in the northeast corner of the site and is surrounded on two sides by areas of landscaping ranging from a minimum of 20 feet to in excess of 60 feet in width. The characteristic of the site is suitable for the proposed use as it will place the location near the extension of Murray Boulevard (S.W. Walnut Street) and on the development site where access for egress and ingress will not interfere with the other ® 26 - APPLICATION STATEMENT commercial uses. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve this proposal. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met as related to this proposal, and the applicable supplemental requirements in Sec. 18.120.180 for Site Development Review are met. Finally, the use will comply with applicable policies of the comprehensive plan as previously identified. F. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment (and map changes) are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. 1. Goal No. 1 - Citizen Involvement The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments will require a series of public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council as required by the City Community Development Code Sec. 18.32.090(c) and (d). In addition, the proposed amendments will not alter the citizen involvement policy identified in the Comprehensive Plan policy 2.1.1 at II(9). The existing public hearing process shall insure that the citizens of Tigard will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process for these amendments. Finally, the City of Tigard has received compliance acknowledgment from LCDC as to these planning and ordinance provisions, thereby establishing that this review process will be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goal No. I. 2. Goal No. 2 - Land Use Planning Goal No. 2 states that each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of effected governmental units. As part of the public hearing process, the city shall notify for comments all effected governmental units. In all other respects, the proposed plan and zone change for the subject site complies with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal No. 2. An adequate factual basis for decision has been presented as identified in the data in the above sections and related facts pertaining to the various goal considerations hereinafter. The proposed changes, as identified herein, are compatible with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 3. Goal No. 3 - Agricultural Lands The subject property is not and has not been designated as agricultural lands under City of Tigard planning and zoning. The subject site and the entire surrounding area are within the 1 27 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary previously acknowledged by LCDC. There is no conflict between the proposed plan and zone changes with the Goal No. 3. 4. Goal No. -4 - Forest Lands The subject site is not and has not been designated as forest lands by the City of Tigard. As stated in subsection 3 above, the land is designated urban and is committed to urban uses. There is no conflict between the proposed amendments and changes and Goal No. 4. 5. Goal No 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources There is no portion of the Albertsons' property that is within a designated open space, scenic, historic or natural resources area. The Comprehensive Plan mapping for the City of Tigard designates the property entirely for urban uses. These planning designations and regulations have already received compliance acknowledgement for LCDC. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Goal No. 5. 6. Goal No 6 - Air. Water and Land Resources Quality The proposed planning and zoning amendments will not adversely affect compliance with Goal No. 6. All waste and process discharges from future development shall not threaten or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality t' statutes, rules and standards. The site shall be served by sewerage processing system through the City of Tigard. Correspondingly, storm drainage and waste treatment will also be provided through city regulated and approved systems. A change to community commercial for this site will also involve the same requirements related to indirect sources for air pollution that are otherwise applicable to the site as being within the Portland urban area. 7. Goal No 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards There are no areas within the subject site that are subject to natural disasters and hazards as defined under Goal No. 7. Also, there are no natural hazard characteristics identified for the site in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 8. Goal No. 8 - Recreational Needs Essentially, there will be no change in the requirements for recreational need by the proposed amendments. The site is not designated under the Comprehensive Plan for recreational needs. Indeed, the site does not lend itself to the purposes of developing recreational needs. Therefore, the proposed 28 - APPLICATION STATEMENT amendments would be consistent with Goal No. 8. 9. Goal No. 9 - Economy of the State The proposed amendments will substantially aid the City of Tigard in satisfying the Statewide Planning Goal requirements for diversity and improvements of the economy of the state. Earlier, the city identified in its Comprehensive Plan that it contemplated commercial shopping development should occur at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the future Murray Boulevard extension (S.W. Walnut Street) to provide for the commercial needs of the surrounding area (generally the northwestern one-quarter of the city). As identified above, the locational criteria are all satisfied for this site. There is a complete absence of vacant community commercial lands of any acreage in size within the City of Tigard planning area. There are no other neighborhood commercial sites in this entire northwestern quadrant of the city. This is also reflected by the Comprehensive Plan's statement that "a supply of developed commercial space is low, but it is expected that the supply will catch up with the needs before long." The addition of this 8 acre site will substantially aid the city in meeting its own economic needs, as well as, aid the state in providing a more broader and diversified economic base. The City needs to designate this 8 acre site as "Community Commercial" to provide for a more complete variety and selection of commercial uses and services for this market area of the city. As previously stated, the area was annexed in June of 1983. The Washington County zoning designated the subject site as "Neighborhood Commercial" including uses more consistent with the city's recently adopted "Community Commercial" district - allowance of a food market having up to 40,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed Albertsons' store complex is clearly within the specifications and meets the market for trade are in this part of the City of Tigard and portions of the City of Beaverton. The proposed uses in the Albertsons' development plan include a modern grocery facility and a mixture of other community commercial services. There are a variety of commercial uses in a local economy which assume and incorporate a level of direct competition. These commercial services sometimes provide different levels of service for the same products or a different style of the product. Each level and style comprises a portion of the total market share. In the west Tigard area or northwest quadrant of the city, there is only one existing general grocery store, i.e., Thriftway Super Store off Murray Boulevard in Beaverton. The only other general grocery stores are located approximately three miles to the east and south of downtown Tigard and one and one-half miles to the east along Scholls Ferry 29 - APPLICATION STATEMENT Road. It is well established that the grocery shopping needs of any given community involve competition between a number of different general grocery stores. For a population market in excess of 14,300 people identified in the U.S. Census, there is a substantial absence of general grocery services for the market in this area. The Albertsons' proposed development will also provide a substantial temporary construction employment for the site. The development's general construction and specific user alterations are expected to involve employment in excess of 100 people. After completion, the development is expected to provide permanent employment on both a full-time and part-time basis of approximately 150 people. By the very nature of this community commercial construction and services operation, it is expected that a majority of the employees, general contractors and subcontractors will come from this sector of the metropolitan area. Finally, as this site is well within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary acknowledged by LCDC, the proposed amendments would be consistent with and would enhance the economy of the state under Goal No. 9. 10. Goal No. 10 - Housing The redesignating of the Albertsons' property as community commercial will effectively eliminate 1.07 acres of housing designations or only 25/26 units for the entire property. However, an analysis of changes in the city's housing, zoning and redesignation of adjacent residential property will enable the city to allow community commercial on the site without causing a conflict with Goal No. 10. It should be noted that the Statewide Planning Goal No. 10 on Housing does not require the actual implementation of residential lands at the planned densities. The goal merely requires that there be an "opportunity" for those housing densities through the various applied classifications. From the standpoint of calculating consistency with Statewide Planning Goals, LCDC only requires that the zone be analyzed for its "opportunity". After the city adopted the Comprehensive Plan and the buildable lands per acre calculations, the city has approved residential zone increases in density throughout the city and in this area in particular. The city could absorb these 25 to 26 lost units in the current housing density surplus. As a result of these calculations, the city's reclassification of the Albertsons' property to community commercial would not adversely impact the City of Tigard's housing needs and would be consistent with Goal No. 10. 11. Goal No. 11 - Public Facilities and Services 30 - APPLICATION STATEMENT The proposed plan and zoning amendments would be consistent with Goal No. 11. The redesignation of the property to community commercial would result in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. The site is designated for urban densities as a result of being within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. The City of Tigard has designated the site for intensive urban uses. Full urban services can be extended to the site and immediately utilized upon redesignation of the property as community commercial. The site can be adequately served with sewer, water and related utilities. Such public facilities and services already adjoin the site and are providing services to the multi-family and single-family developments to the north, east and south. The city already has a responsibility for the provision of public facilities and services to this site. Therefore, the proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 11. 12. Goal No. 12 - Transportation The proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 12 and would aid in providing and encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. As identified above, traffic reports have been completed for the area and specifically identifying traffic impacts generated by a redesignation of the Albertsons' property as community commercial. The traffic analysis concludes that the proposed plan and zoning amendments would not significantly change the existing Level of Service for the roadway networks and intersections and would be well within city and MSD minimum requirements. The proposed plan and zoning amendments are also consistent with transportation policies concerning mass transit. The area where the site is located is already served by Tri-Met bus routes. The attached traffic reports also identify that MSD projects that 4 to 6 percent of all home-based person trips for purposes unrelated to work will be made by transit. This would include trips to or near commercial shopping centers. Albertsons' proposed development plan would provide for a grocery store and community commercial complex at this central location. It should also be noted that the site is adjoined by large tracts of existing and planned for medium to high-density residential development. It is reasonable to assume that the development and usage of the Albertsons' community commercial property will encourage pedestrian, bicycle and bus ridership by neighboring households. This alteration in the traffic pattern should also help to reduce traffic on arterials and collector streets in or near this neighborhood. 13. Goal No 13 - Energy Conservation 31 - APPLICATION STATEMENT The land and uses developed on the property shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound. economic principles. The same Tigard Community Development code provisions for energy conservation shall apply to the redesignation of the property as community commercial. In particular, the development proposal would aid in the conversation of energy through the enhancement of more efficient transportation modes and land use patterns, reduction of travel distances between residential and commercial areas, supporting previously increased densities of land uses near the site, and enhancing the prospect for mass transit ridership. These functions of the development proposal support the finding for energy conservation under the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vol. II at 62. These provisions have contained compliance acknowledgment from LCDC, and therefore the proposed plan and zone change is in conformance with Goal No. 13. . 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization The subject site is within the urban growth boundaries of the City of Tigard and MSD. The urban growth boundaries of Tigard and MSD have been given compliance acknowledgement by LCDC. The zone change that is proposed is merely a change from one intensive urban use to another intensive urban use. The plan and zone change proposals do not require any establishment or change in the existing urban boundaries. Therefore, the proposed / plan and zone change are conformance with Goal No. 14. 32 - APPLICATION STATEMENT v. id •4 NCi 6 99:pCRES 4® FA LY 1 • '`'moo FUTURE MOLTI /ut& • e ~ A ~y r. all ~ ONS` pgOPERTA ~ vq( ` 04V P~WZ -10 Col. 4%w- 9-0 j t . •i.~ O"Is • e a f 4-4 fill All ( ~ ~ • - h ~ y. ~ ~ r ""••+G.:.~-~' es • a, . S4.16%0 %Igo S. ~ ~9e4lt 9~ g w - 0 0 P~VRR ~,Y ®t~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION - BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18.32.380) 1. Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 1-86 ZC 3-86 l 2. Name of Owner: Marge Krueger 3. Name of Applicant: Russ Krueger Address3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y-1 City Portland State OR Zip 97201 4. Location of Property: Address Between Scholls Ferry Rd. & 135th Ave. ; mile north of Walnut St. Legal Description 1S1 33C lot 1000 5. Nature of Application: To move the present C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) designation from the west side of 135th Ave. to a location on the north side of the Murray Road extension. Approximately 500 feet west of 135th. 6. Action: The Tigard City Council, on 2/24/86, heard the above noted request. Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the request and approved the commercial designation to be located as shown in Exhibit "B" attached. The configuration of the five acre C-N designation may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. A copy of Ordinance No. 86-12 is attached for your files. 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant b owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization -X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 2/26/86" AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 3/29/86 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9, questions: If you have any questions please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. (0257P) oreen R. Wilson, Recorder EXHIBIT - 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 86--L t AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 1-86) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 3-86) PROPOSED BY MARGE KRUEGER. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to shift the existing area zoned C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the side of 135th Avenue to a location on the north side of the proposed Murray Blvd. extension approximately 500 feet west of 135th Ave. (WCTM iSl 33C. T.L. 1000); WHEREAS, the Planning commission reviewed the proposal on February 4. 1986 and recommended approval with a condition that the C-N designation not exceed four acres in size; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on February 24, 1986 to consider the Commission recommendation. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the February 4, 1986 Planning staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit "A"). Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation • for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment and the commercial designation. will be located as l shown in Exhibit "B". The configuration of the five acre C-N designation may be modified to conform wit a ina a ignment of Murray Blvd. Section 3: The area presently zoned C-N shall be designated R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). Section 4: That this ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PAcJ. JED: By S, knc,.n,mcLAS vote o all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ;aLP k day of _ 3986. J =Lr~~~ Wt.c,..~ P-- t_r,r4•tan R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROX'1:D: This day of i-e Lr-,~ 1986. ir• t,~~r,k , Mayor (K5A.: pmSO) ' ORIONANC( NO. 8t, Page ft EY.: -IBIT Mw Fri. t . All • y~ ~ ~ Z+1~1 C j J EXHIBIT B CALCULATION OF THE HOUSING DENSITY SHORTFALL The May 11, 1990 city approval for the subject property included a 12.6-acre parcel having a maximum of 300 multi-family units. This computes to a maximum of 24 units per acre. The following is a calculation of the lost multi-family density as a result of expanding the commercial parcel from 6.9 acres to 8 acres: 1. Commercial area expanded 8.00 acres 2. Less exchanged site north of (6.93 acres) Murray Blvd. extension 3. Difference - reduction in 1.07 acres multi-family 4. Maximum number of multi-family units reduced by expansion of commercial zone r 1 A7 acres x 24 units 25.68 l E'CHI®IT PAGE _A.._ OF. - 16 1 ~1U o SDI ` L 1 1 r+ + + PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXHiBR p ~j • ...gyp . _ :I ~ . ~ \ nun • . ~ ~••d •t'y' ~ /•sppyy ~~yy 1. t[~ii1In1Y y,~. - e1~11141t ItLn/61 I .Y+ -W~~R • ,•f l y I1f? p j i SECTION THROUGH CORNER 1 -w y~i a tree TENANT _ TENANT- CORNER CORNER ELEMENT , w PROJECT SIGN >t A-20 TREaT;AEf4 S 0 MON - - R.»,.... -FA c = WISiuiy} EA51 ~ ~ ~Imm ri 1. _ ~~+.v j f•-• '+-G~A,rt - "y5~ Y SO~fr•. lo. MESS E (TER',OR FLEVATIO1S " ~O f •T P( -W Of applicant Albertson's Inc. - John W. Shonkwiler, representative Map 21E - 4B, Tax Lot 3,OD Subject Property: Tax Map and Lot t1 (approximately 14.99 acres) southeast and northeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road and Address or General Location Walnut Street intersection i 1 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE f, John W. Shonkwiler - do affirm that I am (repre_, ent) the party Initiating Interest In a proposed land use and development' action affecting the land located at (see above) and did on the 20th _day of July .1923 personally for a comprehensive plan and zone changes, and post notice Indicating that the site may be proposed supplication, and the time, date and place of a neighbofiooddeyeloEyn act ope f So mrpunity commercial uses meetln a Ln proposal. one sign at southeast quadrant of Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street The sign was posted at one sign at northeast quadrant of Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street (state location on property) is th day of Jul 19 93 S' nature Sdbsalbed and swom to. affirmed. before me this z, day of 19 93 Notary Public for a State of Oregon My Commission Expires: z/2vAl OFFICIAL SEAL CKARUm i {r£TTERlC1r NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO.0M78 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB 24. IM WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 EXHIHiT 4 l c • AFFIDAVIT OF MAIUNGi i i STATE OF OREGON ) SS CRY OF TIGARD 7 i JOHN W. SHONKWILER . . being duly swom, depose and say that on July 20 _18 93 _O caused to have walled to each of the persons on the attached ad a notice of a meeting to discuss a ~~rrOOposed development at southeast 6 northeast quadrants of the ;i Scholls Ferry Walnut-intersection . a copy of which notice so walled Is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. 1 further state that said notices were enclosed In envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above In the United States Post Office at Tigard, Oregon . with postage prepaid thereon. { w f A. (~e ignature Subscribed and sworn to before me this e day of 18~. Notary Public Only Commission Explm: 2, -Y A9 3 OFFICIAL SEAL CRARLOM 1. DMTTEW lip NOTARY PUBILIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO.004M 1,1v COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 24, 5 h:\login%io\altrnal.dt JC---~~ EXHIBIT JOHN W. SHONKWILEA P.C. ATYVJVaTArLAW 13425 SW 72nd Averwe Tigm4 Oregon 97223 fmc 684-8971 624.0917 July 20, 1993 Morse Bros Inc Po Box 7 Lebanon, OR 97355 Property Owner or Resident RE: Albertson's Inc. Dear Interested Party: I am representing Albertson's Inc., the applicant, who proposes a land use and development action on an eight-acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut intersection and a 6.99-acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/SW Walnut intersection. We are considering proposing a comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Code Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Site Development Review and other related requests for this site from Medium Density Residential [R-25(PD)] to Community Commercial (CC) and from Neighborhood Commercial .,Kt) to Medium High Density Residential (R-25). CC. N) r~ We are also proposing approval for a 40,000` square-foot grocery store and a mixture of other commercial uses allowed in the "CC" zone totalling approximately 21,150 square feet. Prior to applying to the city of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: July 30, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall Council Chambers Tigard Civic Center 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Please note this will be an information meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me if you have any questions. P i cerely, / W. C~j l1 ohn W. Shonkwiler EX HI Brr d v m~ e , .e ®o~o 4v9ZNGp FUTURE MULTI-FAMILY 6.991ACRES e e~ Q • ®14LBERTSONS• TROPERA, • ,f It I ® 8 ACRES * P:L • t t .033 - !ee • • le ~Ih ► , • %a too, 1 its 11 so boo a led 00 V%LU-TI-FAMILY Jl.g ACRES 1 ~ .A-V• •!i . 7 ~ • -v.:.: ~ 1 !•op® I p •e ~ ~ ~ • ~IKLI ~ ~ e.. {t • oil % x►„e!T • Ix1aden Barioavio Chanel Krueger-Peeks . Terry Lindstrom Artie Dba 14145 SW Korthview Dr ' 44194 SW Northview Dr 14795 SW Osprey Dr #921 14 x°145 ®R 97223-2 r jard, OR 97223-2640 :.Beaverton, OR 97007-8120 J Ttak Development Company Resident Bruce 6 KerA Tilley ; Costa-Pacifi Dba Jerry Hathaway ! 14189 SW Stardust l.n 14189 SW Stardust In 14780 SW Osprey Dr #275 Tigard Oregon 97223 Beaverton, OR Tigard, OR 972232638 97007-8116 Resident Resident 14116 SW Worthview Drive Royal HO Inc 13847 SW Hindon Ct. + Tigard Oregon 97223 544 5 SW Ames Way. Tigard Oregon 97223 Portland, OR 97225-1001 Resident Resident Resident 12083 SW Wilton Ave 13909 SW Crist Ct 14590 SW Scholle Ferry Rd. Tigard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223 Beaverton Oregon 97007 Resident Resident Resident 13865 SW Morning Hill Dr. 13938 SW Crist Ct. 14445 SW Fern St. 'gard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223' ' Tigard Oregon 97223 Resident Resident Resident 14185 SW Scholls Ferry RD. 14232 SW Windsong St. 14143 SW Stardust Ln. Beaverton Oregon 97007 Tigard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223 Resident Resident Resident 14086 SW Linden St. 14092 SW Linden St 14092 SW Chehalem Tigard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223 Resident Resident 14056 SW Chehalem 14172 SW Chehalem Tigard Oregon 97223 Tigard Oregon 97223 Marlin & Marilyn Hopfer George Clark 14190 SW Scholls Ferry Klickitat Valley Bank t 381 Oakleaf Dr Rd Po Box 167 Eugene, OR 97404 I Tigard, OR 97223 Goldendale, WA 98620 Portland General Electri Company Darlene Luker Marvin Bowman 121 SW Salmon St 14285 SW Fern St 14235 SW Fern St + Portland, OR 97204 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Morse Bros Inc Robert Evans Michael Davis & R Jeanne Po Box 7 12745 WE Morris St Po Box 23144 Lebanon, OR 97355 Portland, OR 97230 Portland, OR 97281 Churchill Margaret Chabad Lubavitch Of Oreg Toby Brooks 14664 SW Scholle Ferry 14355 SW Scholls Ferry Madlyn Bookatz Rd Rd 2260 Par Ln #811 Beaverton, OR 97007 Beaverton, OR 97007 Willoughby Hills, OH 44094 Matthew & Ilene Miller Richard & Lisa Perry Larry & Christine Labore 13887 SW Crist Ct 13865 SW Crist Ct 12027 SW Wilton Ave igard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Linda Ray McKelvey James Butterfield Shabashevich Marat & Inns 11747 SW Morning Hill Dr 11925 SW Wilton Ave 13858 SW Hindon Ct Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Amir & Carol Fatehi Robert Odell Jr. Kenneth & Carla Johnson 13870 SW Hindon Ct 13892 SW Hindon Ct 13918 SW Hindon Ct Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 James Brian Mohr Jr. Anne Michele Robert & Cathleen Draga George & Patricia Steele 13923 SW Hindon Ct 13901 SW Hindon Ct 13869 SW Hindon Ct Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dominick & Emily Pulone John & Gretchen Westgate David & Margaret Rickard 225 Stanford Ln 14670 SW 136th Pl 12061 SW Wilton Ave Seal Beach, CA 90740 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97~2~23 EXHIBIT Steven Klein Lynn Margaret Robert & Marilyn Bickner Bill & Debbie Lamers 12049 SW-Wilton Ave 13874 SW Crist Ct 13916 SW Crist Ct Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 mows" - now IN M ® John & Kristi Phillips Woodside Village Ltd Ptr- Margery & John Crist 10275 SW Gull P1 222 SW Columbia St #180G 15950 SW Deercrest Dr Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97201 Beaverton, OR 97007 Terry Sullivan Tilley Homes Inc Cramer-Hall Dba 6497 SW Old Scholls Richard Robbins 5300 Parkview Dr #2036 Ferry Rd 14320 SW Aynsley Way Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Greater Northwest Invesq Greater Northwest Invest' Dura-Built Construction Po Box 787 Po Box 787 743 6th St Tualatin, OR 97062 Tualatin, OR 97062 Lake Oswego; OR 97034 ~ T Matrix Development Corps David Flemming J & K Partners 7160 SW Hazelfern Rd Rr 3 Box 538 2435 Park Rd Tigard, OR 97224 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tom Kenyon k Younique Dba Gary Reed Development In; Rosewood Homes Inc Po Box 2016 4 4420 SW Pomona St 7140 SW 209th Ave Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Portland, OR 97219 Aloha, OR 97007 Milan Skoro Dba Milan Skoro Construe Jil Development Inc Chet Harrington Constru 18680 SE Highway 212 Po Box 1633 5863 Bay Point Dr Clackamas, OR 97015 Beaverton, OR 97075 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 M ' F Development Company Wickens Construction In-:. David & Dianna Williams 17707 Oatfield Rd 18317 SW Fallatin Loop 14143 SW Stardust Ln Gladstone, OR 97027 Aloha, OR 97007 Tigard, OR 97223 5 r s _7 EXHiBtT cel~ --J~ _ - - - - -tai" { - ~.-tie _ z~ - • ~ ~w ,e.~c ac 1, cc klcw z"SAlit &-c EXHIBrr _ v CIS) TIM, WNW zyn uod-e paw- /~f l~2 125 d / c---- - 1NwJ j~ ~1'1 ~ l t C- c- fj ter c 414 u ~xNt€~rt' E -3 Ax Z> JOU U , , i 4 'se LL 14 i I i t Aj PO --7 .1041../ Y_ ~p • .~...~..i ♦ J; 1 1 V ~O~` ~U o-~ ~l _ cn IU o v-u.A.a 444rl5t,~- Ca.,,. EXHIBIT E- { UH)BrT d ALBERTSONS'. INCz'PROPOSAL FOR A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT SCROLLS PERRY ROAD AND S.W. WALNUT { Meeting at Tigard City Hall - July 30, 1993 SIGN UP SHEET NAME ADDRESS 0 oLst~ c7o ~ i vJ o~ i vJ ~r ~ S~1 ~ u r _22 e c 4cv s l 3 - w. ~~t 3 n a .Sh as h~ 133 sGU~' / h Cf arro~ 1"4 -oe awe Ale" • .f ~~~~Y 3rd { ENHIlAR , l a- J ..r 1 4 .i a. L' fAo l` 1 t' o ,S, 1 , . ZVC t Yi •y • 4XN1(3tT cl~ f- m_ s NOT Gas • •sw w~, • w, a OwM1 , /I CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL ( DATES 0~6A~-~ ~C3, ~7~3 T- APPLICANT: pp~B~TSQa/l~s~ AGENT: SNoeVK4JIL_ Phone: Phone: PROMTY LOCATION ADDRESS : TAE MAP TAB LOT: Y APP~y,~CATION S): Q h o L~OAIMUAA AMUIJE - ?ro..d zivr PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION : Cpl3~II'►~L I L l ..E RJ"~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: IMMIUAl ZONING DESIGNATION: R-as 1 NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION CHAIRPERSON: CAL PHONE: I; ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMHNTS Minimum lot size:KJOsq. ft. Miinimum lot Width: =o ft. Setbacks: front- ft. side---CL ft., rear -_C> ft. garage- ft. corner-0 ft. from both streets. Maximum site coverage: &0s Mini=u- landscaped or natural vegetation area: ! '10 Maximum building height: 35-ft. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. Max imam lot depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1. SPECIAL SETSACRS S rline of Established eaa• ft. from Lower intensity zonea:_ ft., along the site's SouFLi15 .boundary _ Page 1 RECEIVE EXHIBIT -----L"' SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020): Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: 1. A maximum FAR (building floor area to site area ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; 2. All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2 the building's height; and 3. The structure will not abut a residential zone district. PARKING AND ACCESS I kow 4, feca sloe r- Required parking for this type of use: 1 IKS jourt P. e"foauA Secondary use required parking: Space- ykemdd O ve fi 25% of required spaces may be designated compact-only spaces. e.~~ Standard parking space dimensions: 9 ft. E 18 ft. Compact parking space dimensions: 8.5 ft. S 15 ft. Disabled person parking: All parking areas providing in excess of five required automobile parking spaces shall provide appropriately located and designated disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided and parking space size are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statutes and Americans with Disabilities Act (see handout). A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be provided. Bicycle racks are required for civic uses, n n-residential uses, commercial 'uses, and industrial uses providing or more automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of one f( bicycle rack space per 1® auto parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protect;Tfrom automobile traffic. The Planning Division can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack types. All driveways and 'parking areas, except for some' fleet storge parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: Minimum number of accesses: TWO Minimum access width: 24 ft. Maximum access width: 40 ft. Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and parking areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets. Parking area landscaping and screening: Rewired. See Landscaping section below. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.108. Page 2 R EXHIBIT - CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision be maintained between three and eight feet above grade at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. No buildings, signs, trees or other visual obstructions are allowed between 3 and 8 feet above grade in these areas. LANDSCAPING treet trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street or a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within'six feet of the sight-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree size. Further information on regulations affecting street trees and a list of recommended street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces must be planted in and _ around parking areas in order to provide a canopy effect. Landscaped screening of parking areas from views-from public rights-of-way must be provided. SUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Site obscuring screens or fences are also required in some cases, and often are advisable even if not required. Required buffer areas way only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and sidewalks. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in Code Chapter 18.100. Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal area: ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary ft. along south boundary ft. along west boundary In addition, eight obscuring screening is required along 50L44k 644 N Page 3 EXHIBIT I Y • Y • i SIGNS i Permits must be obtained before erecting any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. j Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development. application. i 1 3 Al y SENSITIVE LANDS 9V0 APP.4jQt rVr JEW$i n V (-#4JV0J /s'lue- 3 1 Other Agency Permits: PUBLIC FACILITIES t The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (i) identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (ii) to provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and (iii) to review the application review process with the applicant 1 including identifying who will be the final decision maker for the application. The extent of public improvements and dedications to be 3 required of the applicant will be recommended by City Engineering Department staff and approved by the appropriate authority. There will. be no final wecommendat Lon to the decision maker by city staff until all commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a l projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your project. Unless noted otherwise, the primary contact for questions related to public facility issues is 14 Engineering Department, 639-4171 Sight-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be ' dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification rights-of-way width specified by the Community Development Code. Approval of a dev opine t) appli Gation for this site will require dedication of right f-w 1. to feet from centerline. 2. to feet from centerline. Page 4 EXHIBIT PA"IeriOIJs AMAr AtFAOv sS iE & eDtAAJTY W I&L Av uesr. /r- FS SGGcsm Street improvements: air ANC. dw~T LyNa FA If-&Y mA AJAt r y street improvements will be necessaryealon OUot St.~ ScN-ot.LS_ _1~1~ Needed street improvements will include_ s~ a feet of pavement from centerline, curb and gutters, storm sewers, a five-foot wide sidewalk, necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. aLy/ pr AcceSS flIQwr Tb Sw0cas 2. street improvements will be necessary along Needed street improvements will include feet of pavement from centerline, curb and gutters, storm sewers, a five-foot wide sidewalk, necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. In some cases where street me or other necessary public improvements are not currentl 7irremonla , the street improvements may be deferred. In these cases, a development approval, the property owner(s) must executonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to against the formation of a local improvement district formed t1. _ 2. pedestrianways/bikeways: i Sanitary Sewers: The closest sanitary sewer to this property is an inch line located The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's Water Supply: The Tigard Water District (Phone: 639-1554) -or -Um Toeint ° •D~ provides public water service in the area of this site. The appropriate Water District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Other Agency Permits: Page 5 1 EXHIPR L R t TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES { In 1990, Washington county adopted a county-wide Traffic impact Fee (TIP) ~ ordinance This action placed into effect an increased street development fee on all new development in Washington County. The city of Tigard has adopted the county's program. The City Traffic Impact Fee program will collect fees from new development based on the development's projected impact on the transportation system. Developing properties will be required to pay based on the number of trips they are projected to generate. The TIP is calculated based on type of j use, size of project, and a general use based fee category. The TIP shall be calculated at time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIP may be allowed to be deferred until j issuance of occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is i Y permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. STORMWATER QUALITY FEES/FACZLITIRS The Unified sewerage agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution no. 90-43, Surface Water Management Regulations, requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in lieu of their construction. The resolution requires that a fee and/or construction of a water quality facility be built. The fee is based on the amount of impervious surface; for every 2640 square feet or portion thereof, the fee shall be $280. The City of Tigard determines if a fee or facility shall be built. Cc-su'Rtwrtpwr OF A racte-1 T{/ 47outO S E' r ke ca u t a e7b _ Necessary storm sewer improvements: C STREET OPENING PERMIT No work within a public right-of-moray shall commence until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS On all projects that require a grading plan the applicant shall submit with the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which shall have the elevations of four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS r Page 6 t EXHIBIT IN I REVIEW PROCEDURES Staff review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings off er. / N Public hearing before the Planning Commission. if err/ CVWAJC IL- Applications Applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member at the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4 PM on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications for processing. No applications will be accepted after 4:30 PM. Su~ma.•tted baytb~`an'~ap~2:ca•~scw`~s~a22's~a~ded ~tri gdvan,~ to`°~t5<°ti~:'>`13 . x.r. ,r n./+nr nw.WwK+r .r. wn.~vv. nr v.:hv.. ):w.4nrfAwwvru woMW ✓......!n 'nvr:4. A.. n.:w: nn.iv nrwv:.. r. n n:r.rnrv .w nn.mrw.r rw nw r.wi..nMr n n n, Sw. ''""liesi One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be ~ submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will do a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 10 days of submittal. Staff will notify an applicant if } additional information or copies of the submitted materials are needed. The public g typically will occur i t:pppllications fit as 6~~«,y 3b fi ce days Mee- # approximately 4U days r-Application is accepted as complete by the Planning Division. involving difficult issues or 3 _ requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written decisions are issued within 10 days of public hearings. A IO day appeal period follows all decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the LN8 A J A basic flow. diagram illustrating the review process is available from the j Planning Division. F he pre-aPpl'isatiCU tor►fe~ces ce aird th motes cif •L#iet confereacs a~ tended to inforia t2se prospective appl.i~ant' of the "pr3mar}'-"Commn'ni pmsut roqu- sments sppl a- ca le' to, devel capment of a ; P8sti'l a ' ite and to 'alloy the ;staff sad „prospective' applicant to discuss, 't2xe tses ; and , constrai.ats affecting deve3apusent ai <the site " 'aferessce aacl riates ..cannot 'covexs'al1 code; xequires~s`:,and~s s~ vita sate ,p7,armiug'that, should aPP;Y the dev$lopmant o£ youx % a; tore `of staff to provide any`infozmat on r axed .b tom. C~e she ccsastatite a xnxvar of the applxcablg standaxcls dr requirements. a L zded that a 'prospective applicant3ther obtain aaa xead ity.DevelCpvent:.Coae os ask 8ny,questions of City staff reiatsve:t<~ _ e ;requirementB prior, to submitting an. avplicatioa. Another pre-application conference is required if an application is to be submitted more than six months after this pre-application conference, unless is deemed unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: V aR Oc PLANNIN DIVISION PHONE: 639-4171 jo:preapnon Page 7 ExH',FkrT ' 7 Staff OAS CITY OF TIGARD Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call Planning at 639-4171. ITEMS TO BE BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: A) Application form (1 copy) ✓ Y Owner's signature/written authorization [ 4' , Title transfer instrument [ ✓ D 1 Assessor's map [ E) Plot or site plan Applicant's statement pddYlssijs des% Fu,dllsr@s t tad (H) Filing fee sft fee- s4 SPECIFIC MATERIALS A) Site Information showing (No. of copies): [ 1) Vicinity Map _ [ ] 2) Site size 6 dimensions E ] 3) Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) [ ] 4) Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds [ ] 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: a) Floodplain areas [ ] b) Slopes in excess of 25% [ ] c) Unstable ground [ ] d) Areas with high seasonal water table [ ] e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential [ ] f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils [ ] 6) Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map inventory including: a) Wildlife habitats [ ] b) Wetlands [ ] 7) Other site features: a) Rock outcroppings [ ] b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level { 8) Location of existing structures and their uses [ ] 9) Location and type of on and off-site noise sources [ 10) Location of existing utilities and easements 11) Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways ILI B) Site Development Plan showing (No. of copies [ ] 1) The proposed site and surrounding properties 2) Contour line intervals [ 3) The location, dimensions and names of all: a) Existing b platted streets t other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 1 EXHIBIT 14 b) Proposed streets or other public ways 6 easements [ r}~ on the site. c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ ] 4) The location and dimension of: a) Entrances and exits on the site [d]° { b) Parking and circulation areas [e c) Loading and services areas [ d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation [ e) Outdoor common areas, [ f) Above ground utilities [ 5) The location, dimensions a setback distances of all: a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site 6) Storm drainage facilities [dJ 7) Sanitary sewer facilities [ 8) The location of areas to be landscaped 1500' 9) The location and type of outdoor lighting { considering crime prevention techniques [ 10) The location of mailboxes [ ] 11) The location of all structures and their orientation E41 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements [ ] 1 C) Grading Plan (No. of copies [ ] The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: i ( 1) The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating general contour lines, slope ratios and soil stabilization proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done. [ W, 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report [ ] b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals [ ] c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ ] D) Architectural Deawings (No. of copies -W-): [ ] The site development plan proposal shall include: 1) Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site; and [ 2) Typical elevation drawings of each structure. [ E) .Landscape Plan (No. of copies): - [ ] The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1) Description of the irrigation system where applicable [ ] 2) Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings [Jj~ APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 2 3) Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas and common open spaces 4) Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: [ ] 1) Soil conditions.' 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ ] F) Sign Drawings Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign. G) Traffic generation estimate 7r4T7iC 5 trcbl H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing (No. of Copies 5a 1) The owner of the subject parcel 2) The owner's authorized agent 3) The'map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet-l), inch north arrow and date E -Y 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel [ 6) Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines [ vJ 7) Location and width of all water courses [ ] 8) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level [ 9) All slopes greater than 25% [y]' 10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements 11) For major land partition which creates a public street: a) The proposed right-of-way location and width [ ] b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip [ ] 12) Any applicable deed restrictions [ ] 13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable [ ] I) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map and data showing(No. of Copies 1) Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet [ ] 2) The proposed name of the subdivision 1 ] 3) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets [ ] 4) Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[ ] 5) Date of application [ ] 6) Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided [ ] 7) Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land [ ] 8) Contour lines related to a City-established bench- mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% [ ] l APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3 EXHIBIT N_~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: _September S. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: August 26. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Com Plan 3smendm PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from PA 91-0005 Zone Ordinance Amendme June 23, 2 OA 1-0006 Tv= nit Commercial PREPARED BYa a ffer Planner DEPT HEAD OCITY ADM.IN OE REQUESTED BYa Ed Murphy. CDD i Cam'----.--------~y=.--CCCZ-CS6 Si illiCSSliCCC~C-SCS--=C.--==C----=CLC 5 ISM BEF RE UN IL Should the amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial i designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for neighborhood/community nerving retail and service uses? Should the City amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. JENFORMATION SUMMARY In response to suggestions that the City should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zone. The Planning Division has drafted the attached proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan ~signation and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C ~:ommunity Commercial) zoning district. In addition, related Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C -C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. The Council previously held a hearing on this proposal on June 23, 1992. Substantial community testimony was received with the primary issues appearing to be the allowable sizes of grocery stores, the need for site design guidelines and/or standards to minimize the impacts of future developments in community commercial districts upon surrounding residential uses, and concerns about particular locations that were identified in a staff prepared map that illustrated locales that met some of the proposed locational criteria for this Plan designation. The Council directed staff to further research these issues, revise the proposal as necessary, and bring the proposal back to the Council at the September 8th meeting. Staff has made several modifications to the proposal previously before the Council. The most notable changes include: 1) requiring that community commercial sites be located only where there is an average potential dwelling unit density of eight units per acre (as determined by present zoning) within one half mile; 2) specifically noting in the Plan and Community Development Code that the City may limit the size of a community commercial site or place EX HI BIT conditions of approval on a Plan Map amendment related to needed site improvements or business operating hours in order to minimize effects on surrounding residential uses; and 3) including special site design and •ilding design guidelines and standards intended to guarantee a high -Aality, community friendly development. These revisions are highlighted on the attached pages. The surrounding area dwelling unit density standard should serve to significantly limit the number of potential community commercial sites and should provide a substantial nearby population base to support businesses within the development. (Exhibit C shows that only two ` sites within the city limits and two sites within the city°s future urban growth area meet both the surrounding area dwelling unit density standard and the previously proposed intersection locational standard). It is hoped that the nearby residents will be able to walk or bicycle to the commercial center to do some of their shopping, thereby reducing dependence on their automobiles and a resultant reduction in traffic. The site and building design guidelines and standards as well as the ability to limit site size or place conditions upon future development of a site will allow the City additional leverage in seeking to avoid negative effects upon residential uses surrounding a community commercial center. These provisions also will promote pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility and safety to and within the development. Staff has not been convinced by the proponents of either increasing or decreasing the allowed size of grocery stores in this zone to change the proposed maximum grocery store size of 40,000 square feet. Staff also did not receive any direction on this issue from the Council at the June 23rd meeting. Therefore, this issue remains for the Council to decide as a matter of community choice. Staff continues to recommend 40,000 square feet as a ' maximum grocery store size that should be large enough to provide for a wide election of groceries and related services for surrounding neighborhoods, :t this size should be small enough to discourage the development of large grocery stores that may tend to attract shoppers from outside surrounding neighborhoods. The revised proposal has not been sent back to the Planning Commission or neighborhood organizations for comment. For this reason, and because of the grocery store size issue, the Council may want to further continue the review of this proposal for additional public comment. However, if this is done, staff strongly urges the Council to provide additional guidance on the grocery, store size issue and any other aspects of the current proposal at this meeting. gROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. 2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the October 20, 1992 meeting adopting the amendments to the Plan and Code with revisions related to scale of Conanunity Commercial sites and/or maximum floor area for particular uses. 3. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES None applicable. EXHIBIT - Z . The City of See NOTES on i 1IGARD back of page. \ 1 Comprehensive SEE NOTE Plan r. Transportation x ti ~~t p u L, ...a Figure 3 w SEE NOTES b\ 5, 0 15 d~/4 - 4 C u r r i d u r d r d ✓ ! ti / i , " F ~ T ~ j S l U d y A r e a SEE NOTE` \ SEE Arterial z. \ Y a o r ~G d✓~ 6,.., to .a...., Y i a o r r NOTE 9 d✓/~I~;~~* Collector ~ ~ Freer ayy laterchaa e 1 , SEE NOTE \ e ` ~ , ~ ~ ~ ru• u~u.•uu H.tu Ordinance No.cRa 11-11 SEE w ••"I,,",•I,''•,•~ [ rloarli Yap adopted julii 11, 1Yi1 NO TE _ , See 1aet for rerisiss 3e1el%le „r,,,,, . r•.. 1,0..1111 UGEND - COMMIINITY COMMERCIAL MAP Potential Community Commercial sites, i.e. intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Asap W functional street classification criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially *zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone applied at the intersection). ISLACK OR IGILVE& ~IA~ Surrounding area potential residential density within one half smile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre). It is proposed that Community Commercial , sites must have a potential residential density of eight j dwelling emits or more per acre within one half mile of I the site. (as measured by maximum residential density permitted by zoning). Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet , functional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones criterion,. and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. EXHIBIT L _ WASHINGTO-M k-OVNTY 11I-43 311 NEIGHBORHOOD COMERCIAL - (NC) 311-1 Intent and Purpose The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial District is to allow - small to medium sized shopping and service facilities and limited office use in Neighborhood Commercial Centers. This District is intended to provide for the shopping and service needs of the immediate urban neighborhood. Neighborhood Commercial locations. should be easily accessible by car and foot from neighborhoods in the area. Centers should have minimal negative impact on surrounding residential properties. 311-2 Uses Permitted Through a Type I Procedure The following uses are permitted subject to the applicable stan- dards as set forth in this Section and in Article Id. P 311-2.1 Accessory Use - Section 430-1 311-2.2 Agricultural Uses and Structures - Section 430-5 311-2.3 Any Type II or III use, expansion of an existing use or change of use which meets all of the following: A. Is exempt from application of the Public Facility Standards under Section 501-2.1; B. Is not in an 'Area of Special Concern' as designated on the applicable Community Plan*map; C. Is on an existing lot; D. Does not amend any previous approval or previous condition of approval; and E. Is in compliance with all applicable standards of this Code. 311-2.4 Bus Shelter - Section 430-23 311-2.5 Parks with a maximum total gross area of ten-thousand (10,000) square feet - Section 430-95 311-2.6 Recycle Drop Box - Section 430-113 311-2.7 Temporary Use - Section 430-135.1 311-3 4tses Permitted Through a Tyne II Procedure The following uses are permitted subject to the applicable stan- dards as set forth in this section and in Article Ill. EXHIBIT ZT" PAGE OF 3 11/24/89 Igo 1 I1I-44 311-3.1 Access to a manufactured dwelling park - Section 430-77.14 311-3.2 Ambulance Service - Section 430-9.1 - 311-3.3 Convenience Groceries, with a maximum gross floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet - Section 430-35 311-3.4 Day Care Center - Section 430-53.2 311-3.5 Drive-In Establishment with a gross floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet - Section 430-41 311-3.6 Dwelling units provided: A. The ground floor is used for neighborhood commercial uses; B. Height and yard requirements are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial district requirements; and C. Maximum density of fifteen (15) units per acre. 311-3.7 Eating and Drinking Establishments with a maximum gross floor area of thirty-five-hundred (3500) square feet 311-3.9 financial Institutions such as branch banks, insurance agents, real estate offices - with a maximum gross floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet per use -311-3.9 Food Market with a maximum gross floor area of thirty- five thousand (35,000) square feet, limited to one (1) per Neighborhood Commercial Center 311-3.10 Personal Service Establishments such as laundry, dry cleaners, barber and beauty shop, shoe repair, photo- graphic studios - with a maximum gross floor area of five thousand (5000) square feet per use 311-3.11 Professional Offices, including veterinary clinics or offices which do not Include boarding facilities other than indoor boarding for immediate, critical care. There shall be a maximum floor area of thirty-five hundred (3,500) square feet per use. 311-3.12 Radio Station 311-3.13 Residential Facility - Section 430-53.7 311-3.14 Retail Businesses such as variety, hardware, drug, dry goods, clothing, photography, hobby and similar retail EXHIBIT Revised 11/23/90 PAGE 2_ OF - 3 111-45 uses - with a maximum gross floor area of ten-thousand (10,000) square feet per use 311-3.15 Service Station - Section 430-123 311-3.16 A Type I or Type II Nome Occupation in a nonconforming residence as an interim temporary use subject to the standards of Section 430-63.1 - Type I Nome Occupation or Section 430-63.2 - Type II Nome Occupation. 311-4 Uses Which May Be Permitted Through a Type 111 Procedure The following uses may be permitted subject to the applicable standards as set forth in Article IV and as may be further con- ditioned by the Review Authority. 311-4.1 Churches - Section 430-29 3 ~1-4.2 public Buildings - such as a post office, police and fire stations at a scale oriented to the surrounding • neighborhood - Section 430-103 - , 311-4.3 public Utility - Section 430-105 311-4.4 Special Recreation Use - Section 430-131 s t "loan low 311-4.5 Food Market - with a maximum gross floor area of-fifty - thousand (50,000) square feet, limited to one (1) food market greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet { er neighborhood commercial center 311-S Prohibited Uses 311-5.1 Structures or uses of land not specifically authorized.. by this District unless the structure or use has ' substantially similar use and impact characteristics ' to a use listed, as determined through the.provisions of Section 202-2.2. 311-5.2 Adult Book Stores - Section 430-3 311-5.3 The use of a manufactured dwelling, except as provided - In Section 430-135.1A - Temporary Uses and 430-1.2.D. ' - Accessory Use 311-5.4 New residential uses'except as provided In Section - 311-3.6 and 311-3.16. 311-5.5 The location of service facilities such as high schools, hospitals, nursing homes, public assembly and high density residential development in airport approach zones. location of these facilities shall be avoided within any existing (June, 1983) airport year . 2000 LON fifty-five (55) contour. EXHIBIT J Revised 11/23/90 PAGE 3 0 F -3 f 1 Study No. 91-100 July 26, 1991 Trade Area Demographics: 1991 Estimated Average Household Income = $28,600 1,391 Average Household Size = 2.67 1991 Average Per Cap = $34.90 3 Average % White = 92% Average % Spanish Origin = 2% Average % Under 18 = 32% Average % 65 and Over = 7% s . s Population Growth: Map Sectors Population with Growth 1991 1993 1995 3 1,000 1,300 2,000 5 1,800 2,400 3,400 6 2,700 2,800 2,900 7 900 1,100 1,800 8 1,200 1,900 2,200 9 1,400 1,600 2,300 11 1,300 1,400 1,700 12 800 1,000 1,700 14 500 800 1,200 EXH1Br1'==L ~ CrY , 9v -,~•j • n MAP01 ` • ~g~ 4559-Gr • ~ o t ! .6[pf At',~. A ~ia ~ ~aT ~4trt ~O" ossG road •a•tl••ta Qetalled W ergeinent of Prof extens' 2 to ~ r . ePR ~7 RD A• ~ 'd O e ~,t' 1, } t+.r t+~ P p1 0~ ~i1~t ~ 6 7 Howards on,, ~ H Wb ~ bO l ~ G '~vT~ ' Store r t cull, fir' way Su e~ 165K r - i4.Vbl "tom ~ Y m AK MILL 11 r~~ ~ , 'y AY` VIA, "0 e pt}i► V ~ t • • 1 mile v-st t. 13 0 0 p a 1!1 r . r ~•,/J~''♦ t ~ •l t• 0 t r~l• •rvwrf.w Y "Its C 1 1' r t a. . r t 4 a u i ~ _ , s Q a+ • ~ f `UT A a ~7 M •rl+ J ~ f 1 C1Z Y .6J • e ems" ~oKi no3 _T arm •Nr w, . ~1 •t 156 5'-~T * SUN S. A • PAGE 2 OF yFli.R 00 B BuSTE- MULTI - FAM-Lf ALBERT 50145 I I I f' AD BL t - .000 S _ i - - 3 s ' i~ Sfrrrr free i / -cuu,r ~~rrc nme Trrr . - / ~ Pnr1n,N leer I ~ x[wr d ~rrtcnnrr free ~ OD ~,rnr,. crr~nn«,•,-ter, - 31 (61 tAF W- Ito _ - off, 4 ep o 1~"f o~ ice'` Qo" ~ sf. -=mot ZOO -34 At 13 IQ ScnoLLS C• _ S° a ~ a~l~ 1~` t• t 1 t~. ReAveo &V New x,331 Dwell;o ~ . o PIrPe v e/e/„w,~, o I<r F SEAVERTotq = po,o i; t 3, ~ 7 H . Aor IRIS A OuNDAY •/..un•YL1/.////NmN\NOnn + 1 1 I iR :j AD F Ur rn A N I/`y('.' INII!/I/INII/NNIIIl111/• •IIYN/11//I..... ~ ~r t •Y•//1/INI.11t11111•~ J I Lsi T ! I1'L • I t2 MONO ' I ~ • ' ~ ~ ' / • ••1.1111.• ~ < L~ ~ Z 1 j ,,,11•.1//1• / • R`6 . a/...... ':uluuuwaur ,•,,,F 1 e ~::17~ • VIII \ ~o - s -ate i ~.an,i..: aa•- i ~ - - • el i; r 1214193 Agmda Na S FOR PHOTOS zv S~des ~Z SEE PHOTO BOOK MARKET AREA EVALUATION TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED BY: Columbia Research Associates, Inc. Supermarket consultants 11220 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 3 Portland, Oregon 97216 (503) 253-9199 FAX (503) 252-6529 DATE: November 11, 1991 COPYRIGHT, 1991 COLUMBIA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. INC. ( i i ( I t t i i ~ ~ 1 SOURCE DOCUMENTATION Washington County offices Hillsboro, Oregon Portland State University Portland, Oregon Oregon State Highway Division Salem, Oregon U.S. Census of Population 1970, 1980, 1990 CONCLUSION The proposed supermarket site located at the southeast quadrant of Scholls Ferry Road (Highway 210) and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension in Tigard, Oregon is currently not a feasible project at this time. This site should only be considered for future development, and should be reviewed in three to five years. The risks from construction of a supermarket/ shopping center in a "high population growth area" is evident from the recent changes at Murrayhill Shopping Center, approximately one-half mile north of the site at MAP KEY 7. Against the advice of Columbia Research Associates, Howard's opened a new supermarket at Murrayhill in 1987 and struggled in an almost empty shopping center. After years of losses, Howard's was sold and converted to a Thriftway store in 1989. This was a "future" site and with a new stable and growing population base, the Murrayhill project would have been more feasible in 1991. These conclusions are based on the proposed new development as it is now envisioned. It does not reflect such factors as land or construction costs of the facility, leasing arrangements, or other major demographic conditions which are not known to Columbia Research Associates, Inc. I i I i t t i ~ + ! i ! MARKET OVERVIEW Due to the largely rural demographics of the study area, shoppers can gravitate to supermarkets in several directions. The three main sub-marketing areas are Beaverton, Washington Square, and Tigard (Highway 99 corridor). The supermarket competition of the site in question is defined as a food store, which in the judgment of the analyst, has a significant impact on the area population. There are twelve supermarkets that have a significant impact to the residents surrounding the proposed site. Due to the proximity of the site, there are two stores that would be affected the most if a new supermarket were to be built. Both Thriftway at Murrayhill (MAP KEY 7) and Howard's on Scholls (MAP KEY 8) would lose the greatest amount of business to the new store. The remaining competitive stores, MAP KEYS 1-6 and 9-12, would be impacted to varying degrees. It needs to be noted that the area is experiencing moderate population growth due to the many new apartments and housing developments that have been constructed recently and during the past few years. Though the pace of new housing stock may be less during the next few years, the area west and south of the site, will experience continued growth. ' 1 t i t ( i 1 ! i i i MARKETING AREA This analysis deals with "food at home" which is convenience good rather than a shopping good. The tentative marketing zones of the proposed Tigard supermarket site, as defined for the purpose of this evaluation, represent a convenience good area. The marketing boundaries used were determined by plotting a modified two-mile radius around the subject store site which was then adjusted for geographical and topographical barriers affecting the population, competitive supermarkets in the study area, and for the judgment of the analyst. The tentative marketing boundaries for each size store is as follows: GREEN: This boundary defines the marketing area for a 20,000 square foot conventional supermarket. Approximately 10% of this store's business would come from outside of this area. PURPLE: This boundary shows the marketing area for a 35,000 square foot conventional supermarket. Approximately 15% of this store's business would come from outside of this area. RED: This boundary reflects the marketing area for a 50,000 square foot conventional supermarket. Approximately 20% of this store's business would come from outside of this area. i w l / ~ L f pur•r,w ° Ytwro wo c • rw + e eorert n wf :V I) Y y 3 et.vrwrcw - I 111 RD yfJ p \ L i ~ FF=='--- cuorw °s c- :+i 1 SIri , n°roT~ sl 3-NILE a LS rCpµ° =i _ ~ < - V~,f RIIDIUB hrC~ 5 c.10"9c ~ c r \ TC°P♦ ~ (i PO IgOfd ~j`wt'o ~ YI °Ct p AID S/ ici -Kik6,,,g city 12 ' \ `•L,l p~tn STORE MAP XZY ao wo 1 Albertsons 2 Thriftway tuatatin 3 Fred Meyer / co no 4 Thriftway 5 Safeway I .°rw, sr 6 Albertsons /r.• a s 6 7 Thriftway y is cy~ a 8 Hward's Sherwood) 9 Fored Meyer 10 Safeway ~l , 3L 11 Kienow e f s sr B-., \l 12 Albertsone 13 Proposed Site - - - `°_l i Zl 1 la3 - - - - - - - - - - - PURPOSE The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the marketing area if a conventional supermarket site was developed at the southeast quadrant of Scholls Ferry Road (Highway 210) and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension in Tigard, Oregon. Using potential store sizes of 20,000, 35,000, and 50,000 square feet, three tentative marketing areas for each size supermarket will be defined. The current feasibility of the site will be established by analyzing the current demographic profile of the study area. Currently, Murray Boulevard stops at the intersection of Old Scholls Ferry Road. There is a proposal to extend Murray Boulevard south of old Scholls Ferry Road, crossing Scholls Ferry Road (Highway 210), and then connecting to 135th Avenue/Walnut Street (see map above). t ? -25 AE';I ERN ~'~I I O~~~y~t ( 1 I i~- ` VMCE 3. sum'. ' ~ 1 rrr•ti I ~ Z ~ ill I ti I - - - C-0 r r PROPOSED'-,,, SUPERMARKET SITE a m rasI'M -12 1 \ METHODOLOGY This method of this review is the result of field study and an in-office analysis of the area as carried out by Columbia Research Associates, Inc. The primary data on which this study is based was developed and analyzed, then interpreted and balanced against known factors. The subject site, competition, and study area were evaluated by the analyst during the week of November 4, 1991. The office analysis incorporates an extensive amount of past and current demographic information about the study area that is retained on file by Columbia Research Associates. Also utilized is various data as provided by state, county, and private sector sources. Columbia Research Associates, Inc. is qualified in the supermarket industry with over a decade of practical experience in the western United States and Canada. As supermarket specialists, Columbia Research Associates provides supermarket site location studies, All& customer spotting surveys, trade area potential research, and general consulting services. DiS+~il'JU~e~ 12( IQ PP 3 J WPS. WINTER011VD PLANNING SERVICES LAND USE REPORT AND APPEAL PART 1: LOCATION, SCALE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ALBERTSONS' CONSOLIDATED LAND USE APPLICATION CPA 93-0009 / ZCA 93-0003 / CUP 93-0002 / a# i i i z This report reviews Albertsons' consolidated land use request for compliance with the design guidelines and standards of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC), Chapter 18.61. 1. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (TCP) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION 2 B. PERMITTED USES 2 C. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA 3 D. CONTEMPORANEOUS IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIRED THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 E. SUMMARY 4 11. TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 5 A. USES 5 B. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES 6 C. DESIGN STANDARDS 11 Land Use and Resource Planning • Growth Management • Site Development Suite 210, Office Courts Building • 700 North Hayden Island Drive • Portland, OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax. (503) 289-7656 r~- 1. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (TCP) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION The TCP text (4. Community Commercial) describes the purposes of the Community Commercial designation, which are to: • provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation • not be so large or so broad in scope as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods • avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development A. SCALE AND LOCATION According to this section of TCDC 18.61, the scale of the Community Commercial development should provide residents the reasonable opportunity to walk or bike to do their shopping. Response: As noted repeatedly in later sections of this report, the project has been designed primarily to suit automobile traffic, and is indifferent to the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Facts and reasons supporting this conclusion are found in the discussion related to Site Development Review. Suffice to state here that the design of the project is a standard strip mall, with a large parking lot separating buildings by several hundred feet, without adequate pedestrian access and without an adequate plan for bicycle safety or parking. B. PERMITTED USES (TCP, 4.a Scale) Potential uses are also listed (TCP, 4.a.2): (2) Gross Flood 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 sw. ft. per establishment; Other commercial sales and service facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size per establishment. Response: The development provides the largest possible grocery store - a 40,000 square foot super Albertsons, which is designed to serve a two-mile regional market area, as indicated in the applicant's findings (Exhibit K). The Blockbuster Video store exceeds Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 2 WOW r { the permitted scale of development allowed in the Community Commercial plan designation. The video store, as proposed, would be 5,950 square feet. However, Blockbuster Video is not, as the applicant suggests, a "general retail sales" store. Rather, it is a. very specific and limited video rental and sales store, and thus falls under the category of "other commercial sales and service facilities," which are limited to 5,000 square feet in floor area. A general retail sales store includes such shops as Payless, K- Mart or Sprous-Reitz, which sell a wide range of goods - not Blockbuster Video, which has a limited product line. To interpret the TCDC otherwise would render the "other commercial sales and service" category meaningless. C. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Locational criteria are listed in TCP, 4.b Locational Criteria. The CC development is limited to one quadrant of an intersection involving a collector and an arterial street, and must be a half-mile from commercially-designated sites in retail use. The proposed district must not create traffic congestion or traffic safety problems. Site size ranges from two to eight acres, although the Council is under no obligation to approve the entire eight acre site for CC use. Response: There is inadequate evidence to support the need for eight acres at this location. Excess parking is provided, and the 4,000 square foot "pad" at SW Walnut and Northview was denied by the Planning Commission for use as a gas station. The applicant would have the Council believe that the proposed Albertsons is in the center of an area devoid of existing and potential retail commercial development. In fact, there are three Potential Community Commercial Sites located within approximately one mile of the proposed Albertsons site, any one of which could potentially be developed for community or neighborhood commercial purposes to serve the market area defined by the applicants findings (Exhibit K). These potential sites, in addition to (a) the Thriftway Super Store located about one-half mile from the proposed Albertsons, along the proposed Murray Road extension, and (b) the Howards Supermarket located about 1.25 miles from the proposed Albertsons on Scholls Ferry Road, all serve the needs of shoppers in the two-mile market area defined in applicant's Exhibit K. For these reasons, and to avoid unnecessary incursion into existing and planned residential neighborhoods, it is recommended that the CC designation extend no further south than the extension of SW Stardust Lane, and that SW Stardust Lane be designed to serve both the proposed strip mall center and planned multiple-family development to the south, without providing a "short-cut" from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Northview Drive. The Albertsons and Blockbuster Video complex could be shifted 90*, so that Albertsons faces SW Northview Drive and the Blockbuster Video complex is located at the corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive. The loading, trash compactor and compressor functions would need to be heavily screened from public view and to minimize noise impacts. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 3 Such a configuration would: 0 expand the size and adjust the shape of the R-25 site so that it can be developed effectively 0 provide safe access to the R-25 site and the Albertsons complex without providing yet another curb cut along Scholls Ferry Road 0 minimize conflicts between Albertsons' loading area and mechanical equipment, and residential land to the south and east 0 provide pedestrian street entrances and bicycle access to the Albertsons' complex from SW Northview Drive, the extension of SW Stardust Lane and from SW Walnut Street, without crossing a large, unprotected parking area, and 0 orient the shopping center towards the neighborhood, rather than to Scholls Ferry Road D. CONTEMPORANEOUS IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIRED THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ( In order to approve a CC designation, there must be a contemporaneous Site Development Review application which demonstrates that (TCP, 4.b.4 Impact Assessment): The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. * * * 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 and 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 and rezoning process. Any modification to the site plan, as determined by the Community Development Code, shall be processed as a zone change. * * * Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. * * * Access needs of individual parcels shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. * * * Exterior lighting, noise, and activities associated with the Community Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses * * * operating hour restrictions within the zoning district may be placed on uses within the district * * * E. SITE HISTORY AND THE MYTH OF THE "MISTAKE" Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 4 -0 0 The applicant's proposed findings go to some length to explain that a "mistake" was made in designating the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road for Neighborhood Commercial use. The following history demonstrates that the only on that was made was designating more land for Neighborhood Commercial use that is permitted under the locational criteria for the C-N designation. In 1983, the City annexed and re-designated 132 acres of land, in a manner generally consistent with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan for the area, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and locational criteria. Ninety acres were re-designated Medium-High Density Residential (A-20); 38 acres were re-designated Medium Density Residential (A-12); and four (4) acres were re-designated Neighborhood Commercial. The City's "locational criteria" for Medium and Medium High Density Residential both require direct access from a collector or arterial street, the absence of development constraints, access to existing or planned public transit, adequate urban services, and access to open space. Neighborhood Commercial designations also must have direct access to arterial or collector streets, and be located on constraint-free land with adequate urban services. The maximum site area is and was two acres. As noted in the July 12, 1983 staff report related to the re-designation of land from Washington County to City C-N use: The second issue concerns the size of the Neighborhood Commercial area. The ( County comprehensive plan has designated 4 acres for commercial area while the City's locational criteria sets a 2 acre maximum. Although the acreage is excessive according to standard, staff believes that during this interim time, before the final development plans are reviewed (including road alignments), the designated acreage is appropriate. Until that time, staff believes it is appropriate to adopt the County's designations as indicated on the CPO #4 Bull Mountain Community Plan. Thus, in 1983 it was anticipated that the amount of C-N land would actually decrease, from four to two acres, in accordance with the TCP locational criteria. The applicant's findings at page 6 suggest that the City made a mistake is re-designating land from Washington County's C-N to Tigard's C-N. In fact, the City acted according to its UPAA agreement with Washington County, which states that the City will re-designate land to the closest corresponding plan designation, which in this case was Neighborhood Commercial. There is no requirement that the plan designations be identical. The only mistake the City of Tigard may have made was designating too much land for C-N use (four acres instead of two), in contradiction to the City's Neighborhood Commercial locational criteria. In 1984, the four-acre site was re-located to Murray and 135th (CPA 18-83). In 1986, the N-C designation somehow shifted to a five-acre site north of the Walnut extension (CPA 1-86). In 1992-93, the Walnut Street extension was constructed, and additional MHDR and MDR land was lost for right-of-way purposes. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 5 ( In an October 18, 1991 memorandum, Development Review Planner Jerry Offer responded to a request for information from Katy Dorsett, NPO #7 Secretary: With regard to the NPO's request for a determination of the current size of the C-N designation in the northeastern quadrant of the future Scholls/Murray intersection, staff agrees that the C-N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No reconfiguration or expansion of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1-86. The decision for SUB 90-0004 only allowed creation of a 6.99 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without approval of an expansion of the C-N designated portion of this parcel. * * * The Council's decision for CPA 1-86 only said that this 5.0 acre parcel could be reconfigured, not enlarged. We believe that the Albertsons' statement is in error when it refers to a 6.99 acre Neighborhood Commercial/C-N parcel on this site. This memorandum was copied to John Shonkwiler, representative of Albertson's Inc. Nevertheless, the applicant's findings refer repeatedly to the 6.97-acre N-C parcel, and use this figure to demonstrate a limited impact on MHDR and MDR land. In fact, the N-C parcel has been only five acres since 1986, and there has been considerable loss of MDR and MHDR land due to the following causes: • Much of the original 128 acres annexed to the City and designated MHDR and MDR has in fact developed as single-family residential. • Additional MHDR and MDR land was lost to allow the extension of Walnut Street to Scholls Ferry Road. • The applicant has under-estimated the impact of the proposed Community Commercial plan amendment and zone change on MHDR land by two acres, or 50 residential units, based on the erroneous claim that 6.97 acres are currently designated for N-C use. E. SUMMARY The design standards of the CC District act as zone change criteria, and each of the guidelines of the CC District must be considered to determine whether they shall become mandatory criteria in the zone change process, in which case conditions of approval must be attached to address the criteria. Thus, each of the structures and uses within the CC District must meet applicable Site Development Review guidelines and standards, prior to approval of the plan amendment or zone change. The only mistake that the City may have made was in designating five acres for N-C use, when the City's locational criteria limit the size of N-C areas to two acres. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 6 r~ 11. TIOARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT The TCDC's CC Community Commercial District implements the TCP's Community Commercial text, locational criteria and impact assessment provisions. TCDC 18.61.010.A Purpose reiterates that: The designation of a site with this district should not create or contribute to a commercial strip development pattern. * * * 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 pan` of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. * * * building and site design guidelines and mandatory site design standards [are] intended to minimize site development impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods and to promote pedestrian and bicyclist friendly development. * * * 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. TCDC 18.61.020 re-states the TDC policy that any change in the site development plan shall be processed as a Type III zone change request, subject to the standards of this chapter. In addition, the Commission or Council has broad discretion to attached conditions of approval to ensure compliance with design guidelines. A. USES TCDC 18.61.030 lists permitted and conditional uses. Subsection A.2. Commercial use types include: C. Convenience sales and personal services, e. Eating and drinking establishments; f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of 40,000 square feet); g. General retail sales (maximum size of 10,000 square feet); TCDC 18.61.040.A lists Vehicle fuel sales; and 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. TCDC 18.61.045.A.2. states that: w Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 7 Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a gross flood area greater than 5,000 square feet. Response: As noted above, Blockbuster Video does not fall into the general retail sales category, because they have a specialized product line. Video stores are limited to 5,000 square feet or less, according to TCDC 18.61.045.A.2. The impacts of extending B. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES TCDC 18.61.055.A states that design guidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C-C (community commercial) district. Conditions of approval of the development plan may include, but are not limited to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. Each guidelines is quoted below, along with suggested findings explaining how the guideline should be applied in this instance: 1. Building Design Guidelines 1 a. The design of buildings * * * 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. Response: The proposed 8-acre commercial development is typical of strip or "power" shopping center designs throughout the found throughout the region and country. The overall design of the strip mall is hardly unique; rather, it follows a predictable formula. The standard strip mall design is automobile-oriented and has the following characteristics: • Located at intersections involving arterial and collector streets, with high or potentially high traffic volumes. • Large, "anchor" supermarket + "market place" (including flowers, deli, espresso bar, drugstore, food center, etc.) located at the rear of center, facing the street. • This Albertsons, like every other Albertsons constructed during the last five years, is a huge monolith, devoid of windows, but decorated in the front with lego-like, "post-modern" facade, and painted sides to partially break up the monotony of long, continuous blank and windowless walls (165' on east facing Northview) and 235' (south facing future R-25 development). Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 8 e Loading areas and equipment (condensers, etc.) located behind building and out T of view of commuting customers (preferably next to undeveloped residential areas, thus minimizing potential neighborhood complaints). ® A medium sized general retail use (small department store, Payless, etc.) also located at the rear of the center, generally in line with the grocery store anchor, with loading areas located to the rear. • A restaurant and gas station (if allowed locally) located on "pads" facing the major street(s). These "pad" uses typically are landscaped to meet local requirements. ® Large parking lots designed to serve a large market area and focused on serving commuter traffic, with as many access points as the code will allow. • The center is design especially to (a) pull traffic off of main arterials and collectors to and from work and shopping, and (b) to attract customers from a wide market area by putting daily and weekly shopping needs in a single location. A virtually identical mall was developed by Hillman NW, Inc. in Springfield approximately four years ago. As in this situation, a zone change was required, "pads" were located in the front for a gas station and restaurant, and the ± 40,000 square foot Albertsons was located facing a huge parking lot at along an arterial street. As with this development, there was a lego-like front facade with brick trim, and with loading and noisy mechanical equipment placed near the rear. The City required Hillman NW to install a landscaped berm to partially mitigate noise to land in the rear zoned for apartment use. What is different about this development is that there is more landscaping (because the TDC requires) more. What is also different is that Springfield does not have the kind of design guidelines and standards found in TCDC 18.61. Although lip service has been paid to these design guidelines and standards, what is being proposed in the standard Albertsons design, with no significant modifications to accommodate the design guidelines and standards of the Community Commercial District. There is nothing "unique" about a large building complex facing a parking lot with two pads located out front, as suggested by the applicant's findings at page 19. 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. Response: All that is available for the Blockbuster Video store and the Shari's is the footprint. As noted in the staff report at page 14: The only building design provided is for the grocery store. It is not clear how the appearance of the remaining structures will harmonize with each other. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 9 This plan amendment and zone change to CC cannot be approved in the absence of approved building, landscaping and signage plans for all structures in the complex. (TCDC 18.61.020.C) Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of how the "window pattern" for the Shari's and video store "harmonize" with each other, when the Albertsons has no windows. The Shari's and Blockbuster Video franchises standard building facades are full of windows, in stark contrast to Albertsons standard design. Blockbuster Video stores typically have a flat roof with a bank of brightly lit windows, again in contrast to the proposed Albertsons store. 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 unit 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. Again, since there are no designs for individual buildings in the strip mall, it is impossible to tell whether this guideline is met. Moreover, the plan amendment and zone change cannot be approved in the absence of building design drawings. The Albertsons' design misses the mark. The entire east wall, facing SW Northview Drive, has neither windows nor (open) doors' to provide "visual access" to the grocery store. There is no "public entrance" to SW Northview, although any bicycling or walking from the surrounding residential neighborhoods would directly benefit from such an access. The reason that a doorway windows are provided is that Albertsons' standard corporate design does not allow for this kind of flexibility, regardless of the design guidelines of the TCDC. The entire 30 X 235 foot south wall, which faces undeveloped land planned for 25 units to the acre, is devoid of windows and doors, except for a loading dock. The only design treatment these long, continuous walls do receive is paint and brick block for the first third of the way up the wall. It stretches credulity to claim that the south and east walls of this Albertsons "provide visual interest." Although landscaping is provided on the south and west sides of the monolithic structure, most this landscaping is required 1 Two small emergency doors are barely visible about 200 feet from the northeast corner of the building, and about 65 feet from the southeast corner. What is noticeable about these emergency doors is that they are dwarfed by the 4,800 square foot, unrelieved facade of the Albertsons building's east side. The 48 square foot doors represent one percent of the total east face of the building. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 10 gnaw in any case. It will take years for this landscaping to hide the long, continuous south and west walls of this building. 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 a street, should be oriented away from the street and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. The Albertsons' loading area is, in fact, located at the south end of the building, immediately adjacent to land planned and zoned for medium density (25 units per acre) residential use. The applicant's findings avoid this issue by noting that the Albertsons will be constructed in a hole, immediately below the windows of a future apartment building. Albertsons has requested and received Planning Commission approval for 24-hour use of their property. In addition to customer traffic, trucks will be loading and turning around within 20 feet of the property line of this R-25 site, and noisy condensers will be located within hearing range of future apartments to the south. If the R-25 site does develop for multiple-family use, the structures will be two- to three stories high, and will look down into the loading and turnaround area. It will be very difficult to block noise from these areas to the apartments above. Moreover, the R-25 site is irregularly L-shaped, and narrows to 100 feet in width exactly where the least landscaped buffer exists. There is no proposed design for apartment development or access, as suggested in the staff report at page 9. Alternative Design There is an alternative that would minimize these impacts, yet allow for a 40,000 square foot Albertsons. If the site were reduced to approximately five acres (the amount of land originally designated by Washington County), this would allow the southern boundary of the development to align with the extension of SW Stardust Lane, and would allow the R- 25 site south of the shopping center to develop more efficiently. As proposed now, the 3.95-acre R-25 site is shaped like an "L", and would impractical to develop. Buffering of the R-25 development from single-family residential subdivisions on the south and east would be required. Additional buffering would be required from the hindmost of the Albertsons to the north, and from Scholls Ferry Road to the west. Typically, strip malls place the parking in front, along the collector and/or arterial street, with a couple of high visibility "pads" in the front, and the anchor in the rear. However, the Transportation Rule and the City's CC design guidelines and standards suggest that C buildings should front and have pedestrian access to major streets, with windows and Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 11 I doors facing the streets, and with parking and service functions in the rear. The Planning Commission has already denied the service station use at the corner of Walnut and Northview. The Albertsons store and Blockbuster Video complex could be moved to the corner of Walnut and Northview, with pedestrian access and windows facing both Walnut and Northview. The grocery store would be required to landscape and screen around its loading and mechanical equipment areas, which would be separated from residential areas by the building itself and by the extension of SW Stardust Lane, the parking lot and landscaping. Albertsons should be required to provide an attractive entrance, with pedestrian and bicycle access, directly on to Northview and Stardust, as required by the standards of the CC District. Blockbuster Video and the inevitable pizza parlor could be re-located to face Northview Drive and Walnut Street, which would allow pedestrian and bicycle access to these commonly-used facilities, without having to cross a busy parking lot. As noted•in the staff report at page 29, the applicant has provided 44 spaces more than probably required by the TCDC. Since bus service will probably be available to the site (staff report at page 24), this extra parking, and the acre or so needed to accommodate { these spaces, is excessive. If the project were re-designed to encourage bicycle and pedestrian access, then there would be even less demand for parking. Finally, the Planning Commission appropriately denied the gas station conditional use, which further reduces the needed for building and parking space. In summary, five acres is sufficient land to accommodate a reconfigured shopping center design, with adequate parking and noise buffering, and without a gas station. The surplus acreage could be appropriately used by the L-shaped R-25 parcel to the south, and would mitigate the already significant loss of multiple-family residential land occasioned by this community commercial proposal. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 12 C. DESIGN STANDARDS The design standards listed in TCDC 18.61.055.13 are mandatory in all cases: 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. Response: The staff report at page 27 requires revisions to the sidewalk plan to meet this standard. While necessary, these conditions are not sufficient to comply with this TCDC standard. The proposed site plan does not identify "focus points of pedestrian activity." Despite the fact that the staff believes that bus service will eventually be available to the site, there are no provisions for bus stops serving this development. Major building entry points are separated from each other by broad expanses of paved parking area in the proposed site plan, which makes pedestrian or bicycle access between the commercial structures both dangerous and difficult. Under a more pedestrian and bicyclist friendly design, as called for in the purpose section of TCDC 18.61, the buildings would front on to public streets, thus avoiding the need to cross huge parking areas to get between buildings. 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 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 should 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 to 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, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 13 j ( Response: Again, the Albertsons' design ignores pedestrian and bicycle access to the R-25 site immediately to the south, from SW Scholls Ferry Road, from SW Walnut Street, from SW Stardust Lane, and among isolated buildings on the site. The applicants attempt to avoid the issue by limiting the number of accessible doorways to their buildings. It is revealing that Albertsons has a doorway on only one side of the building - the side facing the parking lot. No doorways, and hence no sidewalks, are provided from Stardust down to the east side of the building. Similarly, no walkway is provided to the pad at the corner of Walnut and Northview, s because the developer's have not designed the project for pedestrian or bicycle access. i If the project were re-designed along the lines indicated above, pedestrian and bicycle access would be much easier. The current design is not pedestrian and bicyclist friendly, f as required by TCDC 18.61.010.A. This standard is not met. (3) 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. Response: The applicant's and staff's response to this requirement is to ignore it. No pedestrian walkways are shown across the parking lot. Moreover, as noted above, the site plan itself is clearly not designed for pedestrian or bicycle travel. It was designed as a strip mall for ease of vehicular access - but gives virtually no consideration to pedestrian, transit or bicycle access, contrary to the purpose section of TCDC 18.61 and to the standard quoted immediately above. This standard is not met. 4. Other site development standards a. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut-off shields to prevent spillover of light to adjoining properties. Response: The applicant's findings merely parrot the requirement, without providing a lighting plan. 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 shall be consistent with the design of the building. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 14 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. Response: Again, there is no plan showing the precise locations of mechanical equipment, or what method the applicant intends to use to meet this requirement. Since we have no design for the buildings, it is impossible to determine whether the design of roof-top mechanical equipment screens will match the building design. Moreover, since i, the Albertsons' mechanical equipment probably will be located on top of or behind the building, this equipment must be screened from potential second or third-story windows of property to the south. This standard cannot be met merely by repeating back the standard in the affirmative, as the applicant has attempted to do. Nor is it adequate to attach a condition of approval, since the standard involves subjective judgement. This standard is not met. 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. Response: Again, there is no plan. The site plan does not show the location of trash receptacles or the method of screening to be used. In this case, because outdoor trash receptacles probably will be visible from second or third story apartments to the south, the screening should be high enough to block views from these locations. e. Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall be provided for developments having 100 or fewer stalls * * * 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 areas be covered. Response: Again, the applicant has merely parroted back the standard, and has not taken the standard seriously, because the applicant's site design is for cars, not for pedestrians or bicyclists. There is no bicycle access plan. There is no indication on the plan where the bicycle racks will be located, or whether they will be covered. This standard has not been met. 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 the parking lot. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 15 Response: Once again, the applicant's design has made a mockery of this standard, and the applicant has provided no evidence to demonstrate compliance. Parking has been designed to resolve all conflicts in favor of vehicles, with little consideration given to pedestrian and bicycle access. It would be both difficult and dangerous to cross the 240 feet of unobstructed parking lot from Albertsons to the proposed 4,000 square foot pad building, or the 350 feet of unobstructed parking lot from Albertsons' to Shari's. This standard has not been met. The staff dismisses the requirement by asking for a plan, but ignores the fact that the plan is required as a condition of plan amendment and zone change approval. 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. Response: Since the "points" of pedestrian access to the site are wholly inadequate, this standard cannot be considered, let alone met, until there is an adequate pedestrian access plan. As noted above, the site plan should be re-designed to make the shopping center pedestrian and bicyclist friendly, as required by the TCDC. 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 f site features shall be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development. Response: What pedestrian environment? Again, there are no detailed plans for fences, walls, refuse and recycling enclosures or light fixtures. No consideration has been given to making the site plan pedestrian friendly, so that there is no reason to believe the empty claim of the applicant that the design of these features will be pedestrian friendly. Yet again, the TCDC specifically requires that these issues be addressed now at a public hearing, not sometime in the future between staff and the applicant. j. In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. * * * 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. Response: Yet again, the applicant merely repeats the standard and calls it good, without evidence. No evidence is provided because even the most cursory review of site plan against this standard demonstrates that the standard has not been met. As noted repeatedly above, what separates the buildings on this site from one another is several hundred feet of parking lot, which hardly facilitates "safe and comfortable Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 16 pedestrian movement between buildings." An alternative site plan has been suggested in this report which would site buildings "closer to building streets, with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk." The problem is, such a pedestrian friendly design does not fit Albertsons' boiler plate design for a strip commercial mall. It is particularly revealing that the site plan proposes a gas station at the corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive, and yet the applicant's findings state that consideration will be given (at some time in the future) for pedestrian access. This development should not be approved unless, and until, the site plan is re-configured to provide direct pedestrian access to buildings with doors fronting on to public sidewalks along SW Walnut and SW Northview Drive. This standard is not met now. k. Opportunities shall be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestr;an connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where receded, shelters and lay-over areas shall be incorporated into site development: Response: The staff report indicates that transit likely will be available in the future. The applicant's findings at page 22 state that "a bus pull-out lane could be provided at the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. There is no evidence to support the applicant's claim that transit is not planned for this area, of whether the proposed bus pull-out lane would be adequate and appropriate or safe. In any case, a transit stop at that location would hardly provide for "safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections" to the main buildings on the site. The only way to get to Albertsons' or Blockbuster Video would be to cross several hundred feet of unobstructed parking lot, without safe or separated pedestrian walkways. This standard has not been met. 3. Sign Design Standards a. All signage shall be an integral part of the architectural design. Response: There is no signage plan; there is only a sign design for Albertsons. As noted in the applicant's findings at page 22: This exhibit [Albertson grocery store] serves as an example of the building signage style that will have common features throughout the shopping center. There are no plans for the remaining signage. It is mere speculation to suppose that the remaining signage will be an "integral part of the architectural design," especially when the architectural design of the remaining buildings is unknown at this time. Land Use Report and Appeal Prepared by Winterowd Planning Services Page 17 MONE Re C-~J 12.1, ,I ( q -P bti c. f -_e4_-yr_10i 14s- Cal Uoolery 12355 SU 132nd Ct Tigard, OR 97223 590-9297 December 19, 1993 City Council CITY OF TIGARD V 13125 SU Hall Tigard, OR 97223 RE= CPA 93-0009 / ZON 93-0003 / CUP 93-0002 / ALBERTSON'S Dear Council Wembers. Albertson's application for our new Community Commercial district was never reviewed by NPO #7 <a material misrepresentation in the STAFF f REPORT on page 10) nor by our new CIT UEST. In fact. this precedent- setting application has never been reviewed by any informed, neighbor- hood organization. I ask that you continue this hearing long enough to allow our newly- formed CIT UEST a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on this major land use request <per THC 18.32.180>. In the event you do not continue this hearing. I ask that the record remain open for at least thirty days to allow our neighbors a "last ditch" opportunity to submit written testimony on this application <per T11C 18.32 .165? . Sincerely. Cal Uoolery CIT UEST Land Use Subcommittee cc= Dick Bewersdorff Cathy Uheatley Ed Sullivan PS= Happy Holidays! i 121 Su`tuv~ - ~ STAFF REPORT 5 AGENDA ITEM 5.4 JULY 12, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD SCWOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARD ROOM 13137 S.W. PACIFIC HWY., TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: CPA 10-83 Krueger Comprehensive Plan Amendment ZC 2-83 Krueger Zone Change REQUEST: The City of Tigard is requesting Comprehensive Plan amendment from Washington County designation 0-24 units per acre to the City of Tigard designation Medium-High Density residential (13-20 units per acre) on approximately 90 acres, the requested underlying zoning district is A-20 (Multiple Family Residential); from Washington County designation 0-9 units per acre to City of Tigard designation Medium Density residential (6-12 units per acre) on approximately 38 acres, the requested underlying zoning district is A-12 (Multiple wily Residential); and from Washington County designation Neighborhood Coassercial to City of Tigard designation Commercial-Neighborhood on approximately 4 acres, the requested underlying zoning district is C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). (Attachment "A') RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff's analysis of this request in relation to the applicable policies and staff's coordination with Washington County's planning staff, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the City Council as requested and approve the requested zone changes to be effective when the city Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. OWNER: Russell Krueger, et al 14655 N.W. aunter's Drive Beaverton, OR 97006 Mr. Krueger is the owner of 105 of the approximate 132 acres in the area. The list of property owners is attached. (Attachment "B") LOCATION: The subject properties are located south of S.W. Scbolls Ferry Road, west of S.W. 135th Avenue and north of the properties that front on S.W. Fern Street and S.W. 136 Coast. Assessor Map 1S1-33C Tax lots 100-108, 300 (part of), 900 and 1000; Assessor Hap 2S1-4B Tax lots 100 and 101. (Attachment "C") LAND AREA: 131.95 acres I NPO COMIENT: No NPO comments have been received at the writing of this report. This area will be added into the NPO #7 area. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: S1 4 . 2. Background On Jung 23, 19P3, the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission annexed the subject properties to the City of Tigard. In June 1983, the City agreed to utilise the County°s land use designation for the annexation area. Theses designations were closely matched to City designations. In April 1983, the Washington County Board of Counissionera adopted the land use designations for the Dull Mountain C mwmity Plan CFO 89. This document was later adopted with the-other portions of the County Comprehensive Plan via an engrossment ordinance. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding land uses are as follows: The areas to the north of Upper Scholls Ferry Road are designated for single family residential with the City of Beaverton. The areas to the south of the subject area are also designated for • single family residential, and are within Washington County. The areas to the east and vest of the site are designated for medium to mediusi-high density residential, and are within Washington County on the west and the City of Tigard on the east. 4. Site Information The area within the annexation contains 131.95 acres, divided into 14 parcels under 11 separate ownerships. The property is fairly flat with 2 wales and some clusters of natural fir and oak. The southerly portion of the site which is at the base of Bull Mountain has steeper topography, up to 8Z slopes. There are 5 single family residences within the annexation area; all of which are owner occupied. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies All of the comprehensive plan policies were reviewed in light of this comprehensive plan amendment. This amendment proposal generally sleets the plan policies related to citizen involvement, transportation, public facilities, urbanization, and natural features and open space. The specific policies that pertain to the land use designation are found in the locational Criteria, and are as follows: Residential: 12.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH: STAFF REPORT - CPA 10-83 b ZC 2-83 - Page 2 4 ~ a. THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. b. THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. ( c. THE APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DZVZLOPHM CODE PROVISIONS. Mediums Density Maidential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for medium density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not eoititted to loan density development. (2) Areas which have direct access from collector or arterial streets. (3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding. poor drainage. (4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development. (S) Areas within one half of a mile of public transportation. (6) Areas which can be buffered froi low density residential areas in order to maximise the privacy of established low density residential areas. B. The following factors will be determinants of density ranges allowed through zoning in the medium density planned area: (1) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development. (2) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas. (3) The capacity of the services. (4) The distance to the public transit. (S) The distance to neighborhood or general comerzial centers and office business centers. (6) The distance from public open space. Mediuv-High and Sigh Density Residential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not comitted to low density development. f (2) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. STAFF REPORT - CPA 1083 b ZC 2-83 - Page 3 INN' 1 11 - IMFAr- (3) Areas which have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. (4) Areas which are not subject to development limitatiuns. (5) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for . additional development. Y (b) Areas within one quarter mile of public transit. Areas within one quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping center, or business and office centers. (8) Areas adjacent to either privat`• or public permanent open space. In reviewing the lacational Criteria, it is ispbortant to keep in mind that these criteria are general guidelines, and each site may not specifically meet each criteria. • s The criteria for Medium and Medium-High Density residential areas generally speak to the capacity of public fatalities and services to service the arts given its core intensive use. The following summary of those facilities and services indicate that there are adequate services or j reasonable means in which to acquire such services. l 1. SAnitary Sewer Service. An 8" city serer line available at 135th Ave. and Morning Hill Drive. A 24" sewer trunk line is located 1200 feet to the east at 130th Ave. Z is trunk will be extended due west across the norther portion of the territory by the Scholls Trunk L.I.D. formes by the City of Beaverton to serve southwest Beaverton near the P.C.B. site at Murray Rd. and Scholls Ferry Rd. The L.I.D. i will also extend the trunk due west between Old Scholl* Ferry and new Scholls Ferry Roads. From this truck the bulk of the annexation area could be served by extending a lateral due sovth through the territory. The remainder of the territory :ould be served by extension of existing city mains. 2. Water Service. Water service in the area is provided by the Tigard Mater District. Tax Lots 100 and 101 at the south end of the proposal are within the boundary of the district. The remainder of the territory is not within the district, and an annexation to the Tigard [later District would be necessary. The, water district has a lb" water line running along SW 135th to approximately the fiddle of the proposed annexation. The water district's facilities have been designed to provide service vest to Scholls Ferry Road. 3. Fire. The territory is within the boundary of Washington County RFPD #1 which also serves the northern portion of the City of Tigard. This district is very large and can easily handle development of the property. 4 4. Transportation. The subject property is served by 135th Ave. dad Scholls Ferry Road. Scholls is sufficiently improved to accommodate urban development. However, street widening and realignment of the Murray Blvd., and the Old and new Scholls Ferry Roads intersections, will be necessary before full urban developseant occurs. 135th Ave. needs major improvements before much urban development can occur. Currently, a joint City/County Street L.I.D. study is in process for 135th Ave. The 135th Ave. improvesseiat feasibility study is expected :e. be roomplete in 2 to 3 months. Upon completion, a public hearing will be held to determine whether to fors' the L.I.D. Land owners both in the City and in the annexation area are in support of the L.I.D. S. Schools. The territory is within the Beaverton School District. The following information was provided by the major petitioner: The three schools that serve this area, their existing enrollment and capacity are shown below: T►s school Name Capacity Existing Enrollment Elementary McEay 384 254 Intermediate Whitford 1050 963 High Beaverton 1800 1768 { The school district indicates that adequate school capacity exists, however, some boundary or schedule changes say be necessary to accoenodate anticipated students from the subject property. Police service, parks, library, and general administrative services -ire available to the area. Commercial: 12.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROVIDE FOR CoHMERCIAL DEVELOFNEbTI BASED ON THE TYPE OF USE, ITS SIZE AND REQUIRED TRADE AREA. b. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. c. APPLY TILIT APPROPRIATE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. 1. Neighborhood Doasereial Neighborhood cosnercial centers are intended to provide convenience goods and services within a cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for which people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center include convenience markets, beauty shops, barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses is limited to those uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area. 4 A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Up to 5000 people. (2) Site Size. Two acre maximum. (3) Cross Leasable Area. Varies. 8. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least one half of a mile. (b) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection or where there is no street intersection, to one side of the street. (2) Access (1) The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the cost • intensive use allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following: W An arterial. (ii) A collector street which will not direct traffic i through local neighborhood streets. (3) Site Characteristics. The site shall be of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres. (4) Impact Assessment (a) ne scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. There are two remaining is-tues to be resolved concerning the neighborhood Commercial area. '?••a tirst issue concerns the location of the area. Currently, it is located on the steepest portion of the site (about 8% slopes) which is not conducive for commercial development. In addition, there is a good possibility that the location shown slay not be the most logical location once the final road configuration for the area is determined: that being !Murray Road. Staff has consulted with the major property owner of the area and have agreed that when the actual road alignment is finalised, the City will request a comprehensive plan amendment change for neighborhood commercial if it is necessary. STAFF REPORT - CPA 10-83 b ZC 2-83 - Page 6 4 • ~ L6 The second issue concerns the sits of the beiabborhood Commercial area. ~l The County comprehensive plan has designated 4 acres for cbmseee-cisl area while the City°s locational criteria sets a 2 acre maximum. Although the acreage is excessive according to standard, staff believes that during this interim time, before the final development plans. are reviewed (including road alignments), the designated acreage is appropriate. Until that times staff believes it is appropriate t^ adopt the County°a designations as indicated on the CFO $4 Beall Mountain Community Plan. 2. Zoning District Map All of the proposed zoning district changes are consistent with the cospreheasive plan designations. Medium Density Residential - A-12 (Multiple Family) ' Hediuas-1ligl. Density Residential . A-20 (Multiple Family) Cb=nercial-Neighborhood C-N (neighborhood Commercial) i r P D B : Jeremy. Courso Ile - AP dE0 BY: btilliss, A. l~onahaa T Associate Planner Director of Planning and Development JM:pm/0105P I i i? E4 C f i t r i t i i STAFF REPORT - CPA 10-83 b ZC 2-83 - Page 7 MEMORANDUM Yyy. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF. TIGARD TO: Kat Dorsett, NPO 7 Secretary OREGON FROM: Je.~ fer, Development Review Planner DATE: October 18, 1991 . SUBJECT: Albertson's CPA/ZC -I have received NPO 7's request for additional information with regard to ATEP's traffic study in support of the Albertson's plan amendment. I will forward this request to ATEP and Albertson's representatives so that they may respond to this request at the hearing on this matter scheduled for November 4, 1991. At this late point in the application review process, we cannot consider the NPO's letter a req-aest to declare the application incomplete; instead, these matters can only be considered possible deficiencies with regard to the support for the application. If in fact these items are deficient, the applicants may wish to further amend their traffic study in response to the NPO's and others comments prior to the Council hearing -on this matter. That hearing is tentatively set for December 10, 1991. With regard to the NPO's request for a determination of the current size of the C-N designation in the northeastern quadrant of the future Scholls/hurray intersection, staff agrees that the C-N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No reconfiguration or expansion of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1-86. The decision for SUB 90-0004 only allowed creation of a 6.99 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without approval of an expansion of the C-N designated portion of this parcel. This parcel has yet to be created. In the Planning Division's opinion, this parcel would be a split zoned parcel upon its creation. The City's zoning map and Comprehensive Plan Map contain several other split zoned/split Plan designation parcels. An increase in the size of a parcel through a lot line adjustment or the divisi-dn of a split zoned parcel along other than zoning boundaries does not automatically result in an enlarged Plan designation or zone designation. The Council's decision for CPA 1-86 only said that this 5.0 acre area could be reconfigured, not enlarged. We believe that the Albertson's applicant's statement is in error when it refers to a 6.99 acre Neighborhood Commercial/C-N parcel on this site. Staff will ask the City Council to determine a new configuration for this 5.0 acre C-N area if the Council fails to approve the Albertson's application. c: John Shonkwiler, representative of Albertson's Inc. Dick Woelck, ATEP Engineering Ed Murphy, Community Development Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 ®PPENOW"IX ONE Cw*v • R -•~r h t R• ~ w i~vi~ ~A Ott ' a # R 19 M e r CIO o d road s ,CPT oRose • n, { pr ~ 0 AWA @ta~le @~,1a gele~t ~ OteASAV coo cm to I - O rtt s ,e a~ b t ' ~ s a 9Q A LAt ~ ~ CT ;kA . • ~ P ~ , ~ p ~o e , r• s ♦ aras • ~n ~ - oQ r tore ~ .~~~.1 way Su ~ ~165 w aN 411L1 { ~ ' t,~(RG 9 ' T• •i ~ •L • IN r'~rMJ.1 r~ 4.e p Dltt 1 o♦ t A w S Y. • ,,~1!! G O i ~ • A300 ♦c ~ ``ate. a r~ ! r , •-'F Ae' ! to eiOVlsdrx «~~M SOa Q s1" • 4 • ~ ~ uft11 W yp ` e1 ~ A " QI O a ~~tn c o 4h' er d S cf b e 110 tr ~ ' .r:~ h► A+ new" r t i 8, rt..r y~ t4sh A bea~L•R EXN/SST C The Ci ty of See NOTES ou sEy' ~ T I G A R D m back of page. I € Comprehensive a SEE NOTE P l a a t Transportation M a \ E Figure 3 SEE NOTE `FR Light Rai I Ihcc, 4 \ C o r r i d o r S \\Study Area < S d'E I a~ d~la Study Area /a l E i \ SEE 3 NOTE Arterial ]dajor aYNOTE 9 ~d„1al Collector Freexapp SEE NOTE lntercLange 0 . 1 ~ ~ ~ Ii,l1.1 1.1• . I.11 .1. ~~rY~L_ 1.1 i•• 1.•1.1.1 17 I1. 1~1, - r--- m 1 ~ .I Iglu. .I~I~ua L.,u• L S ~/a C l dr~l / G (i d°Et ~j \ 1••iiu'r•n~.l..'lu. I• IUn1U 1• 1• '1..••i. •1 Ordinance No.oRo 9i-13 SEE ~ N O i r H ,.I~~r,~,.l••. ••I• Yap adopted iuxt if. 1991 NOTE 11• I~Ir I I1,.1 Set leek for reti:ior role/llle LEGEND -COMMUNI'T'Y COMMERCIAL MAP Potential Community Commercial sites, i.e, Intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Map functional street classification criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially *zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone applied at the intersection). BLALCK OR ZILVEP- Surrounding area potential residential density within one ! du/C11, half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre). It is proposed that Community Commercial sites must have a potential residential density of eight j dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of the site (as measured by maximum residential density t permitted by zoning). Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet 1 functional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones criterion,. and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. t 1 l I r.nlT VA 1'13 II BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD I 1 II IN THE MATTER OF THE ) 2 I APPLICATION OF ALBERTSON'S, ) File Nos. CPA 93-009, INC. FOR PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE ) ZON 93-003, SDR 93-0014, 3 I CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT ) CUP 93-002, and MLP 93-013 4 III REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE ) PERMITS, AND MINOR LAND ) 5 PARTITION APPROVALS, ) 6 i ~I II . 7 8 li. MEMORANDUM OF MATT MARCOTT AND MARCOTT THRIFTWAY 9 ! Matt Marcott and Marcott Thriftway appear in opposition for 10 the first time in these proceedings as they come before Council. 11 They regret that they have not had the opportunity to deal with 12 this matter before the Planning Commission; however, they were 13 out of the personal notice range and, despite their interest in f 14 this matter, manifested during the lengthy proceedings before the ~l 15 Planning Commission and Council over the past year, neither staff 16 nor the applicant chose to inform them.' Marcott and Marcott 17 Thriftway request notice of final adoption of the plan amendment 18 in this case, as provided by ORS 197.615(2). 19 These proceedings involve an application by Albertson's Inc. 20 21 'These parties will not raise issues relating to citizen 22 participation under Goal 1 and TCP Policy 2.1.1, so long as they are heard fully and fairly at this level. However, we will note 23 that, notwithstanding these citizen involvement requirements, the City dissolved its CPOs in June, 1993 and did not begin the 24 successor organizations (CPIs) until October, 1993 and, despite requests for information, this application was not shared with 25 the CPIs. Instead, it was given a "private showing" at a meeting sponsored by the applicant, to which these parties were not 26 notified and were not entitled to notice. That is the reason why all the participation occurs at the end of the process in this case. Page 1 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 121111 Us. HANCORP TOWER I I I S.W FIFTII AVENUE IYIRTI.AND. OREGON 4721- 169M TELEPIH INF: 141111 :'_M-i,IMI (the "applicant") for a comprehensive plan amendment, zone Y 1 change, conditional use permit, minor land partition, and site I 2 design review for a 57,550 sq. ft. shopping center anchored by a 3 40,000 sq. ft. Albertson's supermarket, plus 9,550 sq. ft. in 4 commercial space adjacent to the store, and an additional 8,000 5 II sq. ft. in two commercial pads on the site. No residential 6 I' development is proposed at this time. I; 1 7 II The subject site consists of two tax lots on the northeast it $ (TL 100, 6.93 ac.) and southeast (TL 200, 11.95 ac.) quadrants of 9 the intersection of Scholls Ferry Rd. and Walnut St. The ; i 10 III applicant proposes to redesignate all of TL 100 from "CN" 11 it (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (PD) (residential planned 12 development with a maximum of 25 units per acre) and 8 ac. of the 13 ~i 11.95 ac. TL 200 parcel from R-25 (PD) to "CC" (Community I, 14 Commercial), the largest community commercial site size avail- 15 able, while leaving the remainder in their present R-12 (PD) 16 I; (residential planned development with a maximum of 12 units per 17 '1 acre) and R-25( (PD). The applicant also seeks approval of 18 conditional use permits for a 24 hour grocery store and a filling 19 station. A complete site plan has been submitted for the grocery 20 ! store use. 21 The following chart illustrates the request: 22 Designation Current Designation Proposed Designation u 23 CN 6.93 ac. 0 24 CC 0 8 i 25 R-25 (PD) 11.95 ac. 6.93 ac.+ i 26 ;j R-12 (PD) Page 2 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS I.IYI U.S. BANCORP TOWER I I I S. W. FIFTH AVE OF M)RTI.AND. OREGON 47y14Ih11N i ; Tel rrnoNF:. t503) _:x. elNl i li I ,I ~ *(includes unchanged portions of TL 200) 1 i There are several sets of relevant criteria applicable to 2 these proceedings: 3 THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 4 Goal 2 This goal requires, inter alia, an adequate 5 factual base for consideration of alternative policy choices and 6 consistency with the statewide planning goals and the unamended i li portions of the City's plan. ORS 197.175(2); South of Sunnyside 8 I Neighborhood Leactue v Board of County Commissioners, 280 Or 3, i 9 569 P2d 1063 (1977). In this case, there were no alternatives 10 Ili considered, including other sites, other designs and uses 11 I (especially that which is more amenable to pedestrians and 12 k cyclists), site sizes, other land use classifications or other 13 available commercial uses outside the city. Consistency with the 14 ! goals and unamended portions of the City's plan are discussed i, 15 below.2 16 Goal 6 This goal requires, inter alia, that waste and 17 process discharges from future developments, when combined with 18 1!'' existing developments neither violate, nor threaten to violate, jl 19 ji applicable state or federal statutes, rules or standards. There 20 is no listing of applicable statutes, rules or standards, much 21 less of an evaluation of the same. In one case (i.e., noise) 22 there is no current evaluation at all. Finally, there is no 23 consideration of carrying capacity or degrading or affecting the I i 24 availability of air, land, and water resources, as required by 25 26 I 'The requirements of TCP Policy 1.1.1 are similar to the goal C compliance requirements of Goal 2. Page 3 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS INDUS RANCORPTOWFIR I I I S. W. IIIT11 AWNUE PORTLAND. ORLCON WNU-3M8 T11.1,T110 N 1'.15113,22K-12M j~ the goal. See Eckis v. Linn County, 22 Or LUBA 27, aff'd 110 Or 1 App 309 (1992) ; Eckis v. Linn County, 19 Or LUBA 15 (1990) ; McCoy 2 II v. Linn County, 16 Or LUBA 295 (1987), aff'd 90 Or App 271 3 ~I (1988). 4 I; Further, the conditions imposed under this Goal at pp. 21-22 5 I~ it of the staff report under TCP policies 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 and Goal ; 6 ! 6 do not show that it is feasible for these criteria to be met, ! 7 '11 nor provide for an opportunity for interested persons to be heard ii $ j when the discretionary determination of compliance is made. 9 Goal 9 The Economy Goal requires an analysis of i~ 10 commercial land needs, particularly in the light of the adequacy I 11 of such land allocations at periodic review in a plan which was ;i 12 coordinated with those of the City of Beaverton and Washington 13 County. It does not follow that increasing the inventory of 14 commercial lands will increase the number of jobs; rather, it is 15 likely to displace existing or planned future opportunities. An 16 analysis of commercial land needs and availability is required 17 here under this goal, ORS 197.712, and OAR 660, Div. 9. It is 18 necessary to consider the effect of the various changes in i 19 designations on the City's (and region's) inventory of commercial 20 and housing lands. 1000 Friends v. Marion County, 18 Or LUBA 408 21 (1989); Hummell v. Brookings, 16 Or LUBA 5 (1987). Further, it 22 is necessary to explain how 6.93 acres of neighborhood commercial 23 lands (which was itself to be limited to 5 acres upon annexation) 24 are equivalent to 8 acres of community commercial lands. 25 Goal 10 As with commercial lands under Goal 9, the 26 City's finite amount of residential lands must be considered II Page 4 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 72MUS BANCORP TOM..R I I I S K'. I IFT11 AVENUE PORTLAND. ORUGON 9721. Wit TELI.PIIONE; (Mill 228 12[Ml ~I under Goal 10 and OAR 660, Div. 7. The latter requires that 50% ~i 1 i'I of the vacant buildable land be designated so that multifamily or 2 attached residential dwellings may be located thereon. OAR 660- _ 'I 3 11 07-060(2) requires that plan amendments assure meeting the 4 provision of OAR 660, Div. 7. The subject application must be 5 viewed in concert with the cumulative effect of the use of high 6 density designated land for low density use, including that in I the R-25 and R-12 areas adjacent to the subject site. The 8 applicant and staff apparently take the position that the loss of 9 high density land may continue indefinitely so long as the i 10 remaining land is designated at 10 units per acre or more. This 11 application, particularly with the loss of 4 acres of high 12 density land since 1983, requires an analysis of the relative 13 supply and demand of residential lands so that Goal 10 and its i 14 implementing rule are met. 15 Finally, it must be said that the remaining undeveloped 16 residential land owned by the applicant is unlikely to be used 17 ! for residential purposes. Units would face the blank wall of a 18 "food fort," i.e., that side which is most unattractive, which 19 has the noisy and traffic-heavy loading areas. The multifamily 20 site remaining narrows to about 100 feet at one point and "wraps 21 around" a single family subdivision, making it more unattractive 22 to those residents, too small to be buildable for high density 23 multifamily use, and more likely that this land will also develop 24 as single family housing (if housing is developed at all), with 25 a consequent loss of density. Most likely, the land will be the 26 subject of future applications for redesignations for commercial Page 5 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRINISON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 1211) 11. S. RANO)RP TOWER I I IS W. FIITII AVENUE: PORTLAND. OREGON V721O A69K T1.1.1-MONF: 001122M 121Y1 I ii use, because of its proximity to commercial use, impractibility ( 1 ~,I for residential use, and simple economics. It is curious to note 2 that the Walnut extension reduced the amount of residential lands 3 while increasing the amount of neighborhood commercial lands I 4 j beyond the five acre limitation to just under seven. Now the 5 l medium and high density residential lands inventory is proposed 6 to lose another 1.07 acres to commercial use. All this without i; 7 !I analysis and compliance with housing criteria. $ jl Goal 12 Not only does Goal 12 apply, but also the Goal 9 I' 12 rule, OAR 660, Div. 12 applies to the plan amendment, upon 10 which the remaining applications depend. OAR 660-12-060. The 11 transportation rule is not addressed at all and the only consid- 12 i eration of compliance with the goal are baseless comments that 13 j; another strip mall will reduce the number of auto trips and that 14 some sidewalks will be built across the massive parking lots ("in 15 a safe and convenient manner" according to staff) which obviates 16 further consideration of the conflicts between pedestrians and 17 cars) on the site. Nothing is advanced regarding alternative I 18 modes of transportation. This discussion is inadequate. ODOT v. i 19 Waldport, 24 Or LUBA 344 (1992). j i 20 Moreover, the staff report and Planning Commission decision 21 depends on a later County traffic analysis to deal with access to 22 the site.3 Of course, access is a major component of the site 23 24 3Parts of that analysis apparently are missing. Staff Report at 8 and 10 and condition 2(q) at 18. It is impossible to 25 evaluate the relationship of the street improvement conditions at pp. 7-8 and 18-19 of the staff report without a complete analy- 26 sis. Further, at Staff Report at 9-10 and 29, there is no showing that access for parcel 2 has been resolved. Finally, (continued...) Page 6 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIAISON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 12111I1i.5 HANCORPTOWER I I I S W HF711 AV Nk1l: MIRTLAND. OREGON 977--WX TFLEPHONF O1111._N-i_11n i I I I~ plan before the Council, as it must deal with the number and 1 I1~ location of driveways, turning lanes, sight distance, and the 2 I' layout of structures. Further, there are no access plans for the I I 3 ~ 3.95 acres to the south. If access and residential viability are 4 not to be precluded, it is necessary that this issue be dealt 5 II it with now. So also must the accommodation of the development to 6 I, transit (which the applicant and staff claim is "imminent"), by I 7 the provision (by dedication and improvements) for bus turnouts 8 j! and shelters and other facilities conducive to transit coordinat- 9 ed with Tri-Met. I 10 Goal 14 Long term land needs are governed by Goal 14 j11 and the findings establishing the Portland Metro UGB. This area 12 has a history of underutilization for residential use and lack of I 13 coordination for all uses. In order to comply with Goal 14, the 14 applicant must demonstrate that the changes proposed will not 15 affect local and regional needs and land allocations. 16 TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 17 TCP Policy 1.1.1 This policy (and implementing strategy I 18 2) require goal compliance and requires that implementing 19 measures be designed to carry out the whole plan. In this sense, 20 these requirements are similar to those of statewide planning i I 21 goal 2. 22 Under the implementing strategies, the various plan designa- 23 tions are set forth, including those of the General, Community, I 24 and Neighborhood Commercial designations. The proposal before 25 26 3(...continued) condition 5(b) at pp. 18-19 appears to allow unlimited exaction r of lands for rights of way. Page 7 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRINISON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 12IMI U S. HANCORP TOATR I I I S K. IIETII AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 472(1 1"9 TE.I.EPHONE. 0413,22X-12W Council is much closer to the General Commercial designation, I~ ( 1 it which this applicant failed to secure earlier, i.e., auto- 2 l oriented and related commercial uses located along major traffic- 3 ways. i 4 I TCP Policies 5.1.3 through 5.1.5 These policies support 5 downtown Tigard, prevent encroachment of commercial and industri- I~ 6 al uses into residential areas and prohibit most residential uses 7 in commercial and industrial areas. These policies state: ii 8 The city shall improve and enhance the portions of the 9 central business district as the focal point for commercial, high density residential, business, civic, 10 and professional activity creating a diversified and economically viable core area. 11 The city shall ensure that new commercial and industri- 12 al development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or 13 industrial uses. The city shall prohibit residential development in 14 commercial and industrial zoning districts except: 15 complimentary residential development shall be permitted above the first floor in the 16 central business district, and above the second floor in commercial professional 17 districts. 18 Unlike the Washington square area which was planned and 19 developed before annexation to the City, the Council has a choice I 20 in the future of the city. It can choose that the City will be 21 a suburban discontinuity, with interspersed malls competing with 22 its downtown, or it may envision Tigard as a community, as j I 23 provided by its plan, by strengthening the downtown area. i 24 The Council could choose to allow the unequal land swap 25 between two different commercial categories and provide for an 26 incursion of commercial use into residential areas, rendering the Page 8 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 14W)(:S IIA%('OR1' T()N'I.R III SW 111711 A\'1:r('I IY)RTI.. M) I)RI(a'%17_1M I- T1-IA 11110M.INI11 __Y I.'M i 1 remaining residential area under the control of the applicant ( 1 I unusable. Or Council would deny this incursion and support the 2 !I Planned Development approval it gave to a larger parcel for a 3 residential community. Similarly, Council could consider 4 I allowing the mixing of commercial and residential uses proposed, 5 or it could abide by its plan policy to separate these two 6 categories. 7 II Housina Policies Policy 6.1.1 requires the City to 8 provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and 9 residential housing types at various price and rent levels. u 10 I Policies 6.4.1 and 6.6.1 require specific consideration of 11 `II developing areas including, in implementing strategies 2-4 to it 12 j policy 6.3, transitional screening and buffering requirements and 13 locational criteria for higher intensity uses adjacent to 14 1 established residential areas. Implementing strategy 1 to 15 ii Policy 6.4.1 provide for locational criteria for higher intensity 16 ! residential uses dealing with the proximity to streets, public 17 transit, commercial areas and the like. Further, implementing 18 II' strategy 8 to Policy 6.1.1 states: I 19 The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as those 20 prepared by the area Agency on Aging, the extent of the City's need and projected need in the area of low and 21 moderate income housing, senior housing and specialty housing. The City shall encourage the development of 22 such housing types to meet the identified and projected needs. 23 As suggested under statewide planning goal 10, there is no 24 analysis of the current state of housing in Tigard, much less a 25 picture of projections of what the subject proposal will do to 26 that picture. There is no consideration of the effect of this ~ I Page 9 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 1:111I'.S. RANC1)RPTO)1VER 111.SW HMIAVENUT IN IRTLAND. 1)RECA)N .1214- M'A TI7.EfIR)NE: (9)11 2-'X 12(1) I proposal on established residential areas, nor any adequate ( 1 consideration of different uses being buffered. 2 Public Facilities and Services Policies 7.1.2(a) and 3 7.2.1 deal with stormwater management and policy 7.1.2(b) deals 4 ii with the use of city standards and provision of service to 5 intervening properties. Implementing strategy 1 deals with 6 erosion control. These provisions must be seen against the f ii 7 jl background of federally required stormwater management and $ if requirements of Oregon law to clean up the Tualatin River. OAR I 9 340-41-455(3)(e), which provides that no new development shall be 10 approved in the Tualatin sub-basin unless there be a condition of 1 11 approval requiring permanent stormwater quality control facili- i 12 ties which meet the rule. There is no such water quality 13 facility at this point i~ 14 I' t, only a deferral so that such a facility may be approved later 15 as suggested at p. 8 of the staff report and later at conditions 16 2(1) through (n) at p. 18. That is insufficient to meet the rule 17 and this plan policy. 18 Transportation The community commercial use must be 19 especially supportive of the city's coordination with Tri-Met for 20 public transit as provided by TCP Policy 8.2.1 and of encourage- 21 ment for the use and expansion of such transit as provided by TCP 22 Policy 8.2.2." Moreover, TCP policy 8.4.1 provides for the 23 24 4This latter policy Provides three means by which this goal may 25 a. Locating land intensive uses in close proximity to 26 transitways; (continued...) i Page 10 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRINISON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 121Y)US HANCONPTOWEN 111 ti W HFTH AVENUE POMAND. ONEOON 42yN 16KH TF:I.EPINnE: 15111122. t:w I ;i creation of bicycle and pedestrian corridors to assure for access ( 1 i~ to such uses in a safe and convenient manner. 2 { Energy Policies Policies 9.1.1 to 9.1.3 all deal with 3 I and increased opportunities for a reduction in energy consumption pp 4 energy conservation, establishment of a balanced and efficient 5 transportation system to complement the TCP and minimize energy 6 I~ impacts, and encouragement of development which emphasizes energy 7 conservation, design and construction. Implementing strategies 8 8 and 9 promote alternative forms of transportation (such as 9 walking, ridesharing, and bicycles) and use of locational I 10 criteria to minimize vehicular travel. This application is the li 11 antithesis of those ideals and criteria. There is nothing energy 12 conscious about this development, which is aimed at auto travel 13 and provides a foreboding obstacle to alternative forms of u 14 j transportation. And by rendering the remaining residential area 15 I! practically undevelopable, the leaves additional land for 16 redesignation to commercial use at another time. 17 Snecial Areas Again, the Council should turn its 18 attention to the central Business District ("CBD") or downtown 19 area to be as vibrant as is envisioned in Policy 11.1. 20 A, so that it has a broad mix of uses and meets the needs of many i 21 people in the planning area, maintains existing businesses in the 22 downtown area and expands the economic potential for this area. 23 24 4( continued) b. Incorporating provisions into the Community Development 25 Code which require development proposals to provide transit facilities; and 26 c. Supporting efforts by Tri-Met and other groups to provide j for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Page 11 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRINISON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 1 X21111 t'. S. HANCf>RP Tf)WF.R 111 S.W FIFTH AVE t F. MRTT.AND. OREMN 4721. WS TFI. THINE 1111122" 3.1.1 A 111111 11 II ~II i This area is envisioned to be the major commercial area in the I 1 I'I Tigard planning area, to provide a variety of commercial uses, 2 and to provide a compact, accessible, broad-based commercial area 3 , served by mass transit. Providing a major competing area to li Tigard's downtown does not serve this policy, nor the revitaliza- 4 l 5 l tion policy (11.1.1). 6 Locational Criteria The residential criteria of i i ~i 12.1.1(2) and (3) are not treated at all by staff or the appli- cant. Policy 12.2, and 12.2.2 provide locational criteria for 9 1 commercial areas. The criteria relating to the Community 10 ! Commercial designation and contained in TCP Policy 12.2.1(4) are I! 11 dealt with in the Winterowd Report which accompanies this 12 Memorandum. However, the commercial lands criteria of TCP Policy i 13 12.2 and 12.2.1(a) thorough (c) are applicable and are not i! 14 addressed. Rather the applicant's focus has been almost entirely 15 " on the Community Commercial criteria, rather than that for the 16 land which is placed in other categories or the viability of the 17 remaining undeveloped lands in the area. 1 18 Further, underlying the application is a premise that i 19 neighborhood and community commercial designations are equiva- j 1 20 lent, mostly because they contain the word "commercial." 21 However, the differences between the two are great and transmut- 22 ing an expanded version of what should have been a two acre 23 neighborhood commercial area to an eight acre community commer- i 24 cial area without the benefit of analysis on the effect of this 25 change on the City's plan and inventories of various land use 26 categories does not provide an adequate factual base for these Page 12 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON WORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATF_S & ELIAS 121W'S R4N('ORPT)WCR I I I ' I IITII WI NI'I- NIRS ANMORI")-'4. 1t,Itt TI'1 f'PIV fNE'N", :.'A 1_ItI proposals, nor a consistency with state goals and City plan 1 I policies. 2 11 II Conditions As indicated in the discussion under Goal 6, i 3 above, the imposition of conditions requires a determination of 4 feasibility that a standard can be met by the imposition of a 5 condition and an opportunity to be heard when a condition is 6 imposed. In addition to those conditions, conditions 2(a), (b), I 7 (d) and (e) at pp. 16-17 of the staff report fail these tests. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons given in this memorandum and the Winterowd 10 1 Report, the subject application should be denied. II 11 ii DATED this 14th Day of December, 1993. 12 PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER 13 GATES & LLIS 14 15 Edwar u iv n, OSB 69167 16 Of Attoreey s for Matt Marcott and M t Thriftway 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 26 I I I Page 13 - MEMOI:LANDTJM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SNIDLER GATES & ELLIS 1$(10 U.S. PANCORP TOK'[R 111 S.K'. HITII AVENUE PORTLAND. URUMN 4721M.3M$ TE11THONE; 0031 22X Am, I AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Charter Amendment Public Hearing PREPARED BY: City Atty & C.Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider forwarding proposed Charter amendments to the voters on May 17, 1994. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution which calls for a special election to be held on May 17, 1994, submitting the following question to the legal voters of the City of Tigard: "Shall the City of Tigard amend its Charter relating to the filling of vacancies on the City Council?" INFORMATION SUMMARY - - On November 9, 1993, the Council reached consensus concerning the proposed amendments to the Tigard Charter. Those amendments dealt with the filling of vacancies on the City Council and are summarized as follows: 1) Eliminate mandatory appointment to the Council in the event of a vacancy. 2) Elminate a mandatory election in the event of vacancy on the City council. 3) Repeal the prohibition of interim appointee to a Council vacancy from filing as a candidate for that same council position. The attached resolution, if adopted by Council, will authorize the process to place the proposed amendments before the voters on May 17, 1994. FISCAL NOTES Cities are not required to pay for measures placed on either the Biennial Primary or General Election ballot; therefore, there is no charge for this election. h:\login\cathy\charter.ph