City Council Packet - 12/30/19960
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
BUSINESS MEETING
DECEMBER 30, 1996 6.30 PM'
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW 14ALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
CITY OF TIGARD
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 Deaf).
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.
~f
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 t
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - f,
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 1
n
..rte
U'
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 30, 1996
6:30 p.m. I
• STUDY MEETING
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into
Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d),
(e), ar (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all
discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing
from this meeting may be disclosed by those present.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session,
but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. h
7:30 p.m. j
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council et 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
7:35 p.m.
2. 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:
2.1 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes: November 26 and
December 3, 1996
2.2 Receive and File:
a. December 23, 1996 Memorandum from Director of Finance to
City Manager Regarding Capital Improvement Program
Amendment and the Budget Authority to Fund the Storm
Maintenance Program
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items i
requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate
discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted
on those items which do not need discussion.
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 2
i
7:40 p.m.
IDER FINAL ORDER TIGARD TRIANGLE COMPREHENSIVE
3. CONS -
PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-
0008/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0005
PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive
Plan Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the
Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low
Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial
Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment.
Additionally, specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
(Ordinance No. 91-13) are proposed.
A request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-
P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and
R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning designation of MUE
(Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes amendments to the
Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use
Employment" to provide a new zoning district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High
Density Residential, and Commercial Professional ZONING
10 DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25
(Residential, 25 units per acre), and CP (Commercial Professional)
LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and
south of State Highway 99 West APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule
Continued on Page 4
660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1,
8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1, and Community Development
Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32.
a. Staff Report
b. Council Questions
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-
8 P.M.
4. ADJOURNMENT
i s \adm\calhy\cca\961217.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 3
l
i -
tl
i
i
i
i
z.
1
i
C
Agenda item No.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of t as fG?
1 MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 30, 1996
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 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 As ou are aware all d' thi
f
y tscusstons w, n this
session are confidential. therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any
information discussed during this session.
1. BUSINESS SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 7:55 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx;
Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City Recorder Catherine
Wheatley.
Mayor Nicoli recognized First Class Scout Robert Hansen and asked him to lead the pledge of
allegiance.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Bill Monahan. City Manager, asked for discussion of the alternative for MPAC, the draft
City Manager goals, and funding for the design standards for the Tigard Triangle.
Mr. Monahan informed the Council that the first meeting in 1997 would be on January 14.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the Consent
Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: November 26 and December 3, 1997
3.2 Receive and File:
a. December 23. 1996 Memorandum from Director of Finance to City Manager
Regarding Capital Improvement Program amendment and the Budget Authority to
Fund the Storm Maintenance Program
b. Tentative Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE I
-I. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - TIGARD TRIANGLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0008/ZONE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0005
PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map, Rezone and Text
Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request
includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and
Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. Additionally,
specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Ordinance No. 91-13) are proposed.
A request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial
Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and R3.5 (residential, 3.5 units per acre)
to new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes
amendments to the Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed
Use Employment" to provide a new zoning district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High Density
Residential, and Commercial Professional.
I
j
ZONING DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units
I
!
per acre), and CP (Commercial Professional)
LOCATION: Generally, east o Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway
'
99 West
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Polices 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1,
8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12. 1.1 and 12.2. 1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22
and 18.32.
a. Staff Report
Jim Hendmc. Community Development Director, presented the two ordinances drafted by
;
staff to adopt the Council findings to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendments for land
j
use, the amendments to the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan, and the text
{
j
amendments to implement the mixed use employment zone.
Tim Ramis. Legal Counsel, explained that staff wrote two separate ordinances because the
two actions were logically separate. He noted that the ordinance relating to transportation
i
improvements originated at the request of ODOT who asked that the City update its
transportation section. The second ordinance dealing with the land use portion originated
separately in response to the Task Force recommendations and to Metro.
Mr. Ramis commented that the objection from DLCD appeared to merge the land use and
transportation factors. He explained that the land use was not dependent on the
transportation issues, as DLCD apparently thought. Rather the proposed land uses were
limited so that they did not create transportation impacts that would exceed those permitted
under the current plan designation. The land uses and the transportation improvements each
stood separate from the other. He mentioned that the proposed transportation improvements
were included in support of ODOT's improvements to the I-5/217 interchange.
~
t
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 2
r.
~J
i
i
b. Council Questions
i
'
c. Council Consideration: Ordinances No. 96-41 and 96-42
J
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-
41.
The City Recorder read the title and number of Ordinance No. 96-41.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-41, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, REZONE AND ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE AREA KNOWN AS THE TIGARD TRIANGLE, CPA 96-
08, ZON 96-08, AND ZOA 96-05 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-
j
42.
I
The City Recorder read the title and number of Ordinance No. 9642.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-42, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
1
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP
(ORDINANCE NO
91-13) ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION
.
AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS OF THE HIGHWY 217/1-5
INTERCHANGE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
i
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
Councilor Rohlf commented that while this adoption of ordinances appeared simple and straight
forward, the action tonight was actually the result of two years and more of hard work by City
staff and Triangle residents and business owners.
4. NON AGENDA ITEMS
> Mr. Monahan reported that Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton, informed them that Lou Ogden
j
was the MPAC representative because he received the majority of nominations. However, there
were three nominees for the MPAC alternate: Neil Clough of Cornelius, Richard Kidd of Forest
j
Grove, and Jack Clauster of King City. He explained that the Council needed to vote tonight on
the alternate because Beaverton wanted the votes back by January 10, and this was the only
Council meeting between now and then.
Councilor Scheckla spoke in support of Neil Clough as the alternate, stating that he had
understood that the Council had agreed on Lou Ogden as the representative and Neil Clough as
the alternate. Councilor Rohlf concurred. Mr. Monahan said that he would inform Beaverton of
1
the Council's vote.
j
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 3
e
i
1
1 > Mr. Monahan distributed copies of the draft Citv Manager goals and asked for Council feedback
_ with discussion on January 14.
> Mr. Hendryx noted the Council direction to staff at the December 17 meeting to work on design
standards for the Triangle. He explained that the consultants have exceeded their budget
estimate of $40,000 but have not yet billed the City because they extended their time to work on
the design standards. He said that the consultants were confident that they could take the design
standards through the Task Force process to the Council hearing for an additional $5000.
Mr. Hendryx stated that he would work with Wayne Lowry to find the $5000 in the budget
somewhere.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the design standards were for the whole Triangle. Mr. Hendryx said
yes. He noted that the rough standards presented at the December 17 meeting needed to be
refined and worked with by the consultant.
Mayor Nicoli commented that there was support on the Council for these design standards, and
if staff could not find the $5000, they should not let that hold them up in getting started on the
standards. Mr. Monahan mentioned that they might be able to borrow the money from the Code
rewrite budget (since that would not be finished by June 30 in any case). Mayor Nicoli stated
that Council would work out the $5000 if staff could not find it.
Mr. Ramis commented that staff could send a letter to DLCD assuring them that design
standards were occurring quickly. Perhaps DLCD might see an opportunity to work
cooperatively with the City.
Nadine Smith. Senior Planner, noted a copy of a letter she received from Richard Benner,
DLCD Director, to Tom Brian which discussed DLCD's position at this point and the letter
DLCD sent to the City of Tigard. She stated that she would invite DLCD to send a
representative to the Task Force meetings on the design standards.
Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that adding another player to the mix could upset the
balance of the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think that would happen because
the Task Force had been nonpartisan.
> Councilor Scheckla asked for a report on the high water and flooding. Mr. Monahan reviewed
the problems in the City and staffs responses. He mentioned the recurring problem on Hall
Blvd at Bonita where water backed up due to a break or clog in the line. He said that staff
alerted the state to the problem on Thursday but the state did not respond at that time.
However, all night Thursday City crews pumped water 700 feet to a drain because of the history
of this backed up water flooding neighboring properties. Mr. Monahan said that the state took
over pumping on Saturday, using the pump the City loaned them. They closed Hall Blvd and
pumped the water over the road, but not down to the drain.
Mr. Monahan reported that the flooding of Fanno Creek caused them to close Hall Blvd and
several bridges. He noted that the water at Fowler Junior High was as high as it had been last
February. He commented that the water receded quickly and that there were few calls on
~.J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 4
i
1 property damage coming into the City. He said that they had a couple of people monitoring the
1 situation.
Councilor Moore asked who paid for the City of Tigard crews pumping water on Hall Blvd. Mr.
Monahan said that they would bill the state. He noted an additional problem with the state's
lack of adequate signage warning citizens of the problem. He said that the City was making
signs to warn people of the danger. He stated that they would try to recover the entire cost from
the state but doubted whether this would be possible.
In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan explained that they only
reopened closed bridges after those bridges were checked out by an engineer. They have
reopened the City bridges but the state bridge required inspection by a state engineer before it
could be reopened. He mentioned the use of chains instead of barricades to close off roads
because during the February storms, people simply moved the barricades and drove on through.
Councilor Scheckla reported that he opened the three grates in his area to prevent the flooding
that occurred last time. Mr. Monahan said that opening the catch basins was a simple way to
help the City manage the water runoff. He mentioned a report that water was over Walnut
Street, and expressed hope that the County would send someone to check on it.
> Councilor Moore commented on the attractiveness of the 130'h Highway bridge, and how well it
fit the area.
> Councilor Hunt commented that the power poles in the middle of sidewalks violated ADA
standards, and asked if the City could not do something to force the state to deal with that
situation. Councilor Moore explained that the state did not care about providing space for utility
poles, unlike the City which tried to do so. He said that PGE could not put poles up on private
property, they had to use what right of way was available.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that the City pour a radius section of sidewalk to provide a five foot
clearance around the poles. Councilor Moore commented that the state did not like meandering
sidewalks, though he did not know why.
> Councilor Rohlf asked if there was code enforcement for people illegally parking in
handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Monahan said that there was enforcement, although they were
not as aggressive as some jurisdictions.
5. ADJOURNMENT: 8:31 p.m.
Attest:
yor, City of Tigar
Date: 19 417
is kadmtcathy!ccm\9612-z0.doc
atherine Wheatley, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 5
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDA Tr OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
- s
3
3
j STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
~ R
I _ 1 begin first duly sworn, on oath
y depose and y:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) (I ~o - '4 q
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated I~ i ~0 copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being ereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the
(0 day of , 19
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this G day of ~yfi , 19~.
U
CL'- 4z~
OFFICIAL SEAL Notary 6blic for Oregon
M JO ANN HAYES
NOTARY 1'1 9LIC-OREGON I qq
COMI.!;_;SICN! NO 042148 My Commission Expires'Q.t,.
PAY COL1i4,SSION EXPIRES MAY GS. 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 962-1 1
i n
AN oRDINMICE ADOPTING FINDINGS A.NID CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE a
AP
*vL
t CONIPREHENSTVE PLAN TEXT ANIENDNiENT, CONIPREHENSTVE PLAIN I
A.NIENDNiENT, REZONE AND ZONING TEXT ANIENDNIENTS WITHIN THE AREA
KNOWN AS THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (CPA 96-6008/ZON 96-6608 AND ZOA 96-0005)
AND DECLARING AN ENIERGENCY.
WHEREAS. the applicant City of Tigard has requested approval of legislative Comprehensive
S Plan Nlap, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle.
Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density
' Residential, and Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. The
j proposal further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial
Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to
new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CTTY 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 Final Order.
SECTION 2: The specific text and map amendments attached to this Ordinance are.hereby
adopted and approved the City Council.
SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because of the need to resolve
use designation within the Triangle to provide immediate relief to property owners who have
been unable to make plans for the future use of their land. Therefore, this ordinance shall be
in full force and effect upon its passage by the City Council.
PASSED: Bv: U 11(C f1) MCUS vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this "2 day of-1-rG'mLEL, 1996.
i
Catherine Wheatley. City Reco er
i ORDDi a.I1CE NO. 96-
Pase l
1 ~,~f~ '
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thisx iiay of 1996.
~~1... L-e
Y es Nicoll. Mayor {
2'13O 13 31 1960 rRON: 503 684 7297 .0: 2473 PAGE: 2
FC 1-/30/98 13:27 X503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY 14002/013
ct~
i
i
1
1
' Attachment A
cllcwrng are ;'le scec:tic char•.ges :a the Ccrrprenenswe °ian ;c upeate ;he
dcc_nertt as related to ;ha Tigard Triangle', and ;a inc!uda larguage to allow
implementation of the (mixed use Employment z^
i
1
L.
_ re.
Racommerded deleCcris are indicated by s:::k,- - wittl rew lang ;age shown in
bold.
Volume Economy. Section I -tzz - 5
Delete:
-Ad GQQFdiAQte
pA*ed 4;F PQ Sible
-
mail
A; aFe
impa= L • -
~ s.- /nom n..
Stan Ccnment With the revisions prceosed to the Comprehensive Plan, this
section c- "a Plan wiil be implemented and -e need t'or a study of the Triangle
will no forger be necessary to be expressed in the plan.
1I-
- -.11 . . ....ii-sienizvon strategies, II - 7
ADD:
i. Mixed Use Employment District -Areas with a development concept that
is characterized by retail, office and service commercial uses, with
1?/30 13:31 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 3
12,'301,96 13:27 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY TTORNEY !®003/013
business ;:ar!t and researc:1 facilities. Iii n densir/ residential
development will be encouraged, g
j:3j •_.:cr1r. @.^. t: gerersl :3ngt;3g~ is .ec2ss ry allcw ;t:e 3GCidcn Cr a
new xcnu q Cisw c: tc ae ,r.CuCed :n the Cevelaoment Ccde.
j I Vclure 11, E ~rcmy, II 30.
=.3 `'.E C:TY SHALL PRCFHIEIT RSSIDENTIAL 0EVFLCP%IEN T IN
1 ' CCNLLIERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS eXCEPT:
I CONIPLIMEN T ARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE rcRiyllT i c]
AECVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN TE!E CENTRAL BUSINESS 01STRICT, AND
ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN CCMMERCIAL PROFcSSIONAL
DISTRICTS. (7 E DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL OEVEL OPMENT SHALL BE
OE I E RBAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 OISTRICTS), AND:
i EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT
ZONE SHALL BE CONSIDERED PERl4QlT= USES AND NEW MULTI-
FAMILY DENSITY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AND
! ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT R40 DENSITIES.
Staff Comment: This language wW rarity that the existing single-laftly heroes
within the Triangle will be considered pence uses and therefore can be
refinanced. remcdeied, rebuilt; etc It also clarifies that new high denrAy
ras dential develcpment is permitted within the Triangle.
i
i
11.4.1 IN -,HE TIGArRD TRIANGLE (1.E THAT AREA BOUNCED BY PACIFIC
HIGKIWAY. HIGHWAY 217. AND THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY). IN THE
-MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT ZONE 1r`Se'+•o
HIGH MENSIT! RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (I.=. 20 TO 40 UNrrS PER
ACRE; SHALL SE A USE ALL OW S0 OUT RIGi• i
S < Ccrr..e,^.t = ~iicc s:y his s-Rdard was intended to allow multi-`arrlly uses
_r.:y in =nlunc=cn with =mmer.`:al Professicnal uses within the Commercial
Frafess:cnal _ne. T ne new standard wculd allow ,,ulti-amiiy residential within
any .car: e; ~-e Mixed Use Emoleyment zcning area.
i
12/30 13:32 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 4
12/30/98 I3:28 IMS03 883 7297 CITY OF TIGARD yy- CITY .1TTOR.vEY ®003/013
i
?
! 1
I
7
1
t
I
1
i
Vclume II Uroanizavon 11 - 74
I i.s,3
6rnAj2PRQlADr.GR A' AS A42A R:; or. A
4E P1
I',
T
Szaf` Ccr;ment This can t:e de!eted as an update of the Comprehensive P!an.
;is referred to a requirement that Dartmouth de completed prior to any further
ccmmerral development This the time that this was written, Cartnouth has
!:aan cempletad-
..-.p xc
12/30 13:34 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 T0: 2473 PAGE:
1-/30:96 13:29 12503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY
b
DRAFT
t Chapter 18._ -MUE: -NIMED USE ENIPLOYMENT DISTRICT.
18. 010, Purpose.
18._ 0'20 Procedures and Approval Process_
18_ 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses
18._ 040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130).
is. - 050 Dimensional Requirements.
I8._ 060 Additional Requirements.
18._ 070 Design Standards.
18._ 010 Purposes
9
} A. The purpose of the 1AUE toning district is:
1. To crearc a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the
community and the region;
2. To provide oppornmities for employment and for new busineas and professional
services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities;
v-1 3. To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and
1_. minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE
district;
4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers;
5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with a1111 strgportive of retail and
employment uses.
B_ Guiding principles for the Tigard Triangle:
i
1 _ To support the Tigard Triangle's position as a ~ significant location for a
~ variety ofcomm^^.alt
pffiCe, bnemeea park and research T13e5;
i 2. To capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific
Highway, Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the
eadfe reb ee community:
i
3. To recognize that accessibility is the key to a svr..essf'ul mixed 1
rate emp oym-t area,
and that the automobile will accommodate the vase majority of tens to the Triangle;
1
12/30
13:34 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 9
IL/30/96 13.30 IT503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY 4009/013
2
z
t
4. To support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential.
S
5. To create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes
I
to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad
period of the day;
6. To add roadways and utilities to existing infrssaucture to accommodate future growth;
7. To include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the
I
7
Tigard Triangle that links internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system;
i
8. To integrate within new development the siE WC=t natural features found within the
Triangle;
g
9. To we stmucape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and
!
to establish people-friendly spaces;
)
10. To assure that transitions from existing low density residential rases to mixed use
i
employment us= occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas;
11. To allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment
areas.
i
18-_ 020 Procedures and Approval Process.
f
A. A permitted sue, Section 18.` 030, is a use which is allowed outright, but is subject to
all applicable provisionu of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use outright, it maybe
held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use.
i
B. A restricted use, Section 18._ 030, is a use which is allowed outfight, but is subject to
specific restrictions and all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a restricted
use ou might it tray be held to be similar tmlisted use undo the provisionu of Chapter 18.43,
S
Unlisted Use.
1
C. A conditional use, Section 18.64.040, is a use the approval ofwhich is discretionary with
the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter
18.130, Conditional Use. Y a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar
unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 1 8.43, Unlisted Use.
18. 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses
2
1
I
~111
.
12!30 13:35 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 10
884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY {TTOR'~tEY ' 010/OLJ
1,4/30/96 1J:30 $503
d
I
istrict are as 5011ows:
A. Permitted and Restricted Uses in the MUE
(P-permitted; R-permitted with restrictions)
1
Use Categories
Commercial Use Types
Amusement enterprises including cinemas
Animal sates and services
Automotive std equipment
R(tj
Buildiag maiatr nzo= services
' -
Business cquipmmt rata and savicet
Building support services
Cnmmualca Oct services
'
Convenience saint and personal services
Childr eds day =m
Eatini and drinitias establishments
?sr, z g
FFinancaL instnwce sad teal esnre services
Food and beverage retail sales
F=MW and udemmeat services
General retail sales
Medial and deatal services
,.werswsiei~c..
Personal services. Stnetal
xtis'+-T _
Pra&uional and admialtasuve services
P-
Consumer repair servicc3
y,; ~ .•Pi r.:rr
Rcliciew ssscmbiy
Resoreh services
Transient lodging
_ `
l
i
i
I
Use cut-&-
P~hlie acmiq a ve SaMccs
P
Qiftuid, h ti L uxscreoa =ss
= P'a
•Pu68c ]a~(SLSO~IOJ'SQtr'O,-S':•• ~
.
lioidea thl Use Typo
[adasaial Use Types
-
~'~'.'_t.:syt~-~(~S-.mss. Y~1
, w•
~5t'.
~a6orciaTq sooc5se aFa[;an-6uuf"5n_.'~"
- ~
• 12130
13:35 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 70: 2473 PAGE: 12
"
" -
.-,30:96 13:31 'Q'SOJ 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY Z012/013
t
3. All activities associated with this use, except employee and customer parking, shall be
contained within building(s).
4. Permitted as an accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the
'
same building as the permitted use, and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use.
18._ 040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130).
A. Conditional uses in the MUE district are as follows:
1. Community recreation including sauctuzcs;
2. Religious assembly;
3. Schools and rtlated facilities;
4. Hospitals;
5. Psrldng facilities;
6. Utilities; and
'
7. Construction Contractor
s Professional Offices.
18-_ 050 Dimensional Requirements.
A. Dim tinnal =gUircm n e for all commercial use amts vic Lep tunes- industrial usC
these chall he the same a5 the C-G
tvrxs a
ments includin
nd mired use dA+elo
g .
p
_
ovmct,
[
llimmsion 1 remtire-ments for residential use res .hall be the same a_s the R-25 district,
(
f
18._ 060 Additional Regttiremenn.
II
A. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types shall not
exceed 0.40. Ret idatial ruse oMes including transient housing shad not be :Aiect t his
B. On lots Qreater an three acre general retail C ;ales ,set are limited to 30.000 lQuare feet
of =sc_lc=hle area plus one additi=41 ==re foot of &ross leasable area of general .tail sales
use for each addition-1 four sm ar*_ feet of non-general retail sales use,
j
U
o
i
lY.
t
1
ouJ coJ .1- 1J
1:130198 1331 12503 BSS 7297 -CITY OF TICARD CITY ATTORNEY WO13/013 I
_ I
18._ 070 Design Standards.
6
s
r (t ' r
'Z' z
j .t ( 1
4 f
zz'
7-3 IT, t
bg✓y f I „ II I f 1 f _
rf )
■ e r
Boa.
'zzz
~j 3 r ff
)
co :ZZ:
~1~ 7r I
I
7 r
v t r
Z N
'z Z~
i
' LL I
o f..
a
x .
w
t j
I , I .I.~ 3AVFUr9 :42., i acs
! f r - ;.Z.
a+
ZZZ:
fl i
7
t,..I..l..J..1~ .1 11 .
I
1 j 1 ~vnn~rttd T lUp ljJ~
III,, ~f1 ( 2f en~
i f 1 3nvtuo<,
j i 3 r 3~ !r; {
z C)
:17 n;
,zzz
'Z I o .et
J 1 m
J. ' l'i. t r'f
w C
O
Z,: Z
f
` C W X
N 7) ~
v
ar
C 3
C
CL LLJ
aati
c°~ a
_ ~ N Y _
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
TIGARD TRIANGLE
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD
TO AN APPLICATION FOR A LEGISLATIVE COMPREEMNSIVE PLAN
AXIF.N'DMENNT AND A,NIENDrvIENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR AN
AREA ILNOWN AS THE "TIGARD TRIANGLE".
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008/ZON96-0008
ZOA 96-0005
REQUEST: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map, Rezone
and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle.
Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density
Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional to
a new designation of Mixed Use Employment.
A separate and independent request, which was heard concurrently witt
this application, involves certain transportation related amendments to
the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map. The subject matter of this Final Order is separate
from those amendments and not dependent upon them. While the
matters were heard concurrently, the transportation related amendments
have been adopted in a separate final order.
The request further includes a request for approval of a zone change
from C-P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per
acre), and R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning
designation of NIUE (Mixed Use Employment).
The request also includes amendments to the Community Development
Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment" to
provide a new zoning district.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13121 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
j
OWNER: Various
LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south j
of State Highway 99 West
2. Vicinity
The affected parcels are within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The area is
generally bordered by interstate 5 to the east, Highway 217 to the west and Highway I
99W to the north.
j
3. Background Information
1
The Tigard Triangle has been the subject of various past planning efforts. The Tigard
Triangle Master Plan was completed in 1992 and provided a land analysis,
assessments of development trends and development potential of the Triangle. After E
over a year of study and public input, the Planning Commission approved and the
City Council accepted a master plan map for the Triangle in November of 1992
i (Resolution 92-54). The master plan map showed generalized areas of land use (
1 categories which reflected the decision. In early 1993, the City was awarded a grant I
i from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to conduct a
more detailed planning study of the area. The study, which covered land use,
F transportation, urban design and open space issues resulted in the Tigard Triangle EE
Specific Area Plan, dated January of 1994. The Planning Commission held a hearing C:
on the proposed amendment and zone change on June 20, 1994. After further
discussion on July 18, 1994, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend 1
against approval of the plan. After a public hearing on the proposal on January 24,
1995, the City Council withdrew CPA 94-0002 and ZON 94-0002 from consideration.
In February of this year, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with hiring 1
consultants to assist in a new effort to bring resolution to issues associated with land
use in the Triangle. At that time, a resolution was passed by Council to not accept
Comprehensive Plan Amendments within the Trian gle until after December 31, 1996.
With the assistance of the consuttns team, a task force was formed made up of
representatives of area residents, business owners, developers, ODOT, and Metro. A
series of meetings have been held throughout the summer to come up with
recommendations that are detailed in the staff report. An open house was held in
August to solicit public input and a second public work shop was held in October to
i
allow public input into the recommendations provided by the Task Force. ,
i.
B
Site Information and Pmnosal Descrintion
The site is approximately 340 acres in size. The proposed land use actions include
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to update references to the Tigard Triangle,
include a description of the Mixed Use Employment zone, and amend the
Development Code to include a new zoning designation of Mired Use Employment.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13:
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2. 1.1 and 6.1.1, 6.6.6., 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3,
12.1. l and 12.2. and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32.
STATEWIDE GOALS
1. Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter
l3 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission
and City Council hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local
newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CTTs and the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. The proposals were the subject of public
hearings before the planning commission and city council which included citizen
testimony. That testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. Information
was mailed out to all property owners within the Triangle as it was available
regarding workshops and other actions being considered. In addition, the proposal
was presented to the CITs. Additionally, two public open houses were held, one in
August and one in October of 1996. This goal is satisfied.
2. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans i
be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. These
amendments respond to this requirement by taking into account Metro's adoption of a
"Growth Concept" map indicating this area as "Mixed Use Employment". f
The changes also reflect the results of lengthy debate and analysis over the
appropriate uses within the Tigard Triangle. The evidence indicates that the effect of
large scale commercial development in the area has made long term continuation of
housing in its current location and form inappropriate. This chan ge in circumstances,
coupled with Metro's action, creates the need to revise the plan and zoning for the
area.
M
1 t
I
1
i
Goal 2 also requires that land use plans must be the basis for specific
implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and
adequate to carry out the plans. The proposed plan amendments are the basis for
specific implementation measures. The proposed plan text identities uses and
characteristics of a mixed use employment district which serve as the basis for the
specific implementation measures found in the zoning code amendments.
Those zoning code amendments specifically carry out the changes to the plan and are
consistent with the plan amendments. The new zoning code text provides the criteria
and process framework to carry out the plan. Together, the comprehensive plan,
zoning code text and map changes meet the requirements of the goal.
Goal 2 also requires that the plan and related implementation measures shall be
coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. The initial step
required in coordination is to engage in an exchange of information between the
planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units, or at least invite such an
exchange. The record demonstrates that the city has complied with this requirement.
The process has included contacts with Washington County, Metro, and ODOT.
Washington County declined to participate but Metro and Or)nT were included in the
task force which guided the work of consultants and staff. The record indicates that
Metro and ODOT exchanged information with city staff and consultants, expressed
their concerns, preferences and cooperatively developed factual information used to
evaluate the proposal.
The second aspect of coordination is to use the information provided by affected
jurisdictions to balance the needs of all governmental units as well as the needs of the
citizens in developing the plan.
The outcome of the work of the task force was a recommendation, not opposed by
ODOT and Metro, to adopt the amendments before us for consideration. In enacting
the amendments we are therefore not taking unilateral action inconsistent -;th Lhe
desi.es of those units of government. We have instead accommodated the interests of
other agencies. The balancing of interests aspect of the coordination requirement is
therefore met.
Goal 2 also requires the identification of issues and problems for each applicable
statewide planning goal and evaluation of alternative courses of action and
ultimate policy choices. As the text of these findings documents, the city council
undertook identification of issues and problems, evaluated options and made the
ultimate policy choice. Once it was determined that the proposed amendments would
generate no greater traffic impact than the current plan and zoning designations, the
principle issue became the defining of the uses and character of a Mixed Use
Employment district and the role of housing within that district. These matters are
described in more detail under the discussion of Goals 9 and 10.
4
i
J
l
I
3. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires the provision of adequate opportunities
for a variety of economic activities. This goal has been met because the plan
j
continues to promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the
i health, welfare and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The mix of uses will encourage a
diversity of development with emphasis on employment based uses.
~ -
I
The fundamental issue with respect to the triangle for many years has been
determination of the proper mix of uses which should be developed there. We have
before us in the record various options for resolving this question which have been
generated by this and previous planning efforts. These options include a Mixed Use
Employment district, maintenance of the current plan, and increasing housing in the
area.
j
I
In evaluating these proposals we are most heavily influenced by Metro's decision to
designate the triangle as "Mixed Use Employment" on its Growth Concept map. The
'
Mixed Use Employment District best carries out this designation.
i
The buildout development concept for a mixed use employment district is
characterized by retail, office and service commercial uses, together with business
park and research facilities throughout the Tigard Triangle. High density residential
development is integrated with employment uses, with some apartment/townhouse
I
j developments. Larger scaled commercial uses are located west of 72nd Avenue in the
I area that is largely already committed to large commercial facilities. This new land
l+ ~1 use concept is proposed in the form of a new Mixed Use Employment Zoning District
'
J
j
-
(MUE) for the Tigard Triangle. Attachment B at the end of the staff report indicates
j the uses permitted, not permitted and permitted with restrictions for the MUE district.
j The proposed MEU district will also include a maximum density limitation for retail
i and office uses.
We find that in addition to meeting the direction of Metro's Functional Plan, this
designation takes into account other important planning considerations. The mixed
I
use approach will create a needed and vital economic center for the area. The density
1{
cap will allow the creation of jobs but prevent this geographic area from undermining
I
economic development at the Regional Center located to the north. The integration of
uses will also have social, energy and environmental benefits by encouraging
!
consolidation of automobile trips and reinforcing opportunities for pedestrians.
i
Maintenance of the current plan has clear drawbacks as a policy option. The current
plan has had the effect of slowing down potential economic development in the
triangle area for many years. There is substantial opinion from owners of land in the
area and developers familiar with the area that the current designations have not
worked to create opportunities for economic activity. Based upon this evidence we
i
reject the option of maintaining the current designations.
{
5
i
a
F
f
We likewise reject the option of designating the area primarily for housing
development. Not only is this option inconsistent with Metro's concept map, it would
be contrary to the creation of economic opportunity because the area is no longer well
suited for large scale housing development or the maintenance of single family
neighborhoods. This is due to the encroachment of large commercial uses east of
S.W. 72nd with associated lights, activity and traffic. This is also due to the loss of
the Phil Louis School which no longer serves families in the area.
We therefore conclude that the proposal before us best carries out the objectives of
Goal 9.
4. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate
numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and
allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Metro has chosen not to
designate this area for predominantly residential use. Housing, however, is not
prohibited in a Mixed Use Employment area. The proposal before us therefore
permits housing to occur within the zone. While housing will not be the predominant
use. location of some housing in the area will assist the City in carrying out Goal 10.
The new Mixed Use Employment zone will encourage high density housing
development by allowing multi-family development to occur at the rate of 40 units to
the acre. It will also provide the opportunity for the existing single-family houses to
remain in that existing single family units will become listed as an allowed use.
Currently, single family homes are not allowed in the CP zone and are restricted in
the CG zone which makes it difficult to refmance or obtain financing for remodeling
in the Triangle. The new zoning will provide provisions that allow retention of
existing residences thereby preserving affordable housing, while still providing the
opportunity for high density housing. Goal 10, Housing, is, therefore, met because
the proposal provides for additional housing opportunities as called for both in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
S. Goal 11: Goal 11 requires a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban development.
This proposal does not change the acknowledged provisions of the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code with respect to the adequate
provision of public facilities and services. As development occurs within the Tigard
Triangle those provisions will be enforced to require adequate provision of public
facilities and services. For example, as development occurs within the Triangle the
Community Development Code, chapter 18.164, identifies how rights-of-way for
streets are created and what improvements result from development. This chapter
also requires the installation of sanitary sewers to serve each new development and
contains the requirement for connection of developments to existing mains (section
18.164.090). Storm drainage is required and implemented through section
6
L_.
_1
3
9
J
18.104. I(X) which makes specific requirements for storm water drainage system
{ n
approval through the issuance of a development permit.
~J
j
The availability of services for development within the Triangle is not a disputed
subject on the record before us, with the exception of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development's claims with respect to transportation infrastructure
which cite Goals 2 and 12. Those claims are discussed in the context of Goal 12.
6.
Transportation: Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
a. The Problem and the Policy Choice
The central problem presented by comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in the
i a
area of the Triangle is how to assign various land uses and intensities of development
1
while maintaining a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Several alternatives are before us for consideration. One option is to adopt measures
which will prevent development which occurs under the amended plan and
implementing measures from creating transportation impacts that exceed the level of
impact that would be created by the land use designations which have previously been
acknowledged by LCDC and which are now contained in the city's comprehensive
I
plan, zoning map and community development code. Another alternative is to allow
1
greater intensity of use but to provide for increased transportation infrastructure,
transit and other measures to address the increased impact consistent with the
Transportation Planning Rule. Still another option is to impose a moratorium or
j
adopt a public facilities strategy. The City has employed this type of planning
technique to address development within the Triangle in the past.
k
1
In evaluating these options we have determined that relying on moratoriums and
j
related planning tools provide only short term solutions and do not effectively carry
out MPtro's designation of the site for Mixed Use Employment. These kinds of
limitations on development also undermine the region's ability to use the land within
the Urban Growth Boundary most efficiently in order to reduce the total demand for
urban land. Inefficient use of land within the boundary will have negative energy and
environmental consequences occasioned by sprawl development. The moratorium
approach also fails to address the city's and region's social and economic needs. The
Tigard Triangle is well located as an employment destination and we conclude that
this opportunity should not be lost.
j
r
. 1J
/
c
d
S;
11
I
I
S'
i
`J
We also reject the option of increasing the intensity of development, and therefore the
transportation impact, over that which is anticipated to result from the current
comprehensive plan. Metro has cautioned that increasing the intensity of development
will conflict with Metro's objectives for intense development at the Regional Center
which lies to the north of the Tigard Triangle. Such development would also require
improvements to the transportation system that go beyond the improvements now
recommended by ODOT and Metro.
We conclude that the best option is to designate the area for the Mixed Use
Employment types of uses called for by Metro but to limit the transportation impact
of this type of development to the same level that would be produced by development
under the acknowledged provisions of the current plan. This option permits the city
to use the area of the Triangle efficiently for the provision of employment and
housing but does not require further amendment of transportation plans. This option
also permits the city to meet Metro's objectives for the use of the property without
violating the provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Metro has also
urged a limitation on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a means of limiting competition with
the nearby Regional Center. An FAR also achieves the purpose of limiting the
transportation impact of these amendments so that they are not significantly different
than would be experienced under the existing acknowledged comprehensive plan. We
therefore conclude that the proposal before us, including the FAR cap of 0.40, is the
superior policy option.
The mixed use employment zone, as presented, contains features which carry out
other aspects of Goal 12. Compatible land uses such as office and high-density
residential are clustered in central locations to promote ease of access, as well as the
potential for use of non-motorized modes. Mixing land uses that can comprise related
destinations serves to shorten trip lengths and reduce the number of vehicle trips.
The mired use employment zone facilitates the potential for trip capture by providing
choice of residential uses (single or multi-family residential) and locating these
allowed uses in close proximity to office, commercial and general commercial uses.
Also addressing Goal 12 are the proposed amendments to the circulation element of
the Plan. These changes call for a specific pedestrian and transportation
improvements that are needed to reduce the reliance on the automobile. Street
spacing standards identified in the Functional Plan are part of the package of
amendments. Together, with the other changes, a more pedestrian friendly
environment will be created. Street improvements will also create better access for
Tri-NIet. We take notice of these changes and our adoption of them.
We conclude the proposal implements the objectives of Goal 12
1111
i
b. Applicability of the Transportation Planning Rule
Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments
which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land
uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of
the facility. We must therefore determine whether the amendments will
significantly affect a transportation facility.
OAR 660-12-060(2) reads:
A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation fa-:llny
if it:
(a) Changes the funcrional classification of an e-risting or planned
transportation facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in
levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the
functional classification of a transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
We find that subsections (a), (b) and (c) do not apply to these amendments. We
adopt as fact the expert opinion that traffic volumes produced by the proposed land
use amendments will not create an increase in traffic over traffic volumes generated
under the current plan and regulations. The amendments do not change the functional
classification or standards for any transportation facility. Nor do the amendments
allow levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of any
transportation facility. With respect to subsection (d) we find that the plan
amendments will not themselves cause a reduction in the level of service of any
transportation facility below levels of service identified in our Transportation Plan.
In the event these amendments are found to significantly effect a transportation facility
pursuant to OAR 660-12-060-(2), we also find that the proposed amendments comply
with OAR 660-12-060(1). The plan amendments along with other provisions of our
code expressly limit allowed land uses, and alter design requirements to ensure that
development is consistent with the function, capacity and level of service of affected
transportation facilities, in compliance with OAR 660-12-060(1)(a) and (c).
9
The evidence presented by our staff and consultants concludes that the proposed land
use designations will not have a significant effect on a transportation facility because
the projected traffic volumes produced by development which would occur under the
amended land use designations would not exceed the traffic impacts projected to occur
from development under the current acknowledged land use designations. Traffic
generation from the proposed amendments has been extensively analyzed to evaluate
the impacts that the proposed mixed use employment zoning would have on
transportation systems. As documented in exhibit B to the staff report and presented
to council at its December 17, 1996, hearing, the consulting firms of Kittelson
Associates and Spencer and Kupper analyzed previous studies, interviewed current
property owners and developers in the Triangle and applied current and future
development trends to establish an analysis of impacts of the proposed MUE zoning
on the transportation system. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed
comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments do not result in
significant changes to trip generation over that currently allowed by existing plan and
code regulations.
The methodology employed by the consultants began with estimating the amount of
square footage of development that would occur for each of the uses permitted under
the current land use designations. Based upon these estimates, anticipated traffic
volumes were projected.
This result was then compared to traffic volumes anticipated under the proposed
designations. using the same methodology. The consultants estimated the various
square footages of use that would occur at buildout and generated expected traffic
volumes from those estimates. Based upon their analysis of these numbers, and the
characteristics of the transportation system, the transportation and planning consultants
have offered their expert opinion that the amendments proposed would not
significantly affect a transportation facility.
The project team has worked closely with the Tigard Triangle Task Force, has
reviewed past transportation and land use studies for the triangle, and have conducted 3
sketch planning analysis of the 2015 traffic volume forecasts for the area-wide `
R
roadway system. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive
plan and development regulation amendments do not result in significant changes to
trip generation than is currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations. ?
Therefore, the plan amendment does not represent a change that would significantly
impact transportation facilities. i
i
Attachment G, which was submitted to the Planning Commission, and made an
attachment to the staff report, provides further comparison of buildout of the Tigard i
i
Triangle under existing zoning code regulations and the proposed regulations. The
buildout scenario labeled "unconstrained" represents the buildout of the Triangle
G
t
10 f
k
n
J
I
i
which is most likely under existing zoning.' This scenario is based upon a projected
development density based upon an FAR of 0.60. This level of development is
compared to the expected buildout of the Mixed Use Employment zoning designation
which caps allowable FARs at 0.40 and which further canes restrictions on allowable
square footage of retail buildings. The conclusion of this analysis is that the Mixed
Use Employment district buildout scenario and the unconstrained existing zoning
scenario would result in about the same overall levels of development within the
Tigard Triangle.
j After reviewing the analysis presented to us we find that it is persuasive that a
proposed amendment would not significantly effect a transportation facility. We also
find that the process employed to develop the analysis was conducted in a fair and
open manner and that it yielded a thoughtful and analytically persuasive result.
c. Factual Dispute
In the record before us the consultants' methodology and the data supporting it is
undisputed except in one respect. DLCD has indicated its disagreement with one of
the assumptions in the analysis, thus leaving the methodology and the assumptions
undisputed in all other respects.
In a letter of December 17, 1996, Mr. Steve Oulman of DLCD states "we disagree
with the assumption that existing zoning will result in buildout averaging 0.60 floor
-1 area ratio (FAR)." While the letter offers no further explanation, our understanding
of the claim is that DLCD believes that the current zoning would build out at a lower
floor area ratio, thus creating less intensity of development, and therefore generating
less traffic volume. The implication of DLCD's dispute with respect to projected
buildout intensity is that the transportation and planning consultants overestimated the
traffic volumes that would result from development under the current zoning. If these
volumes have been overestimated then the ultimate conclusion of those experts would
be undermined because the volumes that could be expected from the amended land
use designations would exceed those that would be expected under the current land
use desiertation.
t Table two of Attachment G provides projected development scenarios labeled 'constrained' and
"unconstrained'. The "constrained" analysis was based upon a projected FAR of 0.40. The firm of Spencer
and Kupper concluded that this scenario under estimated the density of development that would be expected in
the Triangle under the existing zoning regulations. It was therefore not considered to be the proper basis for
comparison to the impacts of buildout under the proposed zoning regulations. The "unconstrained" scenario is
based upon a projected buildout of the existing zoning regulations at an FAR of 0.60.
~ 11
L
60
7
In the case of a disputed assumption we must determine which evidence to rely upon.
Based upon our review of the record we find that the FAR estimate provided by
Spencer and Kupper is the most credible and reliable evidence. Mr. Spencer
appeared at our hearing and explained the basis upon which he recommended the use
of that number. His opinion was based upon his professional expertise as well
interviews with owners and developers in the Triangle and his knowledge of levels of
development in other similar areas in the region. We found him to be a credible
witness with strong credentials. In opposition to his opinion we have only the flat
statement that -we disagree" without any further explanation. No representative of
DLCD appeared before us and therefore we were unable to inquire further into their
analysis or to compare their testimony and credibility with the live witness that
appeared before us. We therefore accept the expert opinion of Mr. Spencer that a
0.60 floor area ratio is the correct assumption to make regarding intensity of
development in the Triangle over the planning period.
Based upon the evidence and record we conclude that the amendments will not
significantly affect the transportation facility and therefore OAR 660-12-060 does not
apply to this case. The conclusion of the credible expert analysis in this record is that
the Mixed Use Employment district buildout scenario and the unconstrained existing
zoning scenario will result in about the same overall levels of development within the
Tigard Triangle. In fact, it is possible that development under the existing zoning
scenario could be even higher than projected because under current regulations there
is no cap on the FAR that can be achieved within the Triangle. The 0.60 FAR
estimate employed by the consultants is an estimate of the level of intensity which is
likely, but there is no guarantee under existing code that buildout will be at an FAR
that is this low. The proposed zoning, on the other hand, contains a specific FAR
cap for retail and office development of 0.40. This will assure that development
intensity will not exceed that which was estimated by the consultants in evaluating the
transportation impacts from the proposed amendments.
Enemy Conservation: Goal 13 requires that land and uses be developed to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The proposed amendment
provides a mix of uses within one geographic area and connects those uses both
internally and externally with street systems, pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths.
With this arrangement automobile trips will be fewer and there will be more
opportunity for alternative modes of travel. Ultimately this will reduce the number of
auto trips necessary and will result in increased energy conservation. The theory of
providing a mix of uses within one geographic area and connecting those areas both
internally and externally with street systems, pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths is
that automobile trips will be fewer and there will be more opportunity for alternative
modes of travel. Ultimately, this will reduce the number of auto trips necessary and
will result in increased energy conservation.
12
CONIPLLINCE WITH CONIPREHF-NSIVE PLAN POLICIES
x.
General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent
with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is
consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'.
The proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro "Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan" that was approved for the adoption on October 24,
1996 by the Metro Council. The "Growth Concept" map associated with the
Functional Plan indicates this area as -Mixed Use Employment". The adopted
-Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives" that are implemented by the
Functional Plan discuss Employment Areas as:
"Other employment center would be designated as employment
areas, muting various types of employment and including some
residential development as well. These employment areas would
provide for about 5 percent of new households and 14 percent of
new employment within the region. Densities would rise
substantially from 1990 levels of about 11 people per acre to
about 20 people per acre. Employment areas would be expected
to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to
serve the needs of people working or living in the immediate
employment areas, not larger market areas outside the
employment area. Exceptions to this general policy can be
made only for certain areas, indicated in a functional plan."
(Page 32, Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives,
adopted December 14, 1995).
By rezoning the Triangle to a Mixed Use Employment zone with an emphasis on
employment uses the City is moving toward implementing this design concept. We
will be providing the opportunity for an area where high density residential will be
allowed along with commercial and office/employment uses. Originally, the Task
Force had proposed to rezone the entire Triangle to Mixed Use Employment. As
noted in the above language and further amplified within the adopted Functional Plan,
Title 4, the intent of Metro's design concept for Mixed Use Employment zones is to
limit the amount of retail. Within the adopted standards for Title 4, is a requirement
that limits retail uses larger than 60,000 sq.ft. per business or building in Mixed Use
Employment areas. The final adoption of the Functional Plan exempts the
Commercial General and Commercial Professional zones from this allowance if the
zoning districts currently allow retail uses with a greater area than 66,000 sq.ft.
The city's Commercial General zoning districts currently allows retail uses over
60,000 sq.ft. and to assure preservation of that allowance it was determined that areas
of the Triangle currently zoned Commercial General not be rezoned to Mixed Use
Employment. The areas that are currently zoned Commercial Professional, R-25 and
13
f
i
I
I
t
I
i
i
is
I
j
,
W
's
R3.5 would be rezoned to Mixed Use Employment, with limitations on the ability to
place retail uses.
Retail uses in the Mixed Use Employment zone would be limited to 60,000 sq.ft. with
the additional provision that on sites over three acres in size, retail use is limited to
30,000 sq.ft. of gross leasable area plus one additional square foot of gross leasable
area of general retail sales for each additional four square feet of non-general retail
sales use. In addition to this requirement, with the exception of residential and
transient housing, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and
industrial uses will not exceed 0.40.
The limitations are intended to provide assurance that a mix of uses will occur in the
Mixed Use Employment zone, and that the entire zone will not become retail. It is
also intended to assure that transportation impacts are limited and that the area does
not detract from the future development of the Regional Center at Washington Square.
This policy is satisfied.
9. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for
comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally
advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during
November, and two work shops were held and extensive mailings were made to
property owners within the Triangle. This policy is satisfied.
10. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a
diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent
levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan
Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable
land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single
family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per
acre. The City is currently in compliance with this rule. The proposal for a Mixed
Use Employment zone will allow further development of high density residential in
the Triangle. This will not take the city out of compliance.
~i 14
L- '
'I
3 COMPLMaNCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS:
l Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for
a consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan,
implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the
Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and
responses are as follows:
The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197. There standards are addressed in these findings. These
standards are addressed in Section IV under Statewide Goals' in the staff report dated
December 17, 1996.
Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The applicability of
Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in these findings.
Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District.
Plans recently adopted by Metro are addressed in these findings. The applicable plans
and guidelines adopted by Metro are discussed above under General Policy 1.1(a).
The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are
addressed under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'.
The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The proposal is
consistent with the city's implementing ordinances which are contained in the Tigard
Community Development Code. The implementing ordinances are contained in the
Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the
staff report.
Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or
community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or
implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application.
This criteria is optional for consideration. Clearly, the area has changed from the
time that the existing single-family homes were developed. Traffic has increased
dramatically in and around the area and much of the once single family area has
redeveloped to commercial. The resulting noise and automobile impacts have made
much of the area unsuitable for single-family residential. These circumstances
support the proposed changes which recognize that the area is more suited to
employment uses. Metro's designation of the area for a mixed use employment
center supports our conclusion that a change has occurred which justifies the proposed
amendment.
a
j
i
i
C. AGENCY CONLNIENTS
n I. Metro reviewed this proposal and the attached letter dated November 18, 1996 was
entered into the record at the Planning Commission public hearing. It should be
noted that the letter from Metro recommends that transient housing not be exempted
from the 0.40 FAR as is proposed by the Task Force and staff. The reason that an
exemption is proposed for transient housing is the recognition that it is appropriate to
provide hotel facilities that could service the area as it develops as an employment
center. These hotels should have the ability to provide conference facilities and
business suites and should not be limited to what would result from the 0.40 FAR
limitation. These facilities are seen as providing restaurant, conference facilities and
lodging surrounding employment centers and we see no evidence that their inclusion
in the zone would detract from the regional center.
2, Washington County reviewed this proposal and had no comment.
3. ODOT has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a letter dated November 18,
1996 that was entered into the public record at the Planning Commission. The letter
recommends that the area be identified as an employment center.
4. A letter was received from DLCD on December 2, 1996. That letter was attached to
the staff report dated December 17, 1996. A second letter was faxed to the City on
December 17, 1996 and was entered into the record as Exhibit A. That letter
expresses disagreement with the assumptions of the "unconstrained" scenario that
assumes a 0.60 FAR for future development in the Triangle. No evidence is provided
from DLCD that outlines why there is disagreement with the assumption. The City
has received expert analysis and testimony from Spencer & Kupper and Kittelson &
Associates regarding this issue and accepts the validity of the assumptions. ODOT
and Metro were also provided these assumptions as part of the information to support
the transportation recommendations of the City and neither agency questioned the
assumptions provided.
The City, therefore, does not agree with DLCD's conclusion that OAR 660-12-060 of
the transportation planning rule applies. The City has found through its land use and
transportation analysis that impacts on the transportation system will be virtually the
same under buildout of the new Mixed Use Employment district and what could be
built out under current zoning. With this finding, 060 does not apply in that the
planned changes to the Comprehensive Plan will not have a significant impact on the
function, capacity and level of service of the transportation system.
The record indicates that the principal argument advanced by DLCD in its December
2. 1996, letter, that the TPR applies event though the status quo is being maintained
for traffic volumes, was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Benner, Director of DLCD, at a
meeting with city staff which took place on December 16, 1996.
L.
16
D. DECISION
i
The City Council APPROVES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008/ZON
96-0003/ZOA 96-0005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96-~11-k
j AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE
I AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP (ORDINANCE NO. 91-13),
ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 217/1-5 INTERCHANGE AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the applicant City of Tigard has requested certain text amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and certain amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
to address transportation and access improvements to support improvements to the Highway
217/I-5 Interchange.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 Final Order.
SECTION 2: The specific text and map amendments attached to this Ordinance are hereby
adopted and approved the City Council.
SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because of the need to provide
immediate assurance to ODOT of the City's intentions with regard to improvements related to
the redesign of the Highway 217/I-5 Interchange. Therefore, this ordinance shall be in full force
and effect upon its passage by the City Council.
PASSED: By: f,l04r) IMOtls vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this_l day of 2tCeknhr[ , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Ree der
L41
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this -~-C- day of 1996.
J mes Nicoli, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 96-'4,Z
Page 1
4
i
j
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
f
j
I
`r
.
i
j
l
j
i
i
0
r-.
Approved as to form:
Attorney
i 12/30 13:32 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 » PAGE: 5
1 12/30:98 13:28 %TSU3 881 7297 CITY OF TIGAn CITY ATrOR\'EY !9005/013
h
Proposed Amendment to Chapter S. Transportation
Add a new Policy:
8.1.8 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
a. Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study
area (tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the
short term. In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is
prohibitive due to physical constraints, the Dartmouth extension
could potentially Provide needed northeast-to-southwest travel
demand_
b. 72nd Avenue should be widened to four lanes with Ieft turn lanes at
major intersections and the Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing should
be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional j
roadway capacity for circulation within the Triangle and for access to
and from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the
HunzikerfHampton overcrossing would have the additional _
advantages of eliminating geometric deficiencies at the Highway
! 21782nd Avenue interchange; thereby providing further additional
capacity at this interchange. For the buildout scenario (2415), these
improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of the
Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange.
C. The Hampton/Hunziker connection is only justified based on
its operational relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should j
be conducted to examine alternative measures to relieve this
j situation in a more cost effective way. Further study may indicate
that extending Hampton further southwesterly (to connect with Hall j
Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street) may better
accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this
structure, a direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound
72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 would provide additional
capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange.
d. Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 s4sald-13e
:FOFn the is critical to Tigard Triangle traffic circulation, therefore, it
should be studied as part of the Highway 217 corridor analysis to be !
perfonned by ODOT and Metro. Under existing conditions, there is
EXHIBIT
I
_12/30 13:33 1996 FR04: 503 884 7297 T0: 2473 PAGE
1/30/98 13:29 0303 684 T29T CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY
1
6
!0008/013
significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217
interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and access
to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this
interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle
would have the option to access northbound Highway 217 from
Dartmouth or Highway 99W_
e. Analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need
for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially
south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector-
distributor roads from the Highway 217f72nd Avenue. interchange
through the Highway 21711iighway 99W interchange. The Highway
217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should
consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements.
The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed
only if further system improvements to H211 Boulevard are made
concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard
south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the
effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively,
another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection
from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of
McDonald Street
f. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to
the Tigard Triangle as shown on Figure 1. The following policies
apply to local streets within the Tigard Triangle:
1. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 660
feet
2. Access way spacing shall be a maximum of 330
feet
3. Spacing of signalized intersections or. Major
Arterials shall be a minimum of 600 feet
4. Existing rights of way will, to the greatest extent
possible, be utilized for a local street system. Right of way
vacations will considered only when all other policies in this
subsection are met
g. The transportation projects described in this section should
be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The
City, ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in
regional and state implementation programs.
_i
_ 12/3,...,._
0 13:33 1988 FROM: 503 884 7287 T0: 2473 PAGE: 6
3 12/30/96 13:29 %2503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTO&NEY 14006/013
S U
1
i
i
w'
significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217
interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension 4nd access
to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestioil at this
interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle
would have the option to access ne rh!:=,- d !-!gh-.:;z 2.7 ;rem
Dartmouth or Highway 99W.
e. Analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need
for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially
south to Hag Boulevard as well 29 for extending the collector-
distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Averue.interchange
through the Highway 2171Highway 99W interchange. The Highway
217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should
consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements.
The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed
only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made
concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard
south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the
effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively,
another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection
from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of
McDonald Street
f. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to
the Tigard Triangle as shown on Figure 1. The following policies
apply to local streets within the Tigard Triangle:
1. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 660
feet
2- Access way spacing shall be a maximum of 330
feet
3. Spacing of signalized intersections or. Major
Arterials shall be a minimum of 600 feet
4. Existing rights of way will, to the greatest extent
possible, be utilized for a local street system. Right of way
vacations will considered only when all other policies in this
subsection are met
g. The transportation projects described in this section should
be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The
City, ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in
regional and state implementation programs.
>I
J
F
i c
• A `
AAT l,t l 1'
=wool
O iw Ar,.,.urr
11-00,
a
♦ r
r. I
1 F
ice, ~ Y I -
i to
Draft x I
NaT'°3: Zt
/~~`~r~'!VM rye 1:17
. /c<c[,3 vwi si•<.uy ra~,.v vr< iie fr3;-
. ♦c<:~s s ~er..~ e,. OnA-•v Burr .uo'2 i°
NtE.2J CC T,p'JC S~roA. S,e..f.. tJ .CO ( I
Tigard Triangle Street Plan i T-V7
CitvOfIII. ooor 7--7104- 6
3rd
cam.,:.. cam.' ooR
J
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
n FINAL ORDER
HIGHWAY 217 INTERCHANGE VICINITY
TRANSPORTATION LNIPROVENIENTS
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD
TO AN APPLICATION FOR A LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Ati1ENDMENT ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 217/I-5 INTERCHANGE.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0008
REQUEST: A request for approval of legislative amendments to Comprehensive
Plan text and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Map (Ordinance No. 91-13).
This application includes two specific requests. First, the deletion of
existing text from Comprehensive Plan, Volume 11, Urbanization
Section 11.4.2 which has become outmoded because the road
improvement proposed in that text has now been constructed. Second,
I a description of improvements to streets and access in the vicinity of
the I-51217 Interchange which has been requested by the Oregon
Department of Transportation to be included within the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by
September of 1996. This request has been made by ODOT and
METRO in order to assure that the projects would be permitted and to
assure that Tigard's plans were coordinated with those of METRO and
ODOT before those agencies proceeded with amendments to the
Regional Transportation Plan to provide for these improvements.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Various
LOCATION: In the vicinity of Highway 217, Interstate 5 and State Highway
99 West in the City of Tigard.
Page - 1
2. Vicinity
1
! The proposal affects the street system and access in the vicinity of the I-5/217
interchange and nearby portions of State Highway 99 West.
3. Background Information: Purpose of Study
Through an extensive process of study and analysis ODOT, in cooperation with
Tigard, Lake Oswego, Washington and Clackamas counties, completed a sub-area
plan for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the Highway 217 interchange
with I-5. A series of local improvements were identified by the study that would
serve to protect the integrity and longevity of the public investment in the
interchange. On March 1, 1996 ODOT, through its regional manager Bruce A.
Warner, stated that, "improvements to the streets and access to the area of Tigard
bounded by I-5, Highway 217, and Highway 99W the so-called Tigard Triangle are
key elements in the recommendation of the sub-area study."
Mr. Warner discussed this matter with Tigard's mayor and City staff and obtained an
agreement that the City would amend its Transportation Plan by September 1996.
In February of 1996 the City Council authorized the staff to engage consultants to
j assist in analyzing transportation issues, coordinate with ODOT and METRO, and
r, develop amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would satisfy the agreement with
ODOT and the conclusion of DLCD that "it is necessary for the City to amend its
Transportation Plan to provide these transportation facilities Letter of Eric
! Jacobson, February 12, 1996. With the assistance of the consulting team, a task force
was formed made up of representatives of area residents, business owners,
developers, ODOT and METRO.
i
The task force and consultants studied transportation issues and problems in the
1-5/217 interchange and Pacific Highway areas. There analysis was based upon
traffic volumes expected in 2015 based upon the volume of trips on the regional
system and based upon the trips expected to be generated by development in the
Tigard Triangle area under its current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations
(or amendments to those designations which would generate no greater level of traffic
than the existing designations).
The transportation impacts on the system from development within the Tigard
Triangle was determined based upon estimates of the development that could be
achieved under the existing zoning, assuming a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60. The
analysis also examined the effects of development at a lower FAR (the so-called
"constrained" analysis) but we have accepted the opinion of the project expert that an
FAR of 0.60 is the correct estimate.
Page - 2
a.
The outcome of the work by the Task Force and the consultants was the identification
of several road and access improvement projects to serve regional and local traffic
through the planning period. These projects are described by ODOT as the "toolbox"
projects, presumably because they were tools that could be employed to improve the
transportation system.
As documented in Exhibit B to the staff report and presented to the Council at its
December 17, 1996 hearing, the consulting firms of Kittelson and Associates and
Spencer and Kupper analyzed previous studies, interviewed current property owners
and developers in the Triangle and applied current and future development trends to
establish findings on the impacts of development on the transportation system. The
thrust of the analysis was to determine with more specificity than occurs in the
current Comprehensive Plan, what transportation improvements, or options for
improvements, would be necessary in order to accommodate the transportation needs
generated by current acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and the additional impacts
being created by increasing use of the regional system in the vicinity of Tigard.
Background Information: Tmns nation Analysis of 2015 uildout Development
Concept
Using traffic volumes expected to be generated by the land uses already permitted by
the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan (or land use designations producing the same
traffic impact), a transportation analysis of the Development Concept shown in Table
1 of the staff report was undertaken utilizing the Metro forecasting model. The
analysis assumed a "worst case" condition that full buildout would be achieved by
2015.
The Base Case transportation network improvements included the items identified as
"toolbox" items in the I-5/Highway 217 project. The "toolbox" is a set of
recommendations that were developed by a large regional committee that examined
ways to improve the function and capacity of the I-5/Mghway 217 interchange. The
recommended list of projects are commonly called the "toolbox" and were accepted
by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Included in those recommendations are:
6 lanes on Highway 99W between I-5 and the Highway 99W/Highway 217
interchange;
• d lanes (with left turn pockets at intersections) on 72nd between Highway 217
and Highway 99W;
• the proposed improvements to the I-5/Highway 217 and Highway 217/72nd
Avenue interchanges;
Page - 3
A
i
t
the proposed bridge connection across Highway 217 between Hampton and
I Hunziker Streets; and
The second scenario (Dartmouth Extension scenario) considered included the
above improvements and:
the Dartmouth overcrossing of Highway 217 to Hunziker; and
`aoJ
• extension of collector-distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue
interchange intersecting with the Dartmouth Avenue overcrossing and
extending through to the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange.
2015 p.m. peak hour traffic volume forecasts were developed for each of two possible
transportation networks. Under the Base Case scenario, (Figures 1 and 2 describe
Base Case traffic volumes and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios) it is predicted that
with construction of the Hunziker to Hampton over-crossing approximately 500
vehicles will use this structure during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Further
approximately 750 motorists will use Dartmouth Street west of 72nd Avenue. East of
72nd Avenue traffic volumes on Dartmouth Street will vary as a function of the
location of development. In the vicinity of Highway 99W approximately 1,000
motorists will travel on Dartmouth Street; closer to 72nd Avenue this volume
decreases to approximately 350 p.m. peak hour motorists.
As compared to the Base Case scenario, the second scenario included constructing the
Dartmouth Extension overcrossing of Highway 217 (See figures 3 and 4 for traffic
volumes and V/C ratios). This scenario also included extending the collector-
distributor road system from the 72nd Avenue interchange through to the Highway
99W interchange. Approximately 1,700 vehicles will use the Dartmouth Extension
overcrossing north of Highway 217; and approximately 850 motorists will use this
interchange west of Highway 217. The forecasts indicate that approximately 500
motorists would use the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing to gain access to the
collector-distributor road intersecting with Highway 99W. In this way motorists
could avoid congestion at the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange.
With construction of the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing, traffic volumes on
Dartmouth Street are forecast to increase relative to the Base Case. West of 72nd
Avenue, approximately 1,500 motorists will travel on Dartmouth Street. Immediately
east of 72nd Avenue, the traffic volumes grow to approximately 1,200 p.m. peak
hour trips. In both the Base Case and the Dartmouth extension scenario, traffic
volumes on Highway 99W will be approximately 3,000-3,300 vehicles by direction
during the forecast 2015 weekday p.m. peak hour. The Dartmouth Extension would
divert approximately 300 vehicles per hour from Highway 99W in the peak direction
during the peak hour.
Page - 4
u
L
One option examined in this analysis was that Highway 99W would be widened to six
lanes (as described in the "toolbox"). This widening would likely result in significant
disruption to many businesses along Highway 99W. Another option was also
identified and examined. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the Dartmouth Extension to eliminate the need for this widening of
99W. Accordingly, this analysis indicated that, with a four-lane Dartmouth
Extension. Highway 99W could potentially operate marginally acceptably in its
current configuration. Without the widening of Highway 99W, the Dartmouth
Extension would carry as much as 2,000 vph in the peak direction. Therefore, if
physical constraints prohibit the widening of Highway 99W to six lanes as assumed in
this analysis, the Dartmouth Extension would play a substantially more significant
role in relieving future traffic congestion through Tigard.
5. Background Information: Task Force Conclusions
Based on the assumed buildout of the Tigard Triangle under current zoning with a
0.60 FAR (or under Mixed Use Employment designation with a 0.40 FAR cap),
analysis of 2015 buildout conditions indicate the following conclusions:
(1) Six lanes on Highway 99W are necessary, and best serves east/west travel
demand (already assumed in the tool box). Even so, Highway 99W will still
operate over capacity. The demand in this corridor will exceed the capacity
even at 6 lanes. If widening of Highway 99W is prohibited due to physical
constraints, there would be a substantially greater need for the Dartmouth
extension.
i
(2) 72nd Avenue within the Tigard Triangle needs to be four lanes with turn lanes
I (already assumed in the "toolbox").
(3) The Tigard Triangle is most deficient in its northbound access to Highway 217
at the Highway 99W interchange.
I
(4) The Dartmouth connection to Highway 217 would directly divert 400-500
vehicles per hour (vph) from Highway 99W and from the Highway 99W/217
interchange to the Dartmouth extension access to the collector-distributor road
and access to Highway 217.
(5) The Dartmouth extension would carry about 1,000 vph westbound (east of
Highway 217), and about 700 vehicles eastbound (east of Highway 217).
Page - 5
J
® ; (6) Model estimates indicate that about 225 vph would travel through on
Dartmouth from Interstate 5 to Hall Boulevard (each direction during the peak
hour).
(7)
With the Dartmouth extension, Hall Boulevard south of Hunziker would need
to be widened to 4 lanes. Alternatively, additional north-south capacity would
need to be provided in another alignment. Without this additional north-south
capacity, the effectiveness of the Dartmouth extension would be diminished.
(3)
Including the Dartmouth Extension, the Hampton/Hunziker connection would
carry about 250 vph in the southbound direction, which is probably insufficient
to justify the relatively high cost of this connection. However. this connection
will relieve operational and geometric deficiencies at the 72nd/Highway 217
interchange. Further study should be conducted to determine whether Hampton
could be extended further southwestward to connect with Hall Boulevard in the
vicinity of McDonald Street. This connection would likely make greater use of
the Hampton/Hunziker connection; moreover, this connection would likely
divert a portion of through volumes from Highway 99, relieving capacity
constraints in that critical corridor.
(9)
The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive plan and
development regulation amendments for use designations with the Tigard
r~
Triangle do not result in significant changes to trip generation currently
allowed by existing plan and code regulations which they replace. The
proposed changes therefore would not significantly affect planned
transportation facilities.
(10)
The "toolbox" projects prescribed for the Tigard Triangle roadway system
necessary to serve development under existing plan and zoning will
accommodate the proposed mixed use land uses at acceptable service levels.
(11)
It is the conclusion of the transportation analysis that an additional connection
to northbound Highway 217 may be needed to accommodate development
under existing plan and code requirements and may be required for the
proposed plan and code amendments and should be the subject of further
study.
i
j !1
Based upon these conclusions the following recommendations were forwarded to the
City Council with respect to the 2015 transportation network needs to accommodate
regional trips on the system and trips generated by new development under the land
uses currently specified in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan:
(1) Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study area (as
proposed tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the short
tern. In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is prohibitive, the
Dartmouth extension could potentially provide needed northeast-to-southwest
travel demand.
(2) It is recommended that in the near future, 72nd Avenue be widened to four
lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections and that the Hunziker/Hampton
overcrossing be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional
roadway capacity for circulation within the triangle and for access to and
from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the Hunziker/Hampton
overcrossing would have the additional advantages of eliminating geometric
deficiencies at the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange; thereby providing
further additional capacity at this interchange. For the buildout scenario
(2015), these improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of
the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange.
(3) The Hampton/Hunziker connection is only justified based on its operational
relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should be conducted to examine
alternative measures to relieve this situation in a more cost effective way.
Further study may indicate that extending Hampton further southwesterly (to
connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street) may better
accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this structure, a
direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound 72nd Avenue to
northbound Highway 217 would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of
the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange.
(4) Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 should be constructed in
the intermediate term (10-15 years) pending results from the Highway 217
corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and Metro. Under existing
conditions, there is significant roadway congestion near the Highway
99W/Highway 217 interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and
access to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this
interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle would have
the option to access northbound Highway 217 from Dartmouth or Highway
99W.
i .
(5) The analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need for
amouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall
Drt
i Boulevard as well as for extending the collector-distributor roads from the
Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway
99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by
Metro and ODOT should consider the advantages and disadvantages of these
improvements. The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be
constructed only if further system improvements to Hail Boulevard are made
concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of
where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the effectiveness of this
connection would be diminished. Alternatively, another roadway could be
constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall
Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street.
(6) These projects should be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System
Plan. The City, ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvement:
in regional and state implementation programs.
(7) Tigard Triangle Internal Circulation:
Within the Tigard Triangle, it has been assumed that a roadway system would
be developed to accommodate the proposed land use patterns. This
transportation network is schematically represented in the staff report in
attached figure 5. These provisions should be adopted and incorporated into
the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
i
6. Issue Before Council
The issue before the City Council is whether to adopt, reject or modify these
proposals. Consideration of this matter is separate and independent from the matter
which was heard concurrently, whether to adopt new land use designations for the
Tigard Triangle. Whether or not new Tigard Triangle land use designations are
adopted. ODOT has requested amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include the
"toolbox" projects and options. Because the existing Tigard Triangle land use
designations and the proposed designations yield the same traffic impacts we can
consider the proposed amendments to the transportation text of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Transportation Map independently of whether we approve or reject the
proposed land use amendments.
y
i.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1. 2. 9, 11, 12 and 13: Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1. 1,
6.6.6.. 8.1.1, 8.2.2. 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1 and Community Development
Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32.
STATEWIDE GOALS
Citizen Involvement:
Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy
2. 1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen
participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and
request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation
and Development. The proposals were the subject of public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council which included citizen testimony. That
testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. Information was mailed out to
all property owners within the Triangle as it was available regarding workshops and
other actions being considered. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs.
:-1 Additionally, two public open houses were held, one in August and one in October of
1996. This goal is satisfied.
2. Land Use Planning:
Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take
into account changing public policies and circumstances. These amendments
respond to the large scale planning effort undertaken by multiple agencies to redesign
and rebuild the Highway 217/1-5 Interchange. Finally resolving the design issues
between various governmental interests has been a major achievement of ODOT.
Agreement on this design represents a major change in circumstances in the area.
These amendments respond to that design process by placing specific reference in
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to those projects which ODOT feels are necessary in
order to protect the public's investment in improvements to the Interchange.
Goal 2 also requires that land use plans must be the basis for specific
implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and
adequate to carry out the plans. ODOT has requested the inclusion of the proposed
amendments in the Comprehensive Plan in order to provide recognition that the
projects are permitted within the City and not prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan.
Inclusion of the projects in the Plan provides the basis for implementation.
Page - 9
l \
Actual construction of the improvements will require future implementation measures
to be developed and coordinated action between the City, regional and state agencies.
By adding these amendments, the City is facilitating specific implementation steps that
would be taken by ODOT and METRO in the future in order to bring the projects to
reality. The record of this case reflects the City's intention to support those agencies
in amending the Regional Transportation Plan, garnering funding, obtaining right of
way and constructing the project. The City will also coordinate future implementation
measures as they are developed.
Goal 2 also requires that the plan and related implementation measures shall be
coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. The initial step
required in coordination is to engage in an exchange of information between the
planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units, or at least invite such an
exchange. The record demonstrates that the city has complied with this requirement.
The process has included contacts with Washington County, Metro, and ODOT.
Washington County had no comment but Metro and ODOT were included in the task
force which guided the work of consultants and staff. The record indicates that Metro
and ODOT exchanged information with city staff and consultants, expressed their
concerns, preferences and cooperatively developed factual information used to
evaluate the proposal.
The second aspect of coordination is to use the information provided by effected
jurisdictions to balance the needs of all governmental units as well as the needs of the
citizens in developing the plan.
The outcome of the work of the task force was a recommendation, supported by
ODOT and Metro, to adopt the amendments before us for consideration. In enacting
the amendments we are therefore not taking unilateral action inconsistent with the
desires of those units of government. The balancing of interests aspect of the
coordination requirement is therefore met.
Goal 2 also requires the identification of issues and problems for each applicable
statewide planning goal and evaluation of alternative courses of action and
ultimate policy choices. As the text of these findings documents, the city council
undertook identification of issues and problems, evaluated options and made the
ultimate policy choice.
Page - 10
i
3. Economic Development:
This Goal has been met because the amendments are designed to allow
j transportation improvements which will support continued opportunities for a
variety of economic activities in the vicinity of the I-5/217 Highway Interchange
which are vital health, welfare and prosperity Tigard citizens. Providing
additional specificity in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the transportation
improvements to support development in the area will contribute to a stable and
healthful economy because it will lay the groundwork for rational economic planning.
Improvements described in these amendments, according to ODOT, will protect the
capital state's investment in improvements to the Interchange. Maintaining the
workability of the Interchange is critical to the region's economy because of the
important role the Interchange plays in moving goods and services within the region
i
and the state. By adopting these amendments City will play a roll in continuing to
provide adequate opportunities in Tigard and throughout the state for a variety of
economic activities which are vital to the health, welfare and prosperity to Oregon's
! citizens.
The alternative is not a good policy choice. By failing to act on these amendments
we would leave METRO and ODOT in doubt as to whether the City will play a
responsible role in supporting improvements to the Interchange. A failure to act
would no doubt slow down progress towards improvement of the Interchange and
therefore undermine the interests which are protected by Goal 9.
We therefore conclude that taking action to adopt the proposed amendments is
consistent with Goal 9.
4. Public Facilities and Services:
Goal 11 calls for the planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services. The proposal before us does not
violate the Goal because it does not create additional impacts on the transportation
system. Rather, it identifies options for improvements to the transportation system to
accommodate the level of impact which will arise from the acknowledged land use
designations in the area. The amendments are based upon maintaining the status quo
with respect to impacts on transportation facilities.
Other facilities and services will not be negatively affected by the proposal. There is
no dispute on this point on the record before us.
Page - 1 I
x.
I~
1
5. Transportation:
Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
A. Consideration of the Problem and Poli y Choices:
The problem presented to the Task Force and its predecessors in transportation
planning for the area is to identify the system improvements that will be required to
accommodate regional and local needs at the level of impact generated by the land use
designations that currently appear in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, or the
equivalent.
We conclude from the record that several alternatives are before us. We could leave
the Comprehensive Plan unamended. A major consequence of such an action would
be to leave METRO and ODOT planners with uncertainty with respect to whether
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan would prevent improvements to the transportation
system which would protect the state's investment in improvements to the I-5/217
Highway Interchange.
Clearly the City has been urged by involved agencies to act on these amendments.
• On January 10, 1995, Laurie Nicholson, Transportation Planner with ODOT,
_^1 stated by letter, "We suggest that the best method to demonstrate compliance
J with the this rule (TPR) is to adopt the recommendation of the I-5/217 subarea
plan and the Western Bypass study in the city's transportation plan
• On February 12, 1996, Eric D. Jacobson, Transportation/Land Use Planner
with ODOT, stated by letter, "It is necessary for the city to amend its
transportation plan to require and allow the roadway projects necessary to
support the planned land uses identified in the Tigard Triangle Update Study
and the I-5/217 studies, such as widening Highway 99W to six lanes, either
prior to, or concurrent with, land use changes permitting more intensive
development in the Tigard Triangle."
• On March, 1, 1996, Bruce Warner, P.E., Region 1 Manager wrote Anna
Russo, Program Development Manager, Department of Land conservation and
Development, and stated "The adoption of local transportation systems plans
or systems plan amendments by local governments in the vicinity of the I-
5/217 interchange that incorporate the recommendations of the subarea study is
of great interest to ODOT" ..."I have talked to the Mayor and city staff and
they assured me that they will immediately start a process to consider all of
the transportation system improvements and amend their transportation plan by
September, 1996. I support their process and am comfortable with their
Page - 12
j
I
i
i
4
f
f
E
J
commitment. in other words, Region 1 will work with the city to assure that
their system plan adequately deals with the transportation demands and protects
the safety and capacity of our plans to improve the interchange of I-5/Highway
217
In addition to these requests, the record reflects the fact that the I-5/217 subarea plan,
which includes the "toolbox", was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission
in 1996. Their recommendations were forwarded to the METRO Council which took
action this past summer. Specifically, the Council adopted the I-5/217 intersection
portion of the subarea plan. ODOT is currently completing final design of the
interchange. METRO staff was directed, by resolution, to work with local
jurisdictions, specifically Tigard, on adopting the subarea improvements that are
identified in the I-5/217 subarea plan. METRO is committed to work with local
jurisdictions in adopting the recommendations into local plans.
Based upon these considerations we reject the option of taking no action. This would
be contrary to development of a coordinated transportation plan for the region. It
would frustrate the planning efforts of ODOT and METRO.
Another option would be to direct further study assuming even greater transportation
impacts based upon the possibility of more intense land uses in the Tigard Triangle.
We are mindful of the fact that the current land use designations have no limit on
FAR. Development could. therefore, theoretically take place at a higher FAR than
0.60 under existing land use designations.
We are convinced, however, by the weight of the evidence in the record that an FAR
of 0.60 is the proper basis for planning. This point is disputed by DLCD staff in
their letter of December 17, 1996 which states: "We disagree with the assumption that
existing zoning will result in buildout averaging 0.60 Floor Area Ration (FAR)".
While it is possible under our code to build at a higher FAR than 0.60, DLCD
apparently believes that development will take place at less intensive levels. If they
are correct, the analysis supporting recommendations before us indeed present a worst
case scenario. It is, therefore, not necessary, based upon DLCD's comments, to have
these matters reanalyzed for the possibility for more intense development. DLCD and
our consultants agree this is not likely to happen. We therefore conclude that it is not
necessary to send this matter back for further study of the effects of more intense land
use development.
We also have the option of asking for more study of the level of improvements
necessary to accommodate a less intensive development than will be generated at an
FAR of 0.60 under the current land use designations. The issue here is whether we
should rely upon the evidence provided by Mr. John Spencer or that provided in
DLCD's letter of December 17, 1996. Mr. Spencer offered the opinion that an FAR
of 0.60 was the appropriate assumption for analysis of the intensity of development
Page - 13
v
i
i
i
4
i
f ~
}
i
i
I
t
E
Er.
i
f
i
f
i
l
i
;
k
F
J
that should be expected under current land use designations. ivlr. Outman of DLCD
wrote to us that he disagreed with that assumption.
When an assumption is disputed we must consider which evidence to rely upon.`
Based upon our review of the record we find that the floor area ratio estimate
provided by Spencer and Kupper is the most credible and reliable evidence. Mr.
Spencer appeared at our hearing and explained the basis upon which he recommended
the use of that number. His opinion was based upon his professional expertise as well
interviews with owners and developers in the Triangle and his knowledge of levels of
development in other similar areas in the region. We found him to be a credible
witness with strong credentials. In opposition to his opinion we have only the written
statement that "we disagree", without any further explanation. No representative of
j DLCD appeared before us and therefore we were unable to inquire further into their
analysis or to compare their testimony and credibility with the live witness that
' appeared before us. We therefore accept the expert opinion of Mr. Spencer that a
0.60 floor area ratio is the correct assumption to make regarding intensity of
development in the Triangle over the planning period.
s
! The final option under consideration is the adoption of the recommendations which
have been placed before us. We conclude that this is the superior policy choice.
This option will contribute to coordination of transportation planning in the region. It
also will not create energy and environmental impacts exceeding those anticipated by
the land use designations in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Identification of
these transportation projects and options will support the social and economic
objectives supported by the existing acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
i ! B. Other Goal 12 Issues:
l In addition to its December 17, 1996 letter, DLCD sent a communication to us dated
December 12, 1996. The threshold argument in the letter, that OAR 660-12-060 can
trigger the application of the Transportation Planning Rule to a proposal which
j maintains the status quo, was waived by DLCD Director Richard Benner in a meeting
with Tieard staff which took place on December 16, 1996. That fact is confirmed by
the subsequent communication which abandons this argument. Based upon this
waiver we have not asked for additional information from DLCD or others on this
point.
No other assumption, methodology or data is in dispute on the record before us.
Page - 14
-l
J
While this threshold argument has been waived, and the December 16 letter appears
to be directed at the proposed changes to land use designations in the Tigard Triangle.
we will nevertheless address some of the other points in the letter because thev make
reference to the "toolbox" projects. I
1. Transportation Panning Rules OAR 660-12-060
i
The TPR requires us to first determine whether a plan or lard use regulation
amendment "significantly affects" a transportation facility. OAR 660-12-060(2) f
reads:
A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it.-
(a) Changes the functional classification of an eristing or planned
transportation facility;
(6) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in Levels of trave
or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a
transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP.
We find that subsections (a), (b) and (c) do not apply to the proposal before us. The
transportation amendments do not change the functional classification or standards for
any transportation facility. All of the affected facilities are currently designated
appropriately for the changes contemplated by this proposal. Nor do the amendments
allow levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of any
transportation facility.
With respect to subsection (d) we find that the transportation amendments will not
reduce the level of service of any transportation facility below levels of service
identified in our Transportation Plan. On the contrary, we find that the recommended
transportation improvements will improve service levels of the affected transportation
facilities under any land use scenario.
To the extent that any of the actions in the proposal might be held to "significantly
affect" a transportation facility under OAR 660-12-060(2), we take notice of the fact
that we have adopted Order No. . and have found that land uses in the tigard
Triangle are limited in a fashion that complies with OAR 660-12-060(1). We also
® j Page - 15
M
i~
take notice of other provisions in our Code which limit land uses, and contain design
standards intended to assure that allowed uses are consistent with function, capacity
and level of service of all affected transportation facilities. For example, Section
18.32.050.B.5 mandates that applications for development approval must submit a
transportation impact study that must propose the improvements necessary to meet
City standards and minimize the impact of the project on public facilities systems.
Development in the Triangle, as limited, will not produce transportation effects
exceeding the current designations. We have therefore appropriately limited uses
under OAR 660-12-060(1)(a).
2. Coordination
As a preliminary factual matter the December 12, 1996 DLCD letter agrees with the
evidence presented by consultants retained by the City that the proposals being
considered by City maintain the status quo with respect to traffic generation effects on
the transportation system. There is no claim in the record before us that inclusion of
the "toolbox" projects in the Comprehensive Plan will increase the impacts of the
automobile on the transportation facilities over that which would be caused by the
existing Comprehensive Plan.2
DLCD argues that by adopting the "toolbox" projects now, the City Plan will be
uncoordinated with regional and statewide transportation plans which do not yet
include these projects. DLCD's contention is that local jurisdictions may take no
action to include projects in their Comprehensive Plan until those projects are
included in the Regional Transportation Plan.
In its letter of December 17, 1996 ODOT maintains that it is the proposed amendments
to the land use designations within the area of the Tigard Triangle, and not the transportation
project amendments, which significantly affect a transportation facility and trigger the
provisions of the TPR. In our Final Order regarding the land use amendments to the Tigard
Triangle. we decline to adopt DLCD's analysis of reasoning. Their contention is that the
proposed amendments to the land use designations would create traffic impacts exceeding the
status quo because they predict a lower intensity of buildout than the 0.60 FAR predicted by
the consultants. For other reasons described in this Order, and in the Tigard Triangle Final
Order. we agree with the evidence presented by the consultants and adopt as fact the expert
opinion that the traffic volumes produced by the proposed land use amendments will not
create an increase in traffic that will significantly affect the transportation facility.
The dispute over this point does not change the fact that the record contains no
contention that the proposed transportation amendments create transportation impacts which
would trigger application of the Transportation Planning Rule under OAR 660-12-060(1).
Page - 16
Our effort to coordinate has included seeking out opinions of affected agencies as well
as taking those opinions into account in adopting proposed amendments. In fact,
adoption of the proposed amendments is consistent with the wishes of ODOT and
ti1=0. We understand this to meet the requirements of Goals 12 and 2. If the
TPR requires more stringent coordination, that requirement would not apply in this
case because it is undisputed in the current record that the amendments before us
preserve the status quo. The amendments, therefore, do not significantly affect the
transportation system.
3. Funding
DLCD also contends that Goal 2 is violated because "money does not exist" for
construction of the identified projects. Our staff has been unable to identify any other
jurisdiction which has been asked to meet this standard. Nforeover, the current
Comprehensive Plan could not have been acknowledged by LCDC if Goal 2 required
the existence of funding for all infrastructure projects required to implement the Plan.
This requirement does not appear to be mandated by Goal. 2.
4. Specific and Adequate Implementation vieasures
DLCD also contends that the absence of the "toolbox" from the Regional
Transportation Plan, coupled with the non-existence of funding for the projects
violates Goal 2's requirement that plans provide a basis for ecific implementation
measures and that the implementation measures are adequate.
We have addressed this subject under our discussion of Goal 2. As our understanding
of ODOT's request that the City provide Comprehensive Plan language that would
serve as the policy basis for future specific implementation measures. Not all of the
implementation measures for construction of the Interchange and the supporting
projects are known at this time. When they are known, the City will adopt specific
implementation measures which are consistent with and adequate to carry out the
policy choice which has been identified by adoption of the transportation
improvements described in the proposal before us.
C. Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing discussion we conclude that adoption of the proposal is
consistent with Goal 12.
ti. Ener--v Conservation:
Goal 13 requires that land and uses be developed to maximize the conservation of
all forms of energy. The proposal will not affect land uses within the area. Those
Page - 17
uses have been acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 13 and the proposed
road improvements will support that arrangement of land uses.
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
7. General Policies: The proposal is consistent with statewide planning Goals as
addressed above under "Statewide Goals".
S. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing
citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for
comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally
advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during
:November, and two work shops were held and extensive mailings were made to
property owners within the Triangle. This policy is satisfied.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONEVIITINM DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS:
Procedures for Decision Nlakin2: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for
consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan,
implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the
Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and
responses are as follows:
1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter M. These standards are addressed in these findings.
2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The applicability of
Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in these findings.
3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District.
METRO's functional plan is not yet applicable.
4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are
addressed under "Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies".
5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The proposal violates
no applicable implementin.- ordinance.
6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or
community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or
implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application.
I
I Li Page - IS
L
The major change is the development of a plan for improvement of the 217/I-5
Interchange as described in this Order.
J
A. AGF\CY CO'vVVIENTS
1. Metro reviewed this proposal and the attached letter dated November 18, 1996 was
entered into the record at the Planning Commission public hearing.
2. Washington County reviewed this proposal and had no comment.
3. ODOT has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a letter dated November 18,
1996 that was entered into the public record at the Planning Commission. The letter
recommends that the area be identified as an employment center, that the city adopt
the "toolbox" strategies and that specific language be adopted in the Comprehensive
Plan as it related to the need to increase access to Highway 217 from the Triangle.
Specifically, ODOT requested that access from Dartmouth be stated as being critical
to the property owners in the Triangle". The Planning Commission, in discussing
this issue, determined that access was not only critical to property owners in the
Triangle, but to anyone using the transportation system, and declined to add the
proposed language.
r
4. A letter was received from DLCD on December 2, 1996. That letter was attached to
j
the staff report dated December 17, 1996. A second letter was FAXED to the City
on December 17. 1996 and was entered into the record as Exhibit A. That letter
expresses disagreement with the assumptions of the "unconstrained" scenario that
assumes a 0.60 FAR for future development in the Triangle. No evidence is provided
from DLCD that outlines why there is disagreement with the assumption. The City
j
has received expert analysis and testimony from Spencer & Kupper and Kittelson &
Associates regarding this issue and accepts the validity of the assumptions. ODOT
j
and Metro were also provided these assumptions as part of the information to support
the transportation recommendations of the City and neither agency questioned the
assumptions provided.
The City, therefore, does not agree with DLCD's conclusion that OAR 660-12-060 of
the Transportation Planning Rule applies in the event that the City approves the
changes proposed for the land uses in the Tigard Triangle. The City has found
through its land use and transportation analysis that impacts on the transportation
system will be virtually the same under buildout of the new Mixed Use Employment
district and what could be built out under current zoning. With this finding, 060 does
not apply in that the planned changes to the Comprehensive Plan will not have a
s ~gnifrcant impact on the function, capacity and level of service of the transportation
svstem. The analysis of the proposed transportation amendments is the same
regardless of whether the City adopts the proposed land use changes or leaves the
current designations in place.
j
i
Page - 19
I
I
The record indicates that the principal argument advanced by DLCD in its December
1996, letter, that the TPR applies event though the status quo is being maintained
for traffic volumes, was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Benner, Director of DLCD, at a
meeting with city staff which took place on December 16, 1996.
B. DECISION
The City Council APPROVES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008.
tv r, ami~UU_i/1n~ngle.l i:(I ='JOlo61
i
Partial Transcript
12/17/96 Hearing - Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change
(Transcript begins during Consultant Spencer's summary to the City
Council at the beginning of the public hearing.)
Consultant Spencer: talk a little bit now about the letter that we got
from DLCD and I think kind of the basis of their objection to our
plan, maybe Tim can help me out here a bit about the kind of meeting
and the implications of the section of the Transportation Planning Rule
that they cite, and then I'll explain a little bit about how we address
that particular section and some of the conclusion that we have drawn
from it.
Legal Counsel Ramis: For your record, Tim Ramis. the original
comment from the City, excuse me, from DLCD, was that no matter
what we did with respect to traffic planning, if the new proposal
d
create
as much traffic as the existing, we would trigger the
Transportation Planning Rule. And, if the Transportation Planning
Rule is triggered. then there is a host of requirements that we have to
meet. We met with the director of DLCD, Mr. Benner, and during
I
that meeting, I understood him to withdraw the claim that maintaining
the status quo would trigger the TPR. Instead, he stated the Rule,
"would development as proposed create more traffic than would be
generated by your current Comprehensive Plan." Their staff then
analyzed the evidence that we had provided and sent us a letter saying
that they believed that the Transportation Planning Rule would apply
to this case. In reaching that conclusion, they disagreed with the
conclusions of our expert about the intensity of development that could
-
be expected under the existing zoning, the existing Comprehensive
Plan. But, they don't tell us why. The letter that you have dated
December 17 says that they disagree with the assumption that the
existing zoning will result in a build out averaging an intensity of .6
FAR. But, they give us no clue as to their reasoning. So, my
suggestion tonight would be that we ask Mr. Spencer to describe the
vj
Partial Transcript - Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
I
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 1
f..
reasoning that was used in developing the proposal so that you would r
understand whether there is a reasonable basis to accept the
projections that were accepted by the Planning Commission. I am
happy to answer questions if there are any about that subject.
Consultant Spencer: A big part of the work that we did was analyzing
the transportation affects and impacts that would be caused by existing
zoning, buildout in the Triangle and development, buildout assuming
the mixed use zoning and plan designations were in place. We
prepared, and this is part of the record that's included in the staff
report that we shared with staff, with DLCD staff, earlier this week.
We developed, with the Advisory Committee, which included most of
the major developers in the Triangle, some assumptions about how
much development and what type would occur within about 14
different, smaller subdistricts in the Triangle. That, a lot of detail
information was developed in 1995 and updated by us in 1996, so we
had a very specific idea about how much existing square footage of
retail use of housing units, of office use, of all kinds of uses that you
would expect what with existing inventory was in the Triangle, how
much buildable land was available for development, how many acres
of residential land was there and...some assumptions about that area
being redeveloped. So, we took our best guess at how the Triangle
would develop, assuming a mixed-use scenario. And, those numbers
are laid out in some of the information you have in front of you.
Roughly, this is the total of a little bit less than 1,000,000 square feet of
retail that's existing and that would be developed at build-out. About
1.2 million square feet of office, about 600,000 square feet of service
commercial uses and another 140,000 square feet of business and
research and development that's at buildout. That assumes existing
development that's already in the Triangle would remain.
,J
i
f
We then also compared those figures with what could be developed
under the existing zoning, both in the C-P and in the C-G areas. We
assumed that the brown areas and the yellow areas that you see right
now that are designated for residential purposes, would stay residential
and would intensify a little bit for residential uses. We didn't assume,
under the existing scenario, that they would be converted for non-
residential uses. Now, we developed two scenarios for build-out for
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council -December 17, 1996 -Page 2
i
r existing zoning. One scenario, we assumed the same levels of density
' that we assumed for the mixed use scenario. The second scenario, we
assumed a greater level of density would occur under the existing
zoning. And, the reason why we think that is a reasonable assumption
is right now you're existing zoning has no caps to it whatsoever. You
could build a, if you could meet the height requirements and park the
project, you could build a 50-story building, maybe if you could a
variance for the height. You could certainly build at very high
intensities, much higher than the intensities that we assumed would be
developed. So, right now, you're existing zoning doesn't have a lid,
doesn't have a cap. It could develop very, very high densities of office
and commercial. We assumed, in our work that ...and it was part of
the contention that Mr. Ramis mentioned, we assumed a .6 FAR for
kind of maximum scenario under the existing zoning. And what a .6
FAR is, is about the level of development that is currently being found
on some of the projects along Kruse Way. It's about the highest level
office and retail development that can occur before you start going to
have to structured parking. And, we thought that was a reasonable
assumption to make that level of development for the Triangle.
C,S4 Right now, we are not seeing those levels of development proposed for
projects in 1996, but certainly over a 20-year planning period, it would
be reasonable to assume development at that level would be explicitly
permitted by your existing zoning could be achieved in the Triangle, so
we think that is a reasonable upper bound assumption to make in
trying to evaluate the development densities in existing zoning.
Basically, what we found, when we looked at those two scenarios is our
mixed use scenario fit somewhere in between the maximum scenario
under existing zoning and the minimum scenario under existing
zoning. So, we're not our conclusion from all that is that we, by
adopting the mixed-use zone, we're not creating a situation that is, that
would result in much greater land use development, hence, traffic
generation than what could be developed under existing zoning.
Now, a good part of the transportation analysis was done assuming a
number of improvements were made to the transportation system.
And, part of the recommendation that you have before you is the
amendment of the City's transportation system plan to add what is
called the tool box project. And I guess the tool box has turned out to
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 3
f
i~
J
L
r..~ be kind of a misnomer, because it was developed by ODOT and Metro
to look at the whole I-5/217 Corridor and includes a bunch of projects
that I'll mention earlier, but I guess by implication, the tool box, you
sort of think, well, we can maybe fit two or three of these things and
or a combination of these projects and that will solve the problem.
Well, what we have found is we need all of the tools in the tool box to
accommodate, not only the growth that would be originating from the
Triangle, but growth in the region as well. And, I think that what one
of the basic conclusions that we reached in doing the transportation
analysis, is the Tigard Triangle isn't necessarily causing the
transportation problems itself, it is certainly contributing to them, but
there is growth that happening all around in Tigard and other parts of
the region which are being funneled onto I-5 on 217 and on 99W that
are...(tape ended - Side 1)
(Side 2...Consultant Spencer's remarks continued)
modeled as part of our transportation study included widening 99W
through the project area to six lanes, improving 72nd through the
t Triangle to two lanes in each direction plus a left-turn median, making
some substantial improvements that were defined as part of the I-5/217
study to that interchange itself that extend all the way up to include the
interchange at 72nd at 217. So, there is some new ramps and a
number of other changes to the interchange configuration, that are
part of the tool box set of projects. Another improvement is an
extension from the southern part of the Triangle across 217 to the west
and also an extension of Dartmouth across 217 to the west with
eventually, eventual some connection to Hall. So, all of those
project ...am I missing any of tool box...
Legal Counsel Ramis: Point out they are noted on the map over here.
Senior Planner Smith: ...attached to your staff report.
Consultant Spencer: All of those projects were included in the
transportation model and when they were incorporated as part of the
transportation study, the conclusions were that the transportation
system would function adequately with those improvements, assuming
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 4
l;
Ii
f
f
j
f
i
r
r
J
1. ~
the buildout of Tigard Triangle in the year 2016. And that those
improvements would be needed for whether the existing zoning would
be built out or the proposed proposal that you have before you. There
is basically no difference in the transportation impacts of those two
SfPnnrinc.
Legal Counsel Ramis: Mr. Mayor, if I might ask two questions. I
think these questions are capable of yes or no answers, but if they're
not, elaborate. First, is it fair to say that the projections that you
made for the intensity of development and trip generation for the
existing zoning, were based at least ha part on interviews with and
input from experienced developers who own land within the Triangle
and who are familiar with the market conditions there?
Consultant Spencer: Yes
Legal Counsel Ramis: And, second, if someone were to claim that the
conversh-a of residential land to more intense zoning would naturally
create greater trip generation for the proposal than for the existing,
t would it be true that that claim would be wrong because it ignores the
fact that there is cap now on FAR which did not exist previously?
Consultant Spencer: Yes
Legal Counsel Ramis: Thank you.
Mayor Nicoli: Is that the end of our staff report?
Consultant Spencer: We wanted to make sure we got the right stuff in
the record.
Mayor Nicoli: Very good.
Consultant Spencer: Also, just real quickly, there's a couple of things I
want to make sure are included in the record. There is a technical
memorandum that was developed by Kittelson & Associates dated July
25, 1996, entitled "Review of Previous Documents - Tigard
Transportation Update Project." It is probably not included in your
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 5
4
F
packet, but it was one of the technical reports that was developed
during the course of the study and by reference it refers to a lot of the
transportation analysis that was previously done for earlier planning
efforts, and I would like to make sure that that's part of the record
and by reference all of those other documents are part of the record as
well.
Also, I prepared a memo that I faxed to DLCD today that is dated
today. It's to Steve Oulman from DLCD from me and it reviews and
discusses some of the issues that we talked about in our meeting with
their staff yesterday. Primarily, some examples of .6 far and some
specific diagrams that have been done by Tri-Met that show how that
level of development is a reasonable level of development and without
structured parking. And then, some additional notes that I have on my
assumptions in developing these three land use scenarios that were part
of the transportation analysis. So, I want to make sure that is part of
the record as well.
I
' Councilor Rohlf: Do we have in our staff... report the studies in
{ evidence that DLCD is using to argue against this proposal?
f
Legal Counsel Ramis: To this point, they haven't provided us with any
reasoning, reports, studies. We really don't know anything other than
the letter that they sent to us which asserts that they disagree with the
.6 FAR prediction.
I would like to clarify also, that if anyone has any questions about any
of the documents that are referenced here is that they are available
and can be reviewed.
(The hearing then moved on to the public testimony portion of the
public hearing.)
(This portion of the hearing occurred after receipt of public testimony
and discussion of design standards.)
(The following is the transcript of the staff recommendation and
U Council consideration/vote on a motion):
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 6
I
h
Ii
k
i
s.
f
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: Well, Mr. Mayor and Council
members, staff certainly encourages the City Council to approve the
package of amendments as has been presented. It is our conclusion, as
certainly documented well in the record, there is substantial evidence
to support this plan amendment and associated zoning amendments. I
would like to point out that the experts in the field, ODOT in
particular, have reviewed our traffic analysis and the assumptions as
John has discussed tonight and have found, contrary to DLCD, they
found there was adequate information to not oppose this request.
They found that it would not trigger the TPR, Transportation
Planning Rule, nor would exceed the existing capacities or the
anticipated capacity for development impacts of what is allowed by our
current land use regulation. They found it was a wash. So with that,
staff would recommend approval.
Councilor Hunt: Jim, are you saying with or without the design
standards being included?
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: I'll leave that to the Council
Councilor Rohlf: I take responsibility for this getting in at the last
minute. I thought it would there as part of the delivered package.
And, it is of great concern to me that we could have this beautiful
resource start looking like the back of Bull Mountain. Anyone who
drives 99 today can see how rapidly that area of trees has turned into
an area of rooftops. And so, I have been pushing staff to do something
about the design standards. I realize you guys can go back into
another meeting and come up with something for the long term, but I
am concerned about that interim based on my experience when I first
came on Council, the Triangle issue was first coming for adoption of
the previous plan and when that went down in flames we thought
within a year we could have something else out. It has been two years
now and I also realize keeper closer track of that time than I am, but I
am real concerned that if we open up this huge window for
development that has no control to allow us to have the quality
develo men' th +1 th' k 1-
r a m t at you want and that is what I would like to
see happen up there. So, I guess I would withdraw my request that we
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
i Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 7
L_ ~
1
i
i
t
include those design standards, but urge staff to move with these folks
to move very quickly on standards so that window is as small as
possible.
Mayor Nicoli: Ok. I will now close the public hearing and will now ask
the Council if there is any discussion.
j Mr. Ramis: Mr. Mayor, a suggestion
i
Mayor Nicoli: Yes...Yes
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: A suggestion may be, it is totally up to
Council. You could continue the public hearing on that portion of the
design standard. Set a date out there 60 days or 90 days and staff
report back to you on progress that they have made with the task force
and citizens. It would be an opportunity, in terms of public notice and
all that could simplify matters.
I Councilor Hunt: We could adopt without the design standards, but
with...
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: With the direction that we come back
at a specific date.
Councilor Hunt: That would be good.
City Manager Monahan: And Cathy is just going to try to come up
with that specific date would be. We would probably be looking at,
let's say to give the maximum amount of time, would be the third
meeting in February, which would be the second public hearing of
February. Which would give us the opportunity, we could come to the
second meeting in February, the work session, give you a little bit of a
preview, and then bring it to the public hearing which would probably
be thanks, Cathy the 25th of February.
Councilor Hunt: Do you need a motion or what do you need?
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 8
s
I Mayor Nicoli: Well, I believe we want to give staff direction... well,
j ; hold it, maybe we don't...
Councilor Rohlf: We haven't deliberated yet.
Mayor Nicoli: Yeah, right, we have to deliberate, but we have to come
back with findings and a formal ...so we'd be directing the staff...have
come back with findings to either approve or disapprove the action.
And, I...
i
Councilor Rohlf: You can split your findings into two parts can't you,
the findings in favor of the land use action; the second ...on design.
City Manager Monahan: Well what Jim was suggesting, I thought was
that Council has the option of concluding discussion on the plan.
Come back with findings in a couple weeks, but keep the hearing open
until February 25th on design and we would pick it up then and then
adopt the findings for that.
Legal Counsel Ramis: So, shortly you would adopt the non-design
piece and then 60 days or so out, adopt the design part of it.
Mayor Nicoli: Let me ask another question, a legal question. We I
won't know, what I would like to do is trigger the clock running that
DLCD has to notify us for an appeal and by leaving the public hearing
open, does that extend that timeframe?
Legal Counsel Ramis: No, we can take, we can bring to you an
ordinance and a set of findings and you can take final action on the
zoning and comp plan part of it,
Mayor Nicoli: Ok.
Legal Counsel Ramis: and that would trigger the running of the
statute. Meanwhile, continue to hearing the other piece without
affecting the...
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 9
C
i
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 10
Mayor Nicoli: Ok, got it, very good. And by the way, just for my
knowledge, what is the timeframe that they have to notify us once we
take final action.
Legal Counsel Ramis: They have 21 days from the date that we mail
notice.
Mayor Nicoli: Ok, very good. So, I would entertain a motion...
or we can talk about it for awhile.
Councilor Hunt: I would suggest since the wording of the motion might
be kind of technical that maybe the attorney make the motion and I f~
will so move.... f
Legal Counsel Ramis: The motion should be that, if the motion is for
approval, and supports the staff report.
Councilor Hunt: Yes that what I...
Legal Counsel Ramis: A motion in support of the staff report would be
that you tentatively approve the proposal for comp plan amendment
and zoning ordinance amendment as described in Item 6 on the
Agenda and that you further direct the staff to return to you an
ordinance and supporting findings by, what date?
City Manager Monahan: You have two options, what does staff think,
one option is December 30, which is a Monday night when we could
have a meeting just to adopt the findings and then go into an Executive
Session. Your other option is to have a special meeting on Tuesday,
January 7. I don't know if Council has any preference.
Councilor Rohlf: We told these folks this year.
Mayor Nicoli: The 30th it is.
Councilor Scheckla: I would prefer January 7. The 30th is all right,
but I probably won't be here for that meeting.
City Manager Monahan: Ok, that's a Monday night, by the way, not a
Tuesday.
Legal Counsel Ramis: So directing continue this to December for the
return of the ordinance and further continuing the hearing for
consideration of the design proposal to, do we have a date on that?
City Manager Monahan: February 25th.
Legal Counsel Ramis: February 25th.
Councilor Hunt: That's just what I was going to say, so I'll so move.
Mayor Nicoli: Do I hear a second?
Councilor Rohlf: Second.
Mayor Nicoli: Ok, discussion? I have a question, by leaving, you use
(
the word continuance, can new information be entered at any time _
j
h
between and now the time.
I
Legal Counsel Ramis: On the subject of the zoning ordinance and the
comprehensive plan, the answer is no.
Mayor Nicoli: Ok.
Legal Counsel Ramis: On the subject of the design standards, the
answer is yes that at the continued hearing, new evidence can be
submitted.
I
Mayor Nicoli: Any further questions?
Councilor Rohlf: When we do the design study-tonight we're
discussing two pages out of a packet. Will all of this information be
discussed by the task force and resolve it....
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: Yes
i
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
J
i
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 11
Councilor Rohlf: and we'll be talking about standards that apply to
only the mixed use or all of the triangle ...I feel that any development
in any part of that is going to affect development in other parts of it.
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: This is a specific set of amendments, but
hearing Council's direction, that certainly could be discussed with the
task force.
Councilor Rohlf: I would personally like to see that discussed, at
least... whether it should apply to the entire triangle or only parts of it.
Mayor Nicoli: Any other questions?
Councilor Scheckla: I have one, Jim. In regards to lighting and
offensive lighting that we see in other areas of other community like
the Island Green and that over in Tualatin. Is there any indirect
lighting that design-would that be part of the design at this time or
not?
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: It certainly could be a consideration.
From my understanding of our Code, we have a provision that
addresses lighting, screenage of lighting. The Island Green situation is
so unique ...I'm glad we don't have one...
Councilor Scheckla: I just wanted to raise that point now...if we're
considering... input might be brought in now rather later.
Com. Dev. Director Hendryx: We can certainly look at it as part of
this.
Mayor Nicoli: Any other questions? Ok. All those in favor say,
"aye."
Councilor Rohlf: I just want to congratulate all you folks for hanging
in there and I really appreciate all the effort. I know this has been
real hard on you guys and the fact that you were willing to just hang in
there and slug through it, really makes me feel pretty good about the
{ Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 12
10
citizen involvement process. Thanks a lot for all the effort. I know
you put a lot of time into it.
Councilor Hunt: Bob, I was going to wait until have we voted, but I
wanted to echo your sentiments, but also, when I came on the Council
four years ago, I don't think there's any of this staff...Cathy was
here ...but as far as the planning ...or Bill ...I know I came to some of
the meetings... all they were, was telling us how bad we were, which
was right, but I certainly appreciate what the staff has done too,
because they have taken a completely fresh look at it and gone back to
the citizens to see what they really wanted and I think as well as the
people in the Triangle being complimented, I certainly think our staff
should be complimented also.
Applause.
Councilor Scheckla: I think, with the Holiday Season, to have as big a
turn out as we have of the people of this area looking out for not only
what is happening up there, but for everybody here in Tigard, I think
you people coming out here tonight is very appreciated. And, I want
to thank all of you for your efforts over the last year or two of where
this has been and where it is now, and you have made a lot of progress
and I appreciate that.
Gentleman from audience: You guys are looking good for a second
term.
(Laughter)
Councilor Moore: I guess maybe I ought to add my 2 cents ...I won't
tell you about my dubious honor about being on the Planning
Commission from 1990 - 1996.
(Laughter)
Councilor Moore: I'm feeling very uncomfortable about the process as
it was and the end product. I am tickled to death that this is the way
that it ended it up, I could be happier. Again, staff deserves a hand,
Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 13 ;
' the task force deserves a hand, and the present City Council, less
myself, because I didn't do the initiation on this piece ...they all did a
great job and I appreciate it, it makes me very happy.
Councilor Rohlf: comments for DLCD?
Mayor Nicoli: Go ahead.
Councilor Rohlf: They really haven't given us anything to consider
with respect to their ...and concerns about traffic situation. We are
well aware of those situations and I find that we have looked at it, we
have studied it, we have some plans in place, hopefully we'll find some
funding for it and we will meet the traffic needs, I know we will, over
the period of time that this property develops.
Councilor Hunt: I regret that we are not TV, because it is nice to have
agreement some time with the people out here, instead hearing all the
i
arguments against each other.
Mayor Nicoli: Well, if you're done patting yourself on the back, are
you ready to vote?
{
(Laughter)
Councilor Hunt: Yeah, we're ready.
Mayor Nicoli: All those in favor, say "aye."
Council: "Aye"
Mayor Nicoli: All those opposed?
(None opposed.)
Mayor Nicoli: Thank you for coming, people.
is\adm\cathy\council\triph.doc
1 Partial Transcript- Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Public Hearing before the Tigard City Council - December 17, 1996 - Page 14
I i
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I
TO: City Council I
e
FRONI: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: December 30, 1996
SUBJECT: Additional Funding for Development of Design Standards for the Tigard Triangle
G
i
On December 17, 1996, the City Council directed staff to complete work on the design standards
for the Tigard Triangle mixed use employment zone and return with proposals to the February 25th
City Council meeting. As was stated that evening, because of the complexities associated with
gaining agreement on the zoning and transportation standards, the Triangle task force never was
given a full opportunity to address design standards during past meetings.
The consultant team that has assisted the City in the mixed use employment zone proposals has
developed an excellent relationship with City staff and with the task force. They have provided
services beyond what was called for in their contract and have been instrumental in the success of
the project to this point.
In order to complete the work associated with the design standards, an additional $5,000 would be
necessary for consultant services. This would allow provision of detailed presentations to the task
force on design standards and facilitate necessary discussions with property owners, developers and f.
public agencies.
MW
I
~,)JUA b,.
Honorable Tom Brian
Representative. District 9
.
7630 SW Fir
k
Tigard, OR 97333
Subject: Tigard Triangle Plan Amendment
Dear Rep. Brian:
Your letter of December ld arrived the day of a meeting in our office with representatives of the
City of Tigard on the above plan amendment. I gained an understanding of the city's long work
_
I on the proposal and a sense of our department's involvement, including a growth management
( grant (from the joint ODOT/DLCD Transportation and Growth Management program), dating
back several vears. I am sorry you were unable to attend the meeting.
j I sent a copy to you of the letter Steve Outman of the department sent to the city on the day after
our meeting. You will see from the letter that IvIr. Outman urged the city to enact measures
outlined in al-Metro resolution to accompany the plan amendment. As you probably know, the
city adopted the amendment without enacting the measures we and others suggested. We are, of
course, disappointed. Nonetheless, we will continue to work with the city to encourage adoption
of the measures, which we believe will improve the quality of development in the Triangle and
f
circulation around it.
Sincere
y,
l
Richard Benner
Director
cc: Nadine Smith
Steve Outman rohn A. Kivh,A-
Jim Sitzman
1175 Court Street NE
k
Salem, OR 97310.0590
(503) 373-0050
t`
a.
FAX (503) 362-670;
s
I