Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/11/1997 i CITY OF TIG~►RD OREG0 Ub ~ , 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED i i:ladmyo~ccpkttdoc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1 L ! i 1 A ~ a f } i i 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF YIGARD BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 19°7 6:30 PM TMA" CITY HALT. 13125 SW HAIL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to { be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying - E AM* be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and 1 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. 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 E numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 1 i 1 i k~k AGENDA f TIGARD CIIY COUNCIL MME iNG - FiBaUARr 1 i, i99 9 6:30 p.m. • STUDY MEETING > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (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. ° > MEASURE 47 AND THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN • Finance Director > Agenda Review " I 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING I _ 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i - 7:45 p.m. 1 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes: January 14, 1997 3.2 Receive and File: j a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Appointment of Gene Farnstrom and Max Williams to the Budget Committee - Resolution No.97-10 i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 2 i 1 I { i 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Three Vehicles for Public Works and Engineering Departments from Murray Chevrolet through the State Bid Process b. Approve Contract with Murray Smith and Associates for a Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of the Washington County Water Supply Line 3.5 Relinquish City's Interest in Property Owner by Mr. ).A. Atwood - Resolution No. 97-05 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted i on those items which do not need discussion. } 7:50 p.m. 4. TRANSIT CHOICES FOR LIVABILITY • Steve Clark 8:00 P.M. 5. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM UPDATES f . • CIT Members I 8:15 P.M. 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: US WEST DIRECT FRANCHISE a. Staff Report: Finance Director b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 01 " 8:25 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN { ] AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER (HEARING CONTINUED ~ FROM THE JANUARY 28, 1997, COUNCIL MEETING) F REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: 1 West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2. 1.1 citizen involvement; S.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M- H Residential, R-25. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 3 j k i 1 . S F 1 a. Open Public Hearing ! b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony: Applicant, Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions/Discussion g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 10:20 p.m. j 8. FOLLOW-UP REPORT - MEASURE 47 AND ANNEXATION ISSUES • Community Development Director Sofa +o a lay 15,7 10:40 p.m. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:50 P.M. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (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 t present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information dis,!ssed during this session. 11:00 P.M. 11. ADJOURNMENT is\adm\cathy\cca\970211.dm i 4 i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 4 f 1 _J Aft- I i Agenda !tem No. I Meeting of I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 i • STUDY SESSION ( > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli 1 > Council Present: Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. } > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Robert Franz (Executive ' Session only); Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Sr. Management Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:31 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property l transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 1 > Executive Session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. j > Measure 47 and the Five-Year Plan " Wayne Lowry. Finance Director, referenced his memo dated February 1 which explained how the Engineering Department was funded. Ile reviewed the reduction in FTE positions for 1997/98 due to Measure 47: 1.5 from Police, I from Engineering, and I from the Library for a total of 3.5 positions lost. He said that under his revised plan, the City could meet the five year plan. He explained that by the year 2001, the City would be down 21 FTEs if they never added another position to the plan. > Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at • Council Communications/Liaison Reports y Councilor Hunt reported that the Water Consortium Board held its first meeting last week for the 25 participants. He noted the excellent job the Technical Committee was doing. He said that the Board Chair was from the Tualatin Valley Water District. Councilor Hunt reported that the Peer Court held its first meeting last night with great enthusiasm from the people. He explained that Peer Court did not try the offenders; it assigned punishment to those who already admitted they were guilty. Councilor Hunt reported that he was very impressed with the Community Partners for V Affordable Housing's current project to remodel 84. { CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 1 I " i ~ Iu i I • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None Mayor Nicoli announced that the Council would discuss the hiring of a new City Engineer during a study session at the end of the agenda. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Polaris. 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place King City, encouraged citizens to become involved on the Public Involvement Committee of the Regional Water Consortium Board. He „ asked what the status was on the request for annexation from the 10 homeowners on Marion and James Streets. He asked for an explanation of the five-year plan. 1 With regard to the annexation question Mayor Nicoli advised Mr. Polaris that he has contacted Mr. Gaffi at United Sewage Agency. City and Agency staffs would work on finding a viable solution, if there was one. Mr. Monahan responded the question on the five-year plan: The City used a five year planning j window as method of doing business. The City is currently on the third five-year plan. 3. CONSENT AGENDA } Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, 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.") 1 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 14, 1997 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda a 3.3 Approve Appointment of Gene Farnstrom and Max Williams to the Budget Committee - Resolution No. 97-04 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: j i a. Approve Purchase of Three Vehicles for Public Works and Engineering Departments from Murray Chevrolet through the State Bid Process b. Approve Contract with Murray Smith and Associates for a Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of the Washington County Water Supply Line l 15 Relinquish City's Interest In Property Owner by J.A. Atwood - Resolution No. 97-05 4. TRANSIT CHOICES FOR LIVABILITY Steve Clark 14290 SW 130 Drive, publisher of Community Newspapers, explained that Transit Choices for Livability was a committee composed of community, business, and government leaders from throughout the region working with Tri-Met to improve transit serv ice to the suburbs. He presented the first phase report. He noted the need for improved transit in - the region as part of a solution to the increasing transportation problems created by growth. He spoke for creating partnerships to work toward viable solutions that would address the individual needs of the suburban communities and establish "community transit." I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 2 t r, t. 'I 1 tr-- ~ I Mr. Clark said that the concept of community transit was similar to the concept of community policing. He stated that the committee began with the four regional centers (Oregon City, Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro) to identify community goals and how transit could be improved to address those goals. He explained that the report was a business plan, not a service plan for improved transit. They were looking for partnerships in funding; Tri-Met could not bear the burden alone. Jurisdictions, communities, and businesses needed to work together to improve inter-suburb transit for everyone's benefit. Mr. Clark presented the recommendations of the Committee. These included launching Phase 2 (incorporation of the suburban communities, expanding the scope of the study area, and developing community transit options), funding pilot programs through the Tri-Met budget to create measurable projects to demonstrate that they could improve suburban transit in a cost effective way, the cultivation of partnerships and community leadership, and public education. Mr. Clark asked the Council for their participation in Phase 2. He said that they intended to use i u . a similar approach as used in Phase 1 to incorporate the other communities and that it would take about 18 months. He stated that their goal was to improve transit over the next 10 years while continuing to work on other projects (i.e., I-51217 and 99W) for a total package that made sense. ' Mr. Monahan said that staff was looking at the recommendations from the first four I communities. They would develop their own recommendations to be ready in the spring when the process came to this area. 5. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM UPDATES: None 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERA T [ON: US WEST DIRECT FRANCHISE I Wayne Lowry. Finance Director, reported that staff concluded its negotiations with US West j (begun in 1993) for a telecommunications franchise to provide coverage to the northeast comer 1 of Tigard. He noted several specifics of the agreement, including a 180 day notice of renegotiation and a 10 year contract term (as opposed to a 20-year term). He recommended approval. a 1 Councilor Scheckla expressed concern about how cable TV would be incorporated into the agreement in the future. Mr. Lowry referenced the provision excluding cable TV from the j agreement (Exhibit A, page 1). He said that cable TV required a separate franchise which would be negotiated under the rate set by MACC. I Councilor Scheckla asked if annexed territory had to pay. Tim Ramis. Legal Counsel, explained that the current agreement applied only to the city limits. Annexed territories would have to pay. I - Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-01. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 97-01 by number and title. i ORDINANCE NO. 97-01, AN ORDINANCE RENEWING THE FRANCHISE OF US COMMUNICATION, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGN, GRANTING THE RIGHT TO I PLACE, ERECT, AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 3 4 ~j CONDUCTORS AND TO LAY UNDERGROUND WIRES FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN, UPON, UNDER, AND OVER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AVENUES, THOROUGHFARES, AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AND TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD, AUTHORIZING i THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT AND REPEALING ALL I ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mr. Lowry confirmed to Councilor Scleckla that the agreement was retroactive to 1993. i Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") t 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT t. (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER (HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 28, 1997, COUNCIL MEETING) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135`h Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The Comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. 1 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2. 1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6. 1.1 housing; 8. 1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public e transportation; 12.2.1 (4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi- judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25. h a. Open the public hearing Mayor Nicoli explained that this public hearing was opened at the January 28, 1997 meeting j and continued. b. Declarations or Challenges i Councilors Scheckla and Hunt each stated that he had made a site visit. All Councilors indicated that they were familiar with the application. There were no challenges from the I audience. c. Staff Report Jim Hendryx. Community Development Director, submitted the letter and maps received from Craig Petrie, noting that the applicant has seen only the letter. He stated that staff did contact the interested parties to inform them of the testimony time limits but noted that one individual might ask to exceed the limits. Laurie Nicholson. Associate Planner, reviewed the specifics of the application, including site location at the comer of SW 135` and Old Scholls Ferry Road. The existing plan designation was medium high density residential. The applicant was asking for a I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 4 1 , Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change the designation to Community Commercial (C-C) for 5.54 acres of an 8.56 acre parcel, leaving the remaining 3.02 acres of wetlands under the Greenway designation. Ms. Nicholson noted the letter received from Steve Janik, representing Haggen's, which questioned the staff recommendation for approval of this application when the Haggen application for a CPA was denied a year ago. She said that the Haggen application had been 1 to change the designation to General Commercial (G-C) which had a different approval ! criteria. Ms. Nicholson noted that the study for adopting the C-C zone identified the Shrader site as j suitable for C-C but not the Haggen site. She mentioned Mr. Janik's reference to the ` j Council's discussion at the Haggen hearing about the potential loss of housing if they granted the request. She stated that the Council findings did not include loss of housing as a finding for denying the Haggen request. She said that one finding for denying the Haggen i j site had been that it would be surrounded on more than two sides by residential, which was a G-C approval criteria. Ms. Nicholson referenced her February 3 memo citing the other reasons why the Haggen i request was denied. She mentioned the letter received today from Craig Petrie recommending denial of the Shrader application because the applicant did not include a zone change request at the same time. She stated that neither the Tigard Comprehensive Plan nor 1 Code required an applicant to submit a zone change request at the same time as a CPA request for C-C. _ Ms. Nicholson recommended approval of the CPA application, noting the Planning Commission February 2 recommendation for approval. i d. Public Testimony i Mayor Nicoli reviewed the public hearing procedures. He asked if there were any objections to the time limits of 20 minutes for the applicant, 20 minutes for the opponent, and 5 i minutes for citizens. Mr. McAdams stated that he would have difficulty with the five- minute time limit. Mayor Nicoli informed the participants that, if necessary, he would remind them to keep their testimony relevant to the issues at hand. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that participants could ask the Councilors about their site I visits and how it might affect their decision. APPLICANT Michael Robinson 900 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2300, Portland repr se i g the aRA ' ant, asked Councilor Scheckla about his site visit. Councilor Scheckla explained that he had checked out the distance from other commercial sites. Mr. Robinson reviewed the reasons he thought it was appropriate to change the plan designation to C-C from medium high residential. These included that it met the criteria for the C-C plan map designation, its identification in 1992 as one of only two sites in Tigard suitable for the C-C designation, it was the right size (between 2 - 8 acres), it was surrounded by the appropriate density (8 dwelling units per acre), there was no other commercial zones in Tigard within in easy walking i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 5 x I - f distance, it maintained a level of service "D" at the intersection with intersection improvements, there has been a physical change in circumstances and/or a mistake in the original plan designation, and the demonstrable growth in the area over the past 10 years. Mr. Robinson noted the criteria of.5 mile distance from other commercial designations. He contended that the most appropriate way to measure that was by driving distance, as opposed to a straight line. He presented evidence that the site was .5 miles (or close to it) from other commercial sites. He argued that even if the site wasn't exactly .5 miles distant, the stated intent in the Plan was to apply locational criteria in a flexible manner for projects in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community (TCP 2.7) f' j Mr. Robinson cited the August 26, 1992 memo from former City Planting Director Ed Murphy i stating that the site met the C-C criteria. He mentioned that the Beaverton commercial sites were ! not included in the .5 mile criteria. He said that neither the North Dakota nor the Beaverton side provided adequate retail shopping for the area. Noting the Lancaster Associates traffic study coordinated with the City and the County, he stated that the applicant agreed to all the Washington i H County conditions regarding traffic listed in the November 12, 1996 letter. i Mr. Robinson contended that there has been a physical change in circumstances (TCP 1.1.2), citing i the adoption of the C-C designation in 1992 as the physical change. He argued that the lack of analysis done on the appropriate zoning for the parcel at the time of its annexation to the City constituted a "mistake." He mentioned the City policy of automatically zoning annexed property at the closest designation to the County zoning. He reviewed the evidence on the growth in the area in a one mile radius, noting the population, housing unit, and number of household statistics from 1980-1990. _ Mr. Robinson commented that he did not think the Council had to interpret the Code as na_rowly as suggested by Mr. Janik. The Council was free to interpret a "physical change" or a "mistake" however it chose to do so. He reiterated that the adoption of the C-C plan map designation constituted a physical change, and that the lack of analysis on zoning at the time of annexation was a mistake. Mr. Robinson said that the City would still meet the Metro housing rule, even if they changed this a site designation. He referenced the letter from the City of Beaverton in which they asked that the j application not be approved because the property near this site would be designated as a town center under the Metro Functional Plan. He argued that the Functional Plan was neither effective yet nor was the town center designation implemented, and therefore neither was not applicable to this application. He said that a town center did not necessarily provide for the needs of Tigard residents as the C-C district was intended to. Mr. Robinson referenced Mr. Petrie's letter in opposition in which Mr. Petrie questioned the measurement of distance and the loss of housing. He stated that in July 1992 Mr. Petrie supported the Albertson's request for a C-C designation on the grounds that "people have to shop somewhere." j Mr. Robinson referenced Mr. Janik's letter of January 24 and his January 28 memo in response to Mr. Janik's memo. He noted the attachment to his memo which gave a comparison between the C- C and G-C designations. He mentioned the differences in intensity of use, approval criteria, and limitations. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 6 Mr. Robinson pointed out that when they came in with a zoning map application for C-C, they had to come ir_ with a site development review application at the same tnae. He said that the Council should not compare this application to a prior one, and asked to be judged strictly on the approval criteria. He asked for approval of the application. PROPONENTS Bob I eFeber 50 SW Pine Street 4400 Portland, said that he had no comments at this time. I f i ' OPPONENTS I > Mike Van 6860 SW Boeckman Road Wilsonville on behalf of Burton Grabhorn owner of 15 acres direly to the east of the subject apnlication, disagreed with Mr. Robinson's contention that the applicant has demonstrated a physical change in circumstances. He noted the discussion E c of the Council at the Briar Development application on reduction and supply of buildable land. He said that he never received a copy of Exhibit H. He questioned the relevance of a City i Engineer's comments on the site as suitable for commercial, since the City Engineer was not a 1 land use planner nor authorized by the Council to make those sorts of decisions. i~ Mr. Van cited TCP 8.1.1, commenting that the Grabhorn/Briar applicant did a traffic study equal ! to this applicant's study which was found inadequate. He contended that the same criteria } should apply to both applications. He stated that they intended to put apartments on the property across the street, and pointed out that they would be only 60-70 feet from a commercial development on the subject site. He asked the Council to either deny the application or consider a refinement plan that specified the type of commercial zoning needed in the area. j > Steve Janik, 101 SW Main. Suite 1100. Portland, attorney representing Briar Development, stated that the Council had turned down their virtually identical request a year ago because of the Council's desire to maintain high density residential at that intersection. He asked if that t policy has changed. If so, they would like to reaPP1Y• If not, he contended that the Council had F? to deny this application. Mr. Janik said that what was before the Council tonight was not a zone change application; it ! was a Comprehensive Plan change request. Therefore the zoning designations and zone change ' standards did not apply. He said that the question was did the applicant meet the standards for a Comprehensive Plan change. None of those standards considered what zoning might be requested in the future. Mr. Janik reviewed the Briar Development application in which they informed the Council of exactly what their intentions were for the property and asked that the Comprehensive Plan change and the zoning change each be judged by the appropriate standards. He questioned the applicant's methodology of getting the Comprehensive Plan designation changed first and then coming back with the zoning change request and site development review application. Mr. Janik disagreed that the site has been "preselected" for C-C zoning. Be cited a map from the application which showed 11 potential sites in the area, not 2. The map was adopted by the Council in Ordinance 91-13. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 7 t L~ J .e 1 Mr. Janik reiterated that the Council denied their application because they wanted to maintain high density residential at that intersection. He read from the February 13, 1996 minutes to substantiate his point. He pointed out that the findings were simply the staff report and did not reflect the Council discussion at the hearing. He contended that if the policy has not changed, then the Council needed to turn down this application. j Mr. Janik contended that the application did not comply with TCP 1.1.2, the requirement to demonstrate either a physical change in circumstance or a mistake. He pointed out that the Council rejected Briar Development's argument that growth in the area constituted a physical change. He characterized as "astounding" the argument that adoption of a new zoning code classification constituted a physical change in circumstance. He argued that the words "physical I change" could not be logically interpreted to include a zoning code change. He held that LUBA would reverse such an interpretation. Mr. Janik said that the basis for Mr. Robinson's contention that a mistake was made in 1983 was t a memo from the City Engineer that said 135' might be able to accommodate commercial. He said that the Council at that time rejected that information and voted in high density residential at this intersection. He noted Councilor Scheckla's remarks at the February 1996 hearing in which he stated that he had been part of the 1983 Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think a mistake had been made. Mr. Janik noted the argument that the properties were somehow different because of their shape 4 and traffic patterns on the surrounding streets. He indicated the two properties on a map and asked the Council to decide which was inherently suitable for high density residential and which _ for Community Commercial. He said that the subject property had 40% more traffic than the Briar Development property. Mr. Janik stated that the applicant has not met the burden of proof for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. He held that their arguments were insufficient to overcome the policy of preserving high density residential housing. He asked that the Council deny the application or step back and study the situation themselves, if they wanted commercial at that intersection. E i Mr. Janik submitted several documents into the record. > > Gene McAdams 13420 4W Brittany Drive, expressed concerns about traffic congestion on 135 ' and Scholls Ferry that would lead to cut through traffic in the neighborhoods. He distributed materials to the Council. He stated that he walked daily to Howard's from his home on Brittany Drive, indicating the location of his home on the map. He stated that this proposal would violate the Tigard, Beaverton, and Washington County Transportation plans. He pointed out the maps showing intent to block off the new Scholls Ferry Road and reroute traffic to Davies Road, which he contended would affect this application. Mr. McAdams said that if he were granted approval of access to his business from Scholls Ferry Road (like this application), and then later found out that the City would close off his access, he would feel damaged and probably sue. However if the area was residential, the blocked off access was not an issue. Mr. McAdams contended that the statements asserting that this site was best suited for commercial purposes were unfounded and inaccurate, due to the traffic impacts. (Staff report, page 6). He stated that any change to the transportation plan should be considered separately i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 8 1 E , o w li i anrd in rnnnPratinn %x4tii the other aEf Ct.,.. ed agencies. he said that the OCrali trarl- r a-_. i au~. uuYuua ua this proposal have not been fully evaluated. He concurred with Mr. Janik that the City Engineer's letter did not endorse this site as commercial. The City Engineer simply indicated that it was preferable to a commercial site at Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. Mr. McAdams contended that this site was less than .5 mile from other commercial sites, referencing Attachment E. He said that Tigard was the only jurisdiction in the Northwest that measured distances from the center of the property. He did not think that the methodology was appropriate. Mr. McAdams noted the staff discussion on the "mistake" (page 6). He quoted from the Planning Commission minutes in which Mr. Robinson argued that a new zoning classification constituted a physical change. He asked how development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan qualified as a mistake. Citing the new Scholls Ferry Road ending in a cul-de-sac and traffic routed to Davies Road, he asked what the specific difference was between this residential zone and any other neighborhood along Scholls Ferry Road. He asked when was a development identified as a mistake, and held that a mistake should be easily identifiable. He asked when the Council intended to amend the transportation plan. > Blair Whitney. 10800 SW 1351b, Beaverton, said that he and his family lived "catty corner" from ! the subject site. He stated that he was opposed to the application. He said that Tony Cargill, a friend in real estate, researched this issue for him. i > Tony Cargill. 13150 SF Winston Road Borine, said that it had already been demonstrated that - the application did not satisfy any of the applicable plan policies (TCP 1.1.2). He commented c~ that he understood a physical change to mean a concrete visible change in the circumstances. He said that he did not see any physical change on the subject site nor did he see a planning mistake. He contended that a change in a landowner's desire was not a planning mistake; mistakes were factual and could be proven but he has not yet heard any proof. i ! Mr. Cargill noted the staff report statement that the site was less suitable for multi-family l development because of noise from traffic. He held that with soundproofing and buffering, the 1 site would remain suitable for multi-family development. Mr. Cargill said that the staff report contained a serious error in concluding that the area ' surrounding the site lacked nearby shopping, noting Beaverton's October 24, 1996 memo notifying Tigard staff that the property west of the subject site would be designated a town center in conformance with Metro's 2040 plan. Mr. Cargill said that citizen involvement included the citizens from Beaverton (TCP 2.1.1) He argued that approving a commercial use that would dramatically alter the character of the neighborhood without consideration of the adjoining jurisdiction was "irresponsible and I wrong." Other issues he mentioned were approving an automobile intensive use over a i residential use, ignoring the Metro need for high density housing (especially at a site with ideal mass transit connections), and using a minimum housing ratio has a guideline. Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 5. 1, diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. He said that the staff report did not explain what these opportunities were nor did it consider the negative impacts on the existing economic environment by depleting the anticipated residential base and diluting the existing economic envirnnment. _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 9 ; i Mr. Cargill offered a definition of "diversification" within a land use context as "increasing the base of job opportunities in the community by increasing the varieties of job descriptions and job environments." He held that a new gas station would simply repeat existing uses, not offer diversification, while residential units would add jobs to the local area through increased demand for residential services, and would increase the number of consumers to support the existing commercial and retail opportunities in the area. ? Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 5.4, encroachment. He said that the applicant's opinion on ff 3 encroachment was erroneous, as it would occur through noise and lighting pollution as well as f aesthetic degradation. He said that it was difficult to make a gas station aesthetically compatible i i with residential uses. Mr. Cargill said that the status of potential designation should carry no weight nor guarantee any special consideration for zoning or comprehensive Plan changes. He mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for a city center at Murray and Scholls Ferry, Beaverton's intention to rezone the property I to the west, and the difficulty of keeping petroleum spills from polluting the greenway and storm system. i Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 6.1.1. He said that medium density zoning filled a viable market need for R-25 sites with immediate proximity to mass transit. He asked when this inventory would be replaced if lost to commercial. He said that Tigard needed hundreds of new housing { units each yearjust to serve the established population. Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 8.1.1. He said that a desire for infrastructure improvements was a poor trade off for a land use designation change. These road improvements would happen whether the site was commercial or residential. He stated that the road system in the area often operated at 100% capacity now, and that a commercial use at this location would create higher daily loadings. In addition, it would emphasize vehicular dependence and discourage non- . motorized transportation. He cited a April 19, 1992 staff report regarding the benefits of a residential use versus the detriments of a commercial use. He commented that, despite Mr. 1 Robinson's claims that "traffic infiltration into neighborhoods" was not a criteria, cut through traffic did matter to the neighbors. i Mr. Cargill contended that the applicant failed to satisfy TCP 8.2.2 because mass transit was - r = wasted on gas stations and convenience stores. Mr. Cargill contended that the 8.56 acre site failed to meet the guidelines o 2.228 acre size requirement. The requirement made no provision for split zoning and this request would leave a small parcel of R-25 zoning. He said that the staff report statement that the locational criteria of impact assessment was moot because the application was not a zone change was a political technicality because the Comprehensive Plan would prevail in the case of a conflict with the zoning map. i Mr. Cargill recommended denial of the application because the negative impacts of the proposed change outweighed the questionable benefits. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:56 p.m. ~ - - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 10 l ~ . L~ ll~~ lom 1 ~ I > CTaL1. Petrie. 12397 S W Canvas_Back Way, stated that he came to the meeting after hearing on the cable cast Mr. Robinson quote something out of context. He contended that no mistake was made in changing the site designation for the Albertson's store, citing his familiarity with the C- C designation. He referenced the County plan map, arguing that the site was within .5 miles of other commercial sites. He said that in the absence of any specific proposal, the City should force an applicant to prove that every allowable use in that zone was compatible; ignoring the JI impact assessment was not in the best interests of the citizens of Tigard. I Mr. Petrie suggested turning down the application until the applicant submitted a comprehensive plan and zone change at the same time because then the applicant would have to submit a site j development plan also. That way the City would know exactly what they planned to do with the site. He asked that this application be held to the same high standards as the Albertson's application was subject to, noting that the opposition to Albertson's did not come from the neighbors. F Mr. Petrie presented a map demonstrating the number of commercial sites within a 1.5 mile radius serving this site. He said that the intent of the C-C zone was to let the City know exactly what the use would be when it committed to that zoning. He suggested rejecting the application outright or rejecting it and telling them to consider a simultaneous comprehensive plan amendment and zone change applications. Councilor Hunt asked about the 1.5 mile radius Mr. Petrie mentioned. Ms. Nicholson said that l the Code said .5 miles. > Jack Polaris. 16800 Queen Victoria Place- King Citv, said that he did not like to see residential I areas changing to commercial. He asked if Tigard had a list of currently available commercial lands and the percentage of future commercial areas to be allowed. Mr. Ramis clarified staff's answer to Mr. Petrie's exhibit on the 1.5 mile. He explained that the .5 mile standard referred to the spacing and location of commercial centers while the 1.5 mile referred to the intended service area. The 1.5 mile standard could be considered relevant if the Council chose. REBUTTAL Mr. Robinson said that he raised the point about Mr. Petrie's comments on the Albertson's application because in 1992 Mr. Petrie supported providing more places to shop while today he opposed doing the same thing. He mentioned the discussion comparing this site to the Haggen site. He said that each application should be judged according to the facts and the law in effect on the date the application was made. How the Haggen application was treated by the City was not relevant to this application; the question was whether or not they met the approval criteria. j Mr. Robinson said that they were not proposing a use at this time. He reiterated that they were not required to submit a Comprehensive Plan map, Zoning map, and Site Development Review application at the same time. However if the Council approved the request, they had to come back with the zone change and site development review applications at the same time, neither of which the Council was obliged to approve. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 11 4 1 I j f Woommmodo ivir. Robinson said that he included Mr. Wooley's April 26~ 1991 memo in the record because he did say he preferred the 135 and Scholls Ferry site to the 135' and Nonh Dakota slit:. It was evidence that the City did look at these two sites intensively as possibilities for the C-C zone. Mr. Robinson concurred that the Council denied the Briar Development application because of a concern for housing. He noted that five Comprehensive Plan policies were cited in the findings as reasons to deny the Haggen application. He reiterated that what was relevant was what was in the final order. Mr. Robinson said that he did not think they had created any confusion regarding the zone change. I They were not aPP1Yinb g for one. They have used the Tigard Plan map designation as it appeared in the plan. Mr. Robinson cited the August 26, 1992 memo to City Council from Ed Murphy which referred to a map (Exhibit C) as showing the only two sites within the city limits and with the city's future a growth area that met the standards for the C-C zone. On the original map two sites were highlighted in yellow: the subject site and the Albertson's site on Scholls Ferry and Walnut. Mr. Robinson reiterated his argument that a new zoning district and plan map designation constituted a physical change. He held that if it was not reasonable to show a mistake or physical change, then the C-C map designation would never be implemented because there was no way to meet the approval criteria. He said that he disagreed that the term was so narrow that it meant only a change on the ground. i Mr. Robinson addressed Mr. McAdam's testimony. He said that Lancaster Engineering consulted with the County and the City staff on how to do the traffic study. He cited a April 30, 1996 letter from Mark Roberts of Tigard listing the County conditions for traffic. He pointed out that the Murray and Davis extensions and Scholls Ferry disconnection were slated for after 2005, and that their planning horizon for the traffic study ended at 2005. That was why they did not mention them. The traffic study showed that the intersection would function at a level of service "D", which was acceptable to both the County and the City. t Mr. Robinson said that Council did not need to rely on zoning designations from Beaverton because they had no control over them. They could only control Tigard designations. He contended that it made no sense to evaluate the .5 mile standard against designations they could not control. e. Staff Recommendation Ms. Nicholson recommended approval. f. Council Questions: None g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Councilor Hunt asked if staff had any comments on the traffic study for the Haggen proposal. i Mr. Ramis advised Council to reopen the hearing if staff responded to questions. Mayor Nicoli reopened the hearing. i - fI I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 12 E 1 I' E Ms. Nicholson said that the Haggen application could not meet the approval criteria for transportation unless the request were limited to the grocery store. Councilor Hunt asked why the Council discussion on retaining high density housing at this intersection was not reflected in the findings. He asked how to make sure that Council discussion was included in findings in the future. Mr. Monahan said that Council probably adopted the findings at the close of the hearing that night. Mr. Ramis said that it was good practice for Council to direct staff to return with findings at a later date (provided they were not up against the 120-day j rule) so that Council discussion could be incorporated into the findings. Councilor Scheckla stated that he supported retaining high density residential at this location during the Haggen proposal because of the proximity of a park, a school, and mass transit to multi-family housing. He said that commercial was still not allowable even if called "community." He said that he would not change how he has voted in the past on similar issues. He commented that the point was to get people out of their cars. He noted the need for more housing in the Metro area. 4' Councilor Moore asked what the differences were between general commercial and community commercial. Ms. Nicholson said that general commercial contained no limitations on the site and could attract a regional market. i Councilor Moore asked what the advantages were to requesting a Comprehensive Plan change first and then returning for a zoning change. Mr. Ramis said that the Code did not require applications to be submitted at the same time, except for Community Commercial which had to be accompanied by a site plan. He said that nothing mandated the Council to approve or disapprove the requests. 10 Councilor Moore asked if gas stations were a permitted use in Community Commercial. Ms. Nicholson said that they were a conditional use. In response to a request from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. j Nicholson read the uses permitted in the C-C zone. i Councilor Moore said that he seemed to remember a prior application on the same corner coming in for neighborhood commercial and being denied by the Planning Commission. Ms. Nicholson said that the Shrader site did originally apply for neighborhood commercial but withdrew their application upon discussion of the community commercial zone. Mr. Janik reiterated that all that was before the Council --as a Comprehensive Plan change; they were not dealing with zoning. He noted that Briar Development voluntarily agreed to a condition on their Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change request to limit the use specifically to a Haggen store of the size and configuration shown on the site plan. He said that they had not raised the specter of unlimited use in a G-C zone if Council granted them the zone change. Ms. Nicholson confirmed to the Mayor that Briar Development did agree to that condition because Washington County required a limited use to support the traffic findings. However the Council did not consider that request. Mr. Robinson reiterated that Metro's plans were not relevant to this application. He reviewed the 1991 application which the applicant withdrew prior to it coming to the Council because of the community commercial discussion. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for conditions of approval to be placed on a community commercial site, whereas nothing was mentioned for general commercial. He said that they did not come in with a zone change request at this time because of the difficulty of assembling a full scale plan when they did not know whether the plan map would be there (ORS 227.178(3). Another reason was that when applying for a plan CITY COUNCIL MEETING P.1Ii:TJTEJ - FEn"TTARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 13 S is 7 1 I map designation change and a zone change at the same time, Oregon land use law required ihat a zone change be evaluated against the designation in effect on the property at the date of application, not against the designation being requested. It was difficult to meet the approval criteria. Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. i 1 h. Council Consideration j Councilor Hunt stated that he was opposed to the application because he could not see any real difference in the traffic findings for this application and the findings for the Haggen - application. They would generate the same traffic and create the same type of problems. He noted the mass transit in the area intended to serve residents, and expressed discomfort with removing a medium density location currently served by mass transit. Councilor Hunt spoke for consistency in Council action. He mentioned that when they allowed the high density parcel on 99W to be changed to commercial and transferred the density to Bull Mountain, they ended up with an eyesore and erosion where before there had been a forested hill. He reiterated the need to protect medium and high density areas when well served by transportation and other stores. Mr. Monahan noted for the record that the staff and Planning Commission had recommended denial of the Briar Development application. i Mayor Nicoll said that he was leaning towards approval. He stated that he saw a major difference between this application and the Haggen application. Haggen requested G-C zoning, and potentially could have drawn a market from around the city. While he would like to have approved that request, it did not fit the site. He said that he could not compare 1 that to the land uses that would be permitted on this site. He said that he would like to see a smaller neighborhood commercial in the area. He commented that traffic and future roads were not issues for him. i - . 1 Mayor Nicoli spoke on the testimony received from the neighboring property owners, 1 commenting that the adversarial testimony discredited both sides. He said that while he j would like the site to be smaller, it did have the advantage of unexpandable boundaries with two streets and a greenway on its three sides. I = Councilor Rohlf concurred with the Mayor that the Haggen request was not appropriate, though he too would like to see Haggen's in the community. He expressed discomfort with Haggen's approach to this application - if we didn't get it, neither should they - an argument he did not find persuasive. He said that there was a significant difference between the two applications, and that his opinion on the appropriateness of the Haggen application has not changed. Councilor Rohlf said that he was bothered by calling a change in the code a "physical change," contending that it set a bad precedent. He stated that he did not think it was a mistake to zone land ideally suited for multi-family as multi-family. Therefore, the application did not meet the requirements for a Comprehensive Plan change. He expressed discomfort with piecemeal planning, as demonstrated by this application . He noted that the Albertson's request was developed with heavy involvement from the neighborhood. i ~ j iI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 14 1 y 1 s. i i I i Fli ~ 1 ~ ► f niinrilnr Rohlf :oncijr,1•ed that the applicant had no legal rcqui rni- t to conic in with a -,vhoic plan. He spoke for addressing that issue (as an identified weakness of the Code) noting it would be better if the Council and a neighborhood could know what the whole picture was prior to making a decision. He said that he would vote against the proposal. Councilor Moore said that on the Planning Commission he voted against the Briar Development 1 application and subsequently removed himself from the Council deliberation when it came before them. He said that he thought Briar Development did not fit that location. He said that he ( did think this was a better fit and was leaning towards approval. He invited discussion on the subject of a change in the Code as a "physical change." Councilor Rohlf said that not knowing what that meant exactly concerned him because down the road anyone could come in and ask for a Comprehensive Plan change because the Code changed. Councilor Moore asked for a legal interpretation on when a change in the Code was a mistake. Mr. Ramis advised Council of their role in making such interpretations; he said Council would h need to interpret the word "physical" as a point of decision on this case. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought the error was built into the system of automatically assigning the closest matching City zoning to the County zoning on annexed lands, pointing out that usually it worked to the City's benefit. He suggested examining this policy at some time, and discussing allowing testimony on zoning of annexed lands. He said that he did not disagree with Councilor Rohlf that the multi-family land on the Tigard side had developed more slowly the multi-family land on the Beaverton side. It was the process he thought should be discussed. Councilor Rohlf concurred. _ Mayor Nicoli said that he was more comfortable with this application because he thought it was a better fit than the Haggen application. Councilor Rohlf mentioned the opposition in the neighborhood to gas stations along Scholls Ferry Road. Mayor Nicoli commented that at this hearing there was not a great deal of testimony from the neighborhood, especially in comparison to the neighborhood groups testifying at the Haggen hearing. Councilor Scheckla reiterated the need for residential housing, asking why they made I improvements to Summerlake Park if they did not intend for more people to use it. He asked if k they would have to rezone for higher density somewhere else if this went through. Mr. Hendryx said that they would not have to replace these units to meet the Metro housing rule. Councilor Scheckla argued for using this land for residential when it was so ideally suited for it with a park, a school and mass transit close by. He said that he would vote against this application as he had against the Haggen application because commercial on either side of the road was the same problem. Motion by Councilor Rohlf to deny the application, seconded by Councilor Hunt. Mr. Ramis suggested asking staff to work with the prevailing party and to bring back findings to a date certain. Councilor Rohlf withdrew his motion. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to come back with final findings and ordinance for denial. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 15 E I Motion passed by majority roll call vote of the Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes"; Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore voted "no".) Mr. Monahan set February 25`h as the date to return the findings to Council. 8. FOLLOW-UP REPORT - MEASURE 47 AND ANNEXATION ISSUES This item was postponed. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS ' 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at p.m. 1 under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. i Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 11:00 p.m. y Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 11:03 p.m. 11. STUDY SESSION > City Engineer position Mr. Monahan reported that the City Engineer position has been advertised. Council discussion 4 followed. Councilor Hunt expressed discomfort at funding this position while cutting the police department. Councilor Moore expressed his support for filling the position, citing the negative j effects of understaffing. He said that the police department was a separate issue that needed 1 separate discussion. Councilor Scheckla contended that cutting back police simply meant more S r 1 problems down the road, especially with increased population. Councilor Rohlf expressed support for the position, noting that capital projects went uncompleted this year due to understaffing. While noting the need to maintain the police programs, he concurred with Councilor Moore that understaffing could have serious i repercussions on the current Engineering staff. He commented that while the public might vote more money to pay for a police officer, they were not likely to do so for an engineer. He said ' that he thought they would have to go out to the voters for the funding for police. If the public said no on the police, then that was their choice. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on Measure 47 requirements regarding levying taxes to replace lost revenue. Mr. Monahan explained that cities could not levy fees to replace lost j property tax revenue. He said that the latest information out of Salem was that the Legislature I would allow the local option. i i Mayor Nicoli said teat he was in favor of hiring a City Engineer. > Transfer of urban services. Mr. Monahan reported that next week staff hoped to have more information for Council from their discussions with Washington County on the transfer. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 16 t .W - Noting the current shortage of office space for staff, Councilor Hunt asked where these new staff I members would be housed. Mr. Monahan reviewed the options available, including the Water Building, and the building currently used by Interfaith Outreach (who would vacate as of January 1). Councilor Hunt expressed concern about current City. Councilor Rohlf concurred. Mr. Monahan explained that the Interfaith Outreach building was suitable for offices and had adequate parking. Interfaith found it met their needs admirably. He said that his task was to pull together all relevant information and present it to Council in a package for their review and . decision. i Councilor Moore asked about buying an auxiliary building for space. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that they would get enough money from the County for that, although they might find money in the building fund if it generated sufficient surplus over time. > Elected officials workshop Mr. Monahan asked the Council to let staff know if any were interested in the League of Oregon Cities Elected Officials workshop. > Goal Setting I Mr. Monahan reviewed the format for the goal setting session. He said that lie would give his report on the transfer of urban services and present recommendations from the Executive staff retreat. Councilor Hunt requested a recording secretary at Budget Committee meetings to allow Mr. ! Lowry to concentrate on his presentation. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:29 p.m. t/ n2~~ Attest' Catherine Wheatley, City Record r. ayor, City of Tigard Date: 3211 A'17 - 1 i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 17 1 L~ L nnRAR1111R1ITd AI=WCPBPEnS; IN.. vvmrnv■.■ • Legal TT 8726 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 R c ` _ Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 t V E D ' - Legal Notice Ad.9rtising FEB 1 1997 • • ❑ Tearsheet NotiSTY OF.TJGAND t City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit t Tigard,Oregon 97223 9 • Attn:Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' pp Kathy Snyder p a', being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising II Director, or his principal clerk, of the `Tigard-Tual at in Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193-010 and 193.OkO; published at_ Tigard in the afpresaid county and state; that the i City council Business Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nNF successive and I consecutive in the following issues: ! - February 6,1997 II 6 f Subscribed and sworn to.befoFe me this 6th day of February. OFFICIAL SEAL I f 4 ROBIN A. BURGESS J i NOTAR': BLIC -OREGON No(pky Public for Oregon i COMIM',,,, ON NO. 024552 My CO MISSION EXPIRES MAY if,, 199 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT[ The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING February 11, 1997 1 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) i • Executive Session • Agenda Review Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) 1 Publlc Hearing. CompPrehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 Shrader Request - Continued from January 28, 1997 Council Update: Presentation: "Transit Choices for Livability" „ CIT Communication • Measure 47/Annexation Issues M726 - Publish February 6, 1997. r f i ® i n CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I In the Matter of the Proposed 1 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) r begin first duly sworn, on oath, i h depose an y: I f That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance { Number (s) which were adopted at the Council Meedag elated - l~ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ dayof e If 81`jA_ , 1981 p 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon t j 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon -d 1%A DA ! Subscribed and sworn to before me this o?0 day of , 19.x" OFFICIAL SEALS JILL ANN DRUMMOND+uDfvltary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON I COMMISSION NO.058924 MV COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 28, 2000 My Commission Expires. 0.ftVo14ffpwLdm I I { I i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ti ORDINANCE NO 97--Q1 AN ORDINANCE RENEWING THE FRANCHISE OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, ITS SUCCESSORS AND . . rl.l~. THE R!CVT TC PI-ACE, ERFCT AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRES AND OTHER ' JJI VIYJ, VIYI~11 • _ _APPLIANCES AND CONDUCTORS AND TO LAY UNDERGROUND WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AVENUES, THOROUGHFARES AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AND TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENT; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, The ten year franchise for the communication facilities and services provided by U S WEST Communications, described in the title of this ordinance is now before the City Council for renewal. The Council believes that the franchise should be renewed under the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof. - THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The terms and conditions of the attached franchise agreement, Exfiibit A, are hereby approved and adopted as part of this ordinance as if specifically set forth. ® SECTION 2. The Wlayor ;s authorized and directed to sign the attached agreement on behalf of the Council. SECTION 3. Because of the need to have stable telephone communication and the need to have a stable revenue flow to the City from franchise fees, an emergency is declared and this ordinance shall take effect upon its passage. SECTION 4. The City Council determines that the fee imposed by this franchise is not a tax subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, Section 11 (b) of the Oregon Constitution. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall replace and repeal the prior franchise with Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, Ordinance No. 73-23 adopted July 23, 1973 and any amendments thereto. In addition, it is agreed by the City and Grantee that the terms of Ordinance No. 73-23 remained in effect from July 23, 1993 until the effective date of this ordinance. PASSED: By~ unnnni vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this _ U - day y of 1997. Catherin Wheatley, City Recorder i APPROVED: This day of ua ti 1997. s Nicoli, M or pproved as to form: ' City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 97y11 Page 1 of 1 I i j 1 r~ EXH BIT "A" i A franchise agreement between the City of Tigard and U S WEST Communications. j i ® -'-~SFCTION 1 Subiect to the other term- and cnnrtitinn- cot fcnn in thig i-,rnnnt th- is hcrcby ~ granted by a,r City of Tigard to U S WEST Communications, (herein referred to as "Grantee"); its successors and assigns; subject to the development ordinances and regulations of the City, the right and privilege to conduct a telecommunications business within said City, or such other public property as may come within the jurisdiction of the City during the term of this agreement. This for the purpose of furnishing, telecommunications services as defined in State and Federal Law. This grant includes the right to erect, construct, place, replace, reconstruct, lay, maintain, and operate poles, wires, switching equipment, amplifying equipment, fixtures, facilities, appliances, structures and other devices including, but not limited to, electronic, optical and mechanical devices customarily associated with Grantee's function, and purpose of serving as a telecommunications utility. This franchise is granted solely for the privilege of providing telecommunications services as defined by State and Federal Law. This franchise does not include the right to conduct the business of providing a "cable system" as defined in applicable law. Should the Grantee desire to provide a cable system within the City, it must comply with the City's regulations relating to cable i communications in force at that time. SECTION 2. It shall be lawful for Grantee to make all needful and necessary excavations in any of said streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares and public highways. I Ilia SECTION 3. The Grantee shall file with the City Engineer or designee maps and materials showing all proposed { underground construction work to include the installation of additional facilities or relocation or t extension of existing facilities within any street, alley, road or other public way or place within the corporate limits of the City. The City will review the materials submitted and notify the Grantee of any - City requirements. For repair work or other work not considered underground construction as stated above, the Grantee shall, if possible, notify the City of the location and general description of the work before beginning work. All work shall be done in a reasonably safe manner taking into account City standard traffic control d I procedures and in accordance with requirements of applicable federal laws, state laws, or City { ordinances. In emergencies, such filings shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of emergency construction work. 1 SECTION 4. When any excavation shall be made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, the Grantee shall restore the portion of the street, alley, road, or public way or place to the same condition to which it was prior to the excavation. All such work shall be done in strict compliance with the rules, regulations, ordinances or orders which may be adopted from time to time during the continuance of I this franchise by the City Council or City Engineer or as may be otherwise provided by taw. The City i shall have the right to fix a reasonable time within which such repairs and restoration shall be completed and upon failure of such repairs and restoration 1 being made by grantee, City shall cause such repairs to be made at the expense of grantee. i SECTION 5. The Grantee hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify, save harmless and defend the City and its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages, costs and expenses or claims of any kind whatsoever, or nature, arising from any injury to persons or property by reason of the negligent act or omission of the Grantee, its agents or employees in exercising the rights and privileges granted hereunder and by this franchise. i SS Ordinance No. 97-P-1 Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 3 i j - i I I Ii I i i i I SECTION 6. The City, by its property constituted authorities, shall have the right to cause the grantee to move the ® location of anv pole, undprnmiind conduit or equipment belonging to mnlea :h rerr `e relocation thereof shall be for public necessity, and the expense thereof shall be paid by the grantee. Such charges shall comply with state statutes and administrative rules. Whenever it shall be necessary for public necessity to remove any pole, underground conduit or equipment belonging to grantee or on which any wire or circuit of the grantee shall be stretched or fastened, the grantee, shall, upon written notice from the City, or its property constituted authorities, meet with the City Engineer and agree in writing to a plan and date certain to remove such poles, underground conduit, equipment, wire or circuit, at grantee's expense, and if the grantee fails, neglects or refuses to do so, the City, by its properly constituted authorities, may remove the same at the expense of the grantee. The costs associated with the removal, relocation or extension of Grantee's facilities at the request of a private developer or development shall be bome by such private developer or development. i SECTION 7. All notices and approvals required under this Agreement shall be in writing. The Grantee shall provide the City with the name, µ_sition and phone number of Grantee staff that can be contacted for administration of this Agreement and for contact with construction-related questions and comments. 4 Such notices and approval shall be directed to the City as follows: City Engineer. City of Tigard ! 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 SECTION 8. Upon request of the City, the grantee shall provide available plans and locate any underground conduit or equipment belonging to grantee, as required for the preparation of construction drawings. SECTION 9. Whenever it becomes necessary to temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise the wires, cables or other plant of grantee for the passage of buildings, machinery or other objects, grantee shall temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise, its wires, cables or other plant as the necessities of the case require; provided, however, that the person or persons desiring to move any such buildings, machinery or other objects, shall pay the entire actual cost to grantee of changing, altering, moving, removing or replacing its wires, cables or other plan so as to permit such passage, and shall deposit i in advance with grantee a sum equal to such cost as estimated by grantee and shall pay all damages and claims of any kind whatsoever, direct or consequential, caused directly or indirectly by changing, altering, moving, removing or replacing of said wires, cables or other plant, except as may I be occasioned through the sole negligence of grantee, grantee shall be given not less than ninety-six (96) hours written notice by the party desiring to move such building or other objects. Said notice shall detail the route of movement of such building or other objects over and along the streets, alleys, j avenues, thoroughfares and public highways and shall bear the approval of the City. Such moving shall be with as much haste as possible and shall not be unnecessarily delayed or cause grantee unnecessary expense or waste of time. i SECTION 10. In consideration of the rights and privileges hereby granted, grantee agrees to pay to the City five percent (5%) of the gross revenues derived from exchange access services, as defined in ORS 401.710 within the city limits less net uncollectibles. Such payments shall be made to the City every six months for the life of this agreement on or before March 15 for the six month period ended December 31, and September 15 for the six month period ended June 30. Such 5% payment will be accepted by the City from the Grantee also in payment of any license, privilege or occupation tax or fee for revenue or regulation, or any permit fees or similar charges for ~ i Ordinance No. 97-_P_T Exhibit "A' I Page 2 of 3 I, E l street opening, installations, construction or for any other purpose related to providing j telecommunications services as defined in this franchise, now or hereafter to be imposed by the City I upon the Grantee during the term of this franchise. ® e7) The City shall have the right to change the percentage of gross revenues set forth above at any time during the life of this agreement provided it has made such notice in writing at least 180 days prior to the effective date of any change. The City shall have the right to conduct or cause to be conducted, an audit of gross revenues as defined herein. Such audits may be conducted at two year intervals beginning two years after the effective date of this agreement. The City shall conduct the audit at its own expense. Any difference of payment due either the City or Grantee through error or otherwise as agreed upon by both the City and Grantee, shall be payable within sixty (60) days after discovery of such error. . SECTION 11. The rights, privileges and franchise hereby granted shall continue to be in full force for a period of ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. It is understood and agreed that either party may terminate or renegotiate the terms of this agreement after 180 days notice in writing. This i " ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the day of its passage and approval. This ordinance shall be subject to any and all State or Federal laws and regulations. E hI SECTION 1?, The Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this ordinance, file with the Recorder of the City its written acceptance of all the terms and conditions of the ordinance and if not so f - accepted by the Grantee, this ordinance shall be void. DATED this day of .1997. Agh CITY OF oration . B. i. i i r James Nic E ATTESTMaa erne Wheatley City Recorder i i ' ~vrdinance No. 97- Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 3 ' i fEE _ 1 E f - f ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE ! i i )WHEREAS, the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, under date of 1997 passed ORDINANCE NO. entitled as follows, to wit AN ORDINANCE RENEWING THE FRANCHISE OF U S WEST Communications, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, GRANTING THE RIGHT TO PLACE, ERECT AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRES AND OTHER APPLIANCES AND CONDUCTORS AND TO LAY UNDERGROUND WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AVENUES, THOROUGHFARES AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AND TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENT; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, U S WEST Communications, the grantee named in said Ordinance, does for t itself and its successors and assigns accept the terms, conditions and provisions of Ordinance No. and agrees t to be bound thereby and comply therewith. t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, U S WEST Communications has caused this instrument to be executed by its officers as below subscribed this day of 1997. j Ff l U S WEST Communications I By I ri Received by the City of Tigard this _ day of 1997. k 3 _ . I j AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE ; February 11. 1997 t jLimiied io 2 Minutes or less, pleasall Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. i STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED i J P~ I~S~ Ddb Al", i I { 1 f ' l f I:WdWjoWlsltahtdo It - 1 ' 1 i I - ! n ..r -...-~......~~h: r„ hP chair of the Council may limit the amount of , lepending on uie uwiiuc..,. i,..~ .....b . testify, , .me each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. i i i lI AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: February 11, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96- 0009 SHRADER (HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 28, 1997, COUNCIL h MEETING) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to j community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, - „ , south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development, 6.1.1 f housing, 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments, 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25. I ~ 1 f PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ll% ' I 1 i I i i i _A(,F_.TTiIiA iTF_,M NO. 7-- r~ PLEAS PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i 'T-OWV CIN0,&ILL MlCnA C' Rol5inlI~OAl ,3,s0 Se UWV57NI0 I z' q60 -5W 5Ehj5)/Tt; <3-oU ZUl:jin)(r` OR ~?021 D 7G 2 - L`( I ` Names Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 6255 S4,) S~enc<gti St- \csco s~~ 13sTM. s r~~NQ U 9~~-25 a 97-77.6 Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Addr nd Phone No. p Cn rr fr)CKC' 4 ~~e~ S~ tY ~d~, sin s 7 7 Tx L SU sw P:~ ~r 9 cr) T r C~ y7.2 2- Name, A ress a Phpne No. Name, Address and Phone No. M \ e_ VA^1 C E. Me-Adams (p8(o0 S~ V., woiJ 134 zo S,W, orttanj Dr- 'v W1-5c,WL) &'e- 1707d, (o8S~283 Ti Ord , orz g72Z"3 _ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. OX .Lot SW Yk'?LK, 5✓Z+-'too (~vr4- 6; 02 97zov ZLB-ZS 2~ " Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. a Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i Agenda Item No. JS ate' Ian ivieeiiny i ~ MEMORANDUM - - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance DATE: February 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Council questions from January 28 i: j 1) How is Engineering funded in the current budget? The total cost of the 1996/97 Engineering budget is $908,366. The costs are charged to the following funds: General 672,191 Sanitary Sewer 54,502 " Storm Drain 54,502 State Gas Tax 63,586 Traffic Impact Fee 63,585 II Total 908,366 I Engineering will generate revenues to the general fund in an amount estimated at $300,000 this year. This leaves $372,191 of the cost of Engineering subsidized by other General fund revenues. I 2) What is the measure 47 impact on positions for all departments in the current long range plan proposal for 1997/98? The pre measure 47 financial plan called for total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in 1997/98 of 209.50. The current 1996/97 budget includes 205.6 FTE. The new financial plan calls for 202.1 FTE in 1997/98. There are two ways to look at this decrease in positions: A) Reductions from the current year to the proposed 97/98 year: FTE Bodies Police 1.5 3.0 Library 1.0 1.0 Engineering 1.0 1.0 Total 3.5 5.0 l _ B) Reductions fiom ..hat 1997/9R vould have been under the vibinai plan to what it is proposed - r to be with measure 47: FTE Bodies Police 4.0 5.0 Library 2.4 2.4 Engineering 1.0 1.0 Human Resources .5 .5 Total Reductions 7.9 8.9 3) How do the Pre M47 and the Post M47 financial plans compare for FTE through 2002? 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Police Pre M47 63.5 66.0 68.0 70.5 73.5 75.0 Post M47 63.5 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 Net Reduction 0 4.0 6.0 8.5 11.5 13.0 Library Pre M47 24.1 25.5 26.4 27.3 30.1 32.0 Post M47 24.1 23.1 23.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 Net Reduction 0 2.4 3.3 3.2 6.0 7.9 i i Other Pre M47 118.0 118.5 119.0 120.5 120.5 121.0 [ Post M47 118.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 Net Reduction 0 1.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 Total Reduction 0 7.9 11.3 15,2 21.0 24.9 1 ~ :r . Council Agenda Item 3. of ci For Agenda oi MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i - TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator i DATE: January 30, 1997 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, February through April 1997 _ r Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. s' February *11 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) j Study Session Business Meeting 17 Mon President's Day (City Offices Closed) *18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting r March I 4 Tues Budget Committee Meeting (6:30 p.m.) *11 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) ' Study Session Business Meeting AP12 * 8 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting i:\adm\cathy\cound1\ccca1.doc r i '.J 1. . .:'f,; - i i Agenda Item No. 3,~ b TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS w FOR 1997 Tigard City Council Meeting February 18, 1997 TYPE: Workshop Meeting (NO TV) I 7:30 p.m. WORKSHOP MEETING TOPICS Council Goal Setting Session I j t _ I V I L ITENTATIVE AGENDA ® r"~ Tigard City Council Meeting February 25, 1997 TYPE: Business Meeting (TV) 6:30 p.m. STUDY MEETING Agenda Review PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS CONSENT AGENDA Approve Council Minutes 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Triangle Design Standards Public Hearing Community Development Department Standards Development Code Rewrite Update 2040 Update Measure 47 Update i 1 TENTATIVE AGENDA 0, 0. i ~ u6a.u vR) VVYKO 07CCHxlrj e March 11, 1997 TYPE: Business Meeting (TV) 6:30 p.m. STUDY MEETNG Agenda Review PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS t CONSENT AGENDA Approve Council Minutes 1 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Update: Downtown Merchants Association _ Adopt Council Goals i f 1 1 r TENTATIVF. AGENDA E crma FENWNG - DAZES TO BE SCHEDULED Transportation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) • Surface Water Quality Treatment Facilities - Staff Report on Information Requested by Council on September 1995 (Engineering r Dept.) • TPOA Contract • Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Gary, Wayne) • Items to be scheduled after City Vision Statement process is completed by Council: > Half Street Improvement Policy (Engineering) 1 st Quarter 1997: • Integrate Council into Computer System (Paul DeBruyn) • Develop Long-Term Water Resources (Ed, Bill) r June .997: • Rewrite Tigard Development Code - Buffering (Jim) • Engineering Fees (Engineering Dept.) . • Finalize Visioning Process - Implement (Liz, Loreen) • Evaluate Use of Traffic Calming Devices - S.W. North Dakota (Engineering) • Finalize Sewer Extension Program (Engineering) Ongoing (as needed) • Support Passenger Rail Service Planning through Tigard • Consider Issues of Affordable Housing • Define/Develop Tigard's Approach to Working/Dealing with Metro • Secure Long-Term Water Supply Note: CIT facilitators and resource teams meet with Council for 1 hour at the work session meetings in January, April and September. All Workshop Meetings - schedule a time for CIT updates and Metro 2040 Updates. V~ is\cirywide\tentagen\tentagen.dm f J Ar-V A TTrh f 44 FOR AGENDA OF 02/11/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointments to the Budget Committee PREPARED BY: E. A. Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Appointments to fill vacancies on the Budget Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution appointing Gene Farnstrom and Max Williams. INFORMATION SUMMARY i i Suzanne Beadsley and Craig Wanichek have resigned from the Budget Committee. .-"bn January 27, the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee met and interviewed seven people interested in serving on the Budget Committee. The attached resolution, if adopted, would approve the Mayor's Appointment Advisory recommendation to appoint Gene Farnstrom and Max Williams to the Budget Committee. i i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i FISCAL NOTES k •:WDMUILLILOBCTSUMM DOC 1 low- P CITY OF TIGARD January 30, 1997 OREGON I Gene Farnstrom 10860 SW 83rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Gene, The City Council will consider your official appointment to the Budget Committee at their meeting on February 11, 1997. The resolution will be acted on as part of the consent agenda. I encourage you to attend, if you wish, but your presence is not required for Council action. The i consent agenda is scheduled shortly after 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall. A copy of the Council action will be mailed to you after February 11, 1997. The first Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for March 4. An agenda will be mailed to you C before the meeting. I have asked Wayne Lowry, our Finance Director, to call you and answer any questions you may have. i On behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for your interest in serving on the Budget Committee. in i S cerely, i 7 Elizabeth Ann eMon t Assistant to the City Manager EAN:jad c: Wayne Lowry J I` , 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r CITY OF TIGARD January 30, 1997 OREGON h M. Max Williams II 12103 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Max, j The City Council will consider your official appointment to the Budget Committee at their I meeting on February 11, 1997. The resolution will be acted on as part of the consent agenda. I 1I encourage you to attend, if you wish, but your presence is not required for Council action. The consent agenda is scheduled shortly after 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall. A copy of the Council action will be mailed to you after February 11, 1997. The first Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for March 4. An agenda will be mailed to you before the meeting. I have asked Wayne Lowry, our Finance Director, to call you and answer any questions you may have. i On behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for your interest in serving on the Budget Committee. F j Sincerely, ~Iv Elizabeth Ann Newton Assistant to the City Manager l EAN jad I c: Wayne Lowry 13125 SW Hall Bbd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 l i q l I • 4 I ~ I CITY OF Ti CARD I: l CITIZEN CONRMT TEE INTEREST APPLICATION OREGON Name: l ~r n Date: Address (Res.): l0 96o 5c.-) 3311 4,,c- Res. Phone: 6.20 -0'72- O Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone: I Length of Residence in Tigard: rX ea rs Suggested by: Where did you live previously: 90s k rs . 0 _ j Educational Background: FA F:tit-.nae--r ~~ts ,ncSS ~aoN ow rr- 5 BR ' L OccupationalStatusandBacroand: ~~~rr~~ ~O c,rt ~,H►`+~u~-~/ 8~a K:►~r 4- Go,+c.acs rC L---L.~te 1 f ' oM:!XIw- 15r. K~YS /:Gt,tSG ~ r S How long have you been employed with this firm: i How long have you been employed with this firm? j j Previous Community Activity: C a r Rxdc.:f" 00 *1 M) 1f,ee-, c: f r m f ,poet, gem Jr I~ai:o.cs S w v rya o! SJra ; Zef F: *.A - G ~t tt.✓C~ f:, : i : a•S' T: s s -1 f G + 6 r a y o ltt,n ,r i D f" ~?(n 1t0 . Organaatz ons and Offices: ~a t P -.11 devtf : - K S ! , Art Ira sy I ~o x'('11 G'oasfiC~a.o~.,i I Other Information (General Remarks): Boards or Committee interested in: gu d s -dz t!~ ,►~.K G o f T~ A*other pertinent information you want to share? k%z dm\lo\ckccmin.,1= E 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r. i 1 1 I ~ IG , 0 CITY OF TIGARD ~ CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION OREGON I f Name: M. Max Williams II Date: 12/9/96 Address (Res.): 12103 S.W. 135th Avenue, Tigard OR Res. Phone: 524-4275 Address (Bus.): 111 S.W. Fifth Avene, Suite 3500, Portland Or Bus. Phone: 224-5858 t Length of Residence in Tigard: six yes Suggested by: j Where did you live previously: Aloha, Oregon JD, Magna Cum Taude, Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark Coll , Educational Background: Provo, Utah, B%7; Bend Senior High hool, Bend, Oregon 981 Occupational Status and Background: Attorney, Miller. Nash. Wiener. Hager R arlsen TT.P--l c)K to Yee 4 Co'-•~sel to Oregon Senate Judiciary Commitee, 1995 Legislative Session (on leave of absence frcm Miller, Nash; Senior Law Clerk, Oregon Attorney General's Office, 1989-1991; Director of Mar inc 11 Riker & Riker, 1987-1989 (software tawny); Marketing Support, IBM Corp. 1984-1987 r ; How long have you been employed with this firm: see above Previous Community Activity: Participant, Ballot Measure 47 Impact/Implementation Conference; Participant, West Tigard CIT; Active volunteer, Boy Scouts of America, Cascade Pacific Counsel , ~ District FOS Chairman; Strout Master, Tigard Troop 871: Sunday School teacher { Organizations and Offices: Secretary and Executive Committee Member, Washington County Young ¢ I P.cpublications; former Republican precinct person Other Information (General Remarks): Married to Gina Harmer Williams; have two children I j f Boards or Committee Interested in: City of Tigard Budget Committee Any other pertinent information you want to share? Pill-M4 return this form to Liz Newton, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 is \adm\jokitcomin.dm 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 L~ AGENDA ITEM # r . For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Purchase of vehicles for Engineering And Public Works Department. n PREPARED BY: _ hn R. DEPT HEAD OK w / CITY ADMIN OK W*' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the council approve the purchase of three vehicles from Murray Chevrolet thru the state bid process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION F j Staff recommends the purchase of three vehicles as described in the information summary. INFORMATION SUMMARY The purchase by the Engineering Department is for a 3/4 Ton, 2 wheel drive, extended cab. Chevrolet pickup to be equipped and utilized as a survey vehicle to replace a 1982 E-150 Ford Van that is currently used for this urpose. 'the purchase b_v the Public Works Department is for two, 3/4 Ton, 4 wheel drive extended- xtended cab, Chevrolet pickups to be utilized as emergency type vehicles for the Property Division, and the Utility Division. These two vehicles will replace the two 1988 Chevrolet Sport Utility Vehicles that were originally utilized as Police K9 Dog Units prior to their transfer to the Public Works Department. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED To disregard the State Bid and go through an in house open bidding process that would require an additional two to three months delay in the order of vehicles. FISCAL NOTES In the current 96/97 budget the Engineering Department allocated $20,000 for the replacement of the survey van. The Public Works Department allocated i $20,000 in each of the budgets of the Property Division and the Utility Division. Total funds identified in budgets is $60,000.00. i Engineering Pickup Truck $21,102.50 Property Division Pickup Truck $21,833.70 Utility Division Pickup Truck $21,833.70 TOTAL PURCHASE PRICES $64,769.90 Less trade in of 2 1988 Sport Utility 11ehicles $ 5,000.00 `./FINAL DELIVERED COSTS $59,769.90 7 • ~ K `b Memorandum j DATE: January 23, 1997 TO: Bill Monahan FROM: John Roy RE: Replacement of two 1988 Sport Utility Vehicles CC: Ed Wegner j h. This memo is to request the approval to change the budgetary request in F/Y 96/97 for 9 replacing two sport utility vehicles with two pickup trucks with extended cabs and 4 wheel i drive. The original request calls for the vehicles to be utilized for emergency purposes. I believe that my request hetter addresses the needs of the City by offering more flexibility S than is provided by a sport utility vehicle. By having the pickup bed the truck can be j better utilized in an emergency type situation by providing space to carry emergency equipment, such as, pumps, barricades, debris, or other items that may be required. The small storage space at the rear of a sport utility vehicle does not provide this flexibility. The extended cab pickup will still enable us to transport groups of employees to either a job site, emergency location, training or seminar. The pickup bed will have a small tool S storage box for carrying emergency lights, road flares, rain gear, safety vests, barricade f light batteries, hard hats, and other items that may be necessary. These trucks can easily be utilized by field crews for work assignments as well if needed. ~ i If you have any questions regarding this request or if you would like further information please contact me at ext. 335. t/ j i j ;Z -i f AGENDA ITEM n . ; FOR AGENDA OF Q I ti I G'7 f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of Washington County upply Line PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK l/ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL t Shall the LCRB approve a contract with Murray, Smith and Associates for a hydraulic analysis of the Washington County Supply line. E h . 1 ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff, along with six other agencies, recommends the authorization of the proposed contract by Murray, Smith and Associates (see attached). i i INFORMATION SUMMARY subregional water group made up of City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, Tualatin Valley Water District, City of - herwood, City of Wilsonville and the City of Portland are interested in working together on the development of a long term water supply system. This subregional group would like to explore supply alternatives that can meet the short term water supply needs of the area. The purpose of this analysis is to determine under what conditions the Washington County Supply Line can be relied upon to supply water to Tigard, Wilsonville and Sherwood, while at the same time maintain adequate levels of service at existing supply connections. The City of Tigard will authorize the contract, however all six agencies listed above will share in the cost equally. The amount per agency will be $5,450. f OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Approve the contract. • Another agency could authorize the contract. However, others have in the past approved various contracts and it is our recommendation that Tigard take the lead on this Contract. • Do not participate with this group on water supply availability through the Washington County Supply line. • Give further direction to staff. FISCAL NOTES The Contract amount is for $32,700. However, by dividing the cost between the agencies involved, Tigard's share of the cost will be $5,450. The Contract was a 1996/97 budget item in the Water fund. i e f 1 i F7 a'-rn MAC A llama}; alh&Acsociatccl C. F11~110ctVP~3M0IS 121 S.a'. & n, kle 1020 PorLnid.Oagon 9'201 P110.1E i0Sd2i-9010 F.kX 503"225"9022 January 8, 1997 Mr. Ed Wegner Public Works Director City of Tigard City Hall I t 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Scope of Engineering Services for an Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of Washington County Supply Line Dear Ed: IFD In accordance with your direction and the direction other water providers in the southwest metropolitan area we have prepared a proposed scope of engineering services for the completion of an hydraulic analysis of the Washington County Supply Line. Introduction The Washington County Supply Line (Supply Line) presently supplies water by gravity to I the Tualatin Valley Water District, Raleigh Water District and the City of Tualatin. Water from the supply line is also provided to the City of Sherwood through the City of Tualatin. The Supply Line begins at the City of Portland's Powell Butte Reservoir and includes pipeline segments with sizes up to 84 inches in diameter. Supply to the line is controlled by a 60-inch diameter control valve. The alignment of the Supply Line includes a crossing of the Willamette River just north of the Sellwood Bridge with the terminus of a 60 inch diameter segment of the Supply Line near the intersection of SW Beaverton/Hillsdale Highway and Oleson Road. From this intersection a 54-inch diameter supply main extends west to the Tualatin Valley Water District and a 48-inch diameter main extends south serving the Metzger area of the Tualatin Valley Water District from a connection near the intersection of SW 80th and Florence Lane. A 36-inch diameter City of Tualatin supply main extends south from this intersection through the City of Tigard to the City of Tualatin's water system just south of the Tualatin River. i 1 , I Mr. Ed Wegner January 8, 1997 Page 2 The City of Sherwood is connected to the City of Tualatin's water system with a 24-inch diameter transmission main. The Cities of Tigard and Wilsonville presently have no connections to the Supply Line. Two City of Tigard transmission mains, 16-inch and 24-inch in diameter, cross the Supply Line at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Bonita Road. The 16-inch and 24-inch diameter transmission mains presently serve as Tigard's supply j mains from Lake Oswego. I Tigard and Wilsonville are presently pursuing the development of long term water supplies. g It is anticipated that the ultimate development of these supplies may take from five to ten years. Both cities are experiencing rapid growth and resultant increases in water demands. The City of Tigard's existing supplies are inadequate to meet peak water demand needs. The 1 City of Wilsonville's existing ground water supplies are similarly inadequate to meet the City's water needs. Both cities are in need of securing short term water supplies while along term water supply is developed. The Hillsboro, Beaverton, Forest Grove and Tualatin Valley Water District Joint Water Commission is presently completing an expansion of treatment and supply facilities. The completion of these facilities will provide increased water supplies to portions of the Tualatin Valley Water District in western Washington County. At the same time a consortium of water providers from the southwestern metro area have agreed to work together on the development of a long term water supply system and explore supply alternatives that can meet the short term water supply needs of the area. It has been recognized that as the expanded Joint Water System Commission supplies become available the Tualatin Valley Water District can increase its use of these supplies and potentially I reduce supplies from Portland delivered through the Supply Line. Purpose The purpose of this proposed analysis is to determine under what conditions the Washington f County Supply Line can be relied upon to supply water to the Cities of Tigard and Wilsonville while at the same time maintaining adequate levels of service at existing supply connections. This analysis is not intended to analyze supply scenarios under emergency conditions. In the event that the City of Portland water system experiences water supply limitations, reductions in proposed supplies beyond those provided under existing water service agreements for water service may be required. n i I Mr. Ed Wegner January 8, 1997 Page 3 Proposed Scope of Services: Task 1- Data Gathering and Establish Existing Conditions Historical water demand data will be used to establish existing demand conditions and estimated water demand conditions over the next ten years. Minimum normal hydraulic 4 . grades at each of the supply points will also be established. As part of this work task minimum acceptable hydraulic grades will be developed for each existing supply connection. Each agency participating in the analysis effort will provide estimated water demand data for use in the capacity analysis. It is anticipated that this data will include historical average day and maximum day demands for each of the last five years and estimated average day and 1 maximum day demands for each of the next ten years. As part of this effort data from the 1 Regional Water Supply Plan will be used by each agency in the development of these water { demand estimates. System capacity data from the City of Portland's Burlingame and Washington Park supply systems will be provided by the City of Portland. ' Task 2 - Model Development The City of Portland has developed a basic model of the Washington County Supply Line using Stoner Hydraulic Analysis Software. This model will be expanded using Cybernet software to include the Tualatin Valley Water District's 54-inch diameter supply main, the 48-inch diameter Metzger Area and City of Tualatin supply main and the City of Tualatin's 36-inch supply main. The model will include the end of the Tualatin Valley Water District ' supply main at the Power Generation Station and the City of Tualatin supply main to the end of the 36-inch diameter main in the City of Tualatin. The model will be developed in Autocad R13 using digital base mapping. The model will include nodes representing existing and potential points of supply to the following entities: 1. City of Portland 2. Raleigh Water District 3. Tualatin Valley Water District 4. City of Tualatin 5. City of Tigard i I mad Mr. Ed Wegner January 8, 1997 Page 4 It is assumed that Sherwood and Wilsonville will be supplied through the same demand node as the City of Tualatin. Task 3 - Model Calibration Model calibration will be based on using existing flow and pressure data. For the purposes of this analysis a target model calibration accuracy of 15 percent will be considered adequate. . The need for development of new calibration data will be evaluated if calibration accuracies within 15 percent are not obtained. Task 4 - Develop Base Case Scenario Using existing water demands, and the calibrated hydraulic model, two base case scenarios will be developed to confirm existing conditions and to establish base line supply conditions for maximum day, summer time, demand conditions and non-peak, average day, demand conditions. It is understood that under recent high demand conditions the Supply Line is at or near its hydraulic capacity. 1 f j For non-peak, average day, demand conditions the base case supply assumptions are as follows: 1. Joint Water Commission provides supply to the following entities (in addition to Hillsboro and Forest Grove): Beaverton I . . Tualatin Valley Water District (in addition to City of Portland supplies) 2. Washington County Supply Line provides supply to the following entities: . Raleigh Water District Tualatin Valley Water District (including the Metzger Area) City of Tualatin City of Sherwood (at the City of Tualatin) 3. Washington Park supply system provides supply to the following entities outside of the City of Portland system: I J West Slope Water District i _ Mr. Ed Wegner 1 January 8, 1997 Page 5 Valley View Water District 4. Burlingame supply system provides supply to the City of Tigard. For maximum day demand conditions the base case supply assumptions include the following: j 1. Joint Water Commission provides supply to the following entities (in addition to Hillsboro and Forest Grove): • Beaverton I C Tualatin Valley Water District (in addition to City of Portland supplies) 2. Washington County Supply Line provides supply to the following entities: Raleigh Water District Tualatin Valley Water District (including the Metzger Area) . • City of Tualatin ` i City of Sherwood (at the City of Tualatin) i 3. Washington Park supply system provides supply to the following entities outside R. of the City of Portland system: • West Slope Water District Valley View Water District j 4. Burlingame supply system provides supply to Tigard. Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 Work Product: Technical memorandum summarizing existing conditions, model development, calibration and f. documentation of base case scenarios. I r Task 5 - Supply Scenario Analysis With the completion and acceptance of the base case scenarios, the hydraulic model of the supply system will be used to test a wide variety of supply and demand configurations. The variables of these test cases will be the system demands of each agency projected over the i r - - - - ® { Mr. Ed Wegner p January 8, 1997 Page 6 i next ter_ years. Included in these test cases will be consideration of various combinations of the following alternatives: 1. Supplying portions of Tualatin Valley Water District from Washington Park supply facilities. 2. Supplying the Metzger area of the Tualatin Valley Water District through the City of Portland Burlingame system. E 3. Increasing supplies from the Joint Water Commission to greater portions of the I . Tualatin Valley Water District as treatment and transmission facility capacity improvements are completed. 4. Supply to Tigard from a proposed connection to the Supply Line and supply to Wilsonville from the Supply Line through the City of Tualatin's system. Tasks S Work Product: Technical memorandum summarizing proposed supply scenarios. ( - Task 6 - Analysis Findings, Documentation and Presentation r! The analysis scenarios will be developed and documented using one technical memorandum summarizing tasks 1 through 4 and a final report document that includes a summary of the ' analysis scenario, findings and conclusions. Provided as part of the documentation will be j recommendations for the development of control facility logic and how existing system - 1 storage may be used to offset peak system demands. Also presented will be hydraulic profiles and a mass balance summary of supply and demand conditions presented in the form of a supply system schematic. The results of this analysis will be available for use by the City of Portland for rate analyses using the City's existing rate setting model. An illustration of the proposed Supply System Schematic is attached as Figure 1. Task 6 Work Product: Final report document. Task 7 - Meetings It is anticipated that three document review meetings and two scenario workshops will be required through the course of the proposed work effort. i Budget The estimated cost to complete the capacity analysis, as outlined above, is $32,700. A summary of costs by tasks is presented in Table 1. As previously discussed this work can be I i F 1 ` n Mr. Ed Wegner January 8, 1997 Page 7 completed under an existing agreement for engineering services between the City of Tigard and Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. The work can be performed under this agreement on a time and expenses basis with the estimated cost presented above established as a budget. i Table i Summary of Costs Task Cost Task 1 - Data Gathering and Establish $2,800 Existing Conditions Task 2 - Model Development $2,400 Task 3 - Model Calibration $4,200 Task 4 - Develop Base Case Scenario $4,200 _ Task 5 - Supply Scenario Analysis $6,100 Task 6 - Analysis Findings, Documentation $8,300 and Presentation Task 7 - Meetings $4,700 Total $32,700 r , i Schedule ~ i It is anticipated that this analysis must be completed by April of 1997 to allow for the j 3 completion of needed system modifications and/or connections by the summer of 1998. 1 Institutional and contractual arrangements and provisions must also be developed prior to the k completion of contemplated improvements. Completion of the analysis by spring of 1997 I provides the opportunity to implement the needed institutional and contractual arrangements. j , i Completion of the Technical Memorandum summarizing Tasks I through 4 is anticipated within four weeks following the receipt of the required data as defined in Task 1. Completion of the scenario analysis and the preparation of a draft final document is anticipated within four weeks following the review of the Task 1-4 Technical Memorandum. With the timely completion of data gathering efforts and prompt document production and review, the hydraulic capacity analysis can be completed within four months. i f ' 1 mono j - - i I I, 1 Mr. Ed Wegner January 8, 1997 Page 8 We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City of Tigard and other area water providers. We look forward to assisting with development of short term water supply solutions. Please call if you should have an y questions or comments concerning our proposed scope of services. I., Sincerely, MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. U (9- Chris H. Uber, P.E. Vice President CHU:chu I Enclosure j i ~ I i 1 I 1 '1 i i 1 Agenda Item No. ~•5 al ! I I Meeting of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Relinauishent of the City's Interest in Property Owned by Mr. J A Atwood PREPARED BY: John Hadley DEPT HEAD OK .'f;& CITY ADMIN OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL C The return of property to J. A. Atwood obtained by the City of Tigard by a deed that was incorrectly written and not owned by the grantor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to sign a Quitclaim deed relinquishing the city rights to the property owned by Mr. Atwood described in Exhibit "A". INFORMATION SUMMARY OIX lot 2S1 2db 205 was dedicated (in deed 89-09953 attached as Exhibit "B") to the city as greenway in 1989 I by Stanley Culvern. The legal description attached to the deed was incorrectly written and included a portion of adjacent owned by Jim Atwood. Recently, the city received a letter from a title company representing Mr. Atwood asking the city to relinquish any interest in the property owned by him (see the letter attached). Staff received the legal description in question and concur that it covers a portion of Mr. Atwood's property. The area of overlap is described in Exhibit "A". i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 FISCAL NOTES i anxdlsum awaM sum i i nm Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon 3 January 1996 Dwane Roberts City of Tigard 13124 SW Hall Blvd. j Tigard, OR 97223 j Re: City property at 2S 102DB-00205(Hill Street) j fj Mr. Roberts: i We are currently working with Mr. Jim Atwood regarding his property on Hill Street in I ! . Tigard. Mr. Atwood owns parcel 2S102DB-00202 (Map enclosed). The City of Tigard owns tax lot 205 on the same map. When the city purchased this property in 1989 it appears that the legal description attached to the deed covers a portion of the property Mr. Atwood owns. Since Mr. Atwood was not the seller to the city, it appears the city " ✓ obtained an interest in a portion of the Atwood parcel unintentionally. We are requesting that the City of Tigard quitclaim the portion of property that Mr. Atwood owns so the title may be cleared. . Please call if you have any questions. ` Sincerely, I ! Kerry Steinmetz Sr. Coordinator Land Development Semites I Enclosure: City of Tigard Deed Tax Map i ~I cc: Jim Atwood i i i I 401 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE • PORTLAND. OREGON 97204.2273 1 i TELEPHONE (503) 223-8338 • LINK FAX (503) 229-0615 • TITLE FAX (503) 227-8425 Exhibit "B" 89-09953 J i w.r~„ovn aa.m. f AFTER RECORDING. RETURN TC: UNTiL FARTHER NOTICE, ALL FUTURE TAX STATEMENTS SHALL HL SCHT TO: City of Tigard City oC Ttgard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1315V Hall Blvd. Tj-S_a_rj_.__0k 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 TAX ACCOUNT 1 25' 2DH 0021 ( xl STATUTORY BARGAIN AND SALE DFF.U Y 0 to Q STANLEY R. CULVER Grantor, conveys to CITY OF TIGARD, A Municipal corporation of the State of Oregon Granree, the Collowi ng described r-, property situated to wASHI N(:'YON County, Oregon, to-wit: • AN' i SEE EXHIBIT "A- ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PAR:' HERETW. Cxeepting zoning ordinances, building and tine restrictions, reservations I, federal patents and state deeds, eas-ents of record An0 any violat of building codes and ordinance existing at the time of closing. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE. OF THE. PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICAHLE LAND USE LAY'S AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE. SIGNING OR ACCEPT INO THIS i77STRItMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FF.E TTTLE TO THE. PROPERTY SHOULD CIIF.CK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CTTY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO JHRIFY APPROVED USES. The true consideration for this conveyance is S32,0n0.00. Dale 's 6 h Jay n H, 1984 r 4 3nley R. Cul er i h STATE OF Oregon county of Washington MArr.h 06, 1989 personal ly appeared the above named Stanley R. Culver And acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his vol un to ry aq :I.: and deed. :Notary Public for :Oregon VALSHO{IDM COUNTY :My commission expires - TLZ tawp p►TL I Via`- E\H111 pARCE, t: A portton of Lot 7, "BURNHA:+ TRACT.' a plat of r-card located if, Scct on T.2S. R 1W., W.M., ^_ity of Tlgnrd, Na ghlnq[on Cnnnty, Oregon, being more , part-ularly deccribed as follows: Begtmu ng at a point wh u h beg rq North 32 deg teen 23 minutra 35 seconds East, 228.0" feet from the Southwest cgrner of paid Lor. 7, ax shown par Survey No. 16.03 t. Waahtngtort. ~ornty Surve•r Records: thence continuing along said line, Norrh 42 degreee 23 minutes 45 -condu East. 257.00 fret to the center line of. O1 ! i Fanno Creek: thence leaving said line along the centerline of said Fanno Creek South 1 degree 30 minute,' 00 seconds East, 120.00 feet to an angle point thence South 29 degree■ 18 minutes 45 seconds EanG. 01.50 feet to an angle pot....; thence South 64 degreex 10 minutes 00 xeeonds Nes. I47. 94 feet a to an angle point: thence South 3 deg reeq 00 minute, 00 Her. ndts Nest, 18.70 feet: thence leaving said centerline parallel with the South line of said Lot 7, Ncrth 44 degree, IS minutes 00 second. Went, 117.78 fec~ to the point of t• beg inninq. lI a T Subject to and excepting the right of the public and governmental bodies in that portion of the described property ly i no below the high water mark oft Fanno Creek. PARCEL 2. A portion of Lot 7, "BURNHAM TRACE," a plat of record located in > j Section 2. T. 25, R.1W., City of 71 ard, WA hi ngton County, Oregon, being more' particularly described as follows: Beginring at a point on the cast line of said Lot 7 which bears North 42 j degrees 24 minutes 55 seconds East, 140.04 feet from the Southeast corner of C said Lot 7 as shown per Survey No. 16,039, Washington County Survey Records; J. thence leaving said line parallel with the South line of sa td Lot 7 North 44+ 1 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West, 130.03 feet to a point tLat is parallelj~ with :nd 200.00 feet distant from the West line of said Lot 7; thence along said :ine, North 42 degrees .3 minutes 45 seconds Ea=t, 50.76 feet to the centerline of Fanno Creek; thence along said centerline. South 27 degrees 10~ minutes 00 seconds East, 9.13 feet to an angle point: thence South 44 degrees-) 15 nirutes OC seconds East 31.52 feet to an angle point: thence North 86 degrees 55 minutes 50 seconds East, 1---9.45 feet to the East ling of said Lot 7; thence along qa id line South 42 degrees 24 min::tes 35 seconds West, feet to the point of beginning. j Subject to and excepting the rights of the public and governmental bodies in that portion of the described property lying below the high ~.j~ i water mark of Fanno Creek. (Tigard) STATE Of OREGON 1 s3 ta.rrv wwwgws f OanW i IA-U~ Ataate dn0 iau~or. m EX zz mar ~ •erd y Opunty. 1 r0 Yr`' 1 ~cc aac0995? .i Rc=:-: _547 48.00 ~ t. 03%09~1,A. 10: 37AM j• 3 IL f f FOIE PHOTC)9 WSW SEE COUNCIL MEETING t - PHOTO FILE 1997 _ i DATE: 0,P, l I `7 AGENDA ITEM { I . 1 i -((NUMBER OF PH®T®S. i _ V7 A AGENDA ITEM # j For Agenda of February 11. 1997 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE U S West Telephone Franchise Agreement renewal PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL t ! Shall the Council approve an ordinance renewing the U S West Telephone franchise agreement for ten years at 50. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the franchise renewal. INFORMATION SIM26ARX The City's 20 year franchise agreement with U S West expired in July 1993. Since that time, the terms of the franchise have been adhered to by both .parties while negotiations continued. Both the City and U.S West have now -,beached agreement on the terms of the renewal. The renewal includes a term of ten years, the ability of the City to raise the franchise rate by giving 180 days notice and language updated for changes in state and federal regulations. l The delay in reaching agreement was due in large part to U S West 1 restructuring and the ever changing telecommunications environment. This franchise covers only telecommunications services and expressly does not include the right to conduct cable system services. 3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A FISCAL, NOTES The U S West franchise agreement produces nearly $35,000 per year in general fund revenue. 9 FTIZ Agenda Item No. 11 i Meeting of Ali MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON II+ - _ i TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council I FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: February 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Shrader Public Hearing Packet Material Please remember to pull the packet information from your January 28 packet for the above referenced hearing and place it in your packet for the February 11 meeting. Oadm\cathy\council\shmd r.doc i f i . j - i i ` I i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor Nicoli and Members of City Council FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division DATE: February 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Summary of Materials Received Regarding the Shrader Application I Staff has received additional information in reference to the Shrader application for a comprehensive plan amendment. . j Stephen Janik, representing Dan Boyden and Briar Development (Haggen's), faxed a letter on January 24, 1997, to staff. According to Mr. Janik, the application for the plan amendment for Briar development was treated unequally from the Shrader application. His letter outlines how, in his opinion, Briar was treated unequally from Shrader. f The Haggen's application was a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The Shrader application is a request for j a comprehensive plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant will have to request a zone change before this property can be developed. The two zones, General Commercial and Community Commercial serve different purposes and J consequently have different comprehensive plan approval criteria. General Commercial has no 1 limit on the size of commercial development; it can serve a broad range of uses and can serve a 1 broad population. Community Commercial places a limit on the size and variety of commercial development and is meant to serve the immediate, surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Janik's first point is, that in City Council minutes, members of City Council commented that C there would be a loss of housing potential with the Briar plan amendment. Members of City Council did comment on loss of housing, however, this was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment and zone change. The reasons for denying Briar's proposed plan amendment are as follows: i 1. Comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2) was not met because the applicant had not shown that a mistake or physical change had taken place. 2. Comprehensive plan policy 5.4 was not met because the site of the proposed plan amendment would allow the encroachment of new commercial development into established and developing residential areas. t i i i i I 3. Comprehensive plan policy 8.1.1 and Transportation Planning Rule 660-12-060 were not met because the road system does not have the capacity for a change to General Commercial, without limiting the plan amendment to a specific land use. 4. Comprehensive plan policy 12.2.1(2) was not satisfied because the applicant could not meet the locational criterion that commercial cannot be surrounded on more than two sides by residential. i i i Although both sites are bordered on two sides by major roads, the two sites do not have the same configuration and site constraints. Because of the site size, wetlands limitations, and the site's ; shape, buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the j Shrader site than on the Haggen's site. The Shrader application involves 5.56 acres. The entire site is 8.3 acres, but 2.74 acres of the site are dedicated greenway or identified as significant wetlands in Y. ! the City's wetland inventory. According to the City's wetlands inventory, the Haggen's site has no p significant wetlands or greenway located on it. The Shrader site is triangularly shaped with three roads bordering each side of the site. The Haggen's site is more rectangular in shape than the Shrader site, and large enough to buffer residential land uses from traffic and noise. i Mr. Janik raises concern with the City's ability to make favorable findings regarding traffic for the Shrader site, compared to the unfavorable traffic findings for Haggen's. With regards to the Shrader plan amendment, Washington County said that it could support the proposed plan E _ amendment if in.provements were made to the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. Washington County indicated in their letter, dated November 12, 1996, that the intersection E of SW 135 and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without the recommended improvements outlined in the applicant's traffic study. i The Shrader Trust is currently requesting only a comprehensive plan map amendment. They will need to receive approval on a zone change before they can develop their property. Staff determined that it would be appropriate to condition Shrader's zone change application to include these road - " improvements. As per City Council's direction, Community Commercial zone changes require that a site plan be submitted simultaneously with the zone change application, unlike General i Commercial zone changes. Haggen's rezone would have required a condition that would limit the land use. It is more difficult to enforce and track a condition limiting the land use than it is for a condition on road improvements. The final relevant point relates to comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2), requiring that a mistake or physical change has taken place. The City's adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a physical change. The study for the Community Commercial zone identified only two sites as meeting all the planning criteria for this zone; one of these sites identified was the Shrader site. Haggen's site was not identified in any study as suitable for commercial use. The applicants for Haggen's could have applied for a change to Community Commercial, however, they could not have constructed a 63,000 square foot store under the Community Commercial zone. Even if they J applied for Community Commercial, they may not have met its plan criteria. i i I Staff received a letter from Shradnr's represents.: e, Michacl Robinson. 111s letter ;s responding to the issues raised in Mr. Janik's letter. He also includes in his letter a matrix outlining the differences between the two applications, in addition to rebuttal of Mr. Janik's letter. Mr. Robinson points out that, although the applicants for Briar development are unhappy with the resuits of their plan amendment and rezone application, they chose not to appeal the decision. Staff recently received a letter from Gene McAdams stating his opposition to the proposed plan amendment. He states that his opposition is primarily due to vagueness in how spacing of - commercial areas is measured under the Community Commercial zone. He is correct that the Tigard Comprehensive plan does not provide a precise methodology for spacing under Policy f j 12.2.1 (4)(13)(1b). It is the City's discretion to interpret whether or not this locational standard is } satisfied. The policy also states that less that the minimum spacing is allowed between commercial 1 t uses, if those land uses are primarily non-retail uses. f . i t i i ~~11 1 a 1320 0 , 6riiiany Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530 lltyty 1997 n. Mr. William Monohan, City Manager j City of Tigard, Oregon JAta 2 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., - Li Tigard, Oregon 97223 - 1i-------- Dear Bill: t Thank you very much for your time and that of your colleagues this afternoon concern- ing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (No.96-0009). I'm sure you would agree that interpretation is central to the issues we discussed. The language of your ordinances seem very specific regarding the definition of main thoroughfares, intersections and a quadrant. (I still have a hunch that "quadrant" was 1 satisfactory at the time of the "C-C invention", because of the expected realignment of Scholls Ferry to S.W. Davies Road.) The methodology for measuring distances between parcels as used for this proposal j is truly unique. If adopted by Tigard, it would appear to be a standard not utilized by other local government jurisdictions. It is interesting to note that Jim Hendrix' letter of March 20, 1996 to Bill Gross does not rely upon any measurement at all. Instead, the distance is established by noting that the 1/2 mile "was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted". From my perspective, an error is an error. (Do you suppose that Mr. Gross is fully aware of this problem..... could it have had anything to do with the recent lawsuit as won by the city?) ; I look forward to hearing from you in regard to these issues. I am interested in filing a I s formal appeal (provided the process does not represent an overly heroic uncertaking), should this "unmeasured" interpretation stand. (For example, I'm sure that in measur- ing the distance to Washington Square, you would not search for a central point within the property, but consider the distance from your point of origin to the boundary of the facility, "as the crow flies".) { In any event, 1 appreciate very much the accommodation of time you and your staff pro- E vided to hear my concerns and continue my education. Sincerely Yours, 1 } , f - ne McAdams i I I i r i i L~ J Mood r~ I s AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF c " <A2* aver CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 U lal COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment A 96-0009: ra r PREPARED BY: I Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK 11~ /CITY ADMIN OK_ { ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To approve or deny a request for a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential I to Community Commercial on a 5.54 acre parcel located at SW 135th and SW Scholls Ferry Road. 4 j STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the applicant meets applicable planning criteria and recommends approval. Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for this comprehensive plan amendment application. Motion: Council recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 - Shrader, based on ___~he staff report, findings of fact, and testimony received. - INFORMATION SUMMARY The site is located on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th, with SW Old Scholls Ferry Road bordering the i affected site on the north side. A designated greenway borders the southern part of the property. The applicant is i requesting that 5.54 acres be redesignated to Community Commercial. When the Community Commercial plan designation was adopted, the staff report at the time indicated that the affected site was one of two sites that met the planning criteria for the Community Commercial designation. The applicant is not requesting that the land use in the greenway area be changed. Land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. k OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED City Council recommend denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 - Shrader i Motion: Council recommends denial of Comprehensive Pian Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 - Shrader, based on the staff report, findings of fact, and testimony received. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. ~'~fKiry~~ide.aum.dot - I 1 1 I I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 96- 009 REQUESTED BY SHRADER. I i I WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment from Medium-Density Residential to Community Commercial on a 5.56 acre parcel, located at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: the parcel owned by Shrader Trust (WCTM Map #151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300, & 1000). SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the attached final ! order (Exhibit A). SECTION 2: The City Council upholds the staff recommendation for approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION : This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By _ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1997. f Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder i. APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1997. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date - Oc i tywi dc\ord\cpa96-09. dot - ORDINANCE No. 97-- Page 1 I Ids- s~ E,YHMIT~ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 12, 1996 Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 i i - i Dear Laurie: This letter is written based on a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center dated September 1996 (for CPA 96-0009 Sharader Request). The analysis indicates that westbound volumes on Scholls Ferry will exceed the planned link level of service in the year 2005. The report further indicates that the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th fails with the plan amendment without improvements. However, with improvements, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 1 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report. As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the County to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060. Given this, we request the City of Tigard require the attached condition. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this letter. 1 Sincerely Andy Badk Senior Planner I i - c: Tom Lancaster Doug Norval Tom Harry Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue. Suite 350.14, Hillsboro. OR 97124-3072 I . phone: 15031 640.3519 • fax: 15031 693-4412 j i i I ~ j WASHINGTON COUNTY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final approval and issuance of a building permit by the City of Tigard: A. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 681-3843): 1. Completed "Design Option" form I k`. . 2. $750.00 Administration Deposit 3. A copy of the City's final Notice of Decision, signed and dated. Note: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, I and contract administration will be returned to the i applicant. If at any time during the project, the ' County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. f 4. Two (2) sets of complete engineering plans for the construction of ~t the following public improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal and geometric modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls s Ferry and "new" SW Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th c. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. i i I _ i 1 ~'XHIB1'Y'_f MEMORANDUM ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i DATE: November 21, 1996 TO: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: CPA 96-0009, SHRADER REQUEST y I . , Description: i This application is to allow a change in the Comprehensive Plan from medium- . high density residential to community commercial for a 8.5 acre parcel. The site I is located at the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. The site lies south of and adjacent to SW Scholls Ferry Road, east of and adjacent to SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and west of and adjacent to SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33CA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and 1000). Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. Both Old Scholls Ferry Road and Scholls Ferry Road are classified as arterial streets. SW 135th Avenue is classified as a minor collector street. A. Traffic Study Findings: A traffic study by Lancaster Engineering, dated September 1996, - was submitted as part of the application package. The study assumed a worst case scenario of a retail center under the proposed zoning and analyzed levels of service (LOS) for the following intersections, based on projected year 2005 traffic i volumes: Scholls Ferry Road/SW 130th Avenue Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue Scholls Ferry Road/Old Scholls Ferry Road Old Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Road. J The study indicates that with the additional traffic generated from the development of this site, all intersections, with the exception of ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 1 { L_ Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue, will operate at LOS D or better, which is acceptable. However, the Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue intersection will drop to LOS F, unless additional improvements are constructed. The study suggests that with the construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th Avenue and a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th Avenue will result in LOS C. This will also require the addition of two j southbound lanes on 135th Avenue to accommodate the traffic I from the two westbound left-turn lanes. The City received comments from Washington County staff with regard to this application. The County is concerned about the impact to the Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue intersection, specifically , w with respect to when the intersection will drop to LOS F. The applicant's report does not provide a recommendation as to when the intersection improvements should be completed. The County recommends that this application be conditioned to require the applicant to obtain the necessary permits to complete the intersection improvements prior to issuance of a building on the site. City staff concurs with this recommendation and place specific conditions on future development proposals. Most of the intersection improvements would be permitted through the County, as the signal and Scholls Ferry Road are under their jurisdiction. ! However, the improvements in 135th Avenue will be permitted through the City, as that roadway is a City facility. B. SW Scholls Ferry Road As stated above, this roadway is an arterial street and is under Washington County jurisdiction. Based on the findings of the traffic study mentioned previously, the applicant will be required to make certain improvements to this facility. Specifically, they will be f required to install a new eastbound right turn lane and two jI westbound left-turn lanes at SW 135th Avenue. There will also be I some traffic signal modifications that will need to be completed as a part of this work. All work in Scholls Ferry Road, including the I signal, will be permitted through the County. The applicant will also 1 be required to submit a copy of the plans to the City for information. Scholls Ferry Road, adjacent to the eastern boundary of this site, is not fully improved. The Washington County and City transportation plans indicate a future realignment of this roadway to create a fourth leg at the Scholls Ferry/SW Davies Road intersection. At 1 this time, Washington County does not have a proposed schedule of when this improvement should take place. County staff # indicated that when a specific development proposal is submitted ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 2 L~ for this site, they will need to determine if the connection should be made as a part of the development, or if some interim improvements to Scholls Ferry Road, in its current alignment, should be constructed. C. SW 135th Avenue SW 135th Avenue is classified as a minor collector street and is under City of Tigard jurisdiction. The street is presently fully improved with sidewalks on both sides. However, the roadway is only a three-lane street at present, and based on the findings of the applicant's traffic study, further widening will be necessary in order to support the two left-turn lanes to be added to Scholls Ferry Road. This widening will require a permit from the City's Engineering Department. The applicant shall coordinate with both the City and Washington County with regard to permits. The applicant shall obtain a permit for the improvements in SW 135th k Avenue prior to issuance of a building permit on the site. t 2. Water: There is an existing 16-inch public water line in SW 135th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. 3. Sanitary Sewer: i There is an existing 27-inch public sanitary sewer line within a public easement across the southern edge of this site. This sewer line is under the control of Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). Any proposed I connections to this line will require a permit from USA. I i 4. Storm Drainage: f This site slopes primarily to the south toward the existing creek that crosses the site in an easterly direction. Upon development of this site, j the applicant will be required to submit a complete basin study, i { downstream analysis and storm plan for review and approval by the City. 1 5. Storm Water Quality: I The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) reaulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. Upon ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 3 - ~1 K • t I development, the applicant will be required to provide on-site water quality facilities to meet R&O 91-47 requirements. R@commendation7 Engineering recommends approval of CPA 96-0009. Once the applicant proposes a specific development for the site, they will be required to construct the necessary improvements in SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue, as described in the applicant's traffic analysis. APPROVED: _T:L F.'e- Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer I i 1AENGTRIANR%C0A1MENMCPA96.09. BDR " - r; I 1 ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 4 I t L~ 2 CI'Y of BEAVERTON \ 7 4755 S.W. GrIMth Drtve. P.O. Box 4755, Beaverton. OR 97078 General Information (503) 528.2222 V/1DD CENTEN N\r~`~h 24 October 1996 Laurie Nicholson Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 RE: CPA 96-0009 Shrader Dear Ms. Nicholson: I have reviewed this proposed comprehensive plan amendment and have the following general concerns: 1. The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which is expected to be adopted today, designates the area north of Scholls Ferry Road as a Town Center. The City expects to begin work shortly on legislative plan amendments to designate the "football" area (between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road) as a mixed used town center. The City is concerned that the location of a traditional auto oriented commercial center at the corner of 135th ? Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road will conflict with the mixed use transit oriented development envisioned for the Town Center. 2. The site of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is a _ designated as a Transit Corridor in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. It appears to the City that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would be in conflict with the intent of the Functional Plan. I - If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 526-2429. f " i S' erely, Lawrence M Conrad, AICP Senior Policy Planner i i P A C I F I C E?CFIIBIT I ® CREST i i~~l 1' A tK T N F. R S _ f November 12, 1996 Ms. Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard, Community Development 1315 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Scholls and 135" Comprehensive plan amendment from Residential to C-C. Dear Ms. Nicholson: We own the property at Scholls Ferry and North Dakota known as Scholls Center. We are opposed to this Comprehensive plan amendment for the following reasons: Traffic: Policy 8. 1.1 requires a safe and efficient transportation system. We have serious concerns pertaining to traffic which would be generated by a C-C designation including: , 1. Lack of capacity at both Scholls Ferry intersections; 2. Traffic infiltration into the residential neighborhoods; and 3. Inadequate parking and creation of a traffic safety hazard. Consistency: The City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial noting that the City needs residential. Most recently, an excellent proposal from Hagen's (Briar Development) was rejected across the street from this property because the Council wished to protect its residential land inventory. The Council must be consistent. In j { addition, there are several new commercial developments in close proximity to this site. f (Albertson's, Murryl-EU, Scholls Center) There is no need for additional commercial. } Separation: The C-C zone requires at least 1/2 mile separation. This site is within %2 mile of ' not one but four different commercial sites. This site does not qualify for C-C. Please see the attached sketch- Partnership: The C-C zone is unique in that it essentially creates a partnership between the City and the developer. The City will review site, building, parking, signage and landscape j design. There will be mandatary site design standards. If approved this project will require intense coordination between the City and the developer. i Mr. Gross is currently appealing a recent Council action (CPA 95.0005/ZON 97-0007) because the City allegedly sent out the wrong notice. He has not Drily taken this action to LUBA (and lost), but is now appealing the LL'BA decision to the Court of Appeals. This type of litigious and contentious style will make the C-C process difficult, time consuming and unworkable. The City's has very limited staff time and will most likely have to deal with additional budget cuts because of Measure 47. The inordinate amount of time this project 911 Oak Screec, Hood River, OR 97031 (503)386-6333 fax; (503)386-9375 E t l~ November 12, 1998 } would require will take away from more pressing issues. The comple+dty of this zone designation will surely result in numerous appeals. J For these reasons we are strongly opposed to the proposed Comprehensive plan change. The applicant must prove significant change or mistake. Staff should find that this application does . not meet ga of the criteria Sincerely, a Daniel Jr. Boy en i t - i _ -I ,.r'- i , i i 1~\ti f 1 I ~ .I ~ i a 1 7 ~ L~ r. j. { ~ i., _ , ~1 ~ J, ~ zpQ~ ~ ~ - _ ~1 1 ~ i ~ ~ -N - ~ ~ ~ N v- 7 a 4 z .o ~ 'd' { ~ - o~ _ N - ~j g~ ~ y 0 v - iV V ] . x _ I - ~ ~ / I_ ~ { --t ( 1 1 ~j 1 X 73 ~P-xxiBrr_L REQUEST FOR vv+rurlcly Ta (CITY OF TIGARO ~j OREGON TO: Gene Birchell. TVFR DATE: October 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive L. plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters - 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and r encies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be - ' pared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: November 1. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard k' Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. II f { j PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: 1 We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. l Written comments provided below: <,o- 5 Fl P D ~4' --2 l 1 I Q'rz (Please provide the following information) ~U 2 3 CT L Ine of Person Commenting: C-- - S yZ_ Phone Number: S Z. 4 I EXHIBIT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ICITY OF TIGARO r, OREGON TO: Michael Miller. Water Dept. DATE: October 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive i plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The j 4 relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) I{ comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic i development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and ^-encies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be 1~ 4ared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: November 1. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard i Planning Division, 13-i25 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. j ~ - PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: X We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. X Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: A tz-nu 1 g Ar `-3T ekrt- o F W A-rE~ A V,01 L410 ~ 1 u 1!4 7u,a r I-MR s arr To STOEL ktuES 1.1_9 ww o R6P2ESENr ot1R_ 5~14n_r~t_ i (Please provide the following information) one of Person Commenting: NI11cE Q-1ru_SC_ Phone Number: k t 9 i CITY OF TIGARD i October 17, 1996 OREGON j Mr. David Demers i Stoel Rives LLP f 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 972041268 Re: Water Availability Dear Mr. Demers: This letter is to confine that the City of Tigard Water Department can provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for tax lots 100, 200, 300 and 1000 1S1 33CA, located west of SW 135th Avenue, between SW Scholls Ferry Road and Summer Creek. Water is available in quantity and quality for domestic use as determined by the Oregon Health Division, Department of Human Resources. Presently there is a 16-inch water main located within SW 135th Avenue and a 12-inch water located within SW Scholls Ferry Road. Service for these properties will be ! . supplied from the existing 12-inch water main, located at the northeast comer of tax lot 100, and will be extended to the west along SW Scholls Ferry Road by the developer. Without going into great detail, it is the policy of the City of Tigard Water Department to ? serve water to any property within the Departments service area boundary. However, the property owner(s) are to pay for the pipeline, fire hydrant, construction, water meter costs and fees necessary for the project. Again, water service is available for the proposed project. Preliminary plans will need I to be submitted to this department for engineering review of the water system to ensure . that all requirements and conditions from the City of Tigard Water Department are complied with. Should you need any additional information, please give me a call. i Sincerely, CITY OF TiGARD WATER DEPARTMENT 'i Michael Miller ` 1 Operations Manager i cc Ed Wegner Brian Rager 13125 SW Hail Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I ; J L~ now M! 11-121,196 17: 51 $503 220 2480 S1 oe1 Ryes 4 2001:.e.18 1 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORN 9YS STANDARD L45URANCE CENTER - 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE, surrE 2300 - PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-1268 Telrptane 0031 221.3380 _ Pas (1031 220.2480 - Fax No. Company/Firm: Name: Office No. TO: Laurie Nicholson, 684-7297 City of Tigard Community 639-4171 Associate Planner Development Dept, Bill Gross (503) 524-9374 (503) 524-6325 u Gary Coe 238-3388 Speed's Towing Name: Sendces Tired Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 2949194 Client: 26409 Matter: 1...__. r~DATE' November 21, 1996 No. Of Pages (including this cover):I~ Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: Ox First Class Mail ~ Overnight Delivery Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. 77it' facsimile may contain confidauial information that is protected by the auomey-client or *ark product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile. please do not distribute snit facsimile, notify us immediately by relm, hare. and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: See attached. - I i i ' ~ llDXtw-31Y.9.t,1 2Gf04000t l 1 I 11%21%96 17: 51 $503 220 480 Scoel Rives _ IIZO02%016 STOEL RIVES L« A T T O R N R Y S STAN DA RO IN$URANC1; C[Nn2 *4 iW nF: M AVC.NUC SUITE :Sao I . ~ MOR'fIAND.CRC,CON.f]Ia.RU i ar..,,.anu!la.nm WrsOtl::avw ' TOOT. V211.101, ~ 4 Insr.rs wwrW~ar,d.m,n ` - November 21, 1996 i NtctuEL C. ROBDiSON . Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 cmail mcrobin-aon®smel.com I - - - u VIA FACS5= Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard i Tigard, 0.0, 972-33 Re: CPA 96-0008, Requested Community Commercial ("CC") Plan vlap Designation Dear Laurie: This office represents the applicants. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional evidence and argument demonstrating compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This letter also responds to letters received by the City of Tigard from Daniel j. Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners, Lawrence M. Conrad, Senior Policy Planner of the City of - jII Beaverton, and Andy Back, Senior Planner of Washington County. If you require any additional information, please call me and I will be happy to provide it to you. I l 1. Response to October 24, 19% letter from Lawrence Conrad. Mr. Conrad's letter recommends that the City of Tigard not adopt the Community Commercial ("CC"), Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map designation at this location. Mr- Conrad finds two specific reasons for doing so based on Metro's Functional Plan. j The Metro Council did not adopt the Functional Plan until November 21, 1996. Title 8, §1 of the Functional Plan provides that the City of Tigard is not required to amend its j ! comprehensive plan and land use regulations to be consistent with the Functional Plan until twenty-four (24) months after the Functional Plan's effective date. The effective date is 90 i days after adoption, or no sooner than February 21, 1997. Further, Title 8, §3 provides that after the effective date of the Functional Plan, any comprehensive plan amendment shall be 4 i ➢DXIA-$6026.1 25409 MI tut $[AT ?OmR.v, V.NCMN4, WA 6061 5.0 L-2 CITI' _ 11;21 '98 tr. s: aso: ::o aao sroel Rives a ®ooa;ule ! STOEL RIVES Ms. Laurie Nicholson } November 21, 1996 Page 2 consistent with it. Because the effective date is not until February 21, 1997, this application will not be required to comply with the Functional Plan. Even if this application were required to comply with the Functional Plan, the City can fund that it is consistent with the Functional Plan areas discussed by Mr. Conrad. Mr. Conrad suggests that the CC plan map designation would be inconsistent with the Town Center designation north of Scholls Ferry Road- Title 1, §3, "Design Type Boundaries Requirement", provides that for the various 2040 Growth Concept design types. the City must amend its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the general location for - that design type shown an the 2040 Growth Concept Map- A Town Center design type provides that `local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact development and transit service". Title 1, §3 does not prohibit the City of Tigard from adopting the CC plan map designation because this site is not within the Town Center i designation north of Scholl Ferry Road. Moreover, the CC map designation is not a "traditional auto-oriented commercial center" as Mr. Conrad suggests. Plan Policy 12.2.1(4) describes the CC plan map designation as intended to have a "primarily neighborhood orientation". It is to be located so as not "to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, - and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location". Further, the design of the CC plan map designation is to "avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development". The impact assessment for the CC trap designation requires "convenient pedestrian and bicyclists access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided were practicable". ( . Further, the April 14, 1992 staff report to the Tigard City Council concerning the new CC plan designation stated: f "By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves i of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and 3 reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets I with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby maldng walking or bicycling to these services practicable." (See Staff Report at 2.) This site was one of the original sites identified in the staff report as a potential site for the CC plan site designation. (See Exhibit 1.) Pcxu-saam.n 26eo4Q l 1 - d 1 e F7 11.21%98 17:53 $500 220 2380 5[oel Rives 3 2004/016 SI'OEL RIVES LLr t i Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 3 i As the enclosed map shows, there is no other commercial zoning district located within the City of Tigard within 1/2 mile of this site. See Exhibit 2.) There are, however, over 2,000 dwelling units located within 112 mile of this site within the cities of Beaverton and Tigard. As for those residents living in the City of Tigard, they will be able to reach j this site by using collector and local streets and will not have to cross Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Conrad also suggests that the CC plan [trap designation is inconsistent with this site's designation within a "corridor" in the Functional Plan. Because the Functional Plan is not yet effective, it is not an applicable approval criterion and is not, therefore, required to be considered an approval. However, this site is one of the few sites within the City of Tigard that meets the requirements for the Community Commercial plan map designation. The corridor designation is applied to "good quality transit lines". There is no II definition of "good quality transit line" in the Functional Plan. Tri-Met lines 62 and 92x serve this site. Line 62 provides 30-minute service during non-peak hours that increases to 20 - 25 headways during the p.m. peak hour. Tri-Met line 92x increases the headway in morning and evening peak hours. (See Exhibit 3.) The City can find that this level of i _ service hardly qualifies as a "good quality transit line" because of the infrequency of service. In fact, on Saturdays and Sundays, headways on line 62 are reduced to once an hour and line 92x does not run at all. i 2. Response to November 12. 1996 letter from Daniel J. Bovden. Mr. Boyden raises several reasons why he believes the City should reject this application. First, he argues that the CC plan map designation would create traffic problems. The City can rely upon the traffic study prepared by Tom Lancaster to determine ' that the CC plan map designation will be consistent with approval criteria with respect to street capacity. The site will be required to provide parking consistent with the requirements i of the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"). The applicant has also agreed to the conditions recommended by Andy Back in his November 12. 1996 letter. Finally, "traffic infiltration" into residential neighborhoods is not an applicable approval criteria for this application. Mr. Boyden also suggests that approval of this plan map designation request is inconsistent with other City decisions, notably the decision by the City Council to deny the application for a General Commercial ("CG") zoning designation to the cast of this site. Each quasi-judicial application such as this is reviewed according to the facts and the { applicable approval criteria as they exist when the application is submitted. Nothing in past actions requires the City Council to deny this application. In any event, this is a request for a CC plan map designation whereas the previously denied application requested a CG i , PDX1A•56=3 26409-=l I , J 11%21%98 17:53 '$S03 220 2380 Stoel Rives 1 2005%018 i - I STOEL RIVES :;o Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 4 designation. These two plan map designations are radically different in their character and intent and there is no relation between the two actions. Mr. Boyden also argues that this site is within 1/2 mile of another site designated for commercial retail use. No other site within 1/2 mile in the City of Tigard is designated "Commercial". The City Council can interpret the Plan as applying only to sites within the I City of Tigard since it has no control over sites outside the City of Tigard. i Furthermore, even were the City to find that the N-S site in the City of Beaverton was applicable, the introduction statement to the locational criteria for land uses in the Plan states: "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable I, criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." In other words, even if the City should determine that there is another commercially- designated site within 1/2 toile of this site, that locational criteria may be "flexibly" f construed so as to approve this "Fr - thee plicadon if all other criteria are met. In addition, C;- Planning staff has previously determined that neither the C-P zoning district at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota or the C-N zoning district on Scholls _ Ferry Road is within 1/2 mile of this site. 3. The City can find that services are adequate for this site. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, the City of Tigard Water Department, the City of Tigard Police Department and the City of Tigard Development Review Engineer have commented that their respective services are available in adequate quantities for this site. (See Exhibit 4.) 4. Response to applicable approval criteria identified in your letter of October 3. 1996. A. Plan Policy 5.1. F Plan Policy 5.1 provides as follows: "The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with PDX1A--S=6.1 26409.OWI ~ 6 i 11/21,,96 17:54 $503 330 2430 Stoel Rlve6 4 ' 008%O16 t~ STOEL RIVES, Ms. Laurie Nicholson r November 21, 1996 Page 5 particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. " This application satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan trap designation in an area unserved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents., Secondly, the requested application will provide additional job opportunities for Tigard residents. i The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. B. Plan Policv 6.1.1: Plan Policy 6.1.1 provides as follows: "The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels." This application satisfies this policy for two reasons. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing dcrsiGr arid residential types at various prices and rent levels remains available. Secondly, TCDC 18.61.030(A)(3) provides as a permitted use residential development in the CC zoning district. Therefore, this plan map designation continues to provide for an opportunity for housing. i' The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. C. Plan Policy 8.2.2. „ Plan Policy 8.2.2 provides: I r "The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by: a. Locating land-intensive uses in close f proximity to transit ways; I' PDXIA-5=6.1 26e00=1 - M 11-:1.so 17:51 $503 220 2180 Stoel Rives 4 ~J007r016 i STOEL RIVES Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 6 i b. Incorporating provisions into the Community Development Code which require development proposals to provide transit facilities; and c. Supporting efforts by Tri-Met and other groups to provide for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. w " Policies 8.2.2(b) and (c) are not applicable to a quasi-judicial plan map amendment such as this. Policy 8.2Z(a) is applicable. The City can find that this policy is satisfied because Scholls Ferry Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not necessarily request a "land-intensive u;e", it will be in close proximity to an arterial street served by transit. 5. The application should not include the open space portion of the site. The application indicates that the site contains 8.5 acres. The area designated "open space" on the plan should be deleted from this request. The applicants do not intend to j redesignate the open space portion to Community Commercial. [ Very truly yours, M~ ~t Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh enclosures ec(w/encls.): Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) i . f. • f ' 1 ~WC1A-36026.1 26A040001 1 _ i 1121/98 17:55 'V503 220 2490 SLoel Rives 1 2008"O1d ' 4 LF`$Nn - 1 0.4!!HN r°Y c'7y4E RC :ilk, m,,kp Potential '-Community Commercial sites, i•© intersections satisfy proposed Transporta ion Plan Map functional,street classification critaripn and also are I at least one half mile from other co ercially zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone AEU oR GCA-D applied at the'intersection). Surrounding area potential residential density within one half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre) . It is piQposed th Community Commercial It- sites must have a potential resi ential density of eight dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of the sit- (as measured by\ maacimum residential density permitted by zoning). ~j/ possible Community Comme eial sites. These sites meet functional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones •cri erion, and surrounding area potential residentialnsity criterion. EXHorr 1 - r- 70-7 CIS..: PACIFIC 1 C R E S T EXHIBIT it PARTN E P.S ,44 December 27. 1996 _i Z i1t Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 Shrader, R-25 to C-C. Dear Citv Council:: I am a property owner within iz mile of the Shrader parcel. I am opposed to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the following reasons: I 1. Split process: The application for C-C is intended to be accompanied by site plans and detail of the proposed development. At this point the neighborhood knows nothing of the proposed development. If a Comp Plan Amendment is approved, it will tie the neighborhood's hands when the zone change comes in. This application for a Comp Plan Amendment `only' is a blatant circumvention of the process that was intended for the C-C zone. When the C-C zone was created by the Council there was a lot of discussion about - how to adequately control and monitor the development. This application undermines the - Council's explicit intent. The previous applicant for C-C was required to be up front with - project details. i 2. Residential need: The City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial noting that the City needs residential. Most recently, an excellent proposal 9 from Hagen's (Briar Development) was rejected across the street from this property f because the Council essentially chose to protect its residential land inventory. The Council must be consistent. 3. Commercial Seoaration: The C-C zone requires at least'.! mile separation from other I commercially zoned properties. This site is within mile of three different commercial f ! sites. This site does not qualify for C-C. C. The City of Beaverton objects to this application because the entire "football" area (between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road) will become a mixed used Town Center. There is no need for "convenience shopping" (the intent of C-C) across the street from a Town Center. 1 911 Oak Srrecr, Hood River, OR 97031 (503)386 6333 fax (503)386 9373 J % d _ 1 December 27, 1996 t 1 4 Traffic: Policy S. I. I requires a safe and efficient transportation system. We have serious j concerns pertaining to traffic which would be generated by a C-C designation including: I _ • Lack of capacity at both Scholls Ferry intersections; i Traffic infiltration into the residential neighborhoods; and • As a transit corridor this change is in conflict with the intent of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. S. No mistake or chance: There is no mistake or significant change, therefore the application must be denied. f . For these reasons I am strongly opposed to the proposed Comprehensive plan change. Please deny this application. Sincerely, Daniel Boyden - , i I i~ I h , ~ J a ' ;w .......,,,'J.7 i. 2. its 17. Z5 r i - ?otanc.al Community Commercial sites, i.a, incersect.ons satisfy proposed Transportation ?Lan map functional street c-,assLfication criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone i. ~Ep ,aGc+D apolied at the intersection). i t r, Surrounding area potential residential density within one 1 Glv~c half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units E per acre). it is proposed that Community Commercial sites must have a potential residential density of eight dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of ' the site (as measured by maximum residential density permitted by zoninq). Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet functional intersection criterion, distance from ocher commercial zones *criterion, and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. i t f 1 I ; EXHIBIT 1 Kum ~ ~ - gTl' . z ~ - - P \ ~ The Cit of See NOTES o ~~,5 Y \ ~ J back of a e. ai ~ • P g i 1I \ J f SEE NOTE ~ ~ a Com rehensive E~ ~ _ P 1. ~ _5~_ ~ P l a n y ~a ~ ~In i~E T n ~ ~ ~,I,~' AvE ra sportatlon W ~ P LflCL DR - ~ G4~ 2 - - E Figure 3 SEE NOTE , \ 5 ~ ~ t-" ( a \ L~ ht Rai 1 !S /a 4, ~ ~ g \ t 9N _ _u~~ ~ 1 Corridor - ~r d~ s, ~ Stud Area P ~ r ~ t ~a d,, ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ /a; E I ~ Study Area i SEE Eu ~ ~ ~ - ~ E . ~ NOTE ~j_-~ SEE N x' ' Arterial _ ~1 _ y-Sd~/4,~~ I ~ ~ Ma'or '~6 d,,~4. cwFaaar , C O l e c t o r ~ ~ _ ~ - - S-E F.,r~ i~ P T ( ~ sf1 ~ Minor Collector ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ Freewa S ; I EE NOTE: + ~ a Interc ange O I _ D(g11ai lAla d nv rr nae.- 1~~'~ - -~?!`w~ lotion aonpi lei Ip IAe Citp ~ ~ D n?~-~- n of Tiq.rd vtilitinq ieegn- ~ J ~ a pAle iAformeliee S rlvn C `5 d/Q' I ~ ~ ~d~41 d°~ i 6til fef bare. ;etar- 9( nation Dvrlr Aled Ivry Qrd 111anCe ND.. oHU 91-13 '~R ~v nrr Ae t.tA.dne teAA / nvl vilA rlliliaael M a a d o ~~~~~pp~f<~. S E~ N D R T II trtA.icel ,ndler p p l e d JUNE I I, 1991 N"~ ~ ( loterpnloti.v Ivb - N 0 1 E delerni.ed 17~. See back tDr revision schedule ~ u. alp el riq„q. • , Agenda#7 D ]601 (Alll0f 91) 7 of 4 Y If this notice appaars clearer than the 199 , ~ AUG 24 8 document, the document is of m;trginal ,uaiiq-' ~ I IL ~ _ M CROF MED INC 'M ~ - I(il 111 I I f li 1~t [fTlt[t17ti~11 r ~ 1 ~~Ti 'I . h::,. f ~ 111'~._~~::....:~ ~ _ ~l. ~~I ~1_I I ~ I. ~~T~r 1~1 p N~ ~ ACE VI CH _ ~ _c- . t ~r = s s r- s ~ T4 t u u 1 u is n it to u m ¢s= =-z ~ I, J111IIIIlIIIIlI111111111IHllllll11111111111~fIIIliill~fllllllf~llllllllllllllllllll111101II~llIIIIIIiC11111iIIlI(IIIIIIIIIIllII1111Illllllll(IIIIIIiIIIIiIUUllilullllllllillllillllilllllfplillillm ~tlll~h l~i~illlfU il~lllll nIl 1111 fIlIT1ll lp IT I U ll ~~-~i,Illlllll . M - - x ~ :t ~q,': _ ~f J ti ,r«ti ~,.f~.. I If { ~ ~ d f V ! t' ~~~vv ~ sI i"~'w~ 's /.f 3 - % ~f ~ Y U 1~ ~ = 2 , \ ~R IIIi n ~ . n. u.ro D ` _ . ~ ~ r~1/ \ ~ / I 4 R - - [ ~,E _ \"4 vtt..:mn "_~L ~E F D~ ! 1J- c.- _ s : f..> - ~f - a~° a j ~J~ ~ ~~~7 I.1-~-~~ 3 ' 'J~ ~ ~ e ~ = C ~ Y L~ I ~ \ / ~e~ ~ / I u I"-- ~~---I av { s / east n T x ~r~ - ' \ ~ Il rc / I I: I I J i ~ b~'4 , U 9' slDDe ~`-J~_1 3 ''~e 41DnD ``r.~..l~_ ~g Ill m~'~~ 1 1` ~ .~I, x~ I - IL'r~ / °~ti~ Y ~18~ A I -~~u ~ •e~ ~ N" ~ ~ '9~k\~~ qty ~ -~I^~ ~ t1J /1~7i~ • y~ SCUIr~ER--tic IU414iIN C IluEer~ ~ / .1~~~ p y n C=J ~ o I -ti • ~ V rm 1 - ~ ~ ,4 8°`°it ~ Uxl. e B ~ rye e Ir i I I` s i FeP Azl II ~ ~ as.. e 1. \ \ ~ ~ , r/ j Ir/~; II I f I~ L ~ T__ IIJ ~•JL I -'V.~ ~~~(=jam _ YAIIF~ _ ..~r1\rJ~I u'.I `1 r ~'~t v I>(~ Y°"i \ J11EE -L p li / - ~ --JI 51 I;~ _I' _ - _ T - ll,l - ~r`,a-r. \~~-1 II-~D I, M..~~ sr _ _ i _ I - L ~ ~I - ~I~ ~ ~ ..:I ACIFIC ~ IIMY. 9 J ~ I I- / F - I 11 ~ ' . ~ ~ f _ I( ~ III ....d'---a1~ ~ \ d 12 - I ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 • D I - II II- -I ~ ,~42 III P I'~i ~I_ --~~n e e~I .E((>'9J_ ,vaP lc~iCl_ `-`I° f ~ Y~'w,.~ it ~ II :fl ~;I -s(I _ - ~f I° t • O.. Z9~ ~LJ~~I~ ~L ~1~~( J ~J - I I. ~ E ~ ~ al tirl r - - ~u~. .I I ~ 'T.. ~ ~ CO. _ -Gr~+V/~C .I ~V. . ~ "J l I 1 I ~ • ❑ F . ' ~ \ _ { ~ & - § 4 ~~=~fy f rC„_lau n~~ '7 I I-I GI __f`It y _ `JI~ I: J~t ~O•R~i~ ,w ~ - I~ x fiEAVERiON ~ N I . I ~IL ~ ~1[~[l(]~ F --_111 II ~ _ ~ - _ _ - - r _ - _ 1,_•~(4~__ {CI III --1~/r (Ml "I^ I~ L~? u, ®'l ~ I,~~-'LO J v1\ ~G~ 5' 3 ~I FII ~ w..'.:', AlE/I \ NI". IIO. Ip'.~~ `L~1~`--' ..t-[` - JIB- IiI Vllo- x ~Y6 I LIf ~\.c\ ~~~YU~~u e d~ I E~~ _ 4 T h r~/, ~ _ ~4 4= o; fr ~~E~ f= I s s - s 11~~_ ff --II _ 1~ _ ; 3 _ , I~,i. : fT, ~6 °~llf . III=rJ'' u ~ 1 ~u`. --€1~~~~3 Q~u ~ __I `J :f'~ sII~? ,U yI_ i~ I _ .i~r I~J~ a~ ~_1 `I~[J i~~~V~;~ ~ Q~\~<`)`-^~.~~x I ~ '1~~, a` 1 I , x, ,1 "-~L I ~ s ~ I _ n 1, II ~ uu~~~ • ~ ~i vsa \~l \h~~ .e'' : _~1I :III v I~-~1~ ~ ~ i. I ~ I~~ _ ,1~Iy U~~11`..-~ - ~ .~'3 r _ _ ~C~ , -y`~' 0 • ~1' ? I µ 9,I f- ~ .Sg R I III fei I ~ -I`-~ _ ~ ~ ; „~~n r ~ ~ 5~~ '\~,C\\~~,.I ~'~n : ~ •'~'~\0'cii'~i ~~-iL~'y~• -~JL'I~e k ~ L.~ ~~~I11~~~ R`V I'~a~, ~ .:~:.il 'IeI 1 i. I \\3.r,'- . f ~ _ - t,~-~ _ _ ~;s~~ s'L ~ - = r~ ~y .y L~J~ ~..1 1c.. 1 n a I Yi ~ ~ ~+.C f ii M~ Lr ;(rc~~. 1 \ -;~~~i 8~'IL ~IL-.,~ r}~/IL~\ '~'T~ 1 C. O ~"~s' 1 ~ Lf~L1r.. I ~ i 1~ I ' LEI • ...tt «u kp 9 1 ✓y.. ti`CI~ FI ~IJ~`f ~I. Y. r, :~•N :I••~~1tJJ ni`t'[•,~,,' ~I~~)i l .~CCTJ'~~"e3"(?2 f! f.'U.,.~_L~: y ~J ,•..y~.v ~ :,~~,,,~~~`~L-' ~ _ -1f~__~_~__~~~ Ir i ~ fi.ra'~ ~P~, l"„r.~~ ~F~~yi . l f `w lII('_' •%I,. ='rs~ ll IIIF"F~i~~. 'I~F~-~-~I~-~- i ~ ~ 5.,. ~ e,. I, 'ee~ J~~Urs a: ~sr I l"-' ~1~e `I~ •J v• I e + ~r'~ - C ~I ~ y. V_JL.. ~ I r C ,.[i I~~ ~ ! l ~i ~~D ~ i i % eA~~ °1 ~ - ?x \ ~ , o~ 1....r,. III I " I: a ~ ~ ~-=~.:,rr,r ~~,~eIISr~' ~ I ~ ~-iwq . ~4 J ~ , I ~ I1„L .hD;~h: ~=~~LJ~ 4S t,~~-~?.;. [-r,. _ Q " _ 5 ~ _ a v~ r t~~x .c~ I..y~ ~ wn:~ r:rJ; III "II ~ ° ~ 8 .u.rm~rl d ~H.. A8 '~I V ~i O ~ - - (~)~°,\yf Yr t ~ e't' fA'f [ ;I \'4: 11 _.'Y V - n~:Y.~ s U 'r',.r r . ~ _ ~ uY. .4 r V+ 1 a I~ { F F 1L I~ `e ~ ~ (~`2%L r III d \r~ fj,~+t ~E+'-•~7 11 ~ j ~`'a cel ~t ~ f /:fir" ~ I UV "z ~ae ~ r _Jr eli~1l, ~I lc--~r ~•(f~/' •I~y s~~ ~ ~ ~ L~~~' I' ~s0~ SH ~ ~ `N~e ,~I I i 7C r 'J II y_ 5 - e, i. _t - - ~va"ir,' C[," I ' °<`II ~ ffi --~r ~ B I -e~]~\~~ ,.r - :1 I ~n. C~. _ - ~~I,S _ 7 e ,IN ',-J'r(I r ~.r.~' 1 )1 p _ T it I I ~,.v~ ~ \4F ~i -J~ ~ '~~i=1 z~ ~3- ~f ~z'~~ -q III RLr(,u ~ y~~l~ tr Irr.. ~C ~i; ryrJ ~I:°L~~ ~dI ~LI L~~ MIS :~L ~c"_"-~ "~C ..I ~~~r iii: ~U Ic .1 1 ~ • T n: ~ . ~ ' ll~o `...r 9 I'~ w-~ ~r y g e ; v; `:tt' "pt` ~~~.-J L.a~I ~ S LJ~E-`_¢~7' 1'., ~ ~1.~` JS O.' p l•~ ~ t corae~ i \ ~ 5~~rJ~ ~~e/-~•J?!~-II, If:~2~~ ~ _ 1r~ , y n;~, f~, L~,„"~,~~ ae .~~Je' r ,D'-~`~`i~a ~ ~~~//1 . I~~~I ~;`,a ~g is ,n. ~ '~ll>; a~ 'N ,J 1 1~. .~f~il~ LrJ, ~U ._y,r e ~ I :~"s~ Y =I li~ +z /I F - - I 1 ~ ~ ~ I rrU ~L_ E.J ~ I-- ~l:- I , uF ~ . a{ ai f I~ ~ _ :w, v~,ln ~ ° ` ~o..r c k ' ~ - ~ I III : { ~ _ ~ ~ A,.,: g \ \7 e _ I:~,~--,~/ ~ ~ 's ( (rrrII'~ I,i / ~r'L r'~lx",. I 1~'-:I... rd "',11.r ~ ~ ~ , G~~ In m:i~~;~~[ IJ .uvSJc1 - ~ It 7~~pp r~~„I.` Yoruf,I~,r L`~I~LJ-JIJ ° rx,u.~ h . ~wf. • ,s, I I e ~ 'N/ ° II II , SEX 4 y ~S(/T t . ~,t`:'° '-1'° 1 \ I L ' y', v-~ `'IfI ~ ,,.a~ N L:jG~ ~~Ly •~tl ° „I VERZ ON J a fgtq~ Igs's *iC.7 .f e ~LJ~C 1~ ~ g• =_r " tY I - ~J~ ;%i-, l a ~,C ~-I ° G- `Tx.. ~d K~"' / e `~9/C~~,. ~ 4 L. COOPER (~'d'! - 1'~ ~ ~ Ii - ~ I/~ I~l~~..~~I~r~ ~ ~1 ~Is.\; 1 \ r Mli. ~UL:"s~ ~ I III - , ~ ~ ~ '.f?... F 1 _ i ~ : ~e ~ nl Rz1/.~rzy cypeY ,d x'~.!! I~~_-~ K e _ ~1:I I ! 4 ~ ...V'/-"- - 'C' ~ I NeY / • d f ❑ ~IIII~ ~ i _ `~-1 5 ~ \ ~ i '41111 i wF~'".~ ~ 4 e 11''y~,8 ~~I~~^!}~'tU,g7~r 1'` ,r~ I,, ~P \ TIO ~ D ~ ~aq,' f # I W (L -,~_~-I - I L. 1- _ ^ \ . C` dIOVNTAIN Ilrp ~~,•---r-d-J-I : ` d ' L~l_JI ~ q ~ Iw,~r r S Poo. 1~~7l5 L""-~O I ~ i ~ ? Ile ; 4 III ( ~ ~ J\>>` _ ~ s 1~~. • 11 , ~ ~ L7 3 _ 1 ~ ~ / - - M.-~. l ~ s _ - /,xg5~ I' S,j... a c r^ 2 v /.I. i I it i ~FL'fsL,.rJ1e{~'„'„fr ~I4~ ~ 1 '~.I„: ~u ~ 1,"°b~. ~F"I 3, r > J.~ a ~I ~ i ~J.S I` °0M1~ ~ ` 4J, ~Fi.> e uerzaer ~ ~ I° ':\T I ~ 1 a. e fi=t w :r.,~ ~'{a ~!a,'V~: r. r ~ r:, ii \ . ; 1. u~~ _ ~ , - J I J 3 n ,~r/_~• f it ~ v\ S_ - Iny~ E ° - ~i. rte- i{.. _ \ ~ ~'c~~~r~~p~'- .i rl . 'f: T I s i 8'6 s } ~ L+.+z„ e I - o ~ / t.a ~ I,ro'z ~Ja~'~"I~""~u- ~ ~ Y',.c ~1 Lel~ r ~Rer. ~ /~~°a 83~ $ ~ [ ~f~~•„ €l~ a m. . I E~ - / t\~, . ~ ~`:F~ _ ~~~I+~~' ' t ~I~ ~,LS~o~I~~ -,,,,~y'II ,.m~ u4, ¢ _ ~i E~ ; j I i _ a„x. . ~ ~ Ir I', l ~~r_..~ / s'~~ ~\~~~°2',7~~~ 6~ q~l 'fit' ~ s I % hf 1 ~i ~ s Z n n i. 15. ~ t ~ / ~ ~ ~ Y 6 '~ULfv J.. J ' ~ ~i.. {1J korr ~ s ~ , Q '`~O" s i~ ~i xy" S. 4. `J` r r. - _.r ~j4 ; ~ b yp`i~ tls I.' / / iui~I/\~1 ~f ,hr rB 111IIIrr•..~~A ) .5 \ .+t l',• ~s ~aLUr ~ asG ~ u \ T.25. 3 'I~ T.26. i £ y 4 \ ~ a~ t1`I(~'... Fl..w 'I._ A1~ ~V A a 3 .d, \ r+n., t s ~ a ,L,' r / a t. 1 3 s ~f. r ~ I\o. \es III ~ I ' _ r ..•e . ti, 0 \ 2 I T ° U F ~ : w %\/J_--~ ? a ~\5 S[xOLLS ~.°I. lm - s.bs ~ ~ I. f ~ ~ ~t. //1 ~ C Ar o..• EAS aS ~1 >x I t II t! ~j ,f~F~ 5 ` R,. 4,s .j•'~p b Te ~'~'c/ ~ - ~1rt.Dn e \ q1 ~ e Y. '°4 ' 's, q ~ ,tF oh ~ i ` ` III 1 Yy~ • ~ ~ .J ,c\ I~ { I(y$~}4~I¢IT Y Il a ,.F ~ ~ f.a +V { E• - 5 ~,9 _ .tl~, ,'1 ~i -I I I-- 'I_~;./~l FII,~~ /'~J O/ s U g° ""f~ro<~.. Y° _ ~ § t~ w.,d u'~r9, - III} RULI. IOVNTA J I _E, i --t a 3~: 111111 ~ re. ~ :~1 o-.'i1 s`~'":i:• III fi I - ~ Y, ~~s _ I ~ -~~I~ 'nllr ~~IIL"(y/)~..... Il ' i 1.~ / "L. ~ v' tr,f,~ s t ~ - e r - I ~ : C~~ & a k""? II ' L t~j 6xz` ~ /4 ~ 9 TICARD~ r.l~u ro~. [rl. I E E / ~ ~ KINC CITY ~ a®v \ s_ ~-I~ TIC D a PoD. LoIS a h J~~'fb. \ L~LIIJI.~U ~e+`0 i ° PDD.2 75 ' .rr '."-em", -..c: - - r' SI, ~I t ` a ~ ?~J ® aI ,zxf.w •,4 ,,.,.Re,oe ,~~~g .r~..r c - 1~~.,`'`h' f'i- ]L ' ~ - vla'~A f U' I ~ xsr. ~TG9 II/r { ;','~'IL,f Illub \ le~(r~7~L,ny a`` I___ __LI `~1 I.> ~ n. fir 1 f. 1 a .i - ~~yT I " 9 ~ III I _ ~ L 1 I L - Pe } ~ 2 ~ P-5 , ~ - III 3~~~+"L ,:/8. I _ ~--If 5 _ f~~• 11 ~ •I ~ ~-"'J o~ I ~ 1=/ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~~~If~~~~ac ~ ~ `°f. Qa, I ~Y~ ~I~.,rii y I III Jep~`~~Jf~G~ I =~u. ~ ~~I I%/~ _!~=uf~.1~1 I_ Yr rte- s ,//\V_ 1 II•, iL 9 _ ~ I~l~II 1 ~ D~ IIl ~~S°i`'~; Ig~y vn r^ \ J - ~I 1 per.. ~"y _ 1 1 I \ ~ DURNAAI y, III/ ~ '~'~i 0 / I Y e;i9 s aat~ I ~ I ~~j FoD. i65\\ I m ✓ _ ~4I~-J CAS A6i0 _ Ii __-_--I ~ u I _ -I b\ \ RIVER• ° >ol, III l`~~ahe I ~ .f 'll ~I~~~ ~ ~1 ~ .;.;v ~ a wnP¢ P co. III !i' ~"D°'~" . d ,1 . i~'zrN - U. R/VE'R ~ e ~ I ~ ' ~ IUALAl11E' r ~`I I \ \ II/III fJ .1, ._✓"w ~ TUALATIN m DCD ,a v...xv JL.~-' I - J- f`~ % PDD. 11.690 e.,. FAS A610 ~II 9i c ~ I I I ~ ° ~S I f fC\f1G \ I I I ~ I g a ~P L, I c _ I aa~- ~ .cam cv > 9 III I. `•I I r I „OC ONION III 11 -f1 ~ ~ I L ~ ~v 'tq g//y 1 \\u FLAT III " l ,I I•. \r III ~ , 5~ - ~I I ; f - n \''lA _ III `_A-\~, ° I - I a ~ u'--_ 1 'm'`~ 1 - ~ lyd ^1/ I ~ % % ~•Y r~ q^Dr~D~L~JI nP.2 e. R. 111. wlr ° p-uca'i,n ale ~II ~ ~ „I~°`~ / 1 - nlw ~L ~~~p~I"'ll \"J r~''^ °if e n 'Y \ 4ry :-~J ~ ~ f~a ~A I Cryin°11AUwPxm°.vlaGkfmngexmocrypnxn°of w".`u~.~ \'~~4 ~'1~~mY "'L, + 4''r.,. ~ ~ iE(1 Il 6~ %~EGENQ,, f ~ \ B E A V E R T 0 N Trunpmtgrm, 6ekm, OR 9I]IOwf xkucgo6un5miu - ""~P ~~u+.. L. \ WY' afxkf.zEmswFmf4,e.Iw,m.oRaTmisl~~. ADJOINING 7.5'OUADRANGLE NAMES I Upl)21116+6. rl ~ ~ m[ s [ e[~... E +'vDS ~e leum FuuPer. ~ y j 1 !]~Y I. DIME uowiem n. snunLS i snaa • sei 47 ~ V AND VICINITY P•IOp', IRBx, mfp laepi. 2. 6e0xlE ISLArO la. BEn IERiCU U °'y''^^~°1^10 Rp~1[ . ° .xrl. I !e' PORTLAND • 14 • \ ° 1. cAlES [REEx I6. LnxE O6n EGO ~.~.•^'A✓.a ~1 'rxl , tar rRS.sl[u - 11f UuUS a °avn. ° 11 PREPINED er fl& `o xs „ dP°°o a a. FORESI LRpvE IG. tLe.p5101.E Iy = Olvlcfle .rylt "D C' [ s. museonp n. Devescu<- t,( OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION oy~..~ yAl~yA^o ~w. CD. 4. LlrnltON IA. SeROr h{ IN [OOPERAfION eliN iK A6NI 105 ,'ii" a FLeCReals i. PORiLeOp I9. IIExDEPc „~}JI slx`rl rP"'rPR I'.." U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I ~;r,~y LL I!°;,IAS'f I'+ 100 B. YOUtIt fADOD 20. v[nxooD FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 1, •^v~ r 6t, D~:r 9. [4un6 z1. u,uor tea. su[E >z.cD I 8.. lo. xesnpuceE zz. Dnupn un '~a:i,~. f'w° 1 .I. t4slpu R1:o[4Rp SEPTEMBER 1988 ."P R' R. LAUR[Lnppp 2d. E'ileCAp! I p METRO A,„.~:.Y , I, , r xa. ~~js /4Rc A ~S ~/~Z C!'~ y ~ c ~ x l v S - - . a ~ ~ , ' ~ CIS I 33CA NE I/4 SW I/4 SECTION 33 T I S R I W W.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 'b, em d ' as~2 / ~ ~'3e0" SCALE I"= 100' (hy\~ °"'~o~h~ ~ d ' QO r ~q0 f. a CANCELLED TA% L0T9 Pu ~ 600,14041!00, Ie01,600, 900, P' ' SEE MAP °`'~etT ° I m so IS 133RD / ~ ~ 10 ° ;W l.9 ~ n j Y ~ ~ ~I ~Z 6&e~p pr F ~ e s~.9 C.J I a a o I > I pt`D1 ~ ~ O I y ,SO~L~ ~ I G[~ ,,a 1900 (ti+ °W I ~ . /may 7v 3AB y /.7T AC ~ S w l A ~ 5y W 3.30 J \OgpG ~ 1 W 0q~6,,2° ~ ° 292.67 E O ~r a n - I ? ro 2017 n l o a ~p 1.32 AC. o u ~p o r v. ~ 1000 W x 3 \ype° 1800 _ c W l,^^ a q'CgS qe 4.69AC. 2.93Ae. $ 3 y' 6 w 09090° I B 00 ~ W U 1500 L27AC. l , i2oac. j i ZJ i a ~ 0 ~S ~ \°q 6 292.90 f%: ' 1400 0 ~ ~ ,9? ~ 300 b e 3.6'9Ae. - ° a a~° - 2.31 AG a n• r _ ~i 5 z ~ be r ~ ~ o ~w ~V ) - \ 32.x, h ~ ;a ~~kh,~+d (SCnS, 14,751) tI ~ ~ r„ ~ _ u 1~5 u' SEE MAP ~ ~r IS 133DB f+~' pp ' tii•Nf! N ~ o n I,°m (C.S. 21,834) ~ - e '~w • °0 EP9T y 34 - ~~T9N' 292.67 +J6' m 0 . ~ °t4PJ0OAG.r+.., GREEBNpWA~Y . ~ sS o . V?' 3a~'... 006" ~ 120.90 ~ ,~'.r.'°+,-6196 'd Z ~ L - v-I ro" 1001 ar99..s,. 700 w.:\ s 5 ~ 2,24Ac, ~ 2.I5AC. ~ SEE MAP < A 160.92 S Q 1100 500 IS 133C8 60 /.36 AC. _ .32AC~ - ~ ~ ~ iii Ao 1 - ~ 1 ~ o 'k I 9 ~ f e~3o 1 exso 1 °o~ m Iso. ~ ~q~ 176' o p _ ; few. f a A 1700 _ ~ m 1.12 AC. - z9zse FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT RELY ON a ~~°+,8~3'a~ FOR ANY OTHER USE. "o° (C.S. 4,459) 263.80 g ' N 69°66' 7+E n I ° zez' ~ Q 1J•°p^ , . F1 iii C~ m e^'•' S I 1200 3s~ ~ ~ 0 29o.e3 3.34Ac. ~~`t ~ N 61°9 01 M 26662 29A07 I6'I'm' l / z9T' ~ tVpSFIINGi'ON COUNTY ~ 1 °7~ 0 2100 1+ ~ D[I'ARTAIENT OF / 692 A° ~ / 3 b _ ,15trstiAlEN'i .G TA%AT10N 61 / ~m le ~ '°D' i 2 I MAR 181996 3 x6e, J _ / ^ era, °n~ SSESSMENI PURPOSES / n;ry feet ! W n I FOONLY. 00 NOT RELY ON / , _ ~ oDR OTHER USE ~ / q 2000 r ho e / I,OOAa ~ - ;~la / - ' mo. / J ~1 / *b (J ~ _ I I ~ ~ Ibb " BEAVERTON Imo' ~ 02/17/97 / ~ I4 ^ A9ellda # 7 j 969° 66' 3+'I 32921 ~ In6 IORNER T I G A R D 3of4 21. / I 13l2lM1O2t1 ~ I ' 'nY. xfil.lD se6+zx'39'E ztl.6z 36' ~ IS I 33CA n• SEE MAP IS 133CD ry-~ d~' I If Ihis notice app°nrs clearer :han the ~'i AUG 2 41996 document, the document is of marginal ,uaiiq', ~ MICROFILMED I I i i I I r r L i rrT :I t11 l ilr I i 1 ~ i~ ILIIIir I:~ !11~f r~l r rIl Il~i~~li I ~~~l~a_~~f(tlE~tlat~l~lf~t~► ~~[(~II~II~I~I. ; ~~~~~I~II I,illl~(>l,l _~;I,:L~ I L_I I I c E I i„~ r ~ ~ . ~ INCX (MADE iN CNINAQ ' ~ } =.2d 2r-"" TB . _ 2r 70 ' t s a ~ r a r w n u to a is tr 7 1° tr 1~~~flll~illliifllllllllllllllllllgllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllillllill~flHhllllllil111 i , I 111111 ili lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll(1~~~~~udullhlliblllllllllllllllNIIIIIIhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlll1111[l~l ltIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIU((IIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIilllllllll1111~411I1lLIIIIIIIIl1(III .III i - - - I YYIc dams i-Ps . a ~ I ~ ~ ' I «it t q T ~ FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PLAN-- . ~ r COq _ ` tt f10 Ar ~ _ STREET STANDARD MAP o ~Is a _ I'ft r~~' ^',y s ~ ' { U II w`49Fy ~ ~`iy,Y r ~ e 1 1 a~ _ 4 ~ - I 0 - E ~~~i ! f ~ -BSI ~ " ~1 ~ s; ~ T I f r _ tltplp~ i T ~ t \ "I II e ~~~ly~~ f r ~~e~ . ~ R o e~D i -_I., 9 ITT ~ yam" - i. ~ / r r; L ~ II a i. e ~j ~~l~ I I r ~~~.~'J~.~C1.. y.: ~I .i {r~~ III) ~ ~l.SE41 , ~ ~ ~ I - 1 1 _ ~ ~ ~ , ~ r ~ ~ 1 ~1 rn ~ ~ q4 s~.-+` .J.I ~-x-r,= Q1 t 1 + ' ^II R4-' p ~ ~ ~ ~ K- / may! ~x`~~' ~ + K r ~ .d r 1 t II ~ lD ~ m ~ }*~j(l T+f s+y ll~Pi ~ ~ ~ 1- L ~ ~ ; ""ir ~ u ~ L a t I'I Ott nw J ~ MEflLO • A9 C ~r' ~ C~;;~ r,~ t`ty g M~ ~ ''-._„S^"'r i` ~ c d ~ ~ . _ If!jr+-; _ ~ A`~i f7 , ~7 a jlPropoegdulnserchengs S6h,Jact ~ yi ~ ~ f3 ` ~ sip ~ ` TO raPplovrl .By ~ f , as I i 1 ~ ~~~"'r--~~ I - ~i 'Oregon TrArilpgrletlorl Cammfaglpn - ~'1 t'.f_I _ tv= war' ¢ ~ , ~ h'e, ~:pf ~o~ ~r*rK~ Rt,',s.i d o ~ e _ I I C. I jd«+ ~ ~ W I ~ I"' I cE,~r~n. sr ~ - q p - ~I S - ,F ^ 1~ - t.v Nwv o ~as~AO ~ I A~~' I<p cb•. s♦ ~ ~C1 ` r ~ 1 ~ a>y vvas is ~N I .i., a Ct7 1 d ~ '...Y . .a r. ~ : 4 ~ ° _ • ~ • 7 ff II ~ s < 1 U i 1 -r I ~ a c>:c I! I 3I S • ~"u _ N 1 N • J f ( :~1 ~ 111 31 ~ I ~ < `U~ Aq I'yr.yr ~ A3 I I Aar i;ri:`'1.t'~~i ~ '"I' v -j~ ~ ~ a-m7 n ~ r q 1 ~ . t ' - ~ ~ a r -r..s Y iw s ~ r..r....s ~ r M ~ •rt IIl c1L ~ r~"pl ~ J ' I I ~ 1 -I 51H ST ' =~~i M ~ ~ ~ c.l° +s'~ f II 1 _~tiJF r t , x I - i 'y ~ ns ' C 1 Fa Ii`~N a ~ 1 ~,rr Y / 46 .T4 Jt 1 ~ i ~ C C,~ O 'n I y fJ~ 3 ~ I I N 1.JL 7Jr I ~.1 ~ r 11 _ L~7 ~ , p U n wi:lor{ n - N V. ~ ' Sj 7 - _ _ ` P ~ wbGSO U ~ I•~IFP ' ~ 1_ ~1~. Inj a1 .T S~1 ~.o +a.4 1 ~ N ~sD ~ r-~,~ y. ~ ~w C..l I ~ N ,pi lF i~ ~ I~ w I.• . Q i ' +~J 1:~.I oo - a !'1, ! i t ..-671r. 4t ~ : - r• h'. ~ Iw y# ~ U~r'~r_~:~ yl i .+1 l~~ u ~ r ~ I. ti r~~'t~g ~ A6 . attEN eL D. 1'.` M a ~.46- _ A6 i ~ E 'i I ~o ~ I r t I~ avfs ~ y ,rv~ rM T I r ti u J'r - f I v p, ~ I art C _ / ~ ~ fII ~I ~ Q~ C r NI l~o ' o c.~. ,q 1 ! ca}~~~j . I ~ I~ nt 1 f""1 II Il ~ 1, IIt/I d' '-6 `r"`.,I d' . ~ 1 ~+-~i. Few _ r a - 4 Ott { ~ ~ yi ~ - ,a~~ ~ i t ~ J I, i a3~;ti,~ C1 `1 I i V, < it ~ • o R „Y,, .^..w X71 ~ ~1~ I ml 1 I :,.r~eU U j r {I~G,!c.~ d v 1 fl .''u'. 1 p'.~lei. _ I~~."`~' ~I U~"- I~'~ U ~ o.~(', 1' } ~ (1 s -~r.,_ I1B~ I.-~ryc -J. ~'~N~f?F ~Qa4-^'Cd f, If - d~ ~ I ~a ~ ~t "r = 1C, 1L { t L11 J - r ''-1 1.:." I C3 Y ~ C3 MAfl7 .floAD I ~ II1~ 11 ~ ~ •\~7 ' A 1 ~ s ,w,,j.,ll I 9 ~~br~ j n ~ ~ c f ~ ~ ~ I I : t tAlo 1 .rah\~i .o - ~ ,C14- 5 -i~li ° ~Ga~ ~Id E oao s I ~ zt~ ~ l I~~~ E N ..v I ¢ .mod: I _ ' ~ ~ ' ~ j. I ~ 'r~+ j'1 a C1Z U r i .~'.~U ~ F ~ >~I I ! I \rh ~ f q y DAVIE9 ~ I lSi.. ~ . ~ - . Iy' I { °FpC I '~r.o rrI~ b ! ,I fff J ~ ~ j 1 ~ ~ ~ n ~I a ~ 4vi~i N~ ` ~ U ° ~J.ti ~~C72)~ ~ a~ - P 1 I 1 ~ ; ~II ~ ° ~4( U! <1 ~~t ~a,PJ~La r'fiXN ~ ~ ~ I Alit I r/ll~~ \Hq`r \y 41:r I I - ~ U V. L'- ~ a• A8 J" , ! ! ll_ - U erFO p~ It ~ floFn~~! iC1 GEpflo ~ ~t `,il ° F ~t rst r Ala 4 ~ C1 I < , 1~ ir• ~ ° 1 ~ T r ~ F3~ p y~ 11 ~ ,,t~k U 1t C ~ ~ 12I &rY~ ,'ry~~ork~l ~ 12 41 i/~~~ '.u f , i #~I ; ~ ,1 ~ ~ . ~ X31° c'r- , A+~ ~ ~ ~ . i Eln flna0 ~r ti j a ~ p V ~ a ' '~li ' _ t 7 ~ _ ::r.:•;~ PLATE 5 w - N' PLATE 8 ~I < --1L-• is t a ~q I Aq FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION E TEAL BLVD " u~~~~~. i Freeway b' - ~ 1. I ~ Principal Arterial ~ ~ T L- ' . ~ Y ~ ...1...:...:.., Major Arterial r. 1 I I I 1'I ~ +°o LnJ Mmor Arlenal - ~ ~ r' I ` , ac'PP i ` Major Collector p' -1 ~ I i , ~ . y9 Mmm Collec or t N ; s°`vo M , Study Area 4. i U; n~~' Pye°",~ ~ Road Closure . - -fir NEw s`"°`` '1pJ Scale 1"=1200' CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON i ovws~ r~ • Agenda#7 ~~`r' 4of4 it , . . `1=. ry 1C 4' r I STREET .^.TANDARDS • ~ Auau oe LAJOA 8 YINOA ARTERIAL ROAD SECTION i I INfLRIY URIAN 1 A I 1 1 ,..t t ~.1 ,•1 M. - DfS10N 9PEE0 • Ib L.P, N. • • 0.o+d Rlght- Paved Curb Curb p [lu+l• af•Wyy Ytdth / of 114 Tnrel Tnrrl Cat+r V+rel Tnrtl tllt hrklnp LQ.:.. ftutltn (fall (hit) Lao 4n+ Unt Lm+ls) turn Lmtlsl lint lint Allowed Mtlpn+t loo ~ ~ fi. L+nt C.. A _ t: ~ A 1 0 E F g / [ D 3 = , ~ S I I11 90 T 0 11 IAl2 1{ 12+12 11 0 Xond bl c, , ~ y 122 9f ] 6 12+12 I2 1/ II 12.12 f Nom k2 - ~ t`~ n ~ 90 66 S 0 11 12 f( !t I( 0 Xone A.p "k C n ArurLls 90 TI 5 6 It 12 l/ If 12 f Nonl n y S Q;: ~ 3 ~ Ninorl 90 60'.. 1 6 It I! 0 li 12 6 Xone A.e _ r+ ~ 90 60'u S 0 17 11 12 11 I7 0 Nant A•5 _'11 ~ ~ 90 52' 1 0 II 12 ~0 It fl 0 Non+ A-0 y ` f Y'. n ~ (XInOr Only) 0 12 H I! D f None A•f i g F 90 I2 7 ~0 0 11 11 11 0 0 Ndnr A•9 ~,tl w ~ 90 12• 7 D 0 11 11 11 0 0 None A•10 1i lheti^ ~ I I INT[NIY MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION URIAM ~k ~ ~ •~.,i I ~.+,x., I ~ I r+..,~ I . 11,x•.,, • ^ ~ • i l: t1d••rlk ~!I! 4t DESION SPEED • !S M.P, N. Z c~-~~+,.II~C'; Ro+d R1ght- Ptved I;," Clusl• of•W Yldlh I of Blkc Tnrel Center Tore! Olte P+rkingt County ~'l~-(~ flatlan Feet i .=1~, ~ ( (Fat) lines L+ne Ltnt Turn lint Lint Allowed Dulgnulon y ~ , H Lane ~F . JIB A B D F 6 f , D c cam, 0 66 12 _ 7 D 14 11 H 0 None C•1 ~%..~,;::-%>:t"'t-. ,2• 3 D 11 1, 11 D NDnd C.2 ~y,~(" rr CD Coneltorf 'il'~ ~ - TI 50 7 6 it, ll I2 6 None C•0 76•.. 2 6 12 0 It 6 None C•/ u 2B• 2 0 l/ 0 !4 0 Nont C•S ~ 1'$~': RunAL on • I INrlnlt/ fIfNOR COLLECTOR OR AIlNIA1UM TRANSIT ROAD SECTION DALAN v ( A } y.o~}I I l B J f' ale. 0.9' ru[. I It I It L10Ul DLA i r'' . 1-"'1 ~ 1{I LAM,. I'~ O~,• , tytia i ' : III d+l r+i. NO !CALL • I~ DESION 9PEE0 • tbL.P.Nt fl ill Rod Rlght• Paved ' 'p ! CIUN- ot•Wy Y1dtA 1 of Alke Trtvtl Trtvtl Blkt Pi{king t (tattoo (fall (Fat) L+nes Unt Unt Ltnt +nt A owe Oeslgn+tion : i ,i)I ,;;t . A B D F f D Collectors 60 2B•ee 2 0 11 N D None C-l0 - iNlnor On1Y) 60 72•.. 2 0 IB I! ~ 0 One Sldt C•ll ir+ntll 60 76 2 0 IB Ib 0 Both Slda C-12 Ao+ds ~ 60 76 2 6 72 12 6 Ndnt C-17 _ 50•• 2B 2 D 14 11 ~ 0 Nont C•II' SO•• 32 t 0 1B 11 0 One S10e C-IS a' • Gr+vel shoulders t dltches tllowed for Chest vldths only! Pub1le.Utlllty E+serents (PUE's) required outside of Nlght•of•V+y (R/V) If thouldtrs f dltches med, Shndud Inprfa Stctfon, " For tAese sutfons, E-0' of A/Y for 200' frog the Interuetlons wltA Q1 WJor Collector or Artahls • ~ sA+ll W de0luted and t 06' section 6ullt lFK subJeet ingrsecttons, M Parkln0 axcaptlona parmittad g,Hjy than approved by tha City of Beaverton Trntlic Control Board (T.C.B.). F- ~t • f _ JN ~ l CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ]EXHIBIT jr Regular Meeting Minutes December 2, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Laurie Nicholson, Associate ; Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None j 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES f Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve ' the November 18, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioners DeFrang and Wilson abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING' 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone j designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson presented the staff report on behalf of the city. She I reviewed the applicable review criteria for the case. She said the property was located at the corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and 135th and the applicant was requesting to amend the comp plan from medium high density residential to community commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2, 1996 - Page 1 I ~ i 1 Nicholson said she received comments from various agencies and citizens. She summarized a letter from Craig Petrie (Exhibit A) that was presented to the Commissioners at the meeting. She said he was in opposition because he believes the plan amendment and zone change application should be done at the same time. Nicholson advised that the development code does not require that the two applications be done at the same time. Nicholson said Petrie was also opposed to the application because of potential loss of residential housing. She said that, with the plan amendment, the city will still meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Regarding Petrie's comment about a "piece meal approval process', Nicholson said that i when the study was done adopting the Community Commercial designation, only 2 sites were identified within the city to meet the applicable plan criteria. She advised that this site was one of those sites identified and that the other one has already gone through the w. development process. Nicholson said staff was recommending approval of the project. She said a mistake was made, because the configuration and size of the site and the inability to buffer it from traffic noise, makes it less suitable for residential use. She also advised that a change has occurred - since this site was annexed, the city has adopted the Community Commercial designation, which staff believes is a more appropriate use for this site. - Commissioner Padgett asked if wasn't policy, at the time of annexation, for the site to be zoned as close to what it had been zoned previously in the county. Nicholson answered yes, but the mistake refers to the fact that uses are designated by the Comp Plan and the Community Commercial designation did not exist when the Comp Plan was adopted. She i said that until this time, there has not been an opportunity to do changes. i President Wilson asked if SW 135th was a new or improved road. Commissioner Holland answered that it was 2 lanes until a bond issue was passed a few years ago. He said the f city kicked in half to do full street improvements and the improvements have been there for about 8 years. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michael Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He restated the request, saying the total site is about 8 1/2 acres, but that they are not requesting to change the 3 acres designated as open space. He said the nearest commercially designated sites are more than 1/2 mile in either direction. He remarked that Murray Hill may be closer, but it is in the City of Beaverton. Robinson referred to the application and responded to letters in the staff report. He addressed issues brought up in these letters. He disagreed with statements that the site is within 1/2 mile of other commercial sites. He referred to a letter from Jim Hendryx, the Community Development Director, who confirms that the site is more than 1/2 mile of the C-P site at North Dakota and Scholls Ferry. J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2, 1996 - Page 2 i I J I Robinson also referred to a memorandum, dated August 26, 1992, that addresses what I Council was considering when they established the Community Commercial designation. He said the memo concluded that there were only 2 sites within the city that met all of the locational criteria for CC. He noted that this is one of those sites. Robinson referred to another memorandum, dated April 26, 1991, from Randy Wooley, the City Engineer at that time. The memo explained that this site was best suited to accommodate some traffic increase and is more appropriate for a commercial designation because there was no other nearby commercial zoning. i Robinson pointed out that there is no nearby commercial opportunity within walking or biking distance. He noted that a benefit of this site is that it enables people to walk there without crossing Scholls Ferry. In response to a question about ownership of the property, Robinson advised that Gary Coe owns one of the four tax lots and that the Gross Family trust owns the remainder of the lots, with Gary Shrader as the trustee. Robinson went over the traffic study and levels of service. He noted that, with the recommended improvements the applicant agrees to make, Washington County is in support of the application. He referred to a letter from ODOT which recommends that the City follow the recommendations from Washington County and its own Engineering Department. He also referred to a letter from the City of Tigard Engineering Department which states that the traffic analysis is correct with improvements recommended by the applicant. i Robinson went over what policy requires the applicant to show in order to have the i Planning Commission recommend approval of the application. He advised that they have to show that the change is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. He i said they also had to show either that a change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation or that a mistake was made in the original land use designation. He said they believe that both have occurred. Robinson reasoned that there has been a change in physical circumstances due to the amount of growth in the vicinity. He also noted that a mistake was made in the original designation. He said that the 1983 zoning designation didn't have an analysis attached to it. In addition, when the city went through a study in 1992, it adopted the Community Commercial plan map and zoning map which identified this as one of two sites that fits this j designation. He said, at that point, the city could have determined that they made a ! mistake. 1 Robinson talked briefly about housing. He noted that, even with the site being changed from R-25 to Community Commercial, the city still meets the Metropolitan housing rule J which requires an overall density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2, 1996 - Page 3 t r Mood -1 referred to a memorandum from city staff dated IvM-irch 29, 1995, which reports that the city was at 10.37. Robinson talked about the comments from the City of Beaverton regarding compliance with Metro's Functional Plan. He said the plan is not effective for 90 days, which would be mid to late February. He said the city doesn't have to be in compliance with it since it is not in effect yet. He also noted that this site is not in the Town Center designation. He said Community Commercial designations were neighborhood oriented and requires convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. r Robinson addressed comments that the proposal should be required to submit a plan map amendment, a zoning map, and a site development review application at the same time. He said there nothing in the code requiring this. Commissioner Padgett said the only argument he has seen regarding a mistake being } made, is that, in hindsight, if we knew then what we now, we may have thought differently. He did not agree that there was a mistake made at the time of the original land use designation. Regarding the change in physical circumstances argument, Padgett asked if there had been a lot of zone changes in the area since the time of the original designation. He remarked that, if development occurs in a zone the way it was anticipated, he did not consider this to be a change in circumstances. However, he said that the new community j commercial zoning with only 2 potential sites, was a good argument for a change in physical circumstances. He remarked that he didn't see this argument in the application or in the staff report. Michael Robinson advised that the oral comments given are a part of the application. He noted that the city wants the Community Commercial designation established and that plan maps need allowances for changes that have occurred. Commissioner Padgett clarified with Robinson that, through his testimony, he is saying there has been a change in physical circumstances, because city has adopted a new zoning designation and that this site is one of two sites that fit the criteria. Robinson answered yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR No one signed up to speak in favor of the application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Dan Boyden, 911 Oak Street, Hood River, OR advised that he owns the Scholls Center, located at Scholls and North Dakota. He argued against changing the site from residential to commercial. He said the Community Commercial zone was created as an accommodation to provide shopping for nearby residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2, 1996 - Page 4 _ 1 Boyden referred to the letter from the City of Beaverton, opposing the change. He noted that there is a giant Town Center across the street with mass transit and bike accessibility. He said we don't need another commercial site in the area, that this site would be better as high density residential. Boyden said a mistake was not made when it was originally zoned. He also said he does not believe there has been a change in circumstances - that's how Tigard planned the area. He disagreed with the argument about distance between commercial sites. He said this site is within 1/2 mile of Scholls Center, as well as being close to Murray Hill and across the street from the Town Center in Beaverton. Boyden expressed concern about the traffic this proposal will add and said it will disrupt the Metro plan for a traffic corridor. President Wilson asked Boyden if the city didn't recently do a zone swap for his own site. Boyden answered yes, that before the swap he was zoned commercial. Wilson said the code allows for an exception if an area is zoned commercial, but there are no retail uses in that zone. Wilson noted that there are still no retail uses within 1/2 mile of this site. Commissioner Padgett asked Boyden why he didn't agree that this was a change in circumstances. Boyden answered that there is not a physical change. ll, APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL i - Michael Robinson said that the commercial needs in Tigard should not be solved by what Beaverton does. He noted that you don't have to look beyond city boundaries to see if the retail site is beyond the 1/2 mile requirement. He also said that the Town Center i t designation is not relevant because the functional plan by Metro not an applicable approval I criteria. i Regarding traffic congestion, Robinson said the level of service at these intersections is j better than the minimum standards required by ODOT, Washington County, and the City of Tigard. He said that, even after the zone change, the standards will still be at level D or better. He said the applicant is willing to improve the road and make it a condition of approval fcr development. Robinson concluded his testimony by saying the applicant meets the approval criteria and asked for a recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland said he believes the applicant has met the criteria, that traffic will be addressed with the site development review. He said we don't plan our city with what Beaverton and Metro want. He said he believes the intent of the Community Commercial designation meets the 2040 plan for proper mix of commercial and residential on major collectors and thoroughfares. .J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2. 1996 - Page 5 i 6 Commissioner Padgett said he can't support the argument that a mistake was made. He also said he doesn't believe it is a change of circumstances if an area is developed as planned within the zoning that is there. He did, however, like the argument about the new zoning. He said he believed the intent of the new zone was to identify this site as proper for that use. He said the applicant, based on his testimony, successfully argued that this is a change in physical circumstances. He said the applicant also meets the rest of the criteria. President Wilson said he agrees with the applicant that comp plans need to be flexible, that they need to provide some measure of certainty as to what will happen. He noted that, when making a comprehensive plan, it's impossible to know the right mix of different land ' : - uses. He said he did not believe that this site was best suited for high density residential. f Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend to City Council approval of CPA 96-0009, based on the staff report and testimony heard this night. Commissioner Collson seconded h the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Dick Bewersdorff gave a status report on the Development Code rewrite project. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. I Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary i ATTEST: President Nick Wilson i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 2, 1996 - Page 6 , . p ")r t.~ f. - C• t~3 +L' h. 1.•i - L! s{^ t ee,, 'eft. - - =s~. F' J t ~r`i wn t' - .1 ".l t •.3j1!'n _ J 4t• PlX _ QN . •.1♦r rr" trn., - a- 4a` :°ya - ri..•• iy! -'Yr r` r,- ss US7CEE":AI~I~`G ~ •~,'~`a~~/•-~A ,-ufi...r~-,..},, , :t f ( ,S i". i( r,1 - F r-. 1 e.l 1 v'4 1 ~r. ~•e S - - t .?-'i. }i. -riS,Y• : Y~ f F' .''tw'• L'~,.S.~ir:SS'•4t..- rp~ S,Y ,t / :.:i , I~l,ec ~7 - c Y*•-..., yy. i A%4. "=f F•'?•r L~~?~,:yr.-;,ttr7• <c _ ?(vi,. - _ 'r,: .firi"...{ ,.~a.:'ker?;'-u~'J. s~.. y 'FHE'Z'TA1IZ:`CU1viP :j7 . j yf. Y•`+i'!A`~l`livY4'1.: 1:y~'•~7~•~e}I - s ,L,L:±iil:~l.l,`l'`-: •b'~•- -q ,Li`;,.;.TR' r'',,., f.~r•2 :Y. ~ .._s(Wt.•y4•rv ':f:5'e `.E': :",1f~, ~/a(1~,1 - mil{ .g .,J'••~}`F.i✓'` 'i!.:~ p .j•y`~ r'r. Qlv~ yy``!'~~.(~•'.! {.ri r.• t.s.•,i rit.+"rJ,:T,~Gbt."'=lrL''ry.r c r .M. %;:4~= '•i,~ .'~:t..:'•c. .,>..::,r,._, ~11V21"Y'l.'•: (j;-t~.ItiX;r Y,..". Jaa-.k"-'.;""~•:} r4~f,'{Y~, i(.'vl:'v'nx Ti.'!1, ,.,4, i!'C ,ti'f r'Y - ~iy:.y ('rY'•IS`,..1 \.A':.:.,,,i z"':bt••-,• rJi: ...'k lk' ':S"~' r=+~If=, :~fi„?ko,- '7'~: '•~%b, •1 - - l (fir): q s S j+p- .Yt.a: ,..?Y1: - r l ~rti._ ';:j 4f.i,'.r 5.'... v G ~ ,l•;Y.,., +1'r..: I.fCrr^- .7 c _ 'i-''al7s > off' . ;eta: ;',.~„-.x.. ;f-`'- - _ - - _ -a,•'• ~;f 'h '`!:"Si•"i. 7~'c"r;?-i r^i .r -.:>1•' r"r .v.. :'F.-f>,:~r.{-.%w,v:.tF=K'T: ••a.-,~r?.T.Y0`7% Pf•-• ,1_v 't~ `"Y.: e NA,,.'.. ~ j S""rlr: +'rY ~ r~ir 11 q ./f G J pi 7 C' yr'^, n`•,,: nom=' .,A,'- c. .-.:v7 ~JR;'CpµFwfp~~,.rr}~•ff~{ Wt. _ L . `"'5;:,.•''Fly;+:k,t,;,.- 7^•' `gy'p: 'Y' i ✓ i4•ir,~'ry, a:•:'[7r~'ir~'`,,:w 'r "y, ~+.`C Li ;'•~~•.,,~~GG''15;1~•:{~ £::r;?;u,j;~`'r',i:,t~,=dP~ -'r~.~!''-"•~r,`[.5;r' ..a _ ,~Fi'" ~?:~LSl.Vl:!`.~.'1M^~;"~~~~~~.,j,~~ "-r'i?gg:tir_yR:~7:,~~i~.=•T F5~• • 4:, .Y, .~^µ`°,d, k._1. .k, :'4'? .~?~;a• 3:.;;!i 7r:;:'..t.. f[ _1"i P:, .;cy B'y, f ~tn,:,Y.?:!. _.~2:i _ _ ,5. _ nry'.,[,.'- - i'r'J' li"lU'. •,y~~.~. 'u'.a1•_' ~"j~` ;y,°t3,"', :.'C•: `•f. i~~f•."".,,^:`. C,~1'-::' "'~1- :7 C:12~ - :cr[- •S- y; ,F •,v'f'f f""~t'-~ S~ ll.;`F~• r~.. - ,';A1.^' ''S. .E'«, yj F : ..1~''1 _ :_t'-)... - Tt: - .cy'x'[:',-, ,Jj ;.:+~;,e,,'<. s4' 1 'rL •r~_ ~ n'~'..{^'a ~.l. ~i:.S r.,' ^`]p'. ',5~~:' ='.l'•.a~y~ f." , ,f. '-4,, y Nf-,A 34'+r•,~ 6.. uz,' _ :'.L::,~''',. .-,ry, .;,;,.k... 5,*.,t;^~:,~. ',C ~~t^~,x.v 4-.asp;y •s.. ay y.... p G . ;.,,rs. ~a 'y7?,~,,[[ r(,tR.,, :;.;'::3 ~ .'',f _ ` ,.~<;;y: , s ';',z ; .i:. .f,.fs':[;:~ , r~...k`.- rs.^„•: - i'r '["~•`.~'S-:k •r,~. °'i. - '~iti - .r,.•,.:y 't..ma'-„ :4~,=_-.,.. K~ r.,.• •i 4:3 u~~t.' 7 ••n,>- '.W 'pTi o-••7.., .•,8`uA ~ 9~ , ?i'~ - t.p° s?. -p.C:, _ ,<....,;i:?; a. v .•r a.w r,...: ,-vx_ : L..,-• av z• IT, iF-, .4,;: i-'.fir: ^u': ,~51:: - ='"1., ^.`•i~... -ti'l 9'iyR_•..:.+.°1 ~.5.21.'bt'n!4 ~ib~, , b F i ..,Y .r",y 'i ',•.71,`a' //:'-),,w• . - .;•i t' '.'a~^p.~.~?..a .,p:r''s„i.1 •yfo-d' ..,,fY: f~,`?' "'•'t•'T::=.°,.iC;.=f. _~r: A ~i=946~'~'<r_°°.4. d ~nve.'sri;` .e."k, _ - `r.',:'. :.,i ~:~:l_s'c.'.•E;..•`;=~; y~-:_. <a•rv b,sl~"~+ 4,, '•r"5,: ,t .%:x. 7>°.. t•:F•; ::.`-r.,,.. :~~Y i' tf,.::.ti`br.[.'i~ .c... J~,-: t.'E,..i ,p .~y„„ 9'7d .j.: ~:1.. e!' it~~ :.f;, •...Z". 4~i' ,4.•.,T.,.. L,. *4. • 'vt:r°M r~>. !tYYti; k:% - .;Fp',' - _yfi.?,+^r ~...:?1.,,: ff 1< f rK, fit - - k=" >t ,t< a.~ i•k s - i .r y WX - ~r cy r _LR II ck', d-, ,rrY~ ~ i x o- WMN 3"' rs= naF; - +k ` w ti:~)x R~`- aw k •'F["Y6 . J- - t d'J - s a~ F R ' y •'rl _ ..i 1{ .A h } •'-fir:-lt'tinw' it~ ~',;.:i•, i/ tai ;o Y 2-~ _ - ~t£ .r n ~ ''fir" - - a `syO 31 ~-'M1' - w 2 .f - i 1•. yy M r, yy f v t ••6 .d x 'Y •li:' Ya- ~t - - SLR _ - _ -5 a~ C P °h ..r ..,yC 9,. 3 - - -lam <.i. w%- ?4r t^ ~'r-::r v t ~ -fiM y,. r . ;i. i). 1, sri3'S, 3., Y. .a` r.• ?f a ^r;:' } Std. v S.A .d 1~i r r L"~ v.er ~~]ei• w 5~y .t 4 r =dl. ~:F.. .A - - v _ T'~'~+Lt' " ~YL a.r • t j I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 i II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION . 2 B. APPLICATION PROCESS AND AUTHORITY TO INITIATE APPLICATION. C. PROPOSAL 2 2 i D. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 2 E. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 2 III. FINDINGS FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA 3 i - A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 3 I ! B. APPLICABLE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TCP") POLICIES 6 C. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12 (TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE) 12 - IV. CONCLUSION 13 7 EXHIBITS 14 i P- -19059 1 99999-0001 " f ~ 1 (tffF i - I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION ; • OWNERS: Dale G. Shrader, Trustee j 310 Third Avenue Issaquah, WA 98027 J j Gary Coe 6255 SW Sheridan Street Portland, OR 97225 *APPLICANTS' Mr. Michael C. Robinson REPRESENTATIVE: Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 ! Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: (503) 294-9194 i Facsimile: (503) 220-2480 . • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1S 1 33CA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and 1,000 j. I • CURRENT TIGARD M-H Residential { a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: P • CURRENT TIGARD R-25 ZONING ORDINANCE DESIGNATION: • PROPOSAL: Amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map from medium-high residential to community ~r commercial. 1 w' f{i 1 t FD%lA-9056 99999-0001 1 I f 1 . J ^ II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 1 A. SITE DESCRIPTION. This site contains 8.5 acres and consists of four tax lots under two separate ownerships. The site is bounded on the east by SW 135th: Avenue, on the north by Scholls ! Ferry Road and on the west by Old Scholls Ferry Road. See Exhibit 1). The southern portion of the property contains a greenway. To the north of Scholls Ferry Road is the city of Beaverton. The entire site is within the urban growth boundary. Scholls Ferry Road is J under Washington County's jurisdiction and is classified as a "major arterial." The other _ streets are under city of Tigard jurisdiction. I The site is currently vacant except for a residential structure. The land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. Property to the north is developed as residential use and is within the city of Beaverton. The property to the west is partly developed and partly undeveloped and is outside the city of Tigard. B. PROCESS AND AUTHORITY TO INITIATE APPLICATION. y i . - Application may be made by a recorded owner of the property. Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") 18.320.020(a)4. C. PROPOSAL. j The applicants request approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Once approved, the applicants will submit a later request for amendment in conformance with the ` Comprehensive Plan Map designation to the Community Commercial ("CC") zoning district j under TCDC Chapter 18.61. - D. PREAPPLICATION MEETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. TCDC 18.32.040(A) requires a preapplication meeting prior to submittal of a quasi-judicial application. The preapplication meeting to this application was held on March 28, 1996. l JI The applicant sponsored a neighborhood meeting on May 7, 1996 at the Mary ( Woodward Elementary School at 12325 SW Katherine Street. The meeting began at i J 6:30 p.m. and lasted until 8:15 p.m. and was attended by 17 residents. See Exhibit 2.) E. APPLICABLE CRITERIA. ! The applicable criteria for this quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ! are found in the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the TCP and Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). r 2 1 GDXIA-49058 1 99999-0001 I 1 ' 1 ...1 111 ~J I 7 A 4.r ~7N III. FINDINGS FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA. r. This section responds to the criteria applicable to this Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. j A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS. The Goals are applicable whenever an acknowledged comprehensive plan is amended. M The TCP is acknowledged. 1 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." RESPONSE: This goal is satisfied through provisions in the I acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation through notice and an i - opportunity for attendance of public hearings. Additionally, the applicant met with j neighborhood residents at a neighborhood meeting. This goal is satisfied. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning: "To establish a land use planning process y and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to ` ^ assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." E RESPONSE: This goal is satisfied because the acknowledged TCP and { TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. Further, Goal 2 rrm!irN~ j i 1-001-dination with 2ff rind go--mental aeenr;--S. The ciiy Of Tigard through its notification - i process will coordinate this application with, among other agencies, the Metropolitan Ser%ice j District ("Metro"), Tri-Met, Washington County and the city of Beaverton. While there t% j 7 no Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") facility near the site, the applicant I requested the city of Tigard notify ODOT of this application. i 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: "To preserve and maintain agricultural i lands." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because the site is not agriculture land as defined in the goals. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because the site is not forest land as defined in the goals. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural .Ji Resources: "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." i CC%iF-d➢G50 1 99999-0001 3 rf E J t ,..i RESPONSE: This site is not designated by the TCP as containing open space, scenic and historic areas or natural resources protected through the TCP, with the exception of the greenway area on the south side of the site. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." ^ RESPONSE: This application will not degrade the quality of the air of the state. The likely commercial uses are not "point source" generators of air pollution. The water quality of the state will not be degraded as a result of this application. Storm water runoff will be retained on site to allow for gradual filtration into the storm water system after the water has been cleansed. The land resources of the state will not be " degraded by this application. The site is not in farm or forest use and does not constitute an t' important resource for the state. This goal is satisfied. 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." RESPONSE: This site is not subject to natural events that could result in injury to persons or properties, such as stream flooding, ocean flooding, erosion, - landslides, earthquakes or hazardous soil conditions. This goal is satisfied. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the J' citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable to the site because it is not necessary to satisfy the recreational needs of the state. i . 9. Goal 9, Economic Development: "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." 1 f RESPONSE: This goal is satisfied because this application provides for a location for convenient shopping facilities that is presently not met in the area. See TCDC 18.610.010 "Purpose" of community and commercial zoning district.) The nearest shopping area to this site is approximately one-half mile west at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota. This large residential area adjacent to the site has no neighborhood shopping center for convenience shopping needs within walking or biking distance. This application satisfies the economic needs of surrounding residents. This goal is satisfied. PO1llA-<9058 I 99999-003 4 - a jl. OWN" - -71 10. Goal 10, Housing: "To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because this application does not „ propose residential development. Further, this application does not prevent Goal 10 from being implemented within the city of Tigard nor does it prevent the implementation of OAR 660-07-035(3) which requires the city of Tigard to provide for an overall density of 10 or snore dwelling units per net buildable acre. This goal is satisfied. i 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a t framework for urban and rural development." r. RESPONSE: The applicant will provide evidence demonstrating that adequate public services can be provided at the site, including police and fire protection services, sanitary sewer facilities, storm water facilities, public water supply and energy and communications facilities. This goal is satisfied. i 12. Goal 12, Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." RESPONSE: This application satisfies this goal because traffic from the site will not cause unsafe conditions on adjacent roads. (See Exhibit 3, Traffic Study by Tom Lancaster.) This goal is satisfied. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: "To conserve energy." E RESPONSE: This application satisfies this goal because it locates a commercial land use near residential uses, thereby encouraging reduced automobile trips and ! encouraging walking and bicycling to fulfill convenient shopping needs. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization, Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes, and -v Goal 19, Ocean Resources. { RESPONSE: These goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are adjacent to the site. Further, Goal 14 is inapplicable because the site is j within the urban growth boundary. 15. Conclusion. This Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment conforms to the applicable statewide planning goals. 1 PO%3R-99058 I 99999-0001 5 I B. APPLICABLE TCP POLICIES. 1. General Policy, Implementation Strategy 2: "The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map } which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved if the city council finds: "(a) The change is consistent with applicable plan } policy; "(b) A change of physical circumstance has occurred since the original designation; or } "(c) A mistake was made in the original land use _i designation." RESPONSE: The remainder of this application will explain why the application is consistent with applicable plan policies. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original plan map designation on this site in two ways. First, the area surrounding the site has developed many J additional residential dwelling units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping. l - Secondly, growth has occurred in the general area but no additional neighborhood j shopping centers have been developed in this immediate area. The planning commission and city council can find that given the changes over the last few years in this area that a need r-t for a community commercial plan map designation exists at the site in order to serve the surrounding area. tt Finally, the city council can find that a mistake was made in the original land use t designation. However, this implementation strategy does not require that all three strategies be satisfied. It simply requires that one of the three be satisfied. Nevertheless, the city council can make this determination based on evidence from past city officials. For } 1 J example, in an April 26, 1991 memorandum, then city manager Randy Wooley stated that this site at Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue was a more appropriate site for commercial zoning than a nearby site at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. See { f. Exhibit 4.) i , For these reasons, the planning commission can find that this quasi-judicial f a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment should be approved. f PO%lA-<905fl.1 99999-0001 6 - J j 1 I 2. Policy 3.1.1: i "The city shall not allow development in areas having 1 the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related j ; to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note: This policy does not apply to f lands designated as significant wetlands on the flood plain and { wetlands map.): "(a) Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under 4. chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code; "(b) Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; ' k I "(c) Areas subject to slumping, earth slides or movement; "(d) Areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent; or "(e) Areas having severe weak foundation swells." RESPONSE: The site has none of these physical characteristics with the possible exceptions of wetlands along the greenway. This policy does not prohibit the _ j city council from allowing development of the site as a community conuuercial shopping district. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. - 3. TCP Policy 4.1.1: 7 i "The city shall: "(a) Maintain and improve the quality of Tigard's air quality and coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce air pollution within the Portland-Vancouver air quality I maintenance area (AQMA). f RESPONSE: The application supports this policy because it reduces the need to travel by car for convenient shopping. Finding 2 under TCP Section 4.1, "air ^ quality" is "the major source of air pollution in Tigard is automobile emissions." Thus, an application such as this which has the potential to reduce travel by locating commercial needs i closer to residential areas will reduce the single greatest source of air pollution. The city 1 = council can find that this policy is satisfied. • P,^X1A-9099 1 99999-000t 1~ ~ . _ I 1 4. TCP Policy 5.4: "The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial i development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses." RESPONSE: This application does not provide for encroachment into residential areas. The site is separated from other residential areas by streets on three sides and a greenway on the south side. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. i 5. TCP Policy 8.1.1: - I "The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future E 1 growth and development." RESPONSE: Exhibit 3 contains the traffic study prepared for this application. The traffic study concludes that area intersections will operate at level of service "D" or better in the year 2005 with the traffic added by this site. The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue will require additional turning lanes to maintain level of j r service "D". Level of service "D" is an acceptable level of service adopted by Washington y County, the city of Tigard and ODOT. The study explains why the addition of traffic as a result of this application will not reduce in congested or unsafe streets. The city council can f find that this policy is satisfied. ' i 6. TCP Policy 8.1.3: "The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that: "(a) Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; "(b) Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; - "(c) The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city standards within the development; i "(d) Individual developers participate in the i improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impact; DD%lA-X9098.1 99999-OOD1 8 i ~ T e 9 ' "(e) Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or ' . intensify a traffic hazard; I J "(f) Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be { provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership." RESPONSE: The site abuts a publicly dedicated street, and the applicant will agree to provide improvements and dedication of right-of-way where the existing street is substandard or where a need is created by this application. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 7. TCP Policy 12.2.1(4)b, Locational Criteria for Community Commercial Use. i a. "Trade Area: Surrounding Residential and Neighborhoods ^ Generally Within a One and One-Half Mile Radius." "Trade area density: the surrounding area of potential residential density within one-half mile of the site to be J designated for community and commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre (as determined by the i zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community and j J commercial site. The intention of this criterion is to locate I community commercial sites within a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential frequent users of the establishments within the commercial center. This also will j - provide the residents of the surrounding area with an opportunity to provide for their commercial and service needs within a distance that is reasonable for walking or bicycling. 1 Lesser residential densities may or may [not] exist within the . assumed trade area at further distances from the site." RESPONSE: The area within one-half mile of the site is generally ` i zoned for medium and medium-high residential density. The medium density residential designation and medium-high residential designation provide for development greater than eight dwelling units per acre. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. b. "Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square feet gross 1 commercial floor area. Food sales up to 40,000 square foot per + establishment; general retail sales up to 10,000 square feet per i : . establishment as permitted uses; other commercial saves and ~ PO%1A-09090.1 99999-ODOl ~ I - V i t 1 J I j - service facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 square feet in size I per establishment." i RESPONSE: The applicant will propose a site development review application with specific uses following designation of the site for community and commercial. Nothing in either the TCP or TCDC requires that the Zoning Map Amendment be requested contemporaneously with the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The city council can find that this criterion is capable of being satisfied. I C. "Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection." ' RESPONSE: No other corner of this intersection is developed for commercial use. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. j d. "Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one- half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing - a similar separation from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses." _ RESPONSE: The commercial designation at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota are one-half mile from the site. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. f e. "The proposed community and commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety . J problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of f adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone." RESPONSE: The traffic study contained in Exhibit 3 demonstrates that the proposed community and commercial district will not create traffic congestion or a safety traffic problem. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. f. "The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The site should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial j or at the intersection of two major collector streets." i 10 - PD%SA-49050 1 95355.OOC3 n RESPONSE: The Comprehensive Plan Transporation Map, figure 3, shows that SW Scholls Ferry Road is an arterial and SW 135th Avenue is a minor collector. j The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. I i g. "The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size." i RESPONSE: The application meets this criterion with the deduction of i the greenway space providing a net size of more than two acres but less than eight acres. j The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. 7 h. "The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding use and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a site development review application contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to - site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, any of i - . the site, building and design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, I limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building _ design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclists access and safety and other building and site i design standards imposed by the City in the plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification of the site plan, as determined by the f i Community Development Code shall be processed as a j zone change. Other modifications shall be processed in l accordance with existing Code provisions." RESPONSE: The city council can find that this criterion must be I satisfied at the time of the request for zoning map amendment. It is clear that the comprehensive plan map and zone map designations need not be requested j contemporaneously since the section itself refers to "the plan amendment or rezoning process." i. "It is generally preferable that community and commercial site be developed as one unit with a coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, ..J 11 Pp%:>-49058 1 999og-0001 i1 J MURNMEMM r. H 1 I _i and landscaping. Parcels within a community and commercial site, however, may be developed independently although the city may require that development aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process." I RESPONSE: The city council can find that this policy is capable of ^ being satisfied at that time a zoning map amendment is requested. "Convenient pedestrian and bicyclists access to a I development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community and commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case i basis. Site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained." RESPONSE: The site will maintain privacy of adjacent non- j commercial uses because it is buffered on three sides by streets (two arterials and a minor collector) and wide greenway on the south. The council can find that this criterion is satisfied. ,J 11. The remaining three criterion all concern site design characteristics that the city council can find will be satisfied at the zoning map designation stage. Y CONCLUSION: The city council can find that the applicable TCP policies are satisfied by this application. C. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12 (TRANSPORTATION i _ PLANNING RULE) f OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: .n 1 "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses were consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of 1 service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: "(a) Limiting the allowed land use to be I consistent with the planned functions, capacity and level of service as a transportation facility; 1 PD%1A-49C56 1 99999-0 l 12 (CS 5 Ii "(b) Amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land use is consistent with the requirements of the division; "(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) The land use regulation amendments significantly affects the transportation facility if it: `J "(a) Changes the functional " classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; "(b) Changes the standard implementing afunctional classification system; j i J "(c) Allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access I which were inconsistent with the functional classification of the transportation facility; or i "(d) Would reduce the level of service j f of the facility below the minimum acceptable level 4 identified in the TSP." J RESPONSE: OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) are applicable in this application because it requests an amendment to the acknowledged Tigard Comprehensive i Plan. However, the application will not significantly affect any transportation facility. Under OAR 660-12-060(2), none of the four definitions of "significantly affect" are found. The transportation study findings demonstrate that the application will not allow types or J levels of land use which would result in levels of access or travel which are inconsistent with the functional classification of the transportation facility. Neither would the application result in level of service below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP which is in all cases level of service "B". For these reasons, the City Council can find that this criterion is i satisfied. 1! IV. CONCLUSION f The council can find that this application satisfies the applicable approval criteria. 1 " P~X1A-19056.1 99999-000t 13 4 _ o EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Area Map - Exhibit 2 Neighborhood Meeting Information Exhibit 3 Traffic Study i Exhibit 4 April 26, 1994 Memorandum from Randy Wooley, City Engineer j Exhibit 5 Application i 1 } I f r~ . { - I PD%lA-X9098.1 99999-0001 1 i - •~f 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY ?EGON SCALE V'= 100' ~ IS 1 33CA O GIN. Ci ' loo W s i r~0~ / Ir I a ISOO 77.44n 4 I I _ : 292.[- - _ ~ , ; . aou 1000 "t LJ 0 - \ ~ 292.90 Q I ` I r \I l 300 2,31 Ar- _ a. 10, ce OF. 3= 1 ' GS. 15,3EL0 % . ~J r, . 51-85 'i~..._.!$ (C.S. 21,834) f 400 292.6' u r .24 A,^ GREEN NAY s5' / o 12U.9p 9<!< „ I r 6t.9P J ~ 1001 700 2 2 t Ac _ 2.15 AG 160.9 EXHIBIT 1 ~ F , ~ i et, j AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. MY Or}~ { Portland ) David M. Demers being duly swom, depose and say that on A n, • 1 1996.., 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed k development at (or near) the corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road & SW 135th Avenue a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204 with postage prepaid thereon. Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE) Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the 23rd day of April , 1996. OFFICIALSEAL ~ N K NIOH7INOALE C j pypT~py PUBLIC-OREa~N corw,eLgsloNNO-as08t NOTARY PUklt Off OREGON/ f . rtv cowatlssooN s rlov. so. tg9e My Commission Expires: 11/20/99 ; J J (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) ~lVAbfE OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: Comprehensive Plan Flap Amendment- at 11035 SW 135th _Ave TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Comprehensive Plan Man Amenrim n . J Name ofApplicant/Owner- nale Shrader Tn,Stee + Address or General Location of Subject Property:_ 1 035 SW 1 35th Avern,e , Ti gnrri,_pg -------300 - ' - = & 1000 Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): ; --------P ------------i-s I - EXHIBIT 2 i STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S 1 1\\U:\KU I\SL K,\\('FCF\TFK - 4(NI SIVFIFTII A% F%LE. SUITE 2M1 - TTu•,1r1+11i1!-'l M111 F-5031221I-7"' - TV0.34 T, M-1045 April 22, 1996 4 MIcmm C. RoBtmoN Direa Dial (503) 294-9194 III mcrobll wnQs1oel.com Residents Within 250' of Subject Property Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for Property Located at 11035 SW 135th Avenue ` Dear Residents: I represent the owners of property located at 11035 SW 135th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The owners of the subject property are proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from M-H (Medium to High Density Residential) to C-C (Community Commercial). Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, my clients would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Tuesday, May 7, 1996: 6:30 p.m. Mary Woodward Elementary School 12325 SW Katherine Street, Tigard, OR Please note that this will be an informational meeting only. The application may be altered prior to its submittal to the City. I My clients look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, r Michael C. Robinson _ DMD/MCR/mloz PDX IA-29M.1 26409LMI . . i. . ~,.1111t I'..Ni1 ~I1 \1\1..t 11[. t\:\ - . • . _ - - _ 0.I r X1111. 11 llll 0C • f~ i I Abdullah Alkadl Bill Gross Kathie Kallio 11905 SW 125th Court 11035 SW 135th Avenue 12940 SW Glacier Lilly Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 i _ Ed Howden Bonne & Jim Roach Karl Swanson 11829 SW Moming Hill 14447 SW Twekesbury Dr. 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Clark G. Zeller Larry Westerman Christy Herr 13290 SW Shore Drive 13665 SW Fern Street 11386 SW Ironwood Loop _ Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 b Barbara Sattler June Sulffridge Beverly Fronde 11245 SW Morgen Court 15949 SW 146th Avenue 12200 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Kathy Smith Linda Masters Scott Russell 11645 SW Cloud Court 15120 SW 141st Avenue 31291 Raymond Creek Rd. Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Scappoose, OR 97056 Cal Woolery Blair M. Whitney Burton E. Grabhom 12356 SW 132nd Court Meredith J. Dailey 11493 SE 82nd Tigard, OR 97223 10800 SW 135th Portland, OR 97266 Beaverton, OR 97005 Villa Del Rey-Roswell LTD State of Oregon Village at Forest Glen 816 ME 87th Avenue Dept of Transportation Condominiums Vancouver, WA 98664 417 Transportation Bldg Owners of All Units Salem, OR 97310 PO Box 1408 Tualatin, OR 97062 Inez E. Alt Helen O. Tozer First Interstate Bank of OR, 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls By Vivian H. Powell Ferry Road, Unit 18 Ferry Road, #19 13775 SW Scholls Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Road, #20 Beaverton, OR 97008 Martha Rose Shirley Bertha V. Powell L. R. Debast 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Sholls 13775 SW Scholls Ferry Road, #21 Ferry Road Ferry Road, #17 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97008 Herbert Leo Dale G. Shrader, Trustee Gary R. Coe 13775 SW Old Scholls 310 3rd Avenue NE 11115 SW 135th Avenue Ferry Road, #14 Issaquah, WA 98027 Portland, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97005 City of Tigard Gary R. Nelson Leonard W. Davis 13125 SW Hall Patsy A. Nelson Mildred M. Davis PO Box 23397 11295 SW 135th Avenue 17855 SW Bany Road I Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Aloha, OR 97007 + PFI Sunflower Limited Inc. Frank H. Martenson, Dong H. Bails i By Pacific Harbor Capital Co-Trustee Yong Im Baik I 825 NE Mult. St., Ste 775 Dolores J. Martenson, 5675 Meridian Court Portland, OR 97232 Co-Trustee Lake Oswego, OR 97035 13900 SW Old Scholls - Ferry Road Beaverton, OR 97007 I Scholls Ferry Road LLC By Bowen Finan. Serv. Co. 111 SW Fifth Avenue Attn: Walter C. Bowen Portland, OR 97204 I j: An- r 1 ~t I AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE i ~ _ WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: 1 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 ST. Ball Boulevard - Tigard, OR 97223 E David M. Demers do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 11035 Sli 135th Avenue and did on the 73rd day of April 1996 personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for aComprehensive . Plan Map Amendment application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at 11035 SW 135th Avenue (state location you posted notice on property) i t ~ i S9°iLl-rF~.- Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZq _ Subscribed and swam/affirmed before me on the C7- 1 day of April ~g 96 - O ICIALScAL MK NIOHTINOALE - NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSIONNO.049o91 NOTARY PUB I F ORE N INY COM113VON EXPIRES NOV. 20. 1999 My Commission pires: (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) r- ------I NAMEOFPROJECTORPROPOSEDNAME: Plan Nap Amendment at 11035 SW 135th Ave ITYPE OFPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Plan May Amendment INameofApplicanUOwner. Dnlp ShraAar~Tr„arAO 1351-h Ave Tigard OR Address or General Location of Subject Property. 1 I TO 35 SW ISubjec-P per :.,api's1 au',...._ t 4(s ! slap it 15 33CA Lots 100,200. & 1000 ~ J - L---~ n.•rognpaay~manen~tpnu.mst 1 i "MEETING NOTICE" DALE SHRADER IS PROPOSING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT ~ FROM MEDUIM HIGH RESIDENTIAL (M--H) TO - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C-C) FOR PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION . - Prior to applying to the City of 77gard for necessary permits, the applicant would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting on: TUESDAY, MAY 71996 6:30 P.M. AT MARY WOODWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12325 SW CATHERINE ST. TIGARD, OR J PROJECT DEVELOPER CONTACT.• MICHAEL C. ROBINSON PHONE NUMBER: (503) 294-9194 Please note: This is an informational meeting on the preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City PDR1A-28740.1 26409 0001 i l - i - I SCHOLLS FERRY RETAIL CENTER Traffic Impact Study TIGARD, OREGON r ~I i _ I I t7 I { PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING J September, 1996 I. t J EXHIBIT 3 t NCASTER ENGINEERING Yl afflc SIY~les Planning Safety ~ t r SCHOLLS FERRY RETAIL CENTER Traffic Impact Study 7) J' Tigard, Oregon fft J. - ~REO PROF ~l ~~\S< Nr3ilNFF fs r - O GORE ~i 221 5 r~ ASR. LANG Prepared By TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. ( t_ J September, 1996 Union Station, Suite 206 • 800 N.W. 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 Phone (503) 248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 i I;~ R IASTERENGINEEBING TABLE OF CONTENTS 31 Introduction 3 Summary 4 ` Location Description 6 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 13 Operational Analysis 18 - Appendix 24 J - S J r L -2 71 i OSTER ENGINEERING 1 INTRODUCTION The Scholls Ferry Retail Center is a neighborhood retail development planned for the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and 135' Avenue in Tigard. It is likely to include uses such as a service station, small retail stores, shops, and small restaurants. 1 ^ " The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed amend- Resi- ment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from the existing Medium to High Density dential development to Community Commercial. The emphasis of the analysis is on the 'J effect on projected 2005 traffic volumes, which is the traffic planning horizon year for Washington County. j ..,1 i Detailed information on level of service definitions, traffic counts, trip genera- tion and distribution calculations, and level of service calculations is included in the ap- pcndix to this report. +j ..i ! J j -3- i 1 ' t 1 ICASTEN ENGSNEEBING y SUMMARY i 1. The 5.5-acre site for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center is proposed for a Comprehen- sive Plan Map amendment from Medium to High Density Residential, which would permit 138 apartment units, to Community Commercial, which would permit small businesses oriented toward the adjacent neighborhoods. 2. Due to the size, nature, and location of the proposed retail center, about 60 percent of the trips generated by the development will be pass-by trips. These are trips that are presently passing by the site on the adjacent streets that will stop at the center, then proceed in the original direction of travel. The remaining 40 percent of the trips will be either new trips added to the street system or existing trips that are diverted to the site from other streets. I ^t 3. Washington County and the City of Tigard require a minimum intersection level of service D. An analysis of three adjacent intersections (Scholls Ferry/130'", Scholls I Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, Old Scholls Ferry/Murray) shows that they will operate at level of service D or better in 2005 with the addition of traffic that will be generated by the retail site. A fourth intersection (Scholls Ferry/135'h) will require additional turning lanes to operate at level of service D or better with the addition of site-generated traffic r' to the projected 2005 volumes. All adjacent intersections will operate at level C or bet- 3 ter with the proposed improvements. 4. No roadway links on Scholls Ferry or Old Scholls Ferry will experience an increase ' 't in 2005 average daily traffic in excess of ten percent as a result of the Scholls Ferry Retail Center. dq ~ v t ; 1 .-11 j °z y pV _ o J I HGR OT \ E s¢Q cl. 1 s SCOUT OR. ST 9{L~! w CO ~ COOP i -JCT. CAR of z p O PtLt r" I a o WAY HARNESS R1 LN, i H IONGNORN LN- G ' i SARAIOG P _ OR, o ❑ CIR. \ CII(A- CALICO ROAN LN. 9q EpP Up. CI"-al CI. . ,'1 }t I !1 a o BUCKSKIN F Orys z v CTOLO a P = > - - T ^I ,n GIN 114M~ lN, n RAWHIDE w T C o $AN\ ~o o~ SPUR p UEDUC WEIR ¢RD. ¢T' 5 ANITA\C Tp - a" L1, o a RD CONESTOG Q' ~E THATCHER . 1 N WEIR " NII EON DR. HIT N 1/ 3 a CT. PER HERON LN. - ! _ HAYSi ACK OR. _ COMBINE ( COMB W' GALLOWAY CT, NE . I N-- - SNOWSHOE CT• L gpy LI • W n I LN, -n js oY CIEV ELAND ) rv - COTTONTTTAIL LN. o~ € I "~'~r~• ` ~ ~ L/ `~~d u w`T ARV pN F FERRY p _ COUGAR CH1L0 I CT - + CT. a~ v Y ! SCROLLS ;c SnRYNc < Oq 000 PROJECT SITE a 6q SOk I HAWKS BEAR fo* C,I Op \„~v\/) PO S~me GLACIER LT\.y CIR `O`` _ •~,I` eft _ _ _ reek / Stork LAKE• - 1 CT~ -mil Reservoir _ I wl, . I y 61 . / itPr M C OP` ! OU41L / ASHBURY LN. 6R1> P ! E =I\ SN° LN. t / C LN. LAURMORf t* L / CT, LAURMONTI I I / LP. MORNIN CON RISE OR, - \ / CHIT CT m~ 0 !f k4 THERINE ST, _J KATHERINE S NOON ; tt! RIOOF'MNEY CHIMNEY RIDGE WILLS PL . OR ± CO CHIMNEY ~ r ` J egIOGFTr•s a°RfpGF v x (1 a? D J - KAREN ST. " T OLATD' 2 ST, AVE gp OK ST B F /CT. ISH ST. T VICINITY MAP -LANCASTER ENGINEERING CASTER ENGINEERING LOCATION DESCRIPTION The Scholls Ferry Retail site, which is approximately 5.5 acres in size, is lo- cated in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and 135' Avenue in Tigard. There is frontage on 135' and on Scholls Ferry Road southwest of r Old Scholls Ferry Road, and a short section of frontage on Scholls Ferry Road between 'y { 135' and Old Scholls Ferry Road. The specific land uses to be proposed are not known at this time, but will be determined during the next stage of the permitting process. A worst-case situation was assumed for the purposes of this traffic report to include 31,000 sq ft of small stores, a 3500 sq ft fast food restaurant, a service station with a convenience market, and a 3500 -j sq ft drive-in bank. The present" Comprehensive Plan Map designation of the site is for Medium to i High Density Residential development. With the physical size limitations on the site it I is estimated that a maximum of 138 apartment units could be constructed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map designation is Community Commercial. - This designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities are not so large or so broad in f scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, but are large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. The trade area is generally within a 1.5-mile radius. I ` I The permitted gross floor area for Community Commercial developments is 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. Food sales may be up to 40,000 sq ft, general retail 1 sales may be up to 10,000 sq ft per use, and other commercial sales and service facili- ties may be up to 5,000 sq ft per use. I. r I Maps showing the existing land-use designations for the adjacent areas in both ! Tigard and Beaverton are included in the appendix to this report. I With a Community Commercial designation, it is expected that access to the site i will be provided from 135' Avenue and from Scholls Ferry Road southwest of Old y Scholls Ferry Road, but not from Scholls Ferry Road between 135' and Old Scholls j Ferry Road. -6- l t - L~ h ~ l 1 GASIEB ENGINEERING Scholls Ferry Road east of Old Scholls Ferry Road is a five-lane roadway with two through lanes in each direction and a center left-turn lane. It is under the jurisdic- i ; tion of Washington County. There are westbound right-turn lanes at 130'", 135, and Murray. SW 130" Avenue is a two-lane two-way street under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard south of Scholls Ferry and the City of Beaverton north of Scholls Ferry. The intersection of 130' and Scholls Ferry is controlled by a five-phase actuated traffic sig- nal with protected left turns on Scholls Ferry. SW 135'h Avenue is also a two-lane two-way street under the jurisdiction of the 6 City of Tigard south of Scholls Ferry and the City of Beaverton north of Scholls Ferry. The intersection of 135'h and Scholls Ferry is controlled by a five-phase actuated traffic signal with protected left turns on Scholls Ferry. Scholls Ferry Road southwest of Old Scholls Ferry Road is a two-lane two-way j roadway under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The T-shaped intersection of Scholls Ferry and Old Scholls Ferry is controlled by a three-phase traffic signal which is operated as part of the 135' Avenue traffic signal. There is a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane on the south leg of the intersection. f yl Old Scholls Ferry Road between Scrolls Ferry Road and Murray Boulevard is a i j ! five-lane roadway under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The intersection of Old f I Scholls Ferry and Murray is controlled by a six-phase actuated traffic signal with pro- l tected left turns on Old Scholls Ferry and split phasing on Murray. The south leg of the intersection is a dead end. ! The nearest roadway that is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of j J Transportation is the Highway 217 freeway, located 2.1 miles to the east of the Retail I Center site. The intersections of Scholls Ferry/130" and Scholls Ferry/135' are operated as { semi-actuated signals with a 125-second background cycle during the evening peak hour. It is expected that ultimately the signal at Old Scholls Ferry/Murray will also be - included in the signal system and will use the same cycle length. Manual turning movement traffic counts during the evening peak traffic hours i m were made at Scholls Ferry/130'", Scholls Ferry/135'x, and Old Scholls Ferry/Murray in Old Scholls Ferry (1995 plus a growth early 1996. Traffic volumes for Scholls Ferry/ factor) were obtained from the traffic impact study for Haggen Food and Pharmacy by 1y 11 ! C i UIlGA$TER ENGINEERING Kittelson & Associates, printed in 1995. The peak hour was found to be from 5 to 6 PM. As expected, the traffic counts show that the westbound traffic flow on Scholls _ Ferry is substantially higher than the eastbound flow during the evening peak. There is a high-volume westbound left-turn movement at 135'x, a high-volume westbound left- turn movement at Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, and a very-high-volume westbound right-turn movement at Murray. There are no heavy turning movements at 130'". Only the evening peak traffic hour was analyzed in this report for two reasons: (1) 2005 traffic projections for the morning peak hour are not available, and (2) the evening peak-hour traffic volumes are typically higher than the morning peak-hour traf- fic volumes and produce the worst-case situation for the traffic analysis. The traffic volumes for the evening peak hour for these four intersections are shown in the traffic flow diagram on the following page. The detailed count summaries are included in the appendix to this report. i i 77 ~J I -a- i- [ ~ i ;i !~7 n 1 1 n ~ e 1 190 850 200 480 m w Z rr olls Fe lci pld Sch ®a 70 n ° n ro9o 1960 !ll~~T T>1 zo ~ 1020 < 1590 N 10 20 30 320 ~-1,. 980 670 a pq 210 300 0 0 0 _ 0 cl, I~ ~f 4w I. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ,d 1996 PM Peak Hour LANCASTER ENGINEERING _ l rl IASTERENGINEERING I TRIP GENERATION + To estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the permitted apart- ment development and the proposed neighborhood retail center, trip rates were obtained i from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation r Engineers. The following ITE land-use codes, along with the basis for the trip genera- d .J tion calculations, were used: • Code 221: Low-Rise Apartment (no. of units) • Code 820: Shopping Center (sq ft) • Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window (sq ft) • Code 845: Service Station with Convenience Market (fueling positions) • Code 912: Drive-in Bank (sq ft) I 7 L-, 1 Although the site is served by regularly scheduled transit service, no reduction r in the trip generation was made for transit usage. Because the Retail Center will be ori- J ented toward the nearby residential neighborhoods, and because transit usage is typi- cally lower for shopping trips than for work commuter trips, the percentage of transit i ridership to the site is likely to be low and no attempt was made to estimate it. Because retail development of the site under Community Commercial land use is t11 required to be oriented toward serving the adjacent residential neighborhoods, it is I likely that many of the trips generated by the proposed retail uses will be pass -by trips, particularly during the evening peak hour. These are trips that are presently passing by ! the site that will stop at the development, then proceed in the original direction of the f trip. For example, a driver traveling home from work in the evening passing by the site p could stop at the site, then proceed home. These are trips that presently exist on the street system rather than new trips added to the streets. Based on (1) data in the TRIP GENERATION handbook, (2) the limited types and sizes of uses that are permitted un- der Community Commercial land use, and (3) the presence of an adjacent high-volume j commuter road (Scholls Ferry), it is estimated that about 60 percent of the trips gener- ated by retail development of the site will be pass-by trips, The remaining 40 percent of the trips will be new trips added to the street system. i The planned mixture of uses on the site will produce some multi-purpose trips. These are trips where a customer uses more than one of the businesses or services i -10- CASTER ENGINEERING within the site. For example, a driver could stop at the service station for fueling, then 1 stop at the fast-food restaurant for a meal. Because of the variety of uses that are antici- pated and that would be required by Community Commercial land use, it is conserva- tively estimated that about ten percent of the total number of trips that would be gener- ated by each individual use will be multi-purpose trips. The close proximity of the proposed retail uses to existing residences will en- courage walking and biking trips which will further reduce the number of vehicle trips f generated by the site. But because the percentage of walking and biking trips is difficult 3 to estimate accurately, no adjustment was made to the site trip generation for these trips. r A summary of the trip generation calculations is shown in the table on page 12. The table also shows the net increase in new trips that would result from the proposed { change in land use from residential to commercial. The detailed trip generation calcula- tions for each proposed land use are included in the appendix to this report. ' `I -11- ICASTEA ENGINEERING } TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY " I AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR u` LAND USE SIZE Enter Exit Enter Exit Existing Plan Designation a Apartments 138 units 13 52 53 27 Proposed Plan Designation LJI Shopping Center 31,000 sq ft 51 30 156 156 I Fast Food 3500 sq ft 100 96 67 61 I " Service Station 12 positions 61 61 80 80 'J Drive-in Bank 3500 sq ft 22 17 73 79 Subtotals 234 204 376 376 Internal Trips -10% -23 -20 -38 -38 Subtotals 211 184 338 338 Pass-By Trips -60% -126 -110 -203 -203 Totals 84 73 135 135 Net Increase 71 21 82 108 ~ I i i I -12- " E I i ® 1 STER ENGINEERING I TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of the trips generated by the proposed retail devel- opment was estimated separately for the new trips and the pass-by trips. The direction- ally distributed traffic was then assigned to the street system based on the routes most likely to be used by drivers considering both distance and travel time. The traffic as- - signment was made assuming access to both 135' Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road. - Because the proposed retail uses will be oriented toward adjacent residential neighborhoods, the distribution of the new trips was based on the locations and densi- ties of nearby neighborhoods. There are existing retail developments to the east and the west of the site, as shown on the map on page 14. Due to the presence of these existing retail centers, the primary market for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center will be the resi- dential area to the south of Scholls Ferry Road rather than to the east and west, and r' most of the new trips were distributed in that direction. I . j _ The pass-by trips were distributed in proportion to the existing volumes of traf- fic on the roadways near the site. For the evening peak hour, this means that the highest percentage of the pass-by trips will be from westbound traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. r. The diagram on page 15 illustrates the trip distribution that was applied to the new trips. The diagram on page 16 illustrates the trip distribution that was applied to the pass-by trips. r i The traffic flow diagram on page 17 illustrates the assignment to the street sys- tem of the net increase in trips during the evening peak hour. This assignment assumes that there will be access from the site to 135' and to Scholls Ferry southwest of Old Scholls Ferry. The assignment also accounts for the impact of the pass-by trips. jf i J -13 1 1 i' x I CpJ t'r Ll. /7 z J HAR IN \ m tQ¢ Scour I~ • g OR. Sr LIOJ CO fr, t~!,k. - o P t LOrlf,IlilnlJ LrJ. ' z o 11AY IIARNE SSC AR0.t~~ LN• c F ~~~UUU^ -I I,._aLIC . OR. SARATOC \ ninr5;L- 3 o. CIR• CT \ 3 or flTAN LIJ. lEP0. rIL.^nI LI D4y oR• a BUCKSKIN 4 O ? _ t i ❑ POLO ^ C) S ° \ ° r.IN nri~ l'r j{ C1l..l + A711 101 o w T $ANTP ~N - YQ Stun D DUC ) HEIR ¢RD. C.~■ `o= ( p91 Wt• J i_ ANIT A\C 1~ - Dn. f.l. . L J L n d I w ! r9 RD•\ COUESTOOA - - 1 a~ ?'¢v✓/ P~ `THATCHER IOW 1 - 7 `n ON OR.IIEIRHIT N HIIE n~ f" a1 rr~NEnOrI I.N. CT. HAYS.ACK OR. I w(•~ V COMBINE GALLOWAY C1, COMB rJE 51• - - - 71 SNOrrSLNHOE C1~ r~ Lw) DpY 7. c - h . -a .J LEVELAHD 1 _ 1 ~ wIY~~ - COTTONTAIL IN.o--JJ I ARP pH ~ TEnR-r J V 6 w- GREENWAY 1 MUR AYHILL ~oucP ~CHlc`rnt~ `T TOWN _ MARKETPLACE CENTER vG„R / PROJECT SITE Aq+r4 / IIANKS BEPR ( ~Np. I r-- RO Cr GE4CfFR l\lV CI~~1 C~ C ' Summer eek ~o`• ! " . - A MIlLV1Ew Cr.~ ' - ~ ~ c x SfOrk , ReservDTr . / l•'1' - - swvER { o S Va ASHBURY LN. All OWLL / - P \ I\ SJ° LN. FEIRING LN. ! J / I H, AURMONI I r / lP. MORNIN N v CON RISE OR• / / CRISt CT m~ 0 K4 TNERINE ST. J 1 KA1Hm4 S1 , CJR HINDON M•ve, I CT. RfDGF CHIMNEY RIDGE WILLS PL Cf OR. , /NrJ ' CHIM Cr. 1 F 1' ~ U :`n DRfO rr'5 L ,a'RIDG ? F DR o F KAnEN ST. - TOLAND • z Sf• ►VE _ RR Ok CT. BENI ST . EXISTING RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS LANCASTER ENGINEERING j -14- 1 L~ J r- l ~M1 1, e M a hops Fern 7 Old So Y ror. ~ 00 i 0 0 20% I 0 o 40~~ E 30~x IJ~LJ h o r`^C0 f w., TRIP DISTRIBUTION LANCASTER ENGINEERING New Trips s- MVCGSO1pm... VCO L),,,Jif ~ o. Ea 25x ul lOv. 20x j m Old S°hOlls Fell ' M YYf 35x 45v. ~ D U~ r ! I I j i TRIP DISTRIBUTION I " LANCASTER ENGINEERING Pass-By Tries _ e I LL ~ ~61 a ~ m Ferr olls - i Old Sch 4 t14-~ { ~ u ~l -3 ~Gi -71 -91 1,1,,11, e 76 108 LOJ~ O V 1 ~i IJLJ 0 f (7 f 1 f I+} a°io O ~ I I ~ .J I I _ I i TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASE FANCZASTER ENGINEERING Net Increase from Site Development i , I - ~ ~ v,vc.edia~on~.vca ~mnue -17- . STER ENGINEERING I J~ 111 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS I Traffic Projections The analysis period specified for this project by Washington County is the 2005 a evening peak hour. The year 2005 is the analysis year because this is the year on which i the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is based. Any proposed amend- r ment to the Comprehensive Plan is required to analyze the impact on projected 2005 I traffic and the roadway system planned for that year. However, there are no 2005 traf- -J fic projections available directly. To estimate 2005 peak-hour traffic, EMME/2 model projections were obtained from Washington County for 1994 and 2015. One-half of the Y difference between the 1994 and the 2015 projections was then added to actual 1996 i j traffic volumes. i t 3 -i `3 The 2015 model run was based on the roadway network which is expected to be l in place in 2005. This includes modification of the west intersection of Scholls j Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, but does not include the Murray extension or the relocation of f Scholls Ferry to Davies Road. The calculated 2005 volumes were then modified to reflect the planned comple- tion of the connection between 130" Avenue and Winter Lake Drive in Tigard. The volumes on 135' were decreased and the volumes on 130' increased in accordance with the report titled 130T"/WINTERLAKE CONNECTION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, printed by { Lancaster Engineering in July, 1994. j J The adjusted projected 2005 evening peak-hour volumes are shown in the dia- gram on page 19. j _ The net increase in trips that would be generated by the proposed Scholls Ferry Retail Center were then added to the projected 2005 traffic volumes. This total volume of 2005 traffic plus site trips for the evening peak hour is shown in the diagram on page i 20. i - -18- 1 Y 375 1080 n 375 720 E Ferr v 1 Old Scholls 10 80 !l~T T~1 10 50 1315 1900 20 25 40 350 1265 go t Qy 300 400 u o >1 I l o ~ N V O 2005 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS i UNCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour i -19- .j e I I _ 375 Fin-R7-1 m 384 731 h Ferr Old 5,1,011s y _ 24 80 ~9 1360 2543 T~1 0 50 1918 20 40 25 \ ^I 40 347 pg4 r K974 I 'Vi h 376 508 L-^ILI i 1 0 ~ I N N . i C7 N p N I 1 1 I ~ 2005 PLUS SITE TRAFFIC f ' LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour f 4 ~KMCIpwiSKO 7nfllflf -20- i M six a ILUDSTER ENGINEERING j = Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis of the nearby intersections shows that, with some roadway improvements, all can be made to operate at level of service D or better in 2005 with the Retail Center i As required by Washington County staff, a comparison of the projected 2005 t traffic volumes plus site trips was made with the roadway capacity as assigned by the i transportation model. A detailed capacity analysis was made of the four adjacent inter- sections: ! • Scholls Ferry and 130' • Scholls Ferry and 135h • Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry • Old Scholls Ferry/Murray j ? "J The intersections were analyzed using the HIGHWAY C.9PA= MANUAL, _ Special Report 209, Third Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. f The level of service at each intersection is based on the average delay per vehicle. The - existing cycle length of 125 seconds was used for the analysis. The four intersections were first analyzed using projected 2005 traffic volumes ! without the Scholls Ferry Retail Center. The intersections were then analyzed using projected 2005 volumes plus the retail center. I _ The results of the capacity analysis show that the intersections of Scholls Ferry/130'", Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, and Old Scholls Ferry/Murray will oper- ate at level of service D or better in 2005 with or without the Scholls Ferry Retail Cen- ter. i The intersection of Scholls Ferry/135' will require improvements to attain level j of service D or better with 2005 traffic plus site trips. The construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135' and a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135` will result in level of service C. This will require two southbound lanes on 135" to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. i J -21- i t ;J - 1 1AN STEA ENGINEERING If the net new evening peak-hour trips added to the street system from the retail development are compared to the projected 2005 traffic volumes, the increase from the retail development is typically about one percent for each link of Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road. If the evening peak hour is approximately ten percent of i _J the average daily traffic, it is clear that traffic volumes on none of the links on Scholls Ferry or Old Scholls Ferry will be increased by as much as ten percent as a result of the retail center. - The level of service at an intersection is based on the average delay per vehicle for all vehicles entering the intersection. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the levels of service and the average delays for each intersection, are shown in the fol- lowing table. IJ I V I i V _1 I { j -22- ' ~i . . i i IAdGASiER ENGINEERING i CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM Peak Hour LEVEL OF AVERAGE SERVICE DELAY* Scholls Ferry1130th 2005 Traffic C 16 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips C 16 j Scholls Ferry/135th j 2005 Traffic D 26 r 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips F - i , 2005 plus Site with Improvements** C 24 Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry 2005 Traffic B 6 i 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips B 6 u Old Scholls Ferry/Murray i 2005 Traffic C 17 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips C 17 L *Average delay in seconds per vehicle for all vehicles entering each intersection. I Eastbound right-turn lane, westbound double left. I -23- W, 7 i ;^J STS ENGIHEMIHG 77 f , i _i j APPENDIX J; 1 i i -24- 1 { { :CASTER ENGINEERING 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE , Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service ; A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. - Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: i Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. U Level of service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; i - short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to a signifi- cant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This - is the recommended design standard for rural highways. { 1 Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle - failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are notice- able. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. { Level of service F.• Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered un- acceptable by most drivers. - 1 ~l I t~ 1 ~ IAN6STER ENGINEERING 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA j FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) a A <5 B 5-15 C 15-25 y D 25-40 ' J E 40-60 F > 60 'r LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA E ' i FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS j J - ^ LEVEL STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <5 I - B 5-10 C 10-20 D 20-30 E 30-45 F >45 I ,ti - { •y d. i 1 u u T R F F. 1 C - 19 I T G , l INTERSECTION TURN PdQE~L.NIGIJ'P COUNT SUMMARY REPORT l hIURRl{Y BOULEV'RD AT ,OLD SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD • T= 1.6% P='.89i-'' ! - - N 1067 • DATE OF.COUNT: 02/28/96 O 11039, DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 368 5 694 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 Ii a-899 al t► (-1325 189 L846 204 a--479 _ P=.881 P=.907 2 3 10 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY-VOLUME j • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH al f' P=PHF BY APPROACH! 395 ► 901. 2 4 3 Peak Hour I7 16:55-17:55 Traffic' Smithy, + T= 0% P=.45 19 TEV=2796 Traffic Survey-Seryig'. EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ • FROM - TO L ALL 16:00-1.6:05 0 27 8' 2B 1 38 0 0 1 0 30 54. 187 16:05-16:10 0 18 12 23 1 54 0 1 1 1 25 48 184 16:10-16:15 0 24 19 25 0 38 0 0 0 0 43 47 +196 , 16:15-16:20 0 12 21 21 0 43 0 2 0 0 33 46 178 16:20-16:25 0 20 23 37 0 84 0 0 0 0 23 57 244 16:25-16:30 0 23 22 25 0 57 0• 0 0 0 29 38 ,194 16:30-1.6:35 0 20 13 34 0 47 0 0 0 0 28 46 1188 16:35-16:40 0 29 12 32 0 49 0 0 0 0 36 56214 16:40-1.6:45 0 16 1.6 31 0 43 0 0 2 3 39 70 •220 16:45-16:50 0 16 27 22 0 43 0 0 0 0 34 65`!207 - 16:50-16:55 0 13 16 35 0 56 0 0 0 0 39 63 1222 16:55-17:00 0 19 18 27 0 45 0 0 0 0 40 71 .220 ; j J 17:00-17:05 0 18 21 30 1 43 0 0 1 0 33 56 203 ' 17:05-17:10 0 18 18 25 0 69 0 0 0 0 31 60:221 - 17:10-17:15 0 21 10 35 0 74 0 0 1 0 51• 87 '279 17:15-17:20 0 17 16 26 0 55 0 0 0 0 47 61 1222 17:20-17:25 1 14 13 24 0 59 0 1 0 0 43 76 !231 17:25-17:30 0 14 15 39 0 63 0 0 0 0 43 68 242 17:30-17:35 0 9 21 24 1 45 1 0 0• 0 42 79 222 1'7:35-17:40 0 18 9 47 0. 71 0 0 0 0 36, 72 253 17:40-17:45 0 20 14 21 0 47 0 0 0 0 35 71 !208 17:45-17:50 1 14 13 45 2 66 0 1 1. 0 36 77 ;256 17:50-17:55 0 22 21 25 1 57 1 2 0 0 42 68 -239 17:55-1.8:00 0 15 25 29 1 41 0 0 1 0 36 .60 °208 I I , 't'otal Survey 2 437 403 71.0 8! 1287 .2 7 8 4 . 874 1496 528 PHF .5 .89 .83 81 .42 88 .5 .33 .38 0 .85 94 :954 'T'rucks 0 3 4 2.4 0 1..2 0 0 0 0 .3 1.3 .1.6 V Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pads 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 j Hourly 'I'Gtals------._ ~ ; 16:00-17:00 0 237 20'7 340 2 597 0 3 4 4 399 661 2454 16:15-17:15 0 225 217 354 1 653 0 2 4 3 416 715 2590 16:30-1.7:30 1 215 195 360 1 646 0 1 4 3 464. 779. ! 16:45-17:45 1 197 198 355 2' 670 1 1 2 0 474.'829.'2730 1.7:00-18:00 2 200 196 370 6 690 2 4 4 0 475 835.21784 J INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT 1 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AT 130TH AVENUE ♦ T= .8o P=.738 N 162 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 06/11/96 0 181 DAY OF WEEK: Tue R 27 1 34 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H A-1986 -dj L► -4-2029 11 J X70 T= 2.70 T= 1.40 1088-► .4-1957 P=.912 P=.941 0 2 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ~•1 r►r P=PHFUBY APPROACC.EIOACH 1099-0. 1123-► 2 0 1 Peak Hour I3 ♦ 17:00-18:00 Traffic Smithy i T= 0% P=.75 13 TEV=3193 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO '1 I r' _ L T ALL 16:00-16:05 0 76 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 12 219 16:05-16:10 0 105 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 128 7 244 16:10-16:15 0 83 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 105 3 200 16:15-16:20 0 88 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 132 4 231 16:20-16:25 0 84 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 105 1 198 16:25-16:30 0 96 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 138 11 247 16:30-16:35 0 106 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 114 10 238 16:35-16:40 0 97 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 145 3 253 16:40-16:45 0 84 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 147 2 242 16:45-16:50 0 101 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 116 1 222 16:50-16:55 0 86 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 139 4 235 16:55-17:00 0 101 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 141 11 260 17:00-17:05 0 109 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 121 3 237 17:05-17:10 0 87 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 179 7 278 0 17:10-17:15 0 87 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 156 6 258 17:15-17:20 0 70 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 171 9 255 jI 17:20-17:25 0 85 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 178 8 276 17:25-17:30 0 88 0 2 0 3 0 0 G 0 139 2 234 17:30-17:35 0 98 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 205 7 316 17:35-17:40 0 112 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 137 3 260 17:40-17:45 0 79 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 161 4 250 17:45-17:50 0 95 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 180 9 290 17:50-17:55 0 97 1 4 0 5 1 0 0 1 135 7 251 17:55-18:00 0 81 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 195 5 288 j I i i. { Total Survey 0 2195 23 52 1 70 3 0 2 4 3493 139 5982 i - PHF 0 91 .69 75 .25 .77 .5 0 .25 .5 94 .76 .962 % Trucks 0 2.7 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 1.8 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 - Hourly Totals" 16:00-17:00 0 1107 12 25 0 36 1 0 1 2 1536 69 2789 i 16:15-17:15 0 1126 10 24 0 40 1 0 0 2 1633 63 2899 16:30-17:30 0 1101 10 26 0 37 1 0 0 1 1746 66 2988 i - 16:45-17:45 0 1103 10 23 0 33 1 0 1 2 1843 65 3081 17:00-18:00 0 1088 11 27 1 34 2 0 1 2 1957 70 3193 F 1 - 1 1 1 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT - SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AT 135TH AVENUE III a T= 1.2% P=.734. DATE OF COUNT: 06/12/96 N ~47 136 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 14 32 1 TIME STARTED: 16:00 TIME ENDED: 18:00 T H -4-1790 ,3 ~ L► .4-1894 14 J X17 T= 3.2% T= 1.60 980 4-1572 P=.913 P=.923 212 305 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME Z ♦ j T=%;TRUCKS BY APPROACH -4-1 I P=PHF BY APPROACH 1206-► 1164-1- 204 5 183 Peak Hour 1549 . 17:00-18:00 Traffic Smithy i T= 2.8o P=.875 1392 TEV=3539 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND J! FROME - TO ~3 j ~l r r L ALL 16:00-16:05 23 72 0 0 2 0 3 1 14 16 87 1 219 16:05-16:10 13 58 1 0 2 1 16 2 19 25 83 1 221 16:10-16:15 15 76 0 1 1 0 7 0 21 22 129 2 274 16:15-16:20 9 85 0 1 3 0 17 0 11 19 89 0 234 16:20-16:25 9 78 1 0 1 1 14 1 11 24 135 2 277 16:25-16:30 15 73 0 0 1 1 19 0 17 9 93 0 228 16:30-16:35 25 65 2 0 0 4 13 0 8 23 108 1 249 16:35-16:40 20 94 2 0 0 2 10 0 8 17 113 0 266 16:40-16:45 12 81 0 0 4 1 17 2 12 10 108 2 249 16:45-16:50 20 98 0 0 1 1 6 0 14 27 127 3 297 16:50-16:55 20 83 2 2 4 0 10 0 16 15 102 1 255 - 16:55-17:00 11 80 0 1 0 0 15 0 8 23 123 4 265 17:00-17:05 22 87 0 1 3 0 7.7 0 14 16 107 0 267 17:05-17:10 1s 73 1 0 3 0 23 1 16 28 117 0 275 17:10-17:15 14 74 1 1 1 0 14 1 14 24 123 1 268 E 17:15-17:20 23 P.3 1 2 2 0 11 1 14 24 166 1 328 17:20-17:25 13 58 1 3 6 0 15 0 11 22 151 0 280 17:25-17:30 22 112 1 1 1 0 24 0 12 22 120 4 319 17:30-17:35 18 61 1 0 3 0 23 1 16 19 113 1 256 17:35-17:40 14 86 0 2 1 0 16 0 15 35 141 1 311 17:40-17:45 15 89 1 3 2 1 10 0 27 20 159 2 329 17:45-17:50 12 58 0 1 6 0 25 0 19 38 117 0 276 - 17:50-17:55 24 126 5 0 1 0 7 0 12 22 127 5 329 17:55-18:00 22 73 2 0 3 0 19 1 13 35 131 2 301 r j Total Survey 404 1923 22 19 51 12 351 11 342 535 2869 34 6573 PHF .91 .9 .5 .58 .8 .25 .81 42 75 .8 89 .61 .947 o Trucks 2 3.4 0 0 2 0 2 18.2 3.2 .9 1.7 0 2.3 j Stopped Buses 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Peds 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 0 11 0 Hourly Totals t 16:00-17:00 192 943 8 5 19 11 147 6 159 230 1297 17 3034 16:15-17:15 190 971 9 6 21 10 175 5 149 235 1345 14 3130 16:30-17:30 215 988 11 11 25 8 175 5 147 251 1465 17 3318 16:45-17:45 205 984 9 16 27 2 184 4 177 275 1549 18 3450 17:00-18:00 212 980 14 14 32 1 204 5 183 305 1572 17 3539 i i i 1 1 I In- - I LANCASTER ENGINEERING ~ t TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Low-Rise Apartment Land Use Code: 221 Variable: Occupied Dwelling Units Variable Value: 138 i i _ AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR I Trip Rate: 0.47 Trip Rate: 0.58 G.. I Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total t . Directional Directional Distribution 0.2 0.8 Distribution 0.66 0.34 Trip Ends 13 52 65 Trip Ends 53 27 80 WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 6.59 Trip Rate: 6.07 i . Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional " Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 i j Trip Ends 455 455 909 Trip Ends 419 419 838 7 Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition tLANCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Shopping Center Land Use Code: 820 - Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Leasable Area Variable Value: 31.0 4. i i f AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: Ln (7) = 0.589Ln (X) + 2.378 Trip Rate: Ln (7) =0.637Ln (X) + 3.553 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.63 0.37 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends 51 30 82 Trip Ends 156 156 311 7 WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: Ln(7)=0.625Ln(X) +5.985 Trip Rate: Ln(7)=0.498Ln(X) + 6.212 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 - Trip Ends 1700 1700 3399 Trip Ends 1379 1379 2758 ` Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Ed;tion i - mom • I i WSTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window Land Use Code: 834 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 3.50 ,t. AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR - Trip Rate: 55.9 Trip Rate: 36.6 J~ Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.51 0.49 Distribution 0.52 0.48 Trip Ends 100 96 196 Trip Ends 67 61 128 WEEKDAY SUNDAY - Trip Rate: 710 Trip Rate: 543 ~f - Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends 1243 1243 2485 Trip Ends 950 950 1901 I Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition , i ISTER ENGINEERING ~a TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS I i I Land Use: Service Station with Convenience Market Land Use Code: 845 Variable: Vehicle Fueling Positions Variable Quantity: 12 h,. 7 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 10.1 Trip Rate: 13.4 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional i . Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5. Trip Ends 61 61 121 Trip Ends 80 80 161 WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 163 Trip Rate: 0 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends 978 978 1956 Trip Ends 0 0 0 f Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition (1995 Update) I LANCASTER ENGINEERING 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Drive-in Bank Land Use Code: 912 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 3.5 J II AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 11.2 Trip Rate: 43.6 "y Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total a Directional Directional Distribution 0.56 0.44 Distribution 0.48 0.52 I - 7 Trip Ends 22 17 39 Trip Ends 73 79 153 I J ~ ~ i WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 265 Trip Rate: 18.9 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 I ; Trip Ends 464 464 928 Trip Ends 33 33 66 1 U Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition j ~ i u jU4l13CASTEA ENGINEERING i TRIP DISTRIBUTION Existing Zoning AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY - Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total - ENTERING K~ From: NW 25% 3 0 3 25% 13 0 13 25% 114 0 114 7 S 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 i E 45% 6 0 6 45% 24 0 24 45% 205 0 205 W 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 i J SW 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 TOTAL 100% 13 0 13 100% 53 0 53 100% 455 0 455 i ~ i EXITING G, To: NW 25% 13 0 13 25% 7 0 7 25% 114 0 114 S 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 E 45% 23 0 23 45% 12 0 12 45% 205 0 205 W 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 SW 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 TOTAL 100% 52 0 52 100% 27 0 27 100% 455 0 455 J Pass-By Percentage: 0% i i J 1 i 111l1CASTE8 ENGINEERING TRIP DISTRIBUTION Proposed Zoning Pass-By Trips AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total ENTER . From: NW 25% - 32 53 25% 51 85 25% 0 0 0 S 10% - 13 21 10% 20 34 10% 0 0 0 ti E 45% 57 95 45% 91 152 45% 0 0 0 1 ! W 10% 13 21 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 C" 1 SW 10% 13 21 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 TOTAL 100% 84 127 211 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 EXIT To: NW 25% 28 46 25% 51 85 25% 0 0 0 S 15% 17 28 15% 30 51 15% 0 0 0 E 30% 33 55 30% 61 101 30% 0 0 0 W 20% 22 37 20% 41 68 20% 0 0 0 SW 10% 11 18 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 11+1 _ TOTAL 100% 74 110 184 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 ( Pass-By Percentage: 60% 111 l i 1 6 V'~ }1dNCA5TER ENGINEEP.ING TRIP DISTRIBUTION Proposed Zoning New Trips AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total ! ENTER From: NW 10% 8 21 10% 14 34 10% 0 0 0 J S 30% 25 63 30% 41 101 30% 0 0 0 E 30% 25 63 30% 41 101 30% 0 0 0 J W 10% 8 - 21 10% 14 34 10% 0 0 0 ` SW 20% 17 42 20% 27 68 20% 0 0 0 TOTAL 100% 84 127 211 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 J EXIT To: NW 10% 7 18 10% 14 34 10% 0 0 0 S 30% 22 55 30% 41 101 30% 0 0 0 E 30% 22 - 55 30% 41 101 30% 0 0 0 i i, W 10% 7 18 10% 14 - 34 10% 0 0 0 SW 20% 15 37 20% 27 - 68 20% 0 0 0 i TOTAL 100% 74 110 184 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 " - Pass-By Percentage: 60% i ~ I I. i I ~ I i HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transporcation Streets: (E-W) Scholls Ferry Rd (N-S) 130th Ave Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS6.HC9 .,.,,,Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak - Comment: 2005 without site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2< 1 2 1 > 1 < > 1 < Volumes 10 1345 10 50 2540 80 15 10 15 35 10 35 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Sinal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds WE Left * SB Left - Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right J SB Right WE Right Green 4.OA 90.OA Green 19.OA l Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Cycle Lengthe 125 secs Phase-combination-order-#1-#2-#5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts -Cap --Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 71 1770 0.155 0.040 37.5 D 5.2 B TR 2793 3837 0.536 0.728 5.0 A ! WE L 71 1770 0.749 0.040 51.3 E 21.0 C T 2798 3843 1.004 0.728 21.0 C R 1152 1583 0.073 0.728 3.2 A NB LTR 227 1418 0.190 0.160 29.4 D 29.4 D SB LTR 228 1422 0.374 0.160 30.8 D 30.8 D Intersection Delay = 16.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.884 „ t I i i J i 77 1 F"" . j -1 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Scholls Ferry Rd (N-S) 130th Ave ^ Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSSI.HC9 w,J Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 with site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _ L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 > 1 < > 1 < < Volumes 24 1360 10 ' 50 2543 80 15 10 15 35 10 49 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 r Si nal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds i NB Right ES Right SB Right WB Right Green 4.OA 90.OA Green 19.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS { J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EB L 71 1770 0.353 0.040 38.4 D 5.6 B TR 2793 3837 0.542 0.728 5.0 A WB L 71 1770 0.749 0.040 51.3 E 21.2 C 1' 2798 3843 1.005 0.728 21.2 C R 1152 1583 0.073 0.728 3.2 A NB LTR 224 1403 0.192 0.160 29.4 D 29.4 D SB LTR 228 1423 0.439 0.160 31.5 D 31.5 D Intersection Delay = 16.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical V/c(x) = 0.896 t Ids- 1 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS7.HC9 Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 without site, no improvements I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R i No. Lanes 1 2< 1 2 1 > 1 1 > 1 < - Volumes 20 1265 300 400 2065 25 175 20 175 10 30 10 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations - Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right - Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * j Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds NB Right * * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 3.OA 27.OA 55.OA Green 24.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 7 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 t. _i Intersection Performance Summa-- Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS J EB L 57 1770 0.371 0.032 39.2 D 43.0 E TR 1673 3734 1.034 0.448 43.1 E WB L 496 1770 0.849 0.280 32.5 D 13.6 B t T 2675 3843 0.854 0.696 10.3 B - R 1102 1583 0.024 0.696 3.8 A NB LT 244 1222 0.839 0.200 46.0 E 30.1 D R 760 1583 0.242 0.480 12.4 B SB LTR 292 1459 0.185 0.200 26.9 D 26.9 D Intersection Delay = 25.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.936 j i f HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation i Streets: (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS2.HC9 I Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak - Comment: 2005 with site, no improvements Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L -T-- -R-- L -T-- R -L-- -T-- R -L-- -T-- -R No. Lanes 1 2< 1 2 1 > 1 1 > 1 < Volumes 20 1194 376 508 1974 25 264 20 265 10 30 10 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * ~a Thru * Thru Right * Right - Peds Peds ' WB Left * * SB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds j NB Right * * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 3.OA 27.OA 51.OA Green 28.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 J Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 57 1770 0.371 0.032 39.2 D * * j TR 1541 3705 1.126 0.416 * * k, WB L 496 1770 1.079 0.280 T 2552 3843 0.855 0.664 11.7 B R 1051 1583 0.025 0.664 4.6 A NB LT 290 1249 1.032 0.232 81.2 F 47.7 E R 810 1583 0.344 0.512 11.8 B I SB LTR 309 1330 0.175 0.232 24.9 C 24.9 C j Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = (g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable. i I r HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS3.HC9 Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak i Comment: 2005 with site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound i L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 2 1 > 1 1 > 1 < Volumes 20 1194 376 508 1974 25 264 20 265 10 30 10 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 J RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 _ Signal O erations j ' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left Thru * * Thru * = Right * * Right Peds Peds NB Right * * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 4.OA 23.OA 45.OA Green 37.OA I. Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summa - Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS J ES L 71 1770 0.297 0.040 38.0 D 28.2 D T 1414 3843 0.933 0.368 29.4 D R 583 1583 0.680 0.368 23.7 C WB L 906 3539 0.608 0.256 26.9 D 23.1 C k' T 2244 3843 0.972 0.584 22.3 C R 924 1583 0.028 0.584 7.1 B NB LT 397 1306 0.753 0.304 30.8 D 20.5 C z R 886 1583 0.315 0.560 9.6 B SB LTR 422 1388 0.128 0.304 20.4 C 20.4 C I Intersection Delay = 24.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.871 ~J i h r HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-26-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) New Scholls Ferry Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS4.HC9 Area Type: Other 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 with site I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 2< 1 2 1 1 Volumes 1325 40 347 1918 20 265 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0~ Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 { Signal operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 r...r EB Left NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * * Thru } Right Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 35.OA 62.OA Green 20.OP Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 f Cycle -Length-------- #5 Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS j EB TR 1928 3826 0.783 0.504 7.0 B 7.0 B t ` WB L 510 1770 0.716 0.288 23.8 C 3.7 A Fro- T 3136 3843 0.676 0.816 0.2 A NB L 241 1770 0.087 0.136 35.9 D 19.0 C - R 709 1583 0.393 0.448 17.8 C Intersection Delay = 5.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B jT - Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.960 a i i L~ d r7--- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 09-19-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) New Scholls Ferry Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS9.HC9 Area Type: Other ouk 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 with site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 2< 1 2 1 1 Volumes 1315 40 350 1900 20 270 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 - Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations _ Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WE Left * SB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 35.OA 62.OA Green 20.OP Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 L a` Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: I Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS . J EB TR 1928 3826 0.776 0.504 6.9 B 6.9 B WE L 510 1770 0.722 0.288 24.0 C 3.7 A T 3136 3843 0.670 0.816 0.2 A NB L 241 1770 0.087 0.136 35.9 D 19.1 C R 709 1583 0.400 0.448 17.8 C Intersection Delay = 6.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.658 1 ! ! J j 1 1 _ i 1 HCM. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 08-01-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) Murray Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSSI0.HC9 `,._,/Area Type: Other 7-31-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 without Site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. Lanes 1 2< 1 2 1 1 2< 1> 2 1 Volumes 375 384 2 1 720 1080 2 4 3 810 5 435 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.003.00 3.00 3.00 - Signal operations Phase CCmb4-t-inn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 , EB Left * * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right * E.`. Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * I Thru * Thru Right * * * Right Peds Peds - NB Right EB Right i SB Right * * WB Right Green 4.OA 24.OA 41.OA Green 33.OA 3.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts -Cap --Flow- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 467 1770 0.845 0.264 37.5 D 22.6 C TR 2152 3843 0.198 0.560 8.8 B WB L 71 1770 0.014 0.040 37.2 D 10.5 B C T 1291 3843 0.616 0.336 22.8 C R 1456 1583 0.781 0.920 1.9 A NB L 57 1770 0.035 0.032 37.9 D 37.9 D TR 112 3485 0.063 0.032 37.9 D SB L 481 1770 0.602 0.272 27.1 D 22.0 C LT 966 3550 0.617 0.272 26.6 D R 848 1583 0.540 0.536 12.8 B Intersection Delay = 16.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.757 i :N 71, L_ _ i I { HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 08-01-1996 Center For Microcompi. In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) Murray Analyst: TRL File Name: GROSS5.HC9 Area Type: Other 7-31-96 PM Peak Comment: 2005 with Site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 1 2 < 1 > 2 1 Volumes 375 384 2 1 731 1087 2 4 3 811 5 435 I. - Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 _ Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right * i Peds Peds WE Left * SB Left - Thru * Thru _j Right * * * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right !I SB Right * * WE Right Green 4.OA 24.OA 41.OA Green 33.OA 3.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 _ J : Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS - EB L 467 1770 0.845 0.264 37.5 D 22.6 C TR 2152 3843 0.198 0.560 8.8 B WE L 71 1770 0.014 0.040 37.2 D 10.6 B T 1291 3843 0.625 0.336 22.9 C R 1456 1583 0.786 0.920 2.0 A ! NB L 57 1770 0.035 0.032 37.9 D 37.9 D TR 112 3485 0.063 0.032 37.9 D SB L 481 1770 0.602 0.272 27.1 D 22.0 C LT 966 3550 0.618 0.272 26.6 D R 848 1583 0.540 0.536 12.8 B Intersection Delay = 16.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.761 I _ i 3 _ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Division April 26, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineez6~~ SUBJECT: Proposed commercial zoning on Scholls Ferry Rd. Two requests for commercial zoning along Scholls Ferry Road are currently under consideration a request for C-G zoning at 135th Avenue and a request for C-N zoning at North Dakota Street. In reviewing the Engineering Department comments on the two requests, v it occurs to me that our responses may appear inconsistent. Although the two requests are similar, we took a neutral stance on - the one but recommended denial for the other. This memo is intended to explain why we see the two sites differently. In both locations, the only significant engineering. issue related to the zone change request appears to be the issue of increased traffic. Regarding traffic issues, we find the two locations to be f _ different in the following respects: i 1. In both locations, the primary vehicular access will be from I. the minor collector street 135th Avenue or North Dakota Street. SW 135th Avenue is better designed to accommodate some increase in traffic. Few homes face directly onto 135th. Parking is " i prohibited along 135th and sight distance is good. We receive few 4 complaints about 135th. 1 North Dakota Street, on the other hand, has been the subject of many complaints about traffic volumes and speeds. Additional _ traffic islands are being installed to discourage through traffic l on North Dakota. In addition to being a minor collector, it serves as a neighborhood street, with many homes fronting directly on North Dakota. Until a better long-term traffic solution is found for North Dakota, we feel that any potential traffic increases should be discouraged. 2. On 135th, there is no existing commercial zoning in the immediate neighborhood. The traffic impacts of commercial development on 135th could be offset, in part, by a reduction in shopping trips outside the neighborhood. In the North Dakota Street area, there is already a substantial supply of commercial zoning. Additional commercial development in this location is not as likely to alter the shopping trips of the adjoining neighborhood. If residents of the North Dakota area are inclined to walk or bike to do their shopping, they already have that opportunity. EXHIBIT 4 J Asx 3. In the future, completion of the Murray/walnut extension is expected to reduce the volume of through traffic on 135th. Under current planning, there are no new streets in the future to provide relieve to the existing collector streets in the North Dakota area. Conclusion For these reasons, we believe that the two sites are different. If the decision is made to grant a zone change, we feel that the 135th location is a more suitable location from the standpoint of i. traffic. Ik r rw/cpa Ii J i I ~ t- , J i - 1 J ~s - i. i j - J ; 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANO AMENDMENT AP CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: j PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION 91.1 135th Avenue (A) Application form (1) j Tigard, OR (B) Owner's signature /written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 1S 1 33CA TL #s 100, 2 authorization 300 & 1000 (C) Applicant's statement _ SITE SIZE 8.5 acres (pre-app check list) j3OPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Dale G.. Shrader. Truste (D) Filing fee ) ADDRESS 310 3rd Avenue, NE PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY Issacuah. WA ZIP 98027 sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes ~O-APPLICANT* nary CoP (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 6255 SW Sheridan St. PHONE 233-3577 location (pre-app check list) CITY Portland, OR ZIP 97225 (F) List of property owners and j *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee is possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1) . from the owner or an agent of the owner with written -authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from M-H to C-C and a Zone Change row m to N.P.O. Number: OR• The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code City Council Approval Date: I 0737P/23? Revd: 5/87 EXHIBIT 5 I i I I 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: -NA- 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachmen.,,-, described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. ~..i 5. THE APPLICANT(S)•SHALL CERTIFY THAT: 1 A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. l - B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights ~ granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. n C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, ti attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the n ' applicants •so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this t+ application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this 24th day of September 19 96 E SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. l~ v f~ ; X DALE G. S ADER TRUSTEE I Q GARY COE I ~ E v (KSL:pm/0737P) I U ~ L~ FINAL ORDER JANUARY 28, 1997 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL I TIGARD TOWN HALL i 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0009 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) for 5.54 f acres of an 8.56 acre parcel (3.02 acres are already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway). APPLICANT: Mr. Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 OWNERS: Dale G. Shrader, Trustee 310 Third Avenue ` Issaquah, WA 98027 1 ~ Gary Coe 6255 SW Sheridan Street Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM Map # 151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300, & 1000). 2. Vicinity 1 ~ W MAN The site is bounded on the east by SW 135th Avenue, on the north by Scholls Ferry Road and on the west by Old Scholls Ferry Road. The southern portion of the property contains a greenway. 3. Background Information The site was annexed to the City in June of 1983 and zoned R-25 to comply with the county zoning of R-24. These properties were originally involved in a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change in 1991 (case number CPA 91-0001). The applicant chose to withdraw the application. E 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes four parcels, with a 3.02 acre greenway area running along the southern part of the properties. The applicant does not want the greenway area to be redesignated as Community Commercial. The parcels in consideration are bounded on the north by SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, the west by SW Scholls Ferry Road, and the east by SW 135th Avenue. Land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. Property to the north is developed as residential use and is within the _ city of Beaverton. The property to the west is partly developed and partly . undeveloped and is outside the city of Tigard. The property to the south is partly f developed and undeveloped as residential. f{ - - I The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) on 5.56 acres of the 8.56 acre site. A written narrative, and transportation analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. According to information included with the pre-application conference notes, the applicant indicated that ultimately the site may be developed as a gas station. 5. Agency Comments ODOT did not provide substantive comments because the nearest roadway is Highway 217. Washington County provided comments regarding this proposed plan amendment (please refer to Exhibit A). The letter indicates that the intersection of SW 135th f and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without the following improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal, and geometric 2 i i i modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls Ferry and "new" Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left-turn lane on SW Scholls Ferry at 135th. C. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. A condition of approval for the zone change should be that the above improvements are constructed prior to the City issuing a building permit. City Engineering submitted comments, concurring with Washington County on the recommended improvements (please refer to Exhibit B). According to the i comments from City Engineering, conditions should be placed on future f development proposals. Planning staff recommends that the traffic improvement conditions be placed on the subsequent zone change application because the I zone change application for the Community Commercial zone requires that a site . plan be submitted simultaneously. City of Beaverton submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit C), stating their concern with the proposed plan amendment. Larry Conrad, representing the City of Beaverton, says that the plan amendment may interfere with Metro's Functional Plan for a Town Center, north of SW Scholls Ferry Road. As acknowledged in the ? letter, the Town Center is designated for north of SW Scholls Ferry Road and, therefore, the affected site is not part of the Town Center. Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring comprehensive plans into compliance with I regional policies and implementation measures. The other point raised in the Beaverton letter is that the proposed plan amendment will conflict with Metro's j Transit Corridor designation for SW Scholls Ferry Road because development under the Community Commercial designation could be auto oriented. Again, the city is currently not required to comply with Metro's Functional Plan. Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners submitted comments (Please refer to Exhibit D) stating opposition to the proposed plan amendment because it does not meet the city's planning criteria. Mr. Boyden's letter states that the plan amendment may affect vehicular capacity on SW Scholls Ferry Road. Washington County states that the proposed plan amendment is acceptable if the applicant constructs the recommended improvements. His second traffic concern is with traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods. SW 135th is designated as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan map and, therefore, its purpose is to carry more than neighborhood traffic. His third traffic concern is with inadequate parking that may create a traffic safety hazard. This concern will be addressed when the applicant submits the zone change application which requires that a site plan be submitted 3 t I L~ .i 1 simultaneously with the application for a zone change. The applicant will have to I meet site design requirements relating to parking to eventually develop the site. Mr. Boyden's letter states that this proposed plan amendment will not be consistent with City Council's record regarding plan amendments from residential I to commercial. He cites the Haagen proposal as an example. The affected site was identified by the Planning Division as a potential area for the Community Commercial zone. The Haagen's site involved a plan amendment to General i Commercial, which involves a different set of planning criteria than the Community Commercial zone. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners further states that the affected site is within a 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This a site is now zoned as multi-family. The other site is located at Murrayhill and is a f 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is.409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. Two sites located on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota are respectively zoned Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial Professional. { These properties were involved in a "zone swap" which has been completed. The "zone swap" was appealed to LUBA and it affirmed the "zone swap." The case is currently before the Court of Appeals. The site closest to the affected property is f zoned Neighborhood Commercial and was zoned Commercial Professional before the "zone swap". When staff was considering the affected site as ideal for the new l Community Commercial zone, this zone swap had not occurred and the site closest to the affected property was zoned Commercial Professional, which fit the criterion of allowing non-retail commercial uses within %2 mile of the Community Commercial zone. The primary uses at the sites where the "zone swap" occurred are not retail commercial. The letter further states that if this proposal is approved, coordination between the City and the developer is required. This concern is not applicable to the planning criteria, however, coordination will occur as required by the development code as plans are developed for the subject site. Finally, Mr. Boyden refers to a lawsuit filed by one of the applicants. That lawsuit does involve the "zone swap", however, the court case is not relevant to this j process. 4 44!: _ i i Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit E) stating that as the property develops, access to fire and water supply shall be developed and installed that will comply with the n"re code. City of Tigard Water District submitted a copy of a letter (please refer to Exhibit F) that was sent to the applicant, stating that the city can provide water service to the site. Michael Robinson, the applicant's representative, faxed a letter, (please refer to Exhibit G) responding to Dan Boyden's and Larry Conrad's letter and also submitting additional information that staff requested. t Staff received a second letter from Dan Boyden on December 27, 1996 (Exhibit H). His first point is that the applicant should not be allowed to split the j comprehensive plan amendment application from the zone change application. The comprehensive plan and the code does not prohibit the application for comprehensive plan amendment from being filed separately from the zone change. Mr. Boyden says in his letter that the City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial, because the City needs residentially zoned land and cites the Haa9en's comprehensive plan amendment application as an example. Each land use application should be judged on whether or not it b complies with applicable state and local land use criteria, not other land use ; applications. The Haagen's request involved a proposed plan amendment from residential to general commercial, which involves different approval criteria than community commercial. Mr. Boyd says that the 1/2 mile separation from other commercially zoned properties is not met. Comprehensive plan locational criteria for Community I Commercial states that: "Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least f one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. j Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses." The land uses on North Dakota are predominantly non-retail type uses. Mr. Boyden refers to Mr. Conrad's letter regarding the Town Center area in the City of Beaverton, saying that a convenience area does not need to be located i across the street from the Town Center. The purpose, as stated in the City's i comprehensive plan, of the Community Commercial district is to: "...provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation." As previously stated, the site in consideration will not be part of the area designated for a Town Center. I 5 i s i 1 1 Mr. Boyden's final point is that no mistake or significant change has taken place. The Community Commercial zone was made part of the City's comprehensive plan and code after the affected site was annexed to the City. Staff believes that this change is significant and therefore complies with comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (4); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 j and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. k 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical . _ circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As stated below, findings can be made that demonstrate the proposed i _ _ comprehensive plan amendment meets planning criteria. The applicant states that Policy 1.1.2(2). has been met because a change in physical circumstance has occurred since the original plan map designation in two ways: first, the area surrounding the site has developed many additional housing units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping; secondly, growth has occurred in the general area but no additional neighborhood shopping centers have been developed in this immediate area. When the Community Commercial designation was adopted, however, this site was identified as a potential site for the Community Commercial zone by staff for presentation to City Council (August 26, 1992) to adopt the Community Commercial zone (please refer to Exhibit H). Staff at this time found that when the Community Commercial criteria was applied to sites in the City, the affected site was identified as one of the sites that met the planning criteria for Community Commercial zone. I The applicant refers to a memorandum from the former city engineer, saying that this site is more suitable for commercial development than residential. Although the city engineer stated in the beginning that he was neutral on this site becoming - i f i 6 I s ro r-- i commercial, he does say in the memorandum that 135th is suitable to carry commercial traffic. This area can meet criteria (c) of the policy. Because the site is surrounded on one side by an arterial (SW Scholls Ferry Road) and a minor collector (SW 135th) on the other side, this site is less suited for multi-family development because the purpose of both roads is to carry high volumes of vehicular traffic . In addition, the shape and size of the site would make it difficult to buffer multi-family development from the roads. i Because the site appears less suitable for multi-family development, a mistake was made in the original land use designation and, therefore, the applicant f complies with Policy 1.2.2(2). Amendment to staff repo Testimony was presented at the Planning Commission hearing on December 2, 1996, that supports the change of physical circumstance criterion of Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2( Please refer to Exhibit 1). There was discussion at Planning Commission that the adoption of the Community Commercial zone, with only two potential sites identified for this new zone, represents a change in physical circumstances. The zone was adopted after the site in question was annexed to the City. Based on the public testimony presented at the December 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, staff finds that the adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a physical change and, therefore, this application meets the physical change criterion of Comprehensive Plan Policy, 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2. 2. 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. This comprehensive plan policy satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal (please refer to the affidavit of mailing in the appendix of the applicant's packet) and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in the local newspaper. In addition, the applicant i provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on September 24, 1996 for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. i 7 ! F YK C I i 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of 1 the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis i placed on growth of the local job market. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan map designation in an area unserved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Secondly, the requested application will provide additional opportunities for Tigard residents. i This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use i may employ local residents. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The applicant states that this proposed plan amendment does not encroach into residential areas because the site is separated from other residential areas by streets on three sides and a greenway on the south side. Staff does not find that this argument alone satisfies the criterion. The location of j arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing 1 multi-family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. However, the affected site's configuration would appear to make it difficult to buffer residential uses from the noise and high volume traffic on both of these streets. The intent of the Community Commercial district is to provide locations for retail " and service uses which primarily have a neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. As part of the City Council hearing for the Community Commercial district on August 26, 1992, staff included in the packet a map showing potential sites where the Community Commercial zone could be applied (please refer to Exhibit H). When staff applied the Community Commercial zone criteria to sites in Tigard, the affected site was identified on the map as a site for a potential Community Commercial land use designation. j Because the Community Commercial district requires a residential orientation, staff believes that the site has met this criterion. ;i- L,~ t 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which requires 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 Metropolitan Housing Rule also implements the Statewide Planning Goal 10 :Housing. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies this criterion two ways. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the f Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels remain available. c Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal 1 would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (5.56 acres x 25 units = 139). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,717 of 4,875). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.39 units per acre.* Under - this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. f * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres f{ times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic study and concluded that the Community Commercial use would significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would not be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. The Washington County letter does indicate that SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate at an acceptable level of service if improvements are made, as previously indicated. i The applicant's traffic study indicates that the improvements will be needed with or without the comprehensive plan amendment by the year 2005. Washington County will support the comprehensive plan amendment, if the outlined improvements (please refer to Exhibit A) are made before the City issues a 9 ~ I ~ X77777... I building permit. Staff recommends that the improvements be made during the I zone change and site design review applications. According to the City of Tigard Community Development Code (18.61.020), a site development review application must accompany an application for a rezone to Community Commercial. Because of this requirement, placing conditions on the zone change and site design review i is more ideal than on the comprehensive plan amendment. The zone change and site design review applications will address site specific issues. 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. The applicant states that the City can rind that this policy is satisfied because Scho//s Ferry Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not ( _ ! necessarily request a "land-intensive use" it will be in close proximity to an arterial E street served by transit. This policy is satisfied because locating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit along SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service along this corridor. 8. Policy 12.2.1(4) provides the locational criteria for designating land as community commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible i 1 manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: ! A. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential and neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. This criterion is satisfied because this site is located within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius of residential and neighborhoods. Moreover, staff found this site to meet this criterion when the Community Commercial plan designation was adopted. Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one- half mile of a site to designated for community commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre, as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community commercial site. The trade area density criterion is satisfied because the potential residential density within one-half mile of the site is twelve units per acre. 10 6 t r. (2) Gross Floor Area. 30.000 to 100.000 square foot gross commercial floor area. This criterion does not apply because this application is a request for a plan amendment and, therefore, does not include site design criteria. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. This criterion is satisfied because the site would be the only commercial development on one quadrant of the street intersection. (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one half i mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. „ This criterion is met because this site is spaced one half mile from other sites designated for commercial retail uses. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners says that the affected site is within 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in I - ` the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls C Ferry Road. This site is now zoned multi-family. The other site is ! located at Murrayhill is a 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is .409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. The primary uses at the two sites identified on SW North Dakota are non-retail commercial uses. I (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem Such a determination j shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. See comments under 6 above. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Sites should i 11 I f I i Wither be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. This criterion is satisfied because the site is located at the intersection of an arterial and a minor collector, respectively, SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. The part of the site that the applicant requests a change in comprehensive plan designation is 5.54 acres. The remaining 3.02 acres is already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway which the applicant does not r want the comprehensive plan designation changed or plans to develop. Therefore, the applicant meets this criterion because the comprehensive plan change will affect 5.54 acres. l f (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a site development review application contemporaneous with and part of the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation... This criterion does not apply because the application does not involve a zone change. (b) It is generally i preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access circulation building design, sicinage. and landscaping Parcels within a community Qommercial site however. may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental f aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the developmen review process. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical Local street connections between community commercial sites and adjoining j neiahborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. 12 t c 1 i 6 (d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses ohall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development p aiL This site does include a greenway which should be given special consideration when the site plan is developed for the zone change application. (f) Exterior fighting noise and activities associated with the Community j Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not r adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable t provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise light and nuisanrec Operating hour restrictions may be placed on u5.es within the G district either through restrictions within the zoning_ district regulations or I through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular $1tg,. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. - 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the health safety and welfare of the 13 r i i community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the ' Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.61 (Community Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-C zone. The subject site could i meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would be reviewed through the zone change/site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.61. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the - pro er y which is the subject of the development application. See above under B.1. i 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Please refer to Washington County's recommendation under section 6 of this staff report. 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-C (Community Commercial) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-C meets the relevant l review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to . support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have been satisfied. C. RECOMMENDATION i I 14 ; I . Based on staffs report and all the written and oral testimony presented at Planning I Commission on December 2, 1996, Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of APPROVAL to City Council. Based on staffs findings, in addition to all written and oral presented at Planning Commission, staff recommends that City Council APPROVE the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. i 15 p F7 I BALL JANIK LLP ^ A T T O R N E Y S I `11 ONE WuN Place 101 SOUTI AsEsT NWN SmEEt. SUITE 1 100 POR AND. OREGON 97204-3219 j STEPHENT. IANIK TELEPHONE 503-228.2525 sjanWa-_bjIIp.ccm - - FAcsnuLc 503-295-1058 " February 11, 1997 i t I _ VIA FACSIMILE (684-7297) fff Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 1312 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Shrader Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPA-96-0009) ' Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: i As you are aware, we represent Briar Development, which previously had applied to the City for a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation of a portion of " its property from R25 to commercial so as to construct a Hagen's food store. That request was i approved by the Planning Commission and denied by the City Council. I had previously written to you on January 24, 1947, raising concerns about the apparently different treatment the Shrader comprehensive plan amendment was receiving from the City. 1 Laurie Nicholson has sent you a staff memo dated February 3, 1997 which is intended to respond to my letter. Unfortunately, there are a number of significant errors in Ms. Nicholson's letter that require a further reply. 1. Ms. Nicholson contends that because our use would require General Commercial zoning and the Shrader use will require Community Commercial zoning, the comprehensive plan changes for these two cases "have different comprehensive plan approval criteria." That is not correct. Our case involved a comprehensive plan change. The Shrader case involves a comprehensive plan change. The City's approval criteria for a comprehensive plan change are the same in each of these cases and are the same, regardless of what subsequent zone change may or may not be applied for. Both of these cases involve comprehensive plan map amendments from R-25 to commercial. The approval criteria (as noted in Ms. Nicholson's February 3, 1997 report) are the same for both cases. There may be different approval criteria for requesting one commercial zone as compared to another, but none of that is before you in this case and none of that is relevant to this case. Pxm . OneroN W,wmx;mN. D.C. SnIEa1, OReeav 0125154.02 A . 1 I j Jt ' BALL JANIK LLP mayor Nicoli and i Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 2 2. Ms. Nicholson contends that the loss of housing "was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment...." That is not a correct statement. Ms. Nicholson was not involved in any respect with the Briar Development case. The accurate reflection of the reasons for the City Council's decision in that case are set forth at pages 20-22 of the City Council Meeting Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 1996. The following is a d. complete summary of the only reasons given by council members for their vote to deny the plan f change: • Councilor Hunt "said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density [residential] before the application was approved." Councilor Hunt "asked why they should 4 rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density." 1 • Councilor Scheckla "concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else, which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools." • Councilor Rohlf "concurred with the other councilor's comments." He also stated that "he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning that land multi family." • Mayor Nicoli "said that his concerns were similar to those of the other councilors." The above represents the only reasons given by council members, and all of these comments focus on a concern over the loss of high density planned residential land. Ms. Nicholson is, therefore, incorrect when she states that the City Council found violations of four comprehensive plan policies, and that these were the reasons that the City Council denied the Briar Development comprehensive plan change. In fact, Ms. Nicholson is referring to the staff report in the Briar Development case, which was written months before the City Council hearing, but which ended up becoming the findings which were ultimately adopted by the City Council. However, the genuine reason for the council's action is set forth in the quotations above from the Minutes. 0125154.02 p 1 1 1 BALL JANIK LLP Mayor Nicoli and 1 Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 3 3. Ms. Nicholson contends that "the study for the community commercial zone identifies only two sites as meeting all of the planning criteria for this zone; one of the sites identified was the Shrader site." This statement is not correct. The applicant's materials include, as Exhibit H, a copy of a map adopted by the City through Ordinance No. ORD 91-13. That map f~ shows possible Community Commercial sites as determined by the City Council, not as I = determined by the planning staff. There are 11 sites identified on that map, not 2 sites as stated } in Ms. Nicholson's memorandum. 4. Ms. Nicholson contends that the applicant in this case has demonstrated that Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2(2) has been satisfied. That policy requires, as a precondition for a comprehensive plan map amendment, a demonstration that either there was a mistake in the original comprehensive plan map designation or that a subsequent physical change has taken plan. Ms. Nicholson now contends, as a basis for satisfying Policy 1.1.2(2), that the 1 "physical change" that has taken place is the "City's adoption of the community commercial - zone." Her conclusion is wrong for two reasons. a. The adoption of a new zoning map category is simply not a "physical change." The Council cannot "interpret" the words, "physical change" to achieve Ms. Nicholson's conclusion. Such an "interpretation" is clearly wrong, in that it is logically inconsistent with the words being interpreted and, accordingly, would be reversed by LUBA. b. The applicant has never tried to justify its comprehensive plan map amendment based upon the "physical change" offered by Ms. Nicholson. Ms. Nicholson is, in effect, trying to make the case for the applicant and to make a case that not even the applicant has attempted to make. The applicant, at page 6 of its application, makes two arguments of physical change. First, the applicant argues that the "areas surrounding the site has developed many additional residential units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping," and second, the applicant argues that a physical change has occurred because "growth has occurred iri the general area." These arguments are essentially the same. The argument that growth is a physical change justifying a comprehensive plan amendment was rejected by the staff in Briar Development's case, was rejected by the staff in this case in its Staff Report dated November 14, J 1996, and was rejected by the Planning Commission in this case. If this position is now incorrect, the Briar Development case warrants reconsideration to apply this new reasoning. 0125154.02 i i ' BALL JANIK LLP i Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 4 6. The applicant has attempted to use the same justification that Briar Development used for its comprehensive plan amendment, which was that substantial residential growth was a physical change justifying a comprehensive plan change. That argument has been rejected by City Council and cannot be the basis for justifying the applicant's requested comprehensive plan change, if it was rejected in the Briar Development case. 7. Ms. Nicholson states that "buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the Shrader site than on the Hagen's site." The two sites have virtually the same configuration and are surrounded on two sides by a major road. In fact, the volume of traffic on the Hagen's site is 40% greater than the volume of traffic on the Shrader site. Buffering 40% more traffic is of greater benefit for nearby residential uses. In addition, the Hagen's application involved leaving a substantial portion of the site in high density residential use, as further buffer to existing residences. In conclusion, we request that City Council either reconsider the Briar f Development denial or deny the requested comprehensive plan map amendment. This is the only result that would be consistent with the analysis and decision rendered by the City Council in Briar Development's comprehensive plan map amendment case. Any other result would consist of the inconsistent application by the City Council of the policies in its comprehensive plan. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, { Stephen T. Janik STJ/chf i ~ i 0125154.02 1 ml~ -771 Ifi i I I ~ .e•r.r• r.r.n .xewe j rION 33TISRIW W.N ~ t3'sttftc.•.•. N COUNTY OREGON r -LE I"100 t i. e I ~ ..~7 lrr~ ~ iE MAP 133RD 100 w I y V xssx. ~ " ~ ~ GG d Cl ' 713 1900 r zoo x.rrAC. ~ ~ ~ 1000 S i y r/ zstA.. CS 1 I y." ~ , T■ r jtl \ y 300 I 1 _ j ~ c r.r, K L G M -~32` 1 Ict Mseet ~ 1 -Z-~~ 1 c1 I".isll If7 33 00 00 ' 51- 85 400 LrlfNNII ~f.f . i }Ir.(r,l, i 1001 _ 700 - Q A 7; i r.r1At KJ I,V1 J I tl t. I a !1! 1~t7 ~ . HAGGEN VS. SHRADER SITES j FACT SHEET Relative traffic impacts at both sites Shrader site 600 feet x 6,500 ADT = 3,900,000 ADT feet j 230 feet x 32,150 ADT = 7,394,500 ADT feet ±670 feet x 9,450 ADT = 6,331,500 ADT feet 17,626,000 ADT feet 17,626,000 ADT feet = 11,751 Average ADT 1500 feet of frontage Haggen site 270 feet x 9,450 ADT = 2,551,500 ADT feet 800 feet x 31,950 ADT = 25,560,000 ADT feet +800 feet x 450 ADT = 360,000 ADT feet 28,471,500 ADT feet l _ l 28,471,500 ADT feet = 15,225 Average ADT 1 1870 feet of frontage Ji Parcel sizes, zoning, and housing potential Shrader c." 8.56 acres zoned R-25, 5.54 acres to be redesignated to Community Commercial 5.54 acres x 25 units per acre x .8 (right of way and detention pond exclusion) = 110 units Haggen 15.9 acres zoned R-25, 9 acres to be rezoned to General Commercial 9 acres x 25 units per acre x .8 (right of way and detention pond exclusion) = 180 units - NpoNd011897.6a1 \ f - - - .1; 01-24-97 03.41PM FROM KITTELSO?i ASSOC. TO 9/12066260677 P002/004 1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER. SUITE 700 • PORTLAND OR W205 • (MZ 2285230 • FAX (503) 2738169 f MEMORANDUM I Date: January 24, 1997 Project#: 2013.00 To: Mr. Brad Liljequist Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 From: Matt Lorenz Project: Tigard HnUen Subject: Traffic Volume Estimates in Site Vicinity Pursuant to your request, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. has estimated the daily traffic volumes on an average weekday for specific roadways in the vicinity of the Tigard Haggen site. The site is located on the southeast quadrant of the SW Scholls Ferry Rnad/SW 135th Avenue intersection in Tigard, Oregon. The average daily traffic volume (ADT) estimates were based on the weekday p.m. peak hour background traffic volumes (future volumes without development of the Haggen site) j shown in Figure 5 (attached). Figure 5 is taken from the transportation impact analysis prepared for r the Tigard Haggett by Kittelson and Associates, Inc, in August 1995, The background traffic volume estimates were prepared based on existing counts conducted in June 1995 at the intersections of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue, and SW Schulls Ferry Road/SW 130th Avenue. A three percent growth factor was applied to the 1995 counts, and new traffic predicted to be generated by a 160-unit apartment complex south of the site was added to the 1995 volume..- in order to arrive at the background traffic volumes. Typically, the ratio of daily-to-weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volume on an average weekday is between 8-to-1 to 12-to-1. For the purposes of this analysis, the daily traffic volumes were estimated by applying a 10-to-1 ratio to the weekday pm. peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 for background conditions. The table on the following page shows the estimated daily traffic volumes under background conditions on a typical weekday in the site vicinity. j 111121 NAME: H:TROJFILE2017\WPn\TOanVOL2-MEM I i 01-24-97 03:41 PM FROM KITTELSON b ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P003/004 { Mr. Brad U1/apuht Project. 201100 l January 24, 1997 Pape: 2 Traffic Count Estimate I Roadway Locatlon Estimated ADY SW Scholls Ferry Road betwom SW Scholls Ferry Rd. & SW 135th Ave. 32,150 SW Scholls Ferry Road between SW 135th Avo, & SW Moth Ave. 31,750 SW Scholls Ferry Road south of SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 6,500 SW 135th Avenue south or SW Scholls Ferry Rd. 9.450 SW Hawks Beard Road east of SW 135th Ave. 450 I hope this memorandum provides you with the additional data necessary to complete your investigation. Please do not hesitate to call me at (503) 228.5230 if you have any questions'., regarding this memorandum. r; ,i f j rretron assorJere:, fn c. Port i i - a 01-24-97 03:41PM FROM RITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P004/004 1 (NOT TOR SCALE) + I _ v~•~ i y 325 O + y 215 O U' ENO 15~ ~I15 I 1195 R 195 t X35 f amm ~ vv- vi ` O d I N Vi V1 4 SITE i W. HAWKS BEARD I vl g ~ . ~ao~ eo N ° - I I vy 30 5 n a+ Vf ' I y i 1<is t r{5 - 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES I WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FlGURE TIGARD OREGON _ ! AUGUST 1995 - . ~ +6lacao> I l l~-z ~ Agenda Item No. ~ i - 3 ial~i✓ Meeting of 4 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - 6:30 PM MINUTES • STUDY MEETING > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), ar (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current at 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. i i > Five-Year Financial Plan Status • Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, updated the Council on the fire- k year plan for a financial perspective for the goal setting process. Since 1981, City of Tigard has worked with 5-year plans. He reviewed the 5-year plans since 1981, noting that the current 5- year plan would take the City through the year 2001. He stated that Year One of the current plan began on July 1, 1996. Mr. Lowry said that the plan was designed to go before the { voters every five years, though that was not a legal requirement. He explained that the Council at the time was responding to the E voters getting tired of governments constantly asking for more money. The City put together a responsible plan and promised not to come back to the voters for five years. 1 Mr. Lowry distributed copies of the ballot title that went before the voters. He noted the commitments made to police and library in the title. Mr. Lowry reviewed the assumptions in the plan, including adding three police officers a year for the next six years and { having $1 million dollars reserved in the general fund at the end of the fifth year. Mr. Lowry explained that the increased tax base (passed in November 1994) would not take effect until July 1, 1996. If the Council chose to levy less than the voter-approved amount, it would affect the plan. Mr. Lowry reviewed the general fund revenue sources received from the State: cigarette tax, liquor tax and State shared revenues. He explained that they assumed in the plan that they would lose those revenues ($550,000 to $600,000 a year) because in 1994 it looked like the State would be keeping the i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 Mold 1 J money. However, the City did not lose the money and staff put it back into the plan in Year Six and in Your Ano, llaS_niA t1;,9t they also added a couple more positions in Year Six. i Mr. Lowry explained that the commitment made to the public was that if the shared revenues are unexpectedly continued after 1996, the Council would extend the five year commitment to the voters based on the amount of shared revenues received by the City. He said that there was a potential of $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars in additional revenues to this plan over the five years. Mr. Lowry explained that the fire year plan was essentially a c mechanism that allowed him to tell the Council what effect a decision they made today would have on the future of the general fund. He noted that there were costs involved in moving things forward in the plan and that the plan was the framework around which future budgets should be built. Mr. Lowry commented that this was the .62 cents plan, down } from the original November 1994 proposal of .94 cents. If the Council decides to do something that was not in the plan, there were financial implications to the change. The plan also made certain assumptions about levels of service. Mr. Lowry stated that any change on the expense side of the plan had to be matched with a change on the revenue side or with some other change offsetting the increase in expenses. Councilor Scheckla asked if revenue sharing was designated for a certain area. Mr. Lowry said that all the revenue sources for the general fund would be used to fund general fund services; those services were mainly police, library and parks. ' i Mayor Nicoli asked if the City would have extra unexpected money coming in if they didn't lose the $600,000 and did nothing different on the spending side. Mr. Lowry said that they included two years of revenue sharing dollars in the plan and i added some positions that weren't in the original plan. He stated that they checked with all departments in November and identified what changes to the plan have occurred. He said that when those changes were factored in, they had $800,000 or $900,000 dollars remaining at the end of the plan, which was the target. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was any reason to assume that revenue sharing would be discontinued in the future. Mr. Lowry said that he did not know. The State seems to have been able to fund schools since Measure 5; however, the Finance Director said CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 L~ 1 NOW- i he was only willing co put the State shared revenues back into 1 the plan every two years. Bill Monahan, City Administrator, raised the issue of Budget Committee meetings. The Council discussed it and decided to I schedule an initial meeting for Thursday, March 7, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for orientation and the social agency presentation. At that time they would decide on the other meeting dates. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Lowry poll the Budget Committee members on meeting on March 7. In response to a concern raised by Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan said that they would check on the hearing scheduled for March 26 and reschedule the items on the March 26 agenda to avoid a meeting during Spring Break. > City Hall Roof Councilor Hunt asked if all the contractors were aware that they could submit a different proposal other than for the metal roof preferred by Council. John Acker stated that he talked with all three of the bidden about the preference for a metal roof and all three commented _ that there might be less expensive ways to do the roof. He said that he told them that they could submit alternative bids along with the metal roof bid. Councilor Hunt asked if the architect for the City Hall roof was 11 the same architect that did the work on the senior center. He said that he wanted to know because he did not think that the ; details were handled well at the senior center. Mr. Acker said that he did not know if it was the same architect but that he would find out. Mayor Nicoli suggested inviting the architect to the next Council work session for an informal visit. Councilor Hunt asked if a decision was made on which of the two options the City would take. He noted that this bidder was higher on the metal roof, though lower on the alternative roof. If they chose the metal roof, they would not be giving the contract to the low bidder. Mr. Acker explained that the City was not required to choose the low bidder when dealing with a personal services contract like this. He said that he chose this bidder over the others because he thought he had the clearest and most detailed scope of services. It indicated specifically what the bidder would be doing for the City. That included three different elevations of metal roofs so that the City could see what it might look like. v 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 s. ik 1 mom - 1 > Storm update Mr. Monahan explained the need for a resolution declaring a state of emergency in order to get FEMA funds to help with the storm damage. He said that they were not sure what the damage was yet but that once the water receded from Cook Park, they would and assess the damage. Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, reported that they had major problem areas due to the storm. These included major flooding at Cook Park, a water supply issue and a mud slide on 99W. He said that the City responded to the mudslide because ODOT made it a lower priority. Mr. Wegner reviewed the concerns at Benchview Place where a house was sliding down the hill. He said that the Community Development Department has worked on the structure. A major problem was the storm drainage system running behind the house that collapsed due to the ground shifting. He said that they made a makeshift catch basin to handle any additional storm drainage and were monitoring the situation. Mr. Wegner said that the sanitary sewer line that ran right behind the home has also moved. They would TV it every Friday to see how much movement there was. He stated that they have - been working with USA and had a contingency plan in case the whole sanitary system collapsed; this system served not only the ~ Benchview area but also the Three Mountains Estates. Councilor Scheckla asked if the people have been evacuated from the house. Mr. Wegner said yes, and that the house had been "red tagged" since Thursday. He noted that there had been some potential damage to the neighbor to the north but that an engineer worked with the homeowner to take of the problem. Mr. Wegner stated that the other storm related problem was the water supply, which might or might not continue to be a problem. He said that Lake Oswego had shut down its plant i several times during the storm event due to the turbidity of the water; until today, Tigard had been buying water from Lake l Oswego and using storage. He stated that on Sunday, Tigard began selling water to Tualatin. He noted that even though the Bull Run water supply was shut down and ground well water used as well as water conservation requested, no one using Bull Run or Clackamas River water had had to boil water. Mr. Wegner said that even though Portland had lifted its water crisis alert, but Lake Oswego shut down its plant because of a diesel fuel spill on the Clackamas River this afternoon. Tigard started buying water from the Tualatin Valley system this CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 s i c I 1 afternoon but hoped that the Lake Oswego plant would be back online by early morning. He said that Tigard's water storage did ' not drop below 50% until today when it dropped to 49%. j i Mr. Wegner said that they would continue to monitor the situation. They were pumping over 1 million gallons a day from their own wells. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner said that the only Cook Park would have structural damage resulting from the flood, citing the restrooms and noting the large sinkhole that has appeared in the soccer parking lot. Summerlake Park and Woodard Park would have only ground j maintenance damage. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Wegner said that he doubted they still had a ramp to the dock but that hopefully the dock was still there. Mr. Wegner reported that they delivered barricades Friday evening to Tualatin and have lent them Tiigard's forklift and one of their dump trucks. Mayor Nicoli reported that Tualatin has asked for assistance for building inspections for damaged structures, qualified City staff would be sent. - Mr. Wegner commented that Tigard had been fortunate and that by Friday night, the emergency had been nearly wrapped up. Councilor Scheckla asked if the apartments flooded on Bonita Road had been evacuated. Mr. Wegner said that the City had not officially evacuated anyone other than the one residence on i? Benchview. Mayor Nicoll asked if most of their costs were reimbursable by FEMA. Mr. Wegner said that he didn't know yet. He stated that they have received instructions to begin keeping records and gathering data. He reported that sometime after the 19th, a meeting would be held in Salem to inform jurisdictions what was or was not reimbursable. John Acker would meet with the highway people tomorrow to rind out about federal funds for City streets damaged during the flood. Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to get some funds to replace Tiedeman Bridge and the bridge on Grant between Tigard and Johnson streets. Mr. Wegner said that he would find out. Mr. Monahan reported that another continuing cost they might have related to storm debris collection. Metro has asked local jurisdictions to set up collection areas. s CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 r ~ S 1 Mr. Wegner commented that sand bags contaminated with j petroleum would be declared hazardous waste and disposed of separately. Update on Transportation Issues in the Triangle Area • Community Development Director Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, distributed copies of a memo updating the status of the Tigard Triangle area. (Copy of memo on rile with the Council packet material.) He reviewed the steps in the memo, noting the request for consultant assistance to package all the transportation recommendations developed in the past two years, the intent to I institute mixed use zoning for the Triangle, and the public involvement process. Mr. Hendryx'noted that the project would begin now with wrap up in September. He said that they would need an additional f $10 to $15,000 to complete the project as outlined. He i mentioned the scope of work attached to the memo. He said f that, based on Council direction, he could come back to the February 27 meeting for action and then start getting proposals. Mayor Nicoli asked for the timeline in a graphic form to make it i _ easier for citizens co understand the process and when things were supposed to be accomplished. He asked if wrap up in _ _ -n2ant it would then go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hendryx said that it would go to the Planning Commission in late September or early October; the intent was to have the project wrapped up before the end of the year. However if something controversial came up, room has been allowed for I additional hearings. I Councilor Hunt asked how involved Metro and ODOT were in i this phase. Mr. Hendryx said that the intent was to have them involved. He was meeting with Bruce Warner of ODOT and Andy Cotugno of Metro tomorrow and hoped to have them involved in the first hearings. He commented that the State was very interested in Tiigard's adopting the tool box because it was the first time it has been done in the State and would serve as a template for other jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx said that they have sent out requests for consultants to a variety of firms to get a broad representation. Mfr. Hendryx stated that he heard a commitment from Council to staff to go forward; he would return with the necessary paperwork on the 27th. In the interim, staff would finalize the scope of work and get it out as soon as possible. E r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 6 t. 1 I- f F 1 , - t Non-Agenda Items Mr. Morahan said Council would need to consider a resolution declaring a state of emergency because of the storm. i { Mr. Hendryx mentioned the issue of the coordination with the County Park Advisory Committee regarding the site up on Bull Mountain. He suggested proposing joint funding of the site as a way to split the costs for the 13 acre parcel. Councilor Hunt said that he could not support spending all their money on the Bull Mountain area and would rather see it spread through the City. He i commented that a lot of people voted for trail upgrades. He stated that he would vote against this when it came up. t Mayor Nicoll commented that this was an opportunity to cut the cost of the j property in half. He said that they didn't need to buy the entire property, they could split some portions off from it. Councilor Scheckia mentioned that recently some people who offered to donate $32,000 to buy some property off Hall Blvd if the City would match the funds withdrew their offer when the City said they didn't necessarily want 4 the entire property. Mr. Hendryx said that all they were doing was asking the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought they should try for as many joint ventures as possible to stretch everyone's dollars further. He stated that asking the County to consider this did not bind the City into an agreement. i Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported that staff talked to the West CIT about this issue. She thought that the West CIT would like the City to encourage the County to do a joint venture to stretch the dollars further. Both the City and the County had additional sites they were considering. She suggested rewording the letter to encourage a joint venture. Mayor Nicoli proposed that they ask the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought it was wise and that the City could double its money. Mr. Hendryx clarified what the letter said. He stated that it asked that as the County went through its selection process to consider working with the City ! on a joint project. It was an attempt at a cooperative effort since both jurisdictions were looking at similar service areas, rather than an attempt to commit to a specific site. Mr. Hendryx said that they would rewrite the letter. > Agenda Review Councilor Moore stated that he would remove himself from the Briar Development hearing because of a conflict of interest; he'd been on the ~ i 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 7 E K E ENA I I I l M f i - 1 Planning Commission that reviewed it. However he would participate in the Future Shop hearing since the Council was looking at a different issue than what the Planning Commission had reviewed. i . BUSINESS MEETING j 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ez Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the study session to order at 6:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Property Manager John r. Acker (Study Session only); Acting City Engineer Gary Alfson; Jim. Hendryx, Community Development Director, Finance Director Wayne Lowry (Study Session only); Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Maintenance Services Director Ed Wegner (Study Session only); Police Chief Rob Goodpaster; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports I I 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items City Administrator Monahan said that staff would like to add two items: a resolution declaring a state of emergency, and a request to coordinate with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee. 2. a. OATH OF OFFICE - BRIAN MOORE ; Mayor Nicoli administered the oath of office to Brian Moore. b. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT - TEACHER OF THE YEAR - CINDY RUSSELL, TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL • Introduction: Mark Kubiacryk, Tigard High School Prindpal • Presentation: Mayor Nicoli Mr. Kubiacryk introduced Cindy Russell, the teacher who won the National High School Association's Teacher of the Year award for her efforts in school reform and excellence in teaching. Ms. Russell thanked Mr. Kubiacryk for nominating her for the award and encouraging her to remain in Tigard. She said that Tigard High School has made great strides in school reform and expressed her appreciation at being pan of it. Mayor Nicoli presented a certificate and some small gifts to Ms. Russell and expressed the community's pride in her for winning a national CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 8 i L~ 41i S award. i Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. i Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 8:49 p.m. 3. ~RSITOWS AGENDA Gene McAdams, 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, spoke on the 130th and Winterlake bridge and street improvement projects scheduled for construction this summer. He said that former City Engineer Wooley had told him that he thought that work on the projects would start in March. He asked if the City ' has set dates for public review of the bridge plans. f Mayor Nicoli stated that they had not set any dates for public review. He j said that the Council had authorized staff to go forward on the timeline f1 without a final review of the project by Council, as was the normal procedure. i In this instance, Council also promised a neighborhood meeting to allow residents to see the final documents. Mr. McAdams asked when the Task Force and public would be notified regarding the street improvements and associated amenities plans. He said that that project would require coordination with the public; the public and j the T--c4 Force should funk at those Maas befvra their fl al approval. He said - that he was anxious to get started on this because he knew that early C advertisement on bridge projects helped to get the best deal for building one. Y 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4A Approve City Council Minutes: January 9, 16, 1996 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agendas b. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Implementation of Classification/Compensation Study Results and Recommendations for the Management and Professional Staff - Resolution No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN j AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM IS 1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 s. d 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. a. Continue Public Hearing from the January 23, 1996 Council Meeting Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title, reviewed the hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges i Councilor Moore removed himself from this hearing because he had i been a member of the Planning Commission which heard this application and because he had not attended the first Council hearing. The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. b. Public Testimony i Mayor Nicoli explained that this meeting had been continued to allow the applicant to rebut. He asked for a brief report from staff to update the additional information received by Council in the interim. Ray Valone, Associate Planner, reviewed Council's direction at the January 23 meeting to staff to provide copies of CPA 91-0003/ZON { 91-0006, the Albertson's application for a zone change. He stated that copies of the August 1991 transportation analysis and its October ' 1991 addendum, and a set of tax assessors maps used for notification - ! of area residents that were part of the 1991 case were not provided to Council because staff deemed them irrelevant to the purposes for which Council had requested the file. He said that they could be made part of the record if Council chose to do so. Mr. Valone said that because the Albertson's file did not include any information about the outcome of the hearing, staff researched the Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 1991 and December 16, 1991 when the case was heard. He stated that the relevant portion of those minutes have been provided both to the applicant and to the opponents' attorney, and were available to Council from the City Recorder. Mr. Valone reviewed the outcome, noting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant, all others in the Scholls Ferry area that had previously applied for a rezone and been denied, the NPOs, and those parties interested in the development of a new plan in zoning designations. He said that though the Commission voted to continue the hearing to a later date, no further hearings were held on the matter. He stated that i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 10 J l~ 1 1 1 n the minutes excerpts could be made part of the record as Council's discretion. - Rebuttal Joel Gordon, Briar Development Company Director of Development, reviewed the applicant's efforts in working with staff and other agencies for more than a year. He said that they held three community meetings to garner community input, and had been told that there wasn't sufficient interest in the CIT to warrant addressing that group. He stated that they received no negative feedback from the neighborhood at the Planning Commission, and that the opposition at the first Council hearing had been coordinated by economic competitors seeking to protect their territory. C, Mark A. Vandehey, IGttleson ar Associates, 610 SW Alder, Portland, stated that he was a'professional traffic engineer. He referenced his written response to the issues raised by the opponents at the January 23 hearing. He said that he disagreed with virtually all of the issues j raised by Mr. Bernstein, contending that there were technical errors with respect to his trip generation estimates that invalidated his basic premise. I{ ~ Mr. 'vandehey pointed otii iliac Mar. uci.Stfln bec_-me ink/e-I'Ve d with this project for only one week prior to the January 23 hearing, and that i he collected no field data, did not talk to them about their analysis, or present any technical analysis demonstrating that the surrounding street l system was inadequate to support the proposed zone change. He stated that they have been working on this project for almost a year and have collected operational field data at the study intersection. In addition, k they have met with both Washington County and City of Tigard staff who agreed that the assumptions used in their analysis of both the i proposed development and a worst case scenario were in fact conservative. Mr. Vandehey stated that they discussed with staff assumptions regarding trip distribution and trip assignment as well as the traffic operations in the existing conditions and in the 2005 scenario. He said that they developed an access scheme which both the County and the developer felt met the access needs of the development and protected the capacity of Scholls Ferry Road. He said that the Washington County engineers and planners concluded that the proposed development would have similar or less severe impacts on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry than the apartment complex allowed for under the current zone designation. Mr. Vandehey addressed the issue of neighborhood traffic impacts. He said that they thought that this site was ideally located because it was accessible to the surrounding neighborhood by pedestrians and autos yet did not promote an increase in non-local traffic within the ! i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 11 s' i I 1 1 neighborhood. He stated that they thought so for two reasons: the access scheme was designed to facilitate movements to and from Scholls Ferry and 135th, and the City was part of the 130th construction j 1 project which had proposed traffic controls designed to restrict ! movements in the Summerlake neighborhood. David Leland, Managing Director of the Leland Consulting Group, reviewed the qualifications and experience of the firm in serving both public and private clients. He said that they were asked to examine the trade area zone graphics, analyze the public need and look at the availability of vacant commercial land that might accommodate this j grocery store. Mr. Leland reviewed the specifics of their September 1995 submittal that used three methods to analyze the trade area to determine public need. He reviewed.objections raised by the opponents regarding the model they used and the size of the trade area. He said that they did cut back on the size of the trade area, and conducted additional ; analysis. He explained that the Riley gravity model referred to by the opponents did not measure public need; therefore, they used the shared space model that did. Mr. Leland noted the fast growing population in the area and its effect on retail patronage. He stated that they used a very conservative approach in all of their analyses. - Mr. Leland reviewed the "four C's" of successful retail: convenience, cost, cleanliness and courtesy. He said that the reason why Portland had small stores that remained profitable was because Portland was running out of land, and therefore competitors couldn't come in and destroy the numbers. j Mr. Leland pointed out that the interest of several major grocery chains in this area indicated a public need. Hz referenced a comparison of the square footage of stores to population as studied within a two mile radius in Tigard, and in the Cities of Eugene and Beaverton. Mr. Leland reviewed the different analyses they did on the trade area. Their conclusion was that this area would need another two stores by 1997 and a third by 1999 to serve this rapidly growing area adequately. Mr. Leland addressed the issue of the availability of space. He said that the Comprehensive Plan stated that Tigard had a shortage of commercial land. He pointed out the location of the remaining commercial zones in both Tigard and Beaverton, and contended that none of them were large enough to accommodate a full service grocery store by today's standards. ..J Mr. Leland restated the points he made during his presentation, j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 E i 'i j particularly emphasizing the need for more grocery stores in the area. He stated that one could not necessarily conclude that there was no 1 public need simply because the two current stores were underperforming. ' Mr. Gordon stated that their proposal was consistent with the applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with past decisions of the Council, with good land use planning, and with the City's goals. Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence presented on the criteria of a changed circumstances in the neighborhood or community. He contended that the dramatic population growth that was in excess of what had been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan was evidence of change in the neighborhood. He argued that the significant road improvements made to Scholls Ferry and 135th since 1983 were further evidence of changed circumstances. Mr. Gordon reiterated that the traffic issues were carefully evaluated by both the City and County staff who were both convinced that this project would not adversely impact the road system. He said that it was the changes to the road system that led them to select this site for the store. t Mr. Gordon said that the third changed. circumstance was the worsening of the shortage of commercial land in Tigard. Mr. Gordon reviewed the arguments for the second criteria that the proposal have no adverse impact on health, safety and welfare. He . stated that there have been no impact based concerns raised by staff or r other commenting agencies. He said that a member of their consulting j firm confirmed that with the Beaverton Mayor's office that the City of ` Beaverton was not in fact opposing the rezone. - Mr. Gordon stated that the other issues raised by the opponents were based on fear and speculation. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised at the hearing that this approval would turn Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial like 99W or that it would open the floodgates to other commercial rezones. He stated that Scholls Ferry within the City was almost completely developed and thus it couldn't be turned into a strip commercial. He said that the locational criteria that commercial be located at the intersection of a major arterial precluded other locations on Scholls Ferry. Mr. Gordon said that the floodgates to commercial rezoning wouldn't be opened either because the inventory of the City's available land demonstrated that the land wasn't there to be rezoned. Also the locational criteria for commercial land wouldn't allow development in f, v CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 o- i 9 1 an area that was already overly congested; that precluded 99W. Mr. Gordon stated that another criteria for commercial zoning was being close to a transit route, which this site was. He said that neither staff nor the opponents presented examples of land that was likely to be rezoned commercial. Mr. Gordon addressed another issue raised by the opponents: whether or not there was sufficient market to support another grocery store. He cited Mr. Leland's testimony on the issue and his conclusion that there was sufficient demand for additional grocery stores in this area. He stated that the opponents' assertion that the underperformance of their stores indicated too many stores in the area was suggesting an inappropriate use of the zoning process for economic protection. F. I Mr. Gordon submitted a letter from the local chapter of the United Food ez Commercial Workers in support of the proposal. Mr. Gordon addressed the locational criteria for commercial rezones as the next major issue. He stated that they complied with nine out of the ten locational criteria. The only one with which they did not comply was the criteria that said that general commercial should not be surrounded by residential on more than two sides. Mr. Gordon said that they derived their argument that the site is surrounded by roads, not residential neighborhoods, by looking at a J Tigard zoning map. Examples he cited included Howard's, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Durham Road, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Bull Mountain, and the intersection of Hall Blvd and Locust. E Mr. Gordon pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically said that the locational criteria were to be construed in a flexible manner in conformance and vary with the degree of change and impact on the community. He said that he thought they had demonstrated that this was a site that would have minimal or no impact on the adjacent community. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised regarding community commercial designation as opposed to general commercial. He stated that their site met the criteria for general commercial in ways that the Albertson's site had not. Their site was on a fire lane section of Scholls Ferry, it was on a transit route, and the site was well separated from the surrounding neighborhoods. He said that Albertson's pursued the community commercial designation on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however the Commission had specifically recommended general commercial for the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Gordon reviewed how much more a Haggen store could provide to the community under a general commercial zoning designation than under a community commercial. They could integrate all their uses into J 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 14 S J L_ I one building rather then separating them out into little shops because more square footage was allowed. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern that while the Haggen development proposal might satisfy the rezone criteria and plan requirements, the other potential uses in a general commercial zone might not. He said that they were willing to accept a condition restricting the site to the uses and/or site plan configuration that they have demonstrated met the applicable criteria and was supported by the available public facilities. He said that while the Planning Commission had not attached any conditions to their recommendation, Washington County did attach conditions on this specific configuration to their access approval. Mr. Gordon asked that the Council not put them in a "catch 22" position by saying that they would approve it if they could be assured that the Haggen project would go through but not allow them to provide the City with that assurance. Mr. Gordon stated that the City has recognized that growth was here and that they had to address it. However, the planning process did not always project correctly what growth might happen or where it might happen. He contended that the plan amendment process was intended to give the Council the flexibility to make changes as needed. He said that things have changed significantly in this community and that it was appropriate to make this small change to the Comprehensive Plan. f Mr. Gordon argued that if the changes they have demonstrated occurring in this area were not sufficient to justify a plan amendment, then the Council has set a standard that would be impossible to meet. { Mr. Gordon reiterated the conditions of the site that made it a good location for this use. He asked the Councilors to consider where they would put this store if not in this location. He said that he thought that the Council would be proud to have Haggen be part of the community and asked the Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Monahan noted another item for the record: a letter from Ball Janick 8z Novack addressing the criteria on behalf of the applicant. Jeff h3einman, Attorney representing the Friends 8E Neighbors of Scholls Ferry, asked for the opportunity to respond to the new evidence presented by the applicant. Mayor Nicoli asked for a ruling from the City Attorney on the request, expressing concern that everyone get a fair opportunity to rebut any new information. Mr. Ramis concurred that as long as they limited their remarks to rebuttal of the new evidence and did not introduce additional new evidence, it was allowable. He said that the applicant should have an opportunity to respond to the opponents' remarks. } 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE IS I Robert Bernstein, 507 18th Ave, Seattle, stated that he has not seen Mr. Vana=hey's rebuttal to his comments at the last hearing, and therefore wouid not attempt to rebut the rebuttal. He stated that he was standing by the accuracy of his report. He argued that the j assumptions made in the Leland report were anything but conservative and that it had taken him 15 minutes to figure that out. Mr. Bernstein said that no analysis of the proposed access scheme for a right-in, right-out on Scholls Ferry was present in the record; there was only the letter from Washington County saying that it was approved. He commented that the County's responsibility was to see to it that the major arterials functioned properly. He said that even with a new access onto Scholls Ferry, it was conceivable that the arterial might continue to operate properly yet the local streets experience significant changes in traffic. He said that they had no way of reviewing how accurate the analysis was or determining what the impacts actually were. Ralph Anzelatti, Columbia Research Associates, stated that his company did nothing but retail site surveys for grocery stores in the northwest and western states. He said that they had a very high accuracy rate. He mentioned that the report submitted by Don Scott in answer to the Leland study did not include Costco because the Leland survey had not done so and Mr. Scott had wanted to keep his analysis consistent and comparable with the original Leland study. He said that the Leland i _ study did not include all the other competitor retail stores or { = convenience stores in their analysis. i Mr. Anzelatti said that he had not seen the study done on the reduced trade area and could not do a comparable. He said that he could offer i some predictions based on his 15 years experience: if Haggen opened here, another store in that general core area would close. He said he thought there was room for three stores but not four. Mr. Kleinman addressed the Comprehensive Plan issue. He said that in order to justify an amendment to the plan map, an applicant had to prove either a change in physical circumstances since the original designation or prove that the designation was a mistake made under the original land use design. { Mr. Kleinman said that the applicant hasn't come close to satisfying either criteria; rather they were changing the meanings of the terms. He contended that a change in physical circumstances meant a change in the uses near the proposed use, not growth or more traffic or market needs. The uses have not changed. Mr. Kleinman said that "mistake" meant a clerical error or a misunderstanding of what was actually being done at the time of the original plan development and adoption. The designation as multi- family was not a mistake; the City of Tigard knew what it was doing. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 16 t r r"-0- Mr. Kleinman said that even if they satisfied those two criteria, the n proposal still had to meet all the applicable plan polices: this did not. He argued that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not achievable because the applicant has failed to take into account the j maximum development of the site as general commercial, and merely looked at applying the criteria to the Haggen store proposal. He cited Policy 5.4 as an absolute rule prohibiting the encroachment of commercial or industrial development into residential areas that were not already designated commercial or industrial. Mr. Kleinman said that Policy 12.2.1(2) was the locational criteria j ' stating that commercial or industrial development could not be inserted in any area where it was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. He said that this location was surrounded on four sides by residential. He contended that the areas cited as having a similar use G - pattern reflected preexisting uses, not the insertion of commercial into residential. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument that the Comprehensive Plan itself said that there was significant growth and not enough land. He contended that the Plan's designation of specific areas as commercial was the method used to meet that need for more commercial properties. Mr. Kleinman pointed out that the responses cited from Beaverton f - were only hearsay, as Beaverton submitted no documentation supporting this proposal. f Mr. Kleinman said that there was no evidence that the same trade areas were used in the traffic analysis as were used in the market analysis. E Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument of future change. He said that the applicant was saying that they should be taken care of today because of changes anticipated in the future, such as the Scholls Ferry f Town Center in the Metro 2040 plan. He said that the town center in j that plan was located 600 feet away from this site in Beaverton. He contended that the application was in conflict with Metro's plan because it created a new shopping center designation only 600 feet away from the one Metro wanted to create. Mr. Kleinman summarized the applicant's arguments as "we have a neat store, Tigard has grown and there's a lot of traffic, so please amend your Comprehensive Plan and approve the zone change." He said that anyone who lived on a street that was widened could make similar arguments for amending the plan; the precedent set would be disastrous. He said that the periodic review process was the proper place to deal with the issue of whether or not the original Plan contained enough commercial sites; it could be looked at within the context of the whole City, not in a piecemeal fashion. j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 17 r F i I i ~ 1 Mr. Gordon stated that the opponents did not rebut the new evidence j n but merely reiterated their arguments made at the last hearing. Mr. Vandehey cited their letter as documenting the conservatism of their analysis. He said that both the County and the City required them to do an analysis of both the right-in, right-out access scheme and the initial access scheme that proposed full access to Scholls Ferry. He said that they ended up with a compromise of a right-out and left-in that was based on the County's review, not the right-in, right-out Mr. Bernstein cited. Mr. Gordon said that Mr. Anzelatti did not raise any new facts. He said that the Leland study allowed for the convenience stores and other scores like Costco by using conservative numbers on grocery spending (75% of what was actually spent on groceries). Mr. Gordon contended that Mr. Kleinman cited no authority j supporting his interpretation of a change in physical circumstances or a j mistake in the Plan. He said that under Mr. Kleinman's interpretation, I the criteria could never be met. He asked if the periodic review process f _ was the only place to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments, then { why did they allow quasi judicial Comprehensive Plan changes requests. He reiterated that they have met the criteria set out in the Code. 7 ' c. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended denial of CP 95-0003 and ZC 95-0005 based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. i d. Council Questions i Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the locations of the proposed Albertson's and Fred Meyer's stores in relation to the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Valone indicated the locations on the aerial map. Mr. Hendryx stated that the Beaverton staff told him that the Fred Meyer request for the PGE site was withdrawn for consideration for a plan amendment in Beaverton. Councilor Hunt asked if the factor of market competition was 1 something that the Council had the legal authority to consider in its deliberations. Mr. Ramis said no. Though it was an interesting controversy, it was not directly relevant to the criteria. Councilor Rohlf asked the applicant to address the issue of the foss of multi family housing needed in a fast growing City if this proposed use went in. Mr. Gordon said that there was no doubt that multi family housing would be lost due to this proposal, but stated that the loss of this amount of acreage would not affect Tigard's ability to meet the 10 { I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 18 a I i- units per acre housing rule set by Metro. i Mr. Valone concurred that they would lose the housing opportunity but that they would still be above 10 units per acre. Councilor Scheckla commented that in 1983, the thought had been to put apartments in that area because of the close proximity to an elementary school. He said that putting in a commercial development would displace those people; they would have to drive farther to the schools. He asked where else would they move the density in the City l of Tigard. Mr. Monahan commented that the property was in the Beaverton School District, not the Tigard District. G Mr. Hendryx said that he couldn't really answer where the units might be displaced to. He-noted that this project would not affect their housing mix. Councilor Scheckla commented that the City was prepared to accept the zoning the way it was. He asked why they would want to jeopardize meeting their housing goal by displacing these apartments. He asked Mr. Ramis to explain the "mistake" issue. Mr. Ramis said that the issue of mistake was one of interpretation I under the Code. He said that it was uitimateiy up to the Council how _ "z they applied the standard, and that courts granted deference to jurisdictions in interpreting their own codes. Councilor Scheckla stated that in 1983 he had been part of the Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think that a mistake had been made. Mr. Valone pointed out that the Plan said "a mistake was made in the original land use designation." Since this site annexed into the City in E 1987 and zoned R-25, the mistake would have had to occur in 1987, not 1983. Mayor Nicoii asked Mr. Hendryx if he remembered any discussions between Beaverton and Tigard on how much commercial development should be allowed on Scholls Ferry, citing Mr. Hendryx's tenure with the City of Beaverton. Mr. Hendryx said that Beaverton had a clear policy about limiting commercial development along major arterials. He said that the two Planning Commissions had met in the fate 1980s to discuss a mutual concern about limiting strip development along Scholls Ferry. He said that Tigard did not have a similar criteria other than the locational standards in the Code. Mayor Nicoli asked if both the cities followed the general direction set out during those discussions or gone off in completely different CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 Y f. r i ~ j - f directions. He asked if Tigard did not provide for as much commercial property as had been originally intended. j Mr. Hendryx said that he did not believe a decision not to allow as much commercial development as the market would bear was ever discussed. There was never an agreement on how much development should occur or where it should occur. The general concern had been to avoid turning Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial road like TV Highway or 99W. Councilor Scheckla presented a February 8 newspaper article. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ramis if Councilor Scheckla could introduce evidence into the record. Mr. Ramis said that Councilors introducing evidence into the record was very unusual; typically only the parties introduced evidence which the Council made judgments on. He said that it could be done but that both the applicant and the opponent would have to be allowed an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Councilor Scheckla withdrew the article. He commented that the Albertson's in Sherwood opened last September and that fast weekend the Food Pavilion went out of business. He said that he had heard the argument made here that there wasn't enough market to go around; somebody would not survive. He commented that the popuiation ail ~ over Washington County was increasing by 20% or more. _ . r Q11 i e. Close Public Hearing f Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. for a 5 minute break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m. f. Council consideration: Councilor Hunt commented that much of the material brought up to the Council by people went unread because they couldn't both read it and listen to the presentation at the same time. He stated that he thought that much of the testimony presented had been irrelevant to the decision on a zone change. Councilor Hunt agreed that the Council has allowed commercial development in an area with residential on three sides of the store, citing the 99W and Durham Road intersection. He said that the market economics of who survived and who didn't were not for the Council to decide. He said that he was not convinced whether apartments or stores would generate the most traffic, having seen too many instances when opposing sides used the same numbers to reach opposite I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 20 [ 1 ~1 conclusions. Councilor Hunt said that one thing that bothered him about this zone change was the inability to control the potential development in the future, should Haggen's go out of business. They had to zone it commercial; they couldn't zone it for a grocery store. Councilor Hunt said that the second thing that bothered him about this was a previous incident in which high density residential was moved to Bull Mountain from the intersection on 99W and Durham (Albertson's store); this has resulted in nothing but trouble on Bull Mountain. He said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density before the application was approved. Councilor Hunt stated that they knew from the Metro 2040 plan that they were going to have to increase their density. He asked why they should rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density. Councilor Hunt said that he was extremely impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another area in town to locate it. j However he could not take away the City's current high density, knowing that they would probably have to find more high density in _ the near future. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools. He agreed that Haggen's was a good C store. f Councilor Rohlf concurred with the other Councilors' comments. He 3 said that he would like to see a Haggen's in town and suggested she ~ Tigard Triangle area. He said that if this was a decision between letting Haggen's in and fostering Howard's, it would be a tough decision. But it was a land use decision and he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning that land multi family. Mayor Nicoli said that his concerns were similar to those of the other Councilors. He complimented Mr. Haggen on his application and support personnel. He stated that he had a hard time accepting growth as justification of a zone change. He said that he did not think that the Council was here to justify who stayed in business or went out of business; they had too many other good criteria to consider. He said j that he was impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another location within Tigard or an adjacent jurisdiction. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 21 j k i MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. j The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 954)005/ZON 9540007 - I PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and ± change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan F map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable f Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and profit-Ssionaal and a dmi::istr_&ds cawirac_ C-P _ (Professional/ Administrative Office) alloys for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. j i a. Staff Update: Community Development Department _ Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council direction were in the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-04. Ord No. 96-04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, ~J CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 22 a b: i Mayor Nicoli noted that at the last meeting Councilor Rohlf had withdrawn from participating in this action, and that Councilor Moore did not participate either. i The motion was approved by a unanimous voce of the three Councilors taking part. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 95-0008 CLARKE A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the City and change the j zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two ocher properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 - Citizen Involvement; 10. - Service Delivery Capacity; 10. 1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101.3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land f Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R- ? 6. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parse contact or site visits. They all indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. ! There were no challenges. ` C. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed on the map the location of the two parcels under consideration for annexation. He said that the west parcel had a single family residence occupied by the owners while the east parcel was a vacant lot. The owners were requesting annexation by a double majority method to connect to the sanitary sewer service. Mr. Valone stated that the annexation request did comply with all applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements. The parcel would be designated Tigard R-7 with the same density per lot as its current designation of Washington County R-6. He said that there were adequate facilities available to service the lot and that all appropriate parties were noticed. He recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and forward the request to the Boundary Commission. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 23 f i L~ 0 ~ 1 s d. Public Testimony f . Applicant Jeff Hunt, 3855 A Drive, Hood River, stated that he was an Associate j Planner with Hood River County but that he was here on behalf of his father-in-law, John Clarke. He thanked Mr. Valone and the staff for their help regarding the proposal. He said that they had no problems with the staff report and urged the Council to accept the staff recommendation. Proponents - none Opponents -none e. Scoff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended that the Council forward the initiation to the Boundary Commission. f. Council Questions - none g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-07 Ordinance No. 96- 05 _ MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 96-07. Resolution No. 96-07, a resolution initiating annexation to the City of Tigard of the territories described in Exhibit A, and illustrated in Exhibit B, ZCA 95-0008. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes. MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-05. ` Ordinance 96-05, an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a zone change and declaring an effective date, ZCA 9S-0008. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes. f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 24 I 1 i 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95- 00081MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN City Council "Call-Up" for review of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2. Planned Development Review; 3. Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately j 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres; Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WCT: i 1S1 36C.D, Tax Lot 2000). Zone: General Commercial (C-G). The ; General Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail I sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. Applicable k Review Criteria: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. . a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. Councilor Moore commented that he had reviewed this issue at the Planning Commission but that this was before the Council on a different issue, and therefore he would participate in the hearing. C. Staff Report: i Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the application, noting the building profiles and site plan. He said that the minor land partition was to separate out Pad "A." He reported that the applicant has received the Division of State Lands (DSL) pennies required to do work within the wetlands with mitigation offsite. He said that the applicant was providing additional right of way on Dartmouth, a half street dedication for the future street Atlanta on the north side of the parcel to access Dartmouth, and access for the property on the north to access Dartmouth. Mr. Hendryx noted that notices were mailed out but that the notice run in the Tigard Times did not meet the standard notice requirements. ✓ a j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 25 =Now i j i d. Public Testimony - Applicant Sake Reindersma, MPR Architects, 9150 SW Pioneer Conn, WilsomnWe, representing Future Shop, reviewed the elevations of the building to be built in the Tigard Triangle. He noted the color scheme and landscaping on the site. He pointed out that the 12 foot grade along the back zone set the building down lower. I Mayor Nicoli asked if the applicant has discussed with Act 111 allowing access for the half street dedication that otherwise deadended at the Act 111 property. Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering Team, Tigard, stated that they have talked with all the adjacent property owners. He said that he had talked with former City Engineer Wooley about any conditions on the Act 111 proposal that might require them to continue Atlanta Street but they have not been able to find any. He said that he understood from staff that if any plans came in for site development review, some kind of connectivity would be required to improve the street to the Act III i site. He pointed out that to continue Atlanta Street, they would have to cross Red Rock Creek at a very pristine point. N Mayor Nicoli asked if at this time they would be doing a curved sidewalk and a half street improvement. Mr. Christensen said that when Burgerville developed, they intended to work with the other 1 property owners to develop an LID to construct Atlanta Street to ! provide access through the Future Shop site to Dartmouth. He said that presently there was no interest on the part of the other property owners to construct Atlanta Street, which was why they were waiting on the Burgerville development. I In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Christensen f described the location and surrounding property owners. Councilor Rohlf asked how Burgerville had access to the property. Mr. Christensen said that they would have a right in right out access off of Dartmouth. He noted that when Dartmouth was fully approved there would be a median strip there that would prevent left hand turns for both Costco and Burgerville. He said that Burgerville was trying to get a right in off of Hwy 99. He said that Burgerville's conditions of approval stated that they could have a temporary driveway off of Dartmouth until the other access (the one in this application) was developed. Mayor Nicoli asked if Burgerville would get access through the Future Shop site. Mr. Reindersma said yes, they had access through a reciprocal easement. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 26 i i. I ' In response to a concern raised by Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Reindersma said that the access through the Future Shop property from Burgerville was fairly clean with few traffic movements. Mr. Christensen explained that though Burgerville did indicate some objections to the site layout, they have not stated any objections formally because they understood that the current configuration for the building was the only one possible on the site, and they did not believe that their objection was strenuous enough to stop the development completely. He reviewed one of the accesses that they considered but discarded because the grade was too steep. Councilor Scheckla asked who would alleviate the traffic problems on the easement that went through both ways. Mr. Christensen stated that they did not expect any problems because they had a full 24 foot driveway and the traffic volume was very low. He said that even Burgerville didn't have that high a traffic volume and reviewed the path their traffic would travel from Hwy 99 to Dartmouth to Hwy 99. Councilor Rohlf asked if the design for this layout included overlay concerns that the Council had for the Tri-County Center with respect to 1 the Tigard Triangle. Mr. Christensen said that they have discussed with Future Shop a number of the items coming up and that they were aware of the traffic problems occurring in the Triangle. Councilor Rohlf commented that the Council's concern centered on the ~ overall appearance of the hillside. He said that they did not want to see it turned into "a bunch of big boxes surrounded by concrete and asphalt." He noted that the design of the Tri-County Center had been sensitive to that concern and had made an effort to find a good compromise between preserving the natural features and providing I adequate retail possibilities. k Mr. Christensen cited the work they have done with USA, DSL and ODF8rW in designing Pad "A" to sit on columns with wetland vegetation underneath it. He pointed out that out of 40,000 square ! feet of wetland, the project impacted only 7960 square feet of wetland. He said that they have worked hard with USA to design a buffer that they could sign off on, and that they were mitigating some of that buffer offsite. He explained that the site had very few trees on it, and they all were on the border where Atlanta Street needed to go. He said that they were replacing the trees with a reciprocal amount of onsite vegetation and wetland enhancement. - Proponents Gordon Martin, 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, 97223, of the development to the south of Future Shop, welcomed them to the neighborhood. He said that he understood from the project engineer that they have been apprised of the traffic situation. He commented on the need for LIDs to take care of the traffic problems and welcomed their participation in them. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 27 r e Opponents - None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the project as conditioned by , the Planning Commission. i f. Council Questions Councilor Rohlf asked why the staff report contained a number of statements justifying denial of the application. Mr. Hendryx explained that those statements dealt with concerns over wetlands and the DSL approval of the plans originally submitted by the applicant. When the 1 applicant provided proof of DSL approval at the Planning Commission hearing, staff changed its recommendation to approval. g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Do the approved plans comply with Community Development Code. MOT!ON by C_uncil= Hunt, 5EC0'M'DDIED by Councilor Rohii, to approve the application. 7 -he motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL i CODE CHAPTER 7.40, NUISANCES - AMENDING ARTICLE IV TO REGULATE NOISE LEVELS This proposed amendment would provide for better regulation of noise in residential areas. When issuing a permit for an event which would exceed permissible noise levels, the City Administrator would have the ability to set a limit on the amount of noise created by the event and to impose other conditions on the issuance of a permit. a. Staff Report: Police Department Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that these changes to the noise ordinance would enable police to revoke permits issued by the City if the noise exceeded the cop noise limits set by this amendment. b. Council Questions 6z Discussion Mayor Nicoli asked how this ordinance would affect community evens such as a street dance or concerts at Cook Park. Chief Goodpaster - stated that there was enough discretion in the ordinance to handle t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 28 a L~ L~ -_J ~ I public events. He noted that public events normally did not engender the same type of complaints as a private event did. He stated that he checked on this issue with the City Attorney and did not foresee problems with it in the future. Councilor Scheckla asked how this ordinance would affect the hot air balloon event. Chief Goodpaster stated that they discussed many public events, including the hot air balloons. He said that in talking with the City Attorney, he found that there was still discretion built into the ordinance. Mr. Ramis stated that the ordinance did provide some flexibility and I some room for judgement. He said that if a use became so loud and obnoxious to the public chat is required regulation, the City would have the ability to revoke the permit. k C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 96-06. Ordinance 96-06, an ordinance amending chapter 7.40, nuisances, of the Tigard Municipal Code by amending Article 4, Nuisances and Affecting the Public Peacc. I The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoii and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") i 10. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.30 (SECTIONS 2.30.060 AND 2.30.070) AUTHORIZING INVENTORY OF THE CONTENTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS AND IMPOUNDED VEHICLES. a. Staff Report: Police Department ! I Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that a recent court decision made it necessary for the police department to get legislative authority to conduct inventory of the persons and property arrested as well as of vehicles impounded. He said that this was done for several reasons, including safety, safeguarding, and liability concerns. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the specifics of the ordinance that set guidelines for the process already in place (see agenda packet), pointing out the memo from the City Attorney's office revising language in the Code regarding inventorying prisoner's property and impounding vehicles. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 29 L~ J f r . F i b. Council Questions 8z Discussion { 3 Councilor Rohif asked for an explanation on why they needed to ' declare an emergency in order to enact this ordinance. Chief Goodpaster explained that every day they did not have this ordinance in place increased the City's potential liability. Mr. Ramis supported the Chief's reasoning. C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-07 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf, to i adopt Ordinance 96-07. Ordinance 96-07, an ordinance amending chapter 2.30 of the Tigard Municipal Code by adopting sections 2.30.060 and 2.30.070, authorizing inventory of the content of arrested persons and impounded l vehicles and declaring an emergency. i(( The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council I present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 11. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD - CONSIDER CITY HALL ROOF - nn/1nA! A f 'i ■ tAV■ VJAL ~ - a. Staff Report: Maintenance Services Department b. Council Questions 8z Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Richard Raglan for research, analysis and preliminary design (Phase 1) of the City Hall roof project in the amount of $2,310. Mayor Nicoll noted that the Council has already acted on this item. He said that they would meet with the architect at a future council session. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Resolution - State of Emergency as result of storm last week (Monahan reviewed) - Mr. Monahan explained that it was necessary to declare a state of emergency for both the private property owners and the City, as well as the water district area, to be eligible for financial assistance from FEMA, the State and the County. He said that staff believed there would be significant damage to Cook Park once the water went down. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the City did not own 100% of the water lines and reservoirs and asked if they could still get reimbursement for i J damage. Mr. Monahan explained that they could do so because they had the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 30 i - I i F agreement of the other partners. He said that the other three entities shouid 1 also pass a similar resolution. MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt i Resolution 96-08. Resolution 96-08, a resolution of the Tigard City Council declaring a state of emergency as a result of the 2/6/96 storm. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") b. Washington County Parks Advisory Committee Mayor Nicoli noted that Council had informally acted on the request concerning coordination with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee and that Mr. H.endryx had already received direction to reword the letter. Staff could bring the revised letter back next week for Council review. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will 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 C must not disclose any information discussed during this session. k 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Record or, City o Tigard Date: -3//a 144 can0213.96 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 31 L~ mow I SECTION 33 T I S R I W W IVI. jHINGTON COUNTY OREGON i 1 w / ,~yyeM i SCALE I"= 100' 0. ~o a~:6 Q•• ii JJ. Q s SEE MAP Ce~~~ o 6o IS 1338D $ ~+°r 100 I LLJ Q ♦ s 9s Ac. elR I I Z ~g~z~• a ` W W J Q 0 1900 Qy6z /..77 AC S a 31 q2 W 1 0 292.67 ? N ° 200 ° i 1000 o X~ m ? V 2. B3AC. a A s 3' - - . w W ° F: I ILI ~ - - II 292.90 j ,4 n S 300 1 r 2.3/ AC e' ~ z r 0 1 r 1 o in °O ^ 32 n= ( GS 14,388) 33 ( C.S. 14,731) 1 51-85 I -.S. 21,834) Q $ (r i rV 179.36 EAST 0` a 400 292.67 e 2t AC GREENWAY r, N ee ° p 0682 120.90 u 1001 0, at 9i y *9 700 12 Z!l /R g Z.24AC. ? c 1100 a Z.15AC c^ , /.3B AG a 180.92 -T L~ 0.W. ok)GN t1. / N e I`; 50 °0' 94 y0A► -50 7500 a 7800 7700 7600 40 • 4z.Ze % 10 43 $ 41 ~ a eq• % / ~ 42 e n 3.1p Fact N p 7900 t2 H/ t / a / / ~25y q5 f < e WO . o v 91i~ / yj ~i N e~ a al 44 •G o / N \ if N \LY v e r ~yey° N 8000 N p 1N/5.14Ac V + p i •N N 5 85 N M II f N ~ f :.V N ~ p ¢ N O 91 e? (GS. 23,214) n $ N09-54-13-9 988.24 1460.781 R,22" a - g f n . 0 09-30141 7[,2 Ra ~1 _ '~1 ro 2&62 ~p z 7J 2l 40, 8225.43 9-30141 49!. e n ea^; N~ SEE MAP IS 133DE it STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM n i December 4, 1995 I TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON I A. FACTS i j 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0003 Zone Change ZON 95-0005 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium- High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G. APPLICANT: Briar Development Company P.O. Box 9704 j Bellingham, WA 98227 - OWNERS: Burton E. Grabhorn 11493 SE 82nd Avenue Portland, OR 97226 i LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, lot 8000). 2. Vicinity The affected site is a 9-acre portion of a parcel that contains 15.14 acres. It includes the western portion of the parcel that is located along Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection Of SW 135th Avenue (see map, Exhibit A). The properties to the north across Scholls Ferry Road are in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5 for single family residences. Properties to the east, south and west are in Tigard and zoned for residential. The property to the west is zoned R-25 (multi-family residential) and is vacant. Properties to the south of the site are zoned R-25 and R-12. The R-25 parcel, which is adjacent to approximately 80% of the site's southern border, is approved for development of 160 multi-family units. The R-12 land contains the i • Castles at Brittany subdivision. To the east of the affected site is the remainder of lot 8000 which is zoned R-25 and is vacant. Beyond lot 8000 to the east is a residential district that is zoned R-7(PD). ! 3. Background Information The site was annexed to the city in July of 1987 and zoned R-25 to t comply with the county zoning of R-24. No development applications have been reviewed for this site. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre vacant parcel. The site slopes gently downward from north to south. The site has no remarkable features or trees. f _ The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and a zone change from R-25 to C-G on the 9-acre site. A written narrative, transportation analysis and market analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wisnes to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy on the site. 5. Agency Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and, given the ! available information, has no objection. This assessment is contingent upon the final comments of Washington County concerning the traffic analysis of SW Scholls Ferry Road. The final comments by the county were not ready at the time of this report, however, a letter outlining the county's review status is included with this report as Exhibit B. The final comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as soon as available. The City of Beaverton did not comment upon the application. ODOT chose not to comment because the nearest state i roadway is Hwy 217. t - S. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62, and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 1 60, 2. 2 1 I 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan i policies. As discussed below, policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1a) are not met. The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are met in two ways. Circumstances have changed significantly with regard to planning the area and the larger region since 1983 when the comprehensive plan ; was adopted, and there is an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan's intent to provide sufficient vacant, developable retail land to serve the community and the significant shortage of this type of land. The applicant asserts that a change of circumstances has occurred with adoption of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept (1994) and the Transportation Planning Rule (1991). The 2040 concept calls for the I establishment of a Town Center in the area around the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard intersection. This designation would provide local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market i area. The growth concept also designates Scholls Ferry Road as a Corridor, which is intended to provide higher residential densities with a mix of office and retail buildings. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities and counties prepare, adopt and implement transportation system plans to establish land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. The applicant states that these planning tools will be addressed by the city through a future revision of the comprehensive plan during periodic review, which will likely result in some new commercial- oriented zoning in the area. The proposed amendment and rezone, therefore, is consistent with Region 2040 and TPR. Further, until the city adopts a transportation system plan, the TPR requires the city to review planning and zoning proposals based on this rule. The proposal is in conformance to the TPR by achieving a 65% reduction in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of the development of a grocery complex instead of 180 apartments on the site. J 3 F I i • f The applicant further states that there is an inconsistency in the city's comprehensive plan due to the plan underestimating the need for vacant, developable sites within the subject trade area for locating - new grocery stores. In support of this argument the applicant submitted a market area analysis. The analysis concludes that due to the rapid population, household and income growth in the trade area and the serious lack of vacant land in Tigard and Beaverton which is zoned to allow grocery stores, the site atSWScholls Ferry Road and SIN 935th Avenue is appropriate for redesignation to General Commercial. The foregoing arguments do not meet the requirement that a physical change of circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or that a mistake was made in the original designation of the subject property. The first part of the argument is speculative and is not necessarily consistent with the new regional planning goals. The second part is based on a market analysis that concludes the trade area could support another grocery store, but does not demonstrate that a physical change or mistake took place since original site designation. The 2040 Metro Concept has been adopted but not implemented. The Town Center and Corridor designations are not in place and have not affected the subject property in any way. It is speculative whether _ the city will change the comprehensive plan to assign new commercial-oriented zoning in the area to implement 2040. Even if the Murray/Scholls Ferry Town Center concept is implemented, the boundary of this center as shown on Metro's Beaverton Quadrangle Analysis Map (6/14/95) extends slightly to the west of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and old Scholls Ferry Road. This location is approximately 600' to the west of the subject site. Locating a retail use just outside the Town Center could actually work against the goals of reducing auto travel and achieving compact development. Further, 1 the Town Center designation is entirely within Beaverton and would j not necessitate that Tigard change zoning to accommodate it. The i Corridor designation mostly emphasizes higher densities that would average 25 persons per acre. Development of an auto-oriented retail use is not, therefore, necessarily consistent with this concept. The location of high density residential district along SW Scholls Ferry Road is consistent with the Corridor concept. a The Transportation Planning Rule's goal of reducing total vehicle miles # traveled (VMn will be implemented and achieved on a city-wide i system basis. A reduction in VMT for the subject property may or may not work towards an overall reduction of the city's VMT. 3 7 4 i The market analysis submitted by the applicant is an analysis of the retail potential of the subject site. It may be the case that the trade area, as defined by the study, will support another retail grocery store. This argument does not, however, meet the criterion in Policy 1.1.2(2). The proposal to amend city policy to rezone 9 acres from multi-family residential to retail commercial must be considered in the light of all possible uses allowed under C-G, not only a grocery store. Also, the comprehensive plan does not contain policies or criteria for designating land uses based upon market needs. In this case, the need for a grocery store in the trade area is not sufficient reason for demonstrating that a physical change or mistake was made regarding the subject site. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the requirement of Policy 1.1.2(2) is not satisfied. 2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided j an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the i planning commission hearing was sent to surrounding property I owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City I Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood rnee%ing on jurie 19,1995, for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. i 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. The applicantstates that if the site is developed as a Haggen store, it will employ 40 to 50 full-time and 150 part-time, workers; and due to the proximity of residential neighborhoods and availability of transit, Tigard residents will have an opportunity to work at the store. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. This policy is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential development and would be the only commercial development within a one half mile radius. The applicant states that the site should not be considered a residential area for the following reasons: it is adjacent ~ 5 I r 7 to Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial, and SIN 135th Avenue, a collector street; land use compatibility can be maintained through landscaping, building and driveway orientation; and a commercial use on the site would be consistent with the adopted Metro 2040 concept. Staff does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi-family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of multi-family residential land, however, is also required to have direct access from an arterial or major collector. While landscaping and site design can reduce the impact to residences from commercial uses, this site is surrounded by residential districts that are both established and continuing to develcp. As discussed under B.1 above, this proposal is not necessarily consistent with Metro 2040. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which requires 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. Approval of this proposal would decrease the number of acres of buildable multi-family land, thus reducing the opportunity for the city to meet the 50% requirement and reducing the overall density. Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. if the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (9 acres x 25 units = 225). This would reduce the mix j of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,631 of 4,789). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.36 units per acre.* Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. I { * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the ' total number of developable residential acres. i t i A 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. This policy may or may not be satisfied, pending the final comments by Washington County and any subsequent comments from the city's Engineering Division. 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied because locating a retail commercial use , at the site would support public transit along SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service along this corridor. 8. Policy 12.2.1(2) provides the locational criteria for designating land as general commercial on the plan map. The locationai criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location I _ (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residcntinl districts ,J on more than two sides. This criterion is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential districts on four sides. The residential district to the north is in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5, single family. The districts to the east, sout,~ and west of the site are in Tigard and zoned for multi-family residential. i (2) Access f (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on street capacity, existing and proiected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. This policy may or may not be satisfied pending the final comments from Washington County and the city's Engineering Division. (b) The site shall have direct access from a maior collector or arterial street. This criterion is satisfied because the site has f I , L~ i direct access to SW Scholls Ferry Road, an artr -ial. (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or genera) area. This criterion is satisfied because Tri-met offers bus service along SW Scholls Ferry Road. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and proiected uses. This criterion is satisfied because the 9-acre site is large enough to accommodate retail commercial uses including the grocery store and pharmacy that the applicant wishes to develop. (b) The site shall have high visibility. This criterion is satisfied because the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue is a highly visible area from both roadways. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. The physical and design compatibility of a specific project with the surrounding uses would be assessed at the time of development review. The amount and pattern of traffic, however, would be different for a retail development than a residential one. According to the applicant's traffic analysis, the number of trips generated by a multi-family ' development would be 110 trips per day during the PM peak _ hour; the number of trips generated by the worst case scenario retail development would be 525; and the number of trips generated by the applicant's proposed use would be 370. The additional vehicle trips within the immediate site vicinity i generated by retail development could cause additional impacts to the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adiacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific development proposal. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. The proposed site has no unique natural or man-made features. a ~ I i Mod j (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adioining non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the development review process. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has been conducted by the Planning Commission according to 18.32.0900; and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. c 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: ; A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with j conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial + amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map f j designation, and the change will not adversely affect the health safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, until acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this ! j proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (General Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-G zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specificfuture site development improvements J r would be reviewed through the site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.62. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoninq ! map as it relates to the property which is the subiect of the development application. See above under B.I. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. This criterion may or may not be satisfied, pending the final comments by Washington County and any subsequent comments from the city's Engineering. Division. 12. Conclusion In conclusion, all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been met. Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1a) are not satisfied by the applicant. Staff cannot, therefore, make findings to support the proposed amendment and zone change. Policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(2)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 may or may not be satisfied pending the final comments by Washington County and the city's Engineering Division. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0003 and Zone Change ZON 95-0005 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. f i 10 i I ` l~ i ~ f cow m P . ~r FERRO , h W o u SGNOL~S i w W Z W HAWK'S titARU ST _ I V7 I Z ~HMq y w > I NQ I 0 o w a V ® Pro Dosed ComOr.nen%N. Plan and Zone A D. hand. -t tnm Mnn.1(RHpA D.neMC nnO VICINITY MAP i 5 General ralral Gp mm.mml.mol (C•6) { . Not.: Lacation is aomaimata NOTE: MAP IS NOT TO SCALE m N Note: moorttora N deecnetbn. ---1 EXHIBIT B _ WASHING, iN COUNTY, OREGON j Ray Valone Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 October 30, 1995 F Dear Mr. Valone, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Haggen Food and Pharmacy Plan Amendment. Figure B of the applicant's submittal includes two access points to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial. The County's access spacing standard for a major arterial is 1000 -J feet. Given the distance between SW 130th Avenue and SW 135th Avenue, both of these accesses are inconsistent with the County access spacing standard. On October 25, 1995, the applicant submitted a request for modification to the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards to allow a right-in, right ii -out access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road approximately 425 feet east of SW 135th Ave, I . and a full access approximately 500 feet west of SW 130th Avenue. Assuming the ` submittal is found to be complete, the County Engineering Division expects to make a decision on the modification request by November 10, 1995. The decision would likely be one of the following: a) approve the request for the two new access points, b) approve ! only one of the access points, or c) deny any new direct access to Scholls Ferry. As you're aware, OAR 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be "consistent with identified function, capacity, and level-of-service..." of impacted transportation facilities. Until the access issue on Scholls Ferry is resolved, the County is not prepared to i comment on whether or not the proposed plan amendment is consistent with this section of the Transportation elanning Rule (TPA). We believe it would be confusing to try to determine consistency with this section of the TPR until the County has first determined - the permitted access location to the property. Department of Land Use And Transportation, Administration Phone: 503/648-8761 ` . 155 North First Avenue Hillsboro. Oregon 97124 FAX # 503/693-4412 j L~ - Haggen Plan Amendment Page 2 We plan to submit additional comments regarding consistency with OAR 660-12-060 prior to the hearing on November 20th. i r Please give me a call I you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, i Andy Back Senior Planner c: Mark Brown Doug Norval i _ ~ sfx i' i. 1 ~ 1 I r { t l ~ AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of January 23. 1996 E~ j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 3r; ar T)ve loPme n+ 1 i PREPARED BY: _Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK ( TY ADMIN OK Iw'^' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change on 9 acres from Medium-High Residential/R-25 to General Commercial/C-G? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal at its hearing of December 4, 1995. Because staff finds that the proposal does not satisfy all the relevant comprehensive plan criteria, it recommends that the City Council deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change CPA 95- 0003/ZON 95-0005. j J INFORMATION SUMMARY E ' The proposed plan amendment and zone change concerns a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre parcel of I land located on the southeast comer of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. The applicant j Briar Development Company, has requested this action in order to develop a Haggen Food Store and , Pharmacy. The staff report, including the minutes from the Planning Commission hearing, are ` attached. The applicant's submittal consists of a written narrative with traffic impact analysis and a 11 market analysis. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i i 1. Approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, and request the applicant to prepare findings demonstrating that all criteria are satisfied. j 2. Deny the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, and request staff to complete a 1 resolution and final order for adoption by the council. ~ F1$CAL NOTES ' No direct fiscal impact to the city. 4J a Ti a I STAFF REPORT I January 23, 1996 j TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0003 Zone Change ZON 95-0005 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and change I the zoning from R-25 to C-G. APPLICANT: Briar Development Company l P.O. Box 9704 Bellingham, WA 98227 OWNERS: Burton E. Grabhorn j 11493 SE 82nd Avenue Portland, OR 97226 LOCATION: Southeast comer of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, tot 8000). 1 2. Vicinity The affected site is a 9-acre portion of a parcel that contains 15.14 acres. It includes the western portion of the parcel that is located along Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection of SW 135th Avenue (see map, Exhibit A). The properties to i the north across Scholls Ferry Road are in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5 for single family residences. Properties to the east, south and west are in Tigard and zoned for residential. The property to the west is zoned R-25 (multi-family residential) and is vacant. Properties to the south of the site are zoned R-25 and R-12. The R-25 parcel, which is adjacent to approximately 80% of the site's southern border, is approved for development of 160 multi-family units. The R-12 1 I I c land contains the Castles at Brittany subdivision. To the east of the affected site is the remainder of lot 8000 which is zoned R-25 and is vacant. Beyond lot 8000 to the east is a residential district that is zoned R-7(PD). ! 3. Background Information E I j The site was annexed to the city in July of 1987 and zoned R-25 to comply with the county zoning of R-24. No development applications have been reviewed for this site. i The Planning Commission held a hearing on CPA 95-00032ON 95-0005 on December 4, 1995, and voted 5-4 to recommend approval of the proposal (Exhibit B). Staff recommended denial to the commission. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre vacant parcel. The site slopes gently downward from north to south. The site has no remarkable features or trees. 1 The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High - Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and a zone change from R-25 to l C-G on the 9-acre site. A written narrative, transportation analysis and market analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wishes to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy on the site. t 5. Agency Comments i The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and has no objection. Washington County staff reviewed the traffic study for the impact of developing the Haggen grocery store complex on Scholls Ferry Road. Their comments are contained in a letter dated December 4 (Exhibit C). The City of Beaverton did not comment upon the application. ODOT chose not to comment because the nearest state roadway is Hwy 217. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 2 I I j f i { Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As € - discussed below, policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) t are not satisfied. In addition, staff cannot make the findings that Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied nor make a finding of compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660- 12-060, if any use is developed at the site except a 60,127 square-foot grocery store/pharmacy complex. The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: Circumstances have changed significantly with regard to planning the area and the larger region since 9983 when the comprehensive plan was adopted, and there is an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan's intent to provide sufficient vacant, developable retail land to serve the community and the significant shortage j of this type of land. The applicant asserts that a change of circumstances has occurred with adoption - ^ of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept (9994) and the Transportation Planning Rule (9999). The 2040 concept calls for the establishment of a Town Center in the area j around the Scholls Feny Road/Murray Boulevard intersection. This designation would provide local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market area. The growth concept also designates Scholls Fer y Road as a Corridor, which is intended to provide higher residential densities with a mix of office and retail buildings. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities and counties prepare, adopt and implement transportation system plans to establish land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. The applicant states that these planning tools will be addressed by the city through a future revision of the comprehensive plan during periodic review, which will likely result in some new commercial-ori ented zoning in the area. The proposed amendment and rezone, therefore, is consistent with Region 2040 and TPR. Further, until the city adopts a transportation system plan, the TPR requires the city to review planning and zoning proposals based on this rule. The proposal is in conformance to the TPR by achieving a 65% reduction in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of the development of a grocery complex instead of 980 apartments on the site. 3 _ i L~ i f The applicant further states that there is an inconsistency in the city's n comprehensive plan due to the plan underestimating the need for vacant developable sites within the subject trade area for locating new grocery stores. In support of this argument, the applicant submitted a market area analysis. The analysis concludes that due to the rapid population, household and income growth in the trade area and the serious lack of vacant land in Tigard and Beaverton i which is zoned to allow grocery stores, the site at SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW III 935th Avenue is appropriate for redesignation to General Commercial. i The foregoing arguments do not meet the requirement that a physical change of circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or that a mistake was made in the original designation of the subject property. The first part of the argument is speculative and is not necessarily consistent with the new regional planning goals. The second part is based on a market analysis that concludes the trade area could support another grocery store, but does not demonstrate that a physical change or mistake took place since original site designation. The 2040 Metro Concept has been adopted but not implemented. The Town Center and Corridor designations are not in place and have not affected the subject property in any way. It is speculative whether the city will change the comprehensive plan to assign new commercial-oriented zoning in the area to _ ! implement 2040. Even if the Murray/Scholls Ferry Town Center concept is implemented, the boundary of this center as shown on Metro's Beaverton Quadrangle Analysis Map (6/14/95) extends slightly to the west of the intersection 1 of SW Scholls Ferry Road and old Scholls Ferry Road. This location is approximately 600' to the west of the subject site. Locating a retail use just outside the Town Center could actually work against the goals of reducing auto travel and ; achieving compact development. Further, the Town Center designation is entirely j within Beaverton and would not necessitate that Tigard change zoning to accommodate it. The Corridor designation mostly emphasizes higher densities that would average 25 persons per acre. Development of an auto-oriented retail use is not, therefore, necessarily consistent with this concept. The location of high density residential district along SW Scholls Ferry Road is consistent with the I Corridor concept. The Transportation Planning Rule's goal of reducing total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be implemented and achieved on a city-wide system basis. A reduction in VMT for the subject property may or may not work towards an overall reduction _ of the city's VMT. j i 4 t~ _J1 t The market analysis submitted by the applicant is an analysis of the retail potential t j of the subject site. It may be the case that the trade area, as defined by the study, will support another retail grocery store. This argument does not, however, meet the criterion in Policy 1.1.2(2). The proposal to amend city policy to rezone 9 acres from multi-family residential to retail commercial must be considered in the light of R all possible uses allowed under C-G, not only a grocery store. Also, the comprehensive plan does not contain policies or criteria for designating land uses based upon market needs. In this case, the need for a grocery store in the trade area ;s not sufficient reason for demonstrating that a physical change or mistake was made regarding the subject site. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the requirement of Policy 1.1.2(2) is not satisfied. 2. 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. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the r proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the t' Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and i conducted a neighborhood meeting on June 19, 1995, for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. _ i 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis r, placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. S The applicant states that if the site is developed as a Haggen store, it will employ ; r 40 to 50 full-time and 150 part-time workers; and due to the proximity of residential neighborhoods and availability of transit, Tigard residents will have an opportunity j to work at the store. ( 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial j development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been l designated for commercial or industrial uses. This policy is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential development and would be the only commercial development within a one half mile radius. The applicant states that the site should not be considered a residential area for the following reasons: It is adjacent to Scholls Feny Road, an arterial, and SW 135th Avenue, a collector street; land use compatibility can be maintained through landscaping, building and driveway orientation, and a commercial use on the site would be consistent with the adopted Metro 2040 concept. 5 r e - d L~ __~d I 1 Staff does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi- 1 family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of E multi-family residential land, however, is also required to have direct access from E an arterial or major collector. While landscaping and site design can reduce the impact to residences from commercial uses, this site is surrounded by residential districts that are both established and continuing to develop. As discussed under B.1 above, this proposal is not necessarily consistent with Metro 2040. I 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR i 660-07) which requires 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. Approval of this proposal would decrease the number of acres of buildable multi- j family land, thus reducing the opportunity for the city to meet the 50% requirement and reducing the overall density. t Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (9 acres x 25 units = 225). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,631 of 4,789). It would also reduce the city's j overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.36 units per acre.* Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres . times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic study and concluded that the retail grocery use would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the roadway. This conclusion is conditioned on the I 6 i l~ i I I 1 i site having only one access from Scholls Ferry as stated in the December 4 letter from the county (Exhibit C). Based on the evaluation of the county and the approved access to the site, the city's Engineering Division concluded that the city transportation system would not be adversely affected by the proposal Staff notes, however, that the county's finding of no significant affect to Scholls 4 Ferry Road is for development of the site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store. The county letter concludes as follows: We've previously stated that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. However, this may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, ` the design modification was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. The current proposal is for a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone _ n change to the site, and not for development of a grocery store. Though the county I finds that the grocery store use is consistent with Transportation Planning Rule j requirements, this finding does not apply to any other allowable uses in the C-G { zone. Another use may affect the transportation system differently. For example, t the applicant's traffic analysis shows that the number of PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed grocery store use would be 370. The number of trips for development of other allowable uses, e.g. a grocery store with another retail use and a fast-food restaurant, would be 525. Under the existing zoning for multi- family use, there would be 110 trips per day during the PM peak hour. Though this policy is satisfied regarding the development of the proposed site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store complex, the additional vehicle trips within the immediate site vicinity generated by certain retail uses could significantly affect the i transportation system. Because the proposed comprehensive plan amendment/zone change has not been evaluated for a worst case scenario, which is a scenario where the site is developed with uses that are allowed under C-G zoning but generate more vehicle trips and/or cause greater traffic impact, the planning division cannot make a finding that Policy 8.1.1 has been satisfied. i 7 i 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating k land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied because locating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit along SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service along this corridor. EE 8. Policy 12.2.1(2) provides the locational criteria for designating land as general commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: - j (1) Spacing and Location i (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides- This criterion is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential districts on four sides. The residential district to the north is in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5, single family. The districts to the east, south and west of the site are in Tigard and zoned for multi-family residential. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic E congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on street capacity, existing and protected traffic volumes, the speed limit. number of tuming movements and the traffic generating characteristics of i the various types of uses. See comments under 6 above. I (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. This criterion is satisfied because the site has direct access to SW Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. This criterion is satisfied because Tri-met offers bus service along SW Scholls Ferry Road. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. This criterion is satisfied because the 9-acre site is large enough to ~.J 8 F 1 1 i accommodate retail commercial uses including the grocery store and 1 pharmacy that the applicant wishes to develop. (b) The site shall have high visibility. This criterion is satisfied because the comer of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue is a highly visible area from both roadways. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. The physical and design compatibility of a specific project with the surrounding 6 uses would be assessed at the time of development review. The amount and pattern of traffic, however, would be different for a retail development than a residential one, which could cause additional impacts to the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adiacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific development proposal. (c) It shall be possible to incoQ2orate the unique site features into the site dgs19n and developmMt-plan. The proposed site has no unique natural or man-made features. (d) The associated lights noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the development review process. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has been conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: 9 { I i 1 i F I A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of i the following standards: a 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the It change will not adversely affect the health safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 until acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ` ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, 1 therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. j 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (General Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-G zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development _ improvements would be reviewed through the site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in j section 18.62. ! 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or communes or -a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the 2ropedy which is the subject of the development application. See above j under B.1. i 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. County staff reviewed the proposal, and after granting the applicant's request for a modification to the county's design standards regarding access from Scholls Ferry Road, conclude that development of a 60,127 square-foot ! supermarket at the proposed site would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. The determination of consistency with OAR 660-12-060, however, is limited to this particular grocery store use. In fact, the December 4 letter concludes as follows: 10 1 i However, this [conclusion] may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, the design modification was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the { County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. Because the current proposal is not for a 60,127 square-foot or smaller grocery store use, the city planning staff cannot make a finding of compliance with this state rule. 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-G (General Commercial) category. Approval or 1 denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-G meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been satisfied. _ Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1a) are not satisfied by the applicant. Though policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(2)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 are satisfied for the development of a 60,127 square-foot grocery store use, these policies have not been satisfied for all allowable uses under the General J Commercial category and C-G zoning. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of this proposal at its hearing of December 4, 1995. The Planning Division, however, recommends that I the City Council DENY the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 95- 0003 and zone change ZON 95-0005 based upon the foregoing findings and ( conclusions. I . I ~ a 11 EXHIBIT A 1 Y O f cr) 1 GOT q r I FERR Z { I s o u / SGNOL~ j _ i LU W k.. f7 I ' ^ HAWK'S -j BEARD ST ~ I 1 ~ c'HMq y Q~ w rQry 0 0 v `J ® Pro POCatl Camoonan-. Ptan antl Zana rliantla from Matli..-Hiah t VICINITY MAP Janaay Rasidannaf (R•75) b Gananl Com M.1(C-G) NOTE: MAP IS NOT TO SCALE Note: Locamn R&Omximab N nfar m anft noon fof i.a.1 - I tlaaonotbn. ) EXHIBIT B c i i 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-0003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT I REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14-acre parcel. LOCATION: Southeast comer of SW Scholls Ferry E Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, lot 8000). APPLICABLE ! REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) - allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking I establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. STAFF REPORT Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He noted that the u parcel is presently zoned medium high residential (R-25)and that the applicant proposes amending the comp plan map and changing the zone to commercial general (C-G). Valone presented the commission with a letter from Washingtc-1 County (Exhibit "B") regarding the applicant's request for modifying the county road standards to accommodate a different access. The letter stated that the proposal, as altered by modifications in a letter from Mark Vandehey of the county, would c ! comply with the transportation planning rule as it affects Scholls Ferry Road, and further, that the access design modification, as granted by the county and the - findings consistent with the transportation planning rule, is limited to the Haggen site plan proposal only. Valone reported that staff finds that the proposal does not meet all applicable comprehensive plan criteria, in particular, the applicant's argument that a change in circumstances occured does not meet the criteria requirement. Valone stated that staff recommends denial of the case. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Tom Jones, W&H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008, spoke on behalf of the applicant. ! Don Haggen, 2211 Rimland Dr., Bellingham, WA 98225, CEO and Chairman of Haggen, Inc., spoke about his company and showed slides of various Haggen i stores. Tom Jones highlighted 5 instances where he believes physical and policy changes have occurred: a significant increase of population; lack of sufficient sites for general commercial uses; transportation improvements to this site, which have led to increased site accessibility and visibility; adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept Plan, which designates this area as a Town Center; and adoption of the J/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 4, 1995 - Page 4 k{ 4 I. i i Transportation Planning Rule - a change to general commercial use would reduce the vehicle miles traveled by 65% over multi-family use. ! In talking about locational criteria, Jones stated that commercial areas should not be surrounded by residential areas on more than 2 sides - he cited numerous examples around Tigard where this policy does not hold true. He then stated that the comp plan designates commercial sites to be located on a major arterial or major collector and that this site satisfies both. ; I He said that the subject site, adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, has a 100' right-of- way and a 10' sound wall that separates the site from the residential areas of Beaverton. There is also a 70' right-of-way separating the site from the vacant residential area to the west. Jones said that the comp plan states that locational criteria should be used in a flexible manner and that conformance should vary with degrees of change and I impact on the community. " Jones quoted from the letter from Washington County, which states that the county ! believes the applicant has provided adequate information to determine that i development of this supermarket at this location would not significantly affect Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of Scholls Ferry Road. The letter further states that, with regards to trip generation and distribution habits, the supermarket would be similar P or have perhaps a less severe impact on the intersections as compared to apartments. Jones concluded his testimony by stating that this application is consistent with Metro's 2040 plan by offering the neighborhood a local shopping opportunity that they could walk or bike to, and is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. David Leland, Leland & Associates, 325 NW 22nd Ave., Portland, OR 97210, answered a question on what happens when there is a shortage of grocery store space. He commented that there is increased congestion at the existing stores and there is increased pricing when there is a shortage of grocery stores. Regarding Policy 112, Commissioner Padgett clarified with the applicant that they were not arguing that there was a physical mistake in comp plan, but rather there has been a change in circumstances. Padgett asked staff if we reduce the amount of multi-family zoning, are we required to increase it somewhere else. Associate Planner Ray Valone answered that we have an allocation we have to meet by transportation zones; we don't have to meet each zone's allocation, but we do have to meet the allocation for the city as a whole. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, added that the city is required to have a certain mix of land I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 4, 1995 - Page 5 f Mai i { use. He noted that changing the zone for this parcel doesn't take the city below our requirement. E PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Susan Donin, Village at Forest Glen, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, OR 97008, stated that traffic is a problem for the residents of her retirement center. She said that this store is appealing because residents could walk across the street to it. Bert Powell, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, OR 97008, did not testify, but voiced support. Marcia Brown, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #12, Beaverton, OR 97008, believes the store is a "class act" addition to the neighborhood and would be a great convenience. 4 Loy Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #107, Beaverton, OR 97008, stated that he desired the store to come here. Sidney Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #107, Beaverton, OR 97008, i stated she has attended the meetings and was pleased that the owners listened to { her comments and suggestions. She believes the store would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Dale Newton, 10935 SW Summer Lake Dr., Tigard, OR 97223, has visited a i Haggen store in Bellingham and was impressed with it. He said that this store would be a convenience. He also commented on the traffic on Scholls Ferry Road, and believes that multi-family housing would increase the traffic. Linda Newton, 10935 SW Summer Lake Dr., Tigard, OR 97223, voiced her support for the store. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Pam Garcia, 14555 SW Teal Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97007, representing Murrayhill Thriftway, presented the commission with a letter (Exhibit "C") supporting staffs recommendation of denial. She said that the letter outlines and supports most of the criteria in the staff report, as well as several other criteria she believes should f be addressed. ` Garcia said that she understands that the area has grown and that her store has j. . just completed a major remodel. She noted that her store has invested in the community for a number of years and that they have been looking forward to... seeing some of the benefits of that. She concluded by saying that she agrees with staff that this is not a proper location for another supermarket. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 4, 1995 - Page 6 R APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Tom Jones began the rebuttal by clarifying that he believes there was no mistake i. made in the comprehensive plan, but there are inconsistencies in the code regarding significant changes. He cited a policy change in the transportation planning rule - the standards and criteria that site plans and applications have to conform to. Jones said he strongly feels that they have listened to the neighborhood to provide I a store that people can walk to and would be an asset to the community. Jones remarked that staff has not provided any significant impacts that this application poses and he reminded the commission that Washington County has approved this site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED i. ,q . President Wilson stated that he agreed with staff on one point, that 2040 is not a relevant criteria. He went on to say that the applicant's points are valid, that there has been a significant change in the community. He believes that 13,000 new residents and widening of the street are significant changes, that they were not " anticipated when the comp plan was adopted. He went on to say that he believes competition is favorable and that the city is obligated to adopt a plan that has adequate space for all kinds of development. Commissioner Holland commented that he was in favor being able to walk or bike to shopping. He also stated that he agreed with the corridor idea of putting commercial and high density residential areas close to major collectors. i Commissioner DeFrang asked if the criteria the commission had to use for changing the comp plan was because a mistake was made. Commissioners Collson and Wilson answered that it could also be because of a change in circumstances. In response to a question from Commissioner DeFrang, Ray Valone commented that since 1989, 50 acres of commercial property has been y picked up through rezoning. i j Commissioner Moore asked if this piece of property would qualify for any commercial zone change. Ray Valone answered that it would and noted that a lot' of the testimony is based on the Haggen Food Store and that this action is for { rezoning to C-G designation which allows any use within a C-G zone. + i Commissioner Holland asked about conditioning the zone change for a particular . use. Jim Hendryx answered that this has not been a practice in Tigard. He stated that one of the typical issues about conditioning a rezone or a plan amendment is to make sure the conditioning is related to the approval criteria. He also noted that l it would be difficult to track the conditions on a long term basis. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 4, 1995 - Page 7 1 B f E s ' Commissioner Padgett stated that he did not think the application supports a change in the comprehensive plan. He said he does not believe the applicant proved there had been a change in circumstance. He reminded the commission I i that the applicant was asking for a total change to the comp plan, which means f they have to prove every single point, not just a preponderance of them. Commissioner Padgett said he was not comfortable changing the comprehensive plan based on the argument that the street got wider and more people moved in. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Padgett. Commissioner Scolar said that he believed there were enough circumstances that had changed. Commissioner Collson thought the location was perfect for this application. Commissioner Moore said that he did not believe that this was a proper location based on the zoning requirements and there was not enough evidence to sway him otherwise. Commissioner Holland moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 95-0003/Zone Change (ZON) 95-0005. President Wilson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-4. Commissioners Griffith, Scolar, Holland, Wilson, and Collson voted for the motion. Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, DeFrang, and Moore voted against the motion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS i 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary J I ATTEST: President Nick Wilson .J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 4, 1995 - Page 8 I , i 1 1 6XH181,1, C WASHINGTON COUNTY. I OREGON i I ~ I 1 Ray Valone Tigard Planning Division 13215 SW Hall Boulevard I Tigard, Or 97223 j December 4, 1995 i j Dear Mr. Valone, This correspondence is a follow up to my October 30, 1995 letter to you regarding the Haggen Food and Pharmacy Plan Amendment. As noted in our previous letter, Figure B of the applicant's submittal includes two access points to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial. The County's access spacing standard for a major arterial is 1000 feet. Given the distance between SW 130th Avenue and SW 135th Avenue, both of these accesses are inconsistent with the County access spacing j standard. On October 25, 1995, the applicant submitted a request for modification to the F Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards to allow a right-in, right -out access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road approximately 425 feet east of SW 135th Ave, and a full access approximately 500 feet west of SW 130th Avenue. The request was recently conditionally approved with the following modification: only one access to Scholls Ferry Road is allowed, a right in/right out/left in only access spaced approximately 500 feet west of SW. 130th Avenue (see attached letter from Michael Borresen regarding more details of the design modification). As you're aware, OAR 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be "consistent with identified function, capacity, and level-of-service..." of impacted transportation facilities. Assuming the proposal is altered to incorporate the access modification approved by the County Engineering Division, we believe the applicant has provided adequate information to determine that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. It's our understanding that the General Commercial designation would allow uses other than a 60,127 square-foot supermarket. For example, uses that are more "destination- oriented" such as a Wal-Mart, l arget or Circuit City would also be allowed in the General Commercial designation. Available information suggests that intersections to the east of the site on SW Scholls Ferry at Conestoga and 121st may experience capacity problems Department of Land Use and Transportation, Planning Division Phone: 503 / 640-3519 55 North First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 FAX # 503 / 693-4412 ~r~ Fir Haggen 3 Page 2 in the future. Given predicted trip generation and distribution patterns, the proposed s supermarket would have a similar or perhaps less severe impact on these intersections I as compared to an apartment development (the existing zoning). However, a j 'destination use' at this location would likely have a more severe negative impact on the 121st/Scholls and Conestoga/Scholls intersections than the existing zoning. F ' We've previously stated that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with t the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. However, t ' this may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. i Additionally, t; le design modiGcaaon was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a diiicrent land use was proposed, the.County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to h , Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. t Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request. _ Sincerely, r" j Andy Back I Senior Planner i c: Mark Brown Doug Norval - Tom Tushner j Tom Harry ~i WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON December i, 1995 i Mr. Mark Vandehey, P.E. - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 RE: Haggen Food and Pharmacy Development - City of Tigard W.C.U.R.I.D.S. - Request for Modification The following is in response to your October 25, 1995, request 1 for modification to W.C.U.R.I.D.S. Section 130.2, Page 9, fora reduced access spacing on Scholls Ferry Road. j _ Your request is approved. I XX Your request is approved with changes as noted below: The modification to the W.C.U.R.D.S. was reviewed' only for the shopping center. Any other land uses are subject to traffic i reevaluation. 1 Only one access to Scholls Ferry Road is approved, a right 11 in/right out/left in only access spaced approximately 500 feet west of S.W. 130th Avenue. The applicant is resonsible to i provide the following improvements at a minimum.' 1. Provide an adequate raised median length (the Engineering Section suggests that 50 feet minimum from curb return to the east and to the west side of the driveway. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the access restrictions are adequate) on Scholls Ferry Road to prevent the northbound left turn movement from the site. The raised median shall be designed to effectively prohibit left turn egress while allowing left turn ingress from a westbound left turn refuge. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the median is adequately illuminated. 2. Provide an eastbound right turn deceleration lane on Scholls Ferry Road at the right in/right out/left in access. The storage length will be determined during the final u design (contact Tom Wolch, Traffic Engineer at 693-4817 for more details). C:\....\;PaATA\:Ct:on66S.nC3 Depanment o( Land Use & Transportation Enginering Services ~hrn~- M9:1 FO :__C(,: I G~ tinnh ?irv A rnur Sttite M-17 1-:011 )ro Or_-cn 97123 F.A.X =•!503,1 It has been discussed with the applicant's engineer that the F following conditions accompany this modification: } a. The proposed access will never be signalized. It is recognized that shopping center patrons may incur out of direction travel and additional delay, but in order to protect the integrity and safety on Scholls Ferry Road as a major arterial a traffic signal will not be considered at this location. b. It is recognized that the access point may encourage neighborhood traffic to utilize the center parking lot as a "cut through" to avoid adjacent traffic signals. Your request is denied for the following reasons: Please be advised that all modifications granted to the W.C.U.R.I.D.S. are considered unique and are not uniformly applicable. I NOTE: See Section 250.2.3 for appeal procedures should you i wish to appeal. ` Michael A. Borresen, P.E. Engineering/Surveying Manager Reviewed By: Doug Norval Approved By: Thomas F. Tushner Abbas H-Shafii I - CC: Tom Tushner ty Doug Norval Phil Healy '`^F Tom Harry Road Standards File _ File J J L a....\uao:.;n\teton665.na3 - l 1 s I I EE A { TIGARD CITY COUNCIL E BUSINESS MEETING ITY OF TIGARD I JANUARY 23, 1995 6:30 P2~t T,IGARD CITY HALL' 13125 SW HALL BEND 'nGARD, oREGON 97223 ` . a PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the i appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 y p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. 1 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: f • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; f and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. i Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). J SEE ATTACHED AGENDA I _ c CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON { n RESOLUTION NO. 96-10 A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 95-0003) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZON 95-0005) REQUESTED BY BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and zone change from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th j Avenue; WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Division evaluated the apciicafion and recommends denial; WHEREAS, the T Ioard Planning Commission considered the application at its public hearing on December A, 1995, and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the T icard City Council considered the application at its public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ticard City Council that: Section 1: The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the auached final order (Exhibit A). Section 2: The City Councii upholds the sta f recommendation for denial of the comprehensive plan map amendment and zone map chance as set forth in 1 Exhibits A and S. ja Section 3: The City Council, therefore, orders that application request CPA 95-0003/ZON 95- 0005 be DENIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final ordcr, 2as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case, i PASSED: This day o996. k5kry%,or - City of Tigard Ciry Recorder - City of T icard ` Ads- G 4 CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. I The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 1996. The City Council denies the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0003 Zone Change Z.ON 95-0005 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and change - the zoning from R-25 to C-G. APPLICANT: Briar Development Company P.O. Box 9704 Bellingham, WA 98227 'I OWNERS: Burton E. Grabhorn 11493 SE 82nd Avenue [ Portland, OR 97225 (4 j I LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW Scholis Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTNI IS1 33AC, lot 8000). 2. Vi initw The affected site is a 9-acre porion of a parcel that contains 15.14 acres. It includes the western portion of the parcel that is located along Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection of SW 135th Avenue (see map, Exhibit A). The properties to the north across Scholls Ferry Road are in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5 for sinele famiiv residences. Properties to the east, south and west are in Ticard and v 1 -~i i 1 l zoned for residential. The property to the west is zoned R-25 (multi-family t residential) and is vacant. Properties to the south of the site are zoned R-25 and R-12. The R-25 parcel, which is adjacent to approximately 80% of the site's southern border, is approved for development of 160 multi-famiiy units. The R-12 land contains the Castles at Brittany subdivision. To the east of the affected site is I the remainder of lot 8000 which is zoned R-25 and is vacant. Beyond lot 8000 to 1 the east is a residential district that is zoned R-7(PD). 3. Backoround Information 1 The site was annexed to the city in July of 1987 and zoned R-25 to comply with i the county zoning of R-24. No development applications have been reviewed for i this site. The Planning Commission held a hearing on CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 on December 4, 1995, and voted 5 : to recommend approval of the proposal (Exhibit 6). Staff recommended denial to the commission. j 4. Site Information and Prooc=21 Description i i The proposal includes a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre vacant parcel. The site 1 slopes gently downward from north to south. The site has no remarkable features or trees. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and a zone chance from R-25 to C-G on the 9-acre site. A written narrative, transportation analysis and market 1 analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support cf the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wishes to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy on the site. 5. A encv Comments The Eneineerina Division reviewed the proposal and has no objection. Washington County staff reviewed the traffic study for the impact of developing the Haggen grocery store complex on Scholls Ferry Road. Their comments are contained in a letter dated December 4 (Exhibit C). The City of Beaverton did not comment upon the application. ODOT chose not to comment because the nearest state roadway is Hwy 217. 1 2 i B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 13.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As discussed below, policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are not satisfied. In addition, staf, cannot make the findings that Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied nor make a findino of compliance with Crecon Administrative Rule 660- 12-060, if any use is developed at the site except a 60,127 square-foot grocery storelpharmacy complex. j The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways, Circumstances have chanced sianificantly with retard to planning the area and the larger region since 1983 when the comprehensive plan was adopted, and there is i an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan's intent to provide sufficient vacant, developable retail land to serve the community and the significant shortage of this type of land. T ne applicant asserts that a chance of circumstances has occurred with adoption l j of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept (1994) and the Transportation Planning Rule (1991.). The 2040 concept calls for the establishment of a Town Center in the area around the Scholls Ferry RcadVi urav Boulevard intersection. This designation ' rrould provide local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market area. The growth concept also designates Scholls Ferry Road as a Corridor, which is intended to provide higher residential densities with a mix of office and retail buildings. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities and ff counties prepare, adopt and implement transportation system plans to establish land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. The applicant states that these planning tools will be ' addressed by the city through a future revision of the comprehensive plan during j % periodic review, which will likely result in some new commercial-oriented zoning in the area. The proposed amendment and rezone, therefore, is consistent with Region 2040 and TPR. 3 r~ 1 • t Further, until the city adopts a transportation system plan, the TPR requires the ! i city to review planning and zoning proposals based on this rule. The proposal is in $ conformance to the TF by achieving a 65% reduction in the vehicle miles j traveled (VM71 as a resu c of the development of a grocery complex instead of 180 apartments on the site. i I r The applicant further states that there is an inconsistency in the city's comprehensive plan due to the plan underestimating the need for vacant, developable sites within the subject trade area for locating new grocery stores. In support of this argument, the applicant submitted a mar''Ket area analysis. The analysis concludes that due to the rapid population, household and income growth in the trade area and the serious lack of vacant land in Tigard and Beaverton which is zoned to allow grocery stores, the site at SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue, is apprcpnate for redesignation to General Commercial. The foregoing arguments do not meet the requirement that a physical change or circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or that a mistake was made in the original designation of the subiect property. The first part of the argument is speculative and is not necessarily consistent with the new regional planning goals. The second cart is based on a market analysis that concludes the trade area could support another grocery store, but does not demonstrate that a physical change or mistake took place since onginai site designation. l The 2040 Metro Concept has been adopted but not implemented. The Town 1 Center and Corridor designations are not in place and have not affected the subject property in any way. It is speculative whether the city will change the i comprehensive plan to assign new commercial-oriented zoning in the area to implement 2040. Even if the Murat'/Scholls Ferry Town Center concept is i implemented. the boundary of this center as shown on Metro's Beaverton Quadrangle Analysis Map (6/14/95) extends slightly to the west of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and old Scholls Ferry Road. This location is approximately 600' to the west of the subject site. Locating a retail use just outside the Town Center could actually work against the goals of reducing auto travel and achieving comoact development. Further, the Town Center designation is entirely within Beaverton and would not necessitate that Tigard chance zoning to i accommodate it. The Corridor designation mostly emphasizes higher densities that would average 25 persons per acre. Develeoment of an auto-oriented retail use is rot, therefore, necessarily consistent with this concept. The location of high density residential district along SW Scholls Ferry Road is consistent with the Corridor conceot. r i ne Transportation Planning Rule's goal of reducing total vehicle miles traveled i (VMT will be implemented and achieved on a city-wide system basis. A reduction in VMT for the subject property may or may not work towards an overall reduction t of the city's VMT. t I The market analysis submitted by the applicant is an analysis of the retail potential I of the subject site. It may be the case that the trade area, as defined by the study, will support another retail grocery store. This argument does not, however, meet the criterion in Policy 1.1.2(2). The proposal to amend city policy to rezone 9 acres j from multi-family residential to retail commercial must be considered in the light of all possible uses allowed under C-G, not only a grocery store. Also, the comprehensive plan does not contain policies or criteria for designating land uses based upon market needs. In this case, the need for a grocery store in the trade area is not sufficient reason for demonstrating that a physical change or mistake was made regarding the subject site. Based on the above analysis, staff p concludes that the requirement of Policy 1.1.2(2) is not satisfied. _ e ' 2. 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 he' policy is satisfied because the involved in all phases of the planning process. The' j surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the j proposal and given the opportunity to comment or, the proposal. The notice for the - Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard Cibi Hall and advertised in a local newspacer. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on June 19, 19°5, for property owners within a 1 250-20ot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification cf the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. The applicant states that if the site is developed as a Haocen store, it will employ 40 to W full-time and 150 part-time workers; and due to the proximitl of residential I neichbomcods and availability of transit, Ticard residents :will have an opportunity to vvork at the store. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. This policy is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential development and would be the only commercial develccment within a one half mile radius. The applicant states that ~ k the site should not be considered a rzsidential area for the following reasons: It is 1 adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial, and SW 135th Avenue, a collector street; land use compatibility can be maintained through landscaping, building and l driveway orientation; and a commercial use on the site would be consistent with i the adopted Metro 2040 concept. Star does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi- family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to , commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of multi-family residential land, however, is also required to have direct access from an arterial or major collector. While landscaping and site design can reduce the impact to residences from commercial uses, this site is surrounded by residential districts that are both established and continuina to develop. As discussed under 6.1 above, this proposal is not necessariiy consistent with iWetro 2040. 5. Policy 6.1. i states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Nietrooolitan Housing Rule (OAP. 660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to _ provide the opportunity for at least 500,10 of new units to be attached single family or 1 multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. ` r Approval of this proposal would decrease the number of acres of buildable multi- t famiiv land, thus reducing the opportunity for the city to meet the 500,o requirement and reducing the overall density. j Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50°0 or 10 units • per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (9 acres x 25 units = 225). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,631 of 4,789). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.36 units per acre.' Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Nletra Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. I The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. j 6 r J 1 1 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic studv and concluded that the retail grocery use would not significantly affect t SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the roadway. This conclusion is conditioned on the E site having only one access from Scholls Ferry as stated in the December 4 letter from the county (Exhibit C). Based on the evaluation of the county and the approved access to the site, the city's Engineering Division concluded that the city transportation system would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Staff notes, however, that the county's finding of no significant affect to Scholls Ferry Road is for development of the site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store. 1 The county letter concludes as follows: We've previously stated that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SVV Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. However, this may not be true i for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, the design modification was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the County Engineering Division would need to approve _ a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. The current proposal is for a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone chance to the site, and not for development of a grocery store. Though the county finds that the grocery store use is consistent with Transportation Planning Rule requirements. this finding does not apply to any other allowable uses in the C-G zone. Another use may affect the transportation system differently. For example, the applicant's traffic analysis shows that the number of PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed grocery store use would be 370. The number of trips for development of Other allowable uses, e.g. a grocery store with another retail use and a fast-food restaurant, would be 525. Under the existing zoning for multi- family use, there would be 110 trips per day during the PM peak hour. Though this policy is satisfied regarding the develcoment of the proposed site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store complex, the additional vehicle trips within the immediate site vicinity generated by certain retail uses could significantly affect the transportation system. Because the proposed comprehensive plan i I 7 Y i f amendment/zone change has not been evaluated for a worst case scenario, which is a scenario where the site is developed with uses that are a!lowed under C-G zoning but generate more vehicle trips and/or cause greater traffic impact, the planning division cannot make a finding that Policy 8.1.1 has been satisfied. r 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating ! land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisned because locating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit along SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service along this corridor. I 8. Policy 12.2.1(2) provides the locational criteria for designating land as general commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible i manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the F, public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locationa! criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than rvo sides. This criterion is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by _ residential districts on four sides. The residential district to the north is in K ~i the City of Beaverton and zoned R-6, single family. The districts to the east, south and west of the site are in Ti card and zoned for multi-family residential. (2) Access The orcoosed area cr expansion of an existing a - area shall not create ate traffic congestion cr a trams safetv problem. Such a determination shall be based on street caaacity, existing and projected trafTig volumes the $Deed limit number of tuming movements and the traffic aenera'ina characteristics of j the various tvoes of uses See comments under 6 above. i (b) The site shall have direct access from a maior collector or arterial street. T'nis criterion is satisfied because the site has direct access to SW Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial. i (c) Public transoortation shall be available to the site or general area, This E criterion is satisfied because Tri-met crters bus service along SW Scholls Ferry Road. i i i i (3) Site Characteristics i (a) The site shall be or a size which can accommodate presFnr and roiected uses. This criterion is satisfied because the 9-acre site is large enough to f' accommodate retail commercial uses including the grocery store and pharmacy that the applicant wishes to develop. i i (b) The site shall have high visibil . This criterion is satisfied because the i comer of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue is a highly visible area from both roadways. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the orciect shall be ccmoatible with the surrounding uses. The k physical and design compatibility of a specific project with the surrounding uses would be assessed at the time of development review. The amount and pattern of traffic, however, would be different for a retail develcoment than a residential one, which could cause additional impacts to the surroundina uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adiacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site design to ensue the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific develeoment proposal. V i (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development clan. The proposed site has no unique natural or man-made features. i (d) The associated lights noise and activities shall not interfere wi'ti adioining non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the ; development review process. f 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has teen conducted by the Planning Commission and City i Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. C . 4 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and ( procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as i follows: i r A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of 5 ' the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide olannina coals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes n.._ Chapter 197, until acknowledgement of the comorehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore spec;fic review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the i Department of Land Conservation and Development for cimment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of anv provision of this code or other applicable imolementine ordinance. Code section 18.62 (General Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-G zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would be reviewed through the site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 1 S.62. Evidence of chance in the neichberhecd or community or a mistake or incensistencv in the comprehensive plan or zonina mao as it relates to the grocerty which is the subject of the develcpment apollcation. See above under B.1. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. County staff reviewed the proposal, and after granting the applicant's request for a modification to the county's design standards regarding access from Scholls Ferry Road, conclude that deveieoment of a 60,127 square-foot suoerm2rket at the proposed site would not significantly affect S'vV Scholls Ferry 10 . 1 Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of f service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. The determination of consistency with OAR 660-12-060, however, is limited to this particular grocery store u:.e. In fact, the December 4 letter concludes as follows: j However, this (conclusion] may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, the design modification l was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. Because the current proposal is not for a 60,127 square-foot or smaller grocery store use, the city planning staff cannot make a finding of compliance with this state rule. 12. Ccnc!usion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-G (General Commercial) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial =J use. but whether any use allowed under C-G meets the relevant review criteria ~ listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1a) are not satisfied by the applicant. Though policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(2)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 are i satisfied for the development of a 60,127 square-foot grocery store use, these policies have not been satisfied for all allowable uses under the General Commercial category and C-G zoning. C. DECISION The City Council DENIES the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 95- 0003 and zone change ZON 95-0005 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. - i i ~ 1 1 563 684 729 i 01/10/90 11:10 =503 884 7397 ITY OF TIGIRD 001/OOS i ? EXHIBIT B i 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-000320NE CHANGE (ZON) 954005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT j REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 j acres of a 15.14-acre parcel. LOCATION: Southeast comer of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, lot 8000). APPLICABLE I r REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, Y j Q 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters k 18.22 and 18.32. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) - allows for several a v commercial uses including convenience sales and seervi'Y_S, eating and drinning S establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical C and dental services. E 8 9 LL STAFF REPORT Ray Valone presented the staff report an behalf of the city. He noted that the j n z parcel is presently zoned medium high residential (R-25)and that the applicant y proposes amending the comp plan map and changing the zone to commercial general (C-G). Valone presented the commission with a letter from Washington a N County (Exhibit "B") regarding the applicant's request for modifying the county road standards to accommodate a different access. The letter stated that the proposal, t a as altered by modifications in a letter from Marie Vandehey of the county, would comply with the transportation planning rule as it affects Scholls Ferry Road, and a 8 LL further, that the access design modification, as granted by the county and the findings consistent with the transportation planning rule, is limited to the Haggen site plan proposal only. Valone reported that staff finds that the proposal does not meet all applicable j comprehensive plan criteria, in particular, the applicant's argument that a change i in circumstances or-cured does not meet the criteria requirement Valone stated i that staff recommends denial of the case. i APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Tom Jones, W&H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008, spoke on behalf of the applicant Don Haggen, 2211 Rimland Dr., Bellingham, WA 98225, CEO and Chairman of Haggen, Inc., spoke about his company and showed slides of various Haggen stores. Tom Jones highlighted 5 instances where he believes physical and policy changes have occurred: a significant increase of population; lack of sufficient sites for general commercial uses; transportation improvements to this site, which have led to increased site accessibility and visibility; adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept ' Plan, which designates this area as a Town Center, and adoption of the k' PLA*ND;G C0X4M, 1SSION Ni=G A N T[ES - D= mber4, 1995 -Pap 4 9. 01/10/98 11:14 V503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 14002/005 s S i i I Transportation Planning Rule - a change to general commercial use would reduce the vehicle miles traveled by 65% over multi-family use. ~ s In talking about locational criteria, Jones stated that commercial areas should not 1 be surrounded by residential areas on more than 2 sides - he cited numerous examples around Tigard where this policy does not hold true. He then stated that the comp plan designates commercial sites to be located on a major arterial or . major collector and that this site satisfies both. i He said that the subject site, adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, has a 100' right-of- way and a 10' sound wall that separates the site from the residential areas of ' Beaverton. There is also a 70' right-of-way separating the site from the vacant e residential area to the west E j Jones said that the comp plan states that locational criteria should be used in a ` flexible manner and that conformance should vary with degrees of change and impact on the community. Jones quoted from the letter from Washington County, which states that the county believes the applicant has provided adequate information to determine that development of this supermarket at this location would not significantly affect Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of Scholls Ferry Road. The letter further states that, with regards to trip generation and distribution habits, the supermarket would be similar 3 or have perhaps a less severe impact on the intersections as compared to apartments. Jones concluded his testimony by stating that this application is consistent with Metro's 2040 plan by offering the neighborhood a local shopping opportunity that they could walk or bike to, and is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. David Leland, Leland & Associates, 325 NW 22nd Ave., Portland, OR 97210, ~ answered a question on what happens when there is a shortage of grocery store + space. He commented that there is increased congestion at the existing stores I and there is increased pricing when there is a shortage of grocery stores. Regarding Policy 112, Commissioner Padgett clarified with the applicant that they were not arguing that there was a physical mistake in comp plan, but rather there has been a change in circumstances. Padgett asked staff if we reduce the amount of mufti-family zoning, are we required to increase it somewhere else. Associate Planner Ray Valone answered that we have an allocation we have to meet by transportation zones; we don't have to meet each zone's allocation, but we do have to meet the allocation for the city as a whole. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, added that the city is required to have a certain mix of land l PLANNING COMMISSION MEE ING MUsiTIES - Daxmbw 4, 1995 - Page 5 ; w. l I 1 • 1 01/10/96 11:15 W503 684 7287 CITY OF TIGARD t41009/005 ~ i use. He noted that changing the zone for this parcel doesn't flake the city below our requirement i PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Susan Donin, Village at Forest Glen, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, € OR 97008, stated that traffic is a problem for the residents of her retirement center. She said that this store is appealing because residents could walk across the street to it. j Bert Powell, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, OR 97008, did not ' testify, but voiced support i` Marcia Brown, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #12, Beaverton, OR 97008, believes the store is a'class act' addition to the neighborhood and would be a great convenience. Loy Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #107, Beaverton, OR 97008, stated that he desired the store to come here. Sidney Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd., #107, Beaverton, OR 97008, -1 stated she has attended the meetings and was pleased that the owners listened to her comments and suggestions. She believes the store would be a good addition to the neighborhood. 1 Dale Newton, 10935 SW Summer Lake Dr., Tigard, OR 97223, has visited a Haggen store in Bellingham and was impressed with it. He said that this store would be a convenience. He also commented on the traffic on Scholls Ferry Road, and believes that multi-family housing would increase the traffic. Linda Newton, 10935 SW Summer Lake Dr., Tigard, OR 97223, voiced her support for the store. ' PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Pam Garcia, 14555 SW Teal Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97007, representing Murrayhill Thriftway, presented the commission with a letter (Exhibit "C'supporting staffs recommendation of denial. She said that the letter outlines and supports most of i the criteria in the staff report, as well as several other criteria she believes should f be addressed. Garcia said that she understands that the area has grown and that her stop: has just completed a major remodel. She noted that her store has invested in the community for a number of years and that they have been looking forward to seeing some of the benefits of that She concluded by saying that she agrees with staff that this is not a proper location for another supermarket t PI-e NNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Dauber 4, 1995 - Page 6 01/10/98 11:15 =505 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD W 004/005 I I i j APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Tom Jones began the rebuttal by clarifying that he believes there was no mistake made in the comprehensive plan, but there are inconsistencies in the code regarding significant changes. He cited a policy change in the transportation planning rule - the standards and criteria that site plans and applications have to corrfonn to. Jones said he strongly feeis that they have listened to the neighborhood to provide a store that people can walk to and would be an asset to the community. Jones remarked that staff has not provided any significant impacts that this application poses and he reminded the commission that Washington County has approved F 4 this site. E PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Wilson stated that he agreed with staff on one point, that 2040 is not a relevant criteria. He went on to say that the applicant's points are valid, that there has been a significant change in the community. He believes that 13,000 new residents and widening of the street are significant changes, that they were not anticipated when the comp plan was adopted. He went on to say that he believes competition is favorable and that the city is obligated to adopt a plan that has adequate space for all kinds of development Commissioner Holland commented that he was in favor being able to walk or bike to shopping. He also stated that he agreed with the corridor idea of putting commercial and high density residential areas close to major collectors. Commissioner DeFrang asked if the criteria the commission had to use for } t- changing the comp plan was because a mistake was made. Commissioners III it ; Collson and Wilson answered that it could also be because of a change in circumstances. In response to a question from Commissioner DeFrang, Ray ~r Valone commented that since 1989, 50 acres of commercial property has been . picked up through rezoning. Commissioner Moore asked if this piece of property would qualify for any commercial zone change. Ray Valone answered that it would and noted that a lot of the testimony is based on the Haggen Food Store and that this action is for rezoning to C-G designation which allows any use within a C-G zone. Commissioner Holland asked about conditioning the zone change for a particular use. Jim Hendryx answered that this has not been a practice in Tigard. He stated that one of the typical issues about conditioning a rezone or a plan amendment is to make sure the conditioning is related to the approval criteria. He also noted that it would be difficuft to track the conditions on a long term basis. 4 , PUNNING CONSUSSION VTING IvfRYUM - December 4, 1995 - Pup 7 I { 1 :7 01/10/98 11:10 $503 084 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 1®005/005 . i j ^ I f ,.J j Commissioner Padgett stated that he did not think the application supports a i change in the comprehensive plan. He said he does not believe the applicant proved there had been a change in circumstance. He reminded the commission that the applicant was asking for a total change to the comp plan, which means they have to prove every single point, not just a preps-nderance of them. Commissioner Padgett said he was not comfortable changing the comprehensive i plan based on the argument that the street gat wider and more people moved in. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Padgett. Commissioner Scalar said that he believed there were enough circumstances that i had changed. Commissioner Collson thought the location was perfect for this application. t Commissioner Moore said that he did not believe that this was a proper location based on the zoning requirements and there was not enough evidence to sway him otherwise. Commissioner Holland moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) t 95-0003/Zone Change (ZON) 95-0005. President Wilson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-4. Commissioners Griffith, Scalar, Holland, Wilson, and Collson voted for the motion. Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, DeFrang, and Moore voted against the motion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m. i Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary f ATTEST. President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION M MT NG MN= - D==Lbc 4, 1995 - Page 8 Cr !I t~ 01/23/97 12:01 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 141002/012 ReC.'C- ex Agenda Item No-311 i Meeting of alai l4 co TICARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 1996 • Meating was called to order at 6:30 p.m_ by mayor Jim Nicoli e i 1. ROLL CALL 99 Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll; Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and F Ken Scheckla. Staff present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Gary _ Alfson, Acting City Engineer; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Jim Hendryx, , Community Development Director; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Loreen ' Mills, Administrative Analyst; Ray valone, Associate Planner; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. • STUDY MBQTZUG - > Council Position No_ 2: Council reviewed the results of the , cumulative ratings for the nine council-candidate applicants. 1[ Council consensus was that the following candidates would be asked S for an interview on January 30, 1996: Craig Dirksen, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton. k Council briefly discussed the format of the January 30, 1996 interview meeting. Council requested that a letter be sent to candidates who were not selected for an interview and to thank them for applying. Also, Council noted there will be a vacancy on either the Budget Committee or Planning Commission (depending on who is select. to fill the vacant Council position). Applicants should be encouraged to apply. > Fans of Fanno Creek (see letter on file with the Council packet material): Council consensus was to approve the request for funding for a March tree planting. > MPAC Nominations: Council agreed, by consensus, to the recommendations contained in a January 19, 1996, memorandum transmitted to the City by Jeannine Murrell of Cornelius. MPAC nominations for one-year terms, with 1st Vice Chair moving to Chair in the second year were as follows: Chair: Charles Hales, Portland 1st Vice Chair: Rob Drake, Beaverton 2nd Vice Chair: Chuck Peterson, Clackamas County i Special Districts > Libra--y Strategic Plan: Co=cilor Rohlf advised he .would not be able to serve on the Library committee because of time commitments in the future for the Solid Haste Task Force. i > Insurance Provider - Aspen Ridge: In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, City Administrator Monahan explained the information sent to the Council regarding Aspen Ridge and =he involvement by Aetna and Northland Insurance Compaa.es. Aetna is no lhipnger involved. Mr. Monahan advised there will be a meeting on ts matter on January 24, 1996. Legal Counsel Beery explained that the City cannot enforce covanaats - and restrictions for homeowners' associations. Mr. Monahan was provided a list of options with regard to the Aspen Ridge situation including: • Code enforcement • Conditions of approval • Bonding - > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:58 p_m. under the provisions of ORS 192-660 (1) (d), j (e), (f), (h) & (i.) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exertmt public records, current P. pending litigation. t ~ issues, and the per=ormance evaluation of a public employee. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 1 , j j , 01/23/97 12:01 $503 884 7297 CITY OF ' TIGARD 0003/012 Council meeting reconvened at 7:15 p.m. - > Summerfield - trees: Council briefly discussed a report of tree removal in Sum erfield. Community Development Director Hendryx advised that no permit appears to be required for tree removal. Mayor Nicoli noted concerns about street trees in poor condition at various locations throughout the City. He suggested it may be necessary to set up a replacement program. i > Durham Road - private fence: City Administrator Monahan advised _ that the code Enforcement officer is checking into a fence that has fallen over along Durham Road. > Status of Homeless Task Force Recommendations - City Administrator referred to the memorandum on file with the Council packet material. > Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) update - Mayor Nicoli advised that ODOT will request in their budget cameras to monitor major arterials including Highway 217. 9911 and I-S. More readerboards are also being planned. > Tigard Feed a Seed/Burlington Northern property: City Administrator Monahan reported that the plat was submirrrd to record the minor land partition. He estimated 4-6 weeks for a closing date. Mayor advised a non-profit group is looking at becommiinagq involved t- with the building purchase from Mr. Johnson. The Chamber of - i Commerce will be involved with building renovation; the awn-profit group will probably be asking for use of a meeting room on a scheduled basis. > Public process: Legal Counsel Beery advised that the % d. hearings ww lg be "de no"' (as opposed to "on the record'). I r~ 1. BUSINESS IMIET7 C 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports There were none. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for :Ion-agenda Items City Administrator Monahan advised be would like to present a resolution to accept a gift. I Councilor Rohlf requested that council consider calling up the following for review: Site Davalopmeat Review (SDR) 95-0019, Planned Development Review (PDR) 95-0008, and Minor Land partition 2 - (MLP) 95-0012.-(Name of Applicant: Future Shop. Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street and South of pacific Highway. - 2. UPDATE! TUALATIN( VALLEY FIRE F RESCUE (TVF&R) - e Dave Austin, Tualatin Valley Pire i Rescue, summarized their 1995 activit_ec and distributed a handout. He referred to the December 12, 1995 windstorm and advised that the Emergency operation Center for Washington County and the Southeast Zone Management Area had been activated- The City of Tigard staff were instrumental in the successful emergency response to this event. He extended his thanks to the City of Tigard. f Mr- Austin referred to programs and events that were itemized on the f' handout, including the annexation of the Beaverton Fire District (which should help continue to lower the tax rate), and a grant to - { implement the "Learn Not To Burn" curriculum in grade schools. 1 I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 2 01/23/97 12:02 $ 509 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 16004/012 i system, He said that they thought this upgrade would extend the life of the system five to seven years. He stated that GTE had been the sole bidder, and that GTE had installed the original system. He said that the resolution under Agenda 7 was for a budget adjustment - ; since the bid was higher than the budgeted amount. i b. Council Questions ' C Councilor scheckla asked where the additional money would come from. Mr. Lowry said chat it would come from several different funds as specified in the resolution. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry explained that the budget figure had been based on an average of the estimates staff had gotten from several companies prior to going out to bid. Councilor Rchlf commented that the final amount appeared to be a 25t to 30t increase over the budget and asked why they needed to upgrade. Mr. Lowry explained that they needed more lines to accommodate increased phone traffic and modems for the computers. In rezpense to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry said that they were not replacing the old system but expanding the capacity by adding more hardware and software. Mayor Nicoli commented that he has had trouble getting through to City Hall on the phone. He agreed that it was time to add more lines. C. Council Consideration: Motion to approve the award of a phone system upgrade to GTE for $33,607. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the award of a phone system upgrade to GTE for $33,607. The motion was approved by a -animous vote of council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Roblf and scheckla voted "yes.") „ 7. BUD= AD=ST2f=T FOR PBDNB VPGRADE . a. Staff Report: Finance Department b. council Questions _ C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-01 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheekla, to _ approve Resolution 96-01" ' The motion was anoroved by a unanimous vote of Council present. tMayor Nicoli and-Councilbrs Hunt, Rohl! and scheckla voted ,yes.") - RESOLUTION NO. 96-01 - A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE 1995196 BUDGET TO ALLOW FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE. ' B. CONSIDERATION OF IIPDATED POLICIES - UTILITY B23T_T*rG AM COLLECSIQN a. Staff Report: Finance Department Mr. Lowry reviewed the merger with the water District in 1993/94 _ which included consolidation of utility billing services. He - explained that the new chapter to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) proposed by staff would formalize the process and policies currently 13 place and "fill in the holes., He said that staff had presented the proposal to the intergovernmental water Board in November 1995. Mr. Lowry reviewed the additions to the policies and procedures (as listed in the staff report), including adding an additional day to ± - , the shut off procedure to give citizens sufficient time to notice the shut off notice posted on a door, increasing the reconnection fee by $5, and establishing a customer appeals process. Mr. Lowry asked Council to adopt the new chapter in the TMC and the resolution setting up the fees and charges. . CITY COUNCIL M`'°TING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 4 EE g { 01/23/97 12:02 $509 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10 005/012 I} I b. Council Questions i 1 Councilor Hunt stated that the Intergovernmental water Board reviewed these suggested changes quite thoroughly and suggested some changes. C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-02 & Resolution No. 96-02 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Robl£, to approve t Resolution 96-02. - 4 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. ` (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Roblf and Scheckla voted yes.") RESOLUTION NO. 96-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR UTILITY BIIS,ING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES IN CHAPTER 12.03 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE- S Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinance 96-02. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of council p t present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Schackla voted "yes_") ORDINANCE NO. 96-02 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING NEU RULES AND 6 REGULATIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAIMGE ) CHARGES. i 9. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL POLICY ADOPTIOV SOLID NAM RATH REVIEW POLICIES a. Staff Report: Administration Department Administrative Analyst Mills summarized the staff report, noting tbat over the last 12 to 14 months, the Council has discussed items for policies and procedures for solid waste management for the City, specifically wanting to make sure that its policies were clear- Ms. Mills presented two polices for Council's review: the Commercial 1 Rate Subsidy Reduction Policy and the haulers' rate of return operating margin. Ms. Mills reviewed that currently commercial customers subsidized the rate paid by residential customers and that it had been the consensus of Council that the subsidy could have implications in the R future for offering possible incentives when the commercial recycling program came online. She said that this policy reduced the commercial subsidy rate gradually yet preserved the competitive residential rates by not raising them any higher that the average of the residential rates of the communities that shared a boundary with Tigard and provided similar services- . Ms. Mills explained that this policy would require that one element of every rate review in the future be a comparison of Tigard rates f to rates of the surrounding jurisdictions with a phased in reduction of the commercial subsidy over an extended period of time. Ms. Mills reviewed that in discussions the Council supported the policy on the haulers, rate of return operating margin that has been in place since 1987. She said that the resolution simply reiterated the earlier policy that the rate of return that haulers could earn was calculated on a before tax net profit of a percentage of the gross revenues. If the profit rate fell below 8t or exceeded 12t for the aggregate of the three haulers, the rate would be adjusted to bring the rate of return to 10Y. b. Council Questions- In response to cuestions from Mayor Miceli, Ms. Mills said that the haulers have had an opportunity to review the policy and were in agreement with this unaerstanding of it. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANLWY 23, 1996 - PAGE 5 j S, I s: ~Jk z J 01/23/97 12:03 $S03 684 7297 CITY OF TIOARD 16006/012 T, If t Councilor Hunt stated that he disagreed with stating specifically F that the City Council would give a lot profit margin in the future } because a future economy was an unknown. He said that he preferred to say that the Council would review the rate for an adjustment within the stated parameters rather than binding a future council into a specific number. E Mr. Lowry ugggested changing the language in the third paragraph from zball be adjusted" to "should be adjusted." Councilor Hunt I said that he thought that was still too s=- a wording.ulMayor > I Nicoli suggested using the word "may be^ d of shod be." i Ms. Mills pointed out that the haulers were concerned about having strong enough language in the policy to help them get a bask loan for heavy equipment purchases; banks did look at the wording of these city policies. Mr. Monaban suggested inserting after "9t solid waste rate charged by the haulers- a sentence saying that "The Council shall consider an adjustment to provide a lot margin," C. council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-04 u Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution. 96-04 incorporating the revisions as noted above. The motion vas approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rehlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") RESOLUTION NO. 96-04 - A RESOLUTION OF TEES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FORMALIZING COUNCIL POLICIES AFFECTING SOLID WASTE RATE ACTIONS. 10. PUBLIC Balm= _ CURBSIDE avTazM=ON & MODZrlCATION OF RESIDENTIAL TERD yy RATE - The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing an Saauary 23, i 1996, to consider (1) changing garbage collection service to only be EE available in carts and to discontinue the use of cans in Tigard; and (2) - co modify the residential yard service rate from a charge of $.01 per foot per can per month to a flat rate of $3.00 per month per cart that is not placed within 3 feet of the curb for collection. This change would encourage, through the rate structure, the placement of carts at curbside for a more efficient use of the automated collection system. a. open Public Hearing. Mawr Nicoli reviewed the hearing proced::zez and opened the public - j hearing. ' i b. Staff Report: Administration Department Ms. Mills presented the staff report, asking the council to approve requ.iring the use of a cart rather than a garbage can by residents, and changing the current fee of a penny a foot per can (charged for cans left in the yard rather than placed at the curb by the resident) to a flat fee of $3 per month. Ms. Mills reviewed that in 1993 the Council directed the haulers to automate their collection service to provide great efficiency and to allow for rester capacity in the future. The haulers paid to retrofit their trucks to lift the carts and now only 10t of their customers still used a garbage can. Ms. Mills reviewed the difficulties in billing for yard service based on the penny per foot per can fee. She explained that service at the curbside was the most efficient method of garbage collecting to date, resulting in the least amount of injuries to the haulers and damage to yards. she said that the rate would be for anything further of= the curb than five feet (the limit of the gazbage truck arm picking up the carts). Ms. Mills explained that $3 a month was the average rate charged by surrounding communities for yard service, though the haulers CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 6 { 9 P L.~ _J 01/23/97 12:03 $505 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 1©007/012 t i 1 estimated that it would cost $4.60 a month. She said that the changes would be implemented on March 1, 1996 with notice given to Cho haulers and citizens over the next month. She stated that this information has been shared with the CITE but she has not received i any phone calls or comments on it. C. Public Testimony No one signed up to testify- k d. Council Questions Councilor Hunt asked why staff was recommending $3 a month if the rate study said it would cost $4.60 a month. Ms. Mills said that staff wanted to be consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions- she explained that the time and motion study done by the haulers had been a quick review, unlike the sophisticated timo and motion study deae by Portland which charged $3a month. She pointed out that during the workshop session on this issue, Council had appeared to 6 . be more comfortable with the $3 a month rate over the $4.60 a mouth "j rate, and that this would move the City in the correct direction of reducing the commercial subsidy of residential rates. Councilor Rohlf noted that the carts and automated pickup would keep prices down in the long run for everybody. He commented that using both cans and carts meant that the haulers had to have dual pickup Lg~ equipment. Ms. Mills concurred, stating that the haulers felt that E over the last two years they have placed as many carts as they can E without a mandate for cart only service. Councilor Rnhlf asked if staff knew whether or not automated pickup has actually saved the rateQayers any money. Ms. Mills said that k - they have not done any specific studies and cited national studies which showed that automated pickup un could serve on the average one s third more customers than manual pickup. She also pointed out that E _ haulers paid a reduced worker's coop premium because drivers with fully automated equipment were less likely to incur injury due to i ovcrpacked cans. She raid that automated pickup was able to service customers more quickly, could trundle future growth and was cost effective- e- Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. f- Staff Recommendation Ms, Mills recommended that Council adopt the resolution mandating cart only service after March 1 and changing the yard service rate to a flat rate of $3 per month. , Councilor Hunt asked if there was anything prohibiting a customer from nutting a cart in the backyard- Ms. Mills said that customers who did not choose to put their carts at the curb could have the haulers come in and gat it for an additional $3 a month. E Councilor Scheckla asked if this fee penalized the handicapped who were uaahle to take their carts to the curb. Ms. Mills stated that this fee complied with the ADA standards because it applied to f everyone and did not make an exception for the disabled. Customers were paying an extra charge for a service, not paying an extra , charge because they were disabled. Councilor Scheckla asked if they could waive the fee on a local level of the bandicapped_ Ms. Mills said that they could do that. She said that waiving a fee tended to be discouraged because of the need to obtain medical records and the obligation to keep them confidential. Counsel Beery concurred with ML_ Mills' statements, reiterating that it was the council's choice. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 7 ~ L.~ J 01/25/97 12:04 $501 683 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10008/012 j Councilor Scheckla asked to bear from the haulers on this issue. Mayer 3icoli advised him that the public hearing was already closed; no Further testimony could be received. Councilor Scheckla said t, 1 that he might vote against the motion without a fee waiver for the { handicapped. 1 g. council consideration - Resolution No. 96-04 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution 96-04_ RESOLUTION NO. 96-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t AMI=XNG RESOLUTION NO. 95-23, AND SETTING OUT MODIFICATIONS To THE F - SOLID WASTE CURBSIDE AUTOMATION SERVICE PROVISIONS. F The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present- (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and 1n1,1f voted "yes"; Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") 11. co=INDATION OF PUBLIC SHARIItG (Hearing cm 9/26/95 Oontizued to 11/19/95 t and then continued to January 23, 19961 (QIIASI-JUDICS.AL)* APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95-0004/PLAMM DEVEI.OPUMT RSV=w (PDR) 95- v,. 0005/SSNSITIVS LANDs Y.EVISW (SW 95-0007 - BXLLS23MZ HOODS PBASB II/SIERRA PACIFIC DEVEWPMENT - An appeal of a request for Subdivision ' approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 2.63 acres, into six parcels ranging in size from 10,375 square feet to 33,535 square feet. ° A Planned Development has been requested to implement the properties planned development overlay. A sensitive lands review iZ requested co delineate wetlands and steep slope areas. A neighboring property owner has appealed the Plann,ng eom:aission's decision to approve this request. The neigbbor appealed this application due to the alignment of the proposed private street, the loss of trees and impacts to area fauna. LOcation: 13870 S_W_ Fe= Street (WCTM 2Si 4DD, Tax Lot 1700). Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code chapters 18.52, 10.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 p r (y and 10.164. zone: Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per 6))) acre (R-7, PD). - Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6-12 units i ( per acre)- , a. Staff Report: Community Development Department f Community Development Director Hendxyx presented the staff ' recommendation that the hearing be continued to February 27, 1996, - as outlined in the Staff Report on file with the Council packet material. i Councilor Hunt requested an explanation for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Hendryx explained that this site was under consideration for acquisition by the City using tha Metro i Greenspaces funds. { b. Cottacil Consideration: Motion to continue the hearing to Feb. 27, 1996. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to February 27, 1996. The motion was approved by a uman^mous vote of council present. - (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Bunt, Rahlf and Schackla voted "yes.") 12. PUBLIC BEARING (QUASI-JDDZCZIL) - VACATION OF A"ROmMTBLY 2,308 SQUABS FE= OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-XAY ON SW CASCADS BOULEVARD I To consider the proposed vacation of approximately 2,308 square feet of public right-o- ray on S_W_ Cascade Boulevard. The request was initiated ' by the City council on December 19, 1995. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall he filed wit-h the City Recorder by January 23, 1996, by 7-30 p.m. l a. Open Public Hearing - CIT'l COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 8 01/23/97 12:05 $503 881 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10009/012 y I ~ g Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges SSCC The Councilors reported no ex pane contact. They indicated that they bad familiarized themselves with the record. There were no . challenges. . C. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report on file in the council Agenda packet. He explained that excess right of way on SW Cascade Blvd - . now existed as a result of the shifting of the road to the north during the construction of the Place To shoot project. He said that the City initiated this right of way vacation to return it to the owner; the ordinance did preserve the utility easements within the vacated right of way. d. Public Testimony No one signed up to testify. e. staff Recommendation Mr. nendryx stated that staff recommended approval. f. council Questions - None g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No_ 96-03 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Seheekla, to approve Ordinance 96-03 incorporating the revisions as noted above. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll earl vote of council j present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckl.a voted -yes.-) ORDINANCE NO. 96-03 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF _ i APPROXIMATELY 2,308 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SW CASCADE BODLEVARD IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. WASU32IGTON COUNTY, OREGON. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:49 p.m. for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meetn.ng at 8:58 p.m. - i 13- PUBLIC HXARING (Q1ML.,I-JLDICIAL) - e* RZEEiSIVR PLAN A1GWIDNSNT AND ZONH CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-000 - PACIBIC CREST/PROVIDENCE i A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels I and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the z^_ning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the prope_ty located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of scholls Fe_-ry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1(1) and _ 12.2.1(3) ; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32: and Oregon Administrative Rules Chanter 660 Division 12. Zane: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P , (Processional/Administrative office) allows for business support services. communication services, medical and dental services,dpersonal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating an drinking establishments. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. i `J CITY COUNCIL V=ING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 9 i i 5 I }l 01/25/97 12:05 V503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD IQ O10/012 3 f b. Declarations or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no I challenges. Councilor Rohl£ stared that he had a potential conflict of interest as he lived on North Dakota; therefore he would not participate in the hearing. ! C. Staff Report: Community Development Department Associate Planner Valone reviewed the staff report and map using Overhead projector images. 8e gave the background information. On k the sites and reviewed the notice area. He stated that Dan spriggle b had sent a letter withdrawing his objections (see council packetf. Mr. Valone said that the Planning Commission bad reco=p*ded approval by a vote of 5 to 1 and that staff recommended approval because the application met all of the approval criteria. - Mayor Nicoli asked if any new information has been given to Council this evening that had not been presented before the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyden said that they didn't talk about the tenant I mix at the Planning Commission. Mr. Hendryx stated that prior to the hearing the City had received a i letter from Mr. Hill Gross requesting that the record be held open for seven days. Ms. Beery advised that the Council was not obligated to leave the hearing open unless new evidence was offered. jI! d. Public Testimony 1 - Applicant j Dan Boyden, 111 Oak Street, Hood Rivcr, testified that there was a 1I need for more neighborhood commercial. He said that he intended to make this a neighborhood commercial center with small neighborhood ' tyyppees of businesses. He said that there would not be a Hollywood Vi~.eo na site and that St. Vincent's Hospital tar agreed to scrap the zone because they thought that this was an appropriate solution. Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy 4 AasxiatCe, 9875 SW Murdock, stated that this proposal was substantially different than the proposal in July; it had a lower density and a mix of complimentary commercial uses. Co=cilor Seheckla asked how narking was allotted to each business. Mr. Hoyden said that the parking was shared in common; he had made i an effort to bring in a complimentary tenant mi_c that would even out the parking. No proponents Or Opponents signed up to testify. e. Staff Recommendation Mr, Valone said that both the Planning Commission and the staff recommended approval- i Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Seery if Council should leave the record Open because the applicants had indicated that they did give some new information this even- Ms- Seery said that that was a discretionary decision by the Council, based on whether or not they I, believed there was anyone who would want to respond to that new information. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Hoyden if leaving the record open for seven { days with Council deliberation and decision on February 13 posed any 1 hardship for him. Mr_ Boyden said that it did and that he would rather the Council made its decision tonight because of construction schedules and lease negotiations. ( Councilor Scheckla pointed out that if council waited another two weeks to decide on this, they would have anew Councilor on board „ I CITY COUNCIL MEETIIIG MINOTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 10 E 01/25/97 12:06 '&S03 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD W011/012 it i f I a l1 who would not necessarily know the issues. He suggested deciding ) this tonight. F Mayor Nicoli commented that by leaving the record open they reduced 1 i their risk of a challenge to LUBA based on lack of time to respond to new information. He said that he did not think the information received this evening would change his decision. Ma. Beery concurred that the evidence was small and did not relate to the approval criteria, f. Council Questions 1 g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final order for Council consideration at the b February 13, 1996 Council meeting. E Motion by councilor Runt, seconded by Councilor Seheckla, to direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final order for Council consideration at the February 13, 1996 Council meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council f, present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted yes.• Councilor Rohlf did not vote.) 14. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COtg+YJMENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE ~ CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRT,R D378WFMMZT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density ( Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G F on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: C=Vrehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, r _ 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1. 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2) ; and Community E' - Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General - ' Comm=ercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drink .9 establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parts contacts- They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department S Associate Planner Valone reviewed the request from Briar Development {{{E Company to amend the Cow;rehensiva Plan to rezone nine acres of-an R-2S site to General Commercial (GC) in order to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy. He gave the background information on the site, noting the residential districts in Tigard and Beaverton bordering it on four sides. He stated that notice was provided to property owners within 250 feet, the West CIT and other public agencies. He directed attention to the Washington County staff review of the traffic study (Exhibit C). Mr. Valone stated that staff found that this proposal did not meet all the applicable comprehensive Plan criteria. He reviewed the criteria aid staf2's evaluation of the applicants non-compliance as j presented on pages 3-5 in the staff report. He emphasized that the ' current action before the Council was not about a Hagen grocery ' store but about rezoning land from R-25 to CG. He said that staff was prepared to answer questions on the faggen supermarket proposal though their analysis o2 it was not in the final staff report. \J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MI:)DTSS - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 11 fp f ' 6 L[F I C: fi i c I 01/23/97 12:06 V503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 14012/012 Fli ) b ) Mr. Valone reported that the Planning Commission voted to approve ) 111 the proposal by a 5 to 4 vote. He said that staff recommended j denial because the applicant has not met the criteria for a quasijudicial change to the comprehensive Plan map. e 1 Mr. Headryx noted that staff has received a letter from Mr. Gross requesting that the record be left open for seven days. d. Public Testimony i Mayor Nicoli opened the hearing to public testimony, explaining the f 1 procedures for the hearing. Joel Gordon, Briar Development Co®pry Director of navelorant, representing the applicant, reviewed their efforts to work with the j comnn=ity,.noting that the only negative testimony received before the Planning Commission had been from an economic competitor. Re asked the Council for extra time to present the slide show presented at the Planning Commission that explained the project in order to rebut the misinformation contained xn the flyer sent to the R neighborhood by the Competition. Mayor Nicoli noted that the land use of the site had no legal bearing on their decision on a zone change. Mr, Gordon commented that they have presented this proposal in detail because they were dealing with an end user, not a developer. He argued that the City did have the authority to consider land use in rezone decisions, and to condition a rezone to a specific use. r He stated that Washington County has approved this use based on the traffic issue. He said that Briar Development thought it was consistent with Transportation Planning rule (TPR) as it related to grocery stores, and t5at they were willing to accept a condition ,pacifying that the land use had to be a grocery store. t) _ Ms. Beery advised the Council that the end user was relevant in the & consideration of the traffic information if the Council chose to condition the rezone but suggested further discussion on that issue. She said that it was also true that the Council had to consider the b full range of potential land uses possible with the zone change in order to determine if the criteria has been met. The Council agreed by consensus to view the slides (the same pictures that were presented in the Council packet). Don Saggen. applicant, presented the slide show, relating background information about his family owned business and pointing out the various - departments including a deli restaurant. Councilor Hunt asked how many square feet the build:LW was. Mr. Haggen said it was 63,000 square feet, the size they had found necessary to house all the different departments within tbeir store. F Mr. Gordon summarized the applicant's arguments for why they believed they have met the criteria for a comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. He said that there had not been one substantive issue raised by staff or the community at the Planning Commission regarding adverse effects oa the health, safety and welfare of the town; the testimony of the residents supported their T - position that the store would be good for the town. i Mr- Gordon reviewed the evidence for the four reasons why theyy believed there has been substantial change in the neighborhood since i the original Comoreheasive Plan: ' - A significant increase in population exceeding the original , projections and indicating a need for increased commercial t services; The shortage of available land for commercial developments indicating an imbalance in the Comprehensive Plan wbich required an adequate amount of commercial land to provide the services necessary for the residents of the area; The changes in the arterial roadways surrounding the siCe, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Ml=.S - JANUARY 33, 1996 - ?AGE 12 s c. i L.~ m 01/23/97 12:16 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIG.An 11001/010 i f F l 1 creating an intersection of a major arterial with a major o I collector, making this an appropriate site for commercial use: The traffic studies indicated that the level of service on these roads would remain acceptable with either a grocery store or apartments; E Placing a grocery store close to where people lived would help t j to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as required by the , Transportation Planning Rule (citing a 65% reduction in VMT). t , Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence that the land use was consistent f with residential locational criteria, citing the Pianning Commission's findings that the application was consistent with nine out of ten of the locational criteria. He argued that the site was not inconsistent with the criteria that a consercial zone not be surrounded by a residential district on more than two sides because the site was surrounded on two sides by major roadways: Scholls Ferry and 135th. The only residential development was kitty corner rttt to the lot. 1. Mr. Gordon cited evidence in their application of four other ffj locations in Tigard that showed the same pattern of development, F commercial uses surrounded by roadways with residential development FFF _ OIL the other side of the street. He noted the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that the locational criteria should be construed in a flexible manner- He stated that this site was not within an established residential area that was •zoae mapped.• Mr. Gordon reiterated that no community impact was identified before f the Planning Commission and that was Stan County has approved the access plan- He contended that this was the best cite in town to locate a grocery store to serve the nearby residents, stating that there was no other commercial site available in Tigard where a major arterial intersected with a major collector in close proximity to another major arterial (Murray Blvd). r^ Mr. Gordon said that if they did not find the changes in these tf( circumstances to be substantial, they would never find any changes ; zubstantial. He contended that if they did not put a store here, ✓ the residents would have to drive Further to already congested areas to do business. He stated that they have met all the applicable criteria and urged the Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Mr. Haggen stated that they anticipated building six stores in the western Portland Metro area, and that this was their best site and would have the largest volume store. - - Proponents • Sidney Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road 9107, ` Beaverton - waiving time • Loy Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road $107, Beaverton - waiving time • Dora Scheidecker, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road #331, Beaverton waiving time e Jean Berry, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road #306, Beaverton waiving time • Violet Jackson, 13775 SW old Scholls Ferry Road 0207, Beaverton waiving time • Alice Brown, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road 4300, Beaverton waiving time • Dcrthea Kuker. 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, Beaverton waiving time CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 13 j \J 14 01/29/97 12:18 V503 Bbd 7297 CITY.OF TIGARD _ 10 002/010 I i a - • Jane aarfoot, 3.3775 SW Old Scholls Perry Road :101, Beaverton waiving time e Suean noain, 14938 SW 309th Ave, Beaverton, spokesperson for i the village at Forest Glen residents, said that the seniors i wanted this facility built as it would be convenient for them to walk to. She explained that the retirement condos were kitty corner from the site and located in Beaverton. She said that there was a traffic light at 135th which the seniors used to walk across 135th. e Norma Friesch, 13755 Old Scholls Ferry Bead, #301, Beaverton - waiving time 0 Helen Hinkle, 13755 Old Scholls Ferry Road, #9. Beaverton - waiving time F e Garland Hinkle, 13755 Old Scholls Ferry Road, #9, Beaverton - Y waiving time e Carol Bridges, 15404 SW Gull Court, Beaverton, stated that she was the immediate past chair of the Southwest Neighborhood Association in neavertou which was closest to the site. She commented that Beaverton was struggling with the same issues as Tigard - whether to follow the wisdom of those who set up the Comprehensive Plan or to adapt the Plan to abanging - circumstances. She said that in her opinion a Raggen store was an opportunity to enhance neighborhood livability and give neighbors more choices. Ms. Bridges stated that though she did not have extensive experience with the Haggea stores, the little that she has had " has been positive. She said that she thought their treatment of people indicated that they sincerely wanted to be good neighbors. J Councilor Scheckla asked how a Haggen store would imoaet Ms_ Bridges' pattern of shopp~.g M3. Bridges said tbat she lived - north of the Zray Hill subdivision but that her daily activities took her out of the area. She said that she - r hopped at some stores in the area but also at others outside her immediate area. She said that she travelled up to three miles to a store but that driving was not a problem for her as it might for others. Mayor Nicoli asked where the boundary of the planning group t Ms. Bridges was involved with touched Scholls Fern/ Road. Ms- 6EE Bridges said that it abutted Old Scholls Ferry Road. i Mayor Nicoli asked what Ms. Bridges felt would be an appropriate use on Scholls Ferry Road. He noted that there was much concern that Scholls Ferry net become a strip mall like Pacific Highway. He said that another large store was in the approval stages; this would mean two additional large stores in close proximity to each other with Howard's as a - third store. Be asked if she thought that this rezone pproposal would keep Scholls under acceptable limits or turn - Seholls into a strip commercial. . Ms. Bridges said that she saw Scholls as already largely commercial and that more commercial would not upset her. She noted that most of the development on Scholls was neighborhood friendly, citing an example of a large Fred Meyer store they I had stopped up on the PGE property. She said that she thought I that the fact that the site was surrounded by major streets mitigated in favor of modifying the plan. She seated that I though Comprehensive Plans were developed from the best information and knowledge the people had to to 15 years ago,' they needed to look at the Plans in light of what they knew - now about future projections. l J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MTND•I'ES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE la - S t i L~ ~ 1 01/29/47 12:17 '2503 084 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10003/010 t 1 1 Ms_ Bridges stated that she would not want to live in an apartment at that location so close to a major road. She said i that she thought Naggen has made efforts to minimize the impact co the south and that they would do a good jab. She F. said th was one of tse Plan wwoulld serve cthetwell when a change to the • Dale Newton, 10935 SW Suumwrlake Drive, stated that his f neighborhood abutted the site under consideration. He related his experience with the Haggen store in Bellingham. Be said that he had been very impressed with the customer service and t the deli restaurant. He said that he thought the impact on { the neighborhood would be positive, citing its close proximity as conv=en=t for walking to it. He expressed concern at the marked increase in traffic on scholls Ferry over the last nine f y-,.srs. 8e said that he thought apartments would exacerbate the traffic problem nd Cant he proferred the convenience of a i grocery store. • Linda Newton, 10935 GY Suamerlake Drive, concurred with her huabaad•c statements about their positive experience at the s Bellingham Haggen store. She commented on the community feeling they found at the deli restaurant which was packed with people who bad come there to dine. She said that she thought it would be a positive asset to the community. - opponents p • Jeff Bloinman, 1207 SW Sixth Ave, Portland, stated that he was f!F an attorney representing Fri-As and Neighbors of Scholls Ferry, a group of business owners and neighbors oppes3m this project. He requested additional time to coordinate their testimony. Mayor Nicoli granted the extra time. r~1 Mr. Kleinman stated that though he had not attending the Plann;nCommission hearing, he bad read the staff report. He had wondered why the Planning commission had approved a proposal that had such strong staff apposition based an solid legal grounds. He said that the slide presentation depicting such a lovely supermarket made that clear. Mr. Kleinman argued that in terms of what Haggen was proposing and what the Oregon land use system was, Haggen was attempting j "to fit a square peg in a round hole., He said that the proposal did not fit the Comprehensive Plan in the State of Oregon or the City of Tigard or the City's development code. ge stated that even if cbe Council conditioned the zone change to just supermarket, chat condition could be altered later without going through a full land use proceeding, and therefore the Council had to consider the maximum possible development on the site. Mr. Kleinman reviewed his reasons why the proposal did not f meet the Comprehensive Plan criteria for a zone change. He - contended that anyone in Tigard could cite population growth ! or widening of roads as a change in physical circumstances justifying a plan amendment and zone change. He asked what was wrong with the R-25 zoning mandated for this sits other than Haggen wanted it changed, stating that there was nothing wrong with it. He said that the applicant's arguments for the change in physical circumstances iucluded things that haven't happened yet, like the metro 2040 plan which placed a town center within 600 feet of this site in Beaverton. Mr. Kleinman contended that no mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan; the site was zoned the way it was intended to be zoned- CITY COUNCIL MEZTM MINUTES - JAMTARY 23, 1996 - PACE 15 ;i 01/25/97 12:18 '$S03 684 7297 CITY OF TI ARD 16004/010 y ~ I Mr. Kleinman addressed their arguments regarding the location F criteria, stating that saying a site was surrounded by f roadways rather than by residential developments was one of t the most novel arguments he had ever heard. He held that there were residential developments on four sides of this site. Mr. Kleinman reviewed the others who would testify on behalf of the Friends and Neighbors of Scholls Perry. Councilor Hunt asked which commercial organizations Mr. Xleb=tan was reprrsentinq. Hr. Kleinman explained that be was representing a group of individuals and business owners called 'Friends and Neighbors of Scholls Ferry." He said that Mr. Haese, owner of Howard's, was a member but that the group was r till in the process of forming and that he did not know who the other mem5ers were. • Gayloa Haese, 3,2320 SW Scholls Party Road, owner of Howard's, related his past experience in the grocery business since 1952. He stated that be purchased the store from previous owner of Howard's in 1991 after the owner filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy because the Murray Hill store did not flourish. He reviewed the negative effect on the Seholla Ferry Howard's when that Murray Hill store opened in 1987. .s_ Saese mentioned the new Albertson's store that would be coming in, noting that it would affect his business. He said that the market analysis done for &aggen did not take into account all the other stores that sold groceries (convenience stores, Payless, Bima ts, Trader Toe's, etc_). Mr. Haese pointed out that Howard's was a family owned business with only this one store; they did not have the deep pockets of a corporation. He stated that while he welcomed = growth and competition, he did not chink that this area could support a Haggen store in addition to the grocery stores r already located in the area. Re said that he wanted to continua his business in thic area but that comooa® would go i out of business if this Haggen store came in. e Cleo McLeod, 11710 SV 134th Terrace, concurred that Haggen was a good, well run store but asked the Council to give consideration to some issues. She noted the traffic s, a.,+*++.+g congestion at the intersection of 135th and Scholl that the traffic generated by a new store could triple the length of time it took to make a left bawd turn. S5e said that the improvements to 135th had been paid for through an LSD in which she participated; she bad not understood that she was paying fora road for truck traffic. she said that she thought the two lane 135th avenue was too narrow to - accommodate additional traffic. - Ms. McLeod stated that she thought that there were enough stores available presently within a half mile of the proposal. She noted that they were well established stores surrounded by other shops used by the community. . Ms. McLeod expressad concern about housing, stating that housing should be the foremost consideration because of the need for it. She said that she thought this area should remained zoned for high density housing. I Ms. McLeod expressed her confidence that the city staff has ~ j thoroughly analyzed the project and were unbiased in their ooiniens. She concurred with their recommendation against the proposal. CZTY COUNCIL 4«TING MlN=S - aASSSRRY 23. 1996 - PAGE 16 s L.~ --m 01/29/97 12:18 12509 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10005/010 i 1 ( • non Scott, Retail Research Group, Wilsonville, stated that he was the provisional researcher who reviewed the market analysis done in oupport of the proposal (A Review of Haggen stores Market Analysis). He submitted copies of his written review (on file in the Council packet). 1 Mr. Scott explained two out of three methods used by the Leland Group an this market analysis, stating that he felt the i i third method was inappropriate to the situation. He stated that the Leland study did not accurately match the stores , included in the study with all those that actually existed within the trade area studied or on its periphery. He reviewed what stores should have been included and directed attention to the revised figures in of his report, showing that the demand has been met by the three new stores already pl_e3 for the area with a very small amount of unmet demand 1 Projected for 1999. He requested that the revised figures be , used to the extent that the original report figures were used- ( In response to a question from Ha r Nicoli, Mr. Scott explained that Costco was act included because the study compared only supermarkets. • Ralph Anzellotti, Columbia Research Associatce, Kilwaukie, 1 reviewed his company, experience in providing feasibility studies for supermarks ets for site location studies. He submitted a written report also. He stated that he concurred with Don Scott's comments regarding the Leland study. He said . that the Leland study did not use the standard computer model 5 used in the industry and that it overstated the trade area i bat_r=-ies by quite a bit. E Mr. Anzellotti reviewed comparative figures for the average dollar sales per square foot in stores in Portland, Tigard and the state of Oregon, He noted that the average dollars per _ square foot in Tigard stores was 7t less than elsewhere, which _ meant that it was almost in line with meeting the damor-4. When the Safeway store opened on Pacific Highway, there would be an oversupply- Mr. Anzellotti stated that if Haggen opened a store in addition to the Albertson's already approved, the competition 1 between those two stores and Howard's and the Murray Hill Thriftway would result in one of the four stores closing which would also hu= the other retailers in the shopping center. He stated that the remaining three stores woul$ operate at a below average sales per square foot and that one of them still might close or be hurt financially in the long term. } • Robert Bernstein, Seattle, said that he was the consulting r transportation engineer hired by the Friends to review the { traffic issues associated with -the proposal. He said that he was familiar with the site because he had family in the area and had grown up in Portland. He reviewed his professional qualifications as a registered engineer and submitted items I" into the record. Mr. Bernstein said that he reached three conclusions after reviewing the material: the applicant was significantly interested in the traffic impacts of the proposed store; the maximum development of the proposed zoning bad not been addressed and should be; and, there was no indication in the materials that the concerns on access raised by Washington county have been addressed. He said that if those were addressed by the Jam:azy 11 report, it could make a significant difference in the traffic analysis that needed to be addressed- Mr. Bernstein suimnarized the comments he made in his letter. He said that the traffic generation estimates used were too CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 17 i S 4 i I y 1 01/23/97 12:19 $509 884 7297 CITY OF TIG,IRD 00061010 i 1 1 1 f t low for a supermarket of this size in general, citing the figures given the Trip Generation Manual and the high quality { merchandise in the store. He also held that the traffic c generation estimates used for maximum development under the R- 25 zone were too low. - Mr_ Bernstein stated that no development of this site would change the vehicle miles travelled; they would simply be moved around. He explained that VMT was an aggregate measure meant t to be applied on. a regional basis; it was difficult to apply it to a specific property. r Mr. Bernstein said that the trip distribution figures were also incorrect, stating that number of left turns has been . significantly underestimated. He said that no analysis has been done of traffic queuing or the impacts on the neighborhood. He said that the general impacts of this type of development on a neighborhood -ere to degrade neighborhood access by creating congestion and delays. He also noted that traffic cutting through the neighborhood to avoid the signal would increase. • Craig Saeoa, 8070 SW violo, Tigard stated that he represented 65 employees of Howard's who opposed the rezoning. He reviewed how Howard's was a neighborhood grocery store with 80% of its business coming from the area between 217 and Murray. He commented on the adverse impact to the Scholls store of the second Howard's on Murray and the road construction work on scholls. The store was currently running at two thirds of capacity. He noted the benefits Howard's provided to its employees and to the community and its support of other independent local outfits. e Sim E.aammasaen, 12495 SW Katherine, Tigard, stated that he owned a She -11 station on Pacific Highway and was opposed to this project beca=e of the traffic impact on an already - congested road. He said that having a deli in the store would i draw people from even further away, creating more traffic. He I{ concurred that the supply and detraIId situation would cause one of the stores to fail and hurt the peripheral businesses, and I in the long run, have an adverse impact an the city. Mr. Rasmussen argued for the Council to turn down the, proposition, citing the need for more housing to enhance livability in the community and the traffic amoacts on an already congested area. EEE • Georgia Lambert, 10530 SW Johnson, Ti her husband were Bard, stated that the and have worked hard to get where thevrwere andndidlnor want too Start over. She commented that tfie store excelled in customer service and was vary much a part of the community. She said that this was a store owned by a family who have made the employees feel like an extended family. Ms. Lambert said that though she was not as expert on zoning law or economic development, she could see that another large i supermarket just down the street would severely hurt Howard's i business and place a hardship on the many families supported by employees at Howard's. i r • Patricia XdGrann, 10927 SW 121st kvnu•, Tigard, stated that she has been an employee at Howard's since 1979. She credited i her steady job there with allowing her to purchase a condo four years ago. She contended that Howard's would probably go out of business if Haggen came in, resulting in hardship to herself and the other employees. She mentioned that Howard's was part of the community and the respect the employees had for Mr. Haase who kept everyone on instead of firing them when he purchased the store. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINOTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 18 Z 4 f .Mood I i 01/23/97 12:19 2501 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 10007/010 i {EI ! • John Darby, 13152 8W Clearview, Tigard, stated that he has worked at Howard's since 1987 and was now a department head. 1 He said that Howard's has enabled him to make a steady living to support his family. He said that he thought they forgetting the urban growth boundary; people in Oregon cared E more than those is Seattle about what kind of community they k built. He said that this was a family community and that they would like to keep it that way; a commercial site would ruin the effect of the community being established. 1 J • Eric Tahnson, 13370 SW Snowshoe Lane, 8eaverton, said that he was the current chair of the Southwest Beaverton NAC that bordered this prOperty but that he had not received any notification of the issues involved- He noted a letter sent E to the Council by Bobbie White. Le said that he supported t:a staff findings in the December 4 staff report.!! Mr. Johnson said that he saw a conflict between this proposal and Tigard's current zoning requirements in that this R-2s lot E was surrounded on four sides by residential developments. He tr said that streets did not delineate boundaries allowing a [ declaration of change. ! Mr. Johnson said that in his conversation with the Beaverton r Planning Department, he learned that though Beaverton provided no written response, they did provide a verbal negative - recammendation for this proposal. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the action here was a request to rezone; it was not an action of a Board of 13evelopme--it R-riew to design a Haggen store for this site. He contended that once the rezone was made, there was nothing to guarantee that a grocery store would go there, despite Haggen's desire to put one in. The council needed to consider all potential uses in a Ge zone. _y submitted a letter S Ci Mr. Johnson noted that Washington Count dated December 1, 1995 placing severe limits on access to scholls, reducing the access outlined in the Haggen proposal and chaagiag the traffic study. He noted the severe problems on 135th going to Beavarton. l j Mr. Johnson stated that he saw no compelliag public need for rezoning this property to GC to facilitate a potential 60,000 square foot grocery store, especially in light of two mayor stores opening within a half mile radius. He stated that _ there bar not been a change in the physical circumstances, even though Tigard has grown and developed, nor was there a mistake made in the comprehensive Plan. • Rob Royse, 13870 SW Otter Rain, Beaverton, stated that his residence was about 9/10th; of a mile from the proposed site and that he too was concerned about cut through traffic. He said that it was already a problem and that he thought this proposal would simply exacerbate i^ He expressed concern at the possibility that trucks would make deliveries late at night, causing a noise problem. j Mr. Royse ecmmented that though the applicant talked about the need for a grocery store, that was probably not one of the I complaints heard from citizens. Citizens, including those from California, complained about the traffic. • Mark J01- on, 10695 SW 133rd Place, Boavartcn, stated that his i property bordered the site. He said that he concurred with all points brought up so far. He stated that he had bought i his Rouse on the understanding that apartments would go in on the empty lot. Be expressed concern at the noise generated late at night by a grocery store. He also said that right now garbage was only occasionally thrown in his yard by pedestrians but it would increase if a grocery store went in. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINDTES - JA`TUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 19 1 L , /f 1 01/23/97 12:20 $503 884 7297 CITY OF TIG.ARD IA 008/010 t i ,y S Mr. Johnson said that his view would be right into the front E door of the store. He said that his main concern wag the ? effect that the amount of auto traffic generated by Haggen's I would have on pedestrian traffic and children. He noted that there have already been some traffic accidents there involving children. e • Ed Howden, 11829 SW Korning Hill Drive, Tigard, stated that he was not in favor of this proposal. He commented that he had y, not paid into the LID to improve 135th for this kind of ? project. No said that he did not want the additional traffic and associated noise. e Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, stated that his : family owned the land on Walnut and Scholls Ferry that was turned down originally as a site for the Albertson's store because it was zoned General Commercial, not Neighborhood Commercial- He said that several years later the Neighborhood commercial zoning was approved but that the store was still turned down because of its size which was similar to Haggen's proposal. sss¢ S Mr. Russell said that though he would like to see this f proposal approved because it would make it easier to get his ! own proposal approved, he was not in favor of it because of the neighborhood opposition. He said that he understood from his conversations with Liz Newton that this proposal did not j go before the CITs. ! Mr. Russell noted that there bad been tremendous objection to ? his original proposal because of an effort not to turn Scholls 7 into another 99W. He cited that as a reason to keep with the i i original comprehensive Plan and not rezone. Be pointed out . ? that he bad built the Walnut Street extension from Murray ' y without an LID. t Mayor Nicoll asked for specifics regarding the denial of the k roj zone chance to General Commercial for Mr. Russell's property. Mr. Russell said that it had been denied in 1991 because it y did not meet the criteria of residential on only two sides. He said that he thought the biggest objection to turning Scholls into a strip mall was the traffic problems ca 99W. He ? said that others objected to a grocery store because there 1j weren't enough people to support it. s !Sark Padgett, 11270 SW 95th, Tigard, stated that he was a - - member of the Tigard Planning Commission and did not work or shop at Howard's. He commented on the excellence of the staff report and that it was overwhelming against approval of the comp Plan amendment. [ Mr. Padgett said that the applicant's argument that if the fE( Council could not accept these criteria as evidence of change, then they wouldn't find any evidence in Tigard was an argument ' that showed that the Comp Plan was working. He disagreed that wider streets and increased population were valid arguments for change because that has happened everywhere in Tigard. k Mr. Padgett said that if there was a need for more general i. commercial land in Tigard, then the way to deal with it was 3 through a Como Plan review, not through piecemeal rezoning. He said that he did not think the application met the criteria for a rezone either. 4 24. Padgett stated that the approval at the Planninghd not ' 1 Commission happened because cne of the members wfio a lj heard all the evidence chose to vote; otherwise it would have been a tie vote and the application would have been denied. A , 1 j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 20 s i k_ 1 1 i ~ i 01/23/97 12:20 U503 681 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0009/010 . E } t ~ V Mr. HadgetL pointed out that in their "ain]TSg for the t 1 Pla*~+~g Commission they were told that an applicant had to _ have a preponderance of evidence on their side. He said that this application did not; do so. a Kazan Kopplien, 12960 SW gawksbeard, stated that She was l opposed to this project because of the traffic impact on the ( nelgbborhood. ~ Mayor Nicoll recessed the meeting at 11:22 p.m. for a break. _ Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Mawr Nitoli maked if Council had an option on keeping the record open, noting the letter they bad received. Ms. Beery suggested asking the applicant for their preference since she had beard a lot of new evidence from the opponents. Mr. Gordon stated that be thought this procedure was fundamentally ` unfair to the applicant since they have had their reports an file k with the City cznce September and much of the testimony received tonight had not come up at the Planning Commission. He said that they could not address the specific technical points without copies of the reports and time to review them. He asked that the hearing be continued for the purposes of accepting rebuttal testimony only. rr Mayor Nicoli concurred with the request, stating that he would also t like time to review the new in£ormatson. Mr. Monahan suggggested continuing the hearing to February 13. Councilor 5checkla suggested putting the hearing near the front of the agenda. Mayor Nicoll asked Ms. Beery if it was fair far Council to review the previous land use action concerning the denial of Mr. Russell's application. Na. Beery said that it was and that she would also 1 provide to the applicant the documents they didz t have copies of ~J yet. MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf to continue this hearing to February 13 The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and 5checkla voted ^yes.•) is. NON-AGENDA YTEMB Mr.Monahap explained that the City has received a gift from the Kristine to 1~ luplinghct Trust, co incept - he gift. Bank- The resolution was necessary M0V=) by Councilor 5checkla, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf to approve Resolution 96-05- RESOLUTION NO. 96-05, A RESOLUTION OF TEE CITY OF TIGARD ACCEPTING A GIFT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE XRISTINE A. TUPLING TRUST. f _ . The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted -yes.') Councilor Rohlf asked to bring SUR 95-0019 back for review to look at how the proposal fit into the overlay zoning of the Tigard Triangle- The Council agreed to do so by consensus. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 21 - i V; „ Maud I 01/23/97 12:21 $503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 1010/010 I 16. MMC=IVB MMSION. Cancelled. - 1 17. ADJOQFNIUMS: 11:45 p.m. I Attoz a rive - ea5~ey,- r-y ecor r Kay9t ity o gar I i f - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 22 l I i ,2-13-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 POO2/008 3 l j ~ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 810 S W. ALDER. SUITE 700 • PORrLANU OR 4720.5 • (509) 2285230 • FA% (903) :n3.a168 a February 12, 1996 Project No.: 1629.00 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 1 Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of Council: I The purpose of this letter is to provide a written response to the -related testimony you heard at the January i 23.1996 City Council Hearing regarding the Briar Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. The majority of our response focuses on the oral and written testimony submitted by i Mr. Bernstein; however we have also provided responses to the traffic-rclutcd comments made by the other - citizens who provided comments. r Before addressing specific comments made by Mr.Bernstein's testimony, an overriding factor which should be carefully considered when reviewing his testimony is that he became involved in the project approximately one week prior to January 23, 1996. Further, Mr. Bcrnstoin did nut conduct tiny technical analysis of traffic j operations within the study area not did he collect any traffic operational Field data. By contrast, the traffic - our involvement studies prepared by our firm and included in the record represents the cumulative effort of ou in the project for close to a year. During that time, we collected several hours of traffic operational field data at the study area intersections and worked closely with the City of Tigard, Washington County, and the applicant to thoroughly evaluate both the near tern and tunb wort impacts of the proposed Comprehensive I , ! Plan Amendment and 'Lone Change. t Throughout the project, Washington County, given their concern over potential impacts to Scholls Ferry { Road, closely scrutinized all of the background data used in the traffic study, as well as the land use, trip beneration, and trip distribution assumptions for both the existing and proposed zoning. Having been closely involved in every element of the transportation analysis, Washington County concluded that the proposed development would have a similar or perhaps less severe impact on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry Road than an apartment complex developed in accordance with the existing zone. designation. In sulllinary, having haul a chance to review Mr. Bemstein's report we found nothing that would change any ; of the findings or conclusions of our analysis. Included in the following pages is our response to each ofthe comments made by Mr. Bernstein in his oral and written testimony. Comment: Trqgic generated by the grocerystore could he vigniJicant4y higher than estimated by the applicant. ! { Response: The trip generation rates used in our analysis are published by the lnstimle of TrRnsportation - Engineers and are included in a standard reference document used by transportation planners and engineers (the ITE Trip Generation manual). The procedure used is accepted nationally 1 for ostimuting the trip generation of new development. Further, these trip rates were ! reviewed and agreed to be reasonable by City of Tigard and Washington County. 1 i 02-13-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON & ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P003/008 t ~ I Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 2 F The trip generation rates chosen by Mr. Bernstein are inappropriate for the proposed Haggen ' supermarket. The data points refurred to represent supennarkets that are approximately half E I the seize of the proposed Ha_cn slero and thus are not directly comparable. Using Mr. t j Bernstein's logic, it would be just as appropriate to use the data point representing the next ~ larger-sized supermarket, which has a trip generation rate that is lower than the rate that was i f used in our analysis. In general, the ITE trip generation manual has very few data points for g buildings the size of the proposed Haggen supermarket (approximately 60,000 gross square feet). Most of the data points are for uses that are uses that arc much smaller. Trip generation rates for most retail uses decline as the development size increases. In other words, doubling the size of a development doesn't double its trip generation. However, our - analysis assumes a linear relationship between building size and trip generation rates, which, if anything, yields a conservatively high estimate of trip generation. Comment: Unmet demand identified in the market analysis will result in more traffic than rstimalud. Response: There is no factual data to support this conclusion because there is no market data to accompany the ITE data. However, the unmet demand identified in the Haggen market analysis likely results in abuve-average trufliu dcu,and +ul existing stores within the overall trade area. After the Haggen store is constructed, traffic will re-distribute as the supply more closely matches the demand. - Comment: 77w traffic analysis should consider the maximum development ofthe seta, resulting in twice 1 the number gfirips shown in the applicant's traffic analysts. Response: The calculations Mr. Bernstein uses to develop this assertion are flawed. In all six of the elements that go into the calculation of the maximum-development trip generation, he either j uses incorrect methods to develop his trip generation or fails to take into account the various trip types that occur with retail uses: • Retail. Mr. Bernstein uses the rate for a 23.000-square-foot stand-alone retail site. which has a higher trip generation rate per square foot than the 83,000-square-foot retail center that would actually be developed under this worst-case scenario. This results in a significant over-estimation of trip generation potential • Supermarket. Mr. Aernstein aces: the inappropriately-inflaters supermnrket rates I described previously. , • Nast Wood. Mr. 13emstein uses the trip rate for the peak hour of the generator (which typically occurs around noon), rather than the peak hour of the adjacent j street system (which occurs hetween 4:00-6:00 p.m.). This resnlts in a significant over-estimation of trip generation potential. • Pass-by trips. As Mr. Bernstein acknowledges in his testimony, many of the trips to the site will be trips that are made on the way to some other destination (such as work to home). I lowever, he doesn't take thasc pass-by trips into acenunt when developing his trip generation estimates. Since pass-by trips already exist on the F E~ i I 02.13-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P004/008 t Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13. 1996 Page 3 {{adjacent street system, they do not add to existing traffic volumes and should not be counted as new trips. F1F'': j • Internal trips. Under the maximum development scenario, there would be other Y. . uses on the site in addition to the grocery store. These uses, such as a fast-food restaurant, would attract some of their cttstemers from the other businesses on the site. Mr. Bernstein does not take these internal trips into account, which results in i an overestimation of the now trips added to the surrounding succi system.. 0 Diverted trips. Some of the trips to the proposed Haggen store will be diverted trips: people who decide to buy groceries at the Haggen store because it is more convenient, or offers products, prices, or services not available elsewhere. To be conservative, the Ilaggcn traffic analysis treated Ihcsc trips as new trips In the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the number of trips on the area's transportation system remains the same as a result of these diverted trips: the trip is still made, only the destination changes. Once again, Mr. Bernstein fails to acknowledge the effects of these trips. Any one of these mistakes and omissions by itself should call into question Mr. Bernstein's methodology. Taken together, it is clear that his findings and conclusions are not supported j by any factual evidence. I It should be emphasized that the assumptions fbr the worst-case maximum-development scenario were developed by Washington County staff and are believed to represent a reasonable "worst-case" commercial development scenario on the site. The analysis found that under this scenario, the SW Schoils Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue intersection would % operate at capacity in the year 2005. Under these conditions, the "worst-case" use, if it were GG to develop on the site, would be required to mitigate the intersection to produce acceptable R levels of service. Furthermore, Washington County's access modification only applies to the proposed Haggen store and any future, larger development would have to reapply for access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road. Comment. Vehicle miles traveled on lucal rrampnrratfnn system will not change. Response: Our analysis clearly documents how we arrived at the conclusion that a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the system would occur as a result of the proposed Haggen use. If the number of net new trips are known, along with the average trip length, the net change In VMT can be cavity calculated. Mr. Bernstein makes the claim that the apartments will simply he huilt at some other location, so the apartment related VMT will not change. 'Ibis is not neccessarily true since the City found that an adequate supply of multi-family exists within the City of Tigard with the removal or the housing units that could be built on this site. As a result, the assumptions we made to estimate the net change in VMT are valid. i~ J I I' i 02-13-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260695 P005/008 1. k Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony Fehrunry 11, 1996 Page 4 E From a more regional perspective, common sense suggests that VMT on a regional level would be reduced as well. The location of employment centers and essential services such i as 2roeery stores in relation to v:here people live have n significant impact on n:giunal VMT. In order to achieve the VMT reductions called for by the Transportation Planning Rule (20 j percent percapita over the next 20 years), a mix of commercial, residential, and employment uses in closer proximity to one another will he required. This concept is illustrated in the I Metro 2040 Plan. i Even if it were true that the VMT generated by the apartments will simply be displaced to so other location within the region, the region-wide change in VMT would likely be t negligible because the average trip length for a relatively small number of apartment dwellers will likely not change. However, by locating a commercial development (such as a grocery store) in an area under served by commercial uses. the averagu retail trip length and hence VMT can be reduced at a regional level. In the specific case of the proposed Haggen development, this reduction comes from providing shorter trip Icngths for a much larger group of people within the local neighborhoods. Some people may drive farther because of certain products and services offered by Haggen, but this increase is more than offset by the reduction in trip length for a much larger number ur local fu%itIciiis. l Mr. Bernstein also claims that pass-by trips will occur at othur grocery stores if the Haggen ~i Food and Pharmacy is not built. This is not necessarily true. In order to attract pass-by trips, a store must be located along a major commute route so that people can easily stop at the store on their way home from work. If it is not a convcnicnl atup, the customer will likely make a separate nip to another grocery store, thus increasing VMT. Comment: The trip distribution Is incorrect: all trips were assumed to return to their starling point. Response: This comment suggests a fundamental misundcrstunding of trip types. "New" trips-those trips made solely for the purpose of grocery shopping-and "diverted" trips'--those trips that formerly went to another grocery store--- will return to their origin. Approximately 60% of grocery store trips were conservatively assumed to fall into this category. This assumption is supported by research repotted in ITE's Trip Generation manual. Furthermore, °pass-by" trips-tmsc trips that include a stop at the grocery store as part of another trip-were distributed according to volume on Scholls Ferry Road in exactly the manner that Mr. Bernstein claims was not done. As a result, the trip distribution accurately reflects traffic patterns into and out of the site. Cumment: The site access plan analged to the report dues not meet Washington County, requirements. { Response: Our traffic analysis actually evaluated two access scenarios: (1) the access plan originally proposed by the applicant with two access points, and (2) a right-in, right-out-only access unto Sahulls Ferry Road, thus providing both maximum and minimum site access scenarios. Washington County recognizes that its access standards do not cover all possible situations and provides a means for modifying the standards when appropriate. Consequently, analyzing the more liberal access scenario in addition to the minimum-access scenario was I b l~ J 1 02713-96 09:41AM FROM KITTEISON ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P006/008 , a ~ t 1 Written Rebuttal to TI'aPtie Related Testimony i 7 I February 13,1996 1 Page 5 t I justified. The applicant submitted a request for a modification of Washington County's 1 standards, which resulted in the left-in, right-in, right-out access approved by the County. At the request of the County, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. conducted an analysis of ;hc final lI approved site access plan and found no operational deficiencies at the study area intersections. Comment Queuing on Schnlls Ferry Road and the site driveways wav not analyzed. Response: A queuing analysis on Scholls Ferry Road was performed and it was found that standing queues on Scholls Ferry Road would not affect site access. The only movement that had the potential to be impacted by standing queues on Scholls Ferry road was the lefl-out access originally proposed by the applicant. The access plan approved by Washington County did not provide for a left-out movement. The proposed access is located 800 feet cast of the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue intersection, well away from the influence of queues in either the left-turn or through lanes. Neither Washington County nor the City of Tigard had any concerns with respect to standing queues at any study area intersection. j Comment Anticipated delay exiting the site driveway-crpacially for left tunes onto Schnlls ferry-will encourage motorists to divert onto neighborhood streets. _ Response: Mr. Bernstein is making a very broad generalization that would only be applicable in this tt case if a) drivers experienced exceedingly long delays at the site driveways, and b) the alternative routes would result in I= delay (including the delay associated with travelling out-of-direction). With respect to a), the anticipated delays at the site driveways for both entering and exiting traffic will be lower than the delays experienced at the adjacent signalized intersections. As a result, drivers will not have any incentive to divert to the local streets. With respect to h), the major arterials and collector facilities located in the vicinity ofthe site (Scholls Ferry, Murray Road, 135th, and Walnut) pruvide the quickest must dircut route to the site from the various origins and desinations within the trade area. The presence of these facilities negates both the need and the incentive to use the local streets to serve anything other than local trips generated from within the surrounding neighborhoods. Comment' The trip generatiort is neither credible nur applicable. Response: As shown previously, the trip generation is both credible and applicable. Washington County has reviewed and approved both the original traffic report and the updated analysis reflecting the final approved access plan. The County has a vested interest in ensuring that Scltulls Ferry Road and its iuterscaliuns upende below eapacity and at deucplablc Ievols of service. The following is a response to comments made by other citizens who attended the hearing. Comments trom Cleo McCloud: Carnrttent: There iv presently a 90-second wait to get onin Scholls Ferry Road from SW 1351h Avenue; the store will double or triple that. t s 02-13-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P007/008 Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 6 Response: The movement with the highest delay to turn onto to Scholls Ferry Road is the northbound I left-turn movement. Under existing conditions, the average delay to motorists making thi maneuver in approximately 30 seconds. With the proposed develupincut, this delay would increase to approximately 40 seconds. I Comment: SW 135th Avenue is too narrow to accommodate additional traffic. i Response: Our analysis demonstrates that one through lane in cacti direction is sufficient to accommodate traffic through the year 2005. Comments from Jim Rasmussen Comment: .Scholls Ferry Road is gridlocked between 4 and 6 p.m. Response: Although traffic is noticeably higher during these hours. Scholls Ferry Road operates at acceptable levels of service during the afternoon rush hour and will continue to do so following the construction of the Haggen Food and Pharmacy. As shown previously, the proposed Haggeu stoic will have the same or less of an impact on the critical Intersections near Highway 217, compared to apartments on the site. Comment. The store will attract shoppensfrnm large areas who didn't payfor rho streets. Response: The rnujurity of the shoppers are expected to come from local neighborhoods, including those who participated in LIDS in the area The Scholls Ferry Road improvements were paid for by state and federal tax dollars. The Haggen Food and Pharmacy. like all development within Tigard will have to pay a transportation systems development charge that will be applied towards local road projects. The SDC that Haggen would pay will be substantially greater than what apartments would pay (approximately $240,000 versus approximately $175,000 for a 180 unit apartment complex). i Comments from Eric Johnson I Comment: Washington County severely limited access, which will afecr the traffic study. i Response: One of the access scenarios the Haggen traffic analysis studied was a right-in, right-out access scenario, which is more restrictive than what the County eventually approved. A follow-up study based on the final approved access scenario found that area intersections will operate below capacity and at acceptable levels of service through the year 2005. I Comments from Ron Royce Comment Truck deliveries will impact the neighborhood. Respottxe: F.XCOpt for a short stretch of Hawks Beard Street of less than a hlnck to the site, tnreka will l not enter the neighborhood. t t 02-t3-96 09:41AM FROM KITTELSON 6 ASSOC. TO 9/12066260675 P008/006 n Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 7 Comment: Cut-through traffic will be generated within Beaverton. Response: no local street system on the north side of Scholls Pcrry Road within Beaverton developed in such a way that there is no advantage for through traffic to use local streets instead of the collector and arterial system. Local residents will use SW 130th Avenue and SW Davies Road to access Scholls Ferry to get to the site, just as they do now to go shopping farther away. i Comment from Mark Johnson 'i Comment: Walking to exiling stores will he less safe. Respupse: There is more tralllc on Scholls Ferry Road next to the existing Howard's Thriftway than there is next to the proposed Haggen site. Signalized crosswalks are available at the SW Scholls Ferry/SW 135th Avenue intersection, providing a controlled way to cross Scholls Ferry Road. Seniors from the Village at Forest Glen Retirement Center located on the north side of Scholls Ferry Road support the project because they see the the proposed Haggen Food and Pharmacy would be more convenient far them to walk to than other alternative j stores. g , Comments. from area Copeland Comment: Cut-through tragic will be generated on SW Hawks Beard S'trcet east of SW .13M Avenue. i Response: Due to the site's location at the comer of an arterial and a collector (Rcholl- Ferry Road and SW 135th) with quick convenient connections to Murray Road and Walnuk there will be no incentive to use Hawks Beard as a cut-through route. The section of Hawks Beard between SW 130th and SW 135th will be experience an increase in traffic, but this would i not be classified as cut-through traffic. Further, as part of Tigard's SW 130th Avenue bridge project, no emthrnmd traffic wilt he nllnwed to enter the Rnmmerlake neighborhood from SW 130th Avenue. "is restriction will actually require some of the Inca[ traffic within the Summerlake neighborhood to use Scholls Ferry Road. j I trust this information adequately responds to the transportation-related issues raised with respect to the proposed application. Il+ Sincerely, Kl'I'1'ELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Vandehey, P.E. j Principal t- `i Comprehensive Plan and Zone District Amendment - I Haggen Food and Pharmacy • A Request Submitted To The City of Tigard Prepared For: BUCK & GORDON j 902 Waterfront Place 1101 Western Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-1097 Prepared By: 4-1 W&H PACIFIC 8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, Oregon, 97008-7120 - September 12, 1995 t . PACIFIC 8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, OR 97008-7 1 2 0 September 12, 1995 Ray Valone, Associate Planner 111 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANIEND-EN TPLONE CFANGE REQUEST HAGGEN FOOD AND PHARMACY I Dear Mr. Valone: e { Enclosed please find thirty (30) copies of the application submittal for the above referenced land use request. The application consists of the following information required by your department during the pre-application conference: 1. Application form 2. Owner's authorization (option agreement) 3. Applicant's statement 4. Pre-application conference notes j 5. Property map 6. List of nroperty owners and addresses for notification 7. Assessor's Map 8. Application processing fee i Please note that the market area analysis referenced as Attachment E will be submitted at a later date. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 626-0455. I look forward working with you during the public review and hearing process. f , Sincerely. W&H PACIFIC rank Angelo w1 Project Manager Enclosures (2): Comprehensive Plan Amendtnent/Zone Change Application Application Processing Fee (503) 626-0455 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services . I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Requested Action IT. Site Description III. Conformance with Applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies IV. Conformance with City of Tigard Development Code V. Evidence of Change in Circumstances, Inconsistency or Mistake in Comprehensive Plan VI. Conformance with Applicable Locational Criteria E VII. Environmental Assessment H 1'I i ~ VIII. Statewide Planning Goals and Findings i ~ D{. Summary and Conclusions j FIGURES i ' A. Area Map B. Conceptual Site Plan i C. Conceptual Image of Site Development ~I - ATTACHMENTS A. Assessor's Map (ISI-33AC 8000) s i B. Legal Description C. Metro 2040 Growth Concept D. Transportation Analysis E. Market Area Analysis ! F. Pre-application notes G. Public Notification List I k i f 6 , t4 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 1 C l City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 tC ( 1. REQUESTED ACTION Briar Development is proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change which would enable it to construct a retail development to be known as Haggen Food and Pharmacy on a vacant site in the City of ~ Tigard bounded by SW Scholls Ferry Road to the north, SW Hawks Beard Road to the south, SW 135th i Avenue to the west and vacant property to the east. Figure A shows the locational vicinity of the project. The project is proposed to include 60,127 gross square feet (gsf) of retail space in one building. - The Tigard Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site Medium-High Density Residential (13-25 units per acre). Current zoning on the property is High Density Residential (R-25). This application seeks a change in plan and zoning designations to General Commercial (C-G) for 9.0 acres of the 15.14 acre parcel. The balance of 6.14 acres, which is not controlled by Briar Development, will be retained as R-25. It is Briar's understanding that there are no current plans for development of this property. i I i I i i 1 . ~ 1 F s Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 2 ° I City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 11. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed Haggen Food and Pharmacy project site is comprised of 9.0 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel (Tax i, Lot 151-33AC-8000). The site is bounded by SW Scholls Ferry Road to the north, SW Hawks Beard Street to the south, SW 135th Avenue to the west, and vacant multiple family zoned land to the east (See Figure A). SW Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and is classified as a major arterial. This arterial was recently improved to major arterial standards, including street widening, sidewalks, ® bicycle lanes, landscaping, intersection realignment, signalizadon and noise attenuation. The residential area to the north of SW Scholls Ferry Road is inside the City of Beaverton. The proposed site is vacant and slopes slightly to the south The property is currently planned and zoned for Medium-High Density Residential (R-25) use. Commercial uses are located approximately 0.4 miles east of the site on SW Scholls Ferry Road on property zoned C-G, C-P and C-N. The southeast corner of the site adjoins a single family neighborhood at Hawks Beard Street; this area is zoned R-12 (PD). Undeveloped lands to the east are zoned R-25. The City of Tigard recently approved Palomino Point, a 160 unit multiple family development to the south of the subject parcel, but separated from it by SW Hawks Beard Street. The project consists of 7.9 acres presently zoned R-2S. i i i I - I j t ~I ~ r 1 1 (NOT TO SCALE) 1 J ¢ Co W vi vi vi S. W. HAWKS BEARD ti Z v1 ¢ i ~ W pip SRO Vic, ¢ v' d 5~ F~RR c Gip Lr) C 3 i LEGEND - - - - FUTURE EXTENSION TIGARD, OREGON HAGGEN SUPERMARKET PACIFIC SITE VICINITY AUGUST 1995 • r. L...~ SCALE: PROJECT NO. ME NAME: FIG. A NOT TO SCALE 4-1573-0301 THAGVMOI.DWG 7t- r. E Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 4 i" City of Tigard September 12, 1995 III. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ff j Citizen Involvement 2.1,1 The City shall... assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: In compliance with City and Statewide Planning Goal I (Citizen Involvement) requirements, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with area residents on June 19, 1995. The Haggen Management Team and Project consultants were in attendance. Informal discussions with other non-attending neighbors have also occurred. Specifically, discussions with representatives of the Summer Lake Homeowners Association have occurred. In addition, City of Tigard requirements for public notice are being met, including notification of adjacen7 property owners, posting of property and advertisement of hearing(s) in the local newspaper, all in a timely manner. Natural Features and Open Space Chapter 3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan establishes policies for protection of natural resources. "Ibe chapter reflects the concerns expressed in several of the Statewide Planning Goals, including: Goal #3 - Agricultural Lands; Goal #4 - Forest Land; Goal #5 - Open Spaces; Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources; Goal #7 - Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards; and Goal #8 - Recreational Needs." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Page I1-11). Response: The policies under this chapter do not apply to the proposed comprehensive plan and zone I amendment, as there are no areas on-site subject to wetland, erosion, slope, floodplain or f other natural resource limitations. Further the proposed development will be designed to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to off-site resources. For complete findings on ! t Statewide Planning Goals, see Section Vill of this application. Air Quality 4.1.1 The City shall maintain and improve Tigard's air quality and coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce air pollution within the Portland-Vancouver air quality maintenance area (AQMA). i _ t L_ J s - Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 5 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 t E Response: The proposed grocery store and pharmacy development will comply with all applicable local, regional, state and federal air quality standards. The site development review will specifically address such issues. However it is expected that redesignation of the site for commercial use will have a positive effect on air quality, based on the significant (65%) } reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with retail development versus multiple family t'. residential development (See Transportation Analysis, Attachment D), The reduction in VMT is primarily due to the proximity of residential uses and the ability of the retail activity to capture pass-by trips because of the site's location at the intersection of a major arterial and major collector, along one of the most frequently traveled corridors in the. , cities of Tigard and Beaverton. 4.1.1(6) The City shall aim to reduce the quantity of vehicle emissions by pursuing an energy-efficient urban form which reduces the number of vehicle-miles-traveled, and by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, especially mass transit and pedestrian [modes]. Response: The plan amendment and rezone to C-G supports the use of alternative transportation modes by allowing retail development in close proximity to medium-high density residential uses. The energy conservation policy is further implemented by arranging building entrances and pedestrian walkways in such a way as to support transit use and local pedestrian access. As noted in the traffic study by Kittelson & Associates, the proposed grocery store and pharmacy will generate 65% fewer vehicle-miles-traveled than development of the site with apartments (Attachment D). Water Quality i 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. i I Response: Development of the proposed grocery store and pharmacy development will comply with h j all applicable local, state and federal water quality standards. This will be documented in j more detail during site development review. i Noise Pollution ; I - I 4.3.1 City shall require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate [optimal building placement or landscaping II and other techniques] to lessen noise impacts to levels compatible with the surrounding land uses. i i t - i i 1 i t i I ~ r E ^ 1aggen Food & Pharmacy Page 6 E ) City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 i 7 f Response: The subject site is not located within a noise congested area (City of Tigard Community _ Development Department, August 18, 1995). Further, the site plan orients the proposed 7 building and its service facilities away from existing residential areas, near the intersection of SW 135th Street and SW Scholls Ferry Road. Based on preliminary design work, It will be possible to orient noise producing elements, such as truck loadinglunloading and HVAC facilities, away from the adjacent neighborhood. f r k i Economy R" g 5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available H to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. j I. Response: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will enable development j of a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy. The store is estimated to employ 40 to 50 full-time and 150 part-time workers. Due to the proximity of residential neighborhoods and 1 availability of transit service to the site, Tigard residents will have an opportunity to work at the store and pharmacy. i 5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into _ residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial use. Response: The subject site should not be considered a residential area. The site is adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial, and SW 135th Street, a major collector street. Land use compatibility between the proposed commercial development and nearby residential areas i will be maintained with proper use of landscaping, building and driveway orientation and 4 other site design methods. No residential development has occurred on three of the four f sides of the site. The comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of the subject property to C-G is consistent with the adopted Metro 2040 land use concept, which designates a Town Center for the Murray Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Street area. Town Centers are to provide local shopping and employment opportunities. They are also j designed to provide local retail and services, at a minimum, to serve the local market area (See Metro 2040 Growth Concept, Attachment Q. The proposed grocery and pharmacy would meet this objective by providing local retail and services at a highly accessible i location. Housing i i 6.1.1 The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent levels. j Response: The principal review criterion under the City's housing policy is that the proposal comply with the Metropolitan Housing Rule, OAR 660 Division 7. The rule requires that the City maintain an inventory of developable residential land providing a housing mix of at least 50% multiple family dwellings and an overall minimum average density of 10 units per j t f ~ S i I~ L~ i~ F Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 7 j City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 f i 3 acre. With approval of the plan amendment and rezone, the City will continue to be In compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and meet projected housing needs. The l change from R-25 to C-G (9 acres) reduces housing potential on-site by approximately 180 dwellings. This reduction is deemed to be insignificant due to the fact that it represents i 0.7% - 1.1% of the City's housing opportunity index; the resulting index after the plan amendment of 1039 units per acre exceeds the required 10.0 units per acre. The City maintains an inventory of 13,730 potential housing units and 1,313 acres of developable residential land, providing an overall density of 10.46 units per acre (Ray Valone, City of Tigard Community Development Department, July 27, 1995). Based on the following model, the reduction of 180 dwellings from the housing inventory results in a 0.7% decrease to the overall potential density: F. Density Calculation The development code specifies a method for computing allowable residential density (18.92 Density Computations). The code requires a calculation of buildable land with deductions for public right-of-way, private streets, existing development, sensitive land areas, and park and other public land dedications. Residential development potential is determined by multiplying the "net" buildable area by the maximum allowable housing density per zone district. Density may also be limited indirectly by minimum lot size, setbacks, landscaping and density transition standards. i For demonstration purposes, it is reasonable to assume that approximately 20% of the subject multiple family (R-25) site would be used for public right-of-way, private streets, water quality facilities and other dedications, as required by the City. Based on this assumption and the above methodology, redesignation of the 9 acre site from R-25 to C-G j causes a reduction to the housing inventory by a total of 180 dwelling units (9 ac x .80 x 1 25 du'slac = 180 do's), or 0.7% (180 du's/13,730 du's = 0.7%). This represents an I insignificant change to the City's overall planned housing density for developable lands, from 10.46 units per net acre to 10.39 units per net acre. ~ While the comprehensive plan and rezone application involves only 9 acres of the existing 15.14 acre parcel, it should be noted that the City would apply a different calculation if - the entire parcel was proposed for housing. Comments from City of Tigard Community j Development Department Staff (August 18, 1995) indicate that the easterly portion of the parcel is subject to density transition requirements (Comprehensive Plan Policy 63.2; Community Development Code Section 18.40.040). The code requires that any new development located within 100 feet of a designated "Established Development" may not exceed 125% of the allowable density in the established development's district. In this case, the R-7 single family residential area to the east of the parcel is an established development within 100 feet. Therefore development density would have to be transitioned between the single family area and the R-25 multiple family area with densities no greater than 8.75 units per net acre (7 du's/ac x 1.25). While the applicant is not required to analyze off-site housing potential, it is important to note, from a housing policy •`i perspective, that the parcel can not be developed at 100% of the allowable density in the R-25 District. i j 1 i Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 8 i City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 t 6.3.1 In all phases of the development approval process in a residential "established area," a primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established: areas. i Response: The subject site is not located within a designated "established residential area-" As discussed under Section 5.4, land use compatibility between the proposed commercial development and nearby residential areas will be maintained with proper use of landscaping, building and driveway orientation and other site design methods. No residential development has occurred on three of the four sides of the site. Further, there are other examples in the Beaverton/Tigard area where grocery/pharmacy stores successfully co-exist with residential uses nearby., 6.6.1 The City shall require: { -a. Buffering between different types of land uses... and the following factors shall be considered in determining the type and extent of the required buffer: I 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter j dust or to provide a visual harrier. • - 2. The size of the buffer needed in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose. 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed J 4. The required density of the buffering 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. J Response: The comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is a non-project action which does III{ not require site improvements such as buffering or screening. Future development of the 9 grocery store and pharmacy will require buffering to provide a visual barrier between f - j commercial uses and the existing/planned residential neighborhood to the south and east Specifically, a combination of landscaping, existing subdivision fencing and site grading will be used to visually buffer residential areas from areas used for commercial buildings, storage/loading and parking (See Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Image of Site Development, Figures B and Q. These improvements will be analyzed and documented in i greater detail during site development review. b. On-site screening of such things as service areas and facilities, storage areas and parking lots, I and the following factors shall be considered in determining the type and extent of the i screening: i 1. What needs to be screened. j 2. The direction from which it is needed. I 3. How dense the screen needs to be. 4. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. 5. Whether the screening needs to be year-round. i f 9. t j Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 9 33 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 a 7 'c. Response: The comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is a non-project action which does not require site improvements such as buffering or screening. There is a need to screen parking areas with future site development. Screening should be oriented toward traffic cE on Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue. Specifically, a combination of street trees and j parking area landscaping will be used to provide visual relief while providing for site c visibility (See Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Image of Site Development, Figures 6 i B and Q. These improvements will be analyzed and documented in greater detail during site development review. Public Facilities and Services • - t 7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity; b) the facilities are capable of adequately serving all intervening propenies and the proposed development; and are c) designed to City standards. Response: The rezone of the property from R-25 to C-G would not change the requirement for public facilities and services to be provided to the above standards. It is the applicant's understanding that facilities to serve water, sewer and storm water needs are available to meet the needs of the proposed use. J 7.2.1 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) a site development study t be submitted; b) natural drainageways be maintained unless studies show that alternative drainage pF solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and will assure no adverse off-site impacts; c) all drainage can be handled on-site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off-site impact; d) the 100-year floodplain be protected; e) erosion control techniques be included as part of the site development plan. j Response: The proposed rezone would not change the need for a site development study to be ! prepared and that best management practices be used for on-site surface water drainage. Any adverse impacts to natural drainageways, adjacent lands and floodplains can be properly mitigated. ( 7.6.1 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) the development be served i by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes; b) the development ( shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level adequate for fire protection purposes; and c) the applicable fire district review all applications. Response: The proposed grocery and pharmacy store development can meet all applicable water ! pressure and fire protection standards. It is the applicant's understanding that sufficient water pressure exists to meet the demand of the proposed land uses and fulfill the fire pressure requirements. The proposed action will be reviewed by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department as part of the approval process. C ! L~ 3 t t Raggen Food & Pharmacy Page 10 3 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 j t ' Transportation 3 r 8.1.1 The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. Response: The proposed grocery and pharmacy store development will meet all adopted City, county and regional roadway level-of-service and operational standards (See Kittelson & Associates Traffic Analysis, Attachment D). c i 8.1.2 The City shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. Response: Site development review of the proposed grocery store and pharmacy will be coordinated with Washington County, the City of Tigard and Tri-Met to assure conformance with local and regional transportation plans. 8.1.3 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a) development abut or have appropri atel y-authori zed access to a publicly dedicated street; b) street right-of-way be dedicated (if substandard); c) the developer commit to the construction of street improvements within the development; d) individual developers participate in the improvements of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e) street improvements be made and signs or signals provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; f) transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided if development is the type generating transit ridership; g) disabled parking spaces be set aside and marked; and h) land be dedicated to implement the adopted bicycle/pedestrian corridor plan. Response: A traffic impact study was developed for the proposed general commercial use of the property. The analysis by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Attachment D) finds that the proposed grocery store and pharmacy site development will meet all City, county and _ regional roadway level-of-service and operational standards. The study also recommends a preferred access design for addressing travel demand impacts of the proposed land uses. The site will have access to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial. Scholls Ferry Road utilizes a 84 foot cross-section and is improved to major arterial standards, including four travel lanes, center left turn lane, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, noise attenuation (north side) and landscaping. Local residents will have access to the site via SW Hawk's Beard Street. Development of the grocery store and pharmacy will include all required right-of-way i dedications and street improvements to Hawks Beard Street, including curbs, sidewalks, paving and traffic control. Required transit improvements, bicycle/pedestrian access and i Americans with Disabilities Act compliance will be addressed at the time of site development review through coordination with the City of Tigard, Washington County and Tri-Met. i 8.2.2 The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. i { 1 t G 3 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page I1 n City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 1 j Response: The plan amendment and zone change will support public transit service by providing for development of retail uses along an established transit route (Scholls Ferry Road). The proposed development will include sidewalks, landscaping and appropriate building orientation to encourage pedestrian access to the grocery store and pharmacy, and transit service requirements will be coordinated with Tri-Met during site development review (See Figure B, Conceptual Site Plan). Energy ! 9.1.2 The City shall establish a balanced and efficient transportation system which compliments the land use plan and is designed to minimize energy impacts. y Response: The traffic analysis by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. rinds that, compared to an apartment use of the site, the proposed supermarket and associated uses will generate approximately 65% fewer vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the areas's local transportation system. The proposed development would also encourage transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel due to its proximity and 2ccess to established residential areas. Appropriate street improvements, such as sidewalks, would be provided to encourage transit use. The proposed commercial land use designation further implements the City's energy policy _ by locating higher density and land use intensities in proximity to existing transit routes along an arterial street (Energy Chapter, Strategy #3). The proposal is also consistent with Strategy #8, which recommends that the City support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, bicycling and walking for commuters. The commercial use would be within walking distance (1/4 mile) of low density and medium-high density residential uses. The site also has direct access to Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial/transit route, and indirect access to SW 135th Street, a major collector. Due to this arrangement of land use and transportation facilities, employees of the proposed grocery store and pharmacy will have the opportunity to walk, bicycle or ride public transit to work. 9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and construction Response: This policy is directive to the City. The proposed grocery and pharmacy store will meet i i all applicable building and energy conservation codes as may be required during site development review. I - i l n Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 12 ' City of Tigard September 12, 1995 E s IV. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE i Zoning District Classification and Requirements i 18.56 The purpose of the R-25 zoning district is to provide for single-family attached and low and medium rise multiple-family residential units for medium-high density residential development. i Response: The proposed use is not in conformance with the R-25 District. As analyzed under other - sections of this application, the C-G Districi is a more appropriate designation for u.- subject property (See Section V. Evidence of Change in Circumstances, Inconsistency or F. Mistake). 18.62 The purpose of the general commercial areas is to provide for major retail goods and services... It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. Response: The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the C-G District. The development consists of a 60,127 square-foot Haggen supermarket and pharmacy adjacent to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial, and SW 135th Ave., a major collector street. I'I Site Development Review 1 18.120 The purpose and intent of site development review is to promote the general welfare by directing attention to site planning, and giving regard to the natural environment and the elements of creative k design to assist in conserving and enhancing the appearance of the City. Response: The proposed grocery store and pharmacy will meet all of the City's site development review criteria upon approval of the rezone. Attached as Figure C is a digitally produced image of the project to show the retail concept on the proposed site. The development review submittal will address siting and design criteria, including parking, landscaping and screening, environmental performance standards, access and circulation, setbacks and other requirements of the City. I J i' i S.w. '135TH.-AVER f •3 =i - o= CO m \ rni m a v a ` ml F,~ f' ~I\ I. ) ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I i ~ j ~ . \ o= \ I .a i \ 1 S.W. 130TH. AVENUE p^g 8 C + G CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN w HAGGEN FOOD & PHARMACY WWW s N O ° TIGARD OREGON 1 i- III I I ' I I I' , 1 I. ,,I I rr. t I r I , • IfS I , I 1 i _ ~ ' A ! t t Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 15 t City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 E i V. EVIDENCE OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, INCONSISTENCY ~ i OR MISTAKE r Chapter 18.22 of the Tigard Community Development Code sets forth the criteria for approval of zone ' amendments. This chapter, in part, requires that there is "evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." 6 i j Change in Circumstances The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, establishing the plan and zone designation t for the area in which the subject property is located. Historically, commercial expansion along Scholls Ferry Road has been carefully controlled by both the cities of Tigard and Beaverton to provide residential land use compatibility and minimize traffic impacts. Since that time, circumstances have changed significantly with regard to planning the area and the larger region. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept was established by Metro through the adoption of Resolution 94-2040C, and the State of Oregon adopted the Transportation Planning Rule under Statewide Land Use Goal 12 in 1993. The Growth Concept is to be implemented over the near future through a Regional Framework Plan i and the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Among a host of other things, this adopted Growth Concept recommends study of lands west of the Urban Growth Boundary, along Scholls Ferry Road, for - - residential expansion. The concept also calls for the establishment of a Town Center in the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard/SW 135th Street vicinity (See Attachment Q. I~ { Town Centers are to provide local shopping and employment opportunities, featuring compact development and transit service. They are designed to provide local retail and services, at a minimum, to serve the local f market area (Metro 2040 Growth Concept). Town Centers are connected to other centers by Corridors. SW j Murray Boulevard and SW Scholls Ferry Road are both designated as Corridors. Corridors are not as dense as Town Centers, and according to the Growth Concept, they are intended to include a mix of office, retail and medium density residential uses along transit lines. A future iteration of the state-mandated Periodic Review of Tigard's comprehensive plan will likely result in some new commercial-oriented zoning for this area to address the regional growth concept, mitigate traffic conditions and meet Transportation Planning Rule requirements. The requested rezone of the subject property to C-G and the proposed use as a grocery store and pharmacy is consistent with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept for this area, and reflects the changing circumstances of regional and local plans. In addition to the it 6 acres on-site to remain in R-25 zoning, over 30 acres of land is available for medium-high density ! residential use in the immediate vicinity. Recently, the City approved development of 160 multiple family units on an adjacent 7.9 acre site to the south across Hawks Beard Street. j 1 j The second change in circumstances is State adoption of thoTransportation Planning Rule (TPR), The TPR requires that cities and counties amend their comprehensive plans to more efficiently manage local transportation systems. The TPR mandates site design standards, evaluation of transportation system capacity and long-range plans to reduce the number of per-capita vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the local street system. Until Tigard prepares its comprehensive plan update to address TPR requirements, the City must ~ t t ~f ~ E Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 16 € ^ City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 r 1 review planning and zoning proposals based upon the applicable state law, OAR 660-12-060 (See analysis -en-pages76 arrd 27r As shown by the Kittelson & Associates traffic analysis, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is in conformance with the TPR; the proposed grocery and pharmacy use of the subject property, as compared to development of 180 apartments, will result in a 65% reduction in VMT (Attachment D). No reclassification of affected streets is required. i Another relevant change in circumstance, which makes the proposal timely, is the recent street improvements 1 to Scholls Ferry Road, Old Scholls Ferry xoad and SW 135th Street, including widening, realignment, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, signalization, noise attenuation and landscaping. These changes have significantly improved local circulation and levels-of-service in the area. and will promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to this highly accessible site. Inconsistency/Mistake in Citv of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (1983) The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983. At that time the City designated what it believed was sufficient commercial land for a 20-year planning horizon. However, due to the significant population growth that has occurred in this portion of the metropolitan region, the Comprehensive Plan underestimates the need for vacant, developable sites within the subject trade area for locating new grocery stores. As the economic analysis submitted with this application indicates, the trade area is currently and : projected to continue to be underserved by retail uses. The fact that there is such a significant shortage of retail land available to serve the community represents an inconsistency with the Tigard Comprehensive ^ Plan's intent to provide sufficient land to serve both the current and future population base of the city. Currently, there are no commercially-designated sites of sufficient size to develop the proposed store within the local trade area (See Market Area Analysis, Attachment E). f I I " t t t Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 17 ^ City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 } 7 ! I l VI. Conformance with Applicable Locational Criteria Chapter 12 of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan establishes locational criteria for land use decision- making. The policies and criteria of this chapter apply to both legislative and quasi-judicial land use actions, including plan and zone amendments. The Comprehensive Plan states, "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which :hough not x strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community. The applicable criteria are as follows: j 12.2 The City shall: a) provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required trade area; and b) apply the appropriate locationat criteria applicable to the scale of the project General Commercial - General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and { services... It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. [The Comprehensive Plan allows flexibility in trade area, site size and gross leasable area for general commercial use.) Response: The subject site includes 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. The proposed grocery store and pharmacy (60,127 square-feet) are adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, a major arterial, and SW 135th Street, a major collector. (1) Spacing and Location - The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. Response: Residential districts effectively abut only 2 sides of the site. Approximately 18 acres to the south are zoned R-25 and 6 acres to the east are zoned R-25. The area to the east will be separated from the proposed development site by a minor partition. The site is surrounded by Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Street, respectively, to the north and west. Scholls Ferry Road is a major arterial with sound barriers and extensive landscaping. This effectively separates and transitions land use from the proposed commercial site to residential neighborhoods to the north in Beaverton. Similarly, SW 135th separates lands to the west zoned R-25 from the proposed C-G site. From the standpoint of development potential, the R-25 area to the west may be limited by its narrow configuration, (j parcelization and proximity to three major streets (noise, glare, setbacks, etc.). i j (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. c. Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 18 { City of Tigard. September 12, 1995 i s Response: As indicated by the traffic impact analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., i commercial use of the property, with proper access design and mitigation measures, will 1 conform to all applicable roadway level-of-service and operational standards. j (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. f Response: The site has direct access from SW Scholls Ferry Roads, a major arterial street, and indirect access from SW 135th Street, a major collector streets. { (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area Response: Public transportation is available to the site and the project will be designed to 4 accommodate transit. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site is high and will support transit due to the recent improvement of Scholls Ferry Road. Residential areas to the south will have direct connections to the site via SW Hawks Beard Street. 3. Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. Response: The site is large enough to develop the proposed grocery store and pharmacy. The demand for commercial uses supports this project, and the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change is consistent with the Metro 2040 Concept (See Attachment E, Market Area Analysis). Site visibility is available from Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Street, f 4. Impact Assessment I (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. ! Response: The proposed grocery store and pharmacy conform with the City's criteria for impact assessment. The scale, design, configuration and function of the proposed commercial development is compatible with surrounding uses (See Figures B and C. Conceptual Site Plan and Image of Site Development). (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. Response: The site design provides landscape screening, building orientation, and parking and { ! circulation layout to maintain the privacy or adjacent, non-commercial uses. Sidewalks and t landscaping are also provided to assure compatibility. The activity associated with the j proposed land uses is considered to be supporting, rather than interfering with, adjoining I 1 residential uses. I I E I j w Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 19 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. Response: The site features include access to SW Scholis Ferry Road, a major transit route and Metra-d ognated gre%vth `.or rido: "The proposal "~::c.:t °s.: •hc Ton. Cent : - Corridor development concept, and it supports Transportation Planning Rule objectives by serving residential uses within 1/4 mile (walking distance). (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non- residential uses. Response: Non-residential uses will not be affected by the proposed development. All store and F parking area lights will be directed away from adjoining neighborhoods and adjoining streets. qd' i y, I 1 . II i i Page 20 ` Haggen Food & Pharmacy City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 18.90.020 Environmental Performance Standards - General Provisions a) ...each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor, and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system, or stream. B) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance..." Response: The applicant was advised by City staff during a pre-application meeting that a noise study would be required to analyze noise impacts of the proposed commercial development. While the site is not located within a known "noise congested area," the analysis and any required mitigation will be addressed during site development review. _ Landscaping, appropriate lighting and other site design techniques will be used to mitigate any adverse impacts of light and glare. The completed facility will comply with building and other codes of the City to control wastes, odors, etc. i V j _ t r I r, i I V 1 - - 1 j j F7 9 t s k ~ Raggen Food & Pharmacy Page 21 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 r E VIII. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND FINDINGS Goal 1: Citizen Involvement j Public notice for the hearing on this application will be provided ftuugh the City of Tigard'c -c-lu1c-lon. procedures. The public will have an opportunity to review the application and staff report in advance of the public hearing and provide testimony at the hearing. In compliance with City requirements, the applicant held t a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with neighborhood representatives on June 19, 1995. The Haggen Management Team and project consultants were in attendance. + Goal 2: Land Use Planning 11 ~ The plan amendment application includes a thorough factual base that demonstrates the need and justification for the proposed amendment. This factual information includes a market area study, inventories of alternative commercial sites, reference to Metro's 2040 Growth Concept, and a transportation impact study. As well, the application demonstrates how the amendment complies with the City of Tigard's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan policies. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed commercial use is located within the City of 1. Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. F Goal 4: Forest Lands 9 This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed commercial use is located within the City of Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. i• Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the site contains no sensitive natural resources, historic areas, f or lands designated as open space by the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 1 k,• i Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality r The plan amendment from multiple family residential to commercial use will not have a significant impact to air, water or land resource quality. The proposed commercial development will conform with all applicable federal, regional and City of Tigard development codes to protect air and water quality and control erosion. As indicated by the Transportation Analysis (Anachment D), the plan amendment results in a projected decrease in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) by 65%n. VMT is used as an indicator in determining air quality. j. L I ~ I F 1 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 22 ( t City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 t a Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards This goal is not applicable due to the fact that there is no existing hazard, and the area is subject to the same $ risk of natural disaster as other commercial sites in the vicinity. The proposed commercial development will comply with all applicable building, fire and life safety codes of Ute City of Tigard and Tualatin Valley Fire F and Rescue District.. Goal 8: Recreational Needs This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed commercial land use designation will not adversely impact the supply or demand for recreational lands in the planning area. Goal 9: Economic Development The application demonstrates that the plan amendment will provide the City of Tigard with needed commercial land inventoryto address an existing undersupply of vacant and available retail land in the region. The market area study submitted with the application documents the current and projected shortage of retail land when compared to the anticipated demand for retail services. Another economic benefit to the community is through job creation. The proposed grocery store and pharmacy will employ 40-50 full-time workers and approximately 150 pan-time workers. Goal 10: Housing F' The application demonstrates that the plan amendment will not significantly impact housing supply in the City i of Tigard. The City will maintain compliance with die Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) upon application approval. (See findings in Section 6.1.1 of this report). ` i Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Public facilities are available and adequate to serve the subject property with the proposed commercial use. if€ k " There will be no substantial impact to public service capacity with retail development versus medium-high ` density residential use. Any required public facility improvements will be addressed during site development !i review. 1 1 Goal 12: Transportation ` A traffic impact analysis has been prepared and is included in the application. This study evaluated near-term (1996) and long-term (2010) traffic conditions and impacts associated with the site. The study found that the site can develop as a retail center with minimal impacts to the adjacent roadway system. The study also identified access management techniques for future site development. Based on the traffic study, the application concludes that there is no significant impact to the transportation system and that the current road functional classifications are appropriate on the adjacent road system. (See findings under Tigard Community 1 Development Code Chapter 18.1). ^ Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 23 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 Transportation Plannine Rule (OAR 660-12-060) J The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) chapter regarding Land Use amendments states as follows: ii (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehens6ve plars, and :and u.-regulations whit i significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with identified function, capacity, and level-of-service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: i (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and level-of- service of the transportation facility... (b) Amending the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to provide adequate transportation facilities t to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division, or (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: (c) Allows types and levels of land uses which would result in level of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility. (3) Determinations under subsections (1) and (2) of thus section shall be coordinated with the affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. Response: The primary transportation facilities that will be affected by the proposed plan amendment { include the following: 1. SW Scholls Ferry Road - The Washington County Comprehensive Transportation Plan designates Scholls Ferry Road a major arterial and indicates that the performance standards for this major arterial are a Level-of-Service "D" and a volume to capacity ratio of 1.0. The plans states, "Major Arterials are intended to serve as the primary route of travel between areas of principal traffic generation and major urban activity centers and for trips between non-adjacent areas. Major Arterials should also be used for access to Regional Arterials." 2. SW 135th Street - The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan designates SW 135th Street a "major collector." The plan states, "the primary functions of a major collector is to collect and transport traffic from a number of local neighborhoods to one or more arterial. In addition, these facilities are primarily oriented toward travel within and between adjacent subareas, and provide connections to major activity centers within the area:' I I i 4 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 24 I 3 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 t 3. SW Hawks Beard Street - The City of Tigard designates Hawks Beard a "local" street. 1 As described by the City's comprehensive plan, local streets provide direct access to 1 abutting property and allow traffic movement within a neighborhood. Local streets should also arovide for pedestrian and bike travel. j k The traffic impact analysis prepared for the plan amendment indicates that the current functional classification of these three facilities would continue to be appropriate. All public street intersections and public road segments will continue to operate at 1 minimum level-of-service of "D" or better. The proposed private full-access driveway' on SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate a level-of-service (LOS) Fin terms of delay for left-turns out during the 1996 weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar delays occur at any un- t signalized access point along SW Scholls Ferry Road during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Drivers would have an alternative to exit at signalized intersection on SW 130th or SW 135th via SW Hawks Beard Road. The analysis rinds that this access will . operate acceptably because it will have reserve capacity, will operate at LOS C for left- F turns in, and will provide total travel times from the site that are similar to those experienced by motorists making left turns from SW 135th Avenue. The report identities improvements that would be necessary to meet the capacity and level-of-service standards for each facility. It is important to note that the identified _ improvements to the local street system would be necessary with or without the proposed plan amendment (i.e., with development under the existing plan designation). ' Therefore, in relation to the TPR requirements, the proposed land use is consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level-of-service of the facilities. There is no significant affect, as defined by subsection (2), as a result of the proposed plan amendment. I Goal 13: Energy Conservation i Development of the site as a retail center will provide shopping opportunities inclose proximity to residential t f areas in the northwest Tigard area and assist in minimizing the distance people will need to travel to shop. { j The site is located on a major transit route and future retail activity will be readily accessible by transit as I well as the local sidewalk system. { Goal 14: Urbanization I This goal is not applicable due to the fact that the proposed commercial land use designation is located within { Tigard's acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Sufficient market demand is present within the existing i I Urban Growth Boundary to support the proposed commercial use. f J f ' _ i i I I 3 { f t 1 1 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 25 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and findings, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change should be approved. The application meets all applicable criteria for approval, including City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, development code standards and Statewide Planning laws. 9 i 1 { I h M l 1 I f 1 f ' i r Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 26 J City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 1. ATTACHMENTS A. Assessor's Map (IS1-33AC-8000) R Legal cL pti naicc-wOn Fg _ - R C. Metro 2040 Growth Concept D. Transportation Analysis i j E. Market Area Analysis a j F. Pre-application Notes G. Public Notification List ' i S 1 . b' t - - I 1,. ft~.rtrbk f~ 5 fs ' 1 vJ k i~ - - - - ATTACHMENT A S.W. ; - ~ g t ZAVENJEs V t a ~ O ~ a a~ I (11 \ C~ R e$ gg s ~ _ i • ;d \4 • ~ ~ ~.dyN01100 71RSa s p~ g r r 1 \ .rer• Mf etrt i vp AVEWA a a31K 130th f { ASSESSORS MAP i j . ATTACHMENT B 07 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 15i33A~ The subject site is described as the WESTERLY 9 ACRES OF ISI33AC, TAX LOT 8000. A full legal description will be provided upon application for partition approval. i i f. ~ I I i r W Z F=" i l y y rMee , _j _ i' , 1~~~Fa 1' }~~17 ~~~n ~ ,~t 1 ~J"r'~1) j~J~, • \ 7 U1 h l~~ Fn 1 Y ^S V ~7~~. ~ VV tit ~ 1 [ t b f'ry' E # a 8 tt[ x'1!5' [ l,t ~ 9~~ ~ mss; ~ y1 _ . 2~w~+ All Std(- UE g . ~E I Transportation Impact Analysis I Haggen Food I and Pharmacy Tigard, Oregon I j r - i August 1995 . 1 l Transportation Impact Analysis Haggen Food i and Pharmacy Tigard, Oregon Prepared for: 7 i - Haggen, Inc. Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 I Project No.. 1626.00 aT~ August 1995 I r l ~jtt August 1995 hagoen FOOO and Pnarmacy Taae of Contents 'T'able of Contents Section 1 Executive Summary . . . . . . . • . , • , • . Section 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3 Existing Conditions . . . . . 7 Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis 12 Section 5 Conceptual Access Design . . 35 Section 6 Conclusions . . 39 Section 7 References . . . . . . . . 41 s: { Appendix A Description of Level-of-Service Methods and Criteria 1 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities g Table 2 1995 o Existing Levels of Service 10 Table 3 1996 Background Levels of Service . . . . . . . . 14 Table 4 Land Use Assumptions 1g { Table 5 Trip Generation 16 r Table 6 1996 Levels of Service With Site (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) . . . 25 Table 7 1996 Levels of Service With Alternative Uses (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) 26 Table 8 Veh'cle-Miles Traveled Comparison . . . . . . . 27 Table 9 2005 Background Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 10 2005 Levels of Service With Site (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) . . . . 34 Table 11 2005 Levels of Service With Worst-Case Retail Use (Weekday P.M. Peak r i Hour) . . 35 Kittefson s Associates, Inc. JJ j Augustt995 - •5 Haggen Food and Pharmacy Lis[ or Figures i F List of Figures i Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 @ Figure 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 L Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls . . . . 9 Figure 4 Existing Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . 11 j Figure S 1995 Background Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 ( Figure 6 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 20 4'; i Figure 7 Site-Generated Traffic: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour (Access Alternative 1) 21 Figure 8 Site-Generated Traffic: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour (Access Alternative 2) 22 Figure 9 1995 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Total Traffic (Access Alternative 1) . . . 23 Figure 10 1995 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Total Traffic (Access Alternative 2) 24 Figure 11 Existing Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 12 Proposed Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 13 2005 Background Traffic: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . . 31 j Figure 14 2005 Total Traffic (Access Alternative 1): Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 32 Figure 15 2005 Total Traffic (Access Alternative 2): Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 33 i f { qr~ i i Kirrelson & Associates. Inc. ~f " J Section 1 j Executive Summary :a j August 1995 t j Haggen Food and Pharmacy Executive Summary i o-' r) Executive Summary j k Haggen, Inc. is proposing to develop a Haggen Food and Pharmacy on a 9-acre site bounded q by SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW 135th Avenue, and the undeveloped SW Hawks Beard Street ' right-of-wav in Tigard. Oregon. A zone change will be reauired to develop the proposed 1 60,127-square-foot supermarket. A full-access driveway is proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road approximately 825 feet east of the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection, and a right-in, right-out driveway is proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road approximately 400 I' feet east of the intersection. Three additional full-access driveways are proposed on SW Hawks Beard Street, which will be constructed to half width along the site's south frontage. Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis described in this report, the proposed supermarket can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety at the site driveways and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis resulted in the following findings and recommendations: • The proposed grocery store will generate approximately 620 trips during the typical weekday p.m. peak hour. Only approximately 150 of these trips represent new trips on the transportation system. • The worst-case trip generation for an allowed use on the 9-acre site under existing zoning (apartments) is approximately 110 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The trip generation _ for the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning is approximately 910 weekday p.m. peak hour trips, of which 305 trips would be new trips on the transportation system. • Compared to an apartment use on the site, the proposed supermarket will generate approxi- mately 659o fewer vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the area's transportation system. • Two access scenarios were considered: (1) a full access and a right-in, right-out access on SW _ Scholls Ferry Road, and (2) a single right-in, right-out access on SW Scholls Ferry Road. A full access from SW Scholls Ferry Road is recommended to minimize the site's impacts on the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection. - • Double-cycling the westbound left turn at the SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road (providing both a leading and lagging left-turn phase) is recommended to clear the i queues that presently block the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection during I the weekday p.m. peak hour. • All intersections within the study area will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 I and 2015 conditions. The proposed full-access driveway on SW Scholls Ferry Road will f j operate at level of service F in terms of delay for left-turns out during the 1996 weekday p.m. peak hour (an average 47.0 seconds of delay per vehicle). Similar delays occur at any unsignalized access point along SW Scholls Ferry Road during the weekday p.m. peak hour. 1 The access will operate acceptably because it will have reserve capacity, will operate at level of service C for left-turns in, and will provide total travel times from the site that are similar to those experienced by motorists making left turns from SW 135th Avenue. Drivers using I this access would also have the opportunity to access Scholls Ferry via signalized intersections at either SW 130th or SW 135th. Finally, any queuing that may develop will occur on site, rather than on SW Scholls Ferry Road. I ~ 1 Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 2 F LL 1 1 tt i i 1 i 1 y. j i I_ Section 2 Introduction , r F Augusti995 Introduction 1 j Haggen Food and Pharmacy Introduction P. SCOPE OF THE REPORT . 1 This analysis determines the transportation-related impacts associated with the proposed Hag-en Food and Pharmacy development in Tigard. Oregon. The proposed development will o be located on a 9-acre site east of SW 135th Avenue. between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Hawks Beard Street. Figure l shows a map of the site vicinity. ; Specific issues discussed in this report include: • Existing and future traffic conditions in the site vicinity during the weekday p.m. peak hour. • Existing land use and traffic conditions within the project study area. ~ Traffic operations for 1996 and 2005 background traffic conditions within the project study area. • The traffic-generating potential and planned internal circulation of the proposed devel- opment. • The traffic impact of the proposed development on future peak hour operations at key intersections in the cite vicinity and at the proposed access driveways during the assumed opening ( 19961 and in the year 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site plan calls for the development of a 60.127-square-foot Hag.-en Food and Pharmacy on a 9-acre site east of SW 135th .avenue. between SW Scholls Ferry Road and a new section of SW Hawks Beard Street. Construction would begin in late 1995 and the supermarket would open in 1996. The proposed site access consists of one full and one right-in. right-out access on SW Scholls Ferry Road and three full accesses on SW Hawks Beard Street. n Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE The site is presently vacant and is zoned R-25 (25 residential units per acre). The applicant proposes to change the site's zoning to General Commercial, which would allow the supermar- ket use. - I ~ i Kittelson & Associares. inc. { i C, z NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) E - - CD ¢ a < W S K o 3 3 3 Vf vi vi I SITE S.W. HAWKS BEARD o i `~S 3 u vi j 3. y' 3 LEGEND SITE VICINITY HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE K FUTURE EXTENSION TIGARD OREGON 1 AUGUST 1995 ~ z oo~ i 44 f I 1 / , / yPo i~.~ « / / /~R• ' ' , i , r, 1 NOT A PAR C fPhl, 4. W AcliLS1 W ~ ~ 1ST I~a,~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\1 I l Et) HAGGEN 4\~ ° I T IOOU • r,iAxu ACT , p 3 ~jr ~ ~~IIItI114111 I IIIL ~ 1 'yl I "f1 •l.lr~ ye ~l. Cl C G G \ .I SAY: HAWYWS REAP tD STREET 1 << PROPOSED SITE PLAN HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE TIGARD, OREG_0__N__ [`6 AUGUST 1995 M781002 - r: i r Section 3 Existing Conditions I . August 1995 ' Haggen Food and Pharmacy Existing Conditions t i' a Existing Conditions 1 1 SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The site is vacant at present. Lots adjoining the site along the south side of SW Scholls Ferry I Road are vacant as well, although a 160-unit apartment complex has been approved for a lot on the southeast corner of the future SW Hawks Reard Streer/SW 135th Avenue intersection. _ The area along the north side of SW Scholls Ferry Road has been developed with single- and multi-family residential dwellings, as have other areas farther to the south and east. f ~ i ROADWAY FACILITIES 4 The primary roadways providing access to the site are SW Scholls Ferry Road. SW Old Scholls Ferry Road. and SW 135th avenue. Table I summarizes these roadways' characteristics. while Fi~-urc 3 illustrates the existin_ roadv:ay system, intersection control. and intersection lane I configurations within the study area. - Table I Existing Transportation Facilities Cross Speed Side Bicycle On-Street l Name Classification Section (mph) Walks Lanes Parking SW Scholls Ferry Road Major Arterial 84 feet 40 Yes Yes No (east of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road). , SW Scholls Ferry Road Major Collector 22-36 feet' 40 No No No f (south of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road) 1 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road Major Arterial 74 feet 40 Yes Yes No 1 ! SW 135th Avenue Major Collector 40 feet 25.40 Yes Yes No I PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are present on both sides of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road. SW Scholls Ferry Road east of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, and SW 135th Avenue. No sidewalks or bike lanes exist on the portion of SW Scholls Ferry Road south of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road. Crosswalks exist at the signalized intersections. Little pedestrian or bicycle activity j was observed in the site vicinity: however, the proposed site plan facilitates pedestrian and bicycle trips into and out of the site. i TRANSIT FACILITIES i { Two bus routes travel past the site along SW Scholls Ferry Road: Route 62, Vurray Boulevard, t and Route 92X, South Beaverton. Route 62 operates weekdays between the Beaverton and Washington Square Transit Centers at 30-minute headways during midday hours and 15-20 minute headways during peak hours. Route 92X operates at 10-30 minute headways during weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. This route stops at all bus stops between . %lurrayhill and the Progress Park & Ride before turning into an express bus for the remainder Kittelson & Associates. Inc. B w - i i - ~ NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) o 0 j N Vf SITE j/S.W. HAWKS BEARD A~ r.. 1+ r o S W c~G vi 3 ~`a Opp QO' vi i 4Q' < p~~ n vd` N j - `J LANE CONFIGURATION LEGEND & INTERSECTION CONTROL I ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE lK TIGARD OREGON FUTURE EXTENSION AuCUST 1995 ANN- I 3 August 1995 i Haggen Food and Pharmacy Existing Conditions t; I of its trip into downtown Portland. The nearest bus stops to the site are located on SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th Avenue. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS g i 'c counts were conducted The analysis focused on the weekday p.m. peak hour. Manual traffic in May 1995 at the SW Old Schoiis Ferry RoadiSW Schoils Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersections and in June 1995 at the SW 130th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection. These counts were conducted between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a mid-week dav. Section A of the technical appendix contains the traffic count sheets. Existing weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. All volumes are rounded to the nearest five vehicles per hour. t Current Levels of Service t 1 all level-of-service (LOS) analyses in this report are in accordance with the procedures stated ! in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1). Appendix A presents a description of ! LOS. the criteria used to determine it. and what is generally considered to be the acceptable range of LOS. Levels of service, volume-to-capacity ratios. and average intersection delay under existing conditions are listed in Table 2 for the weekday p.m. peak hour. Level-of-service worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Section B of the technical appendix. ' Table 2 ' 1995 Existing Levels of Service Signalized Intersection Delay Intersection Vic (see) Level of Service WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road 0.50 13.7 B i SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road 0.72 16.8 C i SW 130th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road 0.67 3.7 A As Table 2 indicates, all intersections within the study area presently operate at acceptable levels of service during all time periods. TRAFFIC SAFETY No intersections within the study area are listed in Washington County's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). (According to Washington County staff, the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW Old Scholls Ferry Road intersection listed in SPIS is the western intersection of the two roads. located approximately 1.75 miles west of the site.) I Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 10 !4 NORTH CG 3 (NOT TO SCALE) i cN R.. 10 6Z5 r'160 - y75~' i \0,0~ O 0 iU U I O 1 I ' O O II Q - W < O N 3 SITE I.W. eHAWKS BEARD 1 1 15- 110 1155 1885 `g ~ ~ 5 7 r 5 N 3 t T S4Q~``y a 5 N t y i 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGENO WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE i - - - - FUTURE EXTENSION TIGARD OREGON , AUGUST 1995 T KAI, j i 3 1 f Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis . i 1 a August 1995 ' Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis 6 Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact generated by the proposed development during the weekday p.m. peak hour was analyzed as follows: • The total number of future peak hour trips was estimated based on the proposed size of the supermarket. i • Background weekday p.m. peak hour traffic estimates for the years 1996 (supermarket opening) and 2005 were selected as the basis for comparison. An area-wide growth factor of three percent was used for the year 1996 analysis to account for future traffic growth within the study area. Additionally, the new traffic predicted to be generated by a new 160-unit apartment complex approved for a lot adjoining the site to the south was added to the year 1996 background traffic. t • Traffic forecasts developed by Washington County from Metro's regional model were used as the basis for the estimated year 2005 background traffic volumes. • Two access scenarios were studied for SW Scholls Ferry Road: I I I a full access and a right-in. right-out access. and a right-in. right-out access only. 1 Predicted site-generated traffic was added to the 1996 background volumes for both access scenarios to determine future traffic operation levels at key intersections within the study area and at the proposed site access driveways. The trip generation for the presently-allowed use on the site (apartments) and the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning (grocery, retail. and fast food) were j compared to the trip generation for the proposed supermarket use. The amount of vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the area's transportation system were 1 compared between the apartment use and the proposed supermarket use. • Queuing/stacking analyses were conducted at the SW 135th avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersections to determine left-turn storage requirements and the need for signal timing modifications. • The proposed supermarket's internal circulation and driveway operations were reviewed for potential operational or design deficiencies. The methodology summarized above and the results of the analysis are presented in detail in the remainder of this section. i PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS No major transportation improvements are programmed in the site vicinity during the next six years through Washington County's Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. The Countv's long-term plans for the area include the following: i Kittelson 8 Assoaates. Inc. 13 - . _ it August 1995 Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis a Widening the western portion of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road to five lanes, j • Realigning SW Scholls Ferry Road to intersect SW Old Scholls Ferry Road at SW Davies Road. and • Extending SW Walnut Street from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Murray Boulevard. S t I i i PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS t= A 160-unit apartment complex has been approved for the lot immediately south of the site, along the south side of the SW Hawks Beard Street right-of-way. Residential development is occurring farther to the south, outside the study area. q . 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The 1996 background traffic conditions were established by examining recent growth trends j within the study area. A three percent area-wide growth factor was applied to the existing weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 4. In addition, a new 160-unit apartment complex has been approved for a lot immediately south of the proposed site. The j new traffic predicted to be generated by this development was added to the three percent growth traffic to develop the 1996 background traffic volumes. Figure 5 shows the estimated 1996 background traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak hour, rounded to the nearest five vehicles per hour. R Level of Service Analysis Table 3 shows the 1996 background levels of service for the weekday p.m. peal: hour. Section C in the technical appendix contains the background traffic level-of-service worksheets. f Table 3 1996 Background Levels of Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Vic Intersection Critical Movement Level of Delay (sec) Movement Delay (sec) Service ; I WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR j I SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ 0.56 i 14.2 ( B SW Scholls Ferry Road j SW 135th Avenue/ 0.76 17.5 C SW Scholls Ferry Road j ' Il SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT I 12.4 I C SW Hawks Beard Street j SW 130th Avenue/ 0.68 4.5 A SW Scholls Ferry Road l i As shown in Table 3. all intersections within the study area will operate at acceptable levels of I service during all time periods. , • 1~ Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. 14 I - I. - Y4 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) C 777a a ~ fk' , r`SS i r,65 5r► ~52 t0 ~ ~2'1 ~ ~0 SO'1►, fl ~ 250 R f h - 1195-► r 195 5,% ~35 qtr m cr i a Ln _ vi V \ / N SITE ~ W. HAWKS BEARD o ~ W SGtO~ QQ. \ vi 3 ~~rO ~ `1 t 5 y 30 N N C It ~f5 ~5 f 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE KTIGARDOREGON AUCUST 1995 i .e-oos , i 1 August1995 Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis ! r PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS The proposed site plan calls for the construction of a 60,127-square-foot Haggen Food and 33 Pharmacy on a 9-acre lot on the southeast corner of the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry 1 Road intersection. A full access is proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road at the east property line, approximately 835 feet east of the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection, and a right-in. right-out access is proposed approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. ~ E. Three full accesses are P•r-psed along SW Hawks Beard Street approximately 200. JJ -c0. and o• ~ 850 feet east of the SW 135thrte Avenue/' SW Hawks Beard Street intersection. As a requirement of developing the site. SW Hawks Beard Street would be constructed to half width along the site frontage, matching the half-street construction required for the new apartment complex approved on the south side of the street. . ACCESS ALTERNATIVES F" Two access scenarios were studied, as described below: • The proposed access plan. with a full access on SW Scholls Ferry Road at the east property line. approximately 835 feet east of the SW 135th .avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection, and a right-in, right-out access approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. • A modified access plan, with a right-in. right-out only access on SW Scholls Ferry Road _ at the cast property line. approximately 825 feet east of the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferrv Road intersection. In both scenarios. the right-in. right-out access would be controlled by a raised median on SW Scholls Ferrv Road. WASHINGTON COUNTY ACCESS SPACING STANDARDS Washington County's access spacing standards for a major arterial are 1.000 feet between accesses. and any new access must be a collector or arterial street, unless found to be "unavailable and impractical" through a Type II process. The applicant will request a modifi- cation to Washington County's Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards to allow the proposed accesses on SW Scholls Ferry Road. The basis for the request and the impacts on the area's transportation system with and without the proposed accesses are discussed in detail later i in this report. a I TRIP GENERATION + Estimates of weekday p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends for the proposed supermarket were developed from empirical observations at other similar sites. These observations are summa- 1 rized in the standard reference manual. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, published by the Institute j of Transportation Engineers (Reference 2). The site-generated traffic is divided into four basic types of trips: i 1. Pass-by Trips-These trips currently exist on the roadways that provide primary access to 1 1 the facility and are being made for some purpose other than visiting the facility (for example. i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 i % . 1 ( 3 August 1995 G Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis I j t E a trip from work to home). Pass-by trips do not result in any increase in background traffic i volumes within the study area. Usually, the only impact of pass-by trips occurs at the site drivewavs. where they become turning movements. Therefore, pass-by trips typically have no additional effect on the road system beyond the development's driveways. However, when P driveways are not available along the primary roadways serving the site, pass-by trips also f become turning movements at nearby intersections, which impacts the intersections' operation. 2. Internal Trips-These trips are generated by other facilities at the proposed development. Consequently. trips are combined into one joint trip to the development (i.e., two or more facilities in the development will draw the same driver). Internal trips result only in additional on-site traffic and have a minimal effect on the surrounding transportation system. The only effect internal trips have on the surrounding system is the possibility of accessing the develop- ment differently to reach each facility on the site. 1 3. Diverted Trips-These trips are currently being drawn to other commercial activities that compete with the proposed facility, but are redirected to the new facility when it opens. This redirection usually occurs because of an improvement in convenience and proximity for the affected motorists. Diverted trips result in an increase in traffic volumes within the immediate site vicinity, but also result in a decrease in traffic volumes at other locations within the area (i.e.. in the areas where the motorists used to shop). For this reason. this component of the total generated demand causes no change in the total number of vehicle trips within the area, even though it may add to the number of trips within the immediate site vicinity. Another side benefit is that by diverting, these trips often cause a net reduction in total vehicle miles traveled on the area-wide transportation system. This is a common-sense observation, as it is difficult to imagine that many drivers would divert to a new facility in order to travel a greater distance than they did previously. 4. New Trips-These trips would not have been made without the existence of the proposed facility. Therefore. this is the only trip type that results in a net increase in the total number of trips made within the area. These are also the only trips that represent additional vehicle miles - of travel on the transportation system. a Typically. 30 to 50 percent of the traffic generated from a supermarket of this size result from vehicles already passing by the site. For this analysis, it was assumed that the Haggen Food and Pharmacv would generate 40 percent pass-by trips. The pass-by trips for the development were drawn from the traffic volumes on SW Scholls Ferry Road and were distributed by the j proportion of traffic traveling in each direction during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ` ITE Trip Generation provides no guidance to diverted trips (its "diverted-linked trips" being f another form of pass-by trip): however, a 1987 study in the Portland area (Reference 3) found j that approximately 3517c of a large commercial store's trip generation consisted of trips diverted i. from other stores in the area. To ensure a conservative analvsis, it was assumed that diverted trips resulted in no net change in vehicle-miles travelled on the transportation system, and the diverted trips were classified as new trips for the purposes of trip generation and distribution. j Table 4 presents the land use scenarios for the three development scenarios being analyzed (existing zoning. proposed zoning and use, and worst-case use under the proposed zoning). Table 5 shows the estimated trip generation characteristics for the three scenarios. Kittelson a Associates. Inc. 17 . - i August 1995 _ Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis j Table 4 's Land Use Assumptions k - r ' I Development Component Land Use Assumption I ITE Land Use Code Size I Existing Residential Zoning' Apartment 220 180 units i Proposed Zoning and Use i Supermarket 850 60,127 sq. ft. ss Proposed Zoning: Worst-Case Use' Supermarket 850 60,127 sq. ft. I" Retail 820 23.000 sq. ft. Fast-Food with Drive-Through 834 1 3.500 sq. ft. 'For comparisonpurposes I Tables Trip Generation - Weekday P.M. Peak Hour ITE Daily Total Inbound Outbound " Land Use Size Code Trips EXISTING ZONING' Apartments 225 units 220 1,130 110 75 35 PROPOSED ZONING AND USE - Supermarket 60,127 sq. ft. 850 5.3002 620 310 310 Pass-by Trips (40016) (2.100) (250) (125) (125) NEW TRIPS: SITE VICINITY 3,200 370 185 i 185 Diverted Trips (35%)3 (1 B50) (220) (710) (110) NEW TRIPS: SYSTEM 1,350 150 75 75 p r WORST-CASE SCENARIO' Retai1° 23,000 sq. it. 820 1,750 160 80 60 Pass-by Trips (40°6) (700) (60) (30) (30) Fast Food with Drive-Through 3.500 sq. ft. 834 2,500 130 70 60 Pass-by Trips (50%) (1.250) (60) (30) (30) Internal Trips (1096) (250) (15) (10) (5) Supermarket New Trips 60,127 sq. ft. . 850 3,200 370 185 185 NEW TRIPS: SITE VICINITY 51250 525 265 260 f Supermarket Diverted Trips (35°6)3 (1.850) (220) (110) (110) 11 NEW TRIPS: SYSTEM ! 3.400 305 ! 155 150 ` j ' For comparison purposes ZITE does not provide daily trips for supermarkets: therefore, daily trips were calculated from ITE's ratio of I ! shopping center weekday p.m. peak hour trips to daily trips. Diverted trips treated as new trips within the immediate site vicinity. 4Retail trip generation calculated using an 83,127-square-toot building, and then factored by the proportion of retail to supermarket in the budding. i As Table 5 shows, the proposed supermarket will generate approximately 620 trips during the typical weekday p.m. peak hour. Of these trips, 370 trips represent new trips in the site vicinity. The majority of the trips generated by the site are either diverted from other supermarkets in the area or already exist on SW Scholls Ferry Road. Consequently, taking diverted trips into account, only 150 trips represent new trips on the area's transportation system. ( In comparison, a 180-unit apartment complex allowed under existing zoning on the site would ! ~.J generate approximately 110 new weekday p.m. peak hour trips. The most intense use under i j the proposed zoning, in terms of site density and trip generation, would be a retail center including a grocery store. 23.000 square feet of retail space, and a fast-food restaurant with a i i Kittelson 8 Associates. Inc. 18 1 , I t 1 August 1995 - ' - Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis F drive-through. This worst-case scenario would generate approximately 525 new weekday p.m. peak hour trips in the site vicinity and approximately 305 new weekday p.m. peak hour trips t on the area's transportation system. 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The distribution of site-generated trips onto the study area's roadway system was estimated using a vwo-step process. First, the existing traffic patterns were analyzed to determine the directions in which traffic flows during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Second, the proposed development's market area was evaluated and analyzed to determine the amount of site-gener- ated traffic likely to arrive from a particular direction, based on the number of residences in the area and the location of competing stores. As a result, it was determined that the trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 6 adequately represents weekday p.m. peak hour traffic { pattems. It is important to note that a sensitivity analysis of alternative distribution patterns indicated that this trip distribution pattern represents a reasonable worst case, and that the results of the traffic analysis would not change significantly as a result of an alternative distribution pattern. Figures 7 and 3 show the assignments of site-generated traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour under the two access scenarios. 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES/OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The 1996 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 for the weekday p.m. peak hour were added to the site-generated traffic shown in Figures 7 and 8 to arrive at the 1996 total traffic volumes shown in Figures 9 and 10 for the two access scenarios. Table 6 lists the 1996 weekday p.m. peak hour levels of service for the study area intersections and site driveways under the two access scenarios. Section D in the technical appendix contains the 1996 total traffic level-of-service worksheets. To calculate the level of service at the proposed full access driveway, a gap analysis was conducted along SW Scholls Ferry Road along the site frontage during a weekday p.m. peak hour. This analysis determined that there were 143 gaps of sufficient size to allow left turns out and 368 gaps to allow left turns in. Taking into account the impeding effects of the left-in movement on the left-out movement, the capacity of the proposed driveway is 101 vehicles during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Using the 1994 Highway Capacity :Manual procedure, the delay and level of service for the left-in and left-out movements were calculated based on.the movement's measured capacities. Section D in the technical appendix also contains the calculations for the proposed fall-access driveivay. i I ~ 1 { t a I i Kittelson 8 Associates. Inc. 19 1 tt~ .9 NORTH F (NOT TO SCALE) cz W s 3 vi ui 50 10R % 3oi, SITE sy. > .W. HAWKS BEARD N S ~ SGT' Q~ ~ ~ vi 3 ~ OHO Qy N N ii l 47, 3i I i j I c No TRIP DISTRIBUTION PROPOSED ZONING a.► - PROPOSED ZONING HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE C D OREGON C=> - EXISTING ZONING TIGAR G AUGUST X995 V iL,O t NORTH (HOT TO SCALE) ~<55 E r2S -35 r-25 ZS"'>1 65-.4 10~ ~ 10-50 5 - tier o U e k VN <5~ 55--► r 55 <5 ` F' * / 1 2 m o \ ~ ~ n rn ~ ~ 3 vi p W O SITE 'S.W. HAWKS BEARD n o VS 1 11 W to 1 ~y i 'rte ~ I f 5 f- t 0 I ~G n i 1 y N 1 Jf N .fl 110 ,os1 ~10 <5-► .0-65 r SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC (ALT. 1) PROPOSED ZONING WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FICURE p TIGARD OREGON AUGUST 1995 C Mai av. Y 1 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) i r -85 -A5-► 55 I~3 75~ A Z15-*IL tt r 0 o~ rs ~ I it 1 <5J - <5 t r p > n SITE ; S.W. HAWKS BEARD 1 o ~ ~O~~S I 13 u Q SC I O 3 Off, gyp. ~ In ^ o 4k' = 1 <S J : 5 Dry 11 15~ .0- '0 n yV~ / ~ N O JlI_ i -135 210- t0 - <5-► -e-.75 ' j As r _ i SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC (ALT.2) PROPOSED ZONING WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURX~62 TIGARD OREG ON p AUGUST 1995 8 +i ~ P . . 7 N ~o NORTH ASS (NOT TO SCALE). ✓ Sip 0 1175--o. t-- 195 X-0 A 65~ 1200-0. -0- 193 - Q1.5 10, `105 ~r S tiy0 stiff f f1~ , o o ,51 X-115 ,2s5- 05 j 35 qtr c ` I < W 3i 26 Ir N 3 3 N to ~ , SITE S.W. HAWKS BEARD CD 0 _ _ ~ OVO SC~~O~~ 1 N ~ n o 5,~. E~~~ eQi Il m - 44, < I \14 t - 5 <5J X-'5 30 .0-40 ~ I v1 m ~ ~ i ` 125 105-14 t 10 15-0 F95 11 r 50 tr i 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC W/SITE (ALT. 1) PROPOSED ZONING . WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR IHAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE p TIGARD OREGON n AUGUST 1995 J MIX .6 5F009 s HO(iTH (HpT TO SCALE) f N 0 i R.. Sp 9 t I GO 203 ✓tS ~ 75~ is t6S5 M°: r 5'p L S°"y4 ~ .1 t 5 ,d,,, 2005 , t255~' r35 I m a ~ + x s e: . N N + _ SITE / S.W. HAWKS BEARD ,t t t f l ~ , 5 / 1 Lts 30 0 1 ~ x,50 ,g_... r 50 , sr l 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC WISITE (ALT.2) PROPOSED ZONING M.. P.M. PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY FIGURE N ARKET HAGGEN SUPGEO OR£ 62a { 7VGAR0 ~ PUGUST t945 1 August 1995 " Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis t 2 Table 6 . 1996 Levels of Service With Site (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) 1 Signalized Unsignalized - Intersection We Intersection Critical Movement Level of" Delay (sec) Movement Delay (sec) Service i p BOTH ACCESS ALTERNATIVES SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ 0.58 14.5 B. ! SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 130th Avenue/ 0.70 4.7 A - SW Scholls Ferry Road - EastAccess/ SB LT 3.8 A SW Hawks Beard Street 4 . - ACCESS ALTERNATIVE 1 - - SW 135th Avenue/ 0.89 23.2 C SW Scholls Ferry Road RIRO Access/ NB RT 5.7 B SW Scholls Ferry Road Main Access/ NB LT 47.0 IF } SW Scholls Ferry Road WB LT 13.6 C SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 18.1 C SW Hawks Beard Street r~ Middle Access/ SB LT 5.0 B I SW Hawks Beard Street - ACCESS ALTERNATIVE 2 I j SW 135th Avenue/ 0.98 29.4 D ff SW Scholls Ferry Road RIRO Access/ NS FIT 6.3 B SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 25.6 D SW Hawks Beard Street _ Middle Access/ SB LT 6.4 B SW Hawks Beard Street I 'Left-out movement will have a reserve capacity of 75 vehicles, however. As Table 6 shows, all study area intersections other than the main access on SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under all access scenarios. However, the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road will be at capacity if only a right-in, right-out access is j provided into the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road. If a full access is provided into the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road, the intersection will operate at 89% of capacity. The left turn out of the proposed full access will operate at level of service F in terms of delay (an average 47.0 seconds of total delay per vehicle) during the weekday p.m. peak hour; however, the access will operate below capacity, with a reserve capacity of approximately 75 vehicles. Drivers using this access would also have the opportunity to access Scholls Ferry via signalized intersections at either SW 130th or SW 135th. Similar delays occur at all unsignalized access points along SW Scholls Ferry Road during the weekday p.m. peak hour. All other movements into and out of the full access will operate at level of j service C or better. Since the signalized northbound left turn at the SW 135th Avenue/SW (fkpk j Kitte/son 8 Associates, Inc. _ 25 6. Ir August HaggeniFood and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis 5 1i Scholls Ferry Road intersection will experience comparable average delays during the weekday p.m. peak hour (an average 42.0 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle) and the access will r: operate at LOS E or better during all other time periods. it is concluded that the proposed full access will operate acceptably. Any queueing that may develop will occur on site, rather than i on SW Scholls Ferry Road. Ta-ble 11 lisis the iii. wc"ckday p.m. peak hour levels Gf ser'vicc at kcy study area intersection., for the apartment use allowed under existing zoning and the worst-case use under the proposed zoning. The apartment scenario assumed no direct access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road, whileFF the worst-case retail scenario assumed two accesses onto SW Scholls Ferry Road. Section E i in the technical appendix contains the level of service worksheets for the apartment scenario: i Section F contains the level of service worksheers for the worst-case scenario. tp~ Table 7 i I 1996 Levels of Service With Alternative Uses (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) I I Signalized Unsignalized I Intersection VIC Intersection Critical Movement Level of - Delay (sec) Movement Delay (sec) Service _ APARTMENTS _ SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ 0.57 14.4 B SW Scholls Ferry Road j SW 135th Avenue/ 0.78 18.0 I C SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 130th Avenue/ 0.68 5.4 B r SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ i WB LT 13.6 C SW Hawks Beard Street WORST-CASE RETAIL USE SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ 0.59 14.7 I B SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ 0.95 27.3 D SW Scholls Ferry Road j SW 130th Avenue/ I 0.71 4.9 A SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 22.2 i D E j SW Hawks Beard Street i I VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELLED IMPACTS 1 Table 8 compares the vehicle-miles travelled by trips generated by the proposed supermarket use. compared to the apartment use allowed under existing zoning. I Kirelson 8 Associates, Inc. 26 - .j I August 1995 Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis K Table 8 f Vehicle-Miles Traveled Comparison F Land Use Net Daily New Trips Average Trip Length (miles) Total VMT S, Grocery Store 1,350 2.0 2,700 E Apartments 1,130 6.73 i 7,605 Table S shows that although the supermarket use generates more daily trips than the apartment use, it generates approximately 659c fewer vehicle-miles travelled on the area's transportation svstem. because the average supermarket trip length is shorter than the average residential trip length. which includes a wide variety of trip types. The residential trip length is based on Metro's 1994 survey, while the supermarket trip length is a conservative estimate based on an 1 analysis of the store's potential trade area. I ~ - INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ~ The signalized SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferrv Road intersections are operated together from a single traffic signal controller. Because of the limited space available for westbound through (275 feet) and left-turning (100 feet) traffic at the SW Old Scholls Ferrv Road/SW Scholl; Ferry Road intersection, queues frequently back into the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection during the weekdav p.m. peak hour. To mitigate this problem. it is recommended that the westbound left-turn be double-cycled at SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection. as illustrated in Figures I 1 and 12. By providing both leading and lagging lefts. the left-turn queue will block the inside through lane less often. Since eastbound traffic must stop at the SW 135th avenue/SW Scholls Ferrv intersection at present during the time allotted for the proposed new left-turn phase. stopping them at the SW Old Scholls Ferry Road intersection should not seriously impair eastbound progression. t INTERNAL CIRCULATION I Internal site circulation characteristics of the proposed site plan were analyzed to ensure that t the site provides adequate circulation for internal traffic. The proposed access driveways provide adequate throat depths to the parking area, while the internal roadways provide adequate truck turning radii. Pedestrian access to the front of the store follows a direct route with a minimum of internal roadway crossings. ALTERNATIVE MODE TRAVEL TO THE SITE Sidewalks will be constructed along the site frontage. An accessible pedestrian route will be i available from the bus stops at the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection to the supermarket's main entrance. A second pedestrian route will provide pedestrian access to I~I the main entrance from SW Hawks Beard Street. In addition, the supermarket will provide t, I U bicycle racks for shoppers who travel to the site on bicycles. Kirteison 8 Associates. Inc. 27 3 _ - t.' t~ i SCROLLS FERRY R0. 135TH AVE. ( i PED 6 I D~ LC I A CLA (PH 6) OLB _)PED 2 1 ►L $ PED 2 Z t i / PHASES 2 & 6 i oLC / oLA /H 7 OL / /PH } Z Jr PHASES 3 & 7 aLC OLE ggOLS k OLC CLEAR V F' ♦ ark ♦ 1-- PHASES a k 8 I O~ LC //P FIH5 OLD ► PH 1 I / ~ f PHASES 1 k 5 N ' ~ LEGE D OLA = 6+3 oLe = 2+3 EXISTING SIGNAL PHASING i OLC = 6+5+7 ISCHOLLS FERRY ROAD & 135TH AVENUE FIGURE fj- TIGARD OREGON 1 1 OLD = 7+1 AUGUST 1995 ~ 1 .628 ,Gc SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 135TH AVE. _ ~ ,PED 6 (PH 6) 0~ L~ I 0~- - loc- PH y 0- LB PHASES 2 & 6 h SAME AS EXISTING PHASES 3 & 7 I i SAME AS EXISTING I OLB & OLC CLEAR I - SAME AS EXISTING } PHASES ♦ & 8 I I I II I 0~ L~ ~ SOLD a- PH 5 PH 1 PHASES 1 & 5 'LEGEND oLA = 6+3 PROPOSED SIGNAL PHASING OLB = 2+3 OLC = 6+5+7 SCROLLS FERRY ROAD & 135TH AVENUE FIGURE TIGARD OREGON j OLD = 6+ 1 AUGUST 1995 1 ~~~LLLOOO 7 August 1995 t J Haggen Food and Pharmacy Traffic Impact Analysis i 9 ~ ~ n YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The year 2005 traffic conditions were calculated from year 1990 and 2015 traffic model data provided by Washington County. First, the model's estimated 1995 and 2005 traffic volumes s were calculated by interpolating between the model's 1990 and 3015 volumes. These esti- mated volumes were then compared to actual 1995 volumes. In general, the model's volumes were lower than actual volumes. The difference between the 1995 model volumes and the z actual 1995 volumes was then used to adjust the model's estimated 3005 volumes to provide a " y more accurate estimate of future traffic volumes. Section G of the technical appendix contains . the traffic model data provided by Washington County. Since the 2015 model takes existing and future development into account, the year 2005 traffic volumes were not adjusted to add traffic due to any specific development projects other than the proposed project. Since the model is based on the development that is expected to occur u under the existing zoning, rather than would occur under the proposed zoning, the model's traffic volumes do not include the additional trips that a supermarket use will generate, compared to the apartment use allowed under existing zoning. Consequently. the year 2005 i level of service analysis took these additional trips into account. Figure 13 shows the year ( 3005 background traffic volumes within the study area. while Figures 14 and 15 show the year 2005 total traffic volumes under the two access alternatives. III Level of Service Analysis I Table 9 shows the vear 2005 background traffic levels of service during the weekday p.m. peak hour at the study area intersections. The background traffic assumes the development of I apartments on the site, as well as other development throughout the Portland metropolitan area. Section H of the technical appendix contains the vear 2005 background traffic level-of-service worksheets. Table 9 tt 2005 Background Levels of Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Vic I Intersection Critical Movement Level of Delay (see) Movement Delay (see) Service WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR i SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ 0.67 16.8 C t SW Scholls Ferry Road i SW 135th Avenue/ 0.80 20.3 C SW Scholls Ferry Road i SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 14.5 C . SW Hawks Beard Street SW 130th Avenue/ j 0.74 5.5 B SW Scholls Ferry Road I t As Table 9 shows, all of the study area intersections will meet City of Tigard and Washington County standards for levels of service in the year 2005. t Klttelson 6 Associates. Inc. 30 r5 i n NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) ~ ~ A40 ,0 ~ r y25 0 C3 V) ~ W a I n ¢ o N 1, SITE S.W. HAWKS BEARD A! 1 1►` 9L 20-0 `140 t"5-► 2450 25-.4 ~65 o~`S 3 W 'S1P r SGa i 3 vi O~ n m h 3 •1 15 _ ~5 tlw I '~J 2005 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE lK TIGARD OREGON AUGUST 1995 J '62B CC• r NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 7 N 2pt5 ZttS ,,So 3 t2 B5~ ~3tS t:SO , 111t , t 7,T 0"ti , R r 6S""~► t/ { I 1480-y r246 ' 10~ ` 105 o c / a e Vi / SITE oo~ S.W. HAWKS BEARD 111► U, j 20f 140 1A95-4. r 2500 N 25~ r 35 S`~o~~S N 3 ~ t r i ono moo. ~ 3 Vi \ I10 r 50 1 I ~ 2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC (ALT. 1) WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR HAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE TI. GARO OREGON 4 AUGUST 1995 .L~a 1 , l r. 3 NORTH '7$1 (NOT TO SCALE) r20~5 ~ 1095 2Sj5 ~ , X220 ~ ` i @5~► ~ ~ ~ 170' T i ~ ~ S"y► r V II F m N I r= SITE coo S.W. HAWKS BEARD 1 1 H 2010 t I AO 3333 1495--w -0--2500 25-,,4 * ` 35 i SGT N ; ~ I r pip vi Syl • Qo' _ 3 vi W*- 135 - r 50 - i 1 v 2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC (ALT.2) 1 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR J IHAGGEN SUPERMARKET FIGURE p ! TIGARD OREGON !J AUGUST 1995 ' 5 " 5 as t1 August 1995 Haggen Food and Pharmacy 7ratffc Impact Analysis E e .y t~ Table 10 shows the year 2005 levels of service for the weekday p.m. peak hour at the study area intersections. with the addition of the supermarket-generated traffic. Section ! of the technical appendix contains the Fear 2005 total traffic level-of-service worksheets. To calculate the level of service at the proposed full access driveway. the measured 1995 capacity was factored by the ratio of the calculated 1995 capacity (using the HCM method) to the calculated 2005 capacity. The delay and level of service for the left-in and left-out movements were then calculated as before. Section l of the technical appendix also contains E. the calculations for the proposed fall access driveway. Table 10 { 2005 Levels of Service With Site (Weekday P.M. Peak )4our) Signalized j Unsignalized 1 Intersection V/C Intersection Critical Movement Level of t Delay (sec) Movement Delay (sec) Service i BOTH ACCESS ALTERNATIVES SW Old Scrolls Ferry Road/ 0.68 17.1 C SW Scholis Ferry Road SW 130th Avenue/ 0.75 5.0 I i A SW Scholls Ferry Road ACCESS ALTERNATIVE 1 - 'N SW 135th Avenue/ 0.94 25.8 I o .,r.r SW Scholls Ferry Road j RIRO Access/ i NS RT 6.8 B SW Scholls Ferry Road r I j Main Access/ I NB LT >60 1 F' SW Scholls Ferry Road WB LT 17.8 C SW 135th Avenue/ I ! WB LT 19.4 C SW Hawks Beard Street ACCESS ALTERNATIVE 2 SW 135th Avenue/ 1.02 34.6 0 f SW Scholls Ferry Road RIRO Access/ NB FIT 7.7 B I SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 27.7 j 0 " - SW Hawks Beard Street I L' 'Left-out movement will have a reserve capacity of 2 vehicles, however. i i . As Table 10 shows, all of the study area intersections and site driveways, other than the main i access on SW Scholls Ferry Road, will continue to meet City of Tigard and Washington County level-of-service standards under either access alternative. However. the SW 135th Avenue/SW F i Scholls Ferry Road intersection will operate over capacity under access alternative 2. The left-out movement from the propsed full access driveway will continue to operate below capacity (a reserve capacity of 2), although the movement's delay produces an F level of service. As mentioned previously, any queuing that develops will occur on site and will not impact the operation of SW Scholls Ferry Road. Kirrelson 6 Associates. Inc. 34 - 1 ~ ~ August 1995 Traffic Impact Analysis Haggen Food and Pharmacy Table I I lists the 2005 weekday p.m. peak hour levels of service at key study area intersections, assuming the worst-case use under the proposed zoning. (The 2005 background traffic volumes shown in Table 9 provides weekday p.m. peak hour levels of service for the existing zoning.) Section J in the technical appendix contains the year 2005 level of service worksheets for the i worst-case scenario. i Table 11 2^..05 Loveir of S.°r-;ce With Worst-Case Retsll Use (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) 1 Signalized I Unsignelized - Intersection v/C Intersection Critl I Movement I Level of I j Delay (sec) Movement Delay (see) Service SW Old Scholls Ferry Road/ I 0.69 17.3 I C i SW Scholls Ferry Road i SW 135th Avenue/ 0.99 32.4 I 0 SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 130th Avenue/ 1 0.76 5.0 i B SW Scholls Ferry Road SW 135th Avenue/ WB LT 24.1 0 i SW Hawks Beard Street As indicated in Table 11, all study area intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the vear 2005 worst-case scenario, although the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection will be at capacity during the weekday p.m. peak hour. 1 L i I i U Kirrelson 6 Associates, Inc. 35 - E t` - . E j - j j Section 5 Conceptual Access Design 1 . • 99 August 1995 c;) Haggen Food and pharmacy Conceptual Access Design n Conceptual Access Design As described earlier in this report. the applicant will request a modification, to Washington I County's Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards to allow the proposed full and right-in, right-out accesses onto SW Scholls Ferry Road. This decision was based on the following issues raised during this study: _ - The operation of the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection and the proposed site driveways. • Many of the trips generated by the site consist of pass-by trips already present on SW Scholls Ferry Road. • The only available alternative access is SW Hawks Beard Street, a local street. After reviewine the two access alternatives evaluated in Section 4, it was determined that access j alternative l (full and right-in. right-out accesses on SW Scholls Ferry Road) was best-suited for the site based on the overall benefit to the transportation system. The following facts support the implementation of the proposed access scenario: • The impact of the site on the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection is considerably less under the proposed access scenario. since fewer left-turn movements are required at the intersection. With a full access, the intersection operates at level of service C in 1996 and D in 3005: without a full access. the intersection operates at level of service D with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.98 in 1996 and 1.03 in 2005. • Unlike the apartment use presently allowed on the site, approximately 40% of the trips to and from the site consists of traffic already on SW Scholls Ferry Road. The proposed i accesses provide the shortest and most convenient route to and from the site for these trips. 1 The proposed full access is located adjacent to the site's east property line and is available to serve the vacant lot to the east when it develops. i The proposed accesses avoid the need for non-local trips (trips not originating in the JJ residential areas south of the site) to use SW Hawks Beard Street. which is a local j residential street. • The right-in. right-out access can be controlled by a raised median because no access i l driveways exist on the north side of SW Scholls Ferry Road between SW 130th and SW 135th Avenues. • The relatively short distance on SW 135th Avenue between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Hawks Beard Street, combined with the long cycle lengths at the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road, may cause queues to occasionally block the SW Hawks Beard Street intersection during the p.m. peak hour with or without the proposed zonine. Providing access from SW Scholls Ferry Road minimizes the need for vehicles to make left turns from SW 135th Street onto SW Hawks Beard Street. The traffic impact analysis found that based on total delay, the left-out movement from the proposed full access will operate at level of service F (an average total delay of 47.0 seconds) during the 1996 weekday p.m. peak hour. In terms of total travel time, though, many motorists Krttelson b Associates. Inc. 37 i ORE . 1 • f August1995 t Haggen Food and Pharmacy Conceptual Access Design may find this to be an acceptable delay, since motorists using the matching signalized left-turn will experience an average stopped delay of 42.0 seconds in addition to the longer travel time required to reach the signal. Furthermore, the access will operate with better levels of service during all other time periods and will operate below capacity even during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Should excessive delays occur for the left-out movement during the p.m. peak hour, motorists will simply divert to the signal. 4 I J- l j f.F _`J{i I ' I 4 ' Kittelson 8 Associates. Inc. 3B ~ C I 3 F~ I }1' i.•Z 3 Section 6 Conclusions U s August 1995 Haggen Food and Pharmacy Conclusions t I Conclusions Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis described in this report, the proposed supermarket can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety at the i site driveways and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis resulted in the following findings and recommendations: ' The proposed grocery store will generate approximately 620 trips during the typical • weekday p.m. peak hour. Approximately 150 of these trips represent new trips on the transportation system. I. ' The worst-case trip generation for an allowed use on the 9-acre site under existing zoning (apartments) is approximately l IO trips during the weekday p.m. peak our. The trip generation for the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning is approxi- mately 910 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. of which 305 trips would be new trips on the transportation system. • Compared to an apartment use on the site. the proposed supermarket will generate approximately 65% fewer vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the area's transportation svstem. • Two access scenarios were considered: ( I ) a full access and a right-in, right-out access ! on SW Scholls Ferry Road. and t_) single right-in, right-out access on SW Scholls .i Ferry Road. A full access from SW Scholls Ferry Road is recommended to minimize • the site's impacts on the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road intersection. Double-cvcling the westbound left turn at the SW Old Scholls Ferrv Road/SW Scholls 1 Ferrv Road (providing both a leading and lagging left-turn phase) is recommended to clear the queues that presently block the SW 135th Avenue/SW Scholls Ferry Road • intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. All intersections within the study area will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 and 2015 conditions. The proposed full-access driveway on SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate at level of service F in terms of delay for left-turns out during the 1996 weekday p.m. peak hour (an average 47.0 seconds of delay per vehicle). Similar delays occur at any unsignalized access point along SW Scholls Ferry Road during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The access will operate acceptably because it will have reserve 4 capacity, will operate at level of service C for left-turns in, and will provide total travel times from the site that are similar to those experienced by motorists making left turns from SW 135th Avenue. Any queuing that may develop will occur on site, rather than on SW Scholls Ferry Road. 1 i F Kittelson 6 Associates. Inc. 40 ' JJ 1 f o } 1 z,l ~iy 1 2Z< , Section 7 References .Yi i • - August1995 References Haggen Food and Pharmacy References 1. Transportation Research Board. Highvvap Capacity Manual. Special Report No. 209. I 1994. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip veneratiori Fifth Edition. 1990. 3. Wayne K. Kittelson and T. Keith Lawton. "Evaluation of Shopping Center Trip Types." ITE Journal. February 1987, pp. 35-39. v. i Kittelson 8 Associates. Inc. 42 j - j ,..i , I Appendix A f Description of Level-of-Service v Methods and Criteria ' I - , 1 r _ August 7995 • Hagoen Food and Pnarmacy Race..-,dtx A SSp 6 Appendix A r Level of Service Concept - v Level of service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the deV _ree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops. total amount of stopped delay. and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway C segment. Six grades are used to denote the various LOS from A to F.1 1 Signalized Intersections i The six LOS grades are described qualitatively for si=nalized intersections in Table Al. t Additionally. Table A'_ identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped 1 1 delay per vehicle. Using this definition. LOS D is generally considered to represent the . { minimum acceptable design standard. I Table Al pp Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) P Level of Q _ Service I Average Delay per Vehicle u \J A Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the areen phase. Most S vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. i B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with i good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for a LOS A. causing higher levels of average delay. I C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle faiiures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many 1 still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, { and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable detay.These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, { long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 1 F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high iii volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay levels. I - I Most of the material in this appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacin. Manual, Special Report 209 (1994). r i i Kittelson & Associates. Inc. A-1 i _ i o Aucus' 1995 - Haggen rood and Pharmacy Appendix A ~ Table A2 _ Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections I Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) A I 555.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 r i.. 1 C 15.1 to 25.0 t 6 D I 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 + F >60.0 9 j Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-con- trolled (AWSC) intersections. The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual provides new models for estimating total vehicle delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections. Unlike signalized intersections, where LOS is based on stopped delay, unsignalized intersections base LOS on total vehicle delay. A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsianalized intersection is presented in Table A3. A quantitative defination of LOS for unsi_nalized intersections is presented in Table A4. Using this definition. LOS E is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table A3 ` General Level-of-Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue. C i Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue. • Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so. D Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue. • Drivers feel quite restricted. E Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accomodated by the movement. • There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. ` F Forced flow. Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. l Kirtelson & Associates, Inc. A-2 ` - r i~ i J 1 I - f'^'} ATTACHMENT E MARKET AREA ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DA i r ~J l ( '.III 1.L - Y - ~ 1 3 i t ~ . ~ ~ _ _ I - i CITY OF TIGARD ( PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL CITY OF TIGARD DATE: Z, 6 ~S STAFF: 1 Zi'/5/~n APPLICANT: ~~aClQx.r -tea ~yr1G A AGENT: Phone: ( 1 Phone: I 1 L- Z 6- G -/SS PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: ~C. c+ F ~U.i ~c arc ~~s 'r 6 % v' 3~7~ S6c~ TAX MAPITAX LOT: ' St ?Z, r I ,i_~ odd ~~u. NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): C ""'r t~v2~t e~*s'? t~lu 1t rrP~.;.y e, ~Z~~!e C'~ Ila e4_1 v1~r.a Y'!^~. r.-..ar~,.i.f.w.sit/c P•'lr:.n cu,. Z,,.>tiau F;-o.~,~l=Zs-,?La CC- , PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: 7.-7 51 ti 44 r n : . Z -r- -e Ind /e 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: i ZONING DESIGNATION: Zs / G/ti, ti d ZS it ~r Jo`S n r~ r~~, Z 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: S ~i s }Icc TEAM AREA: (/v L PHONE: 503 a cF-4 14 e, ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot site sq. ft. Average lot width: s ft. Maximum building height: ys ft. f 5et6acks: froti11~~~ ft. side 2--- ft. rear 2,0 ft. corner%1-rk' ft. from street. Maximumsite coverage: ,ice % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: f5 ) (Refer to Code Section 18. 62_ I ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition mu j rv',a have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. 1 1{ CITY OF TIGARD Pre•Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 [ j 40LRevero.1 aDOTCVw ft n" Oee+raMI yrnm i i J h = The depth of all lots shah 2'% times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1% times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. C; Grs -.tc ; rq for Jx4t,&ZZ1 / i (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) :IAL SETBACKS • Streets: 5-6 feat from the centerline of YG~(~ z • Established areas: /'i/4' feet from . = e 70K • Lower intensity zones: 'i a feet, along the site's is E9 boundary 3 s ot- '$Qfoot 7;(e yard setback. (Rafer to Cndr_. Section 18.106.040 and 18.96) / k SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions • Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: f. 9 • A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; `J • All actual building setbacks will be at least % (half) of the building's height; and • The structure will not abut a residential zone district. ~I (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) I - PARKING AND ACCESS I 5{~ac{ No more than 40% of required spaces may be designated andlor dimensl ne as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ( -34 • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. t (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) r • Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol ' shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ` _ . ~ BICYCLE RACKS i f Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected ; f from automobile traffic and in convenient locatio Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for everv Sk~~ /3asr uw 6l s H `may<~E P~.-~Cl r zc fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. 27 Minimum number of accesses: y Minimum access width: Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. 1 Drive•in use queuing areas: ini er f se . et h: ccess wi feet. i i I (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020(G) CM OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 . i ROtLR~ydMpal sc4cnwNtlanry Drexcrtent Sectim - I k e . 1 AtKWAY REQUIREMENTS 1 Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of a ! 1- commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide) a 5 ~~convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical,, 1 (wal ays should be constructed between a new develpment and neighboring develo ments. cy r r ~irs7r'c~r ccxK~t°.ts ~ieS E vESt err i } `wRefer to Code Section 18.108.0501 w ~ ! / " LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS •Z)%P- Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and LDo- location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. j (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070.090) CLEAR ION AREA . a The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road►driveway, roadlrailroad, and roadlroad intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. r \ ((Refer to Code Section 18.102) BUFFERING AND SCREENING k In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas Q, are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may one be occupied by vegetation, - fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community i Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) j The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: ft. along north boundary. 2-~7 ft along east boundary. 3 / ft along south boundary. 1~710 ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is /required along r+Rt~SG/✓eea] ~~a / ~JL/ l~0 1 0 L -10 r v a_ L7L ;,e--1 ace/ 3 STREET TREES Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 o feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four feet above grade. l Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree for every seven parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative I canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information an design requirements for parking areas and accesses. ~ (Refer to Code Chapters 18.10D, 18.106 and 18.1D8) I 1 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page ? of 6; atIlFRnodntW ~mrcn,orcNm,q Ow~mmt Sc~ron , II r t SIGNS Sign permit; costa ation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings, K Officer. (Refer to Code Section 18.114) 3ENSMVE LANDS The Code provides ulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways,land areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands ar at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to Precisely identif sensitive Ian reas and their boundaries is the responsibility of the a licant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clear) indicated on plans submitted with the development application. j Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for a use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodolains. In most cases, ication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approval of a deve ent application. (Refer to Code Section 18.84) NARRATIVE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. 1 = '(Refer to Code Section 18.32) :ODE SECTIONS ✓ f 18.80 18.98 18.1 4 18.150 18.84 X100 8.116 10.160 _ 18.88 .102 1- 81 20 L--18.162 1 .92 106 - 18.130 8 64 - 6-P ZG 1 ZZ = f 4f 3 Z L cc rv7 K~ n~lgt~ ; NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I) The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitdtor and the members of any land use .rte subcomitittee(sl of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. ~ YEC7CLiNG Applicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Disposal's vehicles.\ 1'- CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (5031625-6177. itl s~ ( 1 (Refer to Code Section 18.116) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Hates Page 6 of 6 t i aoaaor.ea mrcnWnr..q orormim Secnm ( r r i The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional d copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 6C days after an application is accepted as being j complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A in to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard ~SDe2)^ r~/a~Nit,~, ~ou,uisskN A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the t. lanning Div' ' n upon request. I ~GF ~a t ~5 hxa~"t` O~ 4: ~-t' his pre application conference and the notes 0hhe conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. T, . 1 j P6feAS1511107E The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects wr._ M....._..... of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall - not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. J Additional pre-application conference(s) islare required if an application(s) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. _ i PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION I~I PHONE: 1503) 639.4171 t FAX: (503) 684-7297 j J.q Sans aWKfgl - 1 1 CITY of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 ear-Ra+amo,~ rod:cn~avnw.nq oewrtn+mi Se:h~ ~r I L_ ~ I z CITY OF TIGARD s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT E APPLICATION CHECKLIST CrTYOF TIGARD ` y I The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your t application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted i with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the Clty of Tigard ` I Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: l Z41~~' Date: APPLICATION & REL-\TEED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMI TAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE V lv1ARKE ITEMS F A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization ~stN? C) Title transfer instrumendQr grant de d rr1 r-P Applicant's statement No. of Copies 7=;o E) Filing Fee 5c'.~ { S(iC.e`~i S j i! SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PL-\N(S) SUBMMAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showine: No. of Copies---" d~ >,•~~'Lt-- 1. Vicinity map d~ 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10010) 6 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: e (a) Fioodplain areas c (b) Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: = (a) Wildlife habitats (b) Wetlands + 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings (b) Trees with 6" y caliper measured 4 feet from ground level j 8. Location of existing structures and their uses ( 9 Location and type of on and off-site noise sources 10. Location of existing utilities and easements i 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways r_`f _ I U~0 -SE +P-:IC+T1C1 J PST -ACE ' c, - J(~~ 8) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties y~ 2. Contour line intervals n 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties t~ (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements I on the site (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets / that require future extension 4. The location and dimension of. i (a) Entrances and exits on the site (b) Parking and circulation areas (c) Loading and services area (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation (e) Outdoor common areas (f) Above ground utilities 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent / property within 25 feet of the site (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements ~ on the site i 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions / Sanitary sewer facilities C~ I 8. The location areas to be landscaped 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime / prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes 11. The location of all structures and their orientation 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements j p!K Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies yN vr') C) The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale ? as the site analvsis drawings and shall contain the following information: " 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: I (a) General contour lines m~ I (b) Slope ratios (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) I (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: 1 (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report ` (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated Df ` LAND LSE APPaCAMON I LST >ACE ' O: S " . I Sr~~ ) Architectural Drawings Indicating: No. of Copies vH1 r~ - The site development plan proposal shall include. 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site ~ - 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2 Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces 1. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials I 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: { (a) Soil conditions (b) Erosion control measures that will be used F) Sign Drawings: Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.111 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. S i~r Traffic Generation Estimate: G) ^ Ci 1 { N) Preliminarv Partition/Lot Line Adiustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The owner of the subject parcel .2. The owner's authorized agent "I 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet-1) inch north arrow and date a~ 1. Description of parcel location and boundaries 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel j 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines Location and width of all water courses 8. Location of anv trees within 6" or greater caliper at 1 feet above I ground level 9. All slopes greater than 23% i 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements 11. For major land partition which creates a public street: j (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width I (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ~f- 12. Any applicable deed restrictions e 1 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable - i LAND 1.5E AP^:.: T;O.N / ;S ?1C2 i OF 5 ' ~f 177777. 1) Subdivision Prediminarv Plat Map and Data Indicating: No. of Copies 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 300 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sh~et iii 2 The proposed \ ame of the subdivision ❑ 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and ! collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresse and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines or t ct to be subdivided ❑ j 7. Names of adjacent s bdivision or names of recorded owners of ' adjoining parcels or u -subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related t a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals - for 0-10% grades greate than 10% ❑ 9. The purpose, location, a and size or all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed ubdivision): (a) Public and private ri t-of-ways and easements ❑ " (b) Public and private san ary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains i cluding fire hydrants c (d) Major power telephone ansmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ M Deed reservations for park open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles of oposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicate on the plans ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water distributi n system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydran ❑ 13. Approximate centerline profiles showi the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reason le distance beyond the limits of 4 . the proposed subdivision ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections or proposed street ri t-of-way(s) ❑ 14. The location or all areas subject to inundau n or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all wa er courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate of dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for pu oses other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. c 17. The location or all trees with a diameter 6 inches r greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of prop ed tree plantings 12 i 18. The existing uses of the property, including the locau n of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statemen or which structures are to remain after platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvem nts ❑ 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & ma h areas ❑ 21. If anv of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown n the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and sub irted with the application 1 i . L♦ti0 LSE ♦P°1:C.hT;Oti / US' ?aGi ~ OF i I :pi L Solar Access Ca lations: G r K) Other Iniormation No. of Copies C • Hr,•N 7C•/ e-5 t I trs 1 = l-_ t - i i n~* Y, t it elf l • " 5"l0plfl'J1t11ff1~5tlRUC1t11{I.TSI ~ ' .~Hv 23. 199z L10-0 L:SE APP:ICATIC%/ :157 PAC- 5 OF 5 1 1 ) P}~IC FACILITIES ~ CITY OF TIGARD t The purpose of the pre application conference is to: OREGON I 0.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. 13.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision E making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making f authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity E' to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to tpe public: Mt., ,e/w /35 'x' I S~bu-! X27' 4 rt es~6sf I 0 To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: to feet from centerline. r( (2.) to feet from centerline. I 13.) to feet from centerline. i Street improvements: 2 0~~ street improvements will be necessary along 12.1 street improvements will be necessary along , (3.) Street improvements shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb I and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. FAu44 7-/6--S f57U-W ~1 fi2OtW ' ~/Grrb,cJ 619CItT)" A-C Ps~SS~ g y~roiti~ ,J~ i sue" Gptr/~fL~J i Go~20~~7~' /7i~w-IS U.llrc-f PI~~~ P~t/fs7sTb S~+vTIF I CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page I of 3 MmRnidntW A=u1 mvEMft"M 0tw t Sectim p I I In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the street ,r improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation i of a local improvement district formed to improve: Y ~ { 0 7 t ~ t (2.) I Pedestrianwayslbikewavs: w, Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located in i OFFS/?-w-' Al Cni-rM i , The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's t t . Water Supply: The )I<irigard Water Distrirr Phone: (503) 639.1554 ❑ Tualatin Valley Water District Phone: (503) 642.1511 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. i ://Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526.2502) provides fire protection ' services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy - I of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. 1 j Other Agency Permits: ( ~v0 Y ' Storm sewer improvements: aye&060 4i j STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution No. 90-43 Surface Water Management Regulations which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be offered an opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of the construction of such a facility. The resolution requires the construction of a water quality facility and/or the payment of a fee. The fee shall be based upon the amount of impervious j surface; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $285.00. The City of Tigard shall determine if a fee may be paid or a facility shall be ( constructed. X17& bt/lAlfZ`X_.. mi 1 sit 9`~ i i I i CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 ~ MnRaai4neal ApyratmJEtgnnrmq Dawrtmrm Sacbon i; i I 3 ¢ 1 T FIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a countywide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects a fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system., The applicant j shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. I 3 The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. i Goy / Z77 X `f c, K 10 '~vro 2¢oi 5013 = STREET OPENING PERMIT j Na work shall be preformed within a public rigbi•of•way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street opening i I permit from the Engineering Department. 5 ` GO/3'fOritsf~c~ ~'Fr /LD- ~ilfGr.MNi . FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS All projects that require a grading plan also require that the applicant shall submit a typical floor plan for each lot. This floor 1 plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. i it PREPARED BY: r ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639.4171 i I I " .i Icuopntwrtlla~ioeeeq - . ~ Imuter tectw¢ {naptmftl I - " , ' ' M=h 71 1995 ~ - - - CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notts Page 3 of 3 0-1knidmW ~odi;nimErpreenip Otom:'m Srcnm . _ ~ . . _ _ , . i , ~ F i, I v i ~ ` j r ~ i t. 1 ~ t t Y ~U 1~ 1 I 1 r i~fi-Ica-fr~~ WESTGATE BAPTIST CHURCH 12930 SW Scholls Ferry Gary Coe Dale Shrader Id 11115 SW 135th Ave 8405 165th Ave NE Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97223 Redmond, WA 98052 i I Randy Tu9g ~ Essie Flemmer Betty Johnson James & Kristi McVey 13060 SW Cottontail Ln 12985 SW Hawks Beard St 14750 SW Peachtree Dr Beaverton, OR 97008 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 I Phan Ngo i .9erner & Sophie Jungkind BEAVERTON CITY OF To Phuong Hong 8105 SW 68th P1 4950 SW Hall Blvd 10615 SW Cottontail P1 II )ortland, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97008 1 i Boris Piatski William T Kiang Alla Faktorovich Isaac & Diane Hsu Traci Furlong 10625 SW Cottontail P1 7040 SW Gable Park Rd 10645 SW Cottontail P1 Beaverton, OR 97008 Portland, OR 97225 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferdinand Devietro Carrie Devietro Manuel Alonzo Arthur & Joan Hay 10655 SW Cottontail P1 10665 SW Cottontail P1 11925 NE Lauren Ln Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Newberg, OR 97132 Moon-Sup & Ok-Hi Lim Sung-Soo Lim Julene Hall Gregory Macdowall 10670 SW Cottontail P1 10650 SW Cottontail P1 16323 SE Stark St #A Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Portland, OR 97233 Donald Edward Zinter Gary & Sharon Rosing Jerry Nelson Ann Karen 15403 SW 81st Ave 10600 SW Cottontail P1 13140 SW Cottontail Ln Tigard, OR 97224 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 i Michael & Janet Estoup Jennifer McClendon Margaret & Amar Hadid 13120 SW Cottontail Ln 13080 SW Cottontail Ln 7120 SW 130th Ave Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 i - - Tiffany Hsiao Todd & Julie Crist Doan Tieu Linda & David Hill 10555 SW 130th Ave 10605 SW 130th Ave 10645 SW 130th Ave Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 } Marcia Brown j ~/RIX DEVELOPMENT CORP Kenneth Ross 13775 SW Old Scholls E P' BOX 1408 4715 SW 18th P1 Ferry Rd #5 Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland, OR 97201 Beaverton, OR 97008 f Richard & B J Arnold L R Debast Inez Alt F i 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls ' Ferry Rd #1 Ferry Rd #1 Ferry Rd ("averton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 i Jane Barfoot Vaughn Willoughby ppp VILLA DEL REY - ROSWELL 13775 SW Scholls Ferry Jacquetta Willoughby ;16 NE 87th Ave Rd #101 7863 SW Parrway Dr :ancouver, WA 98664 Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97225 i i 'ictor & Alma Goldsmith Ruth Barnes Loy Marshall 13775 SW Old Scholls William Somerville E Family Sidney Ferry Rd 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Rd #1 Ferry Rd #1 " Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Loy Marshall Ruby Sullivan Mary Miner & Janet Miner Sidney Marshall 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd Ferry Rd Ferry Rd #1 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Lucille Granquist BANK OF CALIFORNIA Ray Erikson 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls Donna Grisi Ferry Rd Ferry Rd #2 13775 SW Old Scholls Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Rd i r Beaverton, OR 97008 i A eke Simmons True Daniels i Hans Went Ann B Phillips Elizabeth Daniels 7165 SW Gable Park Rd 12975 SW Thunderhead Way 13775 SW Old Scholls Portland, OR 97225 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Rd Beaverton, OR 97008 a Lea & Pamela Davies e Mark Irwin NEWTON ASSOCIATES LLC 13775 SW Old Scholls I 11663 SW 31st Ct 15510 SW Petrel Ln Ferry Rd #2 j Portland, OR 97219 Beaverton, OR 97007 Beaverton, OR 97008 Doris Cherachanko Arnold Gagnet 13775 SW Old Scholls Sidney Alberta Pearson Shirley Morgan Ferry Rd PO Box 1352 Rr 1 Box 5651 Beaverton, OR 97008 Lake Grove, OR 97035 Beaverton, OR 97007 4ildred & Michael Wynne Norma Ellen Frisch john Wynne 13775 SW Old Scholls Ilene Rodriguez 13775 SW Scholls Ferry Ferry Rd PO Box 763 f Rd #401 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97075 Beaverton, OR 97007 "`,lan Williamson Henry Scheurman Jean Helen Barry "-dictoria Williamson Marion Scheurman 13775 SW Old Scholls Fwy 10895 SW Adler Ct 5240 SW 33rd Dr #306 Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97201 Beaverton, OR 97005 t Robert Mueller Wilma Vermeire & `U L Rosemary Mildred Brooks Dey 13775 SW Old Scholls e 3433 Mcnary Pky #406 3131 Vista Dr Ferry Rd #7 j Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Forest Grove, OR 97116 Beaverton, OR 97008 6 n EEE~ Mary & Janet Miner Anneke Went Simmons 13775 SW Old Scholls Grayce Ransom Hans Went Ferry Rd 3691 NW 163rd Ter 7165 SW Gable Park Rd Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97006 Portland, OR 97225 t~ Helen Fearl Richard Chamberlain FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF f 13775 SW Old Scholls S Virainia N A Oregon t Ferry Rd #2 8300 SW Barnes Rd #106 13775 SW Old Scholls Beaverton, OR 97008 Portland, OR 97225 Ferry Rd #1 j Beaverton, OR 97008 kk Loy & Sidney Marshall David & Lorna Chrysler Victor Goldsmith 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Scholls Ferry D Alma Ferry Rd Rd 13775 SW Old Scholls Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97007 Ferry Rd Beaverton, OR 97008 .,aphael & Magdalen Spiro Russell Merret Vera Durfee 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls 'erry Rd Ferry Rd Ferry Rd :eaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 -tha Powell Helen Tozer Herbert Leo `775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd Ferry Rd 41 Ferry Rd #1 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Floyd & Rosalie Rice Forrest & Lola Hampton Alfred & Leona Dinges 10675 SW 135th Ave 10630 SW 133rd P1 10650 SW 133rd Pl Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Frank & Ruth Clark Nancy Schillingburg Mark & Jean Johnson j 18 Chauncey Creek Rd 10690 SW 133rd P1 10695 SW 133rd PI Kittery Point, ME 03905 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Vinh Quang Tran Hong Mai Nguyen Terry & Sharon Carter Sandie Russo ` 10685 SW 133rd P1 10675 SW 133rd P1 5435 SW Natchez St Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Tualatin, OR 97062 ! I 6 Gordon Beeson ,eraldine Beeson Charles & Sandra Cundiff CHURCHILL TODD & JULI R \,~3728 26th Ave SE 13350 SW Cottontail Ln 13380 SW Cottontail Ln Bothell, WA 98012 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 I ! f~ Keith & Nancy Fingerett Farzad Moradian Mehdi & Ruth Roshani 13400 SW Cottontail Ln 13440 SW Cottontail Ln 13455 SW Cougar Ct 3eaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Susan & David Burkhart Athyantha & Renuka Rao Jeff & Tammy Russell 13435 SW Cougar Ct 13425 SW Cougar Ct 13405 SW Cougar Ct Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 g 1 Pamela Vanausdle John & Linda Difalco Jr. LeTuyet-Minh 13410 SW Cougar Ct 13420 SW Cougar Ct 13430 SW Cougar Ct Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Bartley Griswold Blair Whitney Charles & Rose Smith Bonnie Griswold Meredith Dailey 13450 SW Cougar Ct 13460 SW Cougar Ct 10800 SW 135th Ave Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Road Llc Scholls HITEON MEADOWS PARTNERSH Patrick & Myndee Kerner 111 SW 5th Ave 3843 SW Hall Blvd 11056 SW 131st P1 Portland, OR 97204 Beaverton, OR 97005 Tigard, OR 97223 Charles & Susan Rymal Timothy & Carla Stashin i 11038 SW 131st P1 11012 SW 131st P1 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 I J j J j - i i I ~ t i 4. j A', Carol & Gordon Butcher Clyde Hoag ~ Darryl Wakefield 12880 SW Cleveland Bay 12875 SW Cleveland Bay .0500 SW Clydesdale Ter Ln Ln Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Todd & Mary Moak Umran & Elif Inan Bruce & Patricia Pearson 10420 SW 130th Ave 10470 SW 130th Ave 11535 SW Hazelwood Loop Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Tigard, OR 97223 Crane Jr. i Gary & Judith Kniss Donald & HYon 4 teven Reece 10495 SW Clydesdale Ter 10465 SW Clydesdale Ter 10425 SW Clydesdale Ter aeaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 r. 4~ i I f 3 F !I I _ i g t 1 - and City CoU'r'°il tal to Tlg , A ~ s Submit t, Applicant .1 n t ti t t , )FO"pOSAL g5-oop31Z~~ ti t J~"~' 19g~' tt 1 ® i v~ 5 id ti l 6 4 1 1 y 1 [Ham ~ , INC. • P.O. BOX 9704 BELLINGHAM, WA 98227-9704 (360) 733-8720 1 HAGGEN 4 I1 January 9, 1996 I f Dear Mayor and Council Members: Haggen, Inc. is a family-owned company committed to providing Northwest communities with top ? competitively nced food and sundries in a service-oriented shopping environment. I am very quality, excited by the opportunity to serve Tigard with one of our stores. Currently, all of our sixteen stores n. are in the state of Washington with our first Oregon store to open in Hillsboro this Spring. The Planning Commission voted to approve our project. Many people came to the Planning Commission hearing and testified in support. We have met with many dozens of community members from the area, who have shown strong enthusiasm for the store. I No one has raised any problems which will be caused by our project, such as that it will generate too much traffic, degrade the environment, or adversely affect our neighbors. No concerns about project impacts were expressed either in the staff report, in letters from commenting agencies, or in the testimony before the Planning Commission. The staffs negative recommendation is solely based on rezone criteria with which we firmly believe we comply. We have outlined for you in the attached analysis the many compelling arguments for i the approval of this rezone. We respect the plans of the communities we serve, and believe approval " of this rezone meets both the letter and the intent of your Comprehensive Plan. There are many compelling reasons for approving this rezone: Much has changed in southwest Tigard. f You Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983 and this area was annexed in 1987. Since that time ` the area has grown tremendously. The population within the store's market area now includes 120,000 residents more than the population of Eugene or Salem and has increased 14% in the last five years. It is expected to increase another 19% by 1999. These additional residents are creating demand for commercial space beyond what was contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has grown faster than was ever imagined when this area was first planned. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan projected that the City's population would be 33,400 by the year 2000. In fact, f this population was exceeded in 1994. The population of Tigard is now projected to be 41,546 by 2000, based on more recent forecasts. Thus, the assumptions made about growth and the related i r.. 1 necessary commercial services by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan were in error and are now obsolete. The City should recognize this deficiency and adjust its zoning accordingly. I ^ In addition, Scholls Ferry Road has been improved from a 2-lane to a 5-lane major arterial, with more M than adequate capacity to handle our proposed development. Washington County's Department of 4 1 Land Use and Transportation, Planning Division agrees and has already approved the project's access plan. Statewide and regional planning and transportation policies have been adopted (including the I I TPR and Metro 2040) which call for reducing vehicle miles traveled. Locating retail services I I providing for residents' everyday needs along major transportation corridors, close to where they live, l is consistent with these important planning policy directions. I The City is not providing adequate land for new commercial services to meet the needs of the increased population. There are no appropriately zoned pieces of land in either Tigard or Beaverton where a store can be built to serve your community. Tigard only has 20 acres of general commercial land for new retail opportunities; Beaverton has 6. The largest piece in either town is just over 4 acres, which is too small to build a competitive store which meets the needs of today's markets. We see this lack of commercial land to be a major planning issue for Tigard, both in the loss of economic opportunity and in the inability to provide for day-to-day services to its residents. The City has sufficient opportunity for multi-family development (even with the approval of this project, it still achieves the Metropolitan Housing Rule). It is time for the City to balance the amount of residential and commercial land to ensure its new residents are adequately served. This is the best place in Tigard to site a new rocery store. f We have reviewed the sites shown on the City's Buildable Land Inventory which could potentially be rezoned for commercial use in the light of Comprehensive Plan criteria and market placement requirements. No other site better meets the Comprehensive Plan criteria. This store will be located _ where the new growth has occurred and will continue. Placing the store here instead of in downtown Tigard means new residents do not have to drive as far to meet their day-to-day needs. This site is at the intersection of two major roads, increasing accessibility both north/south and east/west. This is the best site in the entire City to place the needed store which will minimize impacts on neighborhood traffic, provide separation and buffering from nearby residents, and provide maximum I~ convenience. - ! C; I Haggen has a strong track record of providing desirable successful attractive stores where people like to shop. We have a lot of pride in our stores. They are well designed by top-notch architects. Quality brick j v covers the stores on all sides (not just the front) and more parking area and screening landscaping i than required by code is typically provided (as we plan to do with this store). Inside, a much higher I d 1 ^ Planning Commissioners -3 - January 9, 1996 build standard and more intimate scale is provided than is common in most grocery stores. We use i extensive oak cabinetry and wider aisles for greater ease of movement. Clean bathrooms are provided where you can easily find them. I In addition to a first class facility, we are committed to providing the best customer service in our industry. The stores are stocked with quality Products at competitive prices. We believe our I customers are loyal for a reason. Haggen is not just a food store. I In reality, a Haggen Food & Pharmacy is many stores under one roof. The stores include a small, full-service bank, espresso shop, full-service deli, a food court with pizza, Chinese kitchens, and a ! - comfortable eating area, florist, garden shop, pharmacy, video shop, and scratch bakery, as well as typically-sized grocery store. This format allows the customer to meet many of their day-to-day j needs in one place. This reduces traffic and pollution, and saves time for customers. i We are good neighbors. We believe that when we locate a store in a community, we are part of that community. We are always actively involved in community service and charitable programs and have been recognized for our contributions with two Presidential Citations (e.g., Flag Awards) and our selection as the 1995 Washington Family Business of the Year, in the large business category. f . The conceptual design of this store reflects our commitment to being a good neighbor. We are providing ample screening, bemung, and landscaping. The stormwater detention pond has been located in the southeast comer of the site to further buffer our residential neighbors in that area from the store. A sound wall screens the loading dock, and we have oriented the building towards the street intersection and not neighboring properties. During site development review, we expect that the site will be reviewed in greater detail to ensure its compatibility with the surroundings. = Approval of the rezone will result in a net reduction in traffic throughout Tigard. The traffic analysis of this project concludes that commercial use of this site versus multi-family use will result in an overall reduction in vehicle miles travelled of 65%. With the completion of this project, all affected roadways will remain within City level-of-service standards. i i•J i k I i ~J Planning Commissioners -4- January 9, 1996 Conclusion We believe you will find our grocery store to be an asset to your community; a place where people have their day-to-day needs met conveniently. Our proposal meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and will benefit Tigard's residents. I look forward to meeting with you at the ! January 23 hearing. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, i. v onald E. Ha 4enV V 88 Chairman/CEO HTORM010396ML - I J U i - i r :4_ i r - Iy P-P-d EIaggon Food & Pharmacy Tigard, Oregon _ I ti • 4 A ~G9r 3. . 3~I ;'~r T R~~ T'K ~ ~ S. Wp. C .3:5 "Sy~t~::h y,~ ?r, i~ F 7•. J ,1„_~ { A. ~ y 7 ~,~n ~.y.. 9'~ F 1 _ Ir S ai _AVF \ F c f'I •~y' % e o .a 1. D V 9 9 S.W. 130TH. AVENUE 1 10 CONGEPTUAL SITE PLAN c 1 ~~~g HAOOEN FOOD 5 PHARMACY S r' y ,K A ° OREGON ___-j i 1(` J c TIOARD - r 1 Noma ■ ~5g1 5 ;r x d t~ S. ~ 5- 4 ti. a J. a r } i r 4 L - I ',Yf 1,1 y T pplilllli!!!II ..v o >ti m CV.~iW. rR-:ir.r„ 1 1 f 1 ~ Yt r,4 a ~ . ~ « s •'T1 - `Ara . . w- ~ 4 Y L( . rt.µ ! lpv ~r., q.. 0 MAL, a l A 11,1116 gay -J-:Z -41 14 I"k 'A' 41U C i I I b .a k to i A t ~ , lisp- d. I~ 4 rte: z 1 milli C} r _r. ARM a r iY 1 4€. II .I I'\\~ x,~J ~n ,F ; Iz,4 it f' Y 1 i x` 55 , ,e~~t t r i ~a ll _a L C $ _ nJ eS Sin -ik rf 1 r I j I a a IL ry 7a i i t l I i iiiiiiiiiiiiijillililiilli 1. 11 A `i , ti e f' ~ *r / f r., tai i 1 r y, a s i lid. w e~~a .~i!lTI`l~J•'.Xdl~i is3l.'xi t r 9 ~ e r . r. i ~ vy r l B+ I ~ J J J 4W 8 z `s r • p ~ t i ,M Y E 1~r . HS •,4 1- t I i to ~ AA ..t- Jr,. j ~ r s i t .00 1 IT I ol~ \ ` - ''(F l'yr 1 r'/ t ,rte .rte'' ` ~ t f ~ _`i Z-~..'ir ~hr r~ rt~r YF/"1 rM ~C~{ ~~~I _ r %./{~~,r(~ ',r'r' t::' ~ /~r r I.'Y- ! ,fig ` y... r~ MwAqm 4 a HAGGEN FOOD AND PHARMACY { n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST ANALYSIS OF CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I No adverse effect on health, saferv, and welfare 1. Not one substantive issue related to environmental impact, traffic congestion, or neighborhood compatibility has been raised by staff, other commenting agencies I or in testimony before the Planning Commission. Evidence of change in Neighborhood or Community I I . 1. There has been a major increase in population within the market area, creating an unmet demand for additional grocery stores in the area. The population increased 44% between 1979 and 1989 and an additional 14% between 1989 and 1994. This increase in population will result in a net deficit of grocery store space of 101,932 square feet by 1997. (See the attached aerial photos which show the area's change between 1984 and 1994.) 2. There are no longer any appropriately zoned parcels in Tigard or Beaverton to build the needed grocery store. The largest C-G parcel in either city is 4.4 acres. i 3. A complete change in area road network has occurred, including: Scholls Ferry Road from 2 to 5 lanes -Murray Boulevard from 2 to 5 lanes -Walnut Street extended from 135th to New Scholls Ferry Road -SW 135th Avenue improved to collector standards 4. The TPR has been adopted. In compliance with this rule, the project provides a 65`Yo reduction in traffic relative to buildout of the existing zoning. • I i Mistake or inconsistency in Comprehensive Plan i 1. The forecasted population of Tigard for the year 2000 assumed by the I Comprehensive Plan was in reality reached in 1994. More current year 2000 projections forecast a City population that is 24% higher than the Comprehensive Plan year 2000 projection. This is clear evidence of a mistake. Since the City is now beyond its original planning horizon, the City should plan for additional commercial services as demanded by the unanticipated growth. i n Consistency with Locational Criteria and Plan Policies ~ i 1. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposal and finds it was consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies. j 1 2. Staff agrees that the proposal conforms with nine out of ten locational criteria. The remaining criterion states that the commercial area should not be surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. However, the only existing residential area next to the site is kitty-comer to the southeast. When developed, the entire site will be surrounded by streets and will not share a common lot line with residential land. There are four existing ! locations in the City where general commercial development is surrounded on more than two sides by residential, unless streets are considered. The proposed j . rezone is consistent with zoning patterns throughout the City. y 3. Staff agrees that the proposal complies with all policies except 5.4, which states that commercial areas shall not encroach into residential areas. In fact, the City maps established residential areas, as called for by policy 6.3.1. The subject area is not within an established residential area and is separated i from any existing residences. The site is located on a major designated transportation corridor. - i 1 J i - a ANALYSIS 1. Standard of Review ` f l _ Tigard Municipal Code 18.22.040 outlines the standards for approving quasi-judicial amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. TMC 18.22.040 states: A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: t 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation and; the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community; 4 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances; 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) J This proposal meets all the above criteria for the reasons discussed below. 2. No adverse effect on health, safety, and welfare of the community There is no evidence of any problem chat will be caused by the proposed project. The staff report raises no concerns about this proposal adversely affecting the health, safety, J and welfare of the community. There were no negative comments from other agencies. There was no testimony at the Planning Commission from residents expressing concerns about the project. In fact, every resident who appeared before the Planning Commission testified that the project was good for the community. With the development of this proposal, there will still be adequate road capacity and level of service on affected roadways. The site is at the intersection of a major arterial and a collector. There is no existing residential development immediately adjacent to the store. There is ample area on the site plan for landscape berms and buffers, j . stormwater detention, and biofiltration. In fact, this proposal will improve the public i 3 a 1 i n welfare. The market study included as part of the record demonstrates additional consumer demand for a grocery store in this area. This proposal will provide an easily i accessible grocery store, in cum reducing overall vehicular travel, congestion and air i pollution. 3. Evidence of Change in the Neighborhood or Community j In conformance with criteria 4 of 18.22.040, there have been five significant changes in the neighborhood and community that justify this rezone: a. a significant increase in population in the immediate area and commensurate increase in demand for retail services such as groceries and related items; b. General Commercial land has been consumed to the point that there are t" no longer adequate sites in Tigard to build a grocery store which meets consumer demand; C. the widening of and improvements to surrounding roadways and intersections; d. and the adoption of the Transportation Planning Rule calling for the reduction of vehicle miles travelled Citywide. Increase in residential population The population within the market area of the proposed grocery store has increased significantly in the years since the plan was adopted in 1983 and this property was annexed in 1987. It is expected to continue doing so, creating additional demand for commercial services. Census tract data within the project's market area shows that the population increased from 64,346 to 92,656 (44% increase) between 1979 and 1989 and :J from 92,656 to an estimated 105,663 (14% increase) from 1989 to 1994. Projections- are that the population will continue to increase in the coming years, with a projected j 125,877 by 1999, resulting in an additional population increase of 19%. f i r This rate of increase in population was never anticipated by the Tigard Comprehensive ! J Plan. The anticipated year 2000 Tigard population projected by the Comprehensive Plan was actually reached in 1994. The City has passed beyond the Comprehensive Plan's planning horizon, therefore making re-evaluation of the zoning appropriate. See 4., Mistake or Inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, below, for further discussion of this issue. J The rise in population, in addition to other factors, has increased the demand for grocery shopping opportunities. The Leland Market Study shows Ohat even with the development of the proposed new Albertson's and Safeway stores, were will be an unmet demand of 101,932 square feet of grocery store space in 1997. Additional grocery stores will be necessary to meet this demand. i~ 4 1 .A 1 , Increase in population has been found to be an acceptable physical change in the neighborhood to fulfil criteria 4 in past rezones (Finding One, Staff Report CPA 89- 08/ZC 89-08). Consumption of available commercial land i i 1 There are simply no appropriately zoned parcels in Tigard or Beaverton to build a grocery ! store to meet the needs of the additional residents. Over the past years, available ` j commercial sites throughout Tigard and Beaverton have been developed for various commercial uses in response to the demands of the market. As a result, there has been a significant reduction in the amount of land available for meeting the current market demand for grocery stores within this trade area. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan anticipates this problem. A vacant land survey completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan found that the amount of vacant General Commercial land in Tigard decreased from 140 acres to 59 acres between 1981 and 1989. Based on this survey the Comprehensive Plan states: "In summary, the lack or diminishing supply of land available for general commercial and industrial development is one of the core problems facing City economic development." (p. I-144) The Plan also further evaluates the quality of the available sites and states: J "These tables show that Tigard's inventory of vacant commercial and industrial land is composed of a multitude of small parcels and that comparatively few unconstrained, larger sites remain for future expansion and growth." Since the time of the Comprehensive Plan finding this lack of commercial land has become much worse. The total amount of vacant general commercial land in Tigard has gone from 59 acres in 1989 to 20 acres currently. The largest of these sites is 4.41 acres, which is too small to contain a contemporary grocery store as demanded by the current marketplace. The amount of vacant general commercial in Beaverton is even less than in Tigard - only 6 acres are available, with the largest site being 3.45 acres. Rezoning of a larger site such as is proposed is necessary to respond to the increased retail needs of residents within the trade area. Widenine of surrounding roadways Significant improvements to surrounding arterial roads have been made in recent years, making commercial zoning in this location more appropriate. Major improvements include: ~J 5 j f l , * Scholls Ferry Road widened from 2 lanes to 5 lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks (1991-92). 1 * Murray Boulevard from 2 lanes to 5 lanes. j* SW 135th Avenue widened from 2 lanes to 2-3 lane collector (as residential development occurred over the recent years). * Walnut Street extension from 135th to New Scholls Ferry Road (1994). These improvements all occurred since the last update of the Comprehensive Plan and since the site was annexed into the City. The improvements allow much greater accessibility to the site from its potential market area than previously available. Prior to these improvements, the realistic trade area for this project would have been smaller since it would have been much more difficult for d . potential customers to reach the site. Improvement of both SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Ave. have made this site in particular appropriate for a grocery store, since grocery stores are generally most effective when located by two arterials, which allows for better access by customers. These improvements have also allowed residential growth to occur in the immediate area, resulting in a strong demand by residents close to the site for everyday goods and services, such as groceries. The potential impacts to surrounding roadways by development of this site as a grocery store have also been greatly reduced by these improvements. The Traffic Analysis submitted with the application showed that with the proposed grocery store at this location, levels of service on surrounding roads will remain above City standards. Washington County has approved an access plan for the project finding "that the development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road." This project would likely not have met City roadway level of service standards if it had ` been proposed prior to the road improvements being constructed. A 1989 rezone f proposal from multifamily residential to commercial on the site immediately to the west j of the proposal was denied solely based on roadway capacity issues. The staff report of that proposal stated: "Much uncertainty surrounds the issue of long-term impacts caused by traffic because the much-discussed transportation improvements [i.e. to Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue] are still uncertain. It may be that once these and other area-wide improvements have been completed and SW Scholls Ferry Road to the east of the site has been widened, then any impacts caused by this proposal and subsequent development will negligibly affect the area." 6 • j } j These improvements have now taken place, and the traffic analysis demonstrates that r with these improvements the traffic impacts of the proposed commercial development on the area will in fact be negligible. Adoption of Transportation Plannine Rule The State has adopted the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR requires that cities and counties amend their comprehensive plans to more efficiently manage local transportation systems. The TPR mandates site design standards, evaluation of transportation system capacity and long-range plans to reduce the number of per-capita vehicles-miles traveled (VMT) on the local street system. Until Tigard prepares its comprehensive plan update to address TPR requirements, the City must review planning and zoning proposals based upon the applicable state law, OAR 660-12-060. As shown by the Kittelson & Associates traffic analysis, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is in conformance with the TPR; the proposed grocery and pharmacy use of the subject property, as compared to development of 180 apartments (development under existing zoning), will result in a 65% reduction in VMT. Providing neighborhood services (such as grocery stores) in closer proximity to residents meets the directives of the TPR. No reclassification of affected streets is required. I. There are five clear changes in the community or neighborhood which justify this rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The significant amount of new residential _ development, the widening of and improvements to area roads, and the development of available commercially zoned properties all qualify as changes in "physical circumstance". j - i 4. Mistake or Inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map i , City growth rate assumptions have proven incorrect. i ~ E City growth rate assumptions within the Comprehensive Plan have proven incorrect. The rate of growth anticipated by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been greatly exceeded by the actual growth rate. Page I-186 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the population of Tigard was anticipated to be 33,400 by the year 2000. In fact, this J population was reached nearly two years ago, in 1994. The current forecasted population for Tigard for the year 2000 is 41,546. This is a difference of 24`Yo. Clearly, this significant of a difference is a mistake. Growth has happened much more quickly than was ever anticipated when the Plan was first created. In terms of population, the City is now past its original planning horizon. Any assumptions made J at the creation of the plan about necessary quantity of commercially zoned land to serve the projected population are now outdated. This means it is even more appropriate for the City to take action to modify the Plan to provide needed services for this truly unplanned growth. 7 # Imbalance between developable commercial and residential land. There is an imbalance in the amount of available commercial land versus the amount of available residential land in Tigard. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the provision of economic opportunities and adequate commercial land within Tigard (Policy 5.1 and page I-144) The Comprehensive Plan also calls for a diversity of housing opportunities (Policy 6.1.1). As discussed in the staff report, the City is able to achieve Policy 6.1.1, based on conformance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which calls for an average i City-wide density of 10 dwelling units per acre. This density is achieved even if this proposal is approved. The discussion above, however, clearly demonstrates that the City does not have adequate general commercial space. Therefore, Policy 5.1 is no longer being achieved. ~ The loss in commercial land over time has resulted in an inconsistency in the k: Comprehensive Plan and in particular the zoning map. The City is adequately providing for housing while less than adequately providing for commercial and economic k opportunities. Approval of this proposal will allow the zoning map to become more consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies by increasing the amount of economic opportunity while still maintaining an adequate amount of housing opportunity. 5. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies and Locational Criteria A The Planning Commission found the proposal to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and locational criteria. The staff report finds that the proposal does not conform to two of the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies: 5.4 and 12.2.1.2.B.(1)(a). However, the staff report finds that this proposal meets all other Comprehensive Plan policies and nine out of the ten locational criteria. 12.2.1.2.B.(1)(a), more specific than 5.4, is one of ten general commercial locational criteria. Policy 5.4 is a general policy dealing with all commercial uses and their location relative to residential areas. Policy 12.2.1.2.15.(1)(a): J The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. I. In reality, the City has many locations where general commercial development is - surrounded on three or four sides by residential districts, as shown on the attached maps: J * Highway 99 and SW Durham Road * Highway 99 and Bull Mountain Road * SW Hall Blvd. and SW Oak St. * SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 121st Avenue. J • k: J ti r ~ 1 ~ ti l 2b ,a rot, I -41 aTfIl i i ul ~ FIGt1R~ ~ t ` "\V 99w/ DURHAM ROAD GENERAL COMMERCIAL i RESIDENTIAL J I ~ j ~ ~ t,~'~, r' r~ { x•171 i^ ` j ~ ~'"ma'r`^~ : ,`~~h~-~`~ ~ ~.J' may:; ~ _ • I I •'~c.~ - - v Eb iC~~-~ I I I I i••i! ! ' .iEY I IS~I I I . I-1-- I ~ I--- 'T p~I~ I~ ! I I I i i - ' R-4-5 PD L R-1 C I I I r H-L y l I~ w l I ~ - y EN L/ CT 7 Q 112 Sr N I I (PD) jPEY - o R-25 I I I I E / , I„~ lCE'J i 7-T-77-1, ITfTI AGE. ai~3 LIP ~ti -d ,~~t~.\\: u~~ RrJ ~~~0 l FIGURE 2: HWY 99W/ BULL MTN. RD. ~c GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~Q •t I ❑ RESIDENTIAL i J fTtTi 7 ~ V / \A E u D Si 121 ~ NE _ cT i I METZGER c-n }r R=1~L~~ T ARM 5 ! / L 'r' 'J ® ST R-1 6 H~ neat FCFac ETEF1 ? T G ER pp~ _U = sr e T E E~NTA I~ S ST CV Hill~ - 51:1 ~7~- IR-25 C-P R71 ::RI 12I \ „ L ;71 '1 T _ ; r v`.✓ yi, _ FIGURE 3: ~3 3E Rte, \ S.W. OAK GENERAL COMMERCIAL BD ' , _~i~~!yv°..:~!\\. =:f ❑ RESIDENTIAL i 1 i i L A S G 1 t J I k CH 1 K E ^ ',yI i ~ gClpg ~ , A 1 J 66~~ RO R C SC 5 ~ L~ 0a0 !.t _ 6~ Yty t ~ m _ t N _ ucpT~ • •a•' ~ ~+'4.+'+°-t'~ ~,"3 'ni'•~~,k:t~t_ s'Y y r 12G~ 1 , its s'r~ ` •-jr~,~A.~ yy..~. MARY ',tg.,'_=',•gl• W°°~ sc"0 ScH01.1-5 ~E w. 4 to S T S 21 s .NN L S' C _ NERAL r S IOM CIA- SO y 4 REENT 1 i 3 In practice, it is nearly impossible to not surround commercial land with residential j zoning unless all commercial uses are surrounded by industrial properties. 1 It appears from examination of the location of existing commercial zoning in Tigard that i the intent of this criteria is that it be applied to situations where commercial + development and residentially zoned land would share a common lot line, but not where they are separated by a street. In this light the City's designation of the commercial areas mentioned above makes sense, because they are generally separated from residential areas by streets. Streets act as an effective buffer and separation between the two uses. This proposal, when constructed, will be surrounded on all four sides with streets (SW l Scholls Ferry Road, SW Hawk's Beard Street, SW 135th Avenue, and the private drive on the east edge of the property). Across those streets to the south, west, and east lie undeveloped residential properties. To the north across SW Scholls Ferry Road is a a developed residential subdivision, enclosed by a ten foot soundwall. The streets, as well j as the landscaping and screening provided with the development, will provide an adequate buffer to adjacent residences. The staff report identifies no adverse impacts to residential properties from the proposed development which cannot be adequately mitigated. There was no testimony at the public hearing before the Planning Commission from residents of any concerns about the compatibility of the project and the surrounding area. j I In addition, the Comprehensive Plan states, y "It is intended that these locationai criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance of the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan should vary with ! the degree of change and impact on the community: the more drastic the change and the greater the impact, the more strictly the criteria should be construed." The locational criteria are to be applied with flexibility, allowing room for interpretation. In light of existing zoning patterns throughout Tigard, there are ample grounds for finding this proposal in compliance with the locational criteria. Policy 5.4: The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have - not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. IJ 9 i _ F J The City of Tigard has recently approved commercial rezones of properties which were P') in residential areas (for example, CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14, a rezone of 12 acres from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial surrounded by residentially zoned land). Clearly, the City does not strictly interpret this policy to mean that "residential areas" include all residentially zoned lands. t { A "residential area" is more appropriately considered to be an "established residential i area" as defined by policy 6.3.1. "Established residential areas" are those areas of existing residential development mapped by the City as being particularly important to protect from more intense uses. The subject property is not within a mapped "established residential area". The only nearby residences are located "kitty-comer" to the southeast of the site across S.W. Hawk's Beard Street. Properties across surrounding streets to the . east, south, and west are vacant. Residences to the north, in Beaverton, are across a five land roadway and protected by a concrete acoustical wall. The property will be surrounded by roads (three public, one private drive). Due to the site's separation from i residentially developed areas, and exclusion from designated "established residential areas", this proposal is in conformance with this policy. j Land use compatibility between the proposed commercial development and nearby residential areas will be maintained with proper use of landscaping, building and driveway orientation and other site design methods. The applicant has submitted a proposed site ' design which accomplishes this and is willing to condition rezone approval upon the i proposed site plan. t Based on this analysis, this proposal satisfies all Comprehensive Plan policies. I 6. Application of Development Conditions i - TMC 18.22.040 states in part that the Planning Commission shall make "a recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions [emphasis f added] or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment...". i - The staff report raises concerns that approving General Commercial on this site could result in any of the uses allowed by the zone. The applicant is willing to be subject to the following conditions, based on TMC 18.22.040, to address this concern: 1. The site plan shall be constructed as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, subject to modifications approved through the site development and building permit review process. 10 j t I J r Ii 1 _ A , 2. Use of the site shall be limited to a supermarket and accessory uses (including but not limited to a small full-service bank, espresso shop, full- service deli, garden shop, pharmacy, and video shop) intended to serve the needs of local residents. 7. Conclusion The proposal meets all of the appropriate criteria for approval. It conforms to all i applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. It will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. There is a variety of evidence that a change in the neighborhood or community has occurred. There is an inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation should be followed and this proposal should be approved. Y:\wP\BSL\SCHFND5.BSL - i o C i { i II .01 fht`~-i.~sJ1'` ,`C~~ i j/~' ~~,~'~11.' ,.~~_i .l r ~i I aid - at two` t i .r `•f ° Lir' „r. f .!t';{~~t'''j,/ (,'yIf}, '4{ In, jr-f 3:.^ tom,. I d`•' 7s 41 . ~t-, Ags. lw r' ~{d~y, >v . :air R!► •i3• VtVr i 71. Sa.. '{'J~7~~ T~~7."'.]~ '•4iY'. -I ~ d7; 1 r ~y ~ ~3~?. ~ ^ ~:l ~j: y'S{ • rYp ~ 'L r..rJ•il.o ~ r~ ---_""~M ~ .:,G I a Jr. Jf- , tlk~ j' ~a r h ~ *"~~~a• J ' t.r~s~• ~,g'~ tidy a ~ ,,~y ~1~'F'.~~4lt .p .e.• _ WIN,~j~ ~..7 ° _ ~l.~~yj~4'; ~ ' ~>•f l~4-c^r~~lt~{'''.r. ' ~w-:1 ,h'%'A ` ~,,3j~•,!`a,rt~.X ~s,x :.t• - 111 7~ > tell v t af.;:i~ ~r ~ ~'It ~ ~wlr''~ .•f_,y~~~`~` yFi~. ti _ ~.~.Pf'• r•. ~ ti >~3 'I► 'gyp ~ - gf , i 4 ~ • \ 4 rr- ~ r..t_.;e! a `1~,y rear • r ;;..r' i~F] ~ ' r ~ F`h~, R Y ~ ~'r,, r~ •:a~';(?`s`~ ~ if ' t i fro • n,.,-7~~'~,~-`•d :~~~.'~a^~^.' r~t'.A" r'.•jy i @r `~,Af t'; ~ FI - '-J ;'x P' .'+r. n'rt~ ; , •ir ~st. t .s*?~L„ ~ tt ~ ~:Y ,n,y ~"{'r 1 ~J f t'n •Y,{•r, f i;',y. ~ i. f •}~'t , a.••~! ~ ~ i • ~ ~rXf "1:14' , r r~~ ! j ``f ~,~IJfH~ I ♦T' ~,.5 j~ Y• 6 1 ti Sri V .J J d'.::~J' NYI y.. ;i~ajl.r ~~X. I ~ i •~ro~~:•Ii i...r~•~~" - ".:/.f~ - !~u S 6 r v.. ? ~ _ rr`'l~•i ~ r✓y' $..~c," j" _ .~i~i~~~d~ ,4~ v. t { Jt-, _ - s ~'7M1n..~ j•Z ' Y' rc U"k, 't A%yyt .•W3'u9^S'~a-'" .~'~":7r•~..u y'.,^` •'b. ~~~~~~~~~;"}•1 r.`.~:"~t:'~. ~r ~b~..~1' ~ " •3' i~`.r ~ :@" I = ' ~ ~ t - y~ ~~~p~:~ ~=7~• ^ ~r~,~~1~-fit '~~Z•- ,.`1~.'~ ~ ~3~i^,F:'Rti~~ '2L'..1+~~ ~~•=•r~l y~~~iiyT i~'~!'r~:.'cAr , S~ ! mot. ~'"i•3.'~4•LS. Lc f/.c'~ ~^•r ~`..*IS' y.l .f tr•-7~-{1•i "...nl. yrl'~,1'i.,. ~ :,~}i~rfr:~ .11'A4JyJ: G ~.f s ` lF- l {+r}3y~~~~~_ tl l r R~ \`~0' trrd i'r.' 1:: j ~tl..E.:..'L'4E., t7R:-3T7.+YTS'.r• ..'+wY 9 Y •v~< t R tb" ,+,av, ti~- 0 f / . Y.t•t}. f.-••u .~r+R•it s`e4 4 ski r+'"...,. ` , ' ` ..t~.r~e `fir :'t:•~ • ,q ~ wl' i is L i / :,,~y~ ~n •+a''?°~'. ~ ~ r ~w ~ r f fto F ` S{c• , L 'Z" N Y r1s• _~~rcc_~1-•{r~L ~~lf wrrr s~'eaK l•± f ~.y*`~-~ 111 ,"yl y, +`I t 7C¢I'_:k i 1LL. e `Vi'a g t r ;,.Te i y J` `I7(^C`+"1 vu';^ kw hn'. ~ - ~ ~ ~.,T`~~ !~"`Z}'a ti o. t•,~`'`,1..~2s~•'' ".~~r' ~ a` y~~1l-t•1[ , -,~tS~ = : jI• • a , a~~~ n • 'i"~- L` f ~4rtXp~ .y ~ rfi{y°C, ~ ''w. t~, `.`t `i ~ r 5`•rc ~ L ~ t% /t1.~.. ~~Zt„4 ~ ►1 f~7`m i ~ ~j f~i ~ `r ty,~ ' ro ~~k.►~-.}~~ 1 ~ ~h.q~~y.~"~^ ~ ~ '~!n~t,i l ^~.2 : ~ ~lr.^-5..~ aA-r+J~~~~1 k.. ~Y t _ S t~ ~ •~:.~s '7~ t.~D '~vKA.I irk 44, ~}~r~4 ~ ~q...~JL`•t'.,..,,~r c..'? ~ mil, ~ ~ '~•f~~ ! ~ ` tµ . ~ Sr ' ~ tam`-'• ' ~E-,~ ~ ~ +~rl' k, F ' ' ~ ..L~~t _ ~ { ;.~'~i; h; t=. R:P' + ',+tiy t ::er ' • L ,t V"~J` t • t~ may. t ~ 4'''~E 4• ~`cr ~ i ~ ` ~ •~F ~ ~ pop ~ '.tip . f2~° ':~C~y,".y_SS' J t l ~ 'r;~ 'y ~w , `'~4. 1 j~R~.[~►r~s. ~ i' .:L r!':t} - , .~ti3r' Er, ';~.i ti i:G d!` 'y_ }v.~.; ,~~;`~,i•1 ~y~~~=,.ti~c~ r• L°Y ~ , ` ~~r :lf. iii.?,`~ r.~}}~} ~"'~~j~ti„ ~er~ a`~1~.f~if' • ;~`W7R~1~• `~-t.f r X n• c•~i~ t'ry'. `t. i St•~ 5 _ '~.E~' i i r- - ~ l y ~ a ,s~ f~ i n~:._ 'uf .,wr w^. '.a, K ~ i{ j4. h~ ~ ~ ¢ rfi`ry;.,a~,~`vr:. ~ ycT -heti• y~ /-`i-r . d ,i,7, r ~y Physical Changes to the Transportation System + i 1983 2-lane roadway c - 1995 5-lane roadway r' t E h 1~~U s r~~ s YF.T~ F^ -:7 Y E9+`St1r _ 't t .hu3rn°:. 3 r -IA 1983 2-lane substandard roadway f 1995 --2 -3-lane roadway improved to • collector standards a aV= ~f {i;~ •d 1983 did not exist 1995 --Walnut extension to { z' Scholls Ferry in ipggq At fir: ® ® 0 ~ 0 S S ®.il rY e ~;4 RIMP I • C' U v v U U U 17, > n o 0 a ~ in i o t a x ~ sY > O`` 2 m O m0 m 40't m 12' 14' 12' VARIABLE DITCH TRAVEL TURN TRAVEL ~ VARIABLE SHOULDER I LANE LANE LANE SHOULDER/ DITCH a Z EAST VIEW CROSS-SECTION BEFORE h--r SCALE: 1 20' x o u m o o ' 100' o ti n 6' 6' 12' 12' 14' 12' 12' 5' LANDSCAPE/ ID TRAVEL TRAVEL TURN TRAVEL TRAVEL BIKE LANDSCAPE/ p = N UTILITY STRIP ALKBIKE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANES UTILITY STRIP _ LANE v ~ ~ Z Rj w o G7 m Z Z SOUNDWALL v y o EAST VIEW N m rn w CROSS-SECTION AFTER SCALE: I"= 20' n ti 0 NOTE: ADAPTED FROM SCHOLLS HIGHWAY WIDENING. m MURRAY BOULEVARD - FANNO CREEK BRIDGE, N p Z ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT, 1988 (FIGURE 2 Z APPENDIX F). LAST EDIT: JLM PLOT DATE 118196 _Jl - S 1 1 1 OVERSIZED DOCUMENTS f MEETING DATE: II Jq7 AGENDA I' r I` SEE 35M M ROLL FILM ~ 1 _ { i:\records\microflm\targets\osdocccm.doc i i ~llc~~ds 17 11 147 3 Comprehensive Plan Change Request S.W. Quadrant 135th & Scholls Ferry Road and S.E. Quadrant Scholls Ferry Road & Scholls Ferry Road City of Tigard--CPA 96-0009 Give name, address & reason for offering testimony. ( Traffic jam at 135th...cut through traffic on neighborhood streets... congestion on Scholls Ferry ...urban develop- ment and traffic from Bull Mountain area) j (By LID, my neighbors and 1 helped to build 135th street.) w: Hand out material Explain map-Attachment A-Note "compression". Walking Distance-Pleased be advised that I, a senior citizen, personally walk to the i shopping area located at 128th and Scholls Ferry (generally known as Howard's) at i least five times per week. ( I live on Brittany Drive near 135th Street.) Proposal, if adopted, would violate Tigard, Beaverton and Washington County Com- prehensive Transportation Plans.... Attachments B and C -Davies Road connection of (new) Scholls Ferry and (old) Scholls Ferry included in all three plans. s -Closure of present intersection at ("new" and "old") Scholls Ferry included in two of three of the plans (and inferred in the Tigard plan with the relocation.) -Note Beaverton Plan f -Note Tigard Plan ...(Ord. 91-13 still in effect per City Recorder.) -Outline conversations with Beaverton & County planners. This means, despite the site plan proposal, all traffic will be undoubtedly be accommo- dated bV 135th Street.... Attachment D -Proposed traffic study projections are, therefore, in error for the proposed development of this site. (Level D, "Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at intersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable.") This also means (with the Davies Road connection and closure of new Scholls Ferry) the site is no different than anV other residential development along Scholls Ferry Road. -Therefore, the assertion that this site is best suited for commercial purposes due to the impact of traffic is unfounded and inaccurate. (See pg. 6, Item 1, 1 staff report.) I L MIA 1 Deception--Were I the proponent and Council approved this proposal -I would feel deceived if I were later (during zone change or site development deliberations) { i precluded from using (new) Scholls Ferry for access to my businesses. -Residential development of the site would better "adjust" to a street closure and not damage business activity. -Lawsuit f ~ Approval of this proposal is the wrong way to amend affected transportation plans. -Any such change should be considered separately and in cooperation with I other affected local governmental agencies. i - I Overall traffic impacts of this proposed change are not being fully evaluated. 1 r Engineer Woolev's letter of April 26, 1991 is used as justification for the requested comprehensive plan change. I do not see. it as an endorsement. He is simply indicating that from a traffic standpoint, the proposed site would probably be l better than Scholls Ferry and North Dakota--primarily because of the contin- uing fuss (regarding traffic) generated by those who lived on North North Dako ta. This memorandum falls far short of an outright endorsement. He is simply { responding to a query He explains that given a choice between the two sites, I he would prefer 135th and Scholls Ferry. He assumes the Murray /Walnut _ - connection and undoubtedly anticipates the Davies Road connection. The proposed site is less than 1 /2 mile from other commercial sites (Attachment E) map, as contained in proposal). -Albertson's Murrayhill and Scholls Ferry as well as North Dakota are within 1/2 mile. Explain other cities as well as county measurement policies. p -Tigard Ordinance 18 08.010 (c)--Attachment E--"Where this title imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regula tions the most restricttive or that imposing the higher standard shall govern." Q -Note staff interpretation and policy vs. ordinance. -Ordinance 18.61.010 (A)--Community Commercial 4 -No measurement. -Note Planning memo, 1-22-97 "Non-retail commercial uses". (Words not included in applicable ord- nances.) (retail--the sale of goods to ultimate consumers, usually in small quantities--opposed to wholesale.) Mistakes -Page 6 of the Planners report maintains a mistake was made "Because the site is surrounded on one side by an arterial (SW Scholls Ferry Road) and a minor collec- tor (S.W. 135th) on the other side,This site is less suited for multi-family development because the purpose of both roads is to carry high volumes of vehicular traffic. In addi- tion, the shape and size of the site would make it difficult to buffer multi-family develop- i! ! F i =odd 'a i 9 1 ment from the roads." (It is clear, the relevant transportation plan(s) were not consid- n ered.) -Planning Commission Meeting, Member Query- "Regardless if the proposal meets criteria for this particular type of designation, you need to (1) prove that either a mistake was made or there has been a change in physical circumstances there is no question in that?" (The proponent agreed.) Next question: "If you can't meet one or the other of them, that's as far as we go............... Then later in the meeting: Question by planning Commission Member: "Did I just hear in your testimony here tonight that i there has been a change in physical circumstances because the city has adopted a i new zoning designation of community commercial and has designated this as one of two sites that fit that criteria?" (Mr. Robinson--"I think, in essence, yes. I think you could find it to work for physical circumstances or a mistake.") Questions: + How does development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Com- ensive Transportation Plan qualify as a mistake? -What is the specific difference (with the "new" Scholls Ferry Road closed and ending in a cul-de-sac with traffic re-routed to Davies Road) in this site zoned I - i for residential purposes and any other residential neighborhood along Scholls Ferry Road? ! +++++-Please identify the specific development /s construction and at what point in time can be identified as the threshold of an alleged mistake? -What does invention of the the new Comprehensive Plan designation, j (Community Commercial) under consideration have to do with a mistake? How does it become a physical change? ! When do you plan to amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan? I I: i j I i j i. , i N `Cn a` NOf iv kale `Nobs r s C reek- 1 - 1,2riYYany Gn i o 4 i rot 1 co orp9on Tan Apo ~ WAY ! L.. r f 1 S : .w,( r . ; / c r^`.-r. ~ ~ ° AEA.,- j f '0' r 1 l7 _ f> LF!5T - 'c I -S Q .f Q - ~ - U FO ~afaya0 f: + ix .ci•v~ , , -q~ A4 cm M PA. i aD. - . af8f!'L - fa' A3 4 •.aa a- ' { P~NIHa Y ROAD f s TH s, fai r~ `Ui my sio~ • a 1j K+'I .1, t ,.~v4~ I`io ,I _ NT ju ~1 E,l 'V Q N Y .p )jJ "c~':---• 4, A6 AEeEH ey Dim T '•~6 \ A6 12• K I r - - - W l «f X11 js .~.IO e,,~ Avrs C,`,.1 - i - i.t!~rr ]'t,bt A c,2 f 1 - i V `j• ro..:{ .~„r. k Ev v r« .a d m ~c I 'jgn a 1 „ A8, _ _ oEu.~ll tom ti P •v a ~.,m: ~ ~ i v :3 C3 HART ROAD al ,I E .Zw - C12 r t i 1 w G _ ~ ~ c 1. - _ _ h r. ~ J . . P f i y a}r q DAVIES 44 I~ w. ' :,'"'"1~ ~`.?df ar eDpOG -'i c.'~'~'.~a~ m~ ,'x°~,1/ N' / '•y`. ~ I »r OL E BERa I \ 41 ~ ti `Q'i7 N ~ ~ V /j7• V , C12/ ~~'~Y '•1.~ , / 4*Ue U i V., l"s+[ >'3 'fkfMHABr' _ I~ .~:c cY P9 ! a IU e 'NORA r. C1 BEPRO ° y a - •1< °~4 ° S v~ - 1 ~ ` tl_ ~ ~I~ O t r VIM ROAD PLATE ~__e PLATE 12 y Q i 1~: Aq c BLVD G FUNCTIONAL CL< TEAETEAI 16 C1 Fre - G ~ Pri, „ ems' LnJ - - My . i111 + stl U. Ro ~ is r - - _ _ _ -Y NEW Scale - CITY OE BEAVERTON, OREGON 1 a. WI -7 WE 13:31 F.AL 503 2:0 :390 ~Stoel Rives 1 ~obns~~ %/y7 X011 ~ P 04 T- 1 T-96 TMU 1 0 :.ZT 0 SITE PLAN / tI AND SCROLLS FERRY RD. SETA ~ ..rIRAOc-A AND COE PROREFtTiES ~ ~QpS7/ ~ I I I I J i , i &W. HAWS BEA A-=eVw- , COMMJNtY I a" ACF= 1 Ij 1 I 't I I 1 CPBV SPACE ; M= ACRES (I PLAN 7 1 -C i O ~ M 1 tOB7 { 375 731 . ~ 384 0 BO Fe<< 2q 254 01 70 25~ 1j 20 KJ74 994 325 3a7 376 N fit` l 1 y` SITE TRAFFIC D 2005 PM Peak Hour 1 ' 1STEREM6IKE" p x I ~ 0 O C) 1 70 ` ~ rar, f tLU ` ~Cf~t t .S• ~ y ~ t~ ~ 1 [ Il,ltti ' ~ ~'C 1 t j tt (f :f'~ t~ Will till ll C( t x " 111113. U~,~~1t 1 ' . 111 t41~t 1 1 } 1 ro - 1~ 1~1~' ' < `L t'1~~~ 111 p , ~ ~l ~ ~ lu ~ I tin 11~' y r!1`,~ Ci . 41, dy11.1 1 ,-~1111~,_1~~1.~. ill. ` ~~~,[1~< t Et~1111 1 5r',, 1 l1 i-A 1~1 ' Y11, i8 fi1 010 . TIGARD 'KNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.61 provide retail and :service opportunities I by at lead one half mile. The C-C: COMMUNI'T'Y COMMERCIAL, DIS'T'RIC'T'. deslenaLion of a site with this district should not create or contribute Lo a commercial strip development pattern. Sections: This district is intended to he located adjacent to several residential " 18.61.010 Purpose. neighborhoods. ideally at the 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval intersection of Lwo or more major Process. collector streets or at the interseciion 16.61.030 Permitted Uses. of an arterial and a collector street. 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (Sce 1'he district is to be applied in oniv one Chapter 18.130). auadranL of an intersecljon. The t 18.61.045 Special Limitations on intended service area of the disc ici is Uses. up to one and one half miles from a 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements. site. 18.61.055 Site and Building Design j Guidelines/Standards. Mic c:ommunitv commercial 18.61.060 Additional Requirements. deyclopment Shall be compatible with j surrounding uses as determined through 4 18.61.010 Purpose. the review and approval of a ~iie ~ ! Development plan. including ! A. The purpose of the C C conformance with the site and budding (Comm;unity Commercial) zonm, district design standards contained in this is to provide locations for convenience Section. contemporaneous with, find a shopping facilities that provide for the part of. the approval of it zone , hand( c rc!rular needs of residents of ncarb% to the community cornmercii:! residenLlal neleilbor'hoons. 11 is des ILI I)d,ion The site plan 0ppr0\?: mat intended that the community include conditions relating to site and commercial center he Ideally developed building development Lhrough conditions as a unit with adequate off-street of approval of a zone change for the parking for customers and employees. site or through the Site Development and with appropriate landscaping and Review process. Such considerations i scrcenine to insure compatibility with may include. but are not limited to. the surrounding residential access limitations, special setbacks. environment. Gross floor area in increased IendscapinQ or buffering. community commercial centers t)picaik limits on off-street parkin; spaces. and range from 30.000 to 100.000 Square special design considerations for feel. and Iona area ranges beNcen to pedestrian and bicyclist access. Nis 8 acres Chapter shall provide buildine anti site design guidelines and mandatory site Cornmumly commercial Cenicrs design standards intended to minimize jI arc intended to be separated from other site development impacts on 1 commercially zoned properties which surrounding residential neighborhoods E 18-3 I ) 4 SENT BY 8AL1 JANIK UP 2-11-974 59PM BALL JANIK LLP-+ 503 664 7297:# 1/ 5 1 BALL JANIK LLP 2111 /Q'f 11 Fc8 A T T O N N E V 6 n VrLI Old MAN PLAM 10 I .AEI omsy MAr+ Str&Er. Surd 1 IOD Pope m . OV¢GON 97204-3219 " TFIUWI x 503.2282525 i . FAC91m)1503-29510681 , L. TELECOPY TRANSMISSION FORM SENDTo: MayorNicoli DATL: 02/11/97 and Members of the Tigard City Council COMPANY: City of Tigard FROM: Stephen T. Janik u' CLIENTNo: } TE•Lmo" No: 684-7297 VERIFICATION No: OPERATOR: NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITI RD (INcwowc cover mw): COMMENTS I ORIGINAL WILL: BE SETTT BY MAIL BE•SENF BY FROM- OVERNIGHT COURIER BE SENT BY UESSENGFR v NOT BS Sink' _ s . CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS COMM UNTCATION MAY CONTAIN INFORMA"FION THAT IS PRTIRLEGFI) AND10R CONFIDENFIAI- IT IS INrENDRD - ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NEITHER THE INTENDO) RECIPIENT NOR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE RFSPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE DOCUMENT TO 711E INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MAY NOT READ, t - DISSEMINATE, L-JPY OR DISTRIBUTE THIS INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDTATELY. PLEASE CALL (503)-228-2525 IF THIS TRANSMITTAL IS INCOMPLETE OR UNREADABLE. I Ash- SSNrr BY:BALL. JA.NIK UP 2-11-97: 5:00PNI : BALL JANIK LLP- 503 684 7297.: 2/ 5 4 i BALL 3AN1K LLP A T T 0 a H R v s { ON; MA PLA 101 JUUn1WLGT MAN STFtMT; StArE 1100 - PuK1LAm.Ormi~ 97204-321. ~ - STEPKENT.JANIK .1.tur E503-22.&2r25. sjaflW?~bjIIPxum - I A,--. 03205.1058 February 11, 1997 j j VIA FACSIM LE (684-7297) Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 1312 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Shrader Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment (CPA-96-0(M) I Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: As you are aware, we represent Briar Development, which previously had applied I to the City for a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation of a portion of its property from R25 to commercial so as to construct a Hagen's food store. That request was approved by the Planning Commission and denied by the City Council. I had previously written to you on January 24, 1997, raising concerns about the apparently different treatment the Shrader comprehensive plan amendment was receiving from the City. Laurie Nicholson has sent you a staff memo dated February 3, 1997 which is intended to respond to my letter. Unfortunately, there are a number of significant errors in Ms. f Nicholson's letter that require a further reply. I ` 1. Ms. Nicholson contends that because our use would require General Commercial zoning and the Shsader use will require Community Commercial zoning, the { comprehensive plan changes for these two cases "have different comprehensive plan approval criteria." That is not correct. Our cage involved a comprehensive plan change. The Shradcr case ® - involves a comprehensive plan change. The City's approval criteria for a comprehensive plan change are the same in each of these cases and are the same, regardless of what subsequent zone change may or may not be applied for. Both of these cases involve comprehensive plan map amendments from R-25 to commercial. The approval criteria (as noted in Ms. Nicholson's February 3, 1997 report) are the same for both cases. There may be different approval criteria for 1 requesting one commercial ulne as compared to another, but none of that is before you in this case and none of that is relevant to this case. D12swvt {i Suf . Orm+xyv { , . 1 1Nlmin` , IXcT WwvmwD. C. 7]}i t r l~ SENT BY:BALL JAINIK L1P : 2-11-97 : 5:00M BALL JAN1K LLP- 803 684 7297:# 3/ 5 y - f t i BALL JANIK LLP Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 2 2. Ms. Nicholson contends that the loss of housing "was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment...:' That is not a correct statement. " Ms. Nicholson was not involved in any respect with the Briar Development case. The accurate reflection of the reasons for the City Council's decision in that case are set forth at pages 20-22 of the City Council Meeting Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 1996. The following is a complete summary of the only reasons given by council members for their vote to deny the plan change: • Councilor Hunt "said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density [residential] before the application was approved." Councilor Hunt "asked why they should . rczcnc high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density." j • Councilor Scheckla "concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the i density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to I be located somewhere else, which probably meant another rezone. This I site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and I. was close to schools." • Councilor Rohlf "concurred with the other councilor's comments." He i~ also stated that "he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning ! that land multi family." • Mayor Nicoli "said that his concerns were similar to those of the other councilors." The above represents the only reasons given by council members, and all of these comments focus on a concern over the loss of high density planned residential land. Ms. Nicholson is, therefore, incorrect when she states that the City Council found violations of four comprehensive plan policies, and that those were the reasons that the City Council denied the Briar Development comprehensive plan change. In fact, Ms. i Nicholson is referring to the staff report in the Briar Development case, which was written months before the City Council hearing, but which ended up becoming the findings which were ultimately adopted by the City Council. However, the genuine reason for the council's action is 3 set forth in the quotatiuns above from the Minutes. uvaum ~ - . 1 i 1 SENT BY:6.411. JAN1K LL? : 2-11-97 : 5:U1PM BALL JANIK LLP- 503 684 7297:: 4/ 5 D BALL JANIK ir.P a 1 Mayor Nicoll and Members of the Tigard City Council 1 February 11, 1997 Page 3 I i i f- 3. Ms. Nicholson contends that "thc study for the community commercial zone identifies only two sites as meeting all of the planning criteria for this zone; one of the sites identified was the Shrader site." This statement is not correct. The applicant's materials include, ` as Exhibit H, a copy of a map adopted by the City through Ordinance No. ORD 91-13. That reap shows possible Community Commercial sites as determined by the City Council, not as determined by the planning staff. There are 11 sites identified on that map, not 2 site.,, as stated in Ms. Nicholson's memorandum. 4. Ms. Nicholson contends that the applicant in this case has demonstrated j that Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2(2) has been satisfied. That policy requires, as a i 7i precondition for a comprehensive plan map amendment, a demonstration that either there was a i mistake in the original comprehensive plan map designation or that a subsequent physical change has taken plan. Ms. Nicholson now contends, as a basis for satisfying Policy 1.1.2(2), that the 1 "physical change" that has taken place is the "City's adoption of the community commercial zone." Her conclusion is wrong for two reasons. { a The adoption of a new zoning map category is simply not a "physical change" The Council cannot "interpret' the words, f _ "physical change' to achieve Ms. Nicholson's conclusion. Such an "interpretatiun' is clearly wrong, in that it is logically inconsistent with the words being interpreted and, accordingly, would be reversed by LUBA. b. The applicant has never tried to justify its comprehensive plan map amendment based upon the "physical change" offered by Ms. Nicholson. Ms. Nicholson is, in effect, trying to make the case for the applicant and to make a case that not even the applicant has i attempted to make. The applicant, at page 6 of its application, makes two arguments of physical change. First, the applicant argues that the "areas surrounding the site has developed many additional residential units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping," and second, the applicant argues that a physical change has occurred because "growth has occurred in the general area" These arguments are essentially the same. The argument that growth is a physical i change justifying a comprehensive plan amendment was rejected by the staff in Briar Development's case, was rejected by the staff in this case in its Staff Report dated November 14, { 1996, and was rejected by the Planning Commission in this case. If this position is now U incorrect, the Briar Development case warrants reconsideration to apply this new reasoning. i wzsisi oz 1 ti R l~ 0, SEAT BY:B.4LL JANIK LLP 2-11-97: 5:01PN : BALL JANIK UP- 503 684 7297: 5/ 5 j ~ BALL JANIK u_r ii Mayor Nicoli and 1 Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 4 i 6. The applicant has attempted to use the same justification that Briar i Development used for its comprehensive plan amendment, which was that substantial residential j growth was a physical change justifying a comprehensive plan change. That argument has been rejected by City Council and cannot be the basis for justifying the applicant's requested comprehensive plan change, if it was rejected in the Briar Development case. t 7_ Ms. Nicholson states that "buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the Shrader site than on the Hagen's site." The two sites have virtually the same configuration and are surrounded on two sides by a major road. In fact, the volume of tragic on the Hagen's site is 40% greater than the volume of traffic on the Shrader site. Buffering 401/o more traffic is of greater benefit for nearby residential uses. In i . addition, the Hagen's application involved leaving a substantial portion ofthc site in high density residential use, as further buffer to existing residences. _ In conclusion, we request that City Council either reconsider the Briar 1 Development denial or deny the requested comprehensive plan map amendment. This is the only result that would be consistent with the analysis and decision rendered by the City Council in Briar Development's comprehensive plan map amendment case. Any other result would consist of the inconsistent application by the City Council of the policies in its comprehensive plan. Thank you fbr your consideration. Very truly yours, Stephen T. Janik 1 j _ - I l STJ/chf ,t l I n _l 2 ORNENGI 2 000 i) FEBRU n 6 AICV 0 i t y p jfA`j , . s a O F i/ ME- m TARLOW JORDAN & SCHRADER 5285 SW Meadows #400. 598-7070 _ 730am 830 am (Next door to new construction on Meadows) E j I I HO T LS 00 OS:90 ZT/ZO ED XH Oifiv SS862 i HO T 11Z. CO ET:LI TT/ZO ZOC9 099 £9 XH OJAV 99862 i NO S 6S.Z0 29:9T IT/ZO EZOZSBZEOS E9 XH O.LRV CS862 j NO T ST,TO LZ:9T IT/ZO Co Yd OZ.nV L6862 NO C 6S.T0 06:ST TT/ZO E9 XH OSIIV S6862 HO Z LT.TO 9C:ST TT/ZO S6S68ZC88SOS C9 XH OJAV 66862 HO Z ZS,IO BE ST TT/ZO T9LSOLLI6S ED XH O,Lnv E6862 NO Z TZ.ZO C6:6T TT/ZO ED XH o7dly 8E862 NO C LZ.TO 66:CT TT/ZO 649E LSE COS E9 XH O,LIIV SC862 NO T ZI,TO 9£:ET TT/ZO CL96 6C9 COS E9 XH O,Lnv 6£862 NO C 8Z.TO LZ:CT TT/ZO L88Z66ZEOS E9 XH OZnV TC862 j NO Z 9T,TO OT:CT TT/ZO C9 YH OJAV 62862 I NO Z T£.TO 80:£T TT/ZO E9 XH Omv 82862 1 NO £ LS.ZO L6:ZT TT/ZO aI jeHoafl laagoH 6£08 9Z9 COS E9 XH Olnv SZ842 NO L LT.CO L6:OT TT/ZO 8L69 689 COS E9 XH O,Lnv OZ862 NO T EE, 00 TC:60 TT/ZO 9T9Z+6LZ+COS £0 XH OJAV 81862 NO Z LO.TO 9Z:60 TI/ZO £TSS MI6S E9 XH O,LnV Mk* NO T £6,00 09:90 TT/ZO £ZE69C9 C9 YH OJAV 6T862 NO Z 9C,T0 90:TZ OT/ZO E9 YH OJAV ZT862 NO E BOZO9T OT/ZO 98Z9 969 COS E9 XH oiav 90862 IlasaH SaOVd 'Z aDvsn aKI,L ZHVLS al NOI.IOaNNOO 'M NOI.LOaNNOO MOW #A.LOV I ~ J - I a2##S2#aY##tita8#8##22a2##222828i##8#iaai i k 222 XH .LHOdaH .L.NHKaoVNVK IJIAIIDV ass y ai#assxas#2ssx.xzi#xsaszxxaz#ssxiia##ss2ss f NO Z MOO 6S:LO ZT/ZO E608 ZS6 COS ED XS, 0986 NO T 56,00 LO:LT TT/ZO LECO699E0S ED X.L SS862 NO 5 SC,ZO 6S:9T TT/ZO 'oIII " 9Na I'IOOIN 980Z OZ9 COS E9 X.L 6S86s NO Z OO,TO TS:9T TT/ZO 8L69 689 COS ED X.L TS862 NO T CE,00 W 9T TT/ZO 8L69 689 COS CO X.L 86862 NO 6 CO,ZO W ST TT/ZO AKO 960S S68 COS ED X.L 96862 NO Z 65.00 6S:6I TT/ZO 629S 8LE COS E9 X.L 16862 NO S ES.ZO W 6l TT/ZO 6ILZ CCZ COS ED X.L 60862 NO 6 ZZ,ZO T6:6T TT/ZO 6TLZ EEZ COS E9 XL LE862 NO T Z6,00 60:6T TT/90 9909989909 £9 YZ 99862 NO Z MOO CE:CT IT/90 'oaI"oNa I'IOOIN 99OZ OZ9 COS ED XIL Zest* NO C T6,TO CO:CT TT/ZO MIAUS .IHOddnS 9996 Z69 COS C9 X.L LZ862 NO C OZ.TO ZS:TT TI/ZO COS 6LTLZS6COS E9 X.L 6Z862 NO ZT £T.BO TC:TT TT/ZO LNnH lflVd 6SL8OZ9 E9 XZ ZZ862 NO T 06,00 9C:OT TT/ZO ,LLOHHV HC OSSO S9£ 902 E9 XL 6T862 I NO E 9T,TO £T:60 TT/ZO STZS M COS T E9 X,L 91862 No Z 9T.TO LO:60 TT/ZO 6596 6E9 COS C9 X3, ST862 NO Z OZ, TO BOLT OT/ZO S6S68ZE88909 Co X.L 80862 NO 9 8Z,CO ZS:9T OT/ZO TZLS 8ZZ COS Co XS 80862 NO Z 99.00 6C:9T OT/ZO NKOV .LHn03 a.LV,LS COSS 986 COS E9 X.L L0862 LInSaH sasv'l'z 3D sn aw a LHVLS OI NOIZOHNNOO In NoI,LOHNN00 EGON #ASOV r 222zaasazxsaaasa#isa#as2:2#zzazsa:*##xxsa ~ xzz us#XLs.LHOd3HsJ,NHK3OVNVKsALI.IILOVata222 k ~ s#xss#sxzx#sa#a aass::xz2sassz i00O OHV9I,L d0 A.LIO LBZL 689 EOS$ 00:80 L8/ZT/ZO F -W /q7 -14 9 RECEIVED T. . PETRIE COMPANY JUL 0 2 1992 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE f COMMUntfY DEVELOPMENT (503) 246-7977 July 1992 ~ ( ~Ct✓ ; T0: The Tigard City Council FROM: Craig A. Petrie "^•e•' RE: Proposed Community Commercial :one f0 .L c7 LL Please include this in the record from your hearing on June 23, 1992. The timeirame for this letter is within the ten days the record is left open on matters which have been continued. Dear Tigard City Council, I appreciate the Council taking the time to consider the Community Commercial zone. As the urban growth boundary fills up during the next few years traffic, shopping, parks, planning, and overall general livability are really going to come to the surface as we all 'earn how to live with less space and with more - people. During the next twenty years over 1/2 a million people .I l will move to the Portland metropolitian area. How do we plan y and provide for everyones recreation, transportation, shopping and livability? i The answer lies in the hard decisions which must be made by our leaders now and during the next few years. The attitude of do nothing, stop everything, will only provide us the same mess that the greater Seattle area now has; for Seattle it is too late, for us it is not. But the answer lies in the leadership decisions made now and during the next few critical years. None i of the decisions you will make will satisfy all the people and there will always be a vocal minority claiming some decision is horrible and will ruin everything. The legacy (and livability) we all pass on to our children depends on tough decisions being made now. The Community Commercial zone is one of those tough decisions. Western Tigard and the land not in the City of Tigard but which naturally utilizes the Scholls Ferry Roads is beginning to explode in residential growth and in my opinion will fill up very rapidly. From the map I submitted on June 23 1992 the population based on existing, serviced, and zoned property could reach over 21,000 west of 135th. These people have to shop somewhere----they will either shop near to w ere ey ive get on our collector streets and arterials and just further contribute to the current traffic problem. 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY a PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 EXHIBIT 9 l r 1 ~j 1 Page Two weatern store in be l ity 9rOCerY will already 1 r the ood/commun_ the treffia u consider th and hborh {1 c'- As YO things full site nelg traffi the area these se ut n us . A wilt not --use live in Please think abo whicri is upo Tigard s PjeO the owth there by resident vide for soon. Co~nnaercial and gone Pro is coming Community orate which We know plan to yemaning 9ro and vth l the res^ni 1 i Sincerely yours } gym, A Petrie j Craig 1 - - i i Y t~ 01/21/97 TUE 14:28 FAX 509 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 X001 3 'E } STOEL RIVES LLP r ATTORNEYS - - STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FiFIH AVENUE, SUM 2300 . PORTLAND, OREGON 97104-1268 - ' T.1,phone (503) 114-3380 i _ - Fax (303) 120-2480 ' I Name: Fax No. Company/Orm: Office No. TO: Cathy Wheatley, 684-7297 City of Tigard 6394171 City Recorder Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 294-9194 f ' Client: 264W Matter: 1 DATE: January 21, 1997 No. Of Pages (including this cover) I 7 Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: First Class Mail Overnight Delivery I 'J Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please copy the attached and give to Laurie Nicholson. The original is being sent via i regular trail. I ; i ~ K PDX1A-50994,1 26409mo1 y; _01/21/97 TUE 14:26 FAX 502 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 Q002 E ' I STOEL RIVES LLP AT TORN t:VS FTANDARDINSURANCCCCNTER , 9.0 SW FIFTH AVENUE( SUnE 2300 PORTLAND, OREGON 97"04.1263 N-60312214-3330 F+s(50312'0-2430 , TODISIM221.3W5 , Ifltcin•L W4Vw.itnCl.COn1 January 21, 1997 jj 1 MICHAEL C. RO NSON - - Dicta Dial (503) 294.9194 email mcrobinson®stoet.com• VIA FACSVMLE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008, Requested Community Commercial ("CC") Comprehensive I! Plan Map Designation Ii Dear Laurie: This office represents the applicants. The purpose of this letter is to provide 1 additional information to the City Council about this application. Would you please see that this letter and the exhibits are distributed to the City Council prior to the public hearing on January 28, 1997? If the Community Development Department requires any additional j information, please call me and I will be happy to provide it to you. ' This application requests a comprehensive plan map amendment on 5.5 acres from the "Medium-High Density Residential" designation to the "Community Commercial" ("CC") designation. The request does not include the 3.0 acres on the site designated "Open Space" to the south of the 5.5 acres. (See Exhibit 1.) The staff report recommended approval of this application. The minor amendment to page 7 of the staff report that I received on January 17, 1997 does not change the recommendation but adds to the finding of how the application satisfies Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2 (the requirement that the application demonstrate a "physical change"). The Planning Commission voted unanimously on December 2, 1996 to j recommend approval of this application. I . • P=IA62901.1 999994006 Ik i 01/21/97 TUE 14:27 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 003 6 i STOEL RIVES I Ms. Laurie Nicholson i January 21, 1997 , Page 2 i 1. The primary justification for this comprehensive plan map amendment is that this site is one of two identified by the City in 1992 that satisfies all of the community commercial locational criteria. The City adopted the CC Plan map designation in 1992 after extensive work by the community, the Community Development Department staff, the Planning Commission and I the City Council. Part of the evidence that the City Council reviewed in adopting the new Plan designation was information from then Community Development Director Ed Murphy. I An August 26, 1992 memorandum from Mr. Murphy said that this site was one of two sites meeting all of the CC locational requirements, including that it not be within one-half (1/2) mile of other commercially designated sites. See Exhibit 2.) Additionally, an April 26, 1991 memorandum from then City Engineer Randy Wooley stated that this site is best situated to accommodate some traffic increase and that there is no near-by surrounding commercial zoning. (See Exhibit 3.) - In an April 14, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy to Pat Riley, then City Administrator, Mr. Murphy wrote: f even under a more stringent proposed standard, • * only the 135th/Scholls and the western-most Seholls/New Scholls intersections [are] realistic possibilities. for community commercial designation." (See Exhibit 4.) 4f The western part of the City has experienced extraordinary growth. Information obtained from the IMIc ropoiitan Service District ("Metro") shows that from 1980 to 1994, the j - - - number of residents increased from 8,513 to 17,341 within one mile of the site. During that 1 same period, households increased from 3,052 to 6,753 and dwelling units increased from 3,418 to 6,392. However, growth alone is not the main justification for approval of this application. The City Council determined in 1992 that there should be an intermediate commercial designation between the "Neighborhood Commercial" and the "General Commercial" j designations. The City adopted the CC designation to fulfill this purpose. This application requests establishment of that designation on one of only two sites identified by the City as appropriate for the designation. ~j Mr. Daniel J. Boyden, a competing commercial property owner, argues that this site is within one-half (1/2) mile of three different commercial sites. Mr. Boyden is wrong for f several reasons. First, the information before both the staff and the City Council shows that 1 ~ f PIWA-U901.1 99N9.OM6 1 1 01/21/97 TCB 14:28 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 10004 . STOEL RIVES i Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 i Page 3 I • i this site is not within one-half (1/2) mile of any other commercial site in the City.' All three commercial sites that Mr. Boyden refers to (the C-P designation at the southwest comer of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota; the C-N designation at the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry I and North Dakota; and the C-N designation at the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and Walnut Street) existed in 1992. Yet the Community Development staff identified this site as not being within one-half (1/2) mile of those sites. w Secondly, Mr. Hendryx, the Community Development Department Director, in a March 20, 1996 letter confirmed that this site is not within one-half (1/2) mile of either the C-P or C-N designations at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Notch Dakota. See Exhibit Finally, even if this site were within one-half mile of another commercial site, the i 1 Plan's introductory statement to the locational criteria for land uses states: "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals j which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable j criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." In other words, this locational criteria is intended to be "flexibly" interpreted so as to approve applications where the public interest is served and the proposal is capable of harmonious integration into the community. Both criteria for flexible interpretation are met by this application. The public interest is served by providing a neighborhood-scale shopping center that is compatible with the surrounding area. This site is within walking and bicycling distance of a large residential area unserved by any other commercial sites within a one-half (1/2) mile radius. Plan Polity 12.2.1(4) describes the CC designation as intended to have a "primary neighborhood orientation." It is to be located so as not "to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location." CC designated sites are to be designed to "avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development." The impact assessment for the CC designation requires "convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to a development site The City Council need not consider commercial sites within the City of Beaverton. w The problem with considering commercial sites outside of the City is that the City has no control over those sites and so its own policies could be frustrated by the actions of other F: cities. PDXIAa29o1.1 999990006 i 1 01/21/9? TUE 14:28 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0005 1 STOEL RIVES LAY ' r ! Ms. Laurie Nicholson ? January 21, 1997 Page 4 from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practicable." Further, the April 14, 1992 staff report to the City Council concerning the new CC designation stated: 1 "By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded mgjor collector 1 or arterial streets with their autos. It is hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practicable." (ee { April 14, 1992 Staff Report at 2.) ! 2. The City's residential needs will continue to be met after this application is approved ` Mr. Boyden, the owner of a competing shopping center, states that the City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial designations, citing the application by Haggen's Foods across the street from this site. This argument does not support a denial of this application for several reasons. First, Mr. Boyden has testified that this area requires more neighborhood commercial establishments. He told the City Council t on January 23, 1996 that "there was a need for more neighborhood commercial." See Exhibit 6.) While his application did not involve amending a residential plan map designation, it clearly shows that this part of Tigard requires some commercial designation. ! Secondly, the City Council did not deny the application by Haggen's Foods because of its impact on the City's residential density. In fact, the City expressly found that it would continue to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule in OAR Chapter 660, ! Division 7, even if the 9 acre site were designated "General Commercial". The City staff report found "under this proposal (by Haggen's Foods], then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied." (See Exhibit 7, Staff Report at 6.) Mr. Boyden also misses the point that each application for a Plan map amendment must be reviewed individually. Facts vary tremendously from one application to the next, such as the difference between the Haggen's Foods application and this application. Haggen's Foods requested the much more intensive "General Commercial" designation on a nine (9) acre site. This application requests approval of the neighborhood-scalc "CC" designation on a five and one-half (5.5) acre site. Additionally, a grocery store in the k Community Commercial zoning designation is limited to a maximum of 40,000 square feet. I YDx1A-29Dt.1 999".M i Moog {s 01/21/97 TUE 14:29 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0006 ' 1. 3 STOEL RIVES LLY j Ms. Laurie Nicholson j January 21, 1997 Page 5 The General commercial designation contains no such limitation and Haggen's Foods y proposed a 63,000 square foot store. Finally, the Community Development Department staff recommended denial of the i Haggen's Foods' application and the Planning Commission narrowly voted five (5) to four (4) to recommend its approval. In contrast, each level of City review has recommended approval of this application. There is nothing inconsistent about the City Council approving this application because the facts and the law are so different than the Haggen's Foods application. 3. The application does not have to include a zoning map amendment at this time. Mr. Boyden simply misreads the Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") by suggesting that a concurrent plan map and zoning map amendment is required. A concurrent plan map and zoning map amendment application would be self-defeating. ORS 227.178(3) applies approval criteria for a zoning map amendment in effect at the time j an application is made. Assuming that this application had included a zoning map j amendment application, the City would legally have to review the zoning map amendment for compliance with the eMstin comprehensive plan map designation--"Medium-High Density Residential". Therefore, it makes sense to precede a zoning map amendment with a I Plan map amendment. ` Secondly, approval of this application does not "tie the neighborhood's hands when the zone change comes in" as alleged by Mr. Boyden. The zoning map amendment must _ still be accompanied by a site review application in which the applicant must demonstrate compliance with stringent locational criteria. Unlike the Haggen's Foods application for the "General Commercial" designation, even if this application is approved, the community will r still have a public hearing opportunity to review the site plan. The City is not bound to approve the site plan if it does not meet the requirements of the Community Commercial zoning district. 4. The application meets Plan Policy 8.1.1 requiring a safe and i efficient transDOrtation system. I Mr. Boyden argues that the application' will result in lack of capacity at the Scholls Ferry intersections, will cause traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods and would J conflict with a "transit corridor" designation in Metro's Functional Plan. Both City and Washington County staff have reviewed the traffic study prepared by Lancaster Associates and submitted with this application. Those reviews concluded that, PDXIA-62901.1 9999AOM t r 1 i I 01/21/97 TUE 14:29 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 X1007 :a STOEL RIVES f Ms. Laurie Nicholson 1 January 21, 1997 Page 6 with appropriate improvements to the intersection to be made by the applicant, the Scholls Ferry Road intersection will continue to function at appropriate levels of service. Mr. Andy Back, Washington County Senior Planner, stated in his November 12, 1996 letter: I "However, with improvements, the [Scholls Ferry and SW 135th] intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report. As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the county to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060 [the Transportation Planning Rule]. Given this, we request the city of Tigard require the attached condition." ee Exhibit 8.) The applicants have stated that they accept the conditions recommended by - Washington County. Traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods is not an approval criteria. # however, even if it were, this application will not impact local streets. This site is bounded by Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. Residents of the neighborhoods can easily reach the site by using these streets. There is no reason for non-neighborhood traffic to use local streets when collector streets are so accessible. Further, Mr. Lancaster's traffic study 1 showed that sixty (60) percent of the trips to the site are already on the road and that this kind of commercial development will only add forty (40) percent new trips. { i Finally, Metro's Functional Plan is not applicable to this application. The Functional 1 i Plan does not become applicable to comprehensive plan map amendments until its effective J date, which is February 19, 1997. However, even if it were applicable now, there is nothing i inconsistent with the transit corridor designation about establishing a use which will encourage additional transit ridership. ' I 5. This application satisfies Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, by demonstrating a change since the site was designated medium-high density residential. The Planning Commission correctly found that since the City's adoption of the CC. designation in 1992 and the City's identification of the site as one of two appropriate sites, j that a physical change has occurred. The record also contains substantial evidence showing other reasons why the City can find a physical change. The original designation for this property occurred at annexation and was based only on the City's desire to establish a i PDXIAE2901.1 99999-0006 f~' 1jI I /1 01/21/97 TUE 14:10 FAX 509 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0008 C c- STOEL RIVES 1.LP a Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 7 i corresponding designation with that of Washington County. No other evidence or analysis accompanied that designation of the site. Also, the tremendous growth in this area since this site was first designated in 1983 shows that additional commercial opportunities are necessary. The City has previously followed this analysis in CPA 96-0003/ZON 96-0003 in approving a Plan map amendment request from "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density. Residential" at Hall and Sattler. f 6. Mr. Petrie's argument about lost housing potential is contrary to F j his earlier testimony. Mr. Craig Petrie submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on, December 2, 3 1996. The applicant had an opportunity to review it only shortly before that public hearing.' Mr. Petrie raised a number of issues which. the applicant reviewed with the Planning Commission. Chief among Mr. Petrie's arguments is that this site is needed for development of j housing. This is contrary to the position that he took before the City Council when he f commented on the Albertson's application for a CC designation. Mr. Petrie told the City Council in a July 2, 1992 letter about the limited shopping opportunities in west Tigard: i "These people have to shop somewhere-they will either shop near to where they live or get on our collector streets and arterials and just further contribute to the current traffic j problem." (See Exhibit 9.) 7. Response to issues raised by Mr. McAdams. Staff met with Mr. Gene McAdams on January 17, 1997 to discuss several issues raised by Mr. McAdams. The fast had to do with whether this site is located one-half (1/2) mile from other commercial designations. This issue has been addressed above. The second issue had to do with whether the site meets the Plan's locational criteria requiring that only one quadrant of an intersection may be designated commercial. I j discussed this matter with the Community Development Director Hendryx on January 17, 1997 and he concurred with the previous staff position that this criterion is met because there is no other commercial designation at this intersection. I t PDXIA•62901.] 999940006 t 1 01/21/97 TUE L4-31 FAX .503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0009 STOEL RIVES,.,, Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 8 For these reasons, the City Council should follow the recommendation of the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission and approve this application. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson ' MCR: ipc Enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. William Eric Gross (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (w/encls.) Mr. Dale Shrader 1 I ,l 4 t r PDXIA6MIA 999994006 - - t;' ` 01/21/97 TUE 14:31 FAX 509 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0010 . i EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Site.map Exhibit 2 August 26, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy i - Exhibit 3 April 26, 1991 memorandum from Randy Wooley Exhibit 4 April 14, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy f Exhibit 5 March 20, 1996 letter from James N.P. Hendryx Exhibit 6 January 23, 1996 City Council minutes Exhibit 7 Haggen's Foods staff report, page 6 Exhibit 8 November 12, 1996 letter from Andy Back Exhibit 9 July 2, 1992 letter from Craig Petrie .f PDXlns2sOl.1 v999saa06 10- 1/21/97 TUE 14:31 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 doll T- 1 7- 9 6 T H U 1 9 2 =7 O SrTE PLAN / 1 133"i R AND SCROLLS FERRY RD. RETAM. E a SHRADal AND COE PROPEFMES °-j S.W. HAWK'S BEAM • HIOf-I t „AL 1 TO , C'OKVAUWrf coMMERCM I ` 554 ACRES l Je t ' I i ~ j I arso~c i Cf'EN SPACE 302 ACRES, e. I O-S PLAN + ~u_, 01/21/97 TUE 14:92 FELT 503 220 2480 Stoel Ries 1 10012 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OP: September 8 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: August 26. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Comp Plan Amendmen PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from CPA 91-0005/Zone ordinance Amendmed J June 23, 1992 ZOA 91-0006 unit Commercial PREPARED BY: Jer, ffer Planner DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OK. REQUESTED BY: -Ed Murphy, CDD ISSUE BEFORE HE COUNCIL Should the C ty amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the-City amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION t Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. i INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to suggestions that the City should provide for a commercial r _ x mooning district that would provide a middle ground between the small-scale, ..."limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zone. The Planning Division has drafted the attached proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan designation and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C i; (Community Commercial) zoning district. In addition, related Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. Y The Council previously held a hearing on this proposal on June 23, 1992. Substantial community testimony was received with the primary issues i appearing to be the allowable sizes of grocery stores, the need for site design guidelines and/or standards to minimize the impacts of future developments in community commercial districts upon surrounding residential uses, and concerns about particular locations that were identified in a staff prepared map that illustrated locales that met some of the proposed locational criteria for this Plan designation. The Council directed staff to further research these issues, revise the proposal as necessary, and bring the proposal back to the Council at the September 8th meeting. Staff has made several modifications to the proposal previously before the Council. The most notable changes include: 1) requiring that community f ~ lommercial sites be located only where there is an average potential dwelling Iwinit density of eight units per acre (as determined by present zoning) within one half mile; 2) specifically noting in the Plan and Community Development Code that the City may limit the size of a community commercial site or place L~ j 1 G 01/21/97 TUE 14:32 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0013 conditions of approval on a plan Map amendment related to needed site improvements or business operating hours in order to minimize effects on surrounding residential uses; and 3) including special site design and building design guidelines and standards intended to guarantee a high quality, community friendly development. These revisions are highlighted on the attached pages. The surrounding area dwelling unit density standard should serve to significantly limit the number of potential community commercial sites and should provide a substantial nearby population base to support businesses within the development. (Exhibit C shows that only two sites within the city limits and two sites within the city's future urban growth area meet both the surroanding area dwelling unit density standard and the previously proposed intersection locational standard). It is hoped that the nearby residents will be able to walk or bicycle to the commercial center to do some of their shopping, thereby reducing dependence on their automobiles and a resultant reduction in traffic. The site and building I design guidelines and standards as well as the ability to limit site size or place conditions upon future development of a site will allow the City additional leverage in seeking to avoid negative effects upon residential uses surrounding a community commercial center. These provisions also will promote pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility and safety to and within the development. Staff has not been convinced by the proponents of either increasing or i decreasing the allowed size of grocery stores in this zone to change the -proposed maximum grocery store size of 40,000 square feet. Staff also did C..,Xot receive any direction on this issue from the Council at the June 23rd j meeting. Therefore, this issue remains for the Council to decide as a matter of community choice. Staff continues to recommend 40,000 square feet as a maximum grocery store size that should be large enough to provide for a wide selection of groceries and related services for surrounding neighborhoods, yet this size should be small enough to discourage the development of large grocery stores that may tend to attract shoppers from outside surrounding neighborhoods. The revised proposal has not been sent back to the Planning Commission or neighborhood organizations for comment. For this reason, and because of the grocery store size issue, the Council may want to further continue the review of this proposal for additional public comment. However, if this is done, staff strongly urges the Council to provide additional guidance on the grocery, store size issue and any other aspects of the current proposal at this meeting. _PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. 2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the October 20, 1992 meeting adopting the amendments to the Plan and Code with revisions related to scale of Community Commercial sites and/or maximum floor area for particular uses. 3. Deny the proposal. FISCa1. NOTES None applicable. I ( 01/21/97 T[TE 14:33 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 la 014 ~ k i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91- y 0005/ZOA 91-0006). { WHEREAS, the City of Tigazd finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to j improve the guidance of land usage and development in the City; and j. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission has initiated the proposed amendments and has held public hearings on the proposed amendmentE on March 2, 1992 and April 6, 1992 and has recommended approval of the amendments to the Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on June 23, 1992 and September 8, 1992 to consider the proposed amendments. E 1 THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Plan Policy 12.2.1, at 04 of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in -attached Exhibit A (new section shown ! in its entirety); i SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit B (new Chapter 18.61 shown in its entirety; amendments to existing sections of the Code shown with additions underlined and j deletions bracketed SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1992. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1992. Gerald R. Edwards, mayor Approved as to form: ~ i City Attorney Date } 1 ~o/OtdtC ir, F 1' ORDINANCE No. 92- •01/21/97 TUE 14:04 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rlves 1 0015 i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Division April 26, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Enginee SUBJECT: Proposed commercial zoning on Scholls Ferry Rd_ i Two requests for commercial zoning along Scholls Ferry Road are 1 currently under consideration a request for C-G zoning at 135th Avenue and a request for C-H zoning at North Dakota Street. In reviewing the Engineering Department comments on the two requests, it occurs to me that our responses may appear inconsistent. Although the two requests are similar, we took a neutral stance on the one but recommended denial for the other. This memo is t j intended to explain why we see the two sites differently. t~ In both locations, the only significant engineering, issue related to the zone change request appears to be the issue of increased ? traffic. Regarding traffic issues, we find the two locations to be different in the following respects: 7 1 1. In both locations, the primary vehicular access will be from Am= collecto ~ 19th the m Avenue or North Dakota Street. i i j SW 135th Avenue is better designed to accommodate some Seive rease in traffic. Few homes face directly onto 135th. king is prohibited along 135th and sight distance is good. We few complaints about 135th. North Dakota Street, on the other hand, has been the subject of many complaints about traffic volumes and speeds. Additional traffic islands are being installed to discourage through traffic on North Dakota. In addition to being a minor collector, it serves as a neighborhood street, with many homes fronting directly on 'North Dakota. Until a better long-term traffic solution is found for North Dakota, we feel that any potential traffic increases should be-discouraged. 2. On 135th, there is no existing commercial zoning in the immediate neighborhood. The traffic impacts of commercial development on 135th could be offset, in part, by a reduction in shopping trips outside the neighborhood. In the North Dakota Street area, there is already a substantial supply of commercial zoning. Additional commercial development in this location is not as likely to alter the shopping trips of the I adjoining neighborhood. If residents of the North Dakota area are r j inclined to walk or bike to do their shopping, they already have that opportunity. i i _01/21/97 TUE 14:34 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 21016 3. In the future, completion of the Hurray/Walnut extension is _.,I expected to reduce the volume of through traffic on 135th. Under current planning, there are no new streets in the future to provide relieve to the existing collector streets in the North Dakota area. Conclusion For these reasons, ue believe that the two sites are different. If the decision is , . , • made to grant a zone change, we feel that the 135th j location is a more suitable location from the standpoint of I traffic. rw/cpa t i 01/21/97 TIJE 14:25 FA3 502 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0017 J 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i i TO. Pat Reilly, City Administrator t i FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dizecto DATE: April 14, 1992 . i SUBJECT: Proposed New Community Commercial Plan Designation and Zoning District , BACKGROUND In response to suggestions that the City of Tigard should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the existing small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood f Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning i commission on December 16, 1991, directed staff to research and draft a new mid-range commercial zone. In response, the Planning j Division has drafted proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a Community Commercial Plan tr designation and to the Community Development Code to create a C-C i (Community Commercial) zoning district. The following pages summarize the proposed new Plan designation and zoning district. k In addition, other Community Development Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, other listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering. standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. I The proposed Community Commercial Plan designation locational Ifi criteria and the text for the proposed C-C zoning district have ; been presented to all of the NPOs as well as CPO 4B and CPO 4K. The cities of Beaverton, Durham, King City, and Tualatin; Washington County; and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development have also been provided with the draft amendments for review and comment. In addition, a substantial amount of comments have been received from individuals and businesses which have an interest in the proposed changes. Written comments received are included in this packet. After two public hearings which included a substantial amount of community testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to forward the attached package of amendments to the Council with a j recommendation for approval. Dissenting Planning Commissioners were not opposed to the concept of the Community Commercial Plan ; t~ designation and C-C zoning district, but instead had urged changes in the proposal. Planning Commission comments are available in the is attached Planning Commission minutes of ?larch 2 and April 6, 1992. S J I 018 Stoel Rives 1 01/21/97 TUE 14:25 FAX 509 220 2480 •t j / SjLHHARY OF PROPOSAL a. Intent The primary intent of the Community Commercial Plan designation and the C-C zoning district is to provide { opportunities for the development of relatively small shopping centers or shopping districts that would be located within a } primarily residential area. By 'having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used { services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practical. b. scale i { The proposed C-C zoning district provides for sizes of individual businesses to be limited to what the community j feels is necessary to provide for the needs of the intended trade area. Grocery stores would be limited to a maximum size II of 40,000 square feet. General retail stores would be limited h to 10,000 square feet. Other uses would be limited to 5,000 b F. square feet. The limit on sizes of establishments is also intended as to discourage uses that would bring substantial - traffic into' the community. In addition, operating hours would be limited in order to reduce the potential for negative impacts upon the neighborhood, although longer operating hours s may be permitted for a particular establishment through the conditional use process. The size of the individual Community Commercial districts is proposed to be limited to•between two and eight acres in order ! to limit the physical scale of commercial development { surrounded by residential development. C. Locational Criteria Individual Community Commercial districts are proposed to be separated from other commercial districts or commercial developments by at least one half mile so as to avoid strip commercial development. Community Commercial districts axe proposed to be located at or close to either the intersection of two major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and either a major or minor collector street. Community Commercial districts would be limited to one i quadrant of an intersection or one side of a street. i. } It was not the Commission's or staff's intention that the City designate any properties with the Community Commercial Plan i designation or C-C. zoning district at this time. f 1 I j 0 019 5toe1 Rlcea 1 5oJ 220 2480 /97 ` T~1R ' a6 P 01/21 la I Nevertheless, staff has applied the basic intersection locational criteria on the attached map in order to show which locations within the city and the city's urban growth area could possibly qualify for the Community Commercial t designation- The display of this basic intersection criteria on this map, however, does not include assessment of either existing development at these locations or the proposed Community Commercial site size criteria. These criteria could disqualify any of the circled areas from consideration from redesignation. The areas shown as potential Community I Commercial sites may also be unacceptable for redesignation for many other reasons including (but not limited to) traffic problems, existing development on sites, incompatibility with adjacent developed residential areas, topography, and/or a lack of desire by the property owners or the City to change. the existing Plan designation and zoning. It is very important to remember that this map only indicates Potential Community Commercial sites. Actual redesignation of sites to Community Commercial designations would need to occur separate from the current proposal. The current proposal - would only provide changes to the texts of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to enable potential Community Commercial redesignation of sites in the future. Some of the comments received from the NPOs and others 4 requesting changes in the proposed Plan and Code language may be generated by site-specific concerns with some of the circled intersections on this map. The integrity and usability of the proposed Plan designation and zoning district should not be undermined by too fine tinkering with the proposed text amendments to exclude certain circled sites from potential Community Commercial designation. Exclusion of unwarranted sites should be done through the Plan Map amendment process, if and when requests for redesignation of these sites are made. In order for actual designations of sites to occur, a property owner would need to file an application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change for the particular site for which redesignation is requested. The applicant would need to demonstrate not only that the site was consistent with the locational criteria for the Community Commercial designation, but that the proposal also was consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals, and that there had been a mistake in the original Plan and zoning designations for the site or that physical changes of circumstances had occurred in the area of the subject properties that was supportive of reasons for the requested change in designation. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change process that would apply to .J individual redesignations would be a public review process with hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and notification of neighbors prior to the hearings. 01/21/97 TUE 14:96 FAX 509 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0020 F , C0mxZNTS/!(AJOR ISSUES a. scale Staff readily admits that the proposed two acre minimum and eight acre maximum site size, 40,000 sq. ft. grocery size, and 10,000 sq. ft, retail store maximum size limits were not determined as a result of lengthy analysis of the community's needs or desires. These size limits are proposed based on staff walk-throughs of several grocery stores and shopping centers in the surrounding area, review of the sizes of these centers, as well as the recommendations of The Zoning Report of October 21, 1988. This report is attached. The last sentence of page 4 of this report recommends a maximum grocery store size of 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. and a maximum size for other uses of 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft, in a neighborhood serving commercial zone. In addition, page 7 of that report quotes the text of the Beaumont, Texas Neighborhood Shopping Center zoning district with regard to total shopping center r;. gross floor area and site size limits. Proposed store and 4 site size limits are within the recommended ranges provided in that report and seem reasonable with regard to other developments in the southwest suburban Portland area (see Appendix One - area supermarkets and their respective sizes). q~ We have received comments from Albertsons and their f representatives (Messrs. Shonkwiler, Russell, and Petrie) supporting larger store size limits,as well as comments from NPO 7 and Hr. Harcott of Hurrayhill Thriftway recommending a.. smaller maximum size for grocery stores. While both sides, d arguments have merit, the Commission was not convinced that the proposed size limits need to be modified one way or the other from the size limits originally proposed by staff. f In addition, redesignation of sites- with the Community Commercial designations will be accomplished through the Plan map and zoning map amendment processes. If the city wants to limit the size of the redesignation at a particular location to anything between two and eight acres, it can effectively occur at that point through limiting the size of the area to be designated Community Commercial. Not every site to be redesignated as Community Commercial in the future need be eight acres in size. Tailoring the size of the area to be redesignated to the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods can have the effect of placing de-facto limits on the maximum store sizes for-that particular site.. b. Locational Criteria The principal issues with the proposed locational criteria appear to be distance from other commercial sites and whether Community Commercial developments should be limited to f arterial intersections rather than major collector/major collector intersections as well. 01/21/97 TUE 14:57 FAX 505 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 10021 I First, staff believes it is essential that Community Commercial designations not be limited to arterial street intersections as was proposed by others early on in the development of these proposals. From a suburban development philosophical standpoint, limiting commercial sites to arterials would do nothing to discourage local short trip traffic on arterial streets that are primarily intended and designed for carrying through traffic. In addition, limiting future commercial opportunities to arterials would be counter- productive to efforts to limit strip development and likely would not result in much of a "community" feeling to these developments that would be any different than development within a General Commercial district. If anything, we may be i stretching away from the purposes of the proposed Plan designation to include potential sites along arterials. From a practical standpoint, limiting potential Community Commercial designations to arterial intersections would result } in only the 135th/Scholls and the western-most Scholls/New Scholls intersections as realistic possibilities for Community { Commercial designation. This is due to limitations of the other sites along arterials illustrated on the potential sites map. If any changes are made to the locational criteria intersections standard, we would suggest dropping the S possibility of Community Commercial sites along arterial 1 streets. - Second, others have proposed a minimum spacing for Community Commercial sites from other commercial sites of one mile. This spacing requirement proposal combined with the currently proposed intersection criteria would result in only one site i in the City's urban growth area, at 150th and Bull Mountain E Road, meeting these two locational criteria. If the suggested ~j one mile spacing standard would be applied along with the I other proposed limitation to arterial street intersections s only, no sites in the urban growth area would meet these two basic criteria. I Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation i has recommended that the locational criteria require that the site meet all applicable access spacing./access management standards. City staff feels that this is implicit in the Plan map amendment approval criteria which requires consistency with all applicable Plan policies. Plan policy S.1.1 requires that a map redesignation proposal provide for a safe and efficient street and roadway system." This should cover the County's concern. C. Impact Assessment Generally stated, comments received have urged the following: 1) not allow uses to operate between 11 PM and 6 AM; 2) require adequate screening and buffering; 3) reduce the minimum landscape area standard; 4) require noise abatement in development design; and 5) require pedestrian connections r 01/21/97 TUE 14:38 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0022 { i I j i 1 i i between residential developments and Community Commercial developments. While not every future Community Commercial site may be appropriate for late hour' operations, late hour operations also serve the needs of a substantial number of city residents. Because lace hour operations may or may not be a detriment to surrounding neighborhoods, individual requests 1 j for approval of particular late hour business operations f should be considered on a case by case basis. I The current package of proposed amendments does include ! relatively strict buffering and screening standards that were not included in the package reviewed by the NPOs resulting in i some of their comments. Staff believes that the 20 percent minimum landscaped area standard is necessary to visually i? blend the commercial development into surrounding residential E areas that typically have 50 percent or greater site landscaping. Additionally, the 20 percent landscaping standard helps distinguish Community Commercial areas from a General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial areas that have a minimum 15 percent landscape area standard. The buffering standard, along with requirements for street trees and parking € 3 lot island landscaping, are such that future Community Commercial developments will probably have no trouble meeting i _ the 20 percent site landscaping standard without really g trying. Noise abatement is certainly a concern in establishing commercial areas. that by definition will be surrounded by 1 residential development. Subsequent to the Tigard s j marketplace /Food Connection noise problems, the City has j i established stronger noise control standards and the site plan f and building plan reviewers have learned a lot about design measures to reduce noise impacts. in addition, the proposal # to limit late hour operations to situations approved as conditional uses should'help reduce the potential for adverse noise impacts upon neighbors. Noise certainly should be an issue in considering individual Plan map and zoning map amendment requests for Community Commercial redesignations as well as in site development and conditional use applications; j however, staff does not find that there is a need to further amend the proposed text amendments to deal with noise issues. The suggestion that the proposed Plan and zoning designations promote pedestrian connections between residential areas and commercial development can be implemented, where warranted, through existing authority in the approval standards for development review applications. { r- i 01/21/97 Tr7E 14:38 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0023 Nov-- 2 1- 9 G T H U 1 7= 1 1 O P+ 1 1 i i i 5 March 20, 1996 CITY CP TIGARD clkc-4N j Bill Gross t 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 = RE. Affect of CPA 95-000520N 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry c Dear em: 4 F ` This letter Is written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to "community commercial' at the southwest comer of 136th and Schoils Ferry. due to the proximity of the two Sites to each other. More speelfically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 940013 from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Weighborhood under CPA 95.00052ON f 96-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map i on ta, lot 100 (map 1S1 330A), to 'community commerciar. 6 The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.46.(1) (b) (on page 11 - 84.1) states that "community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other` 3 sites that are designated for commercial retail use.° The Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010 (page 1241) states that, "community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile.' The property you own at 1'35th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and ! the Development Code for community commercial zoning Is currently met for your i property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zonw change, since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your she. It was afmady commercial. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ilgont OR 97223 (503) 639.4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 E ~ I r ,gym... 01/21/97 TUE 14:39 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 024 d t NOV-21-96 -r"U 17 32 0 P. 12 ' I hope this letter answers your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, ~Ci~Zru~Ger aX ~r Jarnes N. Mend Community Development Director c- 'Rm Ramia k Dan Boyden Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy File: CPA 95-00062ON 934007 a r a , I' 1 01/_21/97 TLB 14:99 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0025 ~ Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b- Declarations or Challenges j The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. Thev indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record.'There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department i Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report on file in the Council Agenda # packet. He eeplained that excess right of way on SW Cascade Blvd E now existed as a result of the shifting of the road to the north during the construction of the Place To shoot project. He said that t the City initiated this right of way vacation to return it to the owner; the ordinance did preserve the utility easements within the vacated right of way. f { d. Public Testimony No one signed up to testify. [ - F e. Staff Recommendation 3 Mr. Hend_ryx stated that staff recommended approval. E f. Council Questions - None F g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. CounzU Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-03 ~f Motion by Councilor Fount, seconded by councilor Scheckla, to approve Ordinance 96-03 incorporating the revisions as noted above. c i The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohl: and Scheckla ' voted "yes.") ORDINANCE No. 96-03 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THS VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2,308 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGh-T-OF-WAY ON sw CASCADE ) { BOULEVARD IN THE CITE OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. { Mavor Nicoli recessed the meetinS at 8:49 p.m. for a break. 3 Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:59 p.m. 13. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPR3HWSZ" PLAN V ENbMM AND ZONE ! CiANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-000 - PACIFIC CRBST/PROVIDENCE E A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map or. Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North E Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change ? the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the { property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North =akota from Neighborhood Commercial to commercial Professional and change tie zoning from C-N to C-P. Location.: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Roa ta. Applicable Review Criteria: ensive policies 1.1 2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1(1) and !1.2.10) Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Aamimistrative Rules Chanter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical. and dental services an3 professional and administrative services. C-P (;roressional/administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking j establishments. ) P a. Open Public Hearing i3 Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. z. 1 f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUSES - JANUARY"23. 1996 - PAGE 9 J ~e~ 1 1 01/21/97 TUE 14:40 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0026 s J i r d ~ b. Declarations or Challenges i The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated chat they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. Councilor Rohlf stated. that he had a potential conflict of interest as he lived on North Dakota; therefore he would not participate in the hearing. j c. Staff Report: Community Development Department I i Associate Planner Valone reviewed the staff report and map using ? overhead projector images. He gave the background information on the sites and reviewed the notice area. He stated that Dan S riggle had sent a letter withdrawing his objections (see council packet). Mr. Valone said that the Planning Commission had recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 1 and that staff recommended approval because the application met all of the approval criteria. j Mayor Nicoli asked if any new information has been given to Council ttus evening that had not been presented before the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyden said, that they didn't talk about the tenant [ mix at the Planning Commission. i Mr. Hendryx stated that prior to the hearing the City had received a R letter from Mr. Bill Gross requesting that the record be held oven for seven days. Ms. -Beery advised that the council was not obligated to leave the hearing open unless new evidence was offered. d. Public Testimony f - Applicant •J Dan Boyden, 121 oak Street, Hood River, testified that there was a -nand for more neighborhood commercial. He sai t ac a aatcn a to makes naig orhoo commercza center with small neighborhood of of businesses. He said that there would not be a Hollywood 4 video on site and that St. Vincent's Hospital has agreed to swap the k zone because they thought that this was an appropriate solution. Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy a A690Ciatea, 9875 SW Murdock, stated that this ~ proposal was substantially different than the proposal in July; it had a lower density and a mix of complimentary commercial uses. Councilor Scheckla asked how parking was allotted to each business. Mr. Boyden said that the parking was shared in common; he had made an effort to bring in a complimentary tenant mix that would even out j the parking. No proponents or opponents signed up to testify. i i e. Staff Recommendation i Mr. Valone said that both the Planning Commission and the staff recommended approval- Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Beery if Council should leave the record open because the applicants had indicated that they did give some new information this evening. Ms. Beery said that that was a discretionary decision by the Council, based on whether or not they believed there was anyone who would want to respond to that new information. i Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Boyden if leaving the record open for seven days with Council deliberation and decision on February 13 posed any hardship for him. Mr. Boyden said that it did and that he would rather the Council made its decision tonight because of construction f. schedules and lease negotiations- € Councilor Scheckla pointed out that if Council wafted another two c weeks to decide on this, they would have a new Councilor on board f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JA.YVARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 10 ' r I L- ~J 01/21/97 TUE 14:40 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0027 ) i I psi who would not necessarily know the issues. He suggested deciding this tonight. 3 Mayor Nicoli commented that by leaving the record open they reduced their risk of a challenge to LUBA based on lack of time to respond to new information. He said that he did not think the information received this evening would change his decision. Ms. Beery concurred that the evidence was small and did not relate to the approval. criteria. { f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council consideration: Direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final Order for council consideration at the February 13, 1996 Council meeting. Notion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final Order for Council consideration at the February 13,'1996 Council meeting. ) J The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council ) J present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted yes.^ Councilor Rohlf did not vote.) 14. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JU'DIC=) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT - A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium.-High Density E } Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. G• _ Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000). s i Applicable Review criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.i.i, f 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community i Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and dri:kin establishments, food and beverage ; retail sales, general retail sales, ang d medical and dental services. a. Open Public Hearing S t Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. t b. Declarm~;icns or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parte contacts. They indicated that % thev had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department i Associate Planner valone reviewed the request from Briar Development Czmpariv to amend the Comprehensive Plan to rezone nine acres of an R-25 site to General Commercial' ommercial GC) in order to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy. He gave the background information on the site, noting the residential districts in Tigard and Beaverton bordering it on four sides- He stated that notice was provided to property owners within 250 feet, the West CIT and other public agencies. He directed attention to the Washington County staff review of the traffic study (Exhibit c). Mr. Valone stated that staff found that this proposal did not meet all the applicable Comprehensive Plan criteria. He reviewed the criteria and staff's evaluation of the applicant's non-compliance as presented on pages 3-5 in the staff report. He emphasized that the current action before the Council was not about a Haggen grocery a store but about rezonitg land from 4-25 to CG. He said that staff was prepared to answe_ qsescions on the Hag en supermarket proposal though their analysis of it was rot in the Yinal staff report. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE'S - J;L%RWY 23, 1996 - PAGE 11 i + I 01/21/97 TUE 14:41 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0028 J MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunc, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94.0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial - Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 _ and 18.32; and Oregon Administ ative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ~j Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. Mayor Nicoll read the hearing tide. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. a. Staff Update: Community Development Department Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council direction were in the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt.Ordinance No. 96-04. Ord No. 96-04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, CPA 95.00051ZON 95-0007. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13. 1996 - PAGE 22 l~ 01/21/97 TUE 14:42 FA% 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0029 r~ Mayor Nicoli noted that at the last meeting Councilor Rohlf had withdrawn from participating in this action, and that Councilor Moore did not participate either. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the three Councilors taking part. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes.") t 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 95-0008 CLARKS A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the City and change the zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street Just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are i separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 - Citizen involvement; 10. - Service Delivery Capacity; 10. 1.2 - Boundary Criteria; } and 101.3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Cade Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R- 6. a. Open Public Hearing r - } Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. s b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all indicated that they had familiarized themselves with -the application. ! There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department j Mr., Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed on the map the location of the two parcels under consideration for annexation. He said that the west parcel had a single family residence occupied by the owners while the east parcel was a vacant loc. The owners were requesting annexation by a double majority method to conned to the sanitary sewer service. Mr. Valone stated that the annexation request did comply with all applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements. The parcel would be designated Tigard R-7 with the same density per lot as Its current designation of Washington County R-6. He said that there were adequate facilities available to service the lot and that all appropriate parties were noticed. He recommended that the Council t adopt the resolution and forward the request to the Boundary Commission. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 23 - 1 01/21/97 TUE 14:42 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0030 ~ j i-IOV--~1-96 THU 17:07 0 P. 03 the site should nct be considered a residential area for the following masons: It is acVacent to SCholls F2ny toad, an Medal, and SiM 1351h Avenue, a collector street; land use cempotbrTity can be maintained through landscaping, bUWng end driveway onentadon; and a commercial use an the site would be consistent with the adopted Matra 2040 concept Staff does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion, 'the location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi- family residential land that is surrounded by other resider tal districts to cammendal land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the dty that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of muld-family rasidentlal land, however, is also required to have direct access from an arterial or major calledor, vvh!(e landscaping and site design can reduce the t impact to residences from commercai uses, this site IS surrounded by residential districts that are both establist sd and continuing to develop. As discussed under B.1 above, this proposal is not necessarily consistent with Nletm 204x. k 5. Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of f { ousing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This ` criterion is primarily Implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 1:80.07) which requires the city maintain sumdent residential buildable land. to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or _ multifamily housing ar:d to provide for an overall density of ten units parr acm. i Approval of this proposal would dac-easa the number of eyes cif buildable mutd- family land, thus reducing ft opportunity for the city to meet the 601K requirement 1 , and reducing the overall density. € I i Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal. would not reduce the cit/s housing opportunity index below the M-or 10 units I ! per acre requirements. Ifthe proposal Is approved, there would be-225 fewer units of potential mufti-family hcusfng available (4 aces x 25 units = 225). This would reduce the mix of all new unrb being atttachad single family or multi- amlly from ir% (3,653 of 5,014) to MIS (3,631 of 4,769). It would also reduce the citys . overall heusing density from 10.46 units per sore to 10.38 units par aCra.• Under tl fs proposal, than. compliance with the Metro Dousing Rula would be mantaired, j This policy in, therefore, saftied. The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres tirT,es the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residendal acres. i 3 1 I A 01/21/97 TUE 14:43 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 10031 003/004 16 11/18/98 13:51 'aS03 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD i Il` j WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON J ti November 12, 1996 Laurie Nicholson E City of Tigard i Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Laurie: Thi$ letter is written based on a review of the Traffic impact Study for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center dated September 199E (for CPA 99.0009 Sharader Request). E will exceed the planned The analysis indicates that westbound volumes on Scholls Ferry Ilp~ le+lel of service in the year 2005. The report further indicates that the intersection of r. > Scholl$ Ferry and 135th fails with the plan amendment without Improvements. However, with Improvements, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. 1 Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report. As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the County to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12.080. Given this, we request the City of 1 Tigard require the attached condition. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this letter. f S'v►cerely i /~uLl d Any i Senior Planner 0: Tom Lancaster Doug Norval Tom Harry , a h 1 01/21/97 TVE 14:43 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 10032 11/18/98 13:51 V303 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 004/004 ,j ;i r WASHINGTON COUNTY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3 s 1. Prior to final approval and issuance of a building permit by the City of Tlgard: A. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 681-SM): 1. Completed 'Design Option' form 2 $750.00 Administration'Deposit 3. A dopy of the City's faj Notice of Decision, signed and dated. Note: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, i and contract administration will be returned to the applicant R at any time during the project, the l County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. r 4. Two (2) sets of complete engineering plans for the construction of the following public Improvements: i _ I a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135tH with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal and geometric moacaft-ps, may be no== at the SW Ferry and 'new' SW Seholis Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left turn lane on Scholis Ferry at 135th c. two southbound lanes an 135th to accept traffic from the two j westbound left-turn lanes. E S 4' 01/21/97 TUE 14:4.4 FAX 503 220 2480 Sioel Rives 1 10033 iB RECEIVED T.: PETRIE COMPANY I JUL 0 21992 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE =>r r i colnn+unin DEVELOPMENT (503) 246-7977 ' I /-.f CC'tr, j~, tC~cc,~.h.•tCClltcr << I July 1992 TO: The Tigard City Council -ZL";6'~t .~~GtG/:c6 .^w^_,L FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Proposed Community Commercial Zone 'E'O .(c>L,--Ce( f Piemae include this in the record from your hearing on June 23, 1992. The timeframe for this letter is within the ten days the - k record is left open on matters which have been continued. Dear Tigard City Council,, i I appreciate the Council taking the time to consider the tF€ Community Commercial zone. As the urban growth boundary fills P up during the next few years traffic, shopping, parks, planning, and overall general livability are really going to come to the surface as we all learn how to live with less space and with more people. During the next twenty years over 1/2 s million people will move to the Portland metropolition area. How do we plan ? and provide for everyones recreation, transportation, shopping k and livability? j The answer lies in the hard decisions which must be made by our i leaders now and during the next few years. The attitude of do nothing, stop everything, will only provide us the same mesa that the greater Seattle area now has: for Seattle it is too late, for us it is not. But the answer lies in the leadership decisions made now and during the next few critical years. None t of the decisions you will make will satisfy all the people and 1 there will always be a vocal minority claiming some decision is j horrible and will ruin everything. The legacy (and livability) we all pass on to our children depends on tough decisions being made now. The Community Commercial zone is one of those tough decisions. Western Tigard and the land not in the City of Tigard but which naturally utilizes the Scholls Ferry Roads is beginning to explode in residential growth and in my opinion will fill up very rapidly. From the map I submitted on June 23 1992 the population based on existing, serviced, and zoned property could e reach over 21,000 west of 135th. These people have to shop k somewhere----they will either shop near to where they live or get on our collector streets and arterials and just further contribute to the current traffic problem. 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 t.t. J t-AX (W31 GW~v i M 01/21/97 TUE 14:44 FAX 503 220 2480 Sioel R]ves 1 034 !I. ! i Page Two A full size neighborhood/community grocery store in western 'fff Tigard will not cause traffic----the traffic will already be there by residents who live in the area. As you consider the Community Co Percial•zon@' please think about these things and ; plan to incorporate and provide for the growth which is upon us and the remaining growth which we know is coming soon. ` Sincerely yours, Crat9p et rie i • i. j , 810' _ e JAN-27-97 MON 04:39 PM P.01/06 i 147 STOEL RIVES u.? ATTO RN BY$ STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE. SUrrE 23W I PORTLAND, OREGON 972o4-ims ! Tilykow (503) 224-3383 - - Far (103) 220-1480 " i - Name: - -Fax No. Company/Firm: Oftlce No. TO: Mayor James Nicolii 684-7297 City of Tigard Community 639-4171 I and City Council Development Dept. S~ Members, c/o Laurie Nicholson, f cbq~ Associate Planner ! CIO NIS. Cathy 684-7297 City of Tigard Wheatley, City Recorder I" Mr. Bill Gross 524-9374 524-6325 r~ Mr. Gary Coe 238-3388 Speed's Towing j Mr. Robert Lefevre 274-0985 Commercial Realty 274-0211 Advisors Mr. Stephen Janik 295-1058 Ball, Janik & Novack 228-2525 j Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson - - (503) 294.9194 - - - - - Client: 26409 Matter: 1 DATE: January 27, 1997 i No. Of Pages (including this cover): Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: Fa u st Class Mail Overnight Delivery F7. Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508. ' This UAile fats' may contain confidential information that is protected by the anontey-client or wore pradua privilege. If the " reader of this message it nor the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not -.distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and rerurn this facsimile by mail. Thank you. JCOMMEVTTS: See attached 4` { JAN-27-97 MON 04:39 PM P.02/06 . a STOEL RIVES LLP A T O R S Z Y\ " STANDARD tNSCRANCC CC`7F.R WOSW FIFTH AYCVI'E.5l:1TE 23W PORMANO. ORMON vT.N-IUD TDD (50) ZZ14015 - . { :nSenar.wwvaao.Cmn January 27, 1997 i I • j ncHAEL C. Romt zo.n Dvea Dial (503) 294-9194 - E: email mcrobinsonCstoel.com I VIA FACSIMII.E ' Mayor Jamcs Nicoli Members of the City Council City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard j - ~y Tigard, OR 97223 Re- CPA 96-0009• Dear Mayor Nicoli and City Council Members: This office represents the applicants, the Gross Family Trust and Gary Coe. On Monday, January 27, 1997, at approximately 10:30 a.m., I received a copy of Mr. Stephen Janik's January 24, 1997 letter concerning this application. The purpose of my letter is to address Mr. Janik's comments. By this letter. F am not waiving my right to request rebuttal of new information that might be presented at the January 28, 1997 hearing or to request that the record remain open in order to address new information. I' Mr. Janik states that his client, Briar Development, recently became aware of this application. Briar Development must not own the property at the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th because the applicant provided notice to the property owner, Burton Grabhorn, on April 22, 1996 for a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting this comprehensive plan trap amendment application. Briar Development did not participate in the Planning Commission hearing. Briar Development takes the position that the City Council's denial of its application was "discriminatory treatment". In other words, Briar Development feels that it was treated unfairly when the City Council applied existing law to the facts of its application. The City Council can reject Mr. Janik's arguments for several reasons. First of all, } despite Briar Development's unhappiness with the City Council's decision, it did not appeal j rnxtwai~st.i :b+osaooi f; • JAN-27-97 I10N 04:40 Ph P.03!06 STOEL RIVES { Mayor James Nicoli Members of the City Council January 27, 1997 Page 2 the City Council's decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. Further. Mr. Janik's letter does not indicate whether Briar Development will take advantage of the provision of i Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Section 18.32.280(A) by resubmitting its ! application after the twelve-month period from the denial is up next month. Briar Development's train point seems to be that if the City approves this application, it must also "reconsider" it denial of Briar Development's application. Briar Development's letter fails to recognize the tremendous differences between its application and this application. First, and most importantly, this site has been identified by the City as appropriate for the Community Commercial Plan Map designation. In fact, this site is one of only two such 4 sites so identified. The Briar Development site, on the other hand, has never been identified as appropriate for any kind of commercial development, let alone the very intensive General Commercial Plan Map designation requested by Briar Development. Secondly, Mr. Janik correctly points out that this application will remove 110 dwelling units from Tigard's housing inventory and that, nevertheless, it will continue to meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule. In contrast, Briar Development's application would 1 have removed nine (9) acres of land zoned for 25 dwelling units per acre, or 225 dwelling i units, more than twice the number of dwelling units affected by this application. Further, contrary to Mr. Janik's letter, the City expressly found that Briar Development satisfied Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") Policy 6.1.1 (Housing). While the City Council's discussion addressed housing, its written decision did not deny the application for this reason. Third, the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district are intended to fulfill neighborhood level shopping needs, whereas the General Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district are intended to serve a much larger commercial need. In fact, whereas the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district place limits on the total amount of square footage and the maximum amount of stores within the center, no such limits are found in the General Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district. A comparison of the Community Commercial with the General Commercial designations shows the stark difference between the purpose and limitations of the two districts. (See Exhibit 1.) Briar Development also argues that the Planning Commission's determination of a i "physical change" as required by TCP Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, that a change of "physical circumstances" have occurred-or that a mistake was made in the original t j land use designation, is incorrect. Both the Planning Commission and the staff agree that the i. PDXIA-63791.1 26&094MI y- - i J JAN-27-97 NN 04:40 Ph 04/06 STOEL RIVES Ul Mayor James Nicoli Members of the City Council 3 January 27, 1997 Page 3 i i i " ` adoption of the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district is a j physical change satisfying this implementation strategy. As City Attorney Tim Ramis told the City Council at its February 13, 1996 hearing on the application by Briar Development, j the issue of mistake is one of interpretation by the City. In this case, Planning Commissioner Padgett said that he believed the intent of the new Community Commercial zone was to identify this site as an appropriate location for that zone and that this met the change in physical circumstances requirement. Commissioner Padgett, on the other hand, j actively opposed the Briar Development application. In addition to Briar Development's representatives' testimony in support of the {I application, fifteen (15) other individuals testified as proponents, thirteen (13) of whom were from Beaverton. In contrast, the majority of opponents to Briar Development's application j i were from Tigard. { - Finally, Mr. Janik's letter does not full; eYplpin the reasons why the City Council denied Briar Development's application. As I said above, the City Council expressly found that TCP Policy 6.1.1. (Housing) was satisfied. The City Council denied Briar 4 Development's application for the following reasons: i i 1. TCP Policy 1. 1.2(2) was not satisfied because Briar Development failed to show a physical change or mistake. i ' 2. TCP Policy 5.4 was not satisfied because Briar Development's application would cause the encroachment of new commercial development into residential l areas. I 3_ TCP Policy 8.1.1 was not satisfied because the application would not result in a safe and efficient street and roadway system since there was no guarantee that the site's development would be limited to Briar Development's 60,000 square foot food store and pharmacy. 4. TCP Policy 12.2.1(2) was not satisfied because the City Council found that i various locationale criteria were not met by the application, such as the site s would be surrounded by more than two residential districts. j For these reasons, the City Council should follow the recommendations of its staff and the Planning Commission and approve this application. There is nothing similar between y 1 r:; E" PDXIwb3791.1 26so9-oom L~ JAN-27-97 MON 04:41 PH P.05/06 STOEL RIVES,.,,, Mayor James Nicoli Members of the City Council January 27, 1997 Page 4 f this application and Briar Development's application and the City council is not required to treat ihern similarly. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson j MCR:Izh enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) i (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Robert Lefever (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Stephen T. Janik (via facsimile) i • f 1 a JAN-27-97 MON 04:42 PM P.06/O6 .i n EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON BETWEEN GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND COMIKL NTTY CONIMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION GC CC Gross Leasable Area No limitation 30,000 - 100,000 sq. ft.; grocery store is limited to 40.000 sq. ft. Surrounding Residential May not be surrounded by No limitation Areas residential districts on more than two sides i Purpose of Designation Provides for "major retail Provides for "a primary goods and services" and neighborhood orientation"; "large space users"; serves not to be so large or broad the traveling public in scope as to attract trade - " from outside of surrounding neighborhoods; avoids the . appearance of typical commercial strip development Trade Area No limitation Within 112 toile of site to provide residents with opportunity to walk or bike to shopping Commercial Development at No limitation One quadrant of intersection I the Intersection only Distance from Other No limitation 1/2 mile from other Commercially-Zoned Sites commercial retail uses, but may be less than 112 mile from commercial sites with non-retail uses Site Development Plan No Yes Required at Zoning - ~ U i PDXIA 6780.1 2&W9-I E I I BALL JANIK LLP A T 'r O 11 N r Y S C1/~ ONE KNIN PUCE UU - 101 S(RRHNVBST MUN Sn:rLT, Suln- 1 100 - PORI ND, 0 EGON 972043219 STEPHEN T.JAN1x Tts111 tont 503-2282525 sjanik@bjllp.com FACSI.mILL 503-295-1058 I . January 24, 1997 I . By Messeneer Mayor James Nicoli and Members of City Council City of Tigard ` I_ City Hall 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard f Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0009 (Applicant: Michael Robinson) Property at S.W. Comer of Old Scholls Ferry Road/S.W. 135th Dear Mayor Nicoli and Councilmembers: z On January 28, 1997, the City Council will hear the above item, which seeks a ;7. Comprehensive Plan amendment redesignating 5.54 acres at 135th Avenue-Scholls Ferry Road from Medium/High Residential ("R-25") to C-C. Approval of the amendment will change the i~ entire site (other than the dedicated wetlands) from its present medium/high density residential designation to a commercial designation which allows by right the following uses: grocery storey fir (40,000 square feet maximum floor space), eating and drinking establishments, office uses and a variety of retail or personal service uses. A year ago, Briar Development submitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a nine-acre portion of the R-25 site at the S.E. corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road, seeking conditional redesignation of that nine acres to G-C to allow construction of a Haggen Store and t Pharmacy. Although recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission, the Council voted to deny the amendment, focusing during Council discussions almost exclusively on the loss of multi-family residential land, if the CPA was approved. As Councilors Hunt and Scheckla stated during Council deliberations, if the CPA was approved, the City would be forced to find new multi-family residential sites in other areas of the City. As documented in the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation on the Briar Development application, a redesignation of a portion of the 135th-Scholls Ferry site would not have jeopardized the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. If the Councilmembers will recall, no testimony focused on loss of P",+ km- 01- ~.u WA4LLV WN, D.C. S.-,. OI¢cuN 0123028.01 - J BALL JANIK LLr' Mayor James Nicoli and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 2 multi-family residential land at the two City Council hearings. Rather, the Council heard a variety of unsubstantiated arguments from competitor grocery stores predicting loss of jobs and store closures if a Haggen's Store were allowed to locate at 135th-Scholls Ferry. I - 1 Briar Development recently became aware of the above application. In reviewing the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation on CPA 96-0009, Briar Development was disturbed to see the following City positions, which are significant variants to the manner in which Briar Development's application was handled: _ j 1. There is no mention in the staff report of the extensive Council discussion i in the Briar Development case of the City's concern in converting any existing R-25 land to commercial use. Instead, there is a simple analysis that the loss of the site for multi-family residential purposes does not jeopardize City compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. This is in dramatic contrast to the focal point of the Council's deliberations in the Briar Development matter. In CPA 96-0009, 110 units of multi-family housing will be eliminated. A copy of the minutes of the Council discussion on the Briar Development case is attached. 2. The City staff now concludes that the R-25 designation on the 135th-Old Scholls Ferry site is inappropriate because that site is bounded on two sides by major roads (an " arterial and minor collector), making the site more appropriate for commercial use. The proposed Haggen Store site had the same configuration (bordered on two sides by major roads). In the Briar Development case, a mitigation and access plan approved by Washington County was done prior to any hearing before the City. In contrast, CPA 96-0009 provides no similar indication that commercial traffic can be accommodated on Scholls Ferry Road to the County's satisfaction. In fact, communication from Washington County stated that there will be operational problems without additional improvements. City staff now suggests conditional rezoning could be a device to assure such improvements. In the Briar Development case, this approach could have been used but received no staff endorsement. In short, the City has handled the issues under Policy 8.1.1 much differently in these two cases. f 3. An issue with any Comprehensive Plan amendment in Tigard is satisfying the City's change in circumstances/mistake criteria under Plan Policy 1.1.2. In CPA 96-0009, the rationale used to justify satisfaction of this criteria is that the 135th-Scholls parcel was "more suitable for commercial development" than for R-25 use based on a memorandum by a former j City Engineer. The mistake, if one exists, must be documented based upon Plannine j Commission/City Council actions, not those of some prior City employee, whose job did not entail land use analysis or allocation. In short, the decision to designate the 135th-Old Scholls Ferry site as R-25 was that of the Planning Commission/City Council not the City Engineer. I 1 BALL JANIK LLP p~ Mayor James Nicoll l and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 3 Because the Planning Commission and City Council in the Briar Development case spent a great I deal of time discussing the change in circumstances/mistake criteria, Briar Development is f bewildered as to how such a specious justification can be used to eliminate 110 multi-family units and R-25 property which the Council was so intent on saving in the Briar Development case. This is particularly the case given that all the same circumstances cited in CPA 96-0009 were applicable to Briar's request. 4. The beneficial owner of the 135th-Old Scholls Ferry site, Bill Gross, opposed the zoning swap between Pacific Crest Partners and Sisters of Providence at 125th- h Scholls Ferry, citing traffic issues on Scholls Ferry and neighborhood infiltration problems. Mr. r Gross' positions were rejected out of hand by both LUBA and the Court of Appeals. However, if he feels that Scholls Ferry traffic issues occur because of commercial uses along Scholls Ferry, the City Council should force a clarification of his real position, now that he seeks a commercial designation. Briar Development and Haggen Foods were disappointed with the City Council's decision in CPA 95-0003. They appreciated the compliments about the type of operations Haggen Foods conducts. Despite Council comments that Tigard would like to find a location for Haggen, there has been no effort to do so. However, the City's transparent handling of CPA 96-0009 (at least to this point) f and the utter lack of consistency in handling CPA 96-0009 and the Briar Development case is extremely disturbing to Briar and Haggen. Either R-25 land is important to the City or it is not. l.. A Planning Commission/City Council "mistake" (not an ex-City Engineer's memorandum) must exist to satisfy Policy 1.1.2. The property of CPA 96-0009 is no less suitable for multi-family than the proposed Haggen Store site across the street. Briar Development suggests that before the Council considers CPA 96-0009, it revisit its decision in the Briar Development case so that the same rules and policies apply to both cases and the City has a candid evaluation of both applications. The proposed Haggen Store site remains available to Briar and Haggen continues to have a very strong interest in this location for one of its stores. Briar stands ready to immediately re-initiate its application if the City has reconsidered its position regarding the need for R-25 land. Briar Development opposes approval of CPA 96-0009 without reconsideration of Briar's application. Such an approval would be the worst kind of land use decision-making based on inconsistent reasoning and raising the real possibility that the Briar Development was i decided on unexpressed subjective grounds. 1 _JI 3 . BALL JANIK LLP Mayor James Nicoli and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 4 t 4' I Thus far, the City's actions on CPA 96-0009 couldn't be further from the action taken on the Briar Development case. The City owes Briar Development and Haggen an explanation for this discriminatory treatment. Very trul ours, L, Stephen T. Jani it J Ir ~r . Enclosure i cc: Donald E. Haggen, Haggen Inc. Dale C. Henley, Haggen, Inc. Joel M. Gordon, Esq. Mike Van, Van Investment Real Estate t Y i i. t k' t n Y`i r Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3385; 01/23197 10:06AR1;,fgtr= q94; Page 2 a Aganda item No. '`_I r"'1 31ial~c~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING Meeting of FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - 6:30 PM MINUTES • STUDY MEETING > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may o Into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), a (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current ac 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. > Five-Year Financial Plan Status e Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, updated the Council on the five- year plan for a financial perspective for the goal setting process. Since 1981, City of Tigard has worked with 5-year plans. He reviewed the 5-year pL3ns since 1981, noting that the current 5- year plan would take the City through the year 2001. He stated that Year One of the current plan began on July 1, 1996. - Mr. Lowry said that the plan was designed j voters every five years, ough that was not alegal requirement. He explained that the Council at the time was responding to the voters getting tired of governments constantly asking for more money. The City put together a responsible plan and promised not to come back to the voters for five years. i' i Mr. Lowry distributed copies of the ballot title that went before the voters. He noted the commitments made to police and library In the title. Mr. Lowry reviewed the assumptions in the plan, Including adding three police officers a year for the next six years and having $1 million dollars reserved in the general fund at the end of the fifth year. Mr. Lowry explained that the increased tax base (passed in November 1994) would not take effect until July 1, 1996. If the Council chose to levy less than the voter-approved amount, it would affect the plan. Mr. Lowry reviewed the general fund revenue sources received from the State: cigarette tax, liquor tax and State shared revenues. He explained that they assumed in the plan that they would lose those revenues ($550,000 to $600,000 a year) because in 1994 it looked like the State would be keeping the i F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 e Sent by BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01 /23/97 10:07A?A;,Jetr= #94; Page 3 lop) money. However, the City did not lose the money and staff put It back into the plan in Yar Six and in Year One. He said that they also added a couple more positions in Year Six. Mr. Lowry explained that the commitment made to the public was that if the shared revenues are unexpectedly continued after 1996, the Council would extend the five year commitment to the voters based on the amount of shared revenues received by the City. He said that there was a potential of $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars in additional revenues to this plan over the five years. Mr. Lowry explained that the five year plan was essentially a mechanism that allowed him to tell the Council what effect a decision they made today would have on the future of the general fund. He noted that there were costs involved in moving things forward In the plan and that the plan was the framework around which future budgets should be built. Mr. Lowry commented that this was the .62 cents plan, down from the original November 1994 proposal of .94 cents. If the s•~ Council decides to do something that was not in the plan, there _ were flnancW implications to the change. The plan also made certain assumptions about levels of service. Mr. Lowry stated that any change on the expense side of the plan had to be matched with a change on the revenue side or with some other change offsetting the increase in expenses. v Councilor Scheckla asked if revenue sharing was designated for a certain area. Mr. Lowry said that all the revenue sources for the r general fund would be used to fund general fund services; those services were mainly police, library and parks. i Mayor Nicoll asked if the City would have extra unexpected money coming in if they didn't lose the $600,000 and did nothing different on the spending side. Mr. Lowry said that they Included two years of revenue sharing dollars in the plan and added some positions that weren't In the original plan. He stated that they checked with all departments in November and identified what changes to the plan have occurred. He said that when those changes were factored in, they had $500,000 or $900,000 dollars remaining-at the end of the plan, which was the target. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was any reason to assume that revenue sharing would be discontinued in the future. Mr. Lowry said that he did not know. The State seems to have been able to fund schools since Measure 5; however, the finance Director said CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 i I 1 { L~ J J Sent by, SUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10.07AM;fet k94; Page i he was only willing to put the State shared revenues back into the plan every two years. Blu Monahan, City Adminismtor, raised the issue of Budget Committee meetings. The Council discussed it and decided to schedule an Initial meeting for Thursday, March 7, from 6:30 t p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for orientation and the social agency presentation. At that time they would decide on the other meeting daces. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Lowry poll the Budget Committee members on meeting on Match 7. i In response to a concern raised by Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan said that they would check on the hearing scheduled for March 26 and reschedule the items on the March 26 agenda to avoid a meeting during Spring Break. > City Hall Roof Councilor Hunt asked if all the contractors were aware that they could submit a different proposal ocher than for the metal roof preferred by Council. ]ohnA--*vr stated that he talked with all three of the bidder, about the preference for a metal roof and all three commented that there might be less expensive ways to do the roof. He said that he told them that they could submit alternative bids along with the metal roof bid. Councilor Hunt asked If the architect for the City Hall roof was the same architect that did the work on the senior center. He said that he wanted to know because he did not think that the details were handled well at the senior center. Mr. Acker said that he did not know if It was the same architect but that he would find out. Mayor Nicoli suggested inviting the architect to 'r the next Council work session for an informal visit. Councilor Hunt asked if a decision was made on which of the two options the City would take. He noted that this bidder was higher on the metal roof, though lower on the alternative roof. If they chose the metal roof, they would not be giving the contract to the low bidder. Mr. Acker explained that the City was not required to choose the low bidder when dealing with a personal services contract like this. He said that he chose this bidder over the others because he thought he had the clearest and most detailed scope of services. It indicated specifically what the bidder would be doing for the City. That Included three different elevations of metal roofs so that the City could see what it might look tike. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 Sent by; BUCK AND UDRUON 1 206 3B2 3365; 01/23/97 10:0BAM;,JedFVC #94; Page 5/32 > Storm update Mr. Monahan explained the need for a resolution declaring a state of emergency in order to get FEMA funds to help with the storm damage. He said that they were not sure what the damage was yet but that once the water receded from Cook Park, they would and assess the damage. Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, reported that they had major problem areas due to the storm. These included major flooding at Cook Park, a water supply issue and a mud slide on 99W. He said that the City responded to the mudslide because ODOT made it a lower priority. Car. Wegner reviewed the concerns at Benchview Place where a house was sliding down the hill. He said that the Community Development Department has worked on the structure. A major problem was the storm drainage system running behind the house that collapsed due to the ground shifting. He said that they made a makeshift catch basin to handle any additional storm drainage and were monitoring the situation. Mr. Wegner said that the sanita sewer line that ran right _ behind the home has also moved. They would TV It every Friday to see how much movement there was. He stated that they have been working with LISA and had a contingency plan in case the whole sanitary system collapsed; this system served not only the Benchview area but also the Three Mountains Estates. i Councilor Scheckla asked If the people have been evacuated from the house. Mr. Wegner said yes, and that the house had been "red tagged" since Thursday. He noted that there had been some potential damage to the neighbor to the north but that an engineer worked with the homeowner to take of the problem. Mr. Wegner stated that the other storm related problem was the water supply, which might or might not continue to be a problem. He said that lake Oswego had shut down its plant several times during the storm event due to the turbidity of the water; until today, Tigard had been buying water from lake Oswego and using storage. He stated that on Sunday, Tigard began selling water to Tualatin. He noted that even though the Bull Run water supply was shut down and ground well water used as well as water conservation requested, no one using Bull Run or Clackamas River water had had to boil water. Mr. Wegner said that even though Portland had lifted its water crisis alert, but Lake Oswego shut down its plant because of a diesel fuel spill on the Clackamas River this afternoon. Tigard started buying water from the Tualatin Valley system this CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 a l1 I Sent by: BUCK AND U08:1= 1 206 382 3365• 01/23/97 10:09AM,,/e! #94, • Page 8/32 {87C i P ) afternoon but hoped that the Lake Oswego plant would be back online by early morning. He said that Tigard's water storage did not drop below SO% until today when it dropped to 49%. Mr. Wegner said that they would continue to monitor the situation. They were pumping over I million gallons a day from their own wells. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner said that the only Cook Park would have structural damage resulting from the flood, citing the restrooms and noting the large sinkhole that has appeared in the soccer parking lot. Summerlake Park and Woodard Park would have only ground maintenance damage. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Wegner said that he doubted they still had a ramp to the dock but that hopefully the dock was still there. Mr. Wegner reported that they delivered barricades Friday ! evening to Tualatin and have lent them Tigard's forklift and one of their dump trucks. Mayor Nicoli reported that Tualatin has - asked for assistance for building inspections for damaged structures, qualified City staff would be sent. } Mr. Wegner commented that Tigard had been fortunate and that by Friday night, the emergency had been nearly wrapped up. { Councilor Scheckla asked if the apartments flooded on Bonita Road had been evacuated. Mr. Wegner said that the City had not officially evacuated anyone other than the one residence on Benchview. Mayor Nicoll asked if most of their costs were reimbursable by FEMA. Mr. Wegner said that he didn't know yet. He stated that they have received Instructions to begin keeping records and gathering data. He reported that sometime after the 19th, a meeting would be held in Salem to inform jurisdictions what was j or was not reimbursable. John Acker would meet with the highway people tomorrow to find out about federal funds for City streets damaged during the flood. Councilor ScheckIa asked if it was possible to get some funds to replace Tiedeman Bridge and the bridge on Grant between Tigard and Johnson streets. Mr. Wegner said that he would find out. Mr. Monahan reported that another continuing cost they might have related to storm debris collection. Metro has asked local jurisdictions to set up collection areas. t iI 1 t CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 R r Sent by: BUCK AND GOW.r'N 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:09AM;fetraX N94; Page 7/32 4 ' I Mr. Wegner commented that sand bags contaminated with petroleum would be declared hazardous waste and disposed of separately. Update on Transportation Issues in the Triangle Area a Community Development Director )im Hendryx, Commtmity Development Director, distributed copies of a memo updating the status of the Tigard Triangle area. (Copy of memo on file with the Council packet material.) He reviewed the steps in the memo, noting the request for consultant assistance to package all the transportation recommendations developed in the past two years, the intent to institute mixed use zoning for the Triangle, and the public Involvement process. Mr. Hendryx noted that the project would begin now with wrap up in September. He said that they would need an additional $10 to $15,000 to complete the project as outlined. He mentioned the scope of work attached to the memo. He said that, based on Council direction, he could come back to the i February 27 meeting for action and then start getting proposals. J Mayor Nicoll asked for the timeline in a graphic form to make it I easier for citizens to understand the process and when things were supposed to be accomplished. He asked if wrap up in September meant It would then go to the Planning Commission. i Mr. Hendryx said that it would go to the Planning Commission in late September or early October; the intent was to have the E project wrapped up before the end of the year. However if something controversial came up, room has been allowed for additional hearings. Councilor Hunt asked how involved Metro and ODOT were in ! this phase. Mr. Hendryx said that the Intent was to have them Involved. He was meeting with Bruce Warner of ODOT and Andy Cotugno of Metro tomorrow and hoped to have them involved in the first hearings. He commented that the State was } very interested in Tigard's adopting the tool box because it was f the first time it has been done in the State and would serve as a template for other jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx said that they have sent out requests for consultants to a variety of firms to get a broad representation. Mr. Hendryx stated that he heard a commitment from Council to staff to go forward; he would return with the necessary paperwork on the 27th. In the interim, staff would finalize the scope of work and get it out as soon as possible. 1 P CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 6 ~ Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:10AM;,fetfay q94; Page 8/32 i i Non-Agenda [cents I Mr. Monahan said Council would need to consider a resolution declaring a i state of emergency because of the storm. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the issue of the coordination with the County Park i Advisory Committee regarding the site up on Bull Mountain. He suggested proposing joint funding of the site as a way co split the costs for the 13 acre parcel. i Councilor Hunt said that he could not support spending all their money on the Bull Mountain area and would rather see it spread through the City. He commented that a lot of people voted for trail upgrades. He stated that he would vote against this when It came up. Mayor Nicoll commented that this was an opportunity to cut the cost of the property in half. He said that they didn't need to buy the entire property; they could split some portions off from it. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that recently some people who offered to donate $32,000 to buy some property off Hall Blvd if the City would match the funds withdrew their offer when the City said they didn't necessarily want the entire property. Mr. Hendryx said that all they were doing was asking the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought they should try for as many joint ventures as possible to stretch everyone's dollars further. He stated that asking the County to consider this did not bind the City into an agreement. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported that staff talked to f the West CIT about this issue. She thought that the West CIT would like the City to encourage the County to do a joint venture to stretch the dollars further. Both the City and the County had additional sites they were considering. She suggested rewording the letter to encourage a joint venture. I Mayor Nicoli proposed that they ask the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought it was wise and that the City could double its money. Mr. Hendryx clarified what the letter said. He stated that it asked that as the County went through its selection process to consider working with the City on a joint project. It was an attempt at a cooperative effort since both j j jurisdictions were looking at similar service areas, rather than an attempt to i j commit to a specific site. Mr. Hendryx said that they would rewrite the letter. j r > Agenda Review Councilor Moore stated that he would remove himself from the Briar k Development hearing because of a conflict of interest; he'd been on the 1 CITY COUNCIL MUTING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 7 ~ C I L. -1 Sent by; BUCK AND GuRDON 1 208 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:10AM;fefrax #94; Page 9/32 1 i Planning Commission that reviewed it. However he would participate in the Future Shop hearing since the Council was looking at a different issue than what the Planning Commission had reviewed. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the study session to order at 6:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Property Manager John Acker (Study Session only); Acting City Engineer Gary Alfson; Jim. Hendryx, Community Development Director; Finance Director Wayne Lowry (Study Session only); Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Maintenance Services Director Ed Wegner (Study Session only); Police I Chief Rob Goodpaster; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley l i 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.S Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items f - City Administrator Monahan said that staff would like to add two E Items: a resolution declaring a state of emergency, and a request to coordinate with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee. 2. a. OATH OF OFFICE - BRIAN MOORE Mayor Nicoll administered the oath of office to Brian Moore. b. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT - TEACHER OF THE YEAR - CINDY RUSSELL, TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL E • Introduction: Mark Kubiaczyk, Tigard High School Principal o Presentation: Mayor Nicoli Mr. Kublaczyk introduced Cindy Russell, the teacher who won the National High School Association's Teacher of the Year award for her efforts in school reform and excellence in teaching. Ms. Russell thanked Mr. Kubiaczyk for nominating her for the award and encouraging her to remain in Tigard. She said that Tigard High School has made great strides in school reform and expressed her appreciation at being part of It. Mayor Nicoll presented a certificate and some small gifts to Ms. Russell and expressed the community's pride in her for winning a national ; CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 8 r IIE~ Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:11AM;,f~ #94; Page 10132 i i award. Mayor Nlcoli recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:49 p.m. 3. V1SLTOWS AGENDA Gene McAdam, 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, spoke on the 130th and Wintertake bridge and street improvement projects scheduled for construction this summer. He said that fanner City Engineer Wooley had told him that he thought that work on the projects would start in March. He asked if the City has set dates for public review of the bridge plans. Mayor Nicoll stated that they had not set any dates for public review. He said that the Council had authorized staff to go forward on the timeline without a final review of the project by Council, as was the normal procedure. In this instance, Council also promised a neighborhood meeting to allow residents to see the final documents. Mr. McAdams asked when the Task force and public would be notified i regarding the street Improvements and associated amenities plans. He said that that project would require coordination with the public; the public and the Task Force should look at those plans before their final approval. He said f that he was anxious to get started on this because he knew that early advertisement on bridge projects helped to get the best deal for building one. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 9, 16, 1996 4.2 Receive and File: ! j a. Tentative Agendas b. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Implementation of Classification/Compensation Study Results and Recommendations for the Management and Professional Staff - Resolution No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous voce of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") i S. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN j AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95400031ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT { A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G ! an 9 acres of a 1 S.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 W- F Sent by' BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:11AM;Jedax #94; Page 11/32 1 f j 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. { a. Continue Public Hearing from the January 23, 1996 Council Meeting Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title, reviewed the hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges 1 Councilor Moore removed himself from this hearing because he had been a member of the Planning Commission which heard this application and because he had not attended the first Council hearing. The Councilors reported no ex parse contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. b. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoll explained that this meeting had been continued to allow - the applicant to rebut. He asked for a brief report from staff to update the additional Information received by Council in the interim. Ray Valone, Associate Planner, reviewed Council's direction at the January 23 meeting to staff to provide copies of CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, the Albertson's application for a zone change. He stated ; . that copies of the August 1991 transportation analysis and Its October 1991 addendum, and a set of tax assessors maps used for notification of area residents that were part of the 1991 case were not provided to Council because staff deemed them irrelevant to the purposes for which Council had requested the file. He said that they could be made part of the record if Council chose to do so. Mr. Valone said that because the Albertson's file did not include any information about the outcome of the hearing, staff researched the Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 1991 and December 16, 1991 when the case was heard. He stated that the relevant portion of those minutes have been provided both to the applicant and to the opponents' attorney, and were available to Council from the City Recorder. Mr. Valone reviewed the outcome, 'toting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant, all others in the Scholls Ferry area that had previously applied for a rezone and been denied, the NPOs, and those parties interested in the development of a new plan In zoning designations. He said that though the Commission voted to continue the hearing to a later date, no further hearings were held on the matter. He stated that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 10 L I i 1 Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23197 10:12A61;Jg q94; Page 12/32 f i the minutes excerpts could be made part of the record as Council's discretion. Rebuttal Joel taordon, Briar Development Company Director of Development, reviewed the applicant's efforts In working with staff and other agencics for more than a year. He said that they held three community meetings to garner community input, and had been told that there wasn't sufficient interest in the CIT to warrant addressing that group. He stated that they received no negative feedback from the neighborhood at the Planning Commission, and that the opposition at the first Council hearing had been coordinated by economic competitors seeking to protect their territory. Mark A. Vandehey, Kittleson BE Associates, 610 SW Alder, Portland, stated that he was a'professional traffic engineer. He referenced his written response to the issues raised by the opponents at the January 23 hearing. He said that he disagreed with virtually all of the issues raised by Mr. Bernstein, contending that there were technical errors with respect to his trip generation estimates that invalidated his basic premise. _ D1 Mr. Vandehey pointed out that Mr. Bernstein became involved with this project for only one week prior to the January 23 hearing, and that he collected no field data, did not talk to them about their analysis, or • present any technical analysts demonstrating that the surrounding street system was inadequate to support the proposed zone change. He stated that they have been working on this project for almost a year and have collected operational field data at the study intersection. In addition, they have met with both Washington County and City of Tigard staff j who agreed that the assumptions used in their analysts of both the proposed development and a worst case scenario were in fact conservative. Mr. Vandehey stated that they discussed with staff assumptions regarding trip distribution and trip assignment as well as the traffic operations in the existing conditions and in the 2005 scenario. He said that they developed an access scheme which both the County and the developer felt met the access needs of the development and protected the capacity of Scholls Ferry Road. He said that the Washington County engineers and planners concluded that the proposed development would have similar or less severe Impacts on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry thati the apartment complex allowed for under the current zone designation. Mr. Vandehey addressed the issue of neighborhood traffic impacts. He said that they thought that this site was ideally located because it was accessible to the surrounding neighborhood by pedestrians and autos yet did not promote an Increase in non-local traffic within the CITY COUNCIL, MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 1 i Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01123197 10:12AId;fg q94; Page 12132 i the minutes excerpts could be made part of the record as Council's discretion. Rebuttal ]ac! Gordon, Briar Development Company Director of DeveWment, reviewed the applicant's efforts in working with staff and other agencies for more than a year. He said that they held three community meetings to garner community input, and had been told that there wasn't sufficient interest in the CIT to warrant addressing that group. He stated that they received no negative feedback from the neighborhood at the Planning Commission, and that the opposition at the first Council hearing had been coordinated by economic competitors seeking to prole. their territo:jr. Mark A. Vandehey, lattleson a Associates, 610 SW Alder, Portland, stated that he was a'professional traffic engineer. He referenced his written response to the issues raised by the opponents at the ]anuary 23 hearing. He said that he disagreed with virtually all of the issues raised by Mr. Bernstein, contending that there were technical errors with respect to his trip generation estimates that invalidated his basic premise. _ Mr. Vandehey pointed out that Mr. Bernstein became involved with this project for only one week prior to the January 23 hearing, and that he collected no field data, did not talk to them about their analysis, or present any technical analysis demonstrating that the surrounding street system was inadequate to support the proposed zone change. He stated that they have been working on this project for almost a year and have collected operational field data at the study intersection. In addition, they have met with both Washington County and City of Tigard staff who agreed that the assumptions used in their analysis of both the proposed development and a worst case scenario were in fact conservative. Mr. Vandehey stated that they discussed with staff assumptions regarding trip distribution and trip assignment as well as the traffic operations in the existing conditions and in the 2005 scenario. He said that they developed an access scheme which both the County and the developer felt met the access needs of the development and protected the capacity of Scholls Ferry Road. He said that the Washington County engineers and planners concluded that the proposed development would have similar or less severe impacts on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry than the apartment complex allowed for under the current zone designation. Mr. Vandehey addressed the issue of neighborhood traffic impacts. He said that they thought that this site was ideally located because it was accessible to the surrounding neighborhood by pedestrians and autos yet did not promote an Increase in non-local traffic within the i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 1 Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 362 3365; 01/23/97 10:13AM;JJetMX #94; Page 13/32 neighborhood. He stated that they thought so for two reasons: the access scheme was designed to facilitate movements to and from Scholls Ferry and 135th, and the City was part of the 130th construction project which had proposed traffic controls designed to restrict movements in the Summerlake neighborhood. David Leland, Managing Director of the Leland Consulting Group, reviewed the qualifications and experience of the firm in serving both public and private clients. He said that they were asked to examine the trade area zone graphics, analyze the public need and look at the availability of vacant commercial land that might accommodate this grocery store. Mr. Leland reviewed the specifics of their September 1995 submittal that used three methods to analyze the trade area to determine public need. He reviewed objections raised by the opponents regarding the model they used and the size of the trade area. He said that they did cut back on the size of the trade area, and conducted additional analysis. He explained that the Riley gravity model referred to by the opponents did not measure public need; therefore, they used the shared space model that did. Mr. Leland noted the fast growing population In the area and Its effect ! can retail patronage. He stated that they used a very conservative approach in all of their analyses. Mr. Leland reviewed the "four C's" of successful recall: convenience, j cost, cleanliness and courtesy. He said that the reason why Portland had small stores that remained profitable was because Portland was running out of land, and therefore competitors couldn't come in and destroy the numbers. Mr. Leland pointed out that the Interest of several major grocery chains in this area indicated a public need. He referenced a comparison of the square footage of stores to population as studied within a two mile radius in Tigard, and in the Cities of Eugene and Beaverton. Mr. Leland reviewed the different analyses they did on the trade area. Their conclusion was that this area would need another two stores by 1997 and a third by 1999 to serve this rapidly growing area adequately. Mr. Leland addressed the issue of the availability of space. He said that the Comprehensive Plan stated that Tigard had a shortage of commercial land. He pointed out the location of the remaining commercial zones in both Tigard and Beaverton, and contended that none of them were large enough to accommodate a full service grocery store by today's standards. Mr. Leland restated the points he made during his presentation, z CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 I ' Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 208 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:13AM;JWft #94; Page 14/32 1 1 i particularly emphasizing the need for more grocery stores in the area. He stated that one could not necessarily conclude that there was no public need simply because the two current stores were underperforming. Mr. Gordon stated that their proposal was consistent with the applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with past decisions of the Council, with good land use planning, and with the City's goals. Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence presented on the criteria of a changed circumstances in the neighborhood or community. He contended that the dramatic population growth that was in excess of what had been anticipated In the Comprehensive Plan was evidence of change in the neighborhood. He argued that the significant road improvements made to Scholls Ferry and 135th since 1983 were further evidence of changed circumstances. Mr. Gordon reiterated that the traffic issues were carefully evaluated by both the City and County staff who were both convinced that this project would not adversely impact the road system. He said that it was the changes to the road system that led u'icm to select this site for the store. Mr. Gordon said that the third changed circumstance was the worsening of the shortage of commercial land in Tigard. Mr. Gordon reviewed the arguments for the second criteria thar the proposal have no adverse impact on heaith, safety and welfare. He stated that there have been no impact based concerns raised by staff or other commenting agencies. He said that a member of their consulting t firm confirmed that with the Beaverton Mayor's office that the City of Beaverton was not in fact opposing the rezone. Mr. Gordon stated that the other issues raised by the opponents were j based on fear and speculation. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised at the hearing that this approval would turn Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial like 99W or that it would open the floodgates to other commercial rezones. He stated that Scholls Ferry within the City was almost completely developed and thus it couldn't be turned into a strip commercial. He said that the locational criteria that commercial be located at the intersection of a major arterial precluded other locations on Scholls Ferry. a Mr. Gordon said that the floodgates to commercial rezoning wouldn't be opened either because the inventory of the City's available land demonstrated that the land wasn't there to be rezoned. Also the locational criteria for commercial land wouldn't allow development in i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 i j J 1 I Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 208 3B2 3385; 01/23/97 10:14AM;fet{X #94; Page 15/32 u i an area that was already overly congested; that precluded 99W. Mr. Gordon stated that another criteria for commercial zoning was being close to a transit route, which this site was. He said that neither staff nor the opponents presented examples of land that was likely to be rezoned commercial. Mr. Gordon addressed another issue raised by the opponents: whether or not there was sufficient market to support another grocery store. He cited Mr. Leland's testimony on the issue and his conclusion chat there was sufficient demand for additional grocery stores in this area. He stated that the opponents' assertion that the underperformance of their stores indicated too many stores in the area was suggesting an inappropriate use of the zoning process for economic protection. Mr. Gordon submitted a letter from the local chapter of the United Food MZ Commercial Workers in support of the proposal. Mr. Gordon addressed the locational criteria for commercial rezones as the next major issue. He stated that they complied with nine out of the ten locational criteria. The only one with which they did not comply was the criteria that said that general commercial should not be surrounded by residential on more than two sides. Mr. Gordon said that they derived their argument that the site is surrounded by roads, not residential neighborhoods, by looking at a Tigard zoning map. Examples he cited included Howard's, the k intersection of Hwy 99W and Durham Road, the Intersection of Hwy 99W and Bull Mountain, and the intersection of Hall Blvd and Locust. Mr. Gordon pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically said that the locational criteria were to be construed in a flexible manner in conformance and vary with the degree of change and impact on the community. He said that he thought they had demonstrated that this was a site that would have minimal or no impact on the adjacent community. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised regarding community commercial designation as opposed to general commercial. He stared that their site met the criteria for general commercial in ways that the Albertson's site had not. Their site was on a five lane section of Scholls Ferry, it was on a transit route, and the site was well separated from the surrounding neighborhoods. He said that Albertson's pursued the community commercial designation,on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however the Commission had specifically recommended general commercial for the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Gordon reviewed how much more a Haggen store could provide to the community under a general commercial zoning designation than under a community commercial. They could integrate all their uses into CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 14 i i Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:15Aid;,Jetrax #94; Page 16/32 one building rather then separating them out into little shops because more square footage was allowed. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern that while the Haggen development proposal might satisfy the rezone criteria and plan requirements, the other potential uses in a general commercial zone might not. He said that they were willing to accept a condition restricting the site to the uses and/or site plan configuration that they have demonstrated met the applicable criteria and was supported by the available public facilities. He said that while the Planning Commission had not attached any conditions to their recommendation, Washington County did attach conditions on this specific configuration to their access approval. Mr. Gordon asked that the Council not put them in a "catch 22" position by saying that they would approve it if they could be assured that the Haggen project would go through but not allow them to provide the City with that assurance. Mr. Gordon stated that the City has recognized that growth was here and that they had to address it. However, the planning process did not always project correctly what growth might happen or where it might happen. He contended that the plan amendment process was intended to give the Council the flexibility to snake changes as needed. He said i y~ that things have changed significantly In this community and that it was appropriate to make this small change to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gordon argued that if the changes they have demonstrated occurring in this area were not sufficient to justify a plan amendment, then the Council has set a standard that would be impossible to meet. I. Mr. Gordon reiterated the conditions of the site that made it a good location for this use. He asked the Councilors to consider where they would put this store if not in this location. He said that he thought that the Council would be proud to have Haggen be part of the community and asked the Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Monahan noted another item for the record: a letter from Ball Janick 8t Novack addressing the criteria on behalf of the applicant. Jeff Kleinman, Attorney representing the Friends at Neighbors of Scholls Ferry, asked for the opportunity to respond to the new evidence presented by the applicant. Mayor Nicoll asked for a ruling from the City Attorney on the request, expressing concern that everyone get a fair opportunity to rebut any new information. Mr. Ramis concurred that as long as they limited u their remarks to rebuttal of the new evidence and did not introduce additional new evidence, it was allowable. He said that the applicant should have an opportunity to respond to the opponents' remarks. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 C Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23197 10:15AM;fg=f5x #94; Page 17/32 Robert Bernstein, 507 18th Ave, Seattle, stated that he has not seen Mr. Vandehey's rebuttal to his comments at the last hearing, and therefore would not attempt to rebut the rebuttal. He stated that he was standing by the accuracy of his report. He argued that the assumptions made in the Leland report were anything but conservative and that it had taken him 15 minutes to figure that out. Mr. Bernstein said that no analysis of the proposed access scheme for a right-in, right-out on Scholls Ferry was present in the record; there was only the letter from Washington County saying that it was approved. He commented that the County's responsibility was to see to it that the major arterials functioned properly. He said that even with a new access onto Scholls Ferry, it was conceivable that the arterial might continue to operate properly yet the local streets experience significant changes in traffic. He said that they had no way of reviewing how accurate the analysis was or determining what the impacts actually were. Ralph Atuditd, Columbia Research Associates, stated that his company did nothing but retail site surveys for grocery stores in the northwest and western states. He said that they had a very high accuracy rate. He mentioned that the report submitted by Don Scott in answer to the Leland study did not include Costco because the Leland survey had not done so and Mr. Scott had wanted to keep his analysis consistent and comparable with the original Leland study. He said that the Leland study did not include all the other competitor retail stores or convenience stores in their analysis. Mr. Anzelattl said that he had not seen the study done on the reduced trade area and could nor do a comparable. He said that he could offer some predictions based on his 15 years experience: if Haggen opened here, another store in that general core area would close. He said he thought there was room for three stores but not four. i Mr. Kleinman addressed the Comprehensive Plan issue. He said that in order to justify an amendment to the plan map, an applicant had to prove either a change in physical circumstances since the original designation or prove that the designation was a mistake made under the original land use design. Mr. Kleinman said that the applicant hasn't come close to satisfying either criteria; rather they were changing the meanings of the terms. He contended that a change in physical circumstances meant a change in the uses near the proposed use, not growth or more traffic or market needs. The uses have not changed. Mr. Kleinman said that "mistake" meant a clerical error or a misunderstanding of what was actually being done at the time of the L-J original plan development and adoption. The designation as multi- family was not a mistake; the City of Tigard knew what it was doing. { CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 16 MEOW Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:16AM;f 1194; Page 18/32 Mr. Kleinman said that even if they satisfied those two criteria, the proposal still had to meet all the applicable plan polices: this did not. He argued that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not achievable because the applicant has failed to take into account the maximum development of the site as general commercial, and merely looked at applying the criteria to the Haggen store proposal. He cited Policy 5.4 as an absolute rule prohibiting the encroachment of commercial or industrial development into residential areas that were not already designated commercial or industrial. Mr. Kleinman said that Policy 12.2.1 (2) was the locational criteria stating that commercial or industrial development could not be Inserted in any area where it was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. He said that this location was surrounded on four sides by residential. He contended that the areas cited as having a similar use pattern reflected prge--zisting uses, not the insertion of commercial Into residential. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument that the Comprehensive Plan itself said that there was significant growth and not enough land. He contended that the Plan's designation of specific areas as commercial was the method used to meet that need for more commercial properties. Mr. Kleinman pointed out that the responses cited from Beaverton were only hearsay, as Beaverton submitted no documentation _ supporting this proposal. Mr. Kleinman said that there was no evidence that the same trade areas were used in the traffic analysis as were used in the market analysis. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument of future change. He said that the applicant was saying that they should be taken care of today i because of changes anticipated in the future, such as the Scholls Ferry Town Center in the Metro 2040 plan. He said that the town center in i that plan was located 600 feet away from this site in Beaverton. He contended that the application was in conflict with Metro's plan because It created a new shopping center designation only 600 feet away from the one Metro wanted to create. Mr. Kleinman summarized the applicant's arguments as "we have a neat store, Tigard has grown and there's a lot of traffic, so please amend your Comprehensive Plan and approve the zone change." He said that anyone who lived on a street that was widened could make similar arguments for amending the plan; the precedent set would be disastrous. He said that the periodic review process was the proper place to deal with the Issue of whether or not the original Plan contained enough commercial sites; it could be looked at within the context of the whole City, not In a piecemeal fashion. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 • PAGE 17 i I Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:17A?d;,J #94; Page 19/32 Mr. Gordon stated that the opponents did not rebut the new evidence but merely reiterated their arguments made at the last hearing. Mr. Vandehey cited their letter as documenting the conservatism of their analysts. He said that both the County and the City required them to do an analysis of both the right-in, right-out access scheme and the initial access scheme that proposed full access to Scholls Ferry. He said that they ended up with a compromise of a right-out and left-in that was based on the County's review, not the right-in, right-out Mr. Bernstein cited. Mr. Gordon said that Mr. Anzelactl did not raise any new facts. He said that the Leland study allowed for the convenience stores and other stores like Costco by using conservative numbers on grocery spending (75% of what was actually spent on groceries). Mr. Gordon contended that Mr. Kleinman cited no authority supporting his interpretation of a change in physical circumstances or a mistake in the Plan. He said that under Mr. lGeinman's interpretation, the criteria could never be met. He asked if the periodic review process was the only place to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments, then why did they allow quasi judicial Comprehensive Plan changes requests. He reiterated that they have met the criteria set out in the Code. C. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended denial of CP 95.0003 and ZC 95-0005 i based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. ! d. Council Questions j Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the locations of the proposed Albertson's and Fred Meyer's stores in relation to the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Valone indicated the locations on the aerial map. Mr. Hendryx stated that the Beaverton staff told him that the Fred Meyer request for the PGE site was withdrawn for consideration for a plan amendment in Beaverton. Councilor Hunt asked if the factor of market competition was something that the Council had the legal authority to consider in its deliberations. Mr. Ramis said no. Though It was an interesting controversy, it was not directly relevant to the criteria. Councilor Rohif asked the applicant to address the issue of the loss of multi family housing needed in a fast growing City if this proposed use went in. Mr. Gordon said that there was no doubt that multi family housing would be lost due to this proposal, but stated that the loss of this amount of acreage would not affect Tigard's ability to meet the 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE IS L~ 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:17AM;,Jet{X 094; Page 20132 i Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON t units per acre housing rule set by Metro. Mr. Valone concurred that they would lose the housing opportunity but that they would still be above 10 units per acre. Councilor Scheckla commented that in 1983, the thought had been to s put apartments in that area because of the close proximity to an elementary school. He said that putting in a commercial development would displace those people; they would have to drive farther to the i schools. He asked where else would they move the density in the City of Tigard. Mr. Monahan commented that the property was in the Beaverton School District, not the Tigard District. Mr. Hendryx said that he couldn't really answer where the units might be displaced to. He -noted that this project would not affect their housing mix. Councilor Scheckla commented that the City was prepared to accept the zoning the way it was, He asked why they would want to jeopardize meeting their housing goal by displacing these apartments. He asked - Mr. Rands to explain the "mistake" issue. Mr. Rands said that the issue of mistake was one of Interpretation j under the Code. He said that it was ultimately up to the Council how they applied the standard, and that courts granted deference to jurisdictions in interpreting their own codes. Councilor Scheckla stated that in 1983 he had been part of the Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think that a mistake y had been made. Mr. Valone pointed out that the Plan said "a mistake was made in the original land use designation." Since this site annexed into the City in 1987 and toned R-25, the mistake would have had to occur in 1987, not 1983. Mayor Nicoll asked Mr. Hendryx if he remembered any discussions between Beaverton and Tigard on how much commercial development should be allowed on Scholls Ferry, citing Mr. Hendryx's tenure with the City of Beaverton. Mr. Hendryx said that Beaverton had a clear policy about limiting commercial development along major arterials. He said that the two Planning Commissions had met in the late 1980s to discuss a mutual concern about limiting strip development along Scholls Ferry. He said that Tigard did not have a similar criteria ocher than the locational standards in the Code. y Mayor Nicoll asked if both the cities followed the general direction set out during those discussions or gone off in completely different z CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 i -low 1 1 I Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01123/97 10:i8AM;Jerrax #94; Page 21/32 i a I directions. He asked If Tigard did not provide for as much commercial property as had been originally intended. Mr. Hendryx said that he did not believe a decision not to allow as much commercial development as the market would bear was ever discussed. There was never an agreement on how much development should occur or where it should occur. The general concern had been to avoid turning Scholls Ferry Into another strip commercial road like TV Highway or 99W. Councilor Scheckla presented a February 8 newspaper article. Mayor Nicoll asked Mr. Ramis If Councilor Scheckla could introduce i evidence Into the record. Mr. Ramis said that Councilors introducing evidence into the record was very unusual; typically only the parties Introduced evidence which the Council made judgments on. He said that it could be done but that both the applicant and the opponent would have to be allowed an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Councilor Scheckla withdrew the article. He commented that the ' Albertson's in Sherwood opened last September and that last weekend the Food Pavilion went out of business. He said that he had heard the j - argument trade here that there wasn't eno~a0 rtar'leet to go around; ~ j -J somebody would not survive. He commented that the population all over Washington County was Increasing by 20% or more. If I { e. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoll recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. for a 5 minute break. i Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m. f. Council consideration: Councilor Hunt commented that much of the material brought up to i the Council by people went unread because they couldn't both read is and listen to the presentation at the same time. He stated that he thought that much of the testimony presented had been irrelevant to the decision on a zone change. Councilor Hunt agreed that the Council has allowed commercial development in an area with residential on three sides of the store, citing the 99W and Durham Road intersection. He said that the market economics of who survived and who didn't were not for the Council to decide. He said that he was not convinced whether apartments or stores would generate the most traffic, having seen too many instances l when opposing sides used the same numbers to reach opposite t F CITY COUNGIt, MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 13, 1996 -PAGE 20 I; L~ Sent ny: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:19AM;,fetrax 1194; Page 22132 conclusions. y Councilor Hunt said that one thing that bothered him about this zone change was the inabilit~► to control the potential development in the future, should Haggen s Fo out of business. They had to zone It commercial; they couldn t zone It for a grocery store. Councilor Hunt said that the second thing that bothered him about this was a previous incident in which high density residential was moved to Bull Mountain from the intersection on 99W and Durham (Albertson's store); this has resulted in nothing but trouble on Bull Mountain. He said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density before the application was approved. Councilor Hunt stated that they knew from the Metro 2040 plan that they were going to have to increase their density. He asked why they should rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density. Councilor Hunt said that he was extremely impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another area in town to locate it. However he could not take away the City's current high density, _ knowing that they would probably have to find more high density in the near future. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the density had to be addressed, If It wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools. He agreed that Haggen's was a good i store. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the other Councilors' comments. He said that he would like to see a Haggen's in town and suggested the Tigard Triangle area. He said that if this was a decision between letting Haggen's in and fostering Howard's, it would be a tough decision. But it was a land use decision and he was not convinced that a mistake was made In zoning that land multi family. Mayor Nicoli said that his concerns were similar to those of the other Councilors. He complimented Mr. Haggen on his application and support personnel. He stated that he had a hard time accepting growth as justification of a zone change. He said that he did not think that the Council was here to justify who stayed in business or went out of business; they had too many other good criteria to consider. He said that he was Impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could rind another location within Tigard or an adjacent jurisdiction. v 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 21 1 I j Sent by: BUCK AND CORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01 /23/97 10:19AM;•Jetfx #94; Page 23/32 i MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 93-000S/ZON 9S-0007. PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94.0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.10) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including ` convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professlonal and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, _ communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. i Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. a. Staff Update: Community Development Department Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council direction were In the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96.4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96.04. i Ord No. 96.04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 22 i MINOT i Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 3B2 3365; 01/23/97 10:20AM;,Jet15x #94; Page 24/32 'i 1 ' Mayor Nicoll noted that at the last meeting Councilor Rohlf had withdrawn from participating in this action, and that Councilor Moore did not participate either. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the three Councilors taking part. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes.,• ) 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 9S4XI08 CLARKE A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the City and change the zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2. 1.1 - Citizen Involvement; 10. - Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101.3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R- 6. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges t No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all 1 indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed on the map the - location of the two parcels under consideration for annexation. He said that the west parcel had a single family residence occupied by the owners while the east parcel was a vacant lot. The owners were i requesting annexation by a double majority method to connect to the sanitary sewer service. i Mr. Valone stated that the annexation request did comply with all applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements. The parcel would be designated Tigard R-7 with the same density per lot as Its current designation of Washington County R-6. He said that there were adequate facilities available to service the lot and that all i appropriate parties were noticed. He recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and forward the request to the Boundary Commission. t t 1 I ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 23 i a j Sent-by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:20AM;,/etrX #94; Page 25/32 i 1; I d. Public Testimony - Applicant } Jeff Hunt, 3855 A Drive, Hood River, stated that he was an Associate I ! Planner with Hood River County but that he was here on behalf of his father-in-law, John Clarke. He thanked Mr. Valon• and the staff for their help regarding the proposal. He said that they had no problems with the staff report and urged the Council to accept the staff i recommendation. - Proponents - none - Opponents - none e. Staff Reco....... endadon G Mr. Valone recommended that the Council forward the initiation to the Boundary Commission. f. Council Questions -none j g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration! Resolution No. 96-07 i. Ordinance No. 96- OS h i MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 96.07. ' Resolution No. 96.07, a resolution initiating annexation to the City of Tigard of the territories described in Exhibit A, and illustrated in Exhibit B, ZCA 95.0008. The motion was approved by a unanimous voce of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and 5checkla voted "yes. MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 96.05. Ordinance 96-05, an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a zone change and declaring an effective date, ZCA 9S-0008. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. j (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohif, Moore and Scheckla voted i s. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 24 i • s Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:21AM;f x #94; Page 26/32 i t 6. PUBLIC HEARIMG (QUASI-JUDICIAL) SITE DEVELOPMEW REVIEW 0008/Mit~ORQ L~AJ PMARTITION (MLA) 9 - RE 2 E FUTURE 95- SHOP/CNIUSTENSEN City Coundl "Call-Up" for review of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2. Planned Development Review; 3. Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres; Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WC M i S1 36CD, Tax Lot 2000). Zone: General Commercial (C-G The General Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 16.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. _ a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nlcoil read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all Indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. Councilor Moore commented that he had reviewed this issue at the Planning Commission but that this was before the Council on a different Issue, and therefore he would participate in the hearing. C. Staff Report: Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the application, noting the building profiles and site plan. He said that the minor land partition was to separate out Pad "A." He reported that the applicant has received the Division of State Lands (DSL) permits required to do work within the wetlands with mitigation offsite. He said that the applicant was providing additional right of way on Dartmouth, a half street dedication for the future street Atlanta on the north side of the parcel to access Dartmouth, and access for the property on the north to access Dartmouth. Mr. Hendryx noted that notices were mailed out but that the notice run in the Tigard Times did not meet the standard notice requirements. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 25 r; . J NUNN Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON t 206 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:22AM;JgtF,1x N94; Page 27/32 i t d. Public Testimony Applicant Sake Reindetsma, MPR Architects, 9150 SW Pioneer Court, Wilsonville, representing Future Shop, reviewed the elevations of the building to be built in the Tigard Triangle. He noted the color scheme and landscaping on the site. He pointed out that the 12 foot grade along the back zone set the building down lower. Mayor Nicoll asked if the applicant has discussed with Act III allowing access for the half street dedication that otherwise deadended at the Act 111 property. Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering Team, Tigard, stated that they have talked with all the adjacent property owners. He said that he had talked with former City Engineer Wooley about any conditions on the Act Ill proposal that might require them to continue Atlanta Street but they have not been able to rind any. He said that he understood from staff that if any plans came in for site development review, some kind of connectivity would be required to improve the street to the Act Ill site. He pointed out that to continue Atlanta Street, they would have - to cross Red Rock Creek at a very pristine point. Mayor Nicoll asked if at this time they would be doing a curved sidewalk and a half street improvement. Mr. Christensen said that when Burgerville developed, they intended to work with the other property owners to develop an LID to construct Atlanta Street to provide access through the Future Shop site to Dartmouth. He said i that presently there was no interest on the part of the other property owners to construct Atlanta Street, which was why they were waiting on the Burgerville development. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Christensen described the location and surrounding property owners. Councilor Rohlf asked how Burgerville had access to the property. Mr. Christensen said that they would have a right in right out access off of Dartmouth. He noted that when Dartmouth was fully approved there would be a median strip there that would prevent left hand turns for both Costco and Burgerville. He said that Burgerville was trying to get a right in off of Hwy 99. He said that Burgerville's conditions of approval stated that they could have a temporary driveway off of Dartmouth until the other access (the one in this application) was developed. Mayor Nicoll asked if Burgerville would get access through the Future Shop site. Mr. Reindersma said yes, they had access through a reciprocal easement. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 26 I Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 3B2 3385; 01/23197 10:22AM;JetFdX #94; Page 28132 in response to a concern raised by Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Reindersma said that the access through the Future Shop property from Burgervllle was fairly clean with few traffic movements. r. Christensen explained that though Burgerville did indicate some objections to the site layout, they have not stated any objections formally because they understood that the current configuration for the building was the only one possible on the site, and they did not believe that their objection was strenuous enough to stop the development completely. He reviewed one of the accesses that they considered but discarded because the grade was too steep. Councilor Scheckla asked who would alleviate the traffic problems on the easement that went through both ways. Mr. Christensen stated that they did not expect any problems because they had a full 24 foot arivew.- G'•..a'd the traffic volume was very low. He said that avan Burgerville didn't have that high a traffic volume and reviewed the path their traffic would travel from Hwy 99 to Dartmouth to Hwy 99. Councilor Rohlf asked if the design for this layout included overlay concerns that the Council had for the Tri-County Center with respect to the Tigard Triangle. Mr. Christensen said that they have discussed with Future Shop a number of the items coming up and that they were aware of the traffic problems occurring in the Triangle. - Councilor Rohlf commented that the CounciNs concern centered on the overall appearance of the hillside. He said that they did not want to see it turned Into "a bunch of big boxes surrounded by concrete and asphalt." He noted that the design of the Tri-County Center had been sensitive to that concern and had made an effort to find a good compromise between preserving the natural features and providing I adequate retail possibilities. Mr. Christensen cited the work they have done with USA, DSL and ODFeXW in designing Pad "A" to sit on columns with wetland vegetation underneath it. He pointed out that out of 40,000 square feet of wetland, the project impacted only 7960 square feet of wetland. He said that they have worked hard with USA to design a buffer that they could sign off on, and that they were mitigating some of that buffer offsite. He explained that the site had very few trees on it, and they all were on the border where Atlanta Street needed to go. He said that they were replacing the trees with a reciprocal amount of onsite vegetation and wetland enhancement. Proponent Gordon Martin, 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, 97223, of the development to the south of Future Shop, welcomed them to the neighborhood. He said that he understood from the project engineer that they have been apprised of the traffic situation. He commented on the need for LIDS to take care of the traffic problems and welcomed their participation in them. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 27 I 1 1 Sent by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 208 382 3365; 01/23/97 10:23AM;Jetft #94; Page 29/32 A - Opponents - None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the project as conditioned by the Planning Commission. s f. Council Questions Councilor Rohlf asked why the staff report contained a number of statements justifying denial of the application. Mr. Hendryx explained that those statements dealt with concerns over wetlands and the DSL approval of the plans originzlly submitted by the applicant. When the applicant provided proof of DSL approval at the Planning Commission j hearing, staff changed Its recommendation to approval. i g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. j i h. Council Consideration: Do the approved plans comply with Community Development Code. 1 - MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohif, to approve the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council i present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") j 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL I " CODE CHAPTER 7.40, NUISANCES - AMENDING ARTICLE IV TO REGULATE NOISE LEVELS ti This proposed amendment would provide for better regulation of noise in residential areas. When Issuing a permit for an event which would exceed ermissible noise levels, the City Administrator would have the ability to set a limit on the amount of noise created by the event and to impose other conditions on the issuance of a permit. a. Staff Report: Police Department Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that these changes to the noise ordinance would enable police to revoke permits issued by the City if the noise exceeded the top noise limits set by this amendment. S b. Council Questions ac Discussion ; Mayor Nicoll asked how this ordinance would affect community events such as a street dance or concerts at Cook Park. Chief Goodpaster stated that there was enough discretion in the ordinance to handle f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 28 i I 1 Sent-by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 208 382 3385; 01/23/97 10:23AM;,J~ax #94; Page 30/32 -j ' public events. He noted that public events normally did not engender the same type of complaints as a private event did. He stated that he checked on this issue with the City Attorney and did not foresee problems with it in the future. Councilor Scheckla asked how this ordinance would affect the hot air balloon event. Chief Goodpaster stated that they discussed many public events, including the hot air oalloons. He said that in talking with the City Attorney, he found that there was still discretion built into the ordinance. Mr. Ramis stated that the ordinance did provide some flexibility and some room for judgement. He said that if a use became so loud and t 9bno2dous to the public that it required regulation, the City would have the ability to revoke the permit. C. Council Consideration • Ordinance No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 96-06. ' Ordinance 96-06, an ordinance amending chapter 7.40, nuisances, of the Tigard Municipal Code by amending Article 4, Nuisances and Affecting the Public Peace. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and checkla voted "yes.") 10. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.30 (SECTIONS 2.30.060 AND 2.30.070) AUTHORIZING INVENTORY OF THE CONTENTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS j AND IMPOUNDED VEHICLES. a. Staff Report. Police Department Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that a recent court decision made It necessary for the police department to get legislative authority to conduct Inventory of the persons and property arrested as well as of vehicles impounded. He said that this was done for several reasons, including safety, safeguarding, and liability concerns. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the specifics of the ordinance that set guidelines for the process already in place (see agenda packet), pointing out the memo from the City Attorney's office revising language in the Code regarding inventorying prisoner's property and impounding t vehicles. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES . FEBRUARY 13, 1996 . PAGE 29 k i Serlt by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 208 382 3385; 01/23/97 10:24AM;,Jgtr= #94; Page 31/32 v y 4 • 1 b. Council Questions at Discussion Councilor Rohif asked for an explanation on why they needed to declare an emergency in order to enact this ordinance. Chief Goodpaster explained that every day they did not have this ordinance In place increased the City's potential liability. Mr. Ramis supported the Chiefs reasoning. i c. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-07 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohif, co adopt Ordinance 96.07'. Ordinance 96-07, an ordinance amending chapter 2.30 of the Tigard 1 Municipal Code by adopting sections 2.30.060 and 2.30.070, authorizing inventory of the content of arrested persons and impounded vehicles and declaring an emergency. { The motion was approved by a unanimous roil call vote of Council „ present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohif, Moore and ' Scheckla voted "yes.") i I 11. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD - CONSIDER CITY HAIL ROOF ' PROPOSAL a. Staff Report: Maintenance Services Department t b. Council Questions &Z Discussion i c. Council Consideration: Motion to authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Richard Raglan for research, analysis and r r preliminary design (Phase 1) of the City Hail roof project in the amount of $2,310. Mayor Nicoll noted that the Council has already acted on this item. He said that they would meet with the architect at a future council session. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS a. Resolution - State of Emergency as result of storm last week (Monahan veYiewni) - Mr. Monahan explained that it was necessary to declare a state of emergency for both the private property owners and the City, as well as the water district area, to be eligible for financial assistance from FEMA, the State and the County. He said that staff believed there would be significant damage to Cook Park once the water went down. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the City did not own 100% of the water lines and reservoirs and asked If they could still get reimbursement for damage. Mr. Monahan explained that they could do so because they had the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 30 I t. i San; by: BUCK AND GORDON 1 206 382 3365; 01/23197 10:24AM;JetraX #94; Page 32/32 :l agreement of the other partners. He said that the ocher three entitles should also pass a similar resolution. MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution 9"S. Resolution 96-019, a resolution of the Tigard City Council declaring a state of emergency as a result of the 2/6/96 storm. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor I Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") f Advisory `D. Washington COYiniy PaPiiS C3idu`li'at22 i Mayor Nicoll noted that Council had informally acted on the request concerning coordination with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee and that Mr. Hendryx had already received direction to reword j the letter. Staff could bring the revised letter back next week for Council ~ review. - 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), a (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. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 p.m. I ~ f~ ~:ti✓! i LC ~L2 tL) Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Record j or, City o Tigard 14(, Dace: l4 ean02t7.f~ - j f i k. F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 31 r fi F { 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530 a 22,1997 a Honorable James Nicoli, Mayor ' i City of Tigard Oregon JJ4N 2 4 1997 i 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd. (f' Tigard, Oregon 97223 - L-JCl - Dear Mayor Jim: y The primary purpose of this transmittal is to request adequate time to present my case I - . against the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment as scheduled for hearing Tuesday January 28, 1997. This is the Scholls Ferry/135th (CPA 96-0009) issue. My F analysis indicates the proposal contains substantial deficiencies. I am requesting twenty minutes to outline those problems. { Secondly, I enjoyed last night's meeting a great deal. I particularly appreciated your t philosophy about children playing in the streets. From my fundamental viewpoint, cars and children do not mix. However, if we are going to continue compressing our ever { increasing population into smaller and smaller spaces, adjustments are necessary. p This also means each of us must also give up some of our "independent rights". In t other words, you and the Council changed my view. ~f Now for a couple of "tremendous trifles": i - My motive for attending last night's meeting was to hear the 2040 report Since I am retired, it did not matter much to me that the presentation was canceled. ( However, in the old day's when my time was scheduled to the micro-second, waiting for that length of time to finally learn of the scratch, would have been very frustrating. fffl Perhaps schedule changes could be announced at the beginning? (It appeared you were also unaware of the agenda adjustment.) j - The directory to City Hall and the Library, as placed just inside the front door, is J backwards. A patron should be facing south to read it accurately. It is an excellent lay- out, and the city should be complimented for including Braille. But, for someone visit- ing for the first time, it is necessary to study the layout for a time to realize city offices I and restrooms are actually westerly (and not easterly). d I wish you continued success with your difficult charge. 1 Respectfully, G.Eugene McAdams I 2 i ® PACIFIC Iu6~lic k~~"nmorly CREST Ct~~~n cA l h~ c~,ti; n q f PARTNERS December 27, 1996 l (0J i~m f - _ Tigard City Council ~f G~ Lr N[ City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009 Shrader, R-25 to C-C. Dear City Council: I am a property owner within 1/2 mile of the Shrader parcel. I am opposed to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 1. Split process: The application for C-C is intended to be accompanied by site plans and detail of the proposed development. At this point the neighborhood knows nothing of the proposed development. If a Comp Plan Amendment is approved, it will tie the neighborhood's hands when the zone change comes in. This application for a Comp Plan Amendment `only' is a blatant circumvention of the process that was intended for the C-C ;t zone. When the C-C zone was created by the Council there was a lot of discussion about how to adequately control and monitor the development. This application undermines the,,. Council's explicit intent. The previous applicant for C-C was required to be up front with project details. 2. Residential need: The City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial noting that the City needs residential. Most recently, an excellent proposal from Hagen's (Briar Development) was rejected across the street from this property because the Council essentially chose to protect its residential land inventory. The Council must be consistent. 3. Commercial Separation: The C-C zone requires at least %2 mile separation from other commercially zoned properties. This site is within 1/2 mile of three different commercial sites. This site does not qualify for C-C. The City of Beaverton objects to this application because the entire "football" area (between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road) will become a mixed used Town Center. There is no need for "convenience shopping" (the intent of C-C) across the street from a Town Center. [ 911 Oak Street, Hood River, OR 97031 (503)386-6333 fax: (503)386-9375 { .a y y December 27, 1996 -s j 4. Traffic: Policy 8. 1.1 requires a safe and efficient transportation system. We have serious concerns pertaining to traffic which would be generated by a C-C designation including: • Lack of capacity at both Scholls Ferry intersections; • Traffic infiltration into the residential neighborhoods- and • Asa transit corridor this change is in conflict with the intent of the Urban Growth ; Management Functional Plan. 5. No mistake or chanee: There is no mistake or significant change, therefore the application must be denied. For these reasons I am strongly opposed to the proposed Comprehensive plan change. Please deny this application. Sincerely, Daniel y i h f Ji L t 1 % l ,j 111 '.S ' i January 28, 1997 i TO: Tigard City Council RE: CPA 96009--Scrader Comp Plan Amendment t Dear City Council, j I oppose this application. It is asking you to make a major change in the comprehensive ' plan from residential-multi-family to Commercial zoning. It is asking you to do so without any site specific plan. They are asking you to commit the land to commercial use { without you knowing what is going to be placed on site. In the event you are going to j consider the parcel for commercial use then you should turn this application down and 3 direct the applicant to apply for both a comp plan change as well as a zone change at the same time. If you do so they will be required to detail their site plan for you and you will t know what you are voting for. Obviously the applicant can apply just for the comp plan amendment at this time but you are under no obligation to approve it just because they applied for it. With the limited amount of expansion of the urban growth boundary that will take place from here on out it i is critical that each parcel of land left to be developed be carefully planned. Make this i applicant detail a site plan they will he held to by requiring both the comp plan and zone change at the same time. If the applicant has a proposal which is beneficial to the community that will be made very clear during hearings which detail the site plan and use and this would occur by having both comp plan and zone change application at the same { time. I am opposed to the loss of residential housing zoning which would occur in the event the comp plan change was approved. As we get more densely packed the land which is already zoned residential and located on current/existing public transportation routes are a j valuable resource. The subject property does not comply with the CC distance requirements in that it is within 1/2 mile of retail commercial zoning and uses located at Murrayhill shopping center and at the SW corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. The staff report for the planning commission indicates that the primary uses at the North Dakota site are not retail f commercial-this is incorrect. If you ask anyone in the commercial real estate retail business if the uses at that location (Starbucks, Boston Market, Key Bank (who considers it a retail location) cleaners, hair cutting) are retail uses the answer would be yes. The real estate broker for the site, Grubb & Ellis, is marketing the last 2145 Sq. Ft. space for retail use, and the site is zoned for retail. The staff is incorrect on this point. The site does not physically meet the criteria. There has not been a change in circumstance of the site comp plan policy 1.1.2(2) There is an abundance of opportunity to shop in the immediate area; At least four sites-there are 4 two zoned sites within 1/2/ mile (Murrayhill and the North Dakota) site, the new planned { Albertsons Shopping center within 6/10s of a mile to the south and Greenway shopping center approx. 6/10s of a mile to the east. In addition there are at least 15 other sites a c I i Page Two of Two which serve the area the applicant proposes based on trade area defined in the CC Zoning code. Clearly this area is not void of shopping opportunities. i As to suitability of the site for apartments, one of the desirable criteria for an apartment location is close or immediately neat to major transportation or streets and roadways. The sire is ideal for apartments it is flat, adjacent to transportation and has a wetlands on site-a wonderful added benefit for a apartment development. One only has to look to i where other apartments have been successfully developed to see that this is an ideal l apartment site. re-; &7% 71-e. S,.. 9,,,o1 NE -P old ScA-/ls 9' 174,1v 13W J ~ l t This violates Policy 5.4 of the comp plan since the site is zoned residential it is obvious that I( this proposal would encroach into residential areas. On page eight of the planning commission report staff states that Washington County will support the Comp Plan change with conditions. This is incorrect. What Washington County said was that if the change was made they would want certain conditions attached. A4 e; lyy L Rep°~ Staff states in the planning commission report on page 11 that IMPACT ASSESSMENT I does not apply in considering this application because this application does not involve a zone change. You have to ask yourself why would you want to designate a property for commercial use if you don't have the answers as to the impact of a commercial development. Since there is no site specific proposal then the applicant should have to prove that EVERY use allowed in the CC zone is compatible with the surrounding area and uses. In my opinion the staff really missed the mark in taking this position. In closing you are under no obligation to grant approval, I don't feel the site should be developed for commercial uses but instead high density residential uses, and finally if you are going to consider the site for commercial uses the require the applicant to bring forth an application for both a comp plan and a zone change at the same time so you know what € you are voting on. Sincerely yours, o P, Craig . tae Q ~e 7xi ~Jwo{c„ i on/e, /%P~ce.. 12397 Canvasback Way $w%,ae E Beaverton Oregon 97007 k` /I~✓ M~ ~M ~lbara~, cL S/~%f ~~aiv Ns s D O f} C "~f1/Zo~vC C17o4rc,p ~f% /tee. S~`ni e i 1 T`iis ~R~PorTL iS a ~iou/iv~ o~' /~e CC Zo.ve i., TwT; f. D6,17 Re- 7cft %0(, c Ti~r inTt-j wa.S To Aive41 l,/ligT ya- /4Rf' F 7j` -b w.IPN ysw. VoT f~ , j,