Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 07/25/2000
D,PIG IAJ L C OF TIG OREGON TIGAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED t t t t a a s i:%admyoXccpkt3.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Revised 7/21 /00 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING ]ULY`*,25; 2000 u " 6:30 PM CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY-'. HALL 13125 SW,HALL:BLVD: TIGARD, 0REGON`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 Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 a.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the 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 numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING JULY 25y 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (l) (d), (e), (f) 81 (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and 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. > Review City Council Groundruies > Review Benefit Recommendations from the Management Classification and Compensation Study (See Item 3.3 on the Consent Agenda) 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 23 and June 13, 2000 3.2 Approve Police Department Training Request: Criminal Intelligence Analysis Applications Course for Microcomputer Technician Brenda Abbott 3.3 Adopt Benefit Recommendations from Management Group Job Class and Compensation Study IR4?3 044A, COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 25, 2090 - PAGE 2 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Five (5) Police Vehicles from Gresham Ford b. Award Contract for FY 2000-01 Pavement Major Maintenance Program-Slurry Seal to Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. C. Award Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail - Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) to Andersen Pacific, Inc. 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 on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC - TRl-COUNTY CENTER. ae"t avar/m/00 ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 25, 2000. PAGE 3 A Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major 11-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Emi3lovment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 4 7:50 PM 5. STAFF UPDATE: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY a. Staff Report: Community Development Department 8:10 PM 6. TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (TCBDA) REQUESTS Staff Report: Community Development Department a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion and Consideration of TCBDA Requests for Funding of a Business Manager and Downtown Banners 8:30 PM 7. CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT TITLE - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS a. Staff Report: Administration Department and City Attorney's Office b. Council Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 00-44!1 8:45 PM 8. UPDATE ON APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR Y Staff Report: Administration Department 9:00 PM 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:10 PM 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9:20 PM 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will 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 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. 9:30 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT 1. bADM\CATHY\CCA1000725. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA- JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 5 h Agenda Item Ne.~ Meeting of 9 / TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 2000 STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:35p.m. by Council President Moore > Council Present: Council President Brian Moore, Councilors Paul Hunt, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow; Senior Analyst Sherrie Burbank > Review Council Groundrules Bill Monahan, City Manager, referenced the changes to the Council groundrules suggested by Councilor Patton. He mentioned that, while most communities placed the Visitors Agenda at the beginning of the meeting, many have discussed placing it at the end, in order to facilitate the meeting flow. He suggested that the Council hold the citizens to their allotted time under Visitors Agenda. If a citizen or a group of citizens raised an issue on which staff could report back later in that meeting, then the Council could add that item as a non-agenda item for discussion that evening or for scheduling on a future agenda following staff review. Councilor Scheckla suggested that, when possible, the appropriate staff person could talk with the citizen in the lobby, so as not to interrupt the flow of the meeting. Mr. Monahan indicated that occasionally that might be possible. He said that staff would bring back the groundrules with Councilor Patton's changes to the next meeting. > Review Benefit Recommendations from the Management Classification and Compensation Study (See Item 3.3 on the Consent Agenda) Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Manager, noted the recommendations per Council direction. She confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that this was not part of the TPOA contract. The Council had no questions. > Ballot Title Language Tim Ramis, City Attorney, reported that he adjusted the ballot title language to comply with the word limitation. The Council had no questions. > Administrative Items The Council discussed the designation of athletic fields in honor of Jim and Dave Nicoli. Mr. Monahan referenced the draft resolution, asking for Council feedback. Councilor Hunt questioned why "Addition" was in the suggested name "The Nicoli Brothers Athletic Field Addition." Mr. Monahan explained that he thought that would clarify the location of the fields in the Lamb-Gray addition to Cook Park. He noted that the Council had not liked the word "complex." Councilor Hunt suggested naming it "The Nicoli Brothers Athletic Fields." Council President Moore questioned "Nicoli Brothers," as there was a third brother. Councilor Patton suggested naming it the "Nicoli Athletic Fields", and then adding "Jim and Dave." The Council concurred with Councilor Patton's suggestion. The Council directed Mr. Monahan to return with the final resolution on August 8. Councilor Scheckla referenced the bond measure ballot title language. He asked why the interest amount of 5.1 % was followed by a question mark. Mr. Ramis explained that the dollar amount of 520.836 million included the projected repayment estimate. However, this far in advance of selling the bonds, the bond consultants could not know what the actual interest rate of the repayment would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES --JULY 25, 2000 Page 1 be. Since the public was entitled to know what interest rate the City used to calculate the repayment element of the bond (so they could decide whether or not it was a realistic rate compared to the interest rates at the time of the election and the probable actual interest rate they could end up paying), the City included the 5.1% figure it used, followed by a question mark in order to highlight that it was a preliminary and tentative interest rate. He emphasized that the language complied with the State statutory requirements. Mr. Monahan asked if the Council wanted him to notify the Nicoli family that the Nicoli Athletic Fields resolution was set for the August 8, 2000, meeting. The Council concurred with notifying the family. > Trust for Public Lands grants Mr. Monahan reported that the Trust for Public Land's grant applications with the State Park Department for the Bond and Stanley properties were not funding. He said that staff would find out who received grants. Councilor Hunt mentioned the $100,000 from the Parks Department that had been part of the same discussion. Mr. Monahan said that Council had not liked the option of deferring $100,000 worth of work on trails and setting that money aside for acquiring those properties. He explained that staff left the $100,000 in the budget for the trails, once the Council agreed that the Trust for Public Lands either provided the $150,000 for those properties or the City did not accept them. Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if the Trust for Public Lands returned to the Council. Mr. Monahan indicated that the Trust could very well return to the Council for support, as part of their job was going around the state, identifying properties qualifying for grants, and trying to garner local support. Councilor Scheckla discussed his annoyance with the Trust continually core ing Lack for properties to which the Council has already said no. Council President Moore pointed out that, last time, the Trust's proposal involved no City funds, as the Trust was to supply the money to purchase the property and then donate the property to the City. Councilor Patton concurred that the Trust's mission was to keep coming back to jurisdictions with property acquisition suggestions. She spoke to the Council looking at the Trust's proposals on a case-by-case basis to see if there was any benefit potential to the City. > Home Occupation Permits Mr. Monahan reviewed the letter from Sherene Walker with respect to a home occupation Code violation that ensued when the City took over the service of the unincorporated area. He mentioned that Ms. Walker has been very cooperative and intended to present a proposal to the Council during Visitors Agenda about. changing the requirements for home occupations such as a piano studio. Mr. Monahan recalled that Tigard implemented its home occupation regulations in 1983 and revised them significantly in 1989 in response to the home care for children issue. He noted that if the Council chose to change Tigard's regulations, the changes also had to be adopted at Washington County before they applied to Ms. Walker's property in unincorporated Washington County. > Quello Letter Councilor Scheckla asked if staff replied to the letter from Dan Quello. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Quello converted his historic property to an event center, which he rented out for weddings. He noted that the City did not allow outdoor weddings or amplified sound in Mr. Quello's zone, and cited him upon neighbor complaints. He explained that Mr. Quello expressed his frustration with the lengthy Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He mentioned that Mr. Quello has been working with a professional planning consultant for six months. Mark Padgett, Planning Commission, clarified that the issue was a Zone Ordinance amendment CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 2 to change what might or might not be allowed in historic overlay districts in the city. He explained that, although Mr. Quello put his property on the National Historic Register, he did not have an historic designation overlay on the property. > Agenda RevieNv Mr. Monahan reported that staff has reached an agreement with the Tri-County applicants to set the appeal hearing over to September 12. He mentioned the possibility that staff and the applicant might work out the remaining staff concerns, and the applicant would drop the appeal. Mr. Monahan mentioned the update on the process to fill the position of mayor. Councilor Hunt asked how many people picked up packets for the Councilor positions. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, indicated that between six to eight people picked up packets; three people were circulating petitions. Council President Moore asked if anyone was interested in attending the dedication ceremony of the Tualatin Police Department on Friday, August 11, at 2:00 p.m.; he would be out of town. > Council President Moore adjourned the study session at 7:12 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Council President Brian Moore called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Councilors Paul Hunt, Council President Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla were present. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA e Sherene Walker, 14973 SW Rosario Lane Ms. Walker read from a letter. She reviewed the steps she took to obtain proper licensing of her piano teaching home business at the County when she moved into her home 10 years ago. She noted that the County referred her to the City but City could not sell her a permit because her property lay outside the city limits. She mentioned that she had had no complaints from neighbors to the past nine years. She indicated that two weeks ago she received notice from the City of a Code violation: she did not have a home occupancy permit for her music studio in her home. Ms. Walker stated that she paid the $883 plus mailing costs fee for the home occupancy permit, hoping to get an exception that would allow her to keep her current number of students and hours of teaching. She mentioned that she was the immediate past president of the Tualatin Valley District of Oregon Music Teachers Association. Ms. Walker reviewed her research on the requirements for home businesses by other jurisdictions in the area. She noted that the requirements ranged from nothing in Newberg to a $65 per year business license in Sherwood and a $25 one-time home occupancy permit. She said that every one of the six surrounding jurisdictions stated that they had no limit on the number of students allowed per day. She mentioned the City of Gresham's new home occupation ordinance, which addressed the real issue of parking (as opposed to the number of clients) by requiring two on-site parking spaces. She noted the West Linn exception for music teachers with respect to their limit of five clients per day. Ms. Walker described the minimal traffic accessing her business, noting that many students rode the bus, walked or rode bicycles to her home. She described how she structured her business to teach three long days per week from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in order to accommodate the Tigard-Tualatin CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 3 Nill School District school and after school activity times. She discussed the special events she held during the year, including piano parties and an adjudication hearing. Ms. Walker discussed the vested interest that the City of Tigard had in providing home-based musical education for its children, especially in light of the diminishing of the arts at the schools. She mentioned her concern that she and other music teachers would have to move from Tigard to other jurisdictions because of the inequity of costs and the limit on the number of students. She cited one teacher who has already moved to Sherwood for those reasons. Ms. Walker asked the Council to consider exempting music teachers from the costly home occupation permit, as other jurisdictions have done across the nation. She asked the Council to revisit the City's home business code and fees, as Gresham did, to develop a more equitable system. She reviewed the three changes she saw as necessary: to require only a business license, to adjust the time limit to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and to have no limit on the number of clients. She commented that she has not mentioned this situation to either her students or the district teachers, in order to avoid alarming them, but if necessary, she was certain that they would be willing to testify. She gave staff a copy of her research. Ms. Walker confirmed to Councilor Hunt that she paid $883 for a home occupation permit from the City, and that all the other jurisdictions had fees under $100. Ms. Walker confirmed to Council President Moore that Washington County had not mentioned any requirements for home occupations at the time she called them about a business license. She said that most recently, the County staff told her that she had asked the wrong question in 1991; she should have asked for a home business permit instead of a business license. She indicated that she had not been aware that the City had since taken over the responsibility for the urban services area. Councilor Patton asked what triggered the citation. Ms. Walker reiterated that in the past 9.5 years she had had no cornplaints. She said that in the week before this happened, she had installed an air conditioner. A neighbor called the City to complain about the air conditioner, claimed that Ms. Walker's deck was too large, and asked if Ms. Walker's music studio business was legal. She noted that the City staff found that her deck was grandfathered in, as it was legally built in 1991 according to the Washington County standards. She observed that this did appear to be a vendetta on the part of the neighbor. She emphasized that a limit of six students per day severely restricted her business. Ms. Walker concurred with Councilor Scheckla that the deck had nothing to do with her piano teaching business. She explained that she applied and paid for the $883 home occupancy permit within the 10 days listed on the citation in hopes that the Council would grant her the necessary variances to allow her to continue teaching. Jim Hendryz, Community Development Director, explained that the City did not have a business license; it had a business tax based on the number of employees. He reviewed the purpose and requirements of the two types of home occupancy permits. He noted the City Code limits intended to minimize the impact of small-scale businesses on the neighborhoods, referencing the limits on the number of clients and on the hours of operations in particular. Mr. Hendryx stated that the County established the one-time 5883 permit fee, adopted by the City for the urban services area; the City's permit fee was $545 per the Council policy of some general find subsidy of fees within the city. He pointed out that the Tigard Code was silent with respect to the type of use; the limitations applied to all uses. He noted that traffic was an issue of concern in the neighborhoods. He described the procedure to change the Code, stating that staff could return with a report in 30 days. Mr. Hendryx explained to Councilor Scheckla that the State regulated home daycares, not the local jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx mentioned another option of a community evaluation of the program, similar to what Gresham did. He suggested taking the question of whether the City could exempt particular uses or CITY COUNCIL N,- FETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 4 re-evaluate the whole program out to the community involvement teams (CITs) for input. Mr. Ramis concurred with the approach suggested by staff to review the Code. Mr. Hendryx indicated to Councilor Scheckla that the Council had the authority to waive or to reduce fees. He noted that the policy in the urban services area was that it was supposed to be fee neutral (the City not subsidizing the cost of processing applications in that area). He confirmed that Ms. Walker would have to pay the business tax annually but the home occupation permit was a one- time fee. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Council allow Ms. Walker to retain her students while the City was in the process of resolving this issue. Mr. Ramis indicated that it was no! unusual for Oregon jurisdictions to refrain from enforcing a citaiion while the applicant was pursuing a regulatory solution. The Council agreed by consensus to allow Ms. Walker to continue her business until the Council had an opportunity to revisit the Code. Mr. Hendryx indicated that staff would return with a report in 30 days. Councilor Patton commented that Ms. Walker's research indicated that other jurisdictions have been re-thinking their home occupation permits. She commented that, given the number of years since the City has looked at this issue, it would be prudent to look at it again. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: May 23 and June 13, 2000 3.2 Approve Police Department Training Request: Criminal Intelligence Analysis Applications Course for Microcomputer Technician Brenda Abbott 3.3 Adopt Benefit Recommendations from Management Group Job Class and Compensation Study - Resolution No. 00-43 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Five (5) Police Vehicles from Gresham Ford b. Award Contract for FY 2000-01 Pavement Major Maintenance Program-Slurry Seal to Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. c. Award Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail - Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) to Andersen Pacific, Inc. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. { 2000-02PC - TRI-COUNTY CENTER. a ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two { alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. ' OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 5 CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72"" Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"'; WCTM I S1 36CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goo s an services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning, district is designed to apply to a majority of the land witTin the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. Mr. Monahan presented the applicant's request to postpone the hearing to the date certain of September 12, 2000. He noted that staff and the applicants were trying to work out the details, which might result in the applicants' dropping the appeal. He commented that the waiver of the 120-day rule was in order. a. Council President Moore opened the public hearing and continued it to September 12, 2000. > The Council considered Agenda Item 6 at this time. 5. STAFF UPDATE: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY Mr. Hendryx stated that Sheila Greenlaw-Fink served on the Metro Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee looking at goals and strategies for affordable housing throughout the metropolitan region. He indicated that Ms. Fink would present an overview of the Committee's recommended strategies. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, said that she served as the non-profit affordable housing representative on HTAC (Housing Technical Advisory Committee). She mentioned the two years of work put in by the 28-member committee, composed of representatives from all facets of the housing industry. She noted that the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Report was available in its entirety on the Web. She pointed out the largely voluntary approach of the Committee's recommendations. Ms. Fink reviewed the report's discussion of why affordable housing was as critical a piece of infrastructure to community quality of life as transportation and other infrastructure items were. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 6 She referenced the historical data documenting what currently existed in affordable housing in the metro area. She referenced a report summarizing the Regional Affordable Housing strategy and defining what affordable housing was. She spoke to public policy addressing the needs of people (with incomes at 30% to 50% of the median income) for affordable housing, a sector seldom touched by the private market. Ms. Fink mentioned the frequent criticism of Washington County as promoting economic growth without the political will to address the housing issue, which economic growth substantially impacted. She noted the disproportionate distribution in the region, with most of the affordable housing in East Portland and Clackamas County and most of the jobs in Washington County. Ms. Fink emphasized the compromise nature of the report, noting the very divergent interests working on the strategies. She referenced a summary table listing the target number of affordable housing units assigned to each of the 24 jurisdictions. She pointed out that the 320 units assigned to Tigard represented only 10% of the estimated need to 2017. She commented that CPAH disagreed with the estimate, believing that Tigard had a 3,000 unit deficit in affordable housing at this time. Ms. Fink commented that the Committee agreed that it took political will and money to address the issue of affordable housing. She pointed out that the report listed possible strategies for use by jurisdictions in trying to reach the targets but did not mandate which strategies any jurisdiction had to use. She mentioned subsidies to keep rents at affordable levels for existing or new construction as a possible option for Tigard in reaching its target of 320 units by 2003. Ms. Fink reviewed the findings of the three subcommittees, which examined specific aspects of the affordable housing issue: Cost Reduction, Land Use and Regulations, and Regional Funding. She discussed the jobs/housing imbalance in greater detail. She argued that people not living in the community in which they worked affected the quality of life, citing a reduction in volunteerism. She reviewed the work Tigard has done to address the issue of affordable housing, including the adoption of property tax abatement and the development of the Housing Code. Ms. Fink mentioned deferring SDCs and permit fees as a reasonable strategy for Tigard to consider. She commented that the high SDC fees in Washington County were a barrier to affordable housing, which was not cheap to build. Ms. Fink noted other regional issues discussed, such as local government/state coordination in funding and regulation, land costs and availability, offsite improvements, regional coordination and regional databases. She discussed the need for a certain level of flexibility in a jurisdiction's application of its Code, land use and zoning requirements. She commented that without variances to most codes, affordable housing was not feasible. She described how low income families did not need the number of parking spaces mandated by the Code because many of the families did not own cars. Ms. Fink discussed the new funding climate with the decimation of HUD in the last decade. She mentioned the need for state subsidies and funding at the regional level. Ms. Fink asked the Council to adopt the Metro target of 320 units as a quantification of its own affordable housing goal. She indicated that reaching the goal required more than simply tax abatement, mentioning in particular reducing SDCs and increasing flexibility in the local regulatory environment. Councilor Hunt noted that Council three years ago had agreed to help CPAH with additional affordable housing projects, similar to the Villa La Paz project. He asked why CPAH never returned to Council to report on its other projects, given the Council's willingness to help. Ms. Fink noted that CPAH continued to do capital improvements at Villa La Paz and Hawthorne Villa. She described a third project undertaken by CPAH this year: the renovation of a four bedroom single family home to a five bedroom single family home to replace the four bedroom home destroyed when the shelter was built. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 7 111IN111111111101 1111111111=1=1111111MI N 11111111110mi- Ms. Fink discussed a 44 unit senior housing project CPAH wanted to build on Hall Blvd. She said that they have over $3 million in funding commitments but they could not build the project under the current zoning without significant variances. She indicated that they were waiting on the outcome of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, which zoned this property to something that they could use. She commented that there was very little appropriate buildable land left in the area, which forced them to this parcel. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council should consider the needed variances, if that was all that was holding up the project, and CPAH could lose its funding if it did not move forward soon. Council President Moore suggested scheduling a workshop discussion of the Council policy on fees, SDCs, and code provisions in light of the affordable housing issue. Councilor Hunt concurred. Councilor Scheckla contended that CPAH was in the predicament it was in because it purchased property within the area of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (adopted but not implemented), when perhaps it should have looked elsewhere. He argued that making special accommodations for CPAH would open the floodgates to others wanting similar consideration. Ms. Fink disagreed. She held that a clear statement from Council that any action it took was to address the affordable housing issue would preclude setting a precedent for other types of development. Councilor Patton agreed with holding a study session focusing on the alternatives that the City could consider in addressing the affordable housing issue. 6. TIGARD CENTRAL. BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (TCBDA) REQUESTS Tyler Ellensen, Tigard Central Business District Association President, reviewed the proposal TCBDA made last week for a downtown manager ($30,000), an Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) contract to develop an economic or business impro venient district (EID, BID), and $3,360 for banners. He presented a sample of the banners. He reported that they proposed $22,500 for the downtown manager position for this fiscal year (nine-month contract) with the remainder to fall in the next fiscal year. He said that 100% of the ODDA expense would fall in this fiscal year. He noted the total expenditure as $35,860. He commented that the remaining balance of $14,600 (out of the $50,000) gave the Association some flexibility. Mr. Hendryx spoke to the need for a professional part-time downtown manager to implement the downtown plan, as the volunteer business owners have reached the limit on the amount of time they could volunteer. He reviewed the manager's proposed job duties, including membership, development of a funding mechanism, and promotion of the downtown. Councilor Scheckla asked what the Association's relationship was with the Chamber of Commerce with respect to the downtown manager and plan. Mr. ElIenson said that they were working in unison with the Chamber but they decided to keep things separate, as they did not want to use City funds to indirectly subsidize the Chamber's new building (the Chamber offered to rent the Association office space for the manager). He discussed the Chamber's offer to allow the Association to hire one of its employees to work on a part-time basis, doing multiple functions for the Association and the Chamber. He mentioned their conclusion that keeping the job duties separate would be difficult for one person. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that the $30,000 for the downtown manager covered a one-year period from the date of hire, not for the fiscal year. Mr. Monahan commented that during the nine months of this fiscal year, the downtown manager would work with ODDA on developing a permanent funding mechanism, such as an EID or BID. He said that the Association needed a commitment from the Council to provide additional funding in the next fiscal year, which was when the Association would make decisions with respect to long-term financing. He indicated that the Council was looking at about a 21-month commitment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 8 Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that a BID or EID required a vote of the people. He referenced Mr. Ellenson's comment last week that one of their goals was to reduce the City's contribution to one-third of the total financing needed. Mr. Hendryx reported that ODDA said that it typically took 12 to 18 months to put together a successful BID, including the public process. Mr. Monahan explained to Councilor Scheckla that a BID or EID was not the same as the tax increment financing proposal defeated by the voters previously. Councilor Patton spoke to the Council continuing its support of the TCBDA's work, as they were doing a good job in improving the downtown area (a Council goal). The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to set the funding in motion to finance the part-time downtown manager ($22,500), the ODDA contract (S10,000), and the banners ($3,360) for a total of $35,860 out of the $50,000 set aside for the Association. Mr. Ellenson stated that, per Councilor Scheckla's suggestion, they set a regular, formal meeting date for the second Monday of every month, 5:30 p.m. at the Recreation Building in the Main Street Apartments. 7. CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT TITLE - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Ramis stated that this amended ballot title complied with the statutory word limit. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution 00-44. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 00-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BALLOT TITLE. Motion passed by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt and Patton voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") (3-1] 8. UPDATE ON APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR Mr. Monahan reviewed the process and schedule to fill the interim mayor position that the Council decided on during its workshop session last week (See July 18, 2000, minutes). He noted the staff work done to advertise the position, including a cable television discussion he and Ms. Wheatley worked on with TVCA last week. He reviewed the qualification requirements for the interim mayor position. He commented that the post office assigned a Tigard address to properties outside the city limits; staff would verify whether an applicant lived within the city limits. Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if only a few applied and the Council did not find someone appropriate. Mr. Ramis said that the Charter gave the Council broad discretion, allowing them to re-solicit applications if necessary. Mr. Monahan commented that the Council could direct staff to modify the process at any time. He pointed out that this was a similar interview process to the one used in hiring city employees. Councilor Patton mentioned the Council's decision to allow the interim mayor to run for the permanent mayor seat. Mark Padgett suggested including a statement that the time a person served in an appointed capacity did not count against the term limits for either Councilor or Mayor. The Council considered Agenda Item 5 at this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 9 9. COUNCIL. LIAISON REPORTS: None. 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:16 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der zy, AAA ayor, - of r Date. ~ ~ 1MDM\CATHY\CCM\000725. DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000 - Page 10 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER% INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising TT 9685 • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice RECEIVED PLANNING Planning Division ° 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, Oregon 97223 JUL 1 2170 • • DI 7 j OF TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the~1iaard Times a newspaper of general circulation as de ined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Appeal of t a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: OFFICIAL SEAL July 6th, 2000 SUZETTE I.CURRAN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 329400 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28. 2003 j Subscribed and sworn to &0re me this 6th day of July, 2000 ' i a Notary Public for Oregon i My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - 3 a a The following will be considered by the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. q Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390 of the Community Development Code and rules of procedure adopted by the Tigard City Council and available at City Hall. Testimony c may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or ' evidence sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Karen Pert Fox) at t 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: OPTION 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT [PD] 2000-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 2000-00005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT [MIS] 2000-00002 OPTION 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT [PD] 2000-00002 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 2000.00004 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT [MIS] 2000-00003 >APPEAL OF TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS I&2< ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000, public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership,and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000, the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25: - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM IS136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General IULC w Commercial and Mixed Use Enzplbyment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUM. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway-(Hwy 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: I Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. NVtCIM7Y MAP _J_ i9MA1WIYLENf~1 a'~ ttl52CU0-0BQUi ~OP1Y1t1 _ O OFIgK2 1AXtM tAxtots - I I -T - TT9685 -Publish July 6, 2000. a Stu d A ciende Item NO. -Soss~n_ Meeting of MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: July '12, 2000 SUBJECT: Council Groundrules Annually, the City Council reviews the City Council Groundrules and Agenda Process to determine if modifications should be made. Attached is Exhibit A, the current Council Groundrules. Discussion of the groundrules is scheduled for the study session portion of the July 25 Council meeting. att I:W DM\BILLICOUNCIL GROUNDRULES.DOC a EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No. 00- CITY COUNCIL GROUN®RULES AND AGENDA PROCESS The following information is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct of City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains regulations that govern Council meetings. The Groundrules describe the process followed by Council in scheduling and conducting meetings. Council/Mayor Roles • The Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, the Council President, shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings. The Presiding Officer shall conduct all meetings, preserve order, enforce the rules of the Council and determine the order and length of discussion on any matter before the Council, subject to these rules. The Presiding Officer may move, second, debate and vote and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor. The Presiding Officer shall sign all ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other documents, except where authority to sign certain contracts and other documents has been delegated to the City Manager and all documents shall be attested to by the City Recorder. The Mayor shall appoint the committees provided by the Rules of Council. • In all other actions, decisions and other matters relating to the conduct of business of the City, the Mayor or President shall have no more or less authority than any other Council member. For the purposes of this written procedure any reference to the Council (unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary) will include the Mayor, President and Council members. Conduct of City Meetings • Council will meet at least once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be on the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. • The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business" meetings; the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are "Workshop" meetings unless otherwise designated by the City Council. • Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at 6:30 p.m. at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth Tuesdays the meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the Business meeting. On the third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. • Roll Call/Voting Order: The roll shall be called in alphabetical order by last name. At each succeeding meeting at which a roll call vote is taken, the council person 1 ;JJ 11 wted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Council person ted first during the preceding meeting shall vote second and so on in a fashion. It is the intent that the voting order remain fixed for each meeting t a differ t Council ~ a_ U..: _ each a_ Ll lu ,~2soia vvu~wii person S~ ~au'vo las uuring each separate meeting o the duration of the meeting. • Charter Section 19 provides that'the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Council -present and voting, when a quorum of the Council is present, at a Council meeting shall be necessary to decide any question before the Council.' A Council member who abstains or passes shall be considered present for determining whether a quorum exists, but shall not be counted as voting. Therefore, abstentions and 'passes' shall not be counted in the total vote and only votes in favor of or against a measure shall be counted in determining whether a measure receives a majority. • The Chair, or other members if the Chair fails to remember, shall call for a Point of Order at or around 9:30 p.m. to review remaining items on the agenda with the Council. The Council may reset or reschedule those items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. • The Council's goal is to adjourn prior to 10 p. m. unless extended by majority consent of all Council member then present. If not continued by majority consent, then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the next scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to a special meeting on another date. • Definitions - Meeting Types, Study Sessions and Executive Sessions: > BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item including consideration of ordinances, resolutions & conducting public hearings. Business meetings are open to the public. The first business meeting on each month is usually televised. Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with a study session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition below) which also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business meeting agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on process. Study Sessions are open to the public. All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain circumstances and topics are limited to those defined by ORS 192.660. The "Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning of the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to refer 2 an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later Council meeting. > WORKSHOPS MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings where Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of deliberating toward a final decision during the meeting. Workshop meetings are not scheduled to be televised but are open to the public. Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving preliminary information and providing direction for further analysis and staff information gathering for a later business meeting. Workshop topics may also include discussions with standing boards and committees, as well as other governmental units. Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include: Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda. Educational Meetings: Council will review research information presented by staff, consultants, or task forces - usually as a process check; i.e. is the issue on the right "track"? Meet with individuals from City boards and committees or other jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples: other Councils, the School District, and other officials). - Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information, scheduling preferences, process checks. > STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue on to be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not shall be determined by the majority vote of the Council members present. If Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to a Council meeting, either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will briefly state at the introduction of the Agenda Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion. > EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: Meetings conducted by the Council, City Manager, and appropriate staff in a setting closed to the public for deliberation on certain matters. Executive Sessions may be held during a regular, special or emergency meeting after the presiding officer has 3 " d identified the authorization of ORS for holding the Executive Session. Among the permitted topics are employment of a public officer, deliberations with the persons designated by the Council to carry on labor negotiations, deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions, and to consult with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Policy Regarding Interrelationships Between the City Council and Its 4onointed Commissions. Boards or Committees (hereinafter referred to as "Boards") • The Council shall follow the Procedure for Recruitment and Appointments to Boards and Committees established in Resolution No. 95-60. • Appointments to any committees not covered by Resolution No. 95-60 shall be made following the procedure provided within the Resolution or Ordinance, which created the committee. • Appointments to intergovernmental committees shall be made by Council Action. • Appointments of Council members to internal City committees as the Council Liaison shall be made by the City Council. • It is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in the Cityscape, of the occurrence of vacancies on City boards for the purpose of informing persons who may be interested in appointment. • Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on those boards, which provide for such non-city membership. • The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee for the purpose of interviewing and recommending potential board members. Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a rotated basis for a term of six months. Terms shall begin January 1 and July 1. Communications Between City Councilors City Manager and Staff Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City Manager, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions. • Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Manager, giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. • In the absence of the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Assistant to the City Manager. In the absence of both the City Manager and the Assistant to the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Department Head, realizing that the Department Head will discuss any such inquiries with the City Manager. 4 d • Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible disruption of work, confusion on priorities, and limited scope of response. Council Agendas and packet Information • The City Manager will schedule agenda items while attempting to maintain balanced agendas to allow for discussion of topics while meeting the established 10 p.m. 14 p:rn-. adjournment time. • The City Manager will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the agenda cycle deadlines. • The agenda cycle calls for submittal of items 10 days in advance of a Council meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, and handouts distributed at the start of meetings, except Executive Sessions. • Councilors and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and issues should be presented fully in packets. • Council is supportive of the role staff should play in offering professional recommendations. Staff is aware of Council's right to make final decisions after considering the staff recommendation, public input, the record and Council deliberation on the matter. Communications Among Councilors • Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to contact the City Manager about scheduling an item into the Tentative Agenda. • Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally considered only if continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate. • Requests for legislative action of Council may be initiated by an individual Council member during a Council meeting. The City Manager will respond to the request consistent with resources and priorities, or refer the question of scheduling to Council as a whole. Communications with Community/General Public Councilors and the General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off dates. Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are handled and how citizen loput may be accomplished. • "Official" communication should come through City Hall and be provided by the City Manager. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual Councilors should be referred to the City Manager or Councilors may ask the City Manager to look into an issue. 5 MISSOURI I i Mill r ~ 0 • Official "press releases" are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting and to advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the press. Press releases are through the City Manager's Office. General • Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never simply private citizens. Thus, Councilors are always treated by Administration as Council Members. • Information that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City M.: nager is to decide on "gray areas," but too much information is preferable to too little. • Budget cuts or increases are policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut "piece meal" or "across the board," but rather should be made in service or program areas, giving Staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. • It is the policy of the Council that if Councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors have no comment. • Councilors and the City Manager agree to report and discuss any contact, which might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive Session. • The Council Groundrules will be submitted for review by Council each year either in the July or August Workshop Meeting. The Groundrules can be reviewed and revised at any other time in the year when a specific issue or issues are identified requiring action prior to the established review period. gff/acm/90024/cou ncilru!cs. exa(4/17/00) I 6 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley DATE: July 25, 2000 SUBJECT: Revised Council Groundrules We received some proposed changes from Councilor Patton to the City Council Groundrules. Wording suggested to be removed is indicated by a stfike#hrsug#, while proposed added words are shown as italicized. Councilor Patton noted some corrections in capitalization and punctuation; those changes were made. I:WDM\CATHMOUNCIUMEMO - REVISED GROUNDRULES.DOC Redline version... Deletions are eeeseed-sets. Additions are in italics. EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No. 00- CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND AGENDA PROCESS The following information is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct of City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains regulations that govern Council meetings. The Groundrules describe the process followed by Council in scheduling and conducting meetings. Council/Mayor Roles • The Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, the Council President, shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings. The Presiding Officer shall conduct all meetings, preserve order, enforce the rules of the Council and determine the order and length of discussion on any matter before the Council, subject to these rules. The Presiding Officer may move, second, debate and vote and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor. The Presiding Officer shall sign all ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other documents, except where authority to sign certain contracts and other documents has been delegated to the City Manager and all documents shall be attested to by the City Recorder. The Mayor shall appoint the committees provided by the Rules of Council. • In all other actions, decisions and other matters relating to the conduct of business of the City, the Mayor or President shall have no more or less authority than any other Council member. For the purposes of this written procedure any reference to the Council (unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary) will include the Mayor, President and Council members. Conduct of City Meetings • Council will meet at least once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be on the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Y The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business" meetings; the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are "Workshop" meetings unless otherwise designated by the City Council. H O Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at 6:30 p.m. at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth Tuesdays the meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the Business meeting. On the a third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. a m Roll Call/Voting Order: The roll shall be called in alphabetical order by last name. At each succeeding meeting at which a roll call vote is taken, the council person who voted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Council person who 1 voted first during the preceding meeting shall vote second and so on in a rotating fashion. It is the intent that the voting order remain fixed for each meeting and that a different Council person shall vote last during each separate meeting for the duration of the meeting. • Charter Section 19 provides that'the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Council present and voting, when a quorum of the Council is present, at a Council meeting shall be necessary to decide any question before the Council.' A Council member who abstains or passes shall be considered present for determining whether a quorum exists, but shall not be counted as voting. Therefore, abstentions and 'passes' shall not be counted in the total vote and only votes in favor of or against a measure shall be counted in determining whether a measure receives a majority. • The Chair, or other members if the Chair fails to remember, shall call for a Point of Order at or around 9:30 p.m. to review remaining items on the agenda with the Council. The Council may reset or reschedule those items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. • The Council's goal is to adjourn prior to 10 p. m. unless extended by majority consent of all Council member then present. If not continued by majority consent, then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the next scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to a special meeting on another date. • Definitions - Meeting Types, Study Sessions and Executive Sessions: > BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item including consideration of ordinances, resolutions & conducting public hearings. Business meetings are open to the public. The f-n' business meeting en eaeh th is usually televised. The regularly scheduled business meetings are televised. Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with a study session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition below) which also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business meeting agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on process. Study Sessions are open to the public. All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain circumstances and topics are limited to those defined by ORS 192.660. The "Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning of the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to refer an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later Council meeting. 2 > WORKSHOPS MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings where Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of deliberating toward a final decision during the meeting. Workshop meetings are not currently scheduled to be televised but are open to the public. Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving preliminary information on and providing direction for further staff analysis and &#a# information gathering for a later business meeting. Workshop topics may also include discussions with standing boards and committees, as well as other governmental units. Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include: - Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda. - Educational Meetings: Council will review research information presented by staff, consultants, or task forces - usually as a process check; i.e., is the issue on the right "track"? - Meet with individuals from City boards and committees or other jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples: other Councils, the School District, and other officials). - Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information, scheduling preferences, process checks. > STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue on to or be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not shall be determined by the majority vote of the Council members present. If Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to a Council meeting, either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will briefly state at the introduction of the Agenda Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion. > EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: Meetings conducted by the Council, City Manager, and appropriate staff in a-sett' deliberatieA for deliberation on certain matters in a setting closed to the public. Executive Sessions may be held during a regular, special or emergency meeting after the Presiding Officer has identified the ORS authorization efORS for holding the Executive Session. Among the permitted topics are employment of a public officer, 3 t deliberations with the persons designated by the Council to carry on labor negotiations, deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions, and to consult with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Policy Regarding Interrelationships Between the City Council and Its Appointed Commissions Boards or Committees (hereinafter referred to as "Boards") • The Council shall follow the Procedure for Recruitment and Appointments to Boards and Committees established in Resolution No. 95-60. • Appointments to any committees not covered by Resolution No. 95-60 shall be made following the procedure provided within the Resolution or Ordinance, which created the committee. • Appointments to intergovernmental committees shall be made by Council Action. • Appointments of Council members to internal City committees as the Council Liaison shall be made by the City Council. • It is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in the Cityscape, of the occurrence of vacancies on City boards for the purpose of informing persons who may be interested in appointment. • Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on those boards, which provide for such non-city membership. • The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee for the purpose of interviewing and recommending potential board members. Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a rotated basis for a term of six months. Terms shall begin January 1 and July 1. Communications Between City Councilors, City Manager and Staff Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City Manager, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions. • Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Manager, giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. • In the absence of the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Assistant to the City Manager. In the absence of both the City Manager and the Assistant to the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Department Head, realizing that the Department Head will discuss any such inquiries with the City Manager. o Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible disruption of work, confusion on priorities, and limited scope of response. 4 Council Agendas and Packet Information C The City Manager will schedule agenda items while attempting to maintain balanced agendas to allow for discussion of topics while meeting the established 10 p.m. adjournment time. • The City Manager will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the agenda cycle deadlines. C The agenda cycle calls for submittal of items 10 days in advance of a Council meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, aRd as well as handouts distributed at the start of meetings, except Executive Sessions. Councilors and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and issues should be presented fully in packets. • Council is supportive of the role staff should play in offering professional recommendations. Staff is aware of Council's right to make final decisions after considering the staff recommendation, public input, the record and Council deliberation on the matter. Communications Among Councilors • Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to contact the City Manager about scheduling an item into the Tentative Agenda. • Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally considered only if continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate. • Requests for legislative action of Council may be initiated by an individual Council member during a Council meeting. The City Manager will respond to the request consistent with resources and priorities, or refer the question of scheduling to Council as a whole. Communications with Community/General Public Councilors and the General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off dates, Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are handled and hour citizen input may be accomplished. "Official" communication should come through City Hall and be provided by the City Manager. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual Councilors should be referred to the City Manager or Councilors may ask the City Manager to look into an issue. e Official "press releases" are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting and to advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the press. Press releases are through the City Manager's Office. 5 General • Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never simply private citizens. Thus, Councilors are always treated by Administration as Council members. • Information that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City Manager is to decide on "gray areas," but too much information is preferable to too little. • Budget cuts or increases are policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut "piece meal" or "across the board," but rather should be made in service or program areas, giving staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. • It is the policy of the Council that if Councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors have no comment. • Councilors and the City Manager agree to report and discuss any contact, which might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive Session. • The Council Groundrules will be submitted for review by Council each year either in the July or August Workshop Meeting. The Groundrules can be reviewed and revised at any other time in the year when a specific issue or issues are identified requiring action prior to the established review period. C\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\COUNCILRULES.EXA.DOC 6 AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : July 25, 2000 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. CC NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ~ ev~tn.~ ~teaeker Jrrn {,/tnelrI ck-x l'Y9 73 Su) ~o Sari ~ 7-i a'Q 01~ *4an ,~4 my r. Aa hail. ~~c~ Po(,~-ly5 ~ o N~T~ ~}S c9~sw~e~o I oc~ S. W, Qum a P/ VISIT'OR'S AGENDA Page 1 0111= 1111M 1111111-- 11111111-1011 July 24, 2000 Dear Council Members: My purpose in writing this letter is to make you aware of a situation that has significant impact on Tigard and to see if there is an equitable way to bring resolution. I am and have been for the past nine and a half years a piano teacher in the unincorporated part of Tigard on Rosario Lane. At the time of our move, I contacted Washington County and told them that I was a piano teacher and wanted to purchase a business license so I could teach in my home. They said that they did not sell them and I needed to contact the city of Tigard. When I called the city, they rightfully said that since I was not in the city they could not sell me one and that I would have to wait until we were annexed to purchase one. As of yet, we still aren't annexed. On July 10th, I was written a violation for having a studio in my home without a home occupancy permit. I have never in all these years received one complaint. Needless to say, I was shocked to even learn about the requirement for me of a home occupancy permit since I was not a part of the city. As Immediate Past President of the Tualatin Valley District of Oregon Music Teacher's Association, we had a few members last year, who either quit teaching or moved to a neighboring city to teach because of this requirement in the city of Tigard. Just this last week, our President Elect moved from Tigard to Sherwood because of the inequity of the fees. Since I am a law-abiding citizen I immediately applied for a Home Occupancy Permit and had to take out a loan for the $883.00 fee and the additional costs of mailings and purchasing city made address labels. To date this has cost me almost $1,000, approximately one month's worth of profit according to my last year's tax forms. However, because of the time and number of client constraints, if I do not receive a variance, I will have to drop many students who I have had the privilege of watching grow musically for years, or move. My request to you is: 1) to change the current home business codes to allow music teachers in the City of Tigard and unincorporated part of Tigard to teach with only a business license (that is all required in many municipalities in our area). This past week I have called Sherwood, Tualatin, Lake Oswego and Beaverton to get requirements for a music teacher in the home. The costs for business licenses ranged from $50- $75.00. Only Sherwood required a Home Occupancy permit for a one time cost of $25.00. In further discussion with their city hall staff, they informed me that they did not have the limits on number of clients per day or hours per day like Tigard does. This past Tuesday night, the Gresham City Council .passed their new home business law. According to the Gresham Outlook, "Changes hi the proposed ordinance include incentives to be good neighbors, cheaper and simpler fees and the elimination of customer limits. Instead of paying for home occupation permits and a business license, the owner's business license will double as a home occupation permit if there are no verifiable complaints against the business when the owner renews." City planner David Krogh said, "It's quicker and cheaper. If there are no verified complaints, then renewals will just be over the counter as a business license. So they'll still pay a fee, but it will be a business license fee not a home occupation permit fee." 2) To eliminate the number of clients per day. As Mary Martin, co-chair of the Home Occupation Committee and president of the Gresham Neighborhood Coalition said, "the real issue isn't how many customers come and go, it's the noise and traffic they bring with them. The committee thought that traffic and parking probably were bigger issues." So they require businesses to pruvi::e two on-site parking places (street parking doesn't count) i.e. double car driveway counts as two spaces. Their new code allows for limitless customers instead of eight per day. My student's parents drop them off and then go to the local store or run errands in the City of Tigard because they have to be back in an hour. This stimulates more economic activity for Tigard. 3) Change the hours of operation from 3:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M. That way junior high students can have their lessons before school, since they start school so late and get out so late and have sports after that. If necessary we could change the stop time from 9:00 to 10:00. However, Gresham adopted these hours because they are the construction hours. With the ongoing cutbacks in music education in the schools, we see the private instruction as being even more necessary to provide the musical education and knowledge our students need and deserve. Much research has been documented that proves a strong correlation between academically successful people and participating in the study of music. As a music teachers district we provide many opportunities for education of our students. For nine months we have been raising funds and promoting a duo piano concert at Tualatin High School with the nationally recorded team of Maria Choban and Kenn Willson. Since art and cultural events can be very expensive we have underwritten the entire cost ourselves and are offering this free to the public. During the year our students accompany the school choirs, the solo and ensemble festivals, play for the public at x Nordstroms and Beaverton Mali, nursing homes, school baccalaureates and graduation ceremonies. We are trying to help our students achieve their highest capability in music and then provide ways for them to share it with their community. Our concern now is that with the high cost of teaching in Tigard, many of our teachers are either closing their studios or moving to another city. Our home business promotes culture and the arts in ways that will be lost if this trend continues. a I look forward to addressing this issue at tomorrow night's meeting, but since my time will be very limited I wanted to give you a brief history before the meeting. I thank lei you in advance for taking the time to review this important issue, and ask that you seriously consider changing the regulations regarding home business so that we can eliminate this problem. I have attached some back up information as well as a letter from the Music Teachers National Organization regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, >Jler r-t Sherrene Walker Page 14A •Tile Outlook Wednesday, July 5, 2000 ell dress home business law Changes designed a against the business when the owner renews. to make permits What: Public hearing on mits will double as home- "It's quicker and cheaper," city easier, cheaper proposed home-based busi- occupation permits. planner David Krogh said. "If there Hess code changes • Encourages being a good are na verified complaints, then BY MA2nn S'I'INE ajThe Outlook staff When: 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, neighbor in that those wiit no renewals will just be over the counter July 18 verifiable complaints against as a business license. So they'll still Operating a home-based business Where: Gresham City them will be able to renew pay a fee, but it will be a business in Gresham could become easier and Council chambers, 1331 N.W. their business license license fee not a home occupation cheaper. Eastman Parkway over the permit fee." The city's Planning Commission counter without a formal Details: changes include: A business permit will cost $36 a on Monday, June 26, recommended Requiring businesses to review. Year. Currently, minor home-based the City Council approve proposed • Bans auto repair, Industrial business owners a one-time $25 changes to home-based business provide two on-site parking uses and crew staging - pay places (street parking doesn't permit fee with majors forking over codes at a Tuesday, July 18, meeting. count). when construction crews gath- $250 every two years for a home If approved, a second enactment . . Allows for limitless cus- er at one house and car pool occupation permit on top of a $36 a reading is scheduled for Tuesday, tomers Instead of eight per to the site, leaving their cars year business license fee. Aug. 1. day and no more than two behind. -If there are verifiable complaints "I think we worked out a very, per visit. • Limits hours of operation or enforcement actions against the very good plan for everybody," said . Allows limitless nonresident from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. business, the city would review the Mary Martin, co-chair of the Home employees to work provided • Allows homeowners to use business. The review would include Occupation Committee and president no more than one employee 50 percent, not 25 percent, of notifying neighbors within 300 feet of the Gresham Neighborhood wO When talk of simplifying the codes ks at a time. their home for business use. and the local neighborhood associa- Coalition. Eliminates the need for Bans use of detached Lion to give those affected a chance initially interpreted as a move to separate home-occupation buildings or garages as home to air complaints. Code compliance was ban all homcnterpr businesses, the permits. Instead, business per- Occupations. also would be considered. City Council faced a firestorm of The ordinance also would not clas- j resistance from supporters of their comers come and go, it's the noise only one non-resident employee can sify automotive work and repair, i neighborhood businesses and from and traffic they bring with them, be employed. industrial businesses such as sheet business owners themselves. Martin said. "The committee thought Minor home-based businesses metal manufacturing and construc- Changes in the proposed ordi- that traffic and parking probably have no outside labor or clients com- tion crews, which meet at a house nance include incentives to be good were bigger issues," she said. ing to the house, and carpool to the construction site, neighbors, cheaper and simpler fees Besides, "I don't think anybody Although other neighbors rallied as home-based businesses. and the elimination of customer lim- can enforce how many people you around the Corbans and their busi- Businesses in detached buildings, its. have in your home," she said. ness as one that promotes culture and such as shops or garages, also would- Martin said the committee consid- Gallagher declined to comment, the arts, the couple put their house up n't be permitted as a home occupa- ered various businesses operating out adding that people will find out what for sale this March. Now they're in tions. In addition, business couLln't of homes and found many are run by he thinks about -the proposed ordi- "a holding pattern" awaiting the operate from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. or stay-at-home moms or are budding nance when the council votes on it. ordinance's outcome. operate in more than 50 percent of businesses building clientele before Mym Corban, 69, who operates "if it goes in as is, we'll be able to the house. they can afford the move to commer- Corban Music Studio out of her breathe a sign of relief," Corban said. cial space. Gresham home with her husband, Otherwise, they could either close up Reporter Mara Stine can be "And we don't want to stop that John, hopes the proposed ordinance shop or put the for-sale sign back out reached at GOutlook@aol.com or by from happening," said Martin, passes. front. calling 492-5117. adding that concerns raised were The Corbans became caught in the "We are law-abiding citizens and addressed by logic and common crossfire of home-occupation contro- if we can't obey the law, then we will sense, versy when a neighbor complained move," she said with regret. "There's • For example, when Councilor Jack that three piano students were being no other alternative." It Rat Gallagher raised concerns that no taught at the same time, a violation Martin hopes the proposed ordi- limits were set on customers at a of current code, Mym said. nance will make it easier, not harder, Wifli 9~'ved ~~~A ss Monday, June 26, Planning Current home-based business per- for businesses to operate out of their FF Commission meeting, committee mils break establishments into two homes. members said that businesses instead types. Major home-based businesses, Instead of paying for home occu- EdwardJo nes will be required to provide two on- the kind the Corbans operate, allow pation permits and business licenses, Serving bdi id.d ln-wn Si- 1971 site parking spaces. Street parking no more than eight customers to visit the owner's business license will 2467 SW Cherry Pal doesn't count. a business per day, with no more than double as a home occupation permit (503) 666-2817 wrx The real issue isn't how many cus- two customers on site at a time. Also, if there are no verifiable complaints ;~'.>i?.. tits::::;:..... Y44+, 1N SAD`' 1 n N a mw7 Music TEACHetu Nxnouu AJSOC to-110N The Carew Tower • 441 Vine Street. Suite 505 • Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2814 • Phone: (513) 421-1420 • Fax: (513) 421-2503 To Whom It May Concern: It has recently come to my attention that a member in good standing of Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) has been found in violation of her zoning ordinance. While I know that there are zoning ordinances to protect neighborhoods from unnecessary noise and traffic issues and that zoning ordinances exist to keep neighborhoods safe and clean, I do think there are substantial reasons why an independent music teacher running a home-based business should be given careful consideration as an "exception" to zoning ordinances. As a matter of background, MTNA is a non-profit organization of 24,000 independent music teachers across the country. Every state of the Union as well as the District of Columbia has an affiliated organization. Our purpose is to further the art of music through teaching, performance, composition and scholarly research. We also promote the professional development of our membership. Zoning issues, of course, have a profound effect upon our members' ability to conduct their profession. For this reason, we are concerned whenever we hear of restrictions, local or national, which might not fairly serve independent music teachers. Conversely, we are supportive of initiatives that positively impact the in-home teaching of music. Today's home-studio teachers are well educated, usually with advanced degrees in music, provide a fine instrument for the student (especially true of piano teachers) and a library of pedagogical materials and repertoire for study and reference. They often have the latest technological tools to provide quality instruction as well. It is a long-held tradition that private music instruction be given in the home. The one- on-one relationship between teacher and student (master and apprentice) usually lasts for many years and is a nurturing experience for the student. In addition, the warm personal atmosphere of the home setting is very conducive to creative learning. There arc very o few times outside of their own homes that children are taught individually. Most teachers " create programs tailored to the student's specific needs, a benefit that cannot be matched in our schools. Private music lessons are an educational activity. In addition to the obvious pleasures of a making music, music education assists learning in many non-music areas. National 1UNL3L:IDo 1876 media has, in the last few years, reported on research indicating that music instruction, especially piano lessons, is better than computer instruction for developing abstract and critical reasoning skills. Other recent research points to the fact those students with music performance experiences score better on standardized tests that that of students without such experiences. Income for most independent music teachers is low. Nevertheless, teaching music is not a frivolous pursuit for any of our members. Many earn essential secondary income for their families. For the majority of our members, the income from teaching is their primary income. For piano teachers especially, home studios are fundamental. It is not economically feasible to rent commercial space and supply the studio with instruments. If piano teachers are deprived of the right to work at home, the entire music making community will be jeopardized. We believe the home-music studio enhances the character of neighborhoods. The home studio is not an overtly visible business - teachers are careful not to disrupt the residential areas. Typically students arrive one by one. Some students bicycle or walk to their lessons. Many teachers conduct group classes, but parents do not attend these classes and have no need to pai b._ for any length of time. If recitals are held in the studio, they are "social" in nature and the cars parked are no different than cars parked for any other types of social occasions. In the final analysis, independent music teaching in a home setting is a positive, enriching activity for any and every community. For that reason, some municipalities and states have made exceptions in their zoning ordinances for home-based music instruction. The members of MTNA would encourage you to adopt this approach. In doing so, you will keep music alive in your community through the impact and contributions of independent music teachers. Our desire is that independent music teachers will be able to continue making their unique contributions to the life and spirit of the communities. On behalf of the 24,000 members of Music Teachers National Association, I thank you for the opportunity to address this important matter. Sincerely, -e. Gary L. Ingle Executive Director I am filling out this application in order to be in compliance with the violation of operating a home occupation, piano studio, without approval, However, I am hoping to receive a variance. First I would ask, that piano teachers in Tigard be exempt from the Home Occupancy requirement as they are in Tualatin, Sherwood, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Gresham that I have contacted. Income for most independent music teachers is low so the fee is economically distressing. Besides IRS taxes, this fee will take almost one month of my profit last year in order to pay. I believe the home- music studio enhances the character of neighborhoods. The home studio is not visible, therefore not disrupting the residential area. Students are dropped off and picked up in my drive-way so there is not a parking problem. I am the first house on the street so no other homes are impacted. Some students bicycle or walk to lessons. About 6 times a year we like to have a piano party with 10-12 participants at three different times that day, where they learn performance skills, study composers, learn theory, and much more. Parents do not attend these classes and have no need to park for any length of time. The children on my street know that I will be home teaching piano lessons and they are always welcome to come here in case they find themselves in a situation where they need a safe place to go. Independent music teaching in a home setting is a positive, enriching activity for any and every community. For that reason, many municipalities and states have made exceptions in their zoning ordinances for home-based music instruction. Gresham just voted their new proposal in this past Tuesday, the 18th of July, requiring only a Business license and no limit on students. If you cannot give me the variance to not have to have a Home Occupancy Permit, I would ask that you allow me a variance of number of students a day. At six per day, that equals 42 per week. I have 42 students. However, because of their school schedules, sports, etc., they can only come at certain times. Therefore, the Jr. High students who have late start school, like to come at 7:00 A.M. so that they can catch the 8:30 bus in front of my house. So that means I am not in compliance with the 8:00 A.M. time listed in the code. However, I do not teach until 10:00 PM as is permissible. After six months of research, the Planning Committee in Gresham just passed business hours from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. with no limit on number of clients per day. Since I am trying to accommodate the students who are my clients, could I please be granted a variance to the only 6 a day and the time change? Because of the students schedules, I typically will have three teaching days, I2-14 students a day, with usually only 6 or so cars a day as I have alot of families with more than one student. I have tried to very briefly give you my individual concerns. As Immediate Past President of the Tualatin Valley Music Teachers Association this concem has been an issue for many teachers. I request a hearing with the Hearing Officer to further explain my concerns in particular and our organization's concerns as well. I know that Tigard's vision as a community has supported the arts in the past with the Broadway Rose Theater group, I hope that we can do that with music as well. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to meeting with you. My studio is in the front of the house, and in ten years of teaching classical music, I have never had a complaint or violation until this one, "for no approval". We strive to be good neighbors. I Ct ~Ge~n - v~ Y►u( &pp l i ca:4c m 41, Mk v_ O CC Gcra A-C . pert" ~t July 20, 2000 Dear Neighbor: My name is Sherrene Walker and I have had a piano studio in my home at 14973 S.W. Rosario Lane, since our family moved here almost ten years ago. At the time of our move, since we were an unincorporated part of Washington County and not part of the City of Tigard, I called the county offices to get a business license. The county does not have business licenses and told me to call the City of Tigard. Since we were not officially a part of Tigard, they could not sell me a license and said we would have to wait until we were annexed to get one. Although we still are not annexed, our unincorporated part has been turned over to the City of Tigard to run in anticipation of eventually being annexed. The city still can't sell me a business license, however they do require a Home Occupancy Permit for all home businesses. This letter is to notify you that in a few days you will be receiving a letter from the City of Tigard notifying you that I have applied for this permit (at a cost of $883.00!). I wanted you to know ahead of time that this is not a new business. Because of city regulations, it will not be able to grow. Therefore, there will not be any new traffic impacts. Since I am the first house on the street, the parents are able to drop their students off in my drive-way and leave. I believe the home music studio enhances the character of neighborhoods. The home studio is not visible, therefore not disrupting the residential area. The children in my area know that I will be home teaching piano lessons and they are always welcome to come here in case they find themselves in a situation where they need a safe place to go. Independent music teaching in a home setting is a positive, enriching activity for any and every city. With the cutbacks in music at our local schools, I look forward to encouraging my students to continue their study of music to bring life long skills and enjoyment to both themselves and their community. Thank you for your time, and I hope that you can support my application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 590-9722 Sincerely yours, Sherrene Walker Isw July 25, 2000 Council Members, Staff and guests: I thank you for this opportunity to address an issue that I believe is very important to the make-up of the City of Tigard. I trust you have had an opportunity to review the packet I dropped off yesterday. As indicated there, I have lived in an unincorporated part of Tigard for almost ten years. When I called the county to get a business license at the time of our move they told me they did not give business licenses and I would need to call the City of Tigard. Tigard rightfully couldn't give me one because we weren't annexed yet and said I would have to wait until we were annexed. That is where I have been. Two weeks ago, I received a violation from the City of Tigard for not having a Home Occupancy Permit for my music studio in my home. Since then I have spent countless hours on the home or in City Hall accumulating information and trying to find a solution to this matter. Since I am a law abiding citizen it is importa t for me to be in compliance or move to a city where I can teac le all a c,osb cW~ "Qfit. -bo b Gov, ~-YOw xF o c 5 U~%w1~bS v~ csr~sl ~ vv~ c~u,a~~eXcb a~b5' As Immediate ast President of the Tualatin Valley District of Oregon Music Teachers Association, I represent members from Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood King City, Newberg and Wilsonville. Over the last two weeks, I have called each city and asked the question, "If I was a music teacher and moved into your city, what would I have to do to be legal and how much would it cost?" Then I ask, "Are there any restrictions on how many students I can have per day?" The answers range from Newberg, which doesn't even require a business license, to Sherwood which requires a business license of $65.00 per year and a one time home occupancy permit which costs $25.00. Over the telephone every single one of these six surrounding areas, said that they did not have a limit on the number of students a person could have per day. Since talking to City of Tigard staff they thought Beaverton did have a limit, but I have left a message for the Planning Department to call me back with that information and have not received it yet. As mentioned in the data I presented to you yesterday, Gresham just passed a new Home Business Code, which I gave Jim Hendricks a copy of, and they no longer have a limit on number of customers. Their committee and council agreed that it is a parking issue and not a client issue. Therefore, they require two on-site parking spots, such as a two car driveway. I also called West Linn who has a limit of five clients for basic fire code issues, but has an exception with no limit for pupils of piano teachers. My students, walk, bicycle, ride the bus (which stops in front of my home) or are dropped off for lessons. I am the first house on the street. The parents drop them off in my driveway and leave. Two students come every hour or hour and a half depending on the length of lesson they have selected. (I have many family units with two or three students.) While one is having their private lesson, the other is on a computer and keyboard lab, creating their own music, practicing rhythm reading, or theory. So traffic is r7 very minimal. My Junior High students come before school at 7:00 A.M. because they have such a late start for school, get out late, have sports after that, that they want to have their lesson before school and ride the bus to school. My kindergarten, homeschoolers, and primary grade students come around 1:00 PJNA., leaving room for the older children to come after school and sports. My last lesson begins around 7:00 P.M. As you can see to accommodate the Tigard Tualatin School District times and my students schedules, I teach three long days instead of five days a week. About six times a year we have piano parties, where we play for each other and learn about various composers, theory concepts and how to compose. Those days, I may see three groups of 10-12 students each. They ride the bus to my house or carpool. These are social in nature and parents do not attend. By limiting the number of students per day, students would miss the benefit of playing for others and the comradery they receive from being in a group. Also, during the course of a year, we provide opportunities for the students to play for an adjudicator. For 1 day, the adjudicator comes to my home, and students are able to perform their technique and pieces for a distinguished master teacher. From there winners are selected to perform in Honors Recitals and at Level X, they play for the teachers of the whole state at our annual convention. We also encourage participation in school. My students accompany school choirs, play for baccalaureate and graduations, accompany other students for solo and ensemble festivals, play for the Senior Citizen Fair, play at Nordstroms, churches and nursing homes to share their gift of music with the community. In almost ten years I have never had a complaint, and taught many of my neighbor's children. By limiting the number of clients per day, our city will be the only one in the area (or possibly State) whose children are prevented from achieving the musical benchmarks and successes we as a district offer because of this limit. With the diminishing of the arts in school, is this what we want in our city? I believe the City of Tigard wants to continue to have students learning and benefiting through home-based music instruction. I am personally concerned for my own studio, but also for the City of Tigard. Just this week-end one of our new district officers moved from Tigard to Sherwood, simply because of the inequity of costs and the limit on number of students. Now, if we cannot remedy this situation, I and many others will have to move also. The reason I come before you is that I believe that the Tigard City Council does have an interest in the arts as shown in your support of the Broadway Rose Theater and other musical events. I am assuming that since I was not aware of the extent of this issue until two weeks ago, perhaps it hadn't surfaced yet in your mind either. My first request, would be that music teachers would be considered an "educational exemption" from obtaining the costly Home Occupancy Permit as some municipalities and states have done across the nation. (See MTNA letter.) Our city has a vested interest in training our children musically. As noted in the letter from the national organization there are many advantages to having home music teachers in the city. s If you cannot do that, then I would request that you revisit the Home Business a Codes and costs as Gresham has just done and come up with a more equitable system like they did. Using their new plan and the ones in our immediate surrounding areas, we wouldn't have to re-invent the code but just made adjustments to make it work in Tigard. The three obvious changes needed as I see it are: 1.Require only a business license. 2. Make the time limit 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 3. No limit to number of clients. I purposely have not notified our district teachers or our students of this pending issue in hopes that it could be remedied without alarming them, saving them from the same anxiety and financial impact that our family has had since receiving this notice July 11, 2000. If you would like us to get statements or have them appear, I am confident that they would be happy to share also. I would be happy to address any questions you have at this time. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Sherrene Walker Hal n TUALATIN - 692-2000 - Requires a business license @ $50 per year (prorated for less than a calendar year). No Home Occupancy Permit. No client limit. SHERWOOD - 625-5522 Requires a business license @ 65.00 per year. A one time home occupancy permit at $25.00. No limit on number of students. BEAVERTON - 526-2222 Requires a business license prorated for calendar year @ $50.00. No limit on number of clients. Waiting for a call from Planning 526-2420 to verify. No home occupancy required. LAKE OSWEGO - 625-0270 Requires a business license @ $75.00 per 1 st year and renewal at $60.00. No home occupancy required. No limit on number of students. WILSONVILLE - 682-1011 Requires a business license of $50 if income is under $12,000 and $100 if income is over $12,000. No home occupancy required. Rules state no more than five at a time (for fire purposes) but no problem for 6 or 7 times a year for piano parties. NEWBERG - 538-9421 No business license required. No Home Occupancy required. No limit on number of clients. KING CITY - Requires business license of $100 the first year and then $50. No limit on number of students but is a senior community and need to take that into consideration. WEST LINN - 656-4261 Requires a business license of $30.00 and a one time home occupancy fee of $100. Exemption for client limits for students of music teachers. GRESHAM See their new code. Requires business license. No home occupancy. No limit on number of students. i i i 3 a a i 17 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7/25/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Training Request PREPARED BY: Capt. G. L. Schrader DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve expenditure of $832.41 for attendance at the Criminal Intelligence Analysis Applications Course. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend Approval. This training is integral to the job functions and responsibilities of the Micro-computer Support Technician within the Police Department. INFORMATION SUMMARY This is a nationally recognized course to prepare law enforcement employees to conduct criminal analysis. The course is only offered once this year in the Northwest. Criminal Analysts from local departments highly recommend this course to learn the basics of criminal and intelligence analysis. The current Micro-computer Support Technician has not had any training in this area and needs this training to fulfill the expectations of the job. This course only became available after the budget was completed. Funds were set aside in the Support Services Division training budget for training opportunities that are made available during the fiscal year; however, this training was not named specifically. For this reason it requires Council action. MINI OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Attendance at a later session. The cost of attending one of the other classes would be much higher. The travel costs to attend in another part of the nation would increase the cost by approximately 30%. This alternative is not recommended. i VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY i Public Safety - Goal #I - Strategies # 1, 1, 2, and 4. 3 FISCAL NOTES Although this specific training was not identified in the budget, it falls within the parameters of the general training category for which funds were budgeted. There are sufficient training funds within the Support Services training budget to accommodate this training request. r ATlo% pg~0~~~~ ~ AuthaLE M;cromp~er 1 J06,01 N° OF T~~# 100-1130 DPSST# 39154 Tech® N~ Budgeted items ❑ Yes DEPT ACCT Yes TES MandatoN -taint TRMNING DA submitted) From: 9111(00 rends pbijott Course to each TA pnalystsTo; 9115!00 ed intelligence NAME 8 Analysis Applications UST be attach and endas M~cers, Crime Criminal Inteliigen~ IMeeti ques n9 ag LOCATION Training orkshOP for intellige ce City: i-ongvi AO° .Title of 1Conferences- Tech eke ni TRIP tC°mP pnaV State: WA intelli ~hure attached) piJaRctical.POSE St r rategic ent ppera Inve St, stigators ( tBten Casts $ Tactical. and Law Enforcem 8GGKS~I~pTER1A~S ❑ pllail Check Vendor [3 Hold For Employe Costs $ 495.00 n1ailing Address ~ Wh REGIS [RAT 10 ❑ Reimburse® ® iJiail Chest CitylStateiZ►P Vendor For Employe The pi ha Grou BOX 128 Hold # Address On view Police, pC phone Mailing Renau , ❑ Reimburse '[IGR Ma TRANSPG~TA► Costs $ Cit f1stateiW~ 98632 Lon view, Maii Check Ph, FAX: X0.28 Vendar CAT auto 360-5013856 rate Inc! tax ' nla usin [3 Hold For Etnpirnl 1-G(~C1RG i04 to 9114100 'Jail Costs 241.12 ,~ailin9 Padre- Ffavel Age c to Tiga ta :9111 011 Check CitylStatelzip 13 bill City °f Dates to s Hotel Vendor Red Lion Kelsoll-°n view Hold For EMplol Address phone # Mailing Onve ❑ Reimburse 31¢ per mile 510 Kelso mlies @ O CityiStatel ip ~ILEpGE Reimbu outstanding adv Kelso, Wp 98626 # the City to deduct any pa ' 360-636-4400 236936 Advance , 1+ excess amount advanc~• ► aut harize Confirmatran # Reimburse pePt• Head ~Ia pate rice the City of T►9ard any pate Ijlf.141 V1Ep1'I' 7 33) pdva 11 p~~t $ ree to reimburse G Z L' City Council 11 0 Costs: $ 95.29 (13 @ anon, i ag ade. sot f pat Sup By signing this travke1fae ha merit is not ate fi C~ Itom rn a chec EmPlOY~ Da e Human Resources Director Class Equipment: Please remember to bring a plastic "circles, squares, and triangles" template with you to class. This inexpensive item may be purchased at most any office.supply store. TO REGISTER FOR THE CLASS, PLEASE FOLLOW THESE STEPS: 1. Contact Mary Renaud at the Longview Police Department to make your reservations at (360) 501- 3856. 2. Complete the registration form and FAX it to (360) 501-3891. 3. Make your check for US$495.00 payable to: The Alpha Group. Send your check to Mary Renaud, Longview Police Department, P.O. Box 128, Longview, WA 98632. Payments must be received by August 28, 2000. If payment cannot be made by that date, you may FAX your agency's purchase order instead. Please FAX the purchase order to us at (360) 501-3891. NOTE: Students who have not confirmed their attendance with either a check or a purchase order CANNOT be admitted to the class. CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS COURSE (DATES OF TRAINING) REGISTRATION FORM PLEASE FAX THIS FORM TO Mary Renaud at (360) 501-3891. Name Title Name Title / Agency T ((G"'~9~~0 TQ~-~ Phone:-5,03 Address / 3 r s~~ f it- City State Cam' Zip 2 !Y14'i~'?~e1wY.4'. .*`{Jt+sk(~.t' z f. ( yv, .'.lUii ~yyd~a~5' s:.u;'t-;? •t;.~ ~ j r +Y•'tt~f~~~"yak r- ~+'t i►/ i.1 t i n 9 ' ' L 1 , ; Sepf embC,i 31 1 )000 J4f 't~~J~J`i ` ~ ' ra, ~~~~~F~~i✓ ~l it i J ~ vf.~;nu} r~~• ~ . ; , ~ 1 L ^_Ii c E111i')i cc Gro up > 'z j r'ofccston~• tip c rl~cr.nnd li lino d« a _ GYt1R 2~,t1C Cnmtnll Justice Com nullity f~<~,;`$F•..~ ~ "fi"r a& ~L~,'s ~ p ~ ,;ji rtrtt~Jtcor~Infu1'r~rcfr~c~~ ~ ~ 7 cg 3.tit.1 r ~I The Program Here's What You Will Learn The increasing need for Criminal Intelligence Analysis Training has This course will provide you with an arsenal of techniques become recognized over the past few years as law enforcement you can use to organize and analyze crime data, identify agencies have had to investigate diverse criminal conspiracies conspiratorial activities, establish relationships between ranging from the importation and distribution of narcotics to money people and organizations, and effectively present your laundering and terrorism. Although originally developed to assist findings in criminal court proceedings. intelligence units deal with organized crime, criminal investigators and the analysts who support them have found a number of spe- You'll learn how to develop and use intelligence at the cialized tools to be extraordinarily useful in the management of specialized investigative unit level to plan and direct other complex cases and the presentation of these cases in court. investigative attention in combating criminal activities, at Today, law enforcement personnel can use these techniques to the departmental level to facilitate the operational and investigate not only the types of conspiracies mentioned above, but administrative decision-making process, and at the cen- cases involving homicide, street gangs, economic fraud, and politi- tral or regional level to project national and international cal corruption as well. trends. This is a one-week (36 hour) "hands-on" program that pro- vides you with techniques you can use Immediately to solve Designed for all federal, state, municipal, and military the real-world problems that daily confront the law enforcement intelligence officers and analysts, this course will demysti- community. Once trained, you will be able to identify the individu- fy essential professional skills involving: als in a conspiracy and determine their relationships to one ano- Operational Issues ther, effectively track and monitor criminal events, establish the sources and distribution of funds necessary to underwrite conspira- oIdentifying the Major Differences Between What torial activities, and identify the financial gain realized from a wide Intelligence Is, What It Is Not, and What It Must Be variety of illegal operations. Presented in a comfortable, non-threatening environment that per- *The Origins of Intelligence mits both individualized and group instruction, the training takes a o How to Turn Data into Information-The 5 Critical "learn-by-doing" approach that gives you many opportunities to actually perform the tasks associated with criminal intelligence Steps in the Intelligence Analysis Process analysis work. You will learn how to prepare the types of link analy- o Features of Good Intelligence ses, time/event analyses, and economic analyses which have proven themselves effective in homicide and robbery investigations oHow To Instantly Distinguish Differences Between and in activities involving organized crime, terrorism, economic Tactical, Strategic, and Operational Intelligence crime, narcotics, and the criminal actions of today's street gangs. Extensive use of "hands-on" exercises will enhance your ability to *Impediments to the Intelligence Process-Why It manage complex data, identify missing case elements, and devel- Occurs and How to Overcome It op suspect leads. This format of instruction allows for not only a highly interactive exchange between the student and the facilitator, *Associations Made Easy! How to Establish Those but offers unique opportunities for group interaction and collabora- All-important Links Between People, Organizations, tion as well. and Events You Should Attend If: *How to Chart Events, Commodity Flow, and Activi- o You are a recently-employed investigator or crime or intelligence ties in a Criminal Organization analyst assigned to narcotics, counter terrorism, political corrup- *Communicate with Confidence! How to Present tion, or financial laundering cases Intelligence Effectively in Oral and Written Reports e You are an experienced analyst or investigator who has received little of the formal training necessary to fully develop your analy- oThe Tricks of the Trade-How to Correctly Con- tical skills struct and Interpret Scatter Diagrams, Frequency oYou now-or may later-supervise analysis personnel Charts, Time-Series Analysis Matrices, and Data e You are employed by a prosecution unit that prepares the types Correlation Charts of cases described above. eDiscovering the Hidden III-Gotten Gains! How to Develop Financial Profiles Using the Networth Method I Regardless of your previous experience with analytical eTracking the Source and Distribution of Assets- methods, this course is for you. You can always do your Money Laundering Secrets and Techniques job better when you apply fresh ideas and techniques. We've made sure our seminars give you exactly what you *Using the Power of the Computer to Greatly need to put you at your peak! Assist the Analytical Process The Alpha GroupP 1999 About Our Criminal Intelligence About the Alpha Group Analysis Programs The Alpha Group is comprised of professional speakers, Law enforcement officials send their sworn officers and trainers, and researchers who provide their expertise and civilian personnel to our criminal intelligence analysis practical experience to criminal justice, public safety and courses because of our proven ability to provide them victim service organizations. The organization is widely with high-quality, performance-oriented training. Class recognized for its ability to provide training in crime and exercises are based on real-world crime problems investi- intelligence analysis, criminal investigative analysis, gators and analysts are expected to solve each day. As workload analysis, grantsmanship, automated information such, students return to their agencies with not only the system development and design, and other such unique knowledge of what they should do, but, more importantly, areas of law enforcement. We also recognize that those how they should do it. Skills are developed by instructors who serve the public often have unique needs them- who are intimately familiar with criminal intelligence analy- selves. We, therefore, present a variety of management, sis techniques, and by the students' use of our compre- supervisory, and interpersonal communications seminars. hensive, easy-to-understand course materials. These All of our skill-building programs address the personal elements contribute to the continued popularity of our needs of those-at all levels-who are employed in the criminal intelligence analysis training programs. Our suc- public safety and victim service professions. cess, however, comes from our achievement of one important goal: We Turn Theory Into Practice.1m What Others Say About Our gaining "Warren Sweeney presents an EXCELLENT course. Packed with many useful techniques and analytical meth- ods, it provides a tremendous and helpful learning experi- ence for all participants." The intelligence analysis problems and solutions present- ed were superb... really allowed us to see how experience About Your Trainer when combined with analytical methods can be devel- oped to a fine art." Warren J. Sweeney began his law enforcement career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in "Warren presents analytical techniques in a clear and 1968. He performed general police duties in the Province thorough manner. Additionally, the class exercises are an of Saskatchewan until 1972 at which time he transferred excellent medium for practicing what we learn." into the RCMP Security Service and was assigned to Counter-Espionage duties in Toronto, Ontario. Warren's "Really enjoyed the Theory-Example-Practice format of analytical career began with his transfer to the Security the course. It was a well-prepared, well-presented pro- Service's International Terrorism Unit and his investiga- gram. Thanks for the positive experience!" tion of Middle East terrorist organizations. In 1984 he transferred to the Terrorist Desk within the National The charting techniques and intelligence briefing portions Criminal Intelligence Branch of the RCMP, and for five of the course were extremely useful! They provided an years worked on Sikh Extremism and the investigation of excellent summary of the information presented through- Air India Flight #182. - out the program." With his noted facility for teaching, Warren was appointed About the Crime and Intelligence Intelligence Analysis Coordinator for the RCMP Canadian Police College in 1990. In his role as an instructor he has Certification Program taught Intelligence courses in the Czech Republic, All participants in the Criminal Intelligence Analysis Jamaica, to members of 15 Caribbean countries, and to Training Course are eligible to have their coursework the Haitian Police. An internationally recognized authori- credited toward the attainment of a Certificate Award in ty in the fields of terrorism and organized crime at the Crime and Intelligence Analysis (CCIA) and to their CCIA local and national level, Warren has also given presenta- Credential. This program is sponsored by the California tions in Strategic Intelligence Analysis to the Criminal Department of Justice and the California State Analytical Unit of Interpol in Lyon, France. Universities. Students who complete all credential requirements will receive a certificate from Cal State Warren Sweeney is a Certified Crime Analyst and the Stanislaus to verify their academic achievement. The Director of Training, Education and Career Development California Department of Justice, in recognition of the for the International Association of Intelligence Analysts, University award, will subsequently bestow the title of Inc. (IALEIA). He also serves as President of the Certified Crime and Intelligence Analyst upon, and grant National Chapter of IALEIA in Ottawa, Ontario. the credential to, all students who successfully complete the credential program. Please see the section in this brochure entitled "Continuing Education Units." The Alpha Grouper 1999 Course Times Registration Information The course begins at 0800 hours on Monday, September Reserve your seat now! Warren Sweeney's courses fill 11, 2000 and concludes at 1200 hours on Friday, quickly and seating is limited. To register for the course, September 15, 12, 2000. please complete the registration form on the accompany- ing insert. Payment must be received no later than Tuition Information Wednesday, August 23, 2000. Make checks or money Tuition is $495 per person for the one-week (36 hour) orders payable to The Alpha Group. Please send the program of instruction. It also includes: registration form and your remittance to: Mary Renaud, Crime Analyst, Longview Police Department, P.O. Box All in-class course materials. 128, Longview, WA 98632. You may also register by phone by calling Ms. Renaud at (360) 501-3856, or by ° A copy of The Intelligence Analyst's Sourcebook by faxing your registration form to her at (360) 501-3891. Warren Sweeney. This comprehensive manual of hand- outs, class notes, supplemental reading material, glos- sary, and suggested reading list will be used extensively Substitutions throughout the course. and Cancellations These are more than reference materials... they're the Anyone can substitute for you. If this becomes necessary,. "silent partners" you'll take back to your job to become please call and let us know. If you need to cancel and you the star of your own show! contact us no later than August 23, 2000, we'll refund your tuition, less a $25.00 per person processing fee. The ° An impressive certificate of graduation which will be tuition is nonrefundable for any cancellations made after mailed to you upon completion of the course. August 23, 2000. The Alpha Group reserves the right to substitute speakers should the featured presenter PLEASE NOTE: Tuition does not include lodging, meals, become incapacitated. In the unlikely event that the transportation to and from the meeting site, parking, or course is cancelled, the Alpha Group's liability shall be items of a purely personal nature (pens, pencils, paper, limited solely to refunding of tuition payments. etc.) Earn Continuing Education Units Course Location and Hotel (Optional) Accommodation Information You can receive 3.6 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Please see the accompanying iert for course location and from California State University upon successful comple- hotel accommodation information. tion of this course and the submission of a directed learn- ing project. These units may be applied to your Certificate Is This Course Tax-Deductible? Award in Crime and Intelligence Analysis (your CCIA Skill-building and professional enhancement programs Credential). A registration fee made payable to the such as the Criminal Intelligence Analysis Training University is charged for this option. For additional Course are usually tax deductible. Check with your finan- details, or to apply for these units, please call Wanda cial advisor to verify applicability of the tax law to your Bonnell of California State University, Stanislaus, at (209) particular situation. 667-3717. For Additional Information If you have any questions or need additional information about The Criminal Intelligence Analysis Training Course, please call Steve Gottlieb at (909) 989-4366. Or, you may { write to us at The Alpha Group, P. O. Box 8, Montclair, 1 CA 91763. a i 3 The Alpha Group Professional Speakers and Trainers Serving the Criminal Justice Community We Turn Theory Into PractireT"' P. O. Box 8, Montclair, California 91763 • Telephone: (909) 989-4366 • Fax: (909) 476-6810 Email: crimecrush(a:ulLcum The Alpha Group©1999 Bob Burgreen The City Of Chief of Police few Don Barnd Captain gyashington Stan Munger Captain P.O. Box 128 Longview, WA 98632-7080 Gary Weisfeld Deputy Director CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS COURSE TACTICAL, STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS TECHINQUES FOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, CRIME AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS When: September 11 thru September 15, 2000 Hours: Monday thru Thursday 0800-1700 and Friday 0800-1200 Where: Kelso/Longview Red Lion Hotel 510 Kelso Drive Kelso, WA 98626 (360) 636-4400 Suggested Lodging: Kelso/Longview Red Lion Hotel Special Rate $55.00 per night 510 Kelso Drive Kelso, WA 98626 ~~r 9f IES Phone: (360) 636-4400 Fax: (360) 578-4092 f 11 t- REGISTRANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ARRANGE THEIR OWN LODGING. (SPECIAL ROOM RATES HAVE BEEN ARRANGED WITH THE HOTELIMOTEL.) PLEASE CALL HOST AGENCY FOR INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS. Airports/Airlines: Portland International Airport is served by most major airlines including, TWA, American, Delta, USAir, United, Southwest, Continental, America West, Southwest, Northwest, and Air South. Ground Transportation: Ground transportation including car rentals from.Hertz, Avis, Budget, Alamo and Dollar are available at the airport. The Keiso/Lonz; view Red Lion Hotel is approximately 45 miles north of the Portland Airport. Food: The hotel provides breakfast, lunch and dinner service along with other restaurant information. Entertainment: A brochure identifying many area attractions is enclosed for your information and enjoyment. I Longview Police Department • 1351 Hudson tiUret • Longview, WA 98632 • (360) 577-3157 LiVI.: l tE11Yi11VH1. 11V 11rLLiV1:1Vl.G H1VNL I J1J Al.t1CLULD rt%u 1 UL Z. CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS CERTIFICA'T'E COURSES Meet_t- Instructor INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLASS! Dates Subject to Change! Please confirm dates with CONTACT Persons when registering for courses. Table of Contents Course Schedules DA'Z'ES LOCATIONS OS ANGELES JOINT INTELLIGENCE DRUG GROUP OS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Contact: Bob Midldff February 28-March 3, 2000 1-800-732-1943 exi. 225 R Liz Gaytan 1-800-732-1943 ext. 293 ILLINOIS STATE POLICE April 3-7,2000 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS Contact: Dora Terrell 217) 557-2817 ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT May 8-12, 2000 ATLANTA, „ GEORGIA Contact: Lt. Valerie Da_I_lon_ 404 853-4371 FT. LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT Fr. LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA Contact: Glen Wildev June 5-9, 2000 954) 761-5491 R Peter_ Cartmel l 954) 761-5714 LONGVIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT September 11-15, 2000 LONGVIEW, WASHINGTON Contact: Mare R_e_ na_ud 360 501-3856 KANSAS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT September 25-29, 2000 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI Contact: Sgt.- Rich Lockhart 316 482-8263 KNOXVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT tober 9-13. 2000 KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE Contact: Chris Whalcv 865)215-7240 ALT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE October 23-27, 2000 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ontact: Sheila Wahnon 801)535-5799 http://www.alphagroupcenter.connVintelsclied.htm 6/21/00 "llmill MISS 111101111 dill AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF July 25, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of Benefit Recommendations from Management Group Job Class & Compensation Study / PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow 5~~/DEPT HEAD OK j_Aa6 CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt a resolution providing a maximum of a 3% City contribution to deferred compensation for the Management, Supervisory and Confidential Group Employees; and provide a cash payoff option for overtime for Police Lieutenants for those hours which exceed the 40 hour compensatory time cap currently in the Management Personnel Policies? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council adopt these benefit recommendations INFORMATION SUMMARY As Council will recall, these two issues were presented at your June 27`h Study Session, as part of the final benefit recommendations of the Management, Supervisory, Confidential Group Job Class and Compensation Study. At this meeting, Council asked that we return with a recommendation on the deferred compensation issue, and had also suggested an approach for the overtime issue with Lieutenants. The intent of the deferred compensation plan is to allow employees to make pre-tax contributions through payroll deduction to increase their retirement benefits. Based on our review of this matter, we are recommending that Council adopt a City contribution towards deferred compensation not to exceed a maximum of 3% for the Management, Supervisory and Confidential Group Employees. Employees would be required to match the City's contribution, and could select the percentage up to 3% which best fits their individual tax situation and ability to contribute. Employees currently contributing the maximum amount allowed by the IRS would have the option of using the City's contribution amount to decrease their maximum contribution by the percentage they select, not to exceed 3% Currently among the seven (7) cities that the City of Tigard compares itself to, the City of West Linn makes a 3% City contribution towards deferred compensation for their department directors. The City of Milwaukie also provides for a $500 per year City contribution towards deferred compensation. The City of Milwauikie requires employees to match the City's contribution, however the City of West Linn does not require a matching contribution from the employee. Will! Council was provided with some cost information regarding the deferred compensation proposal. It is attached and marked as Attachment A. According to this data, the cost of a 3% City contribution based on an average salary for the group would be approximately $1,755 per person in the Management Group. This cost estimate is based on the most recent payroll figures including the July 1" cost of living adjustment. If every single employee in the Management Group were to participate in this program, it would cost the City approximately $129,895.32 per year. Currently 43 of the 74 employees in this group participate in a deferred compensation plan. According to the Finance Department these expenditures can be accommodated within the 2000-2001 City budget. Council will also find in Attachment B a listing of the retirement contributions currently made by our other comparable cities. Tigard's contribution in this area is lower than other employers. A City contribution towards deferred compensation for this group of employees would be an attractive recruiting tool which may also serve to retain employees, and offset the availability of PERS and higher retirement rates in other competing jurisdictions. Excluding the City of Hillsboro (who does not pay the employee's 6% pickup for PERS), the retirement contribution rates for these cities varies from 12.36% to 18.58%, for an average of a 15.18% employer contribution. The second and final benefit recommendation that we spoke to Council about at their June 27`h meeting related to the overtime issue with Lieutenants in the Police Department. Council will recall that when this level of Management Group employees work overtime, they are allowed to flex their work schedule to come in later or leave earlier, or they may receive the overtime in the form of compensatory time, not to exceed 40 hours, and they take this time off at some later date. This is pursuant to the Management Group Personnel Policies. Both of these options are with their department director's approval. However as the Chief mentioned to Council, the problem in the Police Department is that due to the nature of the work and the operations, Lieutenants cannot flex their schedules, and their bank of 40 hours of compensatory time fills up fairly fast. From that point on, the Lieutenants do not receive any form of compensation for extra work for the department. Based on a suggestion from Councilor Patton, we would propose that when a Lieutenant is 1) unable to flex their schedule, and 2) has accumulated the maximum of 40 hours compensatory time, then any overtime worked which exceeds the accumulated 40 hours of compensatory time would be paid for in cash during the payroll period in which it is worked. The department is expected, of course, to manage overtime and to limit it whenever possible. This provides a series of steps that a Lieutenant would need to move through before the cash option is exercised and would limit the financial liability of carrying additional hours in an accrued bank. The two recommended benefit changes are proposed to be effective August 27, 2000, to correspond with the beginning or a payroll period and to allow sufficient time for deferred compensation sign up activities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council discussed other benefit options at their June 27`h meeting VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Recruiting for and retaining high quality employees benefits all services and programs offered by the City, including those specified within the City's Visioning Program. FISCAL NOTES Funds for these proposed additions to the benefit package are available within the FY 2000-2001 Budget. AGENDA ITEM # 3. t~ a-, FOR AGENDA OF 07/25/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Purchase of five (5) police vehicles (Local Contract Review Board) PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK rr/f'1- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The purchase of five (5) police vehicles. (Local Contract Review Board) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the purchase of five (5) 2001 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, and one set of maintenance manuals. INFORMATION SUMMARY All five of these vehicles were included in the 2000/2001 budget and funds are available. These new vehicles will be replacing five existing patrol vehicles that have high mileage and service issues. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Only Police Interceptor offered on State bid. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This purchase is consistent with our Public Safety category. FISCAL NOTES i Total Cost of $111,569.24 is $844 higher than what was budgeted, but will be covered in other savings. iAcitywidelsum.dot f I PURCHASE REQUISITION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Date: 07/07/00 Tigard, Oregon 97223 From: LT. RICK RHODES (503) 639-4171 Fax (503) 639-6795 Dept: POLICE Ai L TO: GRESHAM FORD 1945 EAST POWELL PO BOX 647 GRESHAM. OR 97080 Phone: 503 - 665-0101 Fax: Federal ID No.: (For services only) DELIVER TO: ❑ 13125 SW HALL BLVD ❑ 8720 SW BURNHAM STREET ❑ 12800 SW ASH STREET ® 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET Vendor Item Dept/Account Unit Extended Qty No. Description No. Price Price 5 2001 Ford Sedan Full Size Crown Vic, V-8 style 100-1120-730000 19932.00 99,660.00 P71 4 Dr Police Interceptor, Color: Exterior #UA Black, Interior #2 Light Graphite. Fordfleet. Purchase off of State of Oregon #7501 Contract. 5 432 Keyed Alike (keycode 1284X) 100-1120-730000 40.00 200.00 5 417 Aux Fuse Panel six circuit 100-1120-730000 41.00 205.00 5 157 Power Door Locks 100-1120-730000 18.00 90.00 5 948 Windows Controlled by Driver and Front Pass. 100-1120-730000 18.00 90.00 5 185 Roof Reinforcement 100-1120-730000 61.00 305.00 5 187 Wiring Package, front, five circuit harness 100-1120-730000 60.00 300.00 5 17D Silicone Hoses/ for Water System 100-1120-730000 262.00 1310.00 5 Blisten Shocks (4) per Vehicle 100-1120-730000 438.00 2190.00 5 53M Radio Suppression Pkg 100-1120-730000 62.00 310.00 i j 5 21A 6-Way PWR Driver Seat 100-1120-730000 321.00 1605.00 + 5 552 Anti-Lock Braking System 100-1120-730000 534.00 2670.00 5 61 H Ignition Powered Door / IP Decklid Release 100-112Q-730000 54.00 270.00 5 478 Courtesy Lamp Disable 100-1120-730000 13.00 65.00 5 127 HD Rubber Floor Covering 100-1120-730000 23.00 115.00 5 45C Limited Slip Differential 100-1120-730000 85.00 425.00 5 51 B Drivers-side Spot Lamp Prep Pkg 100-1120-730000 80.00 400.00 5 51A Driver-side 6" Spot Lamp- 160,000 CP bulb 100-1120-730000 151.00 755.00 1 Manual- Shop Maintenance/Repair Instruction 100-1120-730000 211.70 211.70 1 Manual- Emissions 100-1120-730000 168.86 168.86 1 Manual- Electrical Schematic 100-1120-730000 31.68 31.68 1 Manual- Technical Service Bulletins/ Updates 100-1120-730000 92.00 92.00 No Charge Items: 5- 4.6L SEFI V8 Engine, 5- 0.00 0.00 #441.) 4-Speed Elec..-Controlled Auto Transmission w/OD, 5 sets #T23- P225/60VR16 All-Season SBR BSW Tires, 5 - #H Cloth Front Buckets/ Cloth Rear Bench Seats, 5 sets- # 64C- Hub Caps, 5- #513 Removable Headliner/ Dual Beam Map Lamps, 5- #96C Front Door Body-Side Moldings, 5- #153 Front License Plate Bracket corm u: S & H 20.00 100.00 TOTAL 22717.24 111569.24 APPROPRIATION BALANCE: AS OF: 7 D PURCHASING AGENT: APPROVALS: (IF UNDER $50) DEPARTMENT DESIGNEE: (IF UNDER $2500) DEPARTMENT DESIGNEE: [`7i (IF UNDER $7500) DEPARTMENT HEAD/DESIGNEE: (IF UNDER $25000) CITY MANAGER: - -C/ (IF OVER $25000) LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: ~7 v CAPITAL EXPENDITURES NOT BUDGETED: (IF UNDER $2500) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: (IF OVER $2500) CITY MANAGER: 0dtywide\purcnreq.dot i AGENDA ITEM # 3-4. D FOR AGENDA OF July 25, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for FY 2000-2001 Pavement Major Maintenance Program-Slum Seal op- PREPARED BY:_ Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK: Gus DDuuenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the slurry seal portion of the FY 2000-2001 Pavement Major Maintenance program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Asphalt Maintenance Assoc., Inc. in the amount of $46,707.77. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Pavement Overlay Backlog list of the Capital Improvement Program lists all paved streets in the City of Tigard that need corrective and preventative maintenance. There was a backlog of $1,500,000 in FY 1997-98 for corrective overlays, repairs, and slurry seals and last year's program expended $180,000 from the $233,000 PMMP budget. The pavement overlay project and the slurry seal project are bid separately to attract Contractors that specialize in the respective types of work. This year's Slurry Seal program includes streets located in the City and Washington County. Washington County will provide the City $112,000 for road maintenance service. Of the $112,000, $64,000 will be used to pay for contract service on Bull Mountain Road and $48,000 will be used for other local County roads. Streets selected for slurry seal were drawn from Pavement Management System reports followed by field evaluation. Proposed City streets to receive slurry seal include: 100" Avenue (between Pembrook and Inez Street), Inez Street (east of IOO'h Avenue), 116`h Avenue (south of Tigard Drive), Derry Dell Court (between Park Street and Watkins Avenue), Pathfinder Court (south of Walnut Street), Watkins Avenue (between Derry Dell Court and Walnut Street), and Johnson Street (east of 106'h Avenue). Proposed County roads to receive slurry seal include: 139`h Avenue, 14151 Avenue and 152"d place (south of Bull Mountain Road) and 154`h Avenue (south of Barrows Road). The bid opening was conducted on July 5, 2000. The bid results are: Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. Eugene, OR $46,707.77 Benge Construction Co. Tualatin, OR $93,439.00 Engineer's Estimate $62,600* * $37,100 for City Streets and $25,500 for County Roads OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES The amount of $150,000 has been allocated in FY 2000-2001 from the State Gas tax revenue for the PMMP projects. This amount is sufficient to award the contract for this year's Slurry Seal portion of the project. Funding for the County Roads will be provided by the County in accordance with the Urban Services Area IGA. \\by333\usr\deptv\c t*de\sum\award consmu;6m for 2000.01 slurry seal projeada628/00 i i AGENDA ITEM # J. ~I G. FOR AGENDA OF July 25, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail - Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK : Gus Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill MonJfl ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Fanno Creek Trail - Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Andersen Pacific, Inc. in the amount of $89,450.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Fanno Creek Trail - Segment 2 project (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) has been included, along with other trail projects, in the Park System Program of the City's Capital Improvement Program since FY 1998-99. This project was carried over into the FY 2000-01 CIP as committed trail project for construction. The Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail runs in a northerly direction and connects Tigard Street with Tiedeman Avenue after crossing Summer Creek. A thirty-foot easement has been obtained from Fowler school. There are approximately 7,500 square feet of wetland impacted due to construction of this project. The project design for wetland mitigation plan is nearing completion and will be out to bid in mid-August. A Joint permit from DSL and Corps of Engineers, and easements for the trail have now been obtained. The project includes construction of approximately 1,620 feet of an 8-foot wide pedestrian walkway including a 70-foot timber bridge. The bid opening was conducted on July 5, 2000 and the bid results are: ~ Andersen Pacific, Inc. Ridgefield, WA $89,450.00 J.P. Contractors, Inc. Portland, OR $97,495.00 + + *J-Mac, Inc. Tigard, OR $114,609.00 + ACS, Inc. Vancouver, WA $141,249.00 PCR, Inc. Portland, OR $153,540.00 Engineer's Estimate $140,500.00 a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A .VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES This project is funded in the amount of $167,311 from the Greenspaces fund of the Parks System Program of the FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Program. This amount is sufficient to award the contract of $89,450.00 to Andersen Pacific, Inc. iAcitywide\sum\award construction for fanno trail 2.doc 4 i i ~ I r , ~ WALNUT ST. - - - _ WALNUT ST_ N~ o~ o' i - - - TIGARD ST. ' d i O r i ~ NORTH DAKOTA ST. eENe~R~ ~ (~D O z aver fa Agenda Item No Meeting of 7 a 5, D p NOTE: The Public Hearing on the Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC Tri-County may be set over. The applicant's legal counsel has inquired about a continuance. Staff is checking with the applicant to select potential dates so that Council may consider setting the hearing over to a date certain. i 3 ~ J'JL 14 2000 15:33 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.02i04 PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SouTHwEsr FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 - PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 7 1 5 TELEPHONE: 503 727.2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARX D. WHITLOW (503) 7274073 whitm@perkinscoie.com July 14, 2000 SENT YIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Tri-County Center - Options 1 & 2 Dear Members of the Council: This office represents Gordon S. Malin in the above matter. Request is made for a continuance in the hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000: I will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the hearing. The Martins had previously requested that the appeal not be processed or set for public hearing, since the appeal was filed on a precautionary basis pending further discussions with staff. (See copy of my prior letters of June 5 and June 13, 2000 - attached.) Thank you for your attention to this matter. ry tray Yo Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Richard Bewersdorff Tim Ramis, City Attorney Gordon S. Martin, Sr. a Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Ed Christensen L [33181-0 DD 1 /PA003693.087] ANCHORAGE BELLE•VUE BOISE DENVER HONC, KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OL}MPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C, y IUL 14'2000 15:33 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.03i04 PERKINS COIF LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • PORTLAND, OREGON 9720a-3715 • MARX D. WHMOW TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 (503) 727.2073 whitm@pcdcin=ie.com June 13, 2000 SENT YIA FACSLWLE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re; Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri•County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-0000S/ItUS 2000-00002 OD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/hUS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. urs, V kDitlow Mark MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick 13ewersdorff Clients Fa Cstensen - - _ ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG GONG LOS ANGELES NENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. miR911 ns/PAnAU2a4041 4TVAtRG1r AIIIANCW'vuc¢F?i F- I1IUAII11N JUL 14'2000 15:34 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.04i04 PERKINS COIF LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 - PORTLAND, OREGON 9720d-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 - FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK D. V/MTLOW (503) 727-2073 %%Ntm@perldmwic.com June 5, 2000 SENT PIA HAND DELIVERY Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdoiff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. Enclosed is a completed Appeal Filing Form and check in the amount of $1,745 for the appeal fee. We submit this notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000, on a precautionary basis only. The applicant intends to work with staff to submit revised site plans whi.ch the applicant believes would meet relevant standards without the need to go through the Design Evaluation Team. Pending that work, please do not process the appeal. After the applicant has received final City approval of its revised site plans, the applicant will dismiss the appeal and request a refund of its filing fee. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call with your questions or comments. Iy y A~ Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen (33181-000)?A003688.651 J ANCHORAGE 6ELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL & DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA `T AGENDA ITEM it FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Final Order No. 200--'.'-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 and 2 (Option 1: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and tion 2• Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003), PREPARED BY: Karen Perl Fox DEPT HEAD OK IZI? CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An appeal of Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC filed on June 5, 2000 by the applicant for Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 regarding certain conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Conditions. INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. 1 110111 Ilia CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition #7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition #22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition #25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hennoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition #26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition #56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition #58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition #73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. The staff response to each condition under appeal is included in the attached memorandum from Planning Staff to the City Council dated July 12, 2000. Attachments: 7/12/2000 Staff Memo to the Council Exhibit "A" - 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" - 6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx Exhibit "C" - 5/15/2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Exhibit "B" - Appeal Form & Related Materials Exhibit "F" -120-Day Extension Letter from the Appellant OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE sgTRMEGY None FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:\6rywide\sum\pd20004)0W1 & z summary.doe 6 13 a~ MONSOON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TRI-COUNTY CENTER/OPTIONS 1 AND 2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000- 00002, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000- 00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003). WHEREAS, the applicant requested approval of a conceptual plan for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a 27.33 acre site. Option 1 is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center. Option 2 is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center. Both alternatives included a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing concerning the proposed shopping center and following discussion and the close of the public hearing, voted to approve the shopping center, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000 the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision appealing Conditions No. 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58 and 73; and WHEREAS, the issues raised by the appellants are not substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition; and WHEREAS, findings contained within the Planning Commission's decision (Final Order No. 2000-02 PC) and the conditions of approval will insure that all required permits and engineering review is obtained for this project prior to the beginning of any construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard hereby determines that the Planning Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission Final Order, the June 26, 2000 letter from the Director of Community Development regarding the wall along Hermoso Way, the July 12, 2000 Memorandum from Staff to City Council, the July 11, 2000 Memorandum from the City's Development Engineer regarding Condition #7, and the testimony provided at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting, and hereby denies the appeal of Tri-County Center (Option 1 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002, and Option 2 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003). RESOLUTION NO. 00- iAcitywide\res\tri-county.res Page I of 2 KPF-July 17, 2000 PASSED: This day of 2000. Council President - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 00- iAcitywideVeAtri-county.res Page 2 of 2 KPF-July 17, 2000 Ills= . V =Mai City of Tigard Community (Development ShapingA Better Community CITY 00F TIGAROP OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council FROM: Karen Fox, Associate Planner DATE: July 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center CASE NOS.: (Option 1) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staffs response are as follows: CONDITION #1: CHAPTER 18.620, TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (AND SECTION 18.620.090) 3 Overall Condition: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 1 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 tr Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that this condition was modified by the Planning Commission to make DET review optional rather than mandatory and is, therefore, a restatement of the code requirement and is extraneous. The applicant also stated concern that should the applicant choose to go through DET review, that the wording of the condition would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. The applicant indicates that it was unclear whether the Planning Commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, making it impossible to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. The example cited was whether or not the proposed wall along Hermoso Way meets the definition for a "building" under the code and thus satisfies the zero to ten foot setback requirement in Conditions #56 and #58. Staff Response: Condition #1 was modified (from the Staff Report) by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant the option, rather than requirement, to go through the DET review prior to the detailed plan review. Typically, the detailed plan review process would occur prior to the conceptual plan review, however, the applicant did not elect to do this. If the applicant elects to go through the DET review prior to submitting the detailed plan, the DET's recommendations would have to come before the Planning Commission, and all other procedure's under Section 18.620.090.D for the Design Evaluation Team Review Process would apply. The Planning Commission decision would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: As the DET review is optional, no action is necessary. CONDITION #7: CHAPTER 18.810 (AND SECTION 18.810.030) The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72"d Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). Appellant's Statement: This condition requires the applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. Staff Response: A Rough Proportionality Analysis was included in the Staff Report and Final Order. For Option 1, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,237,375, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,521,505. For Option 2, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,478,218, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,685,188. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 2 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity arid is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit. The estimated value for the street improvements, TIF credits, and any non TIF creditable work as provided in the decision is roughly $1,000,000. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Additional comments are attached and provided by the City's Development Engineer, Brian Rager, regarding this issue (Exhibit "A"). Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #7. CONDITION #22 & #25: CHAPTER 18.775, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Condition #22: The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent. Condition #25 (Option 2 only): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25 percent slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent. Appellant's Statement: These two conditions do not recognize the fact than many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the site. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25 percent. This condition should be modified accordingly. Staffs Response: This issue was discussed by the Planning Commission who consulted with staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing. Staff clarified, at that time, Condition #22 was simply asking for verification by the applicant that there will not be any ground disturbance in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent (which existed prior to ground disturbance by the applicant on this site). Similarly, Condition #25 is referring to pre-ground disturbance slopes which exceed 25 percent. It was clarified at the hearing that the applicant's were being asked to provide verification via topographic evidence, and site history regarding whether, or not, there were slopes exceeding 25 percent from the time the applicant/owner began work on the site; and if so, whether the work exceeds 10 cubic yards on those portions of the site. Condition #25 is applicable in the case that there is ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent (slopes that existed at the time that the applicant or owner began work on this site). Staff Recommendation: No action necessary. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 3 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 111 110 CONDITION #26: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030). The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth siuleet between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front Yard Setback Design: Section 18.620.030.A.3 Landscaping, and arcade or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. Summary, of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that due to the wetlands location between the structure and the public street, that code Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design, is inapplicable. The applicant states that this code section does not require landscaping, or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. Staff Rest: The applicant states that it meets the criterion from Section 18.620.030.A.2, Building setback, by counting the wetland (rather than a building) along SW Dartmouth, as the feature located between zero to ten feet from the public street right-of-way. The applicant concludes that Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design is inapplicable. However, the fact that the wetland meets the criteria for Section 18.620.030.A.2 does not preclude that landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path shall be provided between the structure and the public street, in addition to the wetlands. The landscaping, arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path is intended to meet the design principles as set forth in the Section 18.620.010, Purpose and Applicability, as follows: A. Design Principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenience pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscaoe to create a high quality image for the area The applicant's proposed conceptual building and site design along SW Dartmouth does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area, as pedestrian friendly design features are not included in the design. In addition, the building's are oriented to the interior of the lot and away from the wetlands. Building facades were shown in the plans submitted with blank facades along SW Dartmouth Street. The addition of pedestrian friendly elements between the wetland and the building 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 4 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 facades along SW Dartmouth, such as additional landscaping or an arcade along the perimeter of the building, would meet the code criterion under Section 18.620.030.A.3. At present, it is unclear how, or if, service access will be provided to the (rear) building facades and the south side of the wetlands which front SW Dartmouth. Staff is also concerned that without service or pedestrian access between the buildings and the wetlands, the wetlands will be negatively impacted. The wetlands have the potential to be an amenity to the streetscape and the shopping center. However, the current proposal does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area as the buildings turn their backs on the streetscape, the site design lacks streetscape design features, and the wetlands are not utilized as a integral visual amenity in the streetscape design. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #26. CONDITION! #56 & #58: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030.A.2.) Condition#56 (Option 1 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Condition #58 (Option 2 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Buildina Setback: Section 18.620.030.A.2 The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be 0 feet, the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Summary of AppgllantIs Statement: The applicant states that a sound wall is proposed along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street (Hermoso Way), and should satisfy the requirement for the zero to ten foot building setback from the public street. The applicant cites the definition for "building" from Chapter 18.120. The definition for building is "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Staff Response: It was not clear from the Planning Commission's hearing on May 15, 2000 whether or not a wall could be used as a substitute for a building to meet the Tigard Triangle Design Standard, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for building setback. The Director of Community Development, Jim Hendryx, provided a letter regarding this issue to the applicant dated June 26, 2000 which is included in Council's material packet (Exhibit "B"). The letter states that a wall can be used to meet the building location requirements of the TTDS, and advises that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 5 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 MENEM=- mmmumml~ r of the Triangle. For example, the wall must include design features such as ground floor windows, display areas or door openings. The applicant will need to carefully review all the design criteria under Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040), and address and meet all of these criteria in the narrative application, and plans and elevations, in the detailed plan review process. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #56 and #58. CONDITION #73: CHAPTER 18.620, SECTION 18.620.020 The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant concurs with the May 8, 2000 Staff Report which found that the street connectivity was satisfied via the eight intersections per mile option (Performance Option). The Staff Report included the planned intersection at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road, and the intersection at SW Dartmouth at the planned fly over to SW Hall Boulevard in the count. Condition #73 requires the applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when the planned connecting street to Dartmouth Street is completed. If only one of the two planned streets are constructed along Dartmouth, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of Condition #73. Further, Condition #73 imposes an exaction that is riot proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. This condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Staff Response: The Planning Commission consulted with Staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing and discussed this issue at length at that time. Staff did not object to the addition of Condition #73 after considering the fact that the identified planned intersections are very unlikely to be built in the near future (next five years), and may never be built. As the length of SW Dartmouth is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. There are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle. The applicant raises the issue of Rough Proportionality in the requirement of the street connectivity, however, street connectivity is one of the guiding principles of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Further, the applicant is given the option of providing a private street or public street. A private street street does not require dedication. Notwithstanding the fact that staff does not concur that the rough proportionality test applies in this case, the value of the connecting public street is approximately $184,000 (920 lineal feet x $200 per lineal feet). Therefore, the value of all public improvements, if the connecting street were added to the cost, would be approximately $1,130,000 (using the figures in the attached memo from the City's Development Engineer). The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated costs by approximately $555,000. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 6 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 The applicant's argument that the connecting street would bisect the parking field (lot) does not hold up as it is premised on a shopping center design which is oriented toward the interior of the lot and away from the streetscape and pedestrian way. The applicant's statement that the connecting street would create an unsafe environment assumes no re-design of the site to appropriately and safely accommodate the street. Some re-design of the site is anticipated due to this modification of the original plan. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #73 Summary of Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require -a change in the language of the Condition. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" - 6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx i:\curp1n\karen\pd001 &2.cc.appeal.memo.doc 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 7 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: July 11, 2000 TO: Karen Fox, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: PDR 2000-00001, 2000-00002, Tri County Options 1 and 2 This memorandum is in response to the applicant's argument over Condition #7, which requires them to widen SW Dartmouth Street, east of SW 72"d Avenue. Right-of-Way Issue First of all, the applicant claims that they will have to purchase right-of-way (ROW) from the parcel at the southeast corner of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue (2S1 01AB, Tax Lot 100). This is not true. As a part of the previous land use approval (SDR 98-00002), the applicant was able to obtain ROW on the east side of SW 72"d Avenue, adjacent to Tax Lot 100, to provide 46 feet from the centerline. In addition, a 45-foot ROW radius was dedicated at the intersection corner. Both dedications were completed and are illustrated on the most current tax assessors maps. There is approximately 40 feet of ROW on SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100, and 30 feet of ROW on the north side of centerline, for a total ROW width of 70 feet (existing). The 40- foot width on the south side of centerline is sufficient to contain the improvements required in Condition V. One last point regarding this issue. On July 11, 2000, Staff met with Specht Development, who is interested in developing Tax Lot 100, and other parcels in the vicinity. Obviously, if that occurs, Specht would be required to dedicate ROW and construct street improvements to SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100 that include the improvements listed in Condition V. But in the event the Tri County project moves forward before Specht, it stands to reason that Specht would be motivated to cooperate with the Tri County developer, especially if part of their future street improvements would be constructed for them. i Value of Improvements Required The applicant asserts that the value of the street widening is over and above their impact on the transportation system., Staff has estimated the value of the street widening as follows: • Roadway Widening: $ 92,000.00 (conservative) • Wetland Issues (If any) $ 10,000.00 Public Improvement Permit $ 4,500.00 (additional) • Subtotal $ 106,500.00 • Contingency @ 5% $ 5.325.00 • TOTAL $ 111.825.00 In the previous Staff Report, it was noted that the unmitigated impact of this development will be approximately $1,685,188.00. The applicant had given Staff an estimate of the cost of all public improvements (less the improvements described above) that would be tied to this project. The value of those improvements is $834,074.00. With the addition of the roadway widening east of SW 72nd Avenue, the total value of all public improvements would be approximately $946,000.00. The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated impact by approximately $739,000.00. Basically, in order for Staff to buy into any of the applicant's arguments, Staff would have to be convinced that the value of any unforseen issues would exceed $739,000. This is not likely. In summary, Staff is not convinced the applicant is powerless to construct the improvements described in Condition #7, as sufficient ROW already exists. Staff also disagrees that the value of these improvements exceeds the project impacts. i:%"Nbrianr\cornments4xWipd2 W 0.00001.OOOOZconcW7{ebuttal.doc PAGE 2 EXHIBIT B CITY ®F TICS June 26, 2000 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: There has been some confusion regarding whether a wall can substitute for building location relative to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. I would like to assure you and your clients that a wall, indeed, can be used to meet the building location requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Please be advised that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards of the Triangle. I hope this will clarify the City's position. Sincerely, DtG. / James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development I:\curpln\dick\letters\Christensen TTDS lettendoc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT C CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 15, 2000 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 (arrived late), Griffith, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Incalcaterra Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Karen Fox, Associate Planner; Augustin Duenas, City Engineer; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff proposed some meeting dates to address a code amendment for an historic designation and a conditional use to allow weddings and other similar activities in a residential zone. It was decided that the matter would be heard on July 17th. Mr. Bewersdorff also advised that cameras were being installed so that all public meetings held in the Tigard Civic Center may be televised. Training is being offered to prepare Planning Commission members for televised meetings. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion to approve the April 17, 2000, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Augustin "Gus" Duenas discussed the process for determining capital improvement projects, funding sources, and the program areas and priorities. The PowerPoint presentation detailing each project is attached as Exhibit A. Program areas are: the street system; the storm drainage system; the park system; and the water system. Mr. Duenas detailed the priorities of each program area, upcoming projects, the fiscal 1999-2000 committed projects that are still to be completed, and funding of the projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'T'ES - May 15, 2000 - Page I Lim Commissioner Topp asked about underground utilities, fiber optics, and cable that need to be installed in the street extensions and unpaved portions of the right-of-way. Mr. Duenas said the task force is working on coordinating those installations with the County so that underground work is done prior to paving. Commissioner Olsen commended the task force for its work on the traffic count, transportation bond, and Summerlake issues. Commissioner Padgett asked about the portable speed humps. Mr. Duenas said there is a process for rating the streets. President Wilson asked if a feasibility study of the Walnut/Hunziker connection should be looked at. Mr. Duenas said that was one of the recommendations in the transportation plan. Mr. Wilson commented that while this project may be expensive, it would be less expensive than widening Hwy. 99W. A brief discussion was held regarding the public's frustration with Hwy. 99 traffic as opposed to the disruption that would be attendant upon such a project. The downtown redevelopment plan will be confronting this issue, and while it may be considered in long-term planning, it is not in the scope of this CIP. It is recognized that something must be done to alleviate Hwy. 99 traffic. Commissioner Olsen moved to accept the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Projects, with the revisions presented, and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. No one signed up to speak on this item. 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTION 1 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 297,179-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72"d PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 2 Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. STAFF REPORT Karen Fox presented the staff report on behalf of the City. Refer to Exhibit B for proposed changes to the staff report. She emphasized that this is a concept plan versus a detailed plan review. The two options are presented together, with the only difference being the square footage of the gross usable space and building area. Ms. Fox detailed the site location and particulars of the two options. The current plan differs from the prior-approved 1998 plan by including six lots on SW Hermosa Way to the southern portion of the site and adding a new access on Hermosa Way, and it presents different building configurations and locations. It has blank walls on three streets and most of the facades are below grade. The current proposal has gone through wetlands and water resources overlay review and the wetlands designation has been removed; however, a sensitive lands review is requested as the project is in noncompliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the wetlands infill location. Ms. Fox presented details on the areas where the plan options currently do not meet the Tigard Triangle design standards and criteria regarding building placement on arterials, building setbacks, walkway connections, parking locations, landscape requirements, and building design criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. She also outlined changes/corrections to the staff report and recommendations. Because the standards are not met in concept, there is a basis for denying the proposal; however, based on alternative designs by the design evaluation team, staff recommends that overall conditions be imposed and that the applicant be required to go through the design evaluation process. Staff recommends approval only after the conditions are met and a detailed plan is submitted. Dick Bewersdorff pointed out that this is a complicated project and both the planning staff and applicant struggled with the recommendations. There are conditions in the evaluation that will take care of the majority of the issues and the applicant would prefer not to go through the design evaluation team process. Brian Rager stated that as part of the 1998 approval, the applicant has already submitted construction plans for most of the public improvements that were conditioned for this project, has obtained plan approval from the Engineering PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 3 Millis Department for those plans, and has proceeded with the rough grading. To move forward with the proposed options, the applicant must amend those construction plans, which will be difficult. Mr. Rager discussed some of the issues that have been dealt with, such as signalization. There is a report from Kittleson & Associates for mitigation. The applicant has made improvements and provided for further recommended improvements in their plan, but there may be some misunderstandings regarding potential traffic impacts. Generally, there are no other changes in traffic impacts from the 1998 plan and the applicant has made some progress and only needs design approval from ODOT on the signalization at 68th and Dartmouth. There is also mention in the report for a reimbursement district for the sewer line put in on Hermosa Way, so the applicant will need to pay the assessments, and the report also requires clarification of the storm drainage and water quality design. It will not be difficult for the applicant to meet those standards. Additional grading has been requested and the Engineering Department is questioning some of the fill that they have put in, so has recommended a geotechnical engineer certification before any further grading is done. Commissioner Padgett asked if widening to two lanes and then narrowing back to one lane east of 72nd and Dartmouth is possible to do within the existing city right- of-way or whether it will require the purchase of private property by the applicant. Mr. Rager said that he believes it will require some acquisition of right-of-way by the applicant. The applicant has already acquired the right-of-way from the property owner in order to do full-street improvements on 72nd and there should be no problem acquiring it on Dartmouth. Commissioner Topp asked if the current project would be affected if the options presented are approved or not approved. Dick Bewersdorff said that construction has begun on the 1998 application that was approved. If either Option 1 or 2 is approved, then the applicant will have to meet the new conditions of approval, and if neither is approved, they will continue with the current project as approved in 1998. It wasn't known that there was a problem until the signal coordination report was done. President Wilson expressed concern with staffs interpretation of the connectivity standards. Staff counted eight streets and seven intersections along Dartmouth, including the planned backage road and "flyover" of Hall Blvd. The connectivity standards says all development must demonstrate how certain conditions will be met as to design and performance, and he questions how it can be demonstrated that these planned streets will actually be built. Additionally, evaluation of Dartmouth Street and 72 nd Avenue has been made, but not Hermosa Way, which would also apply to that standard. Mr. Wilson contends that a street is needed connecting Dartmouth to Hermosa. Everything has been provided for except connection and without it there is a huge amount of unmitigated traffic impact. Karen Fox and Dick Bewersdo~~ agreed that this was a good point. The concept that was utilized was the performance option distance between various frontages PLANNING COMMISSION tv1EETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 4 on buildings to various driveways and this met the standard. President Wilson responded that he feels the whole spirit of connectivity is being violated here. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, said they felt they had presented a detailed, site friendly plan and had tried to work the pedestrian connectivity through the site as much as possible while meeting the design standards. The plan was resubmitted in 1998 in order to meet the criteria and intent under Tigard Triangle design standards. The current options are requested due to changes in the retail community since 1998 requiring larger, more flexible retail sites. These two options are presented as concept plans in order to provide for more flexibility in meeting the design standards and then detailed plans can be provided later. Mr. Christensen explained the various areas in which they felt the intent of the Triangle design standards had been met. He noted that it is not an easy process meeting all of the requirements. They do not feel there is a large difference between the options presented and what they are trying to achieve and what was approved in 1998. Option 2 differs from the 1998 plan by adding 1.5 acres. This will actually reduce the overall traffic impact that would result from future development of that land. It also differs by allowing the flexibility to move pad C, but does not change frontage along Dartmouth and 72nd as contended by staff. Working with staff, sidewalk overhangs and covered walkways were included in the overall length of buildings on both those frontages to meet that standard. There is more than adequate connectivity through the site for pedestrian and traffic movement. The performance option is also met for the number of access points onto Dartmouth Street, but not for the number of intersections along a section of Hermosa Way. However, existing intersections and driveways function at a level of service of A-B, bringing into question whether more connectors are necessary. Mr. Christensen also discussed topography and the various elevations of the shopping center, explaining the physical difficulties in meeting the connectivity criteria, ADA standards, and retail community standards due to grade levels. Slope issues raised by staff were actually stockpiled materials that staff did not realize were there. Fill concerns raised by staff have been tested by a geotechnical consultant and all meet or exceed the standards. Mr. Christensen stated that the concept plan allows for the needed flexibility to better implement a shopping center. He briefly discussed the tenancy issues and the need for flexibility. He said it is not possible to go through the design evaluation team process for each tenant space because that would be too time consuming and would result in construction not beginning this year because of the time needed to meet the current conditions of approval. The landscaping and other concept plans are detailed as previously submitted. They want to work with staff to remedy anything missed in the plans, but the DET process will considerably delay this development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 5 President Wilson asked if the 1998 approved plan went through the DET process. Mr. Christensen responded that it did not, the plan was deemed to have met the design standards outright. Mr. Wilson stated that if the standards are not met, an applicant must go through the DET process. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to say that an applicant does not have to comply with the Code. Mr. Christensen stated that there is only one major issue of compliance, which is the fagade along Hermosa Way. There only needs to be agreement that a wall with display windows constitutes a facade. The other items in the recommendation can be shown to be met. Dick Bewersdorff clarified a misunderstanding about the DET process. He said the applicant does not need to go through the process for each detailed plan for tenant spaces, only one time for the concept plan, and then each detailed plan goes through the review process with staff. Commissioner Padgett commented that the only disagreement with the conditions in the staff report that the Planning Commission has seen is a letter from Perkins Coie (Exhibit C). President Wilson pointed out that there are two major issues. One is meeting the Triangle design standards and the other is condition #1 requiring the DET process. The staff report, starting on page 20, sets out where staff feels the plan does not meet the standards. Those are DET issues and they can relax the standards to a degree. The other conditions are technical and not related to the DET process. Commissioner Topp added that the applicant must either demonstrate that they are in compliance with the standards or must go through the DET process. Mr. Christensen said that functionally this is the same plan as what was submitted and approved in 1998, except for the sound wall on Hermosa Way. He detailed the applicant's position on the conditions, as follows. Condition #1: Request that this be removed. Condition #5: The applicant agrees with this condition and will comply. Condition #7: This was based on information not provided to them and they are unable to comply because it is not under their control. Condition #22: Request that this condition be removed. This was in regards to the 25% slopes along Hermosa Way, which was a stockpile from stripping the areas below for grading. This is not sensitive lands, it is under construction. Condition #23: Modify 4" fence to 4' fence. Condition #26: Request that this condition be removed because it is not necessary under the design standards for zero setback to the wetlands. Condition #27: There is no revision required. The requirements of pedestrian walkways are met. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 6 Condition #28: They agree with parking area redesign along 72Rd Avenue. Along Hermosa Way, the wall would be acting as a fagade, resulting in zero setback to the right-of-way, so no additional landscaping would be required along there. This is contingent upon approval of a wall versus a building. Commissioner Topp stated that he has trouble with the concept of a freestanding wall being the fagade and resulting in a zero setback as opposed to a building wall. Mr. Christensen responded that it is allowable under the Triangle design standards. President Wilson said that was only if there was some topographical or similar constraint, and that is the way it has been interpreted in the DET meetings also. If there is some reason why it cannot be met, then an alternative is usually acceptable. Condition #29: They ask that this be removed because it requires going through the DET process for zero-to-10-foot setbacks, which they contend is met all around the site. There is some question about whether they are required to have 50% of the building fronting non-arterial streets. The design standards are not specific on this because they say arterial and collector streets, but not local streets. In addition, the condition says no false windows are allowed for the purposes of meeting design standards, and that is not correct. The terms "false windows" and "display windows" are used interchangeably, and display windows are allowed and are currently being used. They ask that the whole condition be removed because it is unnecessary. The windows will be properly placed according to the standards. President Wilson advised that the staff report conditions simply recite parts of the code. If a condition cannot be met, then an alternative design proposal can be submitted to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Because this is conceptual and the Planning Commission is not supplied with all of the details, either the standards must be met or the applicant must submit to the DET an alternative to meeting the standards. Staff does not have enough information from a conceptual plan in order to make an evaluation. Mr. Christensen replied that the standards will be met, they understand the criteria and the concept, and they simply want the flexibility to change the site in order to develop it. The staff report in condition #1 requires them to go to the DET. President Wilson said this was because staff saw some things in the plan that did not appear to comply with the standards. Instead of requiring them to go to the DET as a condition of approval, preferable language would be that when a detailed plan is provided, the applicant will comply with the entire letter of the Triangle standards. Mr. Christensen agreed and reiterated that the standards will be complied with in the detailed plans, if the issues regarding Hermosa Way can be taken care of here. Mr. Wilson said that may be the one issue that should go to the DET, and Mr. Christensen responded that the time involved in that process will considerably delay construction. Although they will still have to submit detailed plans and have a site design review, that is not required for a grading permit. They need to be able to do the grading during the summer months when the moisture content of the dirt is less. Commissioner Topp disagreed that this was the only issue to be resolved, there is also the disagreement with condition #29. Staff says false windows are not allowed and the applicant says they are allowed. Karen Fox replied that the plan, showed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 7 blank walls, not false or display windows, so staff assumed that they were proposing blank walls. If the applicant provides for display windows, then that meets the standards. Upon Commissioner Topp's inquiry about the purpose of the windows, Ms. Fox quoted from the design principles in the Tigard Triangle standards that, in summary, says they are for aesthetic purposes. Display windows are an option listed in the standards and are acceptable. The conceptual plan submitted only showed blank walls, which would not meet the standards, and this was the reason for the condition. Mr. Christensen said that the 1998 plan also omitted some details on the elevations, but it was noted that the applicant would meet the standards and this was sufficient to both the applicant and the Commission for approval of that plan. He then continued with detailing the applicant's position on the conditions: Condition #30: The criteria regarding building fagades extending more than 300 feet has been met by adding entrances to the buildings at less than 300-foot intervals. Mr. Christensen explained the changes made to the 1998 plan to accomplish this. Condition #33: This is similar to a condition for the proposal in 1998. They do not have the ability to hide the mechanical rooftoequipment because of the 35-foot elevation drop along Hermosa Way and 72"'. This is alleviated by painting the equipment the same color as the roof. President Wilson commented that it is common to put screens around the equipment and agreed that this should not be an issue. Condition #35: A foot of landscaping was inadvertently omitted on the plan. This condition is met. Conditions #40 and #41: They have an existing permit with the Army Corps of Engineers and DSL that expired because the improvements were not complete, and have been advised that their request for a one-year extension will be granted. For condition #41, a 15-foot buffer is approved and in some cases had to mitigate the buffer off-site. They have submitted to staff documentation of that approval. Karen Fox indicated that she has not had time to verify the documentation. Condition #42: Visual clearance is not applicable to the design standards. Karen Fox explained that staffs reason for imposing this condition is due to a conflict in Tigard Triangle design standards and the city's code for visual clearance on a corner. She agrees with the applicant that there is no conflict as it applies in this case. After a brief discussion, it was determined that this is not an issue. Condition #50: They have no problem designing something to catch cars; however, they do not understand the definition of drop-off grade or separation. There is a distinction between the Uniform Building Code, which is applicable, and the Zoning Code that applies to anything that is not a building as far as drop-off is concerned. This could be considered a 4:1 slope. Mr. Christensen asked if this term is defined in the code. Karen Fox said there is no definition pertinent to this site; this was intended to relate specifically to the parking lot by driveway D next to 72"d. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 8 UBC states that any drop-off greater than 30" requires a handrail. A 2:1 slope is the most common slope for development concerns. President Wilson said the applicant's concern is noted. Condition #56: They feel that the wall would suffice to meet this condition. Condition $57: This condition will be complied with. Condition #58: They feel that the wall along Hermosa Way with display windows would suffice. A break was convened at 10:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Barbara & Dan Bauer, 12335 SW 72"d, own two corner lots on 72"d & Hermosa. Their home and business is on 72nd where the five lanes will narrow down to two lanes. If that road goes through, it will be only eight feet from their home and will cut their business parking area down to 15 feet, causing delivery trucks to extend onto 72nd when unloading, which will put them out of business. There is no off- street parking. Other concerns are regarding run-off into the wall if the road is not put in, and the soil nails that will create problems for future development. President Wilson noted that the applicant will have to purchase right-of-way for the road and the Bauers, as the property owners, can negotiate these issues for that acquisition. Mr. Bauer is also concerned about the current traffic problem being exacerbated. Dave Cram, 800 NW 6th Ave. #206, Portland, OR 97205, signed up to speak but did not do so. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification regarding the need to finish the grading this summer. It was pointed out that grading can be done according to the 1998 plan, but no further until the conditions are met for an approved option. President Wilson asked for clarification on how long the DET process takes. It was established that the process takes a minimum of six weeks. Commissioner Topp asked how the DET process affects the applicant's ability to begin grading. Mr. Bewersdorff said the DET meets with the applicant and then determines if the proposal conforms with the design standards. It is unsure how the 30-foot cut into the hill on Hermosa will be handled by the DET. There have been prior approvals where they have modified the standards due to topography. Commissioner Topp outlined the applicant's various options. Option 0 is to grade the entire site pursuant to the 1998 approval. With the proposed options 1 and 2, the access points and most of the parking are essentially the same, but there is a difference in the location of some of the buildings and the 30 feet of excavation PLANNING COMMISSION MEI TING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 9 by Hermosa Way. He asked if there is a possibility of splitting the grading into phases where the portion in contention would be the last to be graded. President Wilson pointed out that grading has already begun, but to grade the proposed area the applicant must purchase the homes, and they don't want to do that unless they know they will get approval. Mr. Christensen stated that with the 1998 plan, they have a 28-foot cut at the back of the Hermosa lots. The option requires additional grading off-site and to do that they must submit and get approval of the improvement plans for Hermosa Way in order to get a grading permit. They cannot get the off-site improvement plans approved through the DET in timely fashion for grading on the site of the Hermosa Way lots during the summer months, which therefore nullifies the option. The street widening requires right-of-way acquisition, which cannot happen anytime soon. Commissioner Topp asked if it would benefit the applicant to proceed with grading three-fourths of the site while they go through the approval process for the part of Hermosa Way in contention. Mr. Christensen said the grading must be done in the summer because of moisture content in the dirt. Waiting for approval would defer a large amount of grading to after the summer months. Commissioner Topp said one of his concerns is the response from ODOT and the amount of traffic resulting from this plan. He asked what the reason is for the street improvement. President Wilson responded that this issue was addressed in 1998. At that time it was already zoned, and the zoning assumes a certain traffic generation. Once it is zoned, a project cannot be denied on that zoning short of a moratorium. The problem is that the zoning was a mistake because it was done under the assumption that numerous improvements would be in place that have not actually occurred. Commissioner Topp said another concern is the letter from the attorneys, item #4 regarding condition #7. He agrees that a condition cannot be imposed if it is not under the applicant's control, but it is up to the applicant to show on the plans how the problem will be remedied, and now they contend that they cannot be required to do what is shown on the plans. President Wilson pointed out that staff cited the condition as a solution for the traffic problem. Mr. Topp feels the applicant should be required to provide a solution. The applicant's response is that the problem will resolve itself by people taking different traffic patterns in order to avoid that area. President Wilson said that that was the reason he was pushing for the connectivity, in order to give people more options. Karen Fox stated that staff has no objection to a connectivity recommendation by the Commission. Brian Rager added that a traffic study needs to be done. Commissioner Padgett pointed out that if people have a hard time getting onto and off of the property due to heavy traffic, then it is the property that will feel the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 10 negative results because people will not continue to go there. If the shopping center is willing to accept that, then that is their choice. A compromise may be to agree with the applicant that it is not right to force them to buy the property necessary for widening, but have the applicant sign a non-remonstrance for an LID for the widening of that street when the property across the street does develop. Mr. Rager said that is acceptable. They have a standard street improvement agreement that could also provide the flexibility that if the adjacent property does develop, the applicant is not precluded from participating in that. Commissioner Padgett added that this would continue to recognize that this development has a direct impact on that intersection and what happens across the intersection, and yet possibly eliminates the roadblock they have to making that happen. Mr. Christensen said that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Padgett reiterated that if the main result of those lanes not being widened on 72nd is that people have trouble getting out of and therefore don't frequent that property, then the applicant is accepting that consequence. Commissioner Topp asked why there would be a traffic backup as reported in the traffic study when there will be coordinated traffic signals. Mr. Bewersdorff explained how a build-up of traffic can occur and pointed out that it is a signal timing situation that will need to be worked out. A brief discussion was held on the future development and traffic problems of the area. Commissioner Padgett stated that when the area on the other side of 72nd is developed, the intent is to have the street wide enough to eliminate the traffic problems. President Wilson stated that the problem regarding Hermosa Way and the DET process still needed to be addressed. Commissioner Topp commented that if that problem can be resolved and the applicant is willing to comply with the other conditions, then they will not have to go through the DET process. Condition #1 can be changed to require the applicant to either comply with the conditions OR go to the DET. President Wilson said he would like to know why staff made this an overall condition and then repeated the other problems individually. He thought there were quite a few unresolved issues. Mr. Bewersdorff said it was done that way to provide the Commission the option of either having that overall condition or dealing with each one individually. Staff struggled with that because they were uncomfortable with trying to approve something on Hermosa Way that may not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle design. In regard to building frontage and windows facing the street, Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the intent of the design standards is that this requirement applies to local streets as well as collectors and arterials. While the applicant is contending that these standards do not apply to this local access street, staff is saying that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page I 1 Rum- they are applicable to local streets. Commissioner Padgett stated that he was on the task force and that staff is right, that was the intent. A discussion was held concerning the need to add another street to meet the connectivity standard. It was suggested that the addition of a private street could be added as a condition of approval. A private street would not be held to the standards for public streets, but width requirements could still be imposed for two-way traffic to ensure it is not simply an aisle. The discussion continued regarding street and accessway requirements, as well as setback requirements. The applicant contents they can't get the 0'-10' setback on Hermosa because of the slope. Ms. Fox said the current property is a 7-10% slope and the applicant is self-imposing the steep topography, and she feels it is not necessary to drop the building 30' below grade because it could be designed to be above grade and to front the street as is intended by the standards. This portion of the site (the Hermosa lots) is zoned MUE, which allows the same things as General Commercial plus some additional things. There are also practical considerations, such as servicing at the rear of the building. Since they have to have a building fagade within 0-10' of Hermosa, the applicant is proposing a wall with false windows in order to qualify. Pursuant to the discussions, the following determinations were made: A compromise would be made on condition #7 regarding the traffic lanes, as discussed earlier. Approval can be granted by changing condition #1 to require the applicant to be in compliance with the design standards or, if they do not agree with or cannot conform with the standards, they would have to go through the DET process. This would be done by making condition #1 an option rather than mandatory. Condition #23 should be modified to provide for a 4-foot-high fence. Condition #22 should require that the applicant must verify the stockpiling from construction. A new condition should be required for the applicant to construct a 24-foot-wide private street connecting Dartmouth with Hermosa, in accordance with Section 18.620.020 for street connectivity. Condition #7 should require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. This presumes that the applicant would be joining in with development of adjacent property, so the intent of the condition is that the applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound, based on recommendations from the MUTCD. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 12 Condition #29 can be struck because the proposal provides for display windows and complies with the standards. Condition #43 should be modified to provide for sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment. Condition #50 regarding the height requirement should be modified to provide for a railing where the drop off rate of separation is at least 30" or a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the request for Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001 /Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Planned Development Review (PD) 2000- 00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003, subject to the conditions of approval with changes, deletions, and modifications as discussed above and summarized as follows: Condition #1 is made optional by changing "shall" to "may, at the applicant's option,"; Condition #7 is changed to require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. The applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound based on recommendations from the MUTCD; Condition #23 is modified by changing the fence measurement from inches to feet (4" to 4'); Condition #43 is modified to reflect that the applicant shall provide sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment; Condition #50 is modified so that where the vertical drop-off rate of separation is at least 30 inches or exceeds a 2:1 slope, the applicant shall install a guardrail or wall railing; and A new condition #73 is added to provide that the applicant shall provide a minimum 24' curb-to-curb public or private street connecting Dartmouth Street to Hermosa Way, distinguishing the term "street" from the term "aisle" as it is the intent that a street, not an aisle by which cars enter or depart parking spaces, shall be constructed. Commissioner Topp seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. i I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 13 5.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004/1-OT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTION 2 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 330,312-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. -rhe site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. NOTE: This case was included with item #5.2 above. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 14 EXHIBIT D Atm CITY OF TIGARD Community (Devefopment Shaping.A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD `Wasfiington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMM MON Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-000051LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000 00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-000041LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS$) 2000-00003 Case Name: TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS 1 & 2 Names of Owners: Michael F. Laurens Gordon S Martin Gordon R. Martin. Sheila Martin. Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips. Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman. Mary Manley, and Marvin Von Renchler Name of Applicant: Christensen Engineering - Contact: Ed Christensen Address of Applicant: 7150 SW Hampton. Suite 226. Tigard. Oregon. 97223 Location of Property: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72n° Avenue and is east of State Highwav 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way The site address is 12265 SW 72 Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136CD Tax Lot 04200 25101 BA Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403 and 01404. Request: Y A final order aDoroving with conditions a land use application for a planned development/conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shop ing center on a total site area of 27.33 acres. The approval includes a sensitive lands review andpa lot line ad'ustment. The commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on this application on May 15, 200. The planning commission has based their decision on the facts, findings and conclusions described in further detail within this final order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. Action: ❑ Approval as Requested 19 Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 19 Owners of Record Within the Required Distance ZI Affected Government Agencies ® The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator El The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 19, 2000 AND BECOMES EF0EGT1VP ON JUNE' 6, 2000>UMLESS AN APPEAL ISFILEY Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. rai THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM! ON JUNE 5, 2000. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. loll .w.+..^1yIC,.+tE .«s....v.,,~s....q.~..~ ®Ti6NAi.®R®ERZAI®:000 02P~C; ~~kv~ .h%U $Y THE PLANNING COh9NIISSI®N -FOR THE CITY OF -TIGARD, -OREGON s ►igA oetierC~ unary FINAL ORDER APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER ON A TOTAL SITE AREA OF 27.33 ACRES. THE APPROVAL INCLUDES A SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MAY 15, 2000. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 7/12/2000 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY OPTION 1 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 OPTION 2 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 FILE TITLES: TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS 1 & 2 APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin, Gordon S. Martin, Christensen Engineering and Sheila Martin 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 12265 SW 72nd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS OF ADDITIONAL MUE ZONED LOTS: 01300 Michael F. Laurens 7315 SW Hermoso Way 01400 Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72nd 01401 Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips 7355 SW Hermoso Way 01402 Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso 01403 Mary Manley 7453 SW Hermoso Way a 01404 Marvin Von Renchler 7475 SW Hermoso Way i PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a total site area i of 27.33 acres; and a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. Option 1 is for the new construction of a 297,179 square foot building with gross leasable space of 307,419. Option 2 is for 330,312 square feet of building with gross leasable space of 340,552 square feet. A prior 3 request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by final order of the Tigard City Council. Water Resources Overlay Review is not addressed in this report due to the 1998 decision to remove the wetland designation from the site. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot line PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 1 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC adjustment for a detailed plan for this site, however, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval.for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, nd a Lot Line Adjustment. Neither of the Options involves the detailed plan' review step which will be submitted later. This will afford the applicant more flexibility as lease arrangement are finalized. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72" Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1) The Planned Development Overlay; and the 2) Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted for all properties within the Triangle. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED the proposal subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the report is based are noted within this final order. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 2 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO`THE IS SUANCE'OF,THE SITE't?ERMIT, THE'F0E'L10" -1 d CO~NDIIfIONS'SHALL BE 'SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise"noted; the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) ALL CONDITIONS APPLY JPTIQNS 1 AND 2 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDIMUEEF- 1. OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 2. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for a revision to the current public improvement plans for this project to account for the improvements of SW Hermoso Way and any other changes to public improvements from what has already been approved by the City Engineer. 3. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 4. The applicant must meet the conditions related to public improvements required in the SDR 98-0002 approval, unless otherwise modified in this report. 5. The construction plan revisions shall indicate that the applicant will construct a half-street improvement alon the frontage of SW Hermoso Way in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards ?TTDS). The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local commercial industrial street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet (NOTE: the applicant may propose an alternate to rebuilding the roadway section that will provide equivalent strength and design life); B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TTDS requirements; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; 1. street signs (if applicable); J. driveway apron (If applicable); and K. adJ'ustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hermoso Way in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. The applicant's construction plans shall continue to show a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the existing sidewalk in Dartmouth Street adjacent to the Costco parcel and the new sidewalk adjacent to this site. 1 7. The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72 d Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic control devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2-000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 3 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 8. If a LID has not been formed to construct improvements in SW Dartmouth Street, as the applicant suggested in the narrative, the applicant shall provide all street improvements related to SW Dartmouth Street mentioned in this report as a part of this project. 9. All main line sanitary sewers in this site that serve more than one parcel shall be public lines designed and constructed to meet USA design and construction standards. 10. The applicant's construction plan shall continue to indicate that the applicant will extend an eight (8)-inch public sewer line southerly in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The line shall be extended to the south property line. 11. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 15 for the following Tax Lots on SW Hermoso Way that were made a part of this project: 2S1 01 AB, #1300 2S1 01AB, #1401 2S1 01AB, #1403 e 2S1 01AB, #1404 2S1 01AB, #1400, and 2S1 01AB, #1402. 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide an on-site detention plan for storm water runoff that complies with USA Design and Construction Standards. The plan shall be submitted as part of the site permit application and shall also be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department (Brian Rager). 13. The applicant shall submit a storm drainage plan to the Cityy that clearly indicates how the storm water from this site will be conveyed to Red Rock Creek. If concentrated flows are proposed to convey across the adjacent property to the west, the applicant shall obtain a private storm drainage easement from that property owner prior to construction. 14. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections and public water line work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. The roadway cut and repair in SW Hermosa Way shall be inspected by the City of Tigard as part of their public improvement permit. 15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a design for an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by 21112111 Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. The applicant shall revise the current plan to ensure that 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated. 16. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a 1 certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that 'all grading work on the site has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. i 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to 'Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 18. The applicant shall obtain a new 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to a ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Neater Act. a Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 19. All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment shall be removed. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 4 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 20. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. 21. The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. 22. The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. 23. Construction fencing 4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off-site wetland areas to the west of the site. 24. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SW Hermoso Way lots, 3) 1,500 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated that the combined total of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x $150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonifed estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation deposit or bond. Staff Contact: Karen Pert Fox, Planning Division. Opption 2 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Staff Contact: Karen Perl Fox, Planning Division. AS PART OF THE DETAILED PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED. Submit To The Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, Ext. 315) For Review And Approval: 26. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, the applicant shall revise Pad C (Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (Option 2) walkways to connect with the public street. It is also recommended that the Major I Anchor in each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)- foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. 28. When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so that parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 5 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY Si10PPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 29. The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include a minimum of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Tigard Triangle Ground floor window standard (Section 18.620.40) shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located between 0-10 feet from the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72 Avenue and all building elevations within the 0-10 foot building setback, or required to be located within the 0-10 foot building setback (in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2). Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located on a building corner (this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design Triangle Standrd for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along 72" Avenue, and no more than 50% of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 30. When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating fagade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, fagade pro ections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building fa ade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 31. The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather protection. 32. The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. 33. The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on Pads A-E. 34. The applicant shall submit for review and approval with the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment i zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18.620.050. 35. The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plandreview submission and provide the L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D. ' 36. In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. 37. In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 6 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 38. The applicant shall provide a detailed lightingg pplan for review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with CDC Section 18.705.030.F. 39. In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. 40. The applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers hermits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed. Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to show location of biofiltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. 41. The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. 42. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. 43. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations to provide sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the view of residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. 44. As art of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations and screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. 45. Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Major I building with a minimum 6-foot-high extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing, and/or provide a method for completely screening the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center to the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. 46. The detailed plan shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72" and 35 broad spreading Street trees along SW Dartmouth. 47. The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners) in accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.B. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall revise the buffer at the south side of the parking lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of Section 18.745.050.B. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 7 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGIFINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 48. The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the location and final height of the proposed sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. 49. The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. 50. Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" occur, the applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. 51. The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. 52. The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. 53. The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. 54. The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. 55. The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. 73. The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Option 1 Only 56. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Option 2 Only 57. The applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72"d Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Option 2 Only 58. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 8 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 59. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the construction plans for all traffic signals related to this project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The signals in question include: 1) SW Dartmouth Street/Driveway A, 2) SW Dartmouth StreeVDriveway B, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72 Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68 Parkway. The applicant shall provide traffic signals at Driveways A and B. These signals shall all be interconnected, along with the proposed traffic signal at the Costco south driveway. 60. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from OOT for the signal work to be constructed at the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68u' Parkway. Construction at this intersection shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. (Contact Joel McCarroll, Assf. District Manager, 015-0-T District 2A, 229-5002). 61. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. The map should be submitted to Kit Church, Engineering Department. The address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 62. All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the point access use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION OF ANY BUILDING: Submit tote Engineering Department (Brian ager, 639-4171,__e_x_t_.__T18) or review an approval: 63. Prior to a final inspection, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 72nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $18,700 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 64. If the applicant's project obtains franchise utility service from the existing overhead utility lines on SW Hermoso Way, they shall either place those lines under ground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee for this frontage shall be $18,425 and shall be paid prior to final inspection. 65. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 66. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 67. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall complete construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in accordance with City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 9 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 68. Prior to final building inspection, the a pplicant shall come lete construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway andpSW Dartmouth Street in accordance with ODOT and City standards. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen-hour (6:00 am to 8:00 m. weekday manual turning movement counts at the intersection will need to be providedto ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. ODOT has provided copies of their signal warrant comparison worksheets for the appplicanf to use. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permitsrapprovals for this signal work. 69. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management that indicates that Stormwater Management will provide for the annual maintenance of the StormFilter units proposed for this projec . 70. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities -to perform construction and visuar observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of fhe construction. Prior to final buildingg inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of.Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facilities are in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 71. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a final report to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site was inspected by said eotechnical engineer and that it was completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of-the Uniform Building Code. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 72. The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 1% years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted byy the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.41 .020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. IN ADDGENE~tALEPROVISIONS;STHIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVEF IL STOWING All sign changes and additions shall be submitted as part of a separate sign permit application, and are not addressed in this report. No new si ns shall be placed or altered prior to review and approval by the City in accordance with Chapter 1880 Siggns. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780. to Secfon 18.725.020 requires compliance with applicable state and federal regulations pertaining noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere ground, sewer system or stream. All fuure tenants shall be in compliance with the Environmental Performance Standard as set forth in federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations, and compliance is a continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. The applicant shall comply with State and Federal regulations regarding archaeological artifacts. It is illegal to disturb archaeological sites or remove or alter certain archaeological objects on public or private land unless done by an archaeologist under a permit issued by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant shall stop work immediately if an archaeological site or burial is encountered during construction (an expedited permit process is possible in this situation). Violation of the Indian Graves Protection Law is a Class C Felony. Contact the following in this order if resources are suspected 1) the nearest office of the State Police 2) the State Legislative Commission on Indian Services at the State Capitol, 503-986-1067 3) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office at 503-378-5001 in Salem, Oregon. Please also contact the Tigard Planning Division at 503-639-4171 should any archaeological resources be uncovered during the course of excavation. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 10 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC -will .yt t !tM..(L"A,U ..v+ .y ao ► 3r t-~. r•:: N... yr...r.: r.. r... ' `T: • 1..-;pn. ,r f, re t 2t r , THIS }i~IPP.RO`I%ALt"3FIALL'BE 3/ALIDFOFZ O(~T'1-15 'EFFECTIVE DATE OF:THE PLANNING. COMMISSION','S' NAL`ORDER. SECTION Ill. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Hist (y: el h majority of the proposed development site is currently zoned General Commercial with the southern portion of the site along the north side Hermosa Way zoned Mixed Use Employment. The subject site has been the focus of numerous concept plans and revisions. The scheme for the shopping center has evolved in response to market demands and additional Tigard Triangle area development and construction during the project's planning phases. The majority of the site is presently being graded under previous approvals. The remaining site includes nine (9) detached single-family residences and a mixture of related farming and other accessory structures. Much of the property contains a mixture of types and varieties of trees. The site also has a wetland's system which is currently being rehabilitated along SW Dartmouth Street, and a small portion along the central western pro erty line and at the southwest comer of the site. This site generally slopes towards Highway 217 that is west of the property. Some 1.63 acres of the northern portion of the property along the 5W Dartmouth Street frontage is registered with the Washington County Tax Assessor as a "Christmas Tree Lot"; these trees have been removed with approved grading permits. Some portions of the property are designated as a "Small Woodlands" by the Assessor. There are also six lots in current residential use within the Hermosa Subdivision and along the southern boundary of the site which front SW Hermosa Way. This development site has been the subject of two prior development aapplications 1) A 342,500 square foot shopping center with office uses (SDR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, SLID 94-0004. This application was approved by the Planning Commission and became effective on December 19,, 1994 but expired on June 19, 1996 due to inactivity, and 2) A 330,895 square foot shopping center with commercial retail space to accommodate primarily largge-scale retail. This application included removal of the Wetland designation from the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (CPA 98-0002, SDR 98-0002, PDR 98-0001, SLR 98-0002, MIS 98-0004 and became effective July 23, 1998. Early construction phases have commenced under these land-use approvals including wetland relocation, tree removal and rough grading. Also, a subsequent Type I land use decision for tree removal of trees numbered 88-96 (on tFie 'f 998 approved plans) was approved on 9/27/99. The current proposal is due to a revised configuration of Major I, to accommodate a new twant, the addition of a new access and egress on SW Hermosa Way, Change of access locations on 72 Avenue, and the inclusions of additional lots along Hermosa Way. As 1998 land use decision included a concept and a detailed plan, and the current proposal dffers in configuration from the 1998 detailed plan, a new land use application is required. The applicant has chosen to submit onl a concept plan at this stage, to allow for future flexibility in developing a detailed plan at a future time. On Option 1, Majors I-IV on the 6/1/98 approved plans have been revised and combined into the proposed Major I, now rotated and separated from the other stores. On Option 2, Major I is now enlarged, rotated and separated from the other stores in this year 2000 scheme compared to the 1998 approval, however, Majors II-IV are included. Division of State Lands Permits and Army Corps of Engineers Permits were also obtained for the wetlands fill and mitigation concept, however, both agencies have commented that currently the project is not in compliance with the conditions in the permits. The primary issues relate to the amount and location of the rehabilitated wetlands, and some drainage issues. Vicinit Information: The su sec property is located in a City of Tigard special design district area known as the Tigard Triangle, a regionally significant 340 acre area bordered by SW Pacific Highway, a state highway to the north, Highway 217 to the west, and Interstate 5 to the east. The site is bounded to the north by SW Dartmouth Street and to the east by SW 72nd Avenue, both major collectors. The site includes seven (7) lots zoned General commercial and six (6) lots within the Hermosa Subdivision to the south which are developed with detached single-family residences and have a zoning designation of Mixed Use Employment (MUE). A Local Improvement district was formed among property owners on SW Dartmouth and as a result SW Dartmouth has been widped. Adjacent property to the north is designated for General Commercial use. Along SW 72" and north of Dartmouth is the newly constructed Winco Foods Retail Center. The northwest corner of the site is adjacent to Costco, a large PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 11 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC wholesale retailer. To the northeast of the site is property zoned General Commercial and farther northeast is property zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE). To the east, propert~r is zoned Mixed Use Employment (currently vacant or developped wqp detached single-family residences) and General Commercial. SW Elmhurst Street T's into 5W 72 Avenue from the east approximately 100 feet to the north of the southern property line. To the south is SW Hermosa Way and residential property zoned Mixed Use ~Snploymenit (MUE). SW Beveland Street is south of Hermosa Way and creates a traffic loop onto 72 Avenue. To the west of the site is a 7 acre wetland within an 11 acre parcel under Costco ownership. Site Information and Proposal Description: The project proposes approval of gross leasable commercial retail space of 307,419 sf for Option 1 and 340,552 sf for Option as indicated on the plans summary data. The majority of the shopping center has been designed with'an emphasis to accommodate larger. scale dry goods retailers. The applicant has proposed two (2) driveways to the site along the SW Darmouth Street frontage, two (2) driveways on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage, and one 1) driveway along SW Hermoso Way. In error, the applicant's narrative proposal description for Option 2 indicates a larger amount of gross leasable space which does not match the amount shown on the plans, therefore, this larger amount was disregarded for purposes of this review. It is also not clear why the gross leasable space amount exceeds the building square footages as provided by the applicant. Option 1 The applicant has proposed to develop retail space within six (6) buildings that would likely contain one (1) Major Anchor Tenant and several smaller tenants. Option 2 The applicant proposes four (4) Major Anchor Tenants (3 are attached buildings) and five (5) smaller tenants in nine (9) buildings. On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and approved a similar proposal for this site subject to Conditions of Approval. At that hearing the Planning Commission expressed strong reservations with the project due to traffic impacts to SW Pacific Highway and unfunded regional transportation improvements listed within the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. On June 23, 1998, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and expressed similar concerns. At that hearing the City Council approved the proposal because needed transportation improvements required regional transportation funding solutions and cannot be solved by any single applicant. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center to serve commercial retail tenants. This use is classified in Code Chapter 18.130 (Use Classifications) as General Retail. The site is located within the General-Commercial District. Table 18.520.1 lists General Retail as a permitted use in the C-G zone. i The one exception is Animal Related General Retail which is not permitted. i Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. a This is a new construction proposal requiring Planned Development Review and is, therefore, defined as a Type III Application. a ? Decision Making Procedures: Chapter 18.390 Describes the decision making procedures. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 12 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC A Planned Development Conceptual Plan is reviewed as Type III-PC, and a Planned Development Detailed Plan is reviewed as a Type II procedure in accordance with Section 18.350.030. Type III. procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearing's Officer (Type III-HO) or the Planning Commission (Type 111-PC), with appeals to or review by the City Council. This application includes only a Conceptual Plan at this time. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS No neighborhood comments were provided. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Land Use Decisions 18.350(Planned Development) 18.390 (Impact Study Section 18.390.040) C. Land Divisions 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Partitions) D. Community Plan Area Standards Tigard Triangle Design E. S ecific Devel~oDmment Standards 1 .705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) F. Additional Planned Development Review Criteria from 18.350.100.3 G. Public Facility Concerns Street and UtImprovement Standards 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters: 18.715 (Density Computations), 18.720 (Design Compatibility), 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities). These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. In addition, Section 18.430 (Subdivisions), is inapplicable. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: A. ZONING DISTRICT Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 13 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The majority of the site is located in the C-G zone: General-Commercial District. A portion of the site along the southern boundary is located in the MUE zone; Mixed Use Employment District. Planned Development Overlay: Section 18.350 This property was previously designated with a Planned Development Overlay. Tigard Triangle Design Overlay: Section 18.620 This site is located within the Tigard Triangle Design District. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.6 States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: EXCERPT FROM C-G AND MUE/C-G STANDARDS FROM TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD' CGG AND'MUE/C-G Minimum Lot Size None - Detached unit - - Boarding, lodging, rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 0 ft [6] - Side facing street on corner & through lots [1] - - Side yard - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 0/20 ft [3] - Rear yard - - Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street. 0/20 ft [3] Maximum Height 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] 85% Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% [2) Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces [3) No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The parcel width standard is addressed within the Lot Line Adjustment review portion of the staff report. The applicant proposes to landscape or provide wetlands mitigation areas for approximately 195,534 square feet of the net site area of 25.70 acres of area. This equals 17% of the net site area and, therefore, complies with the 15% minimum non-impervious surface area requirement. Setbacks: To the south, the site adjoins property that is designated as Mixed Use Employment that permits residential use. These properties are also developed with detached single-family residential uses, therefore, the 20-foot setback is found to be applicable at the rear yards along Hermosa, and at the side yard of Pad E (Option 1) and Major IV (Option 2). The applicant has provided a minimum of a 60-foot setback rear yard setback with a minimum 40-foot setback (Option 1) and a minimum 70-foot setback (Option 2) at the side yards abutting residential property at the southern end of the site, in compliance I with this standard. i Building Height: None of the proposed building elevations of the Major Anchor building (s) and Pads A-D (Option 1) and Pad A-E (Option 2) will exceed a height of 28 feet according to the concept plans and, therefore, are in compliance with the 45-foot maximum height restriction. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-000041MIS2000-00003 PAGE 14 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC IMPACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390 This Section requires that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. yy In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real proppert interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of- way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. A traffic impact study, dated February 1998, was submitted with the 1998 SDR application, by Lancaster Engineering. The purpose of the study was to determine how the traffic in this area will increase when the new development begins operation and to determine impacts on vicinity intersections. The study analyzed the following intersections in the area: 1) SW 72nd Avenue/Highway 99W, 2) SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway. This traffic study was updated in December 1999 to consider a larger development (365,000 sf of retail vs. 307,419 sffor Option 1 and 330,312 sf for Option 2). Lancaster found that even with the larger development, the increase in traffic would yield the same results as what was found in the original study. The study assumed that 10% of the trips generated by this development would be pass-by trips, which are trips that were already on one (1) of the adjacent streets, like SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue, and were diverted into the shopping center. It was also assumed that 10% of the new trips would be diverted trips, which are trips that must leave their original direction of travel by an intermediate roadway (SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue) to visit the site. Diverted trips in this case would be trips that must leave their original direction on 99W to visit the site; once they leave the site, they would return to their original direction on 99W. Staff finds that both assumptions are reasonable. Based upon information used from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, Lancaster found that total new trips generated by the site would be 11,778 trips per day, with 262 new trips generated during the AM Peak Hour and 1,118 new trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. Lancaster also used an average 4% growth rate in traffic per year to help determine what the impact would be in the Year 2003, with the new site in place an opperatingg Using this information, Lancaster found that siggnals are warranted at the SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway intersections. The applicant's plans indicate they will construct these signals as a part of their project. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis, using ODOT's SIGCAP software program was included in the study. SIGCAP defines LOS F as a saturation value of 1.02 or greater. The analysis found that in Year 2003, considering background traffic alone (no Tri-County, the intersections will function as follows: e Highway 99W/Dartmouth Street: LOS E with 93% saturation; Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 89% saturation; Dartmouth StreeUSW 68th Parkway: LOS E with 93% saturation. When the proposed site trips are added to the Year 2003 background traffic, the intersections will function as follows: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 15 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC I IEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street: LOS E-F with 98% saturation; Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS F with 122% saturation; Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway: LOS F with 115% saturation. If traffic signals are installed by the applicant at Dartmouth/72nd and Dartmouth/68th, these intersections will operate at LOS C and B respectively. ODOT submitted comments to the City, dated April 20, 2000, reardingg Me latest options for this project. ODOT controls the intersection at SW Dartmouth StreeYSW 68 Parkway, since it is so close to the I-5/Haines Road interchane. They have reviewed the applicant's traffic impact report information and concur that a si nal at tots intersection is warranted and should be constructed by the applicant as a part of this projec~. The study also analyzed the new driveways into the site and found that warrants will be met for both driveways on SW Dartmouth Street. However, Lancaster proposed to hold off on installing these signals until the development is fully constructed and under o eration for a time. They suggested that because of the close proximlt~y of the driveways to the SW 72nd Avenue intersection, some queuing may occur west of SW 72nd Avenue which would partially block the eastern driveway for part of each signal cycle. Lancaster recommended that traffic conditions could be monitored for a period of time by the City to determine if the signals should be installed. For SDR 98-0002, Staff found that concept acceptable and recommended the applicant provide financial assurance to cover the cost of design and construction of the two (2) additional traffic signals. This financial assurance would be herd by the City for a period of five years (60 months) beyond the date of occupancy of the buildings. Then, the applicant would be require to provide follow-up signal warrant analyses every 12 months over that five-year period. If, during that 5-year rittyre riodsigna l warrants are met based upon actual traffic generateby the development, and if in the Egineer's opinion si nalization of one (1) or both of the driveways is withn the publics best st, then the applicanf-would be required to design and construct the required signal(s) within 12 months of the City Engineer's direction. At the applicant's request, the Conditions of Approval that were related to the timingg of the installation were modified in the 1998 decision. The Planning Commission recommended that-the applicant work with the City Engineer to determine signal timing within six (6) months of project approval. Staff recommended that the City Council revise this tobe six (6) months from the time of Building and/or Site Permit application. The condition was amended per Staffs recommendation. Since that time Costco Wholesale approached the City about installing a traffic signal at their south driveway. Staff required both Costco and Tri-County to coordinate a report to address s1qnalization of the Costco driveway and the proposed Tri-County driveway signals. On February 24, 2(100, Kittelson & Associates (under contract with Costco) submitted a traffic signal progression report to the City. They used data from Lancaster's December 1999 report to enable them to develop the progression report. The report shows queuing lengths based upon year 2003 traffic, and indicates that all signalized intersections wilfunction adequately, except fyor the eastbound through lane on SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72"" Avenue. The eastbound through lane queue will exceed the available storage length of 550 feet, and will therefore back up in front of Driveway B. It should be noted that Kittelson s report assumed one eastbound through lane at SW 72~ Avenue, due to the lack of Lq roadway width of Dartmouth Street east of 72" Avenue. Staff asked Kittelson whether or not the situation would be better or worse if a signal were not installed at Driveway B. Kittelson responded that it would be better to have a signal of that driveway because it will more efficiently manage all of the turning movements versus the unsignalized option. " Staff supports installation of signals at both Driveways A and B, and does not recommend delaying theid installation, as has recommended in SDR 98-0002_ These signals along with the signals at SW 72' Avenue, SW 68 ,y ,as and the Costco south driveway, shall all be interconnected. However, Staff is concerned about the inadequate storage length for the eastbound through lane. The applicant's plan shows two eastbound through lanes on Dartmouth Street at 72 Avenue, and continued double eastbound lanes east of the intersection. The application does not indicate whether or not the applicant is willing to install those improvements. Kittelson indicated that in order to address the inadequate stora To for the eastbound through movements at SW 72 Avenue two eastbound through lanes Inuste provided. And those eastbound lanes must be carried through the intersection to a point where they would be safely tapered down to just one lane. Staff concurs with that finding. After discussion by the Planning Commission it was decided that the applicant shall PD2000-00001/SLR2000-0000!i/MIS2000-00002 :+nd 111)2000.00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 16 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SIiOf'PING Cf_NI1.R 5/15/2000 f ' 1 ANNING COMMISSI(M 1 ' 1 )1 { I I C I 11 AMM /FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC enter into a street improvementoagreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72 Avenue to provide two (2 east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to on ( (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic control devices MUTCD 1988 Edition). Rough Proportionality Analysis The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expecte to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Between July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000 (fees are scheduled to go up after July 1, 2000) it is estimated that the applicant will be required to pay T1F's of approximately $715,870 (based on gross leasable space of 307,419 square feet for Option 1; and for Option 2, it is estimated that the applicant will be required to pay $793,030 (based on gross leasable space of 340,552). Specific future tenants could increase or decrease this total based on the tenant mixture. Option 1 . Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,237,375 ($715,870 divided by 32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,521,505. Option 2 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,478,218 ($793,030 divided by 32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,685,188. The applicant has committed to construct half-street improvements along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and rebuild of the SW 72nd Avenue frontage with approximately a 3/4 street improvement. The applicant has committed to install traffic siggnals at the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street intersection and at the SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. Additionally, the applicant has committed to install traffic signals at both of the proposed SW Dartmouth Street driveways if warranted. The applicant valued the cost of all committed street improvements at $834,074 in the 1998 land use decision, though this figure may increase somewhat due to the recommendations in this report. Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible. for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit (TIF . For this reason, the total value of the proposed street improvements, TIF Credits and any non IF creditable work is estimated at $1,000,000. Because the total transportation impact is $2,237,375 (Option 1) or $2,478,218 (Option 2) the proposed street improvements are easily proportional to the impact of the development. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Planned Development: Section 18.350 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the land use designation set forth for the property though the Comprehensive Plan. The Planned Development Review is a three (3) step process as follows: 1. A roval of a planned development overlay zone; pp Y 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 17 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/1512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC BEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Within 1-1/2 years after the date of Commission approval of the conceptual development plan, the owner shall prepare and file with the Director a detailed development plan. Action on the detailed development plan shall be ministerial 'and taken by the Director by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040. Exceptions to Underlying Development Standards are contained in Section 18.350.080. Approval Criteria are contained in Section 18.350.100. The applicable criteria for the Planned Development Conceptual Plan in this report are as follows: A. Relationship to site development review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not applicable to Planned Development Reviews. The detailed development plan review Is intended to address the same type of- issues as the Site Development Review. B. Specific planned development approval criteria, The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied When aiproving or approving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make fndings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. 1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430, shall be met; These are addressed under Chapter 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments, and 18.420, Land Partitions in this report. Chapter 18,430, Subdivisions is inapplicable as this is a commercial development. 2. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 be ow. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Except where noted all criteria are applicable. a. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. This criteria is inapplicable as it applies only to residential development. b. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; C. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, o. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; f. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; and g. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Criteria b-g above are addressed under Section F. Specific Development Standards in this report. Additional Planned Development criteria as listed in Section 18.350.100.8.3 i area addressed in Section G. of this report. a 18.350.110 Shared Open Space Requir-omwits.19Lsiiared open space. Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: Open space is not designated on the plan as common open space, therefore, this criteria is inapplicable. PD2000-0000 USI-82000-00005/1VII32000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 18 OF 59 T131-COUNTY St 101111ING CE=NTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 QC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - APPROVAL STANDARDS: Section 18.410.040 contains the following standards for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment request: Section 18.410.040 - Approval Criteria states that the Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; No new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; thirteen (13) lots exist and thirteen (13) lots will remain after the proposed adjustment. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The lots will be between 14,653 and 639,400 square feet after the adjustment. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. By reducing the lot size the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; By deducing the size of the smaller lots and increasing the size of the larger lots, all existing structures in violation of zoning district regulations will be conditioned to be removed. The applicant has noted on the plans that all structures are to be removed. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoningg district; The lot area shall be as re uired by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; + Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and + Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The smaller of the thirteen (13) lots is 14,653 square feet and has 100 feet of frontage onto Hermoso Street. The largest of the lots is 638,400 square feet with 900 feet of frontage onto SW Dartmouth and 650 feet onto Hermoso Street. Setbacks will be addressed during building approvals. All existing structures have been conditioned to be removed. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. Through the building permit review process, fire hydrants will be reviewed for consistency with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying this criterion. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. This criterion will be met because a shared access agreement will be provided. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705: Access, Egress, and Circulation. This standard is met through the existing access provided to these lots via their street frontage. Exemptions from dedications: A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. These lots are not within the floodplain, see Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lands in this report. Therefore, this standard does not apply. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051IvIIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-000041MIS2000-00003 PAGE 19 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Variances to development standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards shall be met. CONDITIONS: All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment shall be removed. The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 11/z years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted by the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.410.020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. D. COMMUNITY PLAN AREA STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.620 Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, includin creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian andgbikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: Section 18.620.020 All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Performance Option A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections er mile. B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. I As the length of SW Dartmouth Street is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. Based on the fact that there are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle, this standard is not met without the extension of a street(s) through this site. The five (5) existing intersections include the SW PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 20 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Dartmouth Street at SW Pacific Highway, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 70th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 69th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at I- 5. After discussion before the Planning Commission, the "planned" Backage Road at SW Dartmouth and the "planned" fly-over at SW Dartmouth to Hall Boulevard were eliminated from the intersection count as they were deemed unlikely to be built in the near future. As there are only five (5 out of six (6) required intersections on SW Dartmouth, an extension of a street through the ri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way is required. As the length of SW 72nd Avenue through the Triangle is 4,400 lineal feet, approximately seven (actual figure is 6.6) intersections on SW 72nd Avenue are required through the Triangle. Including the intersections of SW 72nd Avenue at 217, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hampton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Gonzaga Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Beveland Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermosa Way, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Dartmouh Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Clinton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Baylor Street, SW 72n' Avenue at the planned extension of SW Atlanta Street, and SW 72nd Avenue at SW Pacific Highway; a total of 10 intersections are existin , or planned and likely to be built within the Tigard Triangle. For this reason, an extension of a stet through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW 72nd Avenue is not required. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance standard, has been interpreted as the distance rom a driveway entrance to a collector or larger classification street. In this case, the project meets this requirement because of frontage and proposed driveway access to two (2) Major Arterial streets, SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The shortest pedestrian trip standard has been interpreted to mean that a pedestrian should not have to travel more than one and one-half (11/:) times the shortest straight line distance from the driveway entrance to the farthest proposed building entrance. The driveway is an appropriate point of measure in this case because four (4) of the five (5) driveways (Driveways A-D) intersect with streets designated as Major Arterials, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. For this reason, the driveway entrance would exceed the collector standard stated in the criteria. The fifth driveway is located on Hermosa Way, a local street, and, therefore, shall not be considered in this analysis. Option 1 The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a pedestrian would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight ne distance of 810 lineal feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (1'/2) times the straight line path is 1,210 lineal feet. The actual distance as shown on the plans is 1,160 lineal feet, which meets this standard. Option 2 The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a pedestrian would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight ne distance of 980 feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (11h) times the straight line path is 1,470 lineal feet. The actual distance provided is 1,115 lineal feet, which meets this standard. FINDING: This standard is not on SW Dartmouth and is met on 72nd Avenue. In order to meet the standards the applicant shall met the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 21 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/1512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Site Design Standards: Section 18.620.030 All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall pparcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C2, governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Building Rlacement on Major and Minor Arterials and the street - Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The site has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue; and 50% of this frontage equals 340 lineal feet. Option 1 The applicant has proposed two (2) ads equivalent to 340 feet of length which meets the standard for 506/6- 0 /o of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this frontage equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has proposed three (3) pads with a total building length of 582 lineal feet which does not meet the 50% street frontage standard. For this reason, the application as proposed does not comply with this standard. Option 2 The applicant has proposed two (2) pads equivalent to 330 feet of length which does not meet the minimum 50 /a of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this fronta a equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has pproposed four (4) pads with a total building length of 714.43 lineal feet which exceeds the minimugg 50% street frontage standard. The proposed plan is slightly below the minimum 50% along 72 Avenue. FINDING: Option 1 meets this standard while Option 2 does not meet the standard. In order for Option 2 to meet the standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: For Option 2 only, the applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72nd Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Building setback - The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wet ands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Pads A, B and C comply with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitiqation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street. Pads C and D comply with this standard on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Pad E (Option 1 only) does not meet this criteria, as it is setback 45 feet from SW Hermosa Way. Slopes at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to Pad E are roughly 27 to 50%, therefore, a substantial amount of grading would be required to site Pad E closer to Hermosa Way and comply with this criteria. Option 2 Pads A, B, C and D comply with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitigqation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street. Pads C and D comply with this standard on the SVV 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street r~igc~ht-of-way. Majors II-IV do not meet this criteria, as setbacks range from the southwest corner of Nfajor II at roughly 50 feet, to the southeast corner of Major IV at roughly 70 feet from Hermosa Way. FINDING: As the Pad E (Option 1), and Majors II-IV Option 2) do not meet the 0-foot building setback standard or the intent of Phe Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the applicant shall meet the following conditions in order to satisfy this standard: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 22 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITIONS: Option 1 The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot buildin setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Mandards Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Option 2 The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot buildingg setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative. design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front and setback design - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pe es rian pat must be provided between a structure and a publia street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) stpeet, the required im rovements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouragged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. The applicant has proposed the L-1 landscape standard applies for all public frontages which include SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue, and Hermosa Way, and L-2 standard along driveways. The applicant has proposed to construct Pads C and D (Option 1) Pads E and D (Option 2) up to the SW 72nd Avenue frontage right-of-way. The parking area to the south of Driveway D will also have frontage on the SW 72nd Avenue right-of-way, and buffering and screening for this parking area is addressed under Chapter 18.745 in this report. Toppogc~raphyy in this area dictates that he parking will be below the grade of the street. Along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage the applicant does not meet this standard due to the wetlands fill and mitigation proposed for this entire frontage, however, this wetland area does not preclude the applicant from meeting the standard. Street tree plantings shall comply with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards reviewed under Section 18.745.040 in this report. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.930 to the Design Evaluation Team prior o detailed plan review submittal. Walkwa connection to buildin entrances - A walkway connection is required between the ul Ing s entrance an the pu Ic street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building enttrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encoura ed. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 78.520.0408 and Table 18.520.2. ' Except for Pad C (in Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (in Option 2), a walkways stem has been provided to each main entrance of the proposed pads from SW 72nd Avenue andSW Dartmouth { Street. However, it is recommended that Major I in each plan have a walkway copnection to Hermosa Way near the Hermoso Way access; as the proposed walkway distance to 72 Avenue is roughly 980 feet in length in Option 1 and 940 feet in Option 2. The applicant proposed 6 feet wide walkways paved with concrete. The standard requires that the walkway system be paved with scored f concrete or modular paving materials. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. J FINDING: The walkway system does not meet this standard. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 23 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY S! LOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUI31-IC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the requirements of the Tigard Trian Ile Desiggn Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, the applicant shall revise Pad C Option T) and Pad D and Major II (Option 2) walkways to connect with the public stree . It is also recommended that the Major I Anchor in each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. Parking location and landscape design - Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located-to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Stpandard. See Diagram 2. The applicant has proposed to develop parking to the side of buildings directly adjacent to SW 72nd Avenue at Driveway D and at the southern ens of the site to the east of Major 1 and west of Pad E (Option 1) or Major 11 (Option 2) along Hermoso Way. Building placement standards, and wetlands mitigation issues on 'the SW Dartmouth Street frontage preclude placement of parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. FINDING: The proposed plans in Option 1 and Option 2 do not meet this criteria as parking to the side Of buildings exceeds 50% of the street frontage in some cases. This does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this criteria, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72 Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so that parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater; Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Design Standards: Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040) All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Ground floor windows - All street-facing. elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. The building setback in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2, is the area between 0-10 feet from the public street right-of-ways or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features. Therefore, this standard applies to the north elevations of all the buildings alone SW Dartmouth Street, in addition to all buildings required to be located between 0-10 feet along 72n Avenue and SW Hermoso Way. As essentially all of the buildings (in Option 1 and 2) are oriented with their front entries and primary windows to the interior of the site, and virtually no windows are shown to the street, this concept plan does not meet the criteria. During the pre-application conference with the applicant, the applicant discussed possibly meeting this standard with the use of false windows. It is PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 24 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC LM 1111 11~' M recmmended that that no false windows be allowed for purposes of the meeting this standards along 72"' Avenue, and that no more than 50% of the required windows be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso, if the applicant is in fact intending to propose this as a solution to meet this standard. Option 1 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72A Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72"Avenue), and the south elevation of Pad 'E (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation was provided in the plans, therefore, it is assumed that no windows are proposed for the north elevation. Further, Pad A's front entry and main elevation is oriented to the south. Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. Up to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Option 2 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Padds A, B and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and eadst elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72 Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors 11, III, and IV (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north elevation. Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. Up to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners ofthe building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, there is one bay shown with windows covering approximately 74 square feet between three to nine feet above grade. As Pad C is 123 feet in length, the required window area is 3,321 square feet; and while up to 50% of the windows are allowed to come from the side elevations at the corner bays, the glazing shown is far below the standard. Further, Pad A, B and C's front entrryy and main elevations are oriented to the south, the main parking lot area at the interior of the site. 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations on Pad D are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north or east elevations (it appears as though Pad D east elevation is shown in error as Pad E east elevation, and that two Pad E east elevations are shown in error). Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Majors II, III, and IV do not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation or the side elevations (east or west). j FINDING: This standard is not met for the conceptual plan and does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall I meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include a minimum of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Tigard Triangle Ground floor window standard (Section 18.620.40) shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located between 0-10 feet frpm the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72" Avenue and all building elevations within the 0-10 foot building setback, or required to be located within the 0-10 foot building setback (in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2). Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 25 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC ONE ~11= the requirement is located on a building comer (this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design Triangle Standard for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along-72n' Avenue, and no more than 50% of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DIET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50'feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a uilding.off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. Option 1 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), the south elevation of Pad E (facing Hermoso Way), and the east elevation of Major I. - Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation was any in the plans. Pad B's north elevation indicates a combination of split-face concrete and brick or false brick, therefore, this elevation meets the criteria in concept. Pad C's north and east elevations, and Pad D's east elevation indicate bays, approximately 26 feet apart, separated by pilasters or columns. Though no information is provided regarding proposed depth of building off-set or change in materials, this criteria can be met conceptually. Pad E's south elevation shows two materials, split-face concrete block for the main facade and smooth concrete block for the accent bands, and therefore, can meet this standard conceptually. The east elevation of Major I indicates a combination of materials including glass block, and at least two different concrete surfaces, and therefore, can meet this standard conceptually. No building facade extends more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building except the west (service side) of Major 1. Option 2 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A, B, and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and egst elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue), the east elevation of pad D (facing 72" Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors II, III, and IV, (facing Hermoso Way). The east elevation of Major 1 shall also meet this standard. Pads A and B's north elevations meet this standard conceptually as three different materials are indicated including split-face concrete masonry units, smooth concrete block and ultra block on the retaining wall which adjoins the building's north facade. Pad's C's north elevation, and Pad D's north and east elevation do not specify different materials, however, it appears that different materials are intended or can be specified in the detailed plan. It is not clear what is intended for materials on the south elevation of Majors II-IV, however, different materials can be specified in the detail plan. No elevations were provided by the applicant for Major I of Option 2, therefore, this criteria is not met. No pedestrian connections are provided to meet the 300 feet standard on the south sides of Major II-IV, or the west side (service side) of Mayor I. FINDING: Pad A of Option 1 and Major 1 of Option 2 do not meet this criteria conceptually, as street facing building elevations were not provided by the applicant. Also, Majors II-IV of Option 2 do not meet this criteria. All other building elevations meet this standard conceptually. Majors II-IV (Option 2) does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 26 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION: When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating fagade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, fagade projections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstrate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building fagade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Weather protection - Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicant's narrative states that a protected pedestrian pathway will be provided in front of and bordering the parking lot side of each structure, and that the pathway will be protected by extending building roofs, creating an arcade. The applicant has not shown on the plans and elevations how this standard will be met at building entrances, and the how the general intent of the criteria will be met along building frontages. FINDING: This criteria is not met, as the applicant has not demonstrated clearly, via the plans and elevations, weather protection for pedestrians at all building entrances, and how the applicant will meet the intent of this criteria along building frontages. CONDITION:The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather Protection. BuildingMaterials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. Architectural elevations have been provided with a variety of finish design materials including smooth concrete block, split-face concrete masonry, ground face scored smooth block, synthetic stucco, ultra block for retaining walls, and standing seam metal roofs on building corner towers. The applicant's narrative states that foundation material will be plain concrete not revealed for more than two feet. FINDING: As no prohibited materials are proposed, this criteria is met in concept. To meet the criteria for the detailed review process, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. Roofs and roof lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The applicant has not proposed to use false fronts or false roofs as part of the building elevations. FINDING: This criterion is met conceptually. Roof-mounted equipment - All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 27 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5115/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC RAN The applicant has not adequately addressed how it will screen roof mounted equipment as discussed under Section 18.350.100.3 in this report under the additional Buffering and Screening standards. FINDING: This criterion is not met. In order to meet this criterion, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on ads A-E. Signs: Section 18.620.050 In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the standards as contained in Section 18.620.050 shall be met. FINDING: Signs have not been reviewed under this conceptual plan. In order to meet this standard, the applicant must meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall submit for review and approval with the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18. 20.050. Landscaping And Screening: Section 18.620.070 Two ~2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The ocations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening is defined within this section. These standards are minimum requiremens. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots an a ong collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening , shall apply.. The L-1 standard a plies to setbacks on Major and Minor Arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 fee between the parkin lot and a Major or Minor Arterial trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provided a 3-foot ~ igh screen and a 90% opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Southwest 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street are both designated as Major Arterials. SW Hermoso Way is a. local street, and therefore, this criteria does not apply on Hermoso Way. Where w the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the pparking lot and a Major or Minor Arterial, trees shall be planted at 3%2-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 fee on center. The Parking lot fronting SW 72 E, Avenue to the south of Driveway D shall meet this standard. co FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet the standard, the applicant shall meet the H following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plan review !ubmission and provide the F4 L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D. Wa L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets planting standards of Chapter 18:745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum of 2 and '/z inch caliper, at a maximum spacing_of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscappingg or screenin effect within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full migg tigation credit. TRI PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 28 OF 59 -COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC WWI This standard is addressed under Section 18.745.040, Street'Trees and portions of Chapter 18.745 in this report. Street and Accessway Standards: Section 18.620.080 Refers to Table 18.620.1 and accessway diagrams in this section. This section is incorporated and addressed under Section 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards in this report. E. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ACCESS, EGRESS. AND CIRCULATION: CHAPTER 18.705 Commercial and-industrial uses which require 0;99 parking spaces shall provide one (1) access with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet. Commercial and industrial uses which exceed 100 parking spaces shall provide two (2) parking spaces with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet, or a minimum of one g1) access with a minimum access width of 50 feet and minimum pavement width of 40 feet. ection 18.705.030.C provides for joint access. The -proposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one (1) full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site and one (1) full access driveway approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. With this current option therpd is also a proposed full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve wesf of SW 72 Avenue. The Hermoso Way access appears to have a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following condition shall be met in order to meet this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITION: In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. Joint Access: Section 18.705.030.C Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access standards are applicable as there are multiple buildings on multiple lots with multiple ownership on this site. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Walkway Location: Section 18.705.030.F On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The City wide standard of four (4) feet of unobstructed walkway width does apply. The walkway overall width requirement is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design Standard that requires six (6) feet of total width, and the applicant has proposed to meet this standard. Walkway connections are addressed under Section 18.620.030.A.4, Walkway Connection to building entrances in the Tigard Triangle Design Standard Chapter of this report. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 29 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Q Within all attached housing ((except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall die connected by walkway to the vehicular, parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; This criterion is not applicable as the property is in commercial use. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossinggs shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater t6n 36 feet if aropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; All crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant has provided a conceptual photometric plan. Lighting proposed for the parking lot is mounted pole luminaire. Located at the western portion of the site to the west of Major 1 are shield pole mounted luminaire, at the streets are City of Tigard Standard Streetlight, and on the buildings are building mounted luminaire. The lighting plan will be reviewed in detail during the detailed plan review process. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following conditions shall be met in order to satisfy this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITIONS: In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. The applicant shall provide a detailed Ii hting plan for review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with TDC Section 18.705.030. F. In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all i crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more a than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and 3 place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. e All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint access use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 30 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Minimum Access requirements for commercial and industrial use: Section 18.705.030.1. Vehicle access egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than as provided in Fable 18.705.3. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may he placed as conditions of site development. Option 1 The applicant proposes 1,475 arking spaces on the site, therefore, at least one access with a minimum 50-foot width and 40-foot pavement width is required, or two accesses with a minimum 30-foot width and 24-foot pavement width is required under the City of Tigard CDC. The existing site has five accesses, and exceeds the minimum requirement for this standard. FINDING: This standard is met conceptually. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725 Requires that a era an state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. This project is not current) in compliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the Wetland Mitigation/Wetland Rehabilityation, and may not be in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers according to letters from those agencies as addressed under Chapter 18.755, Sensitive Lands in this report. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits, the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this condition, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.730 No exceptions were requested by the applicant or indicated in the plans at this time. Therefore, this standard is inapplicable. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: CHAPTER 18.745 Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 Development projects with more than 100 feet of frontage along a street or private driveway plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0. Section 18.745.040.C provides specific requirements for tree spacing including Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Subsection 2 which includes the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree, small, medium or large. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility policies to maintain visual clearance; Section 18.745.040.G, Granting of Adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.0 C.4b PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 31 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Option 1 The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicant's plans show a total of 14, 3 1/2 caliper Little Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72" Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the site can accommodate an additional 3 trees along SW 72nd Avenue while continuing to stay outside of the vision clearance areas. The landscape plan shall be revised along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage to provide an additional three (3) Little Leaf clan trees. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Little Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along -the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little Le_pf Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72" Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species proposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a landscape architect, or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. Option 2 The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicant's pans show a total of 20, 3 1/2 caliper Chancellor Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72 Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the proposed trees along SW 72"d meet the requirement. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Chancellor Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little eaf Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72n' Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species Pa roposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a ndscape architect or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. CONDITION: The detailed Man shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72 and 35 broad spreading street trees along SW Dartmouth. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050.A.2 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). APPLICABLE SECTION OF BUFFER MATRIX TABLE 18.745.1 FOR C-G ZONE Commercial Zones EXISTING/ABUTTING USES (CC, CG, CP, CBD) Detached Single Units; Manufactured Units D Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 1-5 Units, Duplexes Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 5+ Units Mobile Home Parks D Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP, CBD) Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN) A Mixed Use Employment Zone (MUE) A Light Industrial Zones (IP, IL) A Heavy Industrial -Lone (IH) D Parking Lots Arterial Streets Note: See Table 18.745.2 for alternative combinations for meeting these screening requirements. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 32 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 1 Options Width (feet) Trees Shrubs or Groundcover Screening (per linear feet of buffer A 10 Lawn/living groundcover 10 20' min/30' max spacing Lawn/living groundcover B 1 10 Shrubs 4' hed es c 2 8 15' min/30' max spacing Shrubs 5' fence 3 6 Shrubs 6' wall 1 20 Shrubs 6' hedge D 2 15 10' min/20' max s acin Shrubs 6' fence 3 10 Shrubs 6' wall 1 30 10' min/20' max spacing Shrubs 6' hedge or E 2 25 Shrubs 5' earthen berm F - 40 10' min/20' max spacing Shrubs 6' hedge, fence, [1] Buffers are not required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street as specified in Section 18.745.050 A2. [2] Adjustments from these requirements can be obtained; see Section 18.370.020 C4. Buffering and Screening Requirements: Section 18.745.050.6 A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. This criterion is not found to be applicable to this site to the north and west because there are no existing residential uses. To the east the property is adjoined by residential uses but because SW 72nd Avenue intervenes, screening but not buffering would normally apply. However, because the Tigard Triangle Design Standards require that new building placement be within 10 feet of the public right-of-way this standard is found to be superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in this case. Along the southern property line, the property is adjoined by residential uses across SW Hermoso Way and at the southeast and southwest corner of the property. Screening, not buffering is required to the south where the site is adjacent to SW Hermoso Way and screening and buffering is required at the southeastern and southwestern corners where the site adjoins detached single-family residential uses. The proposed buffer at the south side of the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site does not provide adequate buffering, in accordance with the standards. The applicant's narrative states that the proposed sound wall will adequately screen the project site from the adjacent residential uses, however staff could not determine from the landscape plan where the sound wall would be or how high it would be. In any event, buffering and screening are required, not just screening. The applicant must revise the plan to provide buffering and screening at the southeast corner of the site in accordance with the standards of 18.745. The applicant has provided adequate buffer at the southwestern portion of the property. The site will be reviewed for detailed compliance with the landscaping and screening along the entire southern property line as part of the detailed plan review. CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners in accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.13. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall i revise the buffer at the south side of the parking lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of Section 18.745.OO.B. a Screening: Section 18.745.050.B.5 Where screening is required, the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: 1) A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs that will form a four (4) foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years of planting, or; 2) An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials that will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, round cover, or bark mulch, or; 3) A fence or wall of the height specified in Tble 18.745.2, Jall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-000021SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 33 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Screening is required along the southern property line. The applicant has stated that the proposed sound wall will effectively screen the property. The plans do not clearly show that the sound wall will screen the entire southern property line. The plans will be reviewed for full compliance as part of the detailed plan review. The applicant has been conditioned to provide adequate buffer as discussed previously which will provide room for the required screening planting, wall or berm. FINDING: The Buffering and Screening standards are not met. However, the standards will be met if the following condition is met. CONDITION:The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the location and final height of the proposed' sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.051 Requires the screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Option 1 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. The southeastern parking lot is adjacent to the SW 72nd Avenue. The landscape plan shows landscaping will be provided to screen the parking. The detailed plan review will insure that the landscaping proposed fully complies with the landscaping and screening requirement, however, the plan provided confirms that it conceptually can be met. The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 211 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,475 parking spaces.. Option 1 has 309 parkin lot trees proposed. Because 1,475 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 4.7 parking spaces. The site will be reviewed to ensure the trees are evenly ispersed at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands through out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. Option 2 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 222 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,551 parking spaces. Option 2 has 278 parking lot trees proposed. Because 1,551 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 5.5 parking spaces. The site will be reviewed to insure the trees are evenly ispersed at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands through out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 34 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5115/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE: CHAPTER 18.755 This Chapter requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on- site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. Section 18.755.040 requires that the applicant must choose one (1) of the following faun (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standards, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler reggarding the facility location and compatibility. Minimum standards method, Section 18.755.040.C5.b (2) states t at non-residential buildings shall provide shall provide a minimum storage area of 1 square feet plus 10 square feet /1000 square feet of GFA. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. The applicant's narrative states that the developer has selected the waste assessment method, and will hold a pre-conference with the waste assessment provider and the City of Tigard in compliance with Section 18.755.040. The applicant's plans show that a 10-foot by 20-foot screened trash enclosure will be pprovided for each of the proposed "Pads". The applicant has not shown trash enclosures for Major I. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. FINDING: This criteria has been met for purposes of conceptual plan review only. In order to meet the criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: CHAPTER 18.765 This Chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. General Provisions: Section 18.765.040 Access Drives: Section 18.765.040.6. Requires access to public streets from off-street parking as follows: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; These criteria are addressed under Chapter 18.705 in this report. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and The proposed access drive is proposed to be improved with asphalt surface. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-000021SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 35 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Excludin single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. All parking spaces are served by a service drive, therefore, this standard is met. Pedestrian Access: Section 18.705.040.F Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. This standard is addressed primarily under Section 18.705.030.F in this report. However, the following condition shall be met: CONDITION: Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" vertical or exceeding 2:1 occur, the applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Parking Space Surfacing: Section 18.765.040.H Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040 H3 and 4, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; The applicant's narrative indicates that the parking lot will be surfaced with an engineered asphalt and aggregate base. Parking Lot Striping: Section 18.765.040.1 Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off- street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This is a commercial development, therefore, this standard is applicable and shall be met through striping of parking spaces, directional signs, and painted signs in the access and drive aisles to show direction of flow as conditioned. Option 1 The site plan submitted shows parking lot striping will be provided. Because all aisles are two-way, directional markings are not necessary. Option 2 The site plan submitted shows parking lot stripin and directional markings. In addition, the narrative indicates that parking spaces and drive aisles wiNe marked. a Wheel Stops: Section 18.765.040.J Requires that parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high s located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's narrative indicates that wheel stops will be provided where parking is adjacent to landscaping and sidewalks, however, this is not shown on the site plan. This will be conditioned as part of the detailed plan review. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 36 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. Lighting: Section 18.765.040.L Lights provided to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows ligghting will be generally directed away from residential uses. This will be reviewed further and condifloned as necessary as part of the detailed plan review. Signs: Section 18.765.040.M Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. No signs have been s ecifcally proposed, however, the applicant's narrative indicates that all proposed signs will be in accordance with Chapter 18.780. This will be reviewed as part of the detailed plan and permitted through a separate sign permit process. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 0 8.5x 18.5' for a standard space; 7.5'x 16.5 for a compact spaces; and As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. Aisles accommodating two-way direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. From Figure 18.765.1 Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard spaces, 50% compact spaces. All compact spaces shall be labeled as such. A A Parking Angle B Stall Width 8 C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) E -I T D Aisle Width Between Stall Lines (5) F O E Stall Width Parallel to Aisle 1 F Alodule width (no bumper overhang) T G Bumper Overhang C G The applicant's narrative indicates that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 x 18.5 and all angled parking will be in accordance with Section 18.765.1. The site plan shows no labeled compact spaces, however, some of the dimensions provided (9 x 15.5) Indicate that there will be some compact parking. In addition, upon scaling the plans, the spaces appear to be 9 feet wide. The drive aisles for the 90 degree parking is no less than 24 feet. The applicant has not provided enough detail for staff to confirm that the angled parking, adjacent to Pad D meets the requirements of Section 18.765.1. Because the site may have up to 50% compact spaces and the applicant has provided spaces that are slightly larger than required, staff is comfortable that, upon detailed review, the parking can fully meet the dimensional standards. Parking will be reviewed and conditioned if necessary upon detailed review. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 37 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5115/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. Bicycle Parking Design Standards: Section 18.765.050 A minimum of two bicycle parkin rack spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of the primary entrances to structures; Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. The development code requires .3 bicycle parking spaces. per 1000 square feet. The applicant must meet the bicycle requirement for each building. Because this is a conceptual review only, the exact size and layout of each building may chin a from what is conceptually approved: Because of this, compliance with the bicycle parking standards shall be deferred to detailed plan review. The applicant's plan shows the location and number of bicycle parking spaces throughout the development which indicates that, upon detailed plan review, the bicycle parking standards can be met. CONDITION:The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of 'the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.0701 Option 1 The applicant has proposed to provide 1,475 parking spaces. The code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1000 square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 297,179, the minimum parking for Option 1 is 1,099 and the maximum is 1,515. The applicant's proposal of 1,475 parking spaces meets this standard. The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 737. Option 2 The a pplicant has proposed to provide 1,498 parking spaces. The Code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1,00 square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1,000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 330,312, the minimum parking for Option 2 is 1,222 and the maximum is 1,684. The applicant's proposal of 1,498 parking spaces meets this standard. The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 749. Off-Street Loading Requirements: Section 18.765.080 Requires that commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space. A minimum of one (1) loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet but less than 40,000 gross square feet. A minimum of two loading spaces is required for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum the the maneuvering length shall not be less that twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; screening for off- street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accord:.ince with Chapter 18.745. Option 1 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because Major I Anchor Tenant is provided with a grade separated loading dock. The applicant has stated that pads A-E are anticipated to load through the front doors with parking restricted during business hours so that delivery of goods does not interfere with general parking This plan is not acceptable. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loading spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feet (Pad B C, D, and E). In addition, because Pad B is over 40,000 square feet, 2 loading spaces are required. This standard is not applicable where no tenant occupies a minimum of 10,000 square feet. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 38 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 511512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Option 2 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because each of the Major Anchor Tenants is rovided with a grade separated loading dock: The applicant has stated that pads A-D are anticipated to Poad through the front doors with parking restricted during business hours so that delivery, of goods does not interfere with general parking The site plan shows 2 loading spaces will be provided for Pad B and one loading space will be provided for Pad D. These spaces are basically standard automobile parking spaces. Due to the size of a parking space and the size of delivery trucks that may service this site the designated loading spaces do not appear adequate. The plan does not provide a loading space for Pads A and D. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loading spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feet (Pad A, B, and D). This standard is not applicable where no tenant occupies a minimum of 10,000 square feet. CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. In compliance with Section 18.765.030.E parking lots that provide in excess of 20 preferential long term parking spaces shall provide at least 5% of these spaces as carpool/van pool parking spaces. Each of the proposed vanpool/carpool spaces are full size parking spaces. Each space shall have signsge designated per Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use onl by vanpooi/carpool users between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:30 PM Monday through FrUay. Option 1 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 73 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 73 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Option 2 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 74 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 74 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the conceptual plan does not meet all of the off-street parking and loading standards. Staff finds that it Is possible for the applicant to meet all of the standards. Compliance with the standards will be fully reviewed as part of the detailed plan review CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775 Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: the 100-year floodplain, natural drainsgeways, wetland areas which are regulated by other agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, and steep slopes of 25 0 or greater and unstable ground. A land use application is required for ground disturbances in sensitive lands areas. The site is designated as within the 100 ear Floodplain on the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map Floodplain Map. However, the 1998 land use decision regarding this site under CPA 98-0002 included a Sensitive Lands Review, SLR 98-0002 which considered the site to be outside of the 100-year floodplain. As the 1998 land use decision was approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council, this application is considered to have incorporated the prior decision regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the determination that the site is considered to be outside of the 100-year floodplain, provided that the applicant obtain verification of this through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits prior to issuance of a new grading permit. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 39 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The eastern portion of the site has slopes of 10% approximately. The existing gradingg plan shows one small area in the northwest quadrant of the site (a hole of approximately 80 feet x 80 feet) which has a slope of approximately 25%, and one small area at the southern end of the site just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way which is approximately 28% sloped. The applicant has proposed to exchange fill on the steeper portion of the site to the flatter areas. The 1998 land use decision did not place any additional special conditions due to these sloped areas, however, the 1998 plans indicated a water quality pond and landscaping area just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way rather than the parking area proposed in the current Option 2 plans. The parking area at this location in Option 1 appears to be outside of the area which exceeds 25% slopes, but this should be verified. FINDING: These standards are not fully met. In order to meet the standards, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall meet the following conditions for both Options 1 and 2: + The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project)) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. CONDITION FOR OPTION 2 ONLY: + Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landforms alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive lands permits for areas with the 100 year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. As a result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 98-0002, effective July 23, 1998, the wetlands designation was removed from the subject development site to allow the proposed fill and mitigation of 1.41. acres of wetlands of the total 1.96 wetlands that exist on this site. A remaining .55 acres of wetlands was not to be filled in the prior decision. This wetlands system is part of a larger system that exists within drainage areas leading to the 217 Freeway. A mitigation plan was required to re-establish the wetlands along the site's Dartmouth Street frontage and to function as a wetland with approximately the same area as the wetlands to be filled. The current wetlands and wetland mitigation is under the Jurisdiction of the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DSL has submitted a letter dated March 15, 2000 stating that the mitigation is not in compliance with conditions of Permit RF- 9256 (expiration date 6/14/98). Staff from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also raised issues of non- compliance with conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 98-666 (expiration date 3/28/99). Staff found a discrepancy between the amount of fill approved under the City of Tigard approved decision (SLR 98-0002), and the amount of fill allowed under the DSL permit (loss of 1.55 wetland acres, and preservation of .41 acres of wetlands for a total of 2.0 original wetland acres and the U.S. Army CorpS permit (loss of 1.16 acres wetland acres, and preservation of .57 acres of wetlands for a total 1.73 original wetland acres). PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 40 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 1111 Iwo' ll~11~~ IOWA FINDING: The criteria for Sensitive Lands Review in the current Community Development Code (effective 11/26/98) are inappplicable as the prior decision CPA 98-0002/SLR 98-0002 (excluding the SDR/PDR/M1S will be adopted and incorporated into this report. However, in addition to the conditions related to the Sensitive Lands Review in the 1998 decision, the following conditions shall be met to ensure compliance with that decision: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers permits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed. Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to show location of biofiltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. Construction fencing (4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off-site wetland areas to the west of the site. SIGNS: CHAPTER 18.780 This Chapter lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G Zoning District. The applicant provided potential locations for entrance monument signs on SW Dartmouth Street and SW 726d Avenue but did not provide any other details or a sign program. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a sign program that complies with the standards for a shopping center in the General Commercial Zoning District with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL: CHAPTER 18.790 A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This criteria is addressed under the standards for Additional Planned Development Review standards, Section 18.350.100.3.a contained in Section 18.360.090.A.2 of this report. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS: CHAPTER 18.795 The Chapter requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below ei~8~ feet are removed). For arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than i 35- feet on each side of the intersection. For non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.797.1 PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 41 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC I iEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC All of the access drives off of SW Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue shall have a visual clearance area of 35 feet on each side of the access drive intersection. The access drive off of Hermosa Way shall have a visual clearance area of 30 feet on each side of the access drive. Upon review of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the Clear Vision standards is superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design standards such as building placement. The applicant has not indicated placement of buildings, structures or trees in the area of visual clearance. Entrance monument signs shall not be located in the area of visual clearance. FINDING: This standard is met for purposes of conceptual plan review only. In order to the meet this criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. F. ADDITIONAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA FROM SECTION 18.350.100.3: a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; The applicant has demonstrated in the prior 1998 land use application for this site (CPA 98-0002/PDR 98-0001/SDR 98-0002/MIS 98-0004) that, based on the intensity and type.of proposed land use, that maintenance of the existing topography, wetlands system and vegetation is impossible while developing a single shopping center. Natural drainage has been partially preserved through the site and upstream and downstream of the site but within the property, the applicant has demonstrated that drainage will need to be altered to accommodate the proposed improvements and to treat storm water runoff within proposed on-site facilities. (2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to' ground slumping and sliding; A new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The geo-technical engineer shall certif tl?e grading work that has been done to date. In no case shall junk fill be placed or used on this site. his standard has not been met. (3) There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off- site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; There is adequate distance between on-site buildings. There are no buildings located immediately to the west of the site which is designated wetlands on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The site fronts Make Arterials to the north and east, and a local street to the south with residential property zoned MUE to fhe south. There are residential properties located to the immediate southwest of the site, and this i distance was previously approved through the 1998 land use decision for this site. { i The development has been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with Fire and Life Safety Standards. Fire flow calculations fire hydrant locaions and related standards will be reviewed again during the i Building Permit Plan Gheck Review. See comments contained in this report by the Building Division and i the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. a Solar accessibility standards are not specifically applicable to commercial development elsewhere in the a Development Code. Due to grading tree removal and the configuration of the pads on this site the 3 proposed commercial structures would have solar access. No building has been designed to shade a another building. This standard has been met. (4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 42 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC so El Buildings are oriented around the perimeter of the site with the majority of the primary entrances to the interior of the site. Southwest winds may, pose a problem on Option 1 in particular as a large expanse of the southern portion of the site is open. On the other hand, south sun exposure is maximized by this same building arran ement. In Option 2, Majors II-IV provide a shield from southerly winds. The location of Major 1 Jhe largest building on the site on the western portion of the site in both Options 1 and 2 provides par)ial protection from southwester y and northwesterly winds. (5) Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The applicant has proposed to remove existing trees on the site in order to accommodate the massive grading and fill work necessary to develop a shopping center on this site Iven its to ography. Almost all of the frees on the site, except for the trees on the SW Hermoso lots (M U_E parcels have been removed under the 1998 land use decision CPA 98-0002/ PDR 98-0001/ SDR98-0002/mis 8-0004). In addition a Type I Tree Removal Permit for the trees in the Sensitive Lands area numbered 88-96 (six-inch trees] in the arborist's tree identification plan were approved for removal on 9127/99, and have subsequently been removed. A total of 53 trees with 992 caliper inches were identified in the 1998 decision as healthy non-exempt trees over 12 inches in diameter. Some 267 trees existed on the site, not including exempt Christmas trees, but many of the trees were also exempted under the Washington County Tax Assessor's "small woodlands exemption. A total of 1.62 acres of the site was exempt from tree mitigation for this reason in 1998. Because all of the healthy trees over 12 inches in diameter were proposed to be removed, the 1998 decision required that 100% of the caliper.inches lost were required to be mitigated. Mitigation proposed in the 1998 decision included the upsizing of landscape trees on the site to 3 and Y2 inch from the minimum 2" required tree for 926 of the caliper inches. The remaining 66 caliper inches of mitigation were proposed to be planted off-site or a tree mitigation fee paid for the value of purchase and prantinq of trees. The applicant also proposed to plant some 1,500 caliper inches of existing Christmas trees of an off-site location, as a tree mitigation credit for a future development project. Also, the applicant and City agreed that they may loca a the existing Christmas trees on the property at off-site City open space sites. As no evidence has been provided to Staff that the trees to be mitigated in the 1998 land use decision (that have already been removed) have been planted or a mitigation fee paid, a mitigation deposit or bond will be required as part of this report for the full extent of the value of purchase and planting of the 992 caliper inches of trees, and the value of the transplanting or purchase and planting of the 1,500 inches of Christmas trees. In addition the applicant now requests tree removal of all the trees on the MUE lots adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. The applicant states that there are 1 666 inches of trees in good and fair condition on this new portion of the site required to be mitigated trees over 12 inches DBH). A tree removal and replacement plan by David Hunter, Consulting Arbori st (ISA Certified Arborist #PN-1068) dated October 28, 1999 has been provided by the applicant as part of this land-use application. Further, the applicant requests a fee-in-lieu of planting for the required tree miti ation; and that the fee be paid directly to the Oregc~on Trout Organization, a group that the applicant staes has proposed the creation of riparian and wetFand enhancement areas within the Tualatin watershed, working from a fund of deposited mitigation monies which were required of certain development projects within fhe City of Tigard's jurisdiction. FINDING: This standard has not been met. In order to meet the standard the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already I removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SW a Hermoso Way lots 3) 1,500 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated i that the combined (otal of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x $150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonifed estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation deposit or bond. 3 o Prior to issuance of a site permit, a new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The geo-technical engineer shall certify the grading work that has been done to date. In no case shall junk fill be placed or used on this site. b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 43 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC (1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses e.g., between single- family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; (2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1) the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and exteni of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier- b The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; C The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; d The required density of the buffering; and e Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. (3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: What needs to be screened- 0 The direction from wf ich it is needed; and ~c3 Whether the screening needs to be year- round. Buffering and screenin standards are addressed in part under Chapter 18.745 in this report. The site only adjoins residengial uses to the south. The proposed grading plan shows that the west and east ends of the Major I Anchor Tenant Building would be roughly at grade with the existing residences. The finished pad elevations of Major Anchors IT-IV (Option 2) would be roughly 30 to 45 feet below the grade of the adjoining residences, and for Pad E (Option 1). The finished elevation of the rooftop of the buildings would-be about 20-25 feet below the elevation at eyy? level from the residences. The applicant proposes a 6-foot-high sound barrier wall (along the SW Hermoso Way) to screen the view of the residence at the southwest comer of the site from the center. The applicant agreed not to place rooftop equipment within the first 20 to 40 feet of the southern edge of these buildings in the 1998 land use decision. Because the roof top equipment would be seen b adloiginq residences above, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide a building parapet height SL ficten to screen the view of rooftop mechanical equipment from residences to the south. Service areas such as loading areas of Major I (Option 1 and 2) and Majors II-IV in (Option 2) would be screened from view of the residences based on the proposed finished grades. A partial retaining wall is shown on the site plan to the south of Major I to provide for the truck servicing area. The applicant shall screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. This may be accomplished through a matching split face concrete block wall or other method as approved by the Planning Division. Based on the site development constraints and the higher street elevation of SW 72nd Avenue, it does not appear possible to entireIV screen rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings as seen from SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason all rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Mayor Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: i As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and. elevations to provide a sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equpment from the view of the residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations and screen the loadlnq area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. C. Privacy and noise: felon-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 44 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC . A noise study was provided with the 1998 land use application for this site that indicated that site improvements can comply with both Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) noise standards and Municipal Code standards. However, the Noise Study assumes that the allowable noise levels pursuant to the Municipal Code standards are higher than were intended. The Municipal Code was revised in 1996 pursuant to Ordinance 96-06. The Ordinance is interpreted to have placed additional maximum noise standards. The applicant interpreted the table to mean that higher maximum noise levels were permitted. The applicant submitted an update to the February 16, 1998 noise study (submitted for the 1998 land-use decision). The u dated noise study is dated March 15, 2000 and was prepared by Daly- Standlee & Associates, Inc. the noise study makes the following conclusion: 1 he results of our analysis show that both the City of Tigard noise ordinance and the Ogre on DEQ noise regulation would be met at all residences located on SW Hermoso Street if the top of the false building wall proposed along the north side of SW Hermoso Street was at least 6 feet above the sidewalk elevation and the retaining wall on the south property line west of the Major I building was constructed with a 6-foot-high extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing. No other mitigation measures would be required to address traffic on the development site." The shopping center grading plan partially addresses this issue because the majority of the site would be below grade of the adjoining residential structures. To comply with applicable noise standards, the consulting engineer recommended sound barriers along a portion of the southern property line. Because of screening and buffering standards, the applicant is required to construct a fence wall or berm with landscaping along the entire southern property line where the site adjoins single-family residences. The site plan should also be revised to restrict the location of roof top mechanical equipment away from the southern portion of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. Additional screening and buffering measures are discussed elsewhere within this report. Because of the type of uses that are proposed and their orientation, maintenance of privacy within the rear yard of the adjoining homes is expected to be addressed through the construction of a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. FINDING: This criteria is not met. In order to meet the criteria, the applicant shall comply with the following condition: CONDITION: Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Major I building with a minimum 6-foot-hi h extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawingg, and/or provide a method for completely screenmqq the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center to the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. d. Private outdoor area multi-family use: This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. e. Shared outdoor recreation areas multi-family use: This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. f. Access and circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; (1) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. (2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and (3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. j The applicant is proposing five (5) access points which comply with the standards of Chapter 18.705. This plan has been reviewed by Fire District staff and was generally found to comply with Uniform Fire Code standards. In the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall submit an necessary minor internal modifications. The City's adopted Park and Greenway Plan does not indicate the existence of Bicycle or Pedestrian Accessway through the site. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 45 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC I TEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC N 11111111111110 The trash and recycling enclosure shall provide a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. The design of the roposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Fire District. he Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Conditions of Approval are recommended to ensure compliance with the applicable street improvements standards. Bicyclists would likely either share the five (5) roposed commercial drivewa~r improvements into the site or share pedestrian sidewalk improvements. The City's adopted Park and Trail Master Plan also does not currently designate a bicycle and/or pedestrian trail through this site. FINDING: This criteria is found to be met conceptually. g. Landscaping and open space: (1) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 2Q percent of the site shall be Ianddscaped- (2) C'odmmercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped'; (3) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Subsections 1 and 3 of this standard are not found to be applicable because the applicant has proposed a commercial development. Subsection 2 is found to be applicable and has been addressed in Section18.520.040.6 in this report. h. Public transit: (1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The regired facilities shall be based on: ~a The location of other transit facilities in the area; and bj The size and type of the proposed development. (2) The regqwired facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: ja A waiting shelter; b A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and c Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are not presently transit served facilities. The applicants show a possible location for a future transit stop on the sites northwestern SW Dartmouth Street frontage should transit service be made available in this area. The City received no comments from Tri-met concerning this proposal. FINDING: This criteria is met conceptually. Any revisions to the plans shall be submitted in the detailed plan submission. i. Signs: (1) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.780, Signs: i a a Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; As discussed in Chapter 18.780, Signs in this report, the applicant will need to develop a sign program for this center and shall be submitted with the detailed plan. j. Parking: 3 a (1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; (2) Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 46 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Parking standards are addressed under Chapter 18.765 in this report. k. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Drainage standards are addressed under Section 18.810 in this report. 1. Fooodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This standard is addressed in part under Sensitive Lands, Chapter 18.775, in this report. The City has park system development fees in place to fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for this development prior to the issuance of building permits. Because the 100-year floodplain elevation does not likely exist on this property dedication, of a portion of the property for development of a trail does not appear possible. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually. G. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: STREETS: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) contains typical ROW requirements for public streets. However, this site lies within the Tiggard Triangle, which is governed b TDC 18.620 the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS)) Section 18.620.080 requires SW 72 Avenue major arterial) to have a 92-foot right-of-way (RI width and a 66-foot paved width. SW Dartmouth Street (major arterial), west of SW 72"" Avenue, shall have a 94-foot ROW width and an overall paved width of 66 feet. East/West local streets shall have a ROW width of 60 feet and a paved width of 34 feet. Other improvements required may include on- street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. The proposed development is bordered b SW 72nd Avenue on the east side, SW Dartmouth Street on the north side, andSW Hermoso Way an east/west local street) on the south side. The proposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one 1 full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site, and one (1) full access driveway approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (2) full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. With this current option, there is also a proposed full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve west of SW 72" Avenue. Proposed traffic signals and traffic impact study findings will be discussed later in this report. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 47 OF 59 TRI-000N T Y SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Mimi The following section will be a discussion of the required and proposed transportation improvements for this project. It should be noted that the applicant has already submitted public improvement construction plans for the City Engineer's approval, based upon the SDR 98-0002 approval. The City Engineer completed the review of those plans and is currently waiting for the applicant to complete the required permit documents and pay a permit fee so the plans can be stamped and issued. These two new options will slightly change the public improvement requirements due to the increased area of the site adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the City could allow an amendment to the current public improvement plan to account for the additional improvements. SW 72"d Avenue Improvements The current HOW Width a offing the frontage of this site is approximately 20 feet from centerline. The applicant, as a part of SDR 98-0002, completed a dedication to provide additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline which meets the TTDS standard. The applicant also dedicated a ROW radius at the corner of SW '2nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street equal to 45 feet. No additional ROW dedication is required. At present, SW 72nd Avenue. is paved but is not ,Vll improved to the Triangle Standards. The Current City Engineer approved plan for the SW 72 Avenue improvements shows that a full-width improvement will be provided from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Elmhurst Street. The applicant showed this level of improvement on the plans for SD98-0002. Additional ROW was dedicated from the property owners on the east side of SW 72"' Avenue to accommodate the proposed improvement. The current plans also show that the full-width improvement will be provided. The two (2) full-access driveways into the site from SW 72nd Avenue are in the same location as was shown on the plan for SDR 98-0002 and the City Engineer approved plan. They also appear to be designed to function adequately. The level of service (LOS) at these driveways Is expected to be B or better, which is acceptable. The southern driveway is shown to be aligned with the centerline of SW Elmhurst Street, which will alleviate any left turning movement conflicts. SW Dartmouth Street Improvements The applicant previously completed a dedication of additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline to meet the TTDS standard. No additional ROW dedications are necessary. SW Dartmouth Street was improved with five lanes along most of the site frontage as a part of a LID, but is not fully improved with sidewalk and street trees as per the TTDS. The portion of the street west of proposed Driveway A was not fully widened to five lanes. The applicant's plan and the City Engineer approved construction plans indicate they will complete the improvements of SW Dartmouth Street along the site frontage as a part of this project to provide the full 66-foot paved width across the frontage of the site. During the construction plan review, Staff noted that when the applicant completes their-frontage improvements there will be a gap between the applicant's sidewalk and the existing sidewalk in front of Costco. The City Engineer's approved construction plans require the applicant to provide a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the two segments of sidewalk. The applicant's Ppproved construction plans show this temporary connection, and should be included with the new In order to prevent unacceptable spillback in froQt of Driveway B, two eastbound through lanes are needed o, SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72 Avenue, and these lanes will need to be widened east of 72 Avenue to provide two eastbound lanes for a limited distance beyond the intersection. This issue is discussed in more detail under the Impact Study, Chapter 18.390 in this decision. The applicant made a statement in the narrative regarding the potential for these new improvements to be included in a future LID. The City has not received an application for a new LID on SW Dartmouth Street. If such an LID were applied for and then approved b the City Council prior to construction of this project, it is quite possible that the improvements described above would be included. SW Hermoso Way Improvements There is presently a 50-foot ROW on SW Hermoso Way. The applicant's plan indicates that they will rq dedicate an additional 5 feet of ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline to meet the TTDS. a The street was improved when the original Hermoso Park Subdivision was developed. The paved width is currently 28 feet curb-to-curb, which does not meet the TTDS. Therefore, the applicant will be required to widen the street and install sidewalk and street trees to meet the TTDS. The existing paved section of the street was originally constructed to handle typical residential traffic. Now that the Triangle is being redeveloped to more commercial uses, the type of traffic will be more intense. The PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 48 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/1512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC TTDS local street is to be designed to accommodate commercial traffic. The City's public improvement design standards include a rock and pavement section for local commercial/industrial streets that will support commercial traffic. Therefore, the existing roadway section will need to be completely reconstructed with the heavier roadway section, from centerline to the curb. As an alternate, the applicant's engineer could propose another option, such as an overlay, that would yield the same structural strength as the typical City standard section. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant will be required to install concrete sidewalks adjacent to all three streets that will be improved as a part of this project. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sewer main that is located in SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to this site. The applicant proposes to extend one line into the site to serve Pads A and B. This development will be broken up into multiple parcels, which will require that all sanitary sewer lines that serve multiple parcels within the development be built as public lines. A new public sanitary sewer line was installed recently in SW Hermoso Way, as a part of Reimbursement District #15. All of the existing residential parcels abutting SW Hermoso Way were included in RD #15. This new site plan option includes six existing residential parcels on the north side of SW Hermoso Way: 2S1 01AB, #1300 2S1 01AB, #1401 2S1 01AB, #1403 2S1 01AB, #1404 2S1 01AB, #1400, and 2S1 01AB, #1402. None of these lots have connected to the sewer constructed through RD #15 or have paid the reimbursement fee. In addition, TMC 13.09.110.1.c requires the applicant for a permit related to the property to pay the fee if there is "any alteration, modification or change in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required". Since this land use approval will involve these six lots, and since the modification will result in an increase in the number of parking spaces n required, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of RD #15 for these parcels prior to issuance „ of the site permit. Option 1 The applicant's plan shows that a new public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public line in SW Hermoso Way. This line extension must be a public line and meet public standards. Option 2 The applicant's plan shows that a new public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public line in SW Hermoso Way to serve Majors ll, III and IV, and Pads D and E. This line extension must be a public line and meet public standards. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 49 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/95/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The overall layout of the proposed public sewer lines appears to be acceptable, as all manholes will be located within paved parking or drive aisle areas. The final design of the public sewer lines shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction. The City's Master Sanitary Sewer Plan indicates that a public sewer line should be extended southerly in SW 72nd Avenue from the main line in SW Dartmouth Street in order to serve parcels along 72nd Avenue and SW Elmhurst Street. The City's policy for new developments is that public sewer lines are to be extended to property boundaries fo serve adjacent uphill unsewered properties. Since the applicant will be constructing new street im rovements in SW 72nd Avenue, and since there are unsewered properties uphill of-this site on SW 72nd Avenue, the applicant should extend an 8-inch public sewer line in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The City Engineer approved construction plans include the extension of this sewer line to the south boundary of this site. This new option will include the same condition. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,,whetfier inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall a prove the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Cor~struction Nandards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as ado ted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed site plan will effectively accommodate any upstream runoff that enters the site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing draina a facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan. includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide on-site detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Option The topo raphy of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option indicates hat all storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofiltration area to be separated from the wetland area and located just to the south of the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from the Phase II Building and the parking area adjacent to the west side of that building will be directed to the southwest corner. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property without proper easements will not be permitted. a PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-000021SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 50 OF 59 TT RI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Option The topo raphy of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option indicates Yhat all storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofltration area to be separated from the wetland area and located just to the south of the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from Majors II, III and IV, and parking areas adjacent to these buildings, will be conveyed to the southwest corner discharge point. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property proper easements will not be permitted. The applicant will now be required to provide on-site detention of the additional stormwater, as was described above. The 1998 plan did not provide for detention. Therefore, the applicant's storm drainage plan will need to be revised to provide for the on-site detention. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. This is addressed under the Planned Development Section 18.350.100.3f, Access and Circulation. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which wiil principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-000041MIS2000-00003 PAGE 51 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5!15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC I TEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC There are existing overhead utility lines along the east side of SW 72nd Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 680 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $18,700. There are also overhead utility lines adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. The site frontage along this street is approximately 670 lineal feet. If the applicant's site is, or will be, served from the utilities along SW Hermoso Way, they must also address those existing lines. If they choose to pay the fee in-lieu, it will be $18,425. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety A more thorough review of fire and life safety issues will be conducted by the Building Division during the building permit plan review stage. Public Water System: This site fails within the service area of the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing public water lines in SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermosa Way. The applicant's plan shows connections to all existing water lines in order to adequately serve the site. The plan also indicates the applicant will pay for an upgrade of the existing water line in SW Hermosa Way to a 10- inch. The City will expect the applicant to coordinate with TVWD with respect to water service and public main construction requirements. No permits for public improvements will be issued by the City until a permit from TVWD is obtained by the applicant. Storm Water Qua lit : The City, has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Option 1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant s plan indicates that one StormFilter unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat a large majority of the storm water runoff from the site. The narrative indicates that two such units will be placed on the site; the plan only shows one. The applicant's engineer submitted preliminary sizing calculations with the narrative to indicate the necessary size of both units. It appears that two StormFilter units would adequately treat the storm water runoff from this site. The applicant shall revise their plan to show the location of the other StormFilter unit, and ensure that i 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated by a water quality facility. a 2 Option 2 i Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Desn ig Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicants plan indicates that two StormFilter units will be used to treat the runoff from this site. j One unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat primarily the northern portion of a the storm water runoff from the site. The other unit will be placed near the southwest corner of the site where it will treat the remaining portion of the runoff. Preliminary sizing calculations for these units were submitted by the applicants engineer. The calculations indicate that the two StormFilter units will adequately treat the runoff from this site. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 52 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 1011EMIN-1- Em The StormFilter unit is manufactured b Stormwater Management, who offer their clients a maintenance agreement to ensure that the facility is properly maintained by Stormwater Management each year. The City is highly concerned that these units be properly maintained, and is not confident that the applicant will have the means or desire to keep them maintained. Therefore, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management for maintenance of these facilities prior to final building inspection. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant sta es throughout.the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facilities are in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit bei issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant submitted a letter from ADaPT Engineering, Inc., which addresses the additional properties included in this option, and speaks to the original geo-technical report in 1994. ADaPT states that they believe the soils in the additional property areas exhibit similar characteristics as what exist within the rest of the site. ADaPT also states that the conclusions and recommendations in the 1994 report can and should be applied to the additional properties. The applicant obtained limited site improvement permits for this project (SIT 98-00043 and SIT 1999- 00057) to allow diversion of the wetland channel at the north end of the site and rough grading of the site in limited areas. Staff is aware of questionable fill material that has been placed on this site. To Staffs knowledge, ADaPT or any other geo-technics! engineer, has not provided certification for the fills that have been completed. The applicant is interested in pulling another limited site permit later this summer to include grading within the newly added parcels. Staff would support such a request provided a geo-technical engineer certify the work that has already been accomplished. Therefore, prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall submit certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that all grading work on the site has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. In addition, prior to final inspection of the buildings on this site, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a final report in accordance with Appendix shall be submitted to the Chapter 33 that certifies all of the grading work for the site. That report i Building Division (Hap Watkins). i The applicant previously obtained the NPDES permit, but will need to modify that permit to account 1 for the site plan revision. Address Assignments: 3 The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-000051MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 53 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/1512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 6 For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The owner or property manager is responsible for assigning suite numbers for their tenants. This information must then be given to the City so that building permits for tenant im rovements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. SECTION V111 1. STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) By code, 25 Accessible parking spaces are required. 2) The applicant needs to meet with Bob Poskin of the Building Division and the Fire Marshall on the hydrant locations. Those hydrants shown on both Options will not meet the required 25046ot distance to all portions of the buildings proposed. 3) The Building Division has recently sent a letter to the applicant, due to the concerns about junk fill on the site, requiring a new geo-technical report. The geo-technical report must provide recommendations for liquefaction. The Maintenance Services Department reviewed this application under the 1998 land use decision and commented concerning the proposed tree mitigation allowance for 1,500 caliper inches of Christmas trees that are to be relocated to City properties. The developer shall incur the cost of relocating and transplanting to be eligible for mitigation credit. City staff does not have proper equipment needed for this transplantation work, nor has the City budgeted resources for this work. The Police Department reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The Long-Range Planning Division reviewed this application and has offered no comment or objections. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro has reviewed this application and has the following comments: We understand that the City of Tigard is in compliance with USA and that USA is substantially compliant with Title 3. See attached Title 3 map. Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed this application and commented in their letter dated March 15, 2000 siting the project in non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation as follows: This letter is a follow-up to a site inspection on March 14, 2000 of the development site to determine compliance with the permit conditions of RF-9256, issued to Mr. Gordon Martin. My inspection found the mitigation site to not be in compliance with Special Condition 7 of Attachment A. More specifically, the following needs to be done to bring the permit into compliance: a 1. Pad C needs to be moved 25 feet to the west from the existing location to facilitate the construction of the wetland rehabilitation area to the east. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 54 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 2. Figure 2 of the permit drawings shows a wetland area, much larger than what was observed at the time of my inspection, between driveway A and driveway B. We realize all the grading has not been completed to date, but the wetland areas need considerably more excavation to comply with the permit conditions (see the attached Figure 2). 3. The area at the corner of 72"d Avenue and SW Dartmouth has been excavated beyond what was authorized. We recommend no further earthwork be done at this location and the north bank needs to be hydroseeded to prevent erosion and planted as specified in Condition 7 (c) of Attachment A, which should include a minimum of 20 evergreen trees. 4. Trees and shrubs should not be planted until excavation has been completed in the mitigation area between driveway A and B. However, trees and shrubs should be planted this spring as specified in Figure 2 and Condition 7 (c at the large Pond site north of Pad B, and on the north bank of the stream facing Pads E and US Army Corps of Engineers has submitted a letter dated March 13, 2000 from Gerald Black which does not grant full compliance as follows: This letter is to indicate compliance of the new wetland boundary. This letter does not grant full compliance. As shown on the plans presented to me, the project's wetland boundary does not appear to have further encroached the wetland areas (mitigated and natural). However, full compliance is subject to a visual inspection of the site to be conducted in the future. Staff Response: Other recent communications between Jan Stuart of the Corps and Staff has indicated likely non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has the following comments: ODOT Facilities: The proposed Tri-County Center development is located within the Tigard Triangle, that is bounded by Interstate 5, OR 217, and OR 99W. According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Interstate 5 has an Interstate level of importance. OR 217 and OR 99W are designated Freight routes and Statewide highways. While the site does not have direct access to state facilities, projected traffic impacts from the proposed development show that mobility on the highways will be affected. ODOT has an interest in ensuring that land uses are compatible with the safe and efficient functioning of the highways. Background: A slightly different version of this development was proposed and approved in 1998. condition of approval required the applicant to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68 h Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. This intersection is part of the 1-5 southbound ramp terminals at the Hanes Street exit. The applicant's Engineer conducted a traffic signal study at this location that found a traffic signal would be warranted and would be necessary for maintaining acceptable operation of the intersection. ODOT supported this conclusion. ODOT previously indicated that additional analysis would be needed to determine if supplemental improvements would be necessary to address potential queuing deficiencies at the interchange ramps. Signalization of 68th Parkway x Dartmouth Street The revised traffic impact analysis assumed that the differences in traffic impacts between the previous and current proposals would be insignificant. Therefore, ODOT will rely on the conclusions of the 2/98 study prepared by Lancaster Engineering. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 55 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Jill III 111§1iffi 1, 111 Please enter into the record ODOT comments dated May 12, 1998 (copy enclosed) that were submitted to the City for SDR 98-00021PDR98-0001 review. Our review was based on the traffic study provided at that time, which is being referenced for the current proposal. Our previous comments are still valid. Therefore, ODOT recommends the following condition of approval: e The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway x Dartmouth Street. Constructions shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. ODOT approval and permit are required for signal installation and any work in the state right-of-way. This improvement is necessary to provide mitigation for anticipated Tri-County Center site-generated traffic impacts to the 1-5 x Haines Road interchange ramps. This condition should be included for either Option 1 or Option 2. Without this miti ation, the application would fail to meet the City of Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC), onceptual Development Plan, Approval Criteria. TCDC 18.350.100.6.1. incorporates requirements of the land division provisions; 18.420.050.A.2, states: There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal. ODOT Permit: ODOT siggnal review and permitting will be processed throu h our District 2A office. Contact: Joel McCarron-, Assistant to District Manager, ODOT District 2A, 229-5002 for information. ODOT comments from letter dated Ma 12 1998: .Upon care u review o the tra is report submitted by the applicant for a 330,895 square foot retail shopping center at 72nd and Dartmouth Street, we have determined that the applicant cannot meet The policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the i hwa Obiectives and Performance Criteria #4 and #5 Volume 1, Table 111-1, p. 1-2 an rans ortation Policies . an e. o ume ection 11, p.55) are not met. Highway Ob'ective e an a ormance Criteria is `to maintain a reasonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes duringg~ the peak hour" and Ob1'ective #5 is "to maintain a reasonable level of speed on rincipal and arterial routes durin the off-peak periods." Transportation Policy 8.1.3 - The Ci y shall Require as a Precondition To Development that: d. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing street, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; and e. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. The traffic study shows that more than one-third (1/3) of the site generated trips are anticipated to access the site via the Hi hway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. According to the Ore oon. Highway Plan, the operating standard for 99W is a level of service (oLOSI D for signali2ed intersections which equates to a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 90 /o. This intersection is Currently operating at a LOS of D with a v/c of 83%. Without the proposed development the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS of E with a v/c of 93% in the year 2003. A v/c ratio of 99% is operating at capacity and anything greater is considered to be failing. With the proposed development the intersection (including background traffic) is expected to be at a H LOS of E with v/c of 99 /o. ObOT considers the expected increase in the v/c ratio a significant degradation of traffic conditions as compared to what currently exists as well as what would be expected in the year 2003 without the proposed development. The 99W/Dartmouth Street intersection is expected to be operating at capacity with the proposed development. Under such circumstances, progression of traffic along the highway would be virtually impossible. Queuing and delays experienced on the highway and side streets would be expected to become severe. Motorists a on the highway and side street would typically have to wait through a number of signal cycles to be served, resulting in long delays and excessive queuing. These conditions are expectedto lead to erratic maneuvers by motorists (running red lights, drive on the shoulders, etc.), which could aggravate safety concerns at and near the intersection. It is ODOT's position that without the widening of 99W to six (6) lanes between I-5 and Highway 217, that the development will intensify traffic on 99W and in particular, the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 56 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/1512000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC ,x , If the City chooses to aprove the proposed development, we recommend the following be included as Conditions of Approva - 1. The applicant be required to install a traffic signal at the intersections of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street. The intersection is currentl controlled by an all-way stop. pp.~ The east le of the intersection consists of the I-5 southboundyramp connections at the SW Haines RON Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Higghway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal at this intersection needs to be approved by the State Traffic En ineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen hour (6 a.m. to 8 m. weekdays) manual turn movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. The format shown on the attached traffic signal warrant comparison worksheets should be used as part of the warrant analysis. 2. Queuing analyses should be performed for all approaches of the signalized intersections on Highway 99W to ensure that adequate stacking distance is provided for efficjent traffic operations. Queuing on the east approach to the intersection of Dartmouth and 68 Parkway should be examined as well to ensure that there is adequate storage distance available on the 1-5 southbound off -ramp to Dartmouth. Without adequate storage distance on the 1-5 southbound off-ramp, the traffic queue would cause significant impact to the freeway operations. 3. There is discussion in the report regarding an extension of SW Dartmouth Street west over Highway 217 and additional ramp connections to the highway. ODOT has reviewed and analyzed similar proposals in the past and has no evidence that there would be any improvement in level of service for 99W between Highway 217 and 1-5. ODOT will not allow additional access to Highway 217. 4. The traffic study indicates that twenty-five percent of the site-generated trips are expected to travel on SW 72" Avenue north of SW Hampton Street. SW 72 Avenue at its intersection with SW Hampton St., the Highway 217 northbound and south ramp terminals should be included in the study area. * Note: Although the Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.3 d and a which ODOT cited are appropriate to address relative to this application, the applicant is unable by themselves, to provide street improvements that would add lanes to 99W. While this improvement may be needed, widening 99W is a difficult multi- million dollar project that will impact dozens of existing businesses. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: Sanity Sewer: The development should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency's Desiqn and Construction Standards. Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R & O. Storm Sewer: The development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm I sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. a Water (duality: i lie opt er should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. All impervious area is to be treated. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 57 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Sew lve rea" exists. Developer must preserve a corridor as described in the R&O separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek wetland/sensitive area shall be iden fied on plans. Corridors are required on mitigated wetlands. A bSL/Corps of Engineers permit is required for any work in the creek or wetlands. Compliance with approved DSL/Corps permits will be required. Erosion C trot- Join - erosion control permit is required. The plans for the above noted protect have been reviewed for conformance with the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and those portions of the Uniform Building Code Uniform Mechanical Code andother codes and standards as specifically referenced in the Fire itode. The following conditions are attached to the above named project in order to achieve Fire District approval: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: ACCESS ROADS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS: Access roadways shall not be closer than 20 feet to a structure unless topographical restrictions dictate the location. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an a roved automatic fire sprinklers stem, the requirements-for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC. Sec 902.2.2.1) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinuishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load ( ross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turnip radius and outside turning radius shalt be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured-from the same center point. (UFC Sec, 902.2.2.3) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for a building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 si, whichever is lss. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants shall be located so that no portion of the exterior of a commercial building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along the approved route of travel accessible to fire apparatus. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) EXCEPTIONS: (1) When such buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic fire extinguishing system, the chief may allow variations up to a maximum of 500 feet, provided adequate protection is maintained. i COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS: The minimum number of a fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to givin credit for fire f protection systems divided by 1500. If the answer is equal to or greater than x.5 qhe next whole i number of hydrants shall be used. There shall not be less than 2 hydrants per building. (UFC Sec. i 903.4.2.1) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFyC Sec. 903.4.2.4) PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 58 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hyydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the refrectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) FIRE HYDRANT / FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec 904.1.1) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected with the exception of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies not over 4 stories in height. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire-fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stock iling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704 KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4) Portland General Electric (PGE) was notified, however, no comments were provided. SECTION X CONCLUSION It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 95th day of May, 2000 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below) Nick Wilson, Planning Commission Chair is\curpln\pd\karen\pd00-1 &2.final.doc 1 a i i i PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 59 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER MO. 2000-02 PC ~ ~ ~ 1 t►rrwe ert~e~re • _ w t1AtOCAPPM FA0104 TOTAL ITC ARCH 1.11X413 S-. r«l 77.11 A. (MM TO /OWSO 11-0-s OMICArOt) ! so" r Jr [X= twos 4412 (umt wVIC r (AIT WwruS 1.11>,211 S..-1 r«L 22 r As. , I( / P-ota a.o-a omuroq / • {~Q' IS P(iX'S01M aAtxT vs TOTAL 1Ulo.G MCA 717.171 Sw-. rwt ....F.w. 1 / ~M.ID lb.btCD 90C-TUTS MOSS ttASWtt rKA 707.411 SM• r«t • I ~ ~ T7HCAC 1iAtDwO driMa iCOA907 wafArt MGS 1$O11 S..-. I.u. 1301 _ coro / © 77K11, MA94 0-01 "Pt ACTUAL tAMOSCAPC MCA 227,141 Sy-. r...U Tali ' ` G T1AMIC Soul PARCMO eArA STAA1OMO STALLS 1.437 St.w I/ ulTl.wo MINVALIOU= ATtw ` nA'1OCX STAI'1. 13 SI.P1 ✓ it . TOTAL STALLS 1.425 S1w S~dART P.AOK AAtiO 440 StakA= V t1A OTC MOTS 73 1r4 FAD-A! OMM fig r - - - w.... P H w.,.. 1ad1o sr. _ HIM j .4 t.- - L PAD -C W."a sr. MMOR I 223,461 SF. ` ' (148.759 SF.) w.., 6 R VII}}~ r ' ' PHASE H ® - (74.702 St.) - , PXP- ~ 11.040 Y, ' ~ ~ TRI-COUNTY CENTER TIGAff"I u SITE PLAN N (OPTION 1) (Map is not to scale) PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 ...+riaia.~ i v 1 1111 - m .7! 1 ` KANXCA7I'm IAA11K WAL 911 A11A 1.11dws Awe rut 1131 A- 1 r PADW d16.'sl often 10 fem-m "-I eco"?O.( Ni(! 1 l . D 10rAL 9Vr ACA 1.11111 9- /PL 21-4 } w 1m01NM bqx n 101.L RPD04 A$A 116711 N.. v.1 i ® ""WA NLPC C'Mua 110A10 thgA1C MG 111.011 lr..l r„L It= © I1MGl ti1A11 1)%C04a•. KIY1( L-VVA K AIWA !•Y!1/ 1w IR Iim 11+1,1 WL4 1t11[IV6 0}7! ( V-d"a llAu L,r11Ws -t 1 r v KUOW IIALU R DPo M-4 IMU I ` 1 a,aWtwl V~ OWN •a D",A0m s aA . i v.1 PC 1AM 111 Ora CF= UAX - 11 I1 11- 1 1 . 1 ( n 1 { 1'~i' f 1~ IY IY~IY 1Y A L r 1 r 1 r 1 r ( PJ:. 1 1 'f11~1 ~Y :..r... ' r 1 t ~Q 1 ~ 2'St I r r r r r r - MAJOR I ( r 1, , I a 140,082 SF.; MARS II MAM III MAM IIV I I r 1 34.500 SF 33,312 Sr. 35.400 SF. rr-Inw n-ICU n.nlw 11 • wPW I . 11 LAM TRI-COUNTY CENTER GUTY= SITE PLAN ~ - -(OPTION 2) (Map is not to scale) PD2000.000021SLR2000-000041MIS2000-00003 Olpp0./,tM1G r./O0.YI.1rOY yfL*~Y A C f QPG`~~G ~®ZOOO-oo®ao5;o~0~~ ~,R~ooo-4 b ST ~~SZp®a.~OOa2 j QQ2000~~0000 ,a Io~2 sdo2ooo i ~S2ooo-00003 ~ ST 1 iN ~~X`Q1s 1 4 1 DARTMOUTH ST ' 1 r `1 1 ST 1 too Fit 1 ~ tDD i 200 I II ` t721Nt H S r l r- FRp,NKLi City of Tiger 9EVELAND S7 ~~~~~pp T I tnstlloats"o^k°~ ~ypL,y3..`.' D 1 1n`' this msP is tot9 rt5/ts~' Inlotfnilion on r vnlh ihE D{Y~10prn~ 1~ - ~shoul0 ba ven,~ad 531255W Httl Bl'~ ^ . r~gsrd.OR 9tt2S t L5031604a111 d O,us r Z 1 ~ RC9~~"•~cili96 ST GON7AGA ^ ~ y l' 0 EXHIBIT E ~ APPEAL. FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE 11/111 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., rgard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Case No.(s):! 6 -Ooo Appealed: Tri-County Center Options' & 2; Std 1;L000 -U00,04M16, Case Name(s): -'TRI cry., irrt rr-kYTIP- t20 SW 72nd & Dartmouth Receipt No.: How Do You Qualify As A Party?: _Applicant Christensen Engineering Application Accepted By:t Date: t o Approved As To Form By:' Appellant's Address: 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Date: City/State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 Denied As To Form By Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(503 598-1866 Date: Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 6-06-2000 Rev. 1013/96 l:lcurplnVmasterstappeal..oc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 5-19-2000 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS See Attached. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: a H] Appeal Filing Form (completed) Q Filing Fee (based on criteria below) co A Director's Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00 E D Expedited Review (deposit) S 300.00 F. t A Hearing Referee S 500.00 RECEIVED PLANNING 9 Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council 57,745.00 Transcript) W ` CITY OF TIGARD Signature(s) of A I nt(s): Ar, APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I: tcurplnUnasterstappeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 RECEIVED PLANNING PERKINS COIE LLP JUN 14 2000 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D. Wi rmow TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 CITY OF TIGARD (503) 727-2073 whilrn@perkinscoie.com June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND M. AIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. V ly yours, Mark D. itlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff LM Clients Ed Christensen ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEAMA:: SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. [33181-0001/PA003G89.G95~ STRATEGIC ALLIANCE.: RIIStitiLL IS DuMO111.IN, VANCOUVER, CANADA MMM M =I i ~l!~ 3+ Id PERKINS COIF LLP 121 1 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 - PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 - FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ROGER A. ALFRED (503) 727-2094 alftr@perkinscoie.com DUPLICATION OF JUNE 5, 2000 LETTER June 13, 2000 SENT VIA MESSENGER Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. We submit this notice of appeal of the planning commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000. The applicant has standing to appeal this decision to the city council pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.390.040.G. La. In its final order, the planning commission approved with conditions the applications for a conceptual plan review of two alternative designs for construction of the Tri-County Center shopping center in the Tigard Triangle. The planning commission also approved, with conditions, a sensitive lands review and a lot line adjustment for both alternative designs The city file numbers for the Option 1 applications are PD 2000-001, SLR 2000-005 and MIS 2000-002; the numbers for the Option 2 applications are PD 2000-002, SLR 2000-004 and MIS 2000-003. As addressed in detail below, the applicant appeals the planning commission's imposition of the following conditions: 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58, and 73. 1. Condition 1 "OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified." (33181.0001 /PA003G87.99G ANCHORAGE RfiLLE.VUL BOISE DI.NVI:R HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN 1 kANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE: TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATLGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL & MMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA r Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 2 This condition was rewritten by the planning commission during the May 15, 2000 public hearing in order to make DET review optional, rather than a mandatory condition. To the extent the condition requires the applicant to either comply with the applicable criteria or go through DET review, this condition merely restates the basic code requirement. However, as worded, the condition allows the applicant the option to submit the entire proposal to the DET for review prior to detailed plan submittal "in addition to the conditions listed below." Thus, if the applicant elects to undergo DET review, the condition also would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. However, the individual conditions that address the planning commissions concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET. Accordingly, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the planning commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, thus making it impossible for applicant to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. During the proceedings before the planning commission, applicant and his attorney described interpretations of the code that would result in findings that the proposed plan was in compliance with the criteria at issue. However, the planning commission's final order neither expressly accepts nor rejects the applicant's reading of the code. For example, it is unclear whether or not the planning commission determined that the zero to ten foot building setback is satisfied by the proposed sound wall along Hermoso Street. At the hearing, applicant argued that the proposed wall is a "building" within the code definition, and therefore the setback standard is met. The planning commission's final order does not accept or reject this assertion, but contains two conditions, numbered 56 and 58, that would require the applicant to revise the plans "to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards," or submit alternative plans to the DET for review. As described in more detail below regarding conditions 56 and 58, the code is clear that the definition of a "building" includes a wall, and therefore there is no need to either revise the plans or submit alternative plans to the DET, because the building setback standards are satisfied. Condition number one would require the applicant to fulfill all conditions, regardless of whether or not DET review is elected. Conditions 56 and 58 would require submittal of revised plans or DET review. Under the clear [33181-0001 /PA003687.996 ] 6113/00 MENNEN Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 3 language of the applicable setback standards and the definition of "building," neither should be required. Because the individual conditions that address the planning commission's concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. 2. Condition 7 "The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition)." This condition requires applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. 3. Conditions 22 and 25 "The applicant shall verify that there will not be' (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%" "Option 2 - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%." These two conditions do not recognize the fact that many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the city. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it [33181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 4 applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25%. This condition should be modified accordingly. 4. Condition 26 "The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal." This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria. The proposed structures along SW Dartmouth Street have a zero-foot setback from the wetlands that separate the structures from the right-of-way, as allowed by Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.620.030.A.2. Condition 26 would require the applicant to revise the plans to provide landscaping or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path "between the structures and the wetlands/public street." First, because of the zero-foot setback, all that lies between the structures and the pedestrian path are the wetlands; therefore, code section 18.620.030.A.3 does not apply to this area. Further, Section 18.620.030.A.3 requires that "landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway." This code section does not require landscaping or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria, and should be removed. 5. Condition 56 (option 1 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." [33181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 5 The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of "building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 1 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Pad E, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 6. Condition 58 (option 2 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." Tile code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of "building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 2 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Majors II-IV, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 7. Condition 73. "The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, [33181 -0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13100 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 6 as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb." This condition addresses the street connectivity standards set forth in Section 18.620.020. The May 8, 2000 staff report prepared by city planning staff applied the street connectivity standards and concluded that "an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required." Staff Report at 20. This is because, in making the requisite eight-intersections-per-mile calculation, staff correctly included planned intersections at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road and at SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall Blvd. The staff report submitted to the planning commission concluded that the street connectivity standards were satisfied, and the issue of noncompliance with Section 18.620.020 was raised for the first time by the planning commission at the May 15, 2000 hearing, after the public hearing was closed. Accordingly, applicant was precluded from commenting or objecting on the new public street requirement. Condition 73 requires applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when planned connecting streets to Dartmouth Street are completed. As recognized in the staff report, six intersections along the length of Dartmouth Street are required to meet the connectivity standard of Section 18.620.020. There are currently five intersections along Dartmouth Street. Thus, even if only one of the two planned streets are constructed, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of condition 73. Further, condition 73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. Dartmouth Street is currently not compliant with the street connectivity standards, regardless of the proposed Tri-County Center. Imposition of this condition requires the applicant to pay for more than its proportional share of required improvements for street connectivity. The condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Further, requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Drivers would be likely to use the road to cut through the parking area at unsafe speeds, jeopardizing the pedestrians moving from their cars to individual stores. 133181.0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13100 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 7 This standard should be removed. However, as an alternative, applicant would not object to a condition requiring a reasonably direct connection between Dartmouth Street and Hermoso, in the form of a drive aisle or other internal vehicular path. Conclusion The applicant requests that the city council revise the conditions imposed by the planning commission as set forth above. Ve% truly yours, Roger A. Alfred RAA:raa cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen [33181-0001/PA003687.9961 6/13/00 EXHIBIT F June 9, 2000 To: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 GON! Attn: Karen Fox From: Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering SUN 1 4 2000 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, Oregon 97223 CITyOF TICARD Re: 60 Day Waiver of 120 Day Rule Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC - Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/ SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Karen: This is a waiver providing an additional 60 day extension to the 120 day rule period for a total of 180 days. This would extend the period for appeal and final decision to September 10, 2000. This supercedes any previous waivers. Yours truly, Ed Christensen C: Roger Alfred/Mark Whitlow, Perkins, Coie, LLP i 3 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 09~fft !!~D.. ~ I"•OP Rmietter dated MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: The City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager DATE: July 21, 2000 SUBJECT: Tri County Appeal Hearing The Tri County Center Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC hearing has been postponed from the meeting of July 25, 2000, until Tuesday, September 12, 2000. As I mentioned to City Council during the Workshop Meeting of July 18, the applicant is considering whether to go ahead with the appeal or resolve issues through a staff process. The applicant's attorney has prepared a letter requesting this postponement, extending the period in which the City Council must act to comply with the so-called "120-day rule." Attorney Mark Whitlow, representing Tri County Center assured me that the applicant will continue to try to resolve issues to avoid an appeal hearing. Thus, the September 12 hearing date could be either postponed or dropped. I will keep City Council posted as additional information is available. I: W DM\B I LL1000721. D OC JUL 21 2000 14:46 FR PERKINS COLE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.02/02 PERKINS COLE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST MFrH AVENUE, SUITE 1540 - PORTLAND, ORCGON 97204.3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 - Fncsuw u: 503 727.2222 MARK D. WHnioW (503) 727-2073 whiun@perkinscoie.com July 21, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Mr. Monahan: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of today's date to the effect that the above-captioned appeal will be continued on the record on July 25, 2000 to a date certain, namely, September 12, 2000. We further understand that no appearance is required of the applicant/appellant on July 25, 2000. Regarding the continuance, the applicant/appellant hereby tolls the 120-day rule from the date of the fling of the appeal through September 12, 2000. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Please call if you have any questions. ery truly yo s, Mark D. Whitlow I 1 MDW:djf cc: Tim Ramis Gordon Martin, Sr. Gordon Martin, Jr. a Ed Christensen a 3 a a [33 1 81-000 1 /PA003693.8431 ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FKANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON. D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL G DUMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA * TOTAL PACE.02* goal, July 18, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Mark Whitlow Perkins Coie, LLP 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204-3715 503-727-2000/503-727-2222 (fax) Sent by US Mail and Facsimile Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/TH-County Center Options 1 & 2 PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-000051MIS 2000-00002 and PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-000041MIS 2000-00003 Dear Mr. Whitlow: I have been asked by Bill Monahan, City Manager of Tigard, to respond to your letter of July 14, 2000 requesting a continuance in the hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000 before the City Council. Please provide, no later than July 20, 2000, the date upon which you will return from your time out of the country, and a date when you are available to attend a rescheduled hearing. If you intend to request a continuance before City Council you will need to provide a date when you are available to attend a rescheduled hearing. Currently, the applicant, Ed Christensen, has provided a 60-day waiver to the 120-day rule; and that puts the end date on September 10, 2000. Please note that I have contacted Ed Christensen by phone twice over the past few weeks to arrange a time to discuss issues and/or a time for a pre-application conference for the detailed plan review. I made these contacts in response to Mr. Christensen's request to move in this direction. On June 29, 2000, Mr. Christensen said he would like to come in with revised plans for a July 6, 2000 pre-application conference. However, he did not follow-up by applying for the pre-application conference, nor did he come in to meet with Staff. I also reminded Mr. Christensen at that time, to post notice of the hearing on the site at least ten business days prior to the hearing, and to provide an affidavit of posting concerning such notice; and he indicated that he would do so, not mentioning a request for a continuance to the hearing. On July 10, 2000, 1 spoke with Mr. Christensen and asked him if he intended to come in and meet with Staff, and he indicated that he intended to deal with the outstanding issues on the Tri-County Center through the upcoming appeal process. Therefore, I was surprised to see your letter of July 14, 2000 requesting a continuance in the City Council hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 age o As the wall issue along Hermoso Way has been clarified via the letter of June 26, 2000 from Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, it is not clear which other issues you want to discuss at this time. Please provide me with a list of issues you would like to discuss, and two or three dates (Tuesdays or Thursday mornings) on which you are available to discuss these issues related to your revised site plans. As I have previously suggested, this would best be done by applying for a pre-application conference for the detailed plan review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 503-639-4171, extension 315. Yours truly, i X Ka n Fox Associate Planner 1Acurp1nikarenXpd\PD00-1 &2.1et2.doc c: Ed Christensen, Applicant Gordon Martin Jr., Owner Gordon Martin Sr., Owner Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach, City Attorneys (Attn: Tim Ramis) Bill Monahan, City Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer Tigard City Council Tri County Center PD2000-1 &2 Page 2 of 2 July 17, 2000 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7/25/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Regional Affordable Housing Strategy PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK / h. CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What is the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy or RAHS and how does it relate to Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is an information only item. No Council action is requred. INFORMATION SUMMARY In June of this year, after a nearly two-year process, the Metro Council adopted a regional affordable housing strategy. A memo overviewing the "RAHS" is attached along with a copy of the full report. The plan takes a voluntary approach to dealing with affordable housing. It establishes non-binding, five-year housing production goals allocated by jurisdiction. Tigard's goal is 320 units. Sheila Greenlaw Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing Director, served on the advisory committee that developed the RAHS. She will be present at the 7/25 Council meeting to discuss the report's recommendations for increasing opportunities for affordable housing in local communities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #3 calls for the City to encourage and support "private sector programs to maintain diverse and affordable housing". FISCAL NOTES N/A Eq 1/citywide/affordablehousing I it CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: 7/6/00 SUBJECT: Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Last month, Metro Council adopted the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy or RAHS. The RAHS is the major tool for providing affordable housing within the region. It was developed by a broad based, public-private technical advisory committee, which began work in September 1998. The RAHS provides background information and a comprehensive tool kit from which jurisdictions may pick and choose based on community needs and capacity. The report includes chapters on the relationship between affordable housing and the livability of the region; the extent of affordable housing need in the region; the policy direction for affordable housing objectives and strategies, including housing production goals; and the specific actions needed by local governments and others to reach these affordable housing production goals. The plan's primary objective is to increase the supply of housing for the highest need households: those earning 50% of median income. Within Washington County, the report identifies the highest need households as including the elderly, people with disabilities, farmworker families, large families, recent immigrants, victims of domestic violence, single mothers, and ethnic and racial minorities. 4 The RAHS establishes affordable housing production goals based on current and future affordable housing needs. The five-year production goal, sub-totaled by jurisdiction, is 10% of the overall y projected benchmark need for affordable housing. Tigard's five-year goal is 320 units. The goal is non-binding. A list of the potentially available tools that could be used by local jurisdictions to meet their production goals is attached. Three of the tools are now in use by Tigard. Two of these relate to regulation: changing the development code to allow accessory dwelling units and changing the code to allow for adjustments to parking requirements for special resident populations. Fee waivers is the third strategy now in use by the City. Tigard, since 1996, has provided a property tax exemption for low-income housing owned and operated by Partners for Affordable Housing. With regard to financing, the plan focuses on a proposed real estate transfer tax as a potential new funding source for affordable housing development. Before such a tax could be adopted, the state legislature would first have to change the Oregon law that prohibits local governments from collecting real estate transfer taxes. As noted, the plan takes a voluntary approach to dealing with affordable housing. No mandatory strategies or goals are proposed. The only mandatory provisions put forward are requirements that local jurisdictions amend their comprehensive plans to add affordable housing land use policies and consider the adoption of land use-related affordable housing tools and strategies. The draft plan also recommends jurisdictions be required to provide annual progress reports on meeting housing goals. I/Irpn/dr/housing.memo.doc i i it Roles of Local Governments In Housing Exam le of Mechanisms for Providing Housin Role' LandAva//ab!/i! Develomen! .Nalnlenance Regula!!on • Comprehensive plans • Development standards • Preservation ordinance • Zoning • Review plans • Building & Rehabilitation • Opportunities for diverse • Building permits and Code enforcement range of housing inspections • Enforcement of Federal Fair • Opportunities for mixed use Housing laws housing • Rehabilitation and use of existing buildings Fan0'11747 • Donate surplus land • Reduce or forgive fees • Home repair and • Land banking • Loans and Grants rehabilitation loans and • Tax exemptions & grants abatements • Loans and grants to apartment owners to rehabilitate Fac!/!!a/!on • Community Land Trust • Technical assistance in the • Technical assistance funding and development • Coordinate rehabilitation process and repair programs with • Support of Community Community Development Development Corporations Corporations • Public/private partnerships • Volunteerism for tree planting and neighborhood beautification programs 'Three major roles that could increase the supply of affordable housing and improve the quality of housing stock. Local Jurisdiction Implementation of Land Use Tools and Strategies Density Bonus 1. A density bonus is an incentive to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Local jurisdictions could consider tying the amount of bonus to the targeted income rou to encourage the development of affordable units to meet fair share goals. Replacement 1. No-Net-Loss housing policies for local jurisdictional review of requested quasi- Housing judicial Comprehensive Plan Map amendments with approval criteria that would require the replacement of existing housing that would be lost through the Plan Map amendment. Inclusionary 1. Implement voluntary inclusionary housing programs tied to the provision of Housing incentives (Density Bonus, etc.) 2. Develop housing design requirements that tend to result in affordable housing (single-car garages, max sq. footage, etc.) 3. Consider impacts on affordable housing as a criterion for any legislative or quasi- judicial zone change Transfer of 1. Implement TDR programs tailored to the specific conditions of a local jurisdiction Development Rights 2. Implement TDR programs in Main Streetor Town Center areas that involve u zonin Elderly and People 1. Examine zoning codes for conflicts in meeting tocational needs of these populations y, with Disabilities Local Regulatory 1. Revise the permitting process (conditional use permits, etc.) Constraints; 2. Review development and design standards for impact on affordable housing Discrepancies in 3. Consider using a cost/benefit analysis to determine impact of new regulations on Planning and Zoning housing production 'J Codes; Local 4. Regularly review existing codes for usefulness and conflicts a Permitting 5. Reduce number of land use appeal opportunities Approval Process 6. Allow fast tracking of affordable housing Parking 1 . Review parking requirements to ensure they meet the needs of residents of all types of housing 2. Coordinate strategies with developers, transportation planners and other regional efforts so as to reduce the cost of providing parking in affordable housing developments Metro: Regional Affordable Housing Page 1 of 2 METRO make Regional Affordable Dousing Regional Affordable Housing Strategy-Plan, June 22, 2000, is available to view or download. w Background in an effort to deal with the issue of affordable housing, the Metro Council 2040 Framework adopted regional policies designed to ensure efficient use of land, adequate - land for residential development, and a fair share strategy for meeting the housing needs of this region. These policies are included in the Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives and the Regional Framework Plan. The Metro Council created an advisory committee (the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee) consisting of 25 voting representatives from local governments, the homebuilder's industry, the business and financial community, and affordable housing advocates, as well as three non-voting representatives from the governor's Commission on Aging, the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Committee Goal The committee was charged with reviewing and advising Metro on affordable housing policies and strategies for the region. The committee developed a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS) that contains affordable housing goals and objectives, implementation strategies and an assessment process. The plan was accepted by the Metro Council on June 22, 2000. Key Points of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Plan Need: The magnitude of need for more affordable housing in the region is great - and will continue to grow. Tools and Strategies: There are many tools that can be used to increase the supply of affordable housing, some of which are currently utilized by local governments in the region. Best practices and examples of many strategies are included in the RAHS to provide local governments with ideas. Funding Source: While the tools and strategies identified in the RAHS will help to address the problem, we need more money to make a large dent in the need. Local governments need to work together to create a funding source that can be managed locally to meet local and regional affordable housing priorities. Collaborative Process: The Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee recognizes that solutions to the problem need to be the result of a collaborative process - not a "top-down" mandate. The recommendations of the RAHS are consistent with this approach. Next Steps The Metro Council will amend the Regional Framework Plan and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to reflect recommendations in the RAHS. N For further information, contact Gerry Uba at (503) 797-1737 or send e-mail to uba tg c metro.dst.or.us 3 a http://www.metro-region.org/growth/tfplan/affordabic.htmi 7/17/00 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................................................1 LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................IV CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1. WHY IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING A REGIONAL ISSUE? I 11. EXISTING POLICIES 2 III. THS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (H-TAC) 6 IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 7 V. STRUCTURE OF THIS RF:PORT 8 CHAPTER TWO: AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS 9 1. INTRODUCTION 9 11. WHO NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING? 9 111. METRO'S 1997 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS 13 IV. CITY/COUNTY CONSOLIDATED PLANS (2000) 13 V. H-TAC DETERMINED AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED IS CHAPTER THREE: REGIONAL HOUSING GOALS 20 1. REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES 20 11. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES 20 III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOAL (S-YEAR GOAL) 20 IV. ESTIMATED COST OF MEETING TIIE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOAL 22 CHAPTER FOUR: STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING AND PRESERVING THE SUPPLY OFAFFORD- ABLE HOUSING 27 1. INTRODUCTION 27 11. LAND USE STRATEGIES 29 111. NON-LAND USE STRATEGIES 42 IV. REGIONAL FUNDING STRATEGIES 59 V. STRATEGIES NOT ADDRESSED BY H-TAC 64 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 67 1. INTRODUCTION 67 II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 67 111. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRATEGIES TO BE INCLUDED IN METRO'S REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN AND/OR URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN 77 GLOSSARY 84 APPENDICES 88 A. METRO POLICIES B. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOALS FAIR SHARE) C. COMPLETE STRATEGY REPORTS D. NOTEBOOKS OF FACTUAL INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOALS AND THE STRATEGY REPORTS E. PUBLIC COMMENT F. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE MATERIAL Acknowledgements AFFORDABLE HOusING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Members and Alternates) Multnomah County local government Commissioner Diane Linn, Multnomah County Commission, chair Ramsay Weit, Multnomah County, alternate Land-use professionals Jeff Condit, Miller Nash LLP, vice-chair Phillip E. Grillo, Miller Nash LLP, alternate Nonprofit affordable housing provider - Clackamas County Diane Luther, Northwest Housing Alternatives, Inc. Nonprofit affordable housing provider - Multnomah County Dee Walsh, REACH Community Development, Inc. Ralph Austin, Innovative Housing, alternate Nonprofit affordable housing provider - Washington County Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing Renita Christle Gerard, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, alternate For-profit housing provider David Bell, GSL Properties, Inc. I.D. (Doug) Draper, Genstar Land Co. NW, alternate For-profit housing provider Doug Obletz, Shiels Obletz Johnsen LLC D. Carter MacNichol, Shiels Obletz Johnsen LLC, alternate Clackamas County Public Housing Authority Gary DiCenzo, Clackamas County Housing Authority Tim Nielsen, Clackamas County Housing Authority, alternate Multnomah County Public Housing Authority Helen Barney, Housing Authority of Portland Denny West, Housing Authority of Portland, alternate Washington County Public Housing Authority Susan Wilson, Washington County Housing Services John Rosenberger, Washington County Land Use and Transportation Services, alternate City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten Mike Saba, Planning Bureau, alternate Clackamas County local government Doug McClain, Clackamas County Planning Division R. Scott Pemble, Clackamas County Planning Division, alternate Page i Washington County local government Commissioner Andy Duyck, Washington County Commission Cities of Clackamas County Mayor Carolyn Tomei, Milwaukie, alternate Cities of Multnomah County Councilor Cathy Butts, Gresham Councilor Chris Lassen, Gresham, alternate Cities of Washington County David Lawrence, Hillsboro Gail Brownmiller, Hillsboro, alternate Metro Policy Advisory Committee Mayor Rob Drake, Beaverton Commissioner Doug Neeley, Oregon City, alternate Financing Institution David Summers, Bank of America Ed DeWald, Bank of America, alternate Financing Institution - Margaret Nelson, Key Bank National Residents of affordable housing Liora Berry, Cascade Aids Project Lowell Greathouse, Community Action Organization, alternate Residents of affordable housing Dana Brown, Community Alliance of Tenants Steve Weiss, Community Alliance of Tenants, alternate Residents of affordable housing Tasha Harmon, Community Development Network Business community and major employers Pat Ritz, Oregon Title Insurance Co. Mindy Sullivan, Oregon Title Insurance Co., alternate The Governor's Task Force on Aging (non-voting) Alice Neely, Governor's Commission on Senior Services Jan Tucker-McManus, Clackamas County Department of Human Services (alternate) Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (non-voting) Vince Chiotti, Oregon Housing and Community Services Department Margaret Van Wet, Governor's Community Development Office (alternate) Federal Housing Administration (non-voting) Tom Cusack, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Roberta Ando, HUD, alternate Metro Council Liaison Councilor Ed Washington Page ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (CONTINUED) ® A grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation funded a significant portion of: 1) the analysis and produc- tion of the land use, non-land use, and regional funding subcommittee reports (Appendix C); 2) focus groups for technical review (Appendix E.1); and 3) Community Roundtable Discussions (Appendix E.2). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Fannie Mae Foundation. ® A grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development funded the acquisition of additional data used to estimate the amount of housing affordable in the region. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Page iii METRO REGIONAL GOVERNMENT Metro Executive Officer Metro - planning that protects the nature of Mike Burton our region Metro Auditor It's better to plan for growth than ignore it. Alexis Dow Metro serves 1.3 million people who live in Metro Councilors Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Presiding Officer, District 7 - David Bragdon counties and the 24 cities in the Portland Deputy Presiding Officer, District 5 - Ed Washington metropolitan area. Metro provides transporta- District 1 - Rod Park tion and land-use planning services and District 2 - Bill Atherton oversees regional garbage disposal and District 3 - Jon Kvistad recycling and waste reduction programs. District 4 - Susan McLain Metro manages regional parks and District 6 - Rod Monroe greenspaces and the Oregon Zoo and oversees the trade, spectator and arts centers managed by the Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission. Metro is governed by an executive officer, elected regionwide, and a seven-member council elected by districts. An auditor, also elected regionwide, reviews Metro's opera- Growth Management Services Department tions. Project Staff 0. Gerald Uba, Project Manager Malu Wilkinson, Associate Planner Alyssa Isenstein, Housing Planner Intern Andy Cotugno, Director Mark Turpel, Manager - Long Range Planning Sherry Oeser, Manager - Public Involvement Sonny Conder, Principal Regional Planner Sherrie Blackledge, Administrative Assistant Page iv List of Acronyms Federal Government CDBG: Community Development Block Grant CRA: Community Reinvestment Act ESG: Emergency Shelter Grant FHA: Federal Housing Authority HOME: HOME Investment Partnership HOPWA: Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit SSB: Social Security Benefits SSI: Supplemental Security Income State Government DLCD: Department of Land Conservation and Development LCDC: Land Conservation and Development Commission OAHTC: Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit OHCSD: Oregon Housing and Community Services Department Regional Government H-TAC: Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee JPACT: Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation MCCI: Metro Committee on Citizen Involvement MPAC: Metro Policy Advisory Committee MTAC: Metro Technical Advisory Committee RAHS: Regional Affordable Housing Strategy RFP: Regional Framework Plan RELM: Real Estate Location Model RLIS: Regional Land Information System RUGGOs: Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives TPAC: Transportation Policy Advisory Committee UGMFP or Functional Plan: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Other Acronyms: CDC: Community Development Corporation CLT: Community Land Trust GIS: Geographic Information System LEM: Location Efficient Mortgage l MHI: Median Household Income i NIMBY: Not-In-My-Back-Yard a RETT: Real Estate Transfer Tax SDC: System Development Charge a TDR: Transfer of Development Rights 3 TIF: Tax Increment Financing a a UGB: Urban Growth Boundary Page v Chapter One: Introduction 1. WHY IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING A REGIONAL ISSUE? Having a home is a fundamental human need. A home represents shelter, safety, and security. It's the place where we gather with family and friends and retreat from outside cares. It's where we do most of our living. A home can be found in many different types of structures. The traditional single-family house comes to mind readily, but other types of housing meet the economic and lifestyle needs of the region's diversifying population. Row houses, condominiums, manufactured houses, apartments, and even houseboats provide homes for people in our region. For most people, the cost of housing is a major consideration in the selection of a home. Many factors can affect the cost, including housing market demand, neighborhood amenities, vitality of the region's economy, and the availability of housing by type within various price ranges. Throughout the 1990s, demand for housing in the Portland metropolitan region was strong due in large part to a strong economy. Because of the economy, jobs increased and the population in the region grew rapidly. Sometimes jobs are located in jurisdictions that have limited affordable housing opportunities. A large portion of a family's income is then spent getting to and from work. Additionally, the number of people in a household has been shrinking for the past 20 years as children leave home, the population ages, and more single households are created, thus increasing the demand for housing. Because of limited affordable housing, some people have no housing and many people are purchasing or renting more expensive homes than they can afford. The livability of our region is directly affected by the availability of a sufficient amount of housing affordable to all residents. The impact of affordable housing on the livability of our region is reflected in: o Household stability o A healthy, diverse economy o Employees' productivity o Cost of doing business ♦ Strong tax base s Complete communities that accommodate people of all ages, physical conditions and incomes A variety of housing choices throughout the region enhances livability by providing family and neighborhood stability. Examples include providing our children with secure homes to study in, and providing the elderly, people with disabilities, and young adults the ability to stay in the communities a they are familiar with. A diversity of housing types throughout the region would give residents the confidence and choice to transition from one housing type to another, for example a single family home to j a condominium or a parent's home to an apartment, within familiar areas. This personal stability translates directly into neighborhood, community and regional stability. The Portland metropolitan region functions as one housing market. People may live in one part, work in another and shop in yet another part of the region. In many areas in the region, there are few affordable 3 housing options for the people who work there. This means that workers must drive from other parts of the region, using time and scarce resources while increasing congestion and pollution. A population that can rely upon access to adequate housing choices near employment and services will be less mobile and more aware of their immediate community. Regional Affordable Hausing Slralegv June 2000 Page 1 aim The connection between housing and employment is very important to both employers and erriployees. Businesses will experience lower employee turn over costs when employees have affordable housing. Affordable housing is difficult to address locally in a regional housing market. The efforts of one city to provide housing for lower income residents may seem futile if neighboring communities do not make similar efforts. Some jurisdictions have expressed concern over the varying levels of effort shown by other municipalities to address the lack of affordable housing. Some of the concerns relate to the need for a wide choice of housing types, jobs-housing balance, and mitigating concentrations of poverty. Sometimes the region suffers from a misunderstanding of who needs affordable housing. The shortage of housing affects a wide variety of residents in our region - particularly families or households earning 50% ($26,850) or less of the region's annual median household income (MHI). Examples of households that fall into this category include case manager at a nonprofit public defender's office, special education teacher, cashier for a department store, dental assistant, school bus driver, hair dresser, pharmacy assistant and many retired persons (this is further discussed in Chapter Two: Affordable Housing Needs). Using Metro's 20-year planning horizon, the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) has estimated a benchmark need for affordable housing for households earning less than 50%MHI to 2017 to be 90,479 units. This plan has been developed with the expectation that providing affordable housing opportunities in all communities throughout the region will increase the inventory of affordable housing and improve the region's overall livability. The direction suggested herein reflects the region's commitment to maintaining stable, diverse communities, consistent with Metro's acknowledged 2040 Growth Concept. Hence, this plan contains strategies that will increase housing choices in every jurisdiction in the region, especially if all jurisdictions increase their efforts to provide opportunities and remove barriers to development of affordable housing. A EXISTING POLICIES Federal Policies The federal government -is a key player in providing affordable housing to citizens of our country. The main agency involved in facilitating the provision of housing is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD's mission is: "a decent, safe, and sanitary home and suitable living environment for every American." HUD was created in 1965 as a cabinet level agency. Federal government funding for affordable housing is mostly funneled through states, counties and cities. Some of the main housing funding programs include HOME, CDBG (Community Development Block 2L, Grant), - homeless funding, and Section 8 project and tenant based vouchers. In addition HUD's 65-year- old Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loan program provides significant resources for homebuyers using private capital; FHA's low down payments resulted in more than 3,500 first time homebuyer loans in 1999. For HUD, CDBG, and HOME funding, local governments must develop a Consolidated Plan for addressing local housing needs every five years in order to receive federal funds for housing and other community revitalization programs. Included is a required analysis of fair housing impediments. Changes in federal law in 1999 also now require that housing authorities complete 5 year plans for the programs that they administer in partnership with HUD. More information about HUD operations in Oregon are available from their website at www.hud.gov/local.por Regional Affordable Housing Strategv June 2000 Page 2 R 6 State Policies Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development There are several state mandates including state land use policies that guide local governments and Metro with regard to housing. These include: Goal 10 (Housing) and Goal 14 (Urbanization) of the Statewide Land Use Planning Program, and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 7. Basic requirements of these mandates are described below. Goal IO -Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. • Buildable lands inventory by local governments must ensure that there is sufficient residential land available. • Comprehensive plans prepared by local governments shall encourage adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels that are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type, and density. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. • Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries will be based on consideration of the need for housing, as well as jobs and other urban land uses inside urban growth boundaries. Metropolitan Housing Rule (MHR) - adopted as Division 7 of Chapter 660 of the OAR. Purpose: "to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan Portland urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce housing costs." A basic summary of the MHR is provided below: • Called upon Metro to ensure that regional housing needs were met through coordinating comprehensive plans to meet the projected housing needs. • Designed to achieve basic objectives of Goal 10 by providing an appropriate housing mix and enhancing affordability. • Designed to contribute to the success of the Metro urban growth boundary by mandating minimum average densities and housing mixes for the efficient use of buildable lands. • Jurisdictions must designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential units to be attached single-family or multi-family housing. • Relies heavily on a set of average residential densities: 6/8/10 - Six largest cities must have an overall density of 10 units per net buildable acre. - Majority of other cities must have 8 units per net buildable acre. - Smallest communities are required to have 6 units per net buildable acre. - These minimum average residential densities are now required to be exceeded by Title 1 of Metro's 1996 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCS) The Oregon Legislature directs policy for Oregon Housing & Community Services (OHCS) through state statutes. The statutes acknowledge that a serious need for safe, sanitary, affordable housing exists within the state and that private financing sources are unable to address this need. The laws affirm the public purpose in solving housing problems, and direct the department to identify the problems and respond with appropriate solutions. Congress also passes laws and creates programs administered by OHCS. Oregon's Governor John Kitzhaber has also focused on affordable housing through several initiatives, including the Community Solutions Team, Quality Development Objectives, and Oregon Strategy for Social Support. The State of Oregon Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development prioritizes HOME, CDBG, and ESG program funding with a "worst case needs first" policy, effectively focusing resources toward the lowest income households possible. The department's Consolidated Regional,4 ordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 3 Funding Cycle, the distribution tool for grant and tax credit resources, provides policy guidance for affordable housing developments through project evaluation criteria. OHCS is Oregon's state housing finance agency and a major advocate for affordable housing. Its mission is "to reach out for opportunities to create partnerships that improve Oregonian's lives and the quality of our communities." Since 1977, OHCS has used bond financing to generate homeownership and multifamily rental housing opportunities for Oregonians. Grants, tax credits, and other incentives have also become critical tools for producing and maintaining rental housing and housing for persons with special supportive service needs. Public resources are leveraged with private capital through partnerships with non-profit and for-profit organizations across the state. The department also requires that supportive services appropriate to the residents be provided in conjunction with the housing. Regional Policies Housing has been identified as a significant regional issue by Metro for many years. In 1991, Metro worked with citizens of the region to develop the Regional Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs), to guide in the development of policies to manage and direct growth to achieve the goals of the region. The RUGGOs, acknowledged by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), include the 2040 Growth Concept and map of the region's desire to grow "up not out" with increased densities in mixes use "centers" that include transit and other non-auto transportation choices. The 2040 Growth Concept was implemented by adoption of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) in 1996. Title I of the Functional Plan requires changes in city and county comprehensive plans to zone for increased densities in regionally designated mixed-use centers, main streets, and corridors. The Metro Charter, approved by voters in 1992, called for the creation of two planning products: the Future Vision and the Regional Framework Plan (RFP). The table below describes the evolution of housing policy at Metro since the adoption of the Regional Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs) in 1991, up to the Metro Council's creation of the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H- TAC) and the charge to develop this Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). i i i Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 4 Table 1. History of Housing Policy at Metro Year Policy 1991 Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs) The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs), originally adopted in 1991 and amended in 1995, include a set of integrated goals and objectives in the form of text and a map, called the 2040 Growth Concept. The RUGGO 2040 Growth Concept provided a blueprint to guide development of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Objective 17, Housing states that: "The Metro Council shall adopt a "fair share" strategy for meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a subregional analysis that provides for: ♦ Diverse range of housing types; ♦ Specific goals to ensure that sufficient and affordable housing is available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction; ♦ Housing densities supportive of the development of the regional transportation system; and o A balance of jobs and housing." 1995 Future Vision The Future Vision, adopted by the Metro Council in 1995, is a long-term, visionary outlook for at least a 50-year period. The vision describes population levels and settlement patterns that the region can accommodate within the carrying capacity of the land, water and air resources of the region, and its educational and economic resources, and that achieves a desired quality of life. The Future Vision guided development of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs) and the RFP. Following are the vision statements related to affordable housing. ♦ Children - "Incorporate the needs of children for healthy, safe and accessible living environments in RFP elements dealing with the transportation system, housing, urban design and settlement patterns, and parks and open spaces." ♦ Diversity - "Focus public policy and investment on the creation of mixed-use communities that include dedicated public space and a broad range of housing types affordable for all." ♦ Vital Communities - "Incorporate specific expectations for a specific standard of living for all citizens in RFP elements concerned with urban design, housing, transportation, and parks and open spaces." ♦ Variety in Our Communities and Neighborhoods "Provide incentives, including preferential funding for the acquisition of greenspaces and development of transportation facilities, to communities which act to provide a range of housing types for people of all income levels within their boundaries." ♦ Equity - "Identify the presence of pockets of poverty as a metropolitan problem. Address the issues associated with chronic poverty locations throughout the nine-county region through such mechanisms as tax base sharing, pursuing changes in tax codes, overcoming physical and economic barriers to access, providing affordable housing throughout the area and targeting public investments." 1996 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) The regional policies adopted in theUrban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) "recommend" or "require" changes to city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances.Title 1- Requirement for Housing and Employment Accommodation requires cities and counties to change their zoning to accommodate development at higher densities in locations supportive of the transportation system.Title 7 - Affordable Housingrecommends that cities and counties increase their efforts to provide for the housing needs of households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction and that they consider implementation of several tools and approaches to facilitate the development of affordable housing. 1997- Urban Reserves Policy 1998 In designating Urban Reserves,Metro Code, Ordinance No. 96-655E 1997, section (e) Urban Reserve Plan Required addresses the need to plan for affordable housing before bringing urban reserves into the urban growth boundary. This ordinance was recently amended by Ordinance 98-9772B, which maintains these requirements and also added them to the Functional Plan as Title 11. Item (5) requires demonstrable measures that will provide a diversity of housing stock. Item (6) requires a demonstration of how residential development will include, without public subsidy, housing affordable to households with incomes at or below area median incomes for home ownership and at or below 80% of area median income for rentals. 1998 Regional Framework Plan (RFP) ' On December 18, 1997, Metre Council adopted the Regional Framework Plan (RFP). All of Metro's efforts in i developing regional housing policies came into play when writing the RFP. Section 1.3 of Chapter 1 of the RFP { (Land Use), contains Metro policies that address housing and affordable housin6.These policies were amended in a September 1998 under Metro Ordinance No. 98-769. The amended policy is the outcome of mediation between local governments, Metro and affordable housing providers. The mediated policy: 3 ♦ considers local governments concerns while addressing the goals and objectives embodied in the RUGGOs; a ♦ includes the recommended measures for improving availability of affordable housing outlined in the Future Vision, Functional Plan and Metro Code. See RFP Policy 1.3: Housing and Affordable Housing or Appendix A (Ordinance No. 98-769). Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 5 9 Local Policies To date, local jurisdictions have made some significant efforts to address affordable housing using their comprehensive plan, zoning codes, and resolutions following State Housing Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule during the 1980s and 1990s, and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan since 1996. Some key areas that have been addressed locally during this time include: • Provisions that allow accessory dwelling units or secondary apartments in single-family residential zones; • Increased density in transit corridors and mixed-use areas; • Community empowerment zones; and • Increased growth of non-profit housing developers. Some local governments have implemented tools and strategies to encourage the production and retention of affordable housing. Additional information on locally adopted strategies may be found in Table 12 in Chapter Four, as well as in Appendix F. III. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (H-TAC) In 1998, the Metro Council created the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) to carry out the actions identified in the Regional Framework Plan (RFP). The Committee consists of 28 representatives from local governments, nonprofit and for-profit developers, the business and financial community, affordable housing advocates, and representatives from the governor's office, Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The charge the Metro Council gave the committee is outlined below: • "...(A)ssist in carrying out the provisions of (the RFP, Sect. 1.3) and identify cooperative approaches, regulatory reforms and incentives to be considered to ensure that needed affordable housing is built." • Develop "(t)he Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS) (that) will include numerical "fair share" targets (affordable housing goals) for each jurisdiction to be adopted in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan..." and strategies that may be needed to attain the goals. • "The Strategy (RAHS) will contain recommendations for further actions [by the Metro Council], including appropriate amendments to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for those elements which are suitable for implementation through comprehensive plans and zoning regulations, as well as voluntary measures." As discussed earlier, housing is an issue that affects the livability of the region for all residents. The Metro Council, in consultation with MPAC, determined that affordable housing "is a growth management and land use planning matter that is of metropolitan concern and will benefit from regional planning."Thus, the goal of H-TAC was to develop a strategy for addressing the housing needs of current and future residents of the Metro region that could be implemented on a regional level through the cooperation of the cities and counties. H-TAC members have met since September 1998 to develop the affordable housing goals and implementation strategies described in this Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). The N committee's approach has included community outreach throughout the process to get input from the public and other interested parties. Decision Making Process The RFP and Metro Code 3.07.030, stated that the H-TAC shall forward its recommendations for the adoption of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS to MPAC4 for its review prior to being a Regional Framework Plan, Section 1.3, p.1. 'The Regional Framework Plan Policy stated that the RAHS would not be a regulatory document. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 6 transmitted to the Metro Council. The recommendations in the RAHS should include any recommendations for the adoption of or amendments to the RFP and the Functional Plan. The Code also states that prior to making a recommendation, H-TAC should conduct at least one public hearing and invite interested citizens and government officials to testify. H-TAC used the preliminary analysis and recommendations of the following six subcommittees to develop this plan and the recommendations herein. • Cost Reduction Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed strategies to address certain cost factors affecting housing affordability, as well as other tools as assigned in the RFP. • Land Use and Regulatory Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed strategies for implementing the land use and regulatory approaches identified in the RFP. • Regional Funding Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed options for creating a regional fund for affordable housing, considering possibilities identified in the RFP as well as other ideas advanced by H-TAC. • Fair Share Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed a formulaic model for achieving an equitable distribution of housing opportunities among jurisdictions in the region, including the distribution of a five-year regional affordable housing production goal for assisted housing for jurisdictions in the Metro region. • Outreach Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed an Outreach Workplan Outline and assisted staff in developing public involvement materials and implementing public involvement activities. • RAHSSubcommittee: This subcommittee assisted staff in the development of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Figure 1. RAHS Adoption Process Citizens (focus groups, community roundtable discussions, public hearing) Affordable Housing Metro Policy Advisory H-TAC Subcommittees Technical Advisory Committee Committee (MPAC) (H-TAC) Metro Council IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT H-TAC developed an outreach work plan to include public comment as a key component in the process of developing the RAHS. The Outreach Work Plan included two main components. The first part included a speaker's bureau consisting of H-TAC members. The main focus was to inform and engage citizens a The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) advises the Metro Council on regional policies. The Committee membership consists of elected officials from each of the 27 jurisdictions in the Metro region as well as citizens. Regional,4ffordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 7 and other government officials in discussions of the meaning of affordable housing from need, design and livability perspectives. A recent study on the siting of affordable housing concluded, "there is some confusion among the public regarding the phrase affordable housing."' This highlighted a need to involve citizens in a general education effort on people who need affordable housing and the types of housing that are generally viewed as "affordable." H-TAC members used a set of slides titled "Affordable Housing -A fundamental need" to educate their constituents about the meaning of affordable housing and who needs affordable housing. The second part of the public involvement process was to get public reaction and input on the work products of H-TAC. The overall goal was to involve as many citizens and government officials as possible, within budget and time constraints. Three "focus groups" comprised of community leaders, affordable housing advocates, and non-profit and for profit housing providers met in March 2000 to review the cost reduction, land use and regulatory, and regional funding strategies developed by H-TAC subcommittees. Four "community roundtable discussions" were held in April 2000 at locations around the region to gather citizen input on H-TAC work products. One public hearing was held by H-TAC. (Citizen comments may be found in Appendix E). H-TAC gave periodic updates to MPAC, which consists of elected officials and citizens representing all of the jurisdictions in the Metro Region. H-TAC also gave a presentation to the Metro Committee on Citizen Involvement (MCCI). V. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT This document is organized into five chapters, and includes six appendices. Chapter 1: Introduction identifies the vital relationship between affordable housing and the livability of our region. This chapter presents the existing state and regional policy framework for enhancing affordable housing production in this region. Chapter 2: Affordable Mousing Needs analyzes the extent of affordable housing need in our region and communities in the long term. Chapter 3: Regional Housing Goals describes the policy direction for the affordable housing objectives, principles and strategies contained in the RAHS. Affordable housing production goals, a realistic five- year goal to begin to meet the overall need, are also presented in this chapter. Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing describes the actions that could be taken by various local governments, Metro and other entities in the region to increase the production of and maintain the existing supply of affordable housing. Chapter 5: Recommendations for Implementation describes the process through which the Strategy would be implemented; defines a number of specific actions for Metro, including the process for measuring the region's progress; defines actions for local jurisdictions including local comprehensive plan compliance procedures; and details the roles of other entities that must be encouraged and supported in order to attain the affordable housing production goal recommended in this plan. The Appendices include the full text of strategy reports, comments and testimony gathered during the plan development process, affordable housing tools survey of local governments, and other supporting information. 30101 S Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, "Siting Affordable Housing in Oregon Communities", L June 1998, completed by the Community Planning Workshop, University of Oregon. Regional Affordable Housing .Strategy June 2000 Page 8 Chapter Two: Affordable Housing Needs I. INTRODUCTION WHO IS TRYING TO FIND Shelter is one of the most basic of human needs, and everyone AFFORDABLE HOUSING? needs a home. Despite the strength of Oregon's economy as a The scenarios described here are whole, and that of the Metro region specifically, many families find real-life examples of people in the it difficult to obtain safe, decent, and affordable homes. Metro region who are struggling with housing affordability. A lack of sufficient affordable housing opportunities affects the Sonya region in a variety of ways, reducing overall livability and economic viability for all residents. This chapter includes: • a definition of affordable housing and brief discussion of who needs affordable housing, • a brief summary of Metro's 1997 Housing Needs Analysis, Sonja owns a two-bedroom home in • information on the need for affordable housing identified by the Southeast Portland with her newborn three counties in the Metro region for their current consolidated baby and r year old daughter. She is on maternity leave from afull-time planning process, and job as a case manager at a nonprofit • an analysis of the current and projected need for affordable public defenders office. Sonya earns housin- based on H-TAC defined goals to provide affordable $2,380 per month (62%MHI for a o family of three) at her job and housing opportunities in all jurisdictions. receives $335 in child support for her older daughter. With a house payment of $764, childcare and Based on the best available data, H-TAC identified a benchmark education expenses at $600, health need for affordable housing in the region to be used in developing insurance for her baby at $260 per goals for the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). month, only $221 remains for other expenses including food. It. WHO NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING? Mike and Jenn The shortage of affordable housing affects a wide range of residents - particularly for households earning 50% or less of the region's median household income (MHI).' The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as costing a household no more than 30% of its income. For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities. For homeowners, it includes principle, interest, taxes, property insurance, and mortgage insurance, if applicable. Mike and Jenny are a young married couple with a baby who live and work The American Housing Survey for the Portland metropolitan area in the Tigard area. Both work in g y retail sales. Mike works full time, estimated that 36,800 households (82%) earning less than 30% of Jenny just returned to work part time MH1 paid more than 30% of their income for housing costs in 1995 as a cashier for a department store. Together they earn $26,880 annually (the most recent year for which reliable data is available). (The (56%MHI for a family of three). The American Housing Survey is conducted for HUD by the Census family is over income for any public Bureau every two years, as described in the Glossary.) This benefits. Only the baby has medical insurance. After fixed monthly costs, indicates that a majority of the region's citizens earning lower including monthly rent of $560, they incomes are paying more for housing than they can afford. have only $507 left to buy food and other necessities. ' Median Household Income (MHI). Each year HUD establishes the median household income for states and metropolitan areas, adjusted for household size. The formula used to determine median incomes is based on data from the U.S. Census and other relevant information. See Appendix F for more information on methodology. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 9 I According to the same survey, 189,000 renter households (81 and WHO IS TRYING TO FIND 211,800 homeowners (49%) met the regional definition of moderate AFFORDABLE HOUSING? or low income.2 Table 2 shows examples of the income levels and occupations of the low- and moderate-income households. Ben Table 2. Income levels and Occupations a • ?~.;;r Percent of Median Size of Household & Occupations Household Income MHI 1 person: fast food worker, service,, station attendant:. Less than 30% MHI 4 people: preschool teacher with 3 children 1 person: home health aide, hairdresser, receptionist ,•Yy. tom" 30-50% MHI 4 people: dental assistant with 3 children; fast food worker and a service station r attendant with 2 children , 1 person: emergency medical technician, ~+{.r°` computer operator 51-80% MHI 4 people: full time registered nurse or social worker with 3 children; teacher's Ben i's'a 92-year-old widower who aide and bank teller with 2 children receives $665 per month in Social 1 computer yammer, Security benefits (21%MHI). He person: comP Pro9 lives in a subsidized apartment corrections officer, carpenter complex designed for older 81-120% MHI 4 people: electrical engineer or health residents. He pays $503 per month services manager with 3 children; dental in rent and utilities. Ben has publicly assistant and a maintenance worker with funded housekeeping services and 2 children personal care. Without this assistance, he would need to move to a care facility and lose his In today's economy there are many full time jobs that pay less than independence. a "housing wage" ($10-13/hour in this region). The housing wage is the amount a worker would have to earn in order to work 40 Moll hours per week and afford a one or two bedroom apartment + (depending on household size) at the fair market rent 3 These low tst wage jobs help to create an additional need for affordable housing. Low paid workers with children have a critical need for affordable w' housing, as they often face the additional burden of paying for " childcare. Many young adults enrolled either full or part time in college may also need affordable housing. z Homeownership Affordability Gap Molly rents a two-bedroom apartment in Clackamas County with n Before 1990, housing in the Portland metropolitan region was her 16-year-old son. She drives a relatively affordable. In 1990, average home prices had risen by school bus full time and earns 33% while median household incomes rose by only 24%. By 1998, roughly $1,885 per month. Because of the heavy burden of past debt, the demand for housing was compounded by a two percent annual Molly is only able to make ends meet increase in population. From 1990-1998, the region experienced an through the subsidized rent provided -i u by Northwest Housing Alternatives. annual increase in real housing prices of about 10 /o per year. Since 1990, the median cost of single-family housing in the region has increased by about 100%, and in this same period, the median 2 H-TAC defined very low, low and moderate income groups include: less than 30%MHI, 30-50%MHI, 50- 80%MHI, 80-120%MHI. 3 Out of Reach, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 1999. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 10 household income increased by only 28%. Figure 2 below describes the changes in household incomes vs. housing prices in the Metro region over the last ten years. In short, the figure shows that home sales prices have increased dramatically while incomes have not. Figure 2. Changes in Housing Prices vs. Household Income in the Portland Metro Regior% 1990-1999 $180,000 $160,000 $140.000- $120,000 $100,000- $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 { $20,000 t $0 - - - 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 t Median Household Income --a- Median Homo Sale Price Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Metro, 1999. Note: Median Household Income is for a family of four. Rental Affordability Gao While many households searching for homes to buy are facing affordability problems, even more families searching for homes to rent have difficulty finding safe, decent, affordable housing. Unfortunately, the data available do not tell the complete story for renters. Figure 3 below shows that average rental rates have changed rapidly over the last several years, with a relative drop compared to median household income more recently. Thus, many people might conclude that renters are actually in good shape in our current economy. Figure 3. Changes in Household Income and Average Rent in the Portland Metro Region, 1990-1999 8% 1------- - - 7% - - - - 6% 5% 8 - - ~ Change in 4% - ` - income 3% - - - \o -a- Change in 2% 1-- - rent 1% 0% 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 Source: McGregor-Milette, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page I1 Figure 3 above indicates that increases in rental rates have been dropping in recent years. This can be attributed to many market factors, most tellingly a large increase in the supply of new apartment buildings in the mid-1990's. The "oversupply" caught up with the demand, and the average increase in rental rates began to drop relative to changes in household income. But what about rental rates for affordable housing for households earning 50% or less of MHI? Specific data on the number of rental units and rates are not currently available, but a proxy is shown in Figure 4 below. Figure 4 shows that, while the number of households earning less than 50% MHI have increased from 1990 to 1997, the number of housing units affordable to these households has actually decreased. In other words, the supply of homes affordable to lower income households has been reduced while the demand has increased. Figure 4. Households by income group compared to homes that are affordable in the Portland Metro Region, 1990 and 1997 100,000 - - - - I ~ I 80.000 1 - - - i i 60.000 I ® Households 40,000 - - - - - j j ® Housing j 20,000 0 - - 1990 1997 1990 1997 j <30% MHI 30 - 50% MH Source Metro, 1999. Regiona! data also fail to account for neighborhood changes. For example, Washington County rents flattened, but Northeast and Southeast Portland rents have skyrocketed, causing displacement of many residents no longer able to afford to remain in their neighborhoods. Special Issues for Residents of Manufactured Home Parks Many low- and moderate-income people choose to purchase manufactured homes to be located in a manufactured home park as an affordable housing option. While all types of households may live in manufactured home parks, two examples of household types include young families eager to purchase their first home and elderly people looking for a way to downsize and reduce housing costs for their retirement years. A manufactured home park is often viewed as an affordable home ownership option since the manufactured home is purchased but often placed in a park on a rented lot. While manufactured homes were originally called "mobile homes" and were intended to move, the cost of moving the homes is generally out of the reach of the owners. Given this situation, manufactured home owners are frequently faced with increasing rents for the land their home sits on, along with the other responsibilities of maintaining the home. This situation provides the owner with the worst of the issues facing a homeowner and a renter - increasing maintenance costs combined with increasing land rents. Many elderly households face the problem of increasing rents and higher maintenance costs on aging homes. Another issue also faces manufactured home owners, particularly those who have purchased these homes recently. Throughout the booming economy of recent years, the manufactured home industry has grown and has been aggressively marketing the homes. However, as described in the Oregonian, "loans for manufactured homes placed in rental parks are not true mortgages and carry higher interest rates than Regional Affordable Housing Strategv June 2000 Page 12 those for stick-built houses." 4 Many of the loans have adjustable rates, with a "teaser" first year rate that climbs dramatically. High interest rates combined with climbing rental rates often result in abandonments and foreclosures of manufactured homes, leaving households remaining in their homes with even less appreciation than may have occurred in the first place. Many families wishing to get out of their manufactured homes are unable to sell. Implementation of strategies to address these issues would provide a crucial link in the provision of an array of affordable housing options in the region. All. !METRO'S 1997 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS In 1997 Metro developed a Housing Needs Analysis for the region. The Housing Needs Analysis examined ways that affordable housing issues could be addressed on a regional level and identified tools jurisdictions could use to achieve their respective housing goals. The primary concerns addressed in the report included the widening gap between household income and cost of housing; an increase in population and homelessness; rising land costs; and the lack of available land. The report also estimated the types and quantities of housing needed in the region over a 20-year period as well as projected land prices. Determining the amount of affordable housing needed is required by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's Housing Goal 10 and other state laws; but as with many parts of the planning process, it is a forecast that is dependent on many assumptions. To determine the need for affordable housing, Metro constructed the Real Estate Location Model (RELM) that uses several variables to estimate the costs of future housing. RELM essentially holds the population forecast constant and compares the expected income level of the future population with the cost of housing. This results in an estimate of needed affordable housing, in other words, housing that the market will most likely not provide at price levels that are affordable to the entire regional population. The Housing Needs Analysis identified a need for affordable housing and provided a starting point for developing policies to address affordable housing at the regional level. Since the December 1997 Housing Needs Analysis, there have been other studies that have shown more current estimates of affordable housing needs. These estimates are in Clackamas County's 2000-2002 Consolidated Plan, Washington County's Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment and Housing Market Analysis from December 1999, and the February 2000 issued joint Consolidated Plan 2000-2005 of the cities of Portland and Gresham and Multnomah County. IV. CITY/COUNTY CONSOLIDATED PLANS (2000) Local jurisdictions receiving funds from HUD are required to develop a Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The goal of the strategies incorporated into the plans is to benefit low- and very low-income people under the following mission statements: e Provide decent housing; Provide a suitable living environment; and a Expand economic opportunities. The Consolidated Planning process blends four formula programs administered by HUD: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Consolidated plans also describe housing and community development needs. One major drawback to these most recent consolidated plans is the difficulty of obtaining current data because Census data used in these plans is 10 years old. o Gordon Oliver. "Dreams tumbling down." The Oregonian, May 9, 2000. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 13 The three Consolidated Plans for the Metro region are the Clackamas County 2000-2002 Consolidated Plan, Consolidated Plan 2000-2005 Multnomah County, and Washington County Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment and Housing Market Analysis Draft. Each consolidated plan identified the elderly, persons with disabilities, and low- to moderate-income households as having the greatest need for affordable housing. Elders The nation's elderly population (60 years old and above) is increasing rapidly. In 1900 the elderly population equaled four percent of the population, grew to 12 percent in 1990, and is projected to increase to 20 percent by 2020. Data maintained by the Metro Data Resource Center shows that the population of persons 65 and older grew by 6.5 percent between 1995 (162,662) and 1999 (173,221). Most seniors typically live on fixed incomes, including Social Security Benefits (SSB), pensions, and retirement investments. Some seniors depend solely on SSB, and receive approximately $500-800 per month. Seniors may also receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they receive SSB below $520. Meanwhile, the HUD "fair market rent" (HUD's estimate of the current market rent) for a studio is $463 and a one-bedroom apartment is $5695 in the Portland metro region. According to Multnomah County Aging and Disability Services, nearly half of elderly renters in Oregon spend over 35 percent of their income on rent, often making a choice between food, utility bills, and even medication to ali'ord housing. The need for strategies to address issues seniors face in finding affordable housing will only grow as the population continues to increase over the next several years. People with Disabilities The household budgets of many people with disabilities are so low as to make apartment rental extremely difficult. A majority of people with disabilities are at 30 percent or less of the median household income. Many people with disabilities subsist on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits of $500 per month. A study conducted in 1999 found that SSI in the region is only 18.3 percent of the median incomi'. In 1999, rent for an efficiency apartment took 86 percent of SSI and a one bedroom was not obtainable, at 105.9 percent of SSI. This inability to afford rental payments contributes to many people with disabilities living in difficult conditions, such as in a friend or relative's home, or inaccessible apartments (on a second floor with no elevator when the person must use a wheelchair). Accessible and affordable apartments available in the region for this population are not sufficient to meet the need. People with disabilities generally do not exist in isolation, they have families and may also be children. Families with a disabled member and individuals with disabilities often have difficulty finding affordable housing that is suitably accessible. People with disabilities may have functional limitations, vision impairments, difficulties hearing, problems with mobility, or a combination of disabilities including substance abuse. Many people with disabilities have difficulty going outside alone, and may also be unable to work due to their disabilities. The 1996 American Community Survey Profile for Multnomah County estimates the number of people with disabilities to be 37,912 or six percent of the total county population. According to Clackamas County Community Development, the total number of people with disabilities in Clackamas County is 25,736. Similar data are not available for Washington County. One subset of people with disabilities includes those with "psychiatric disabilities," or people whose serious mental illness limits their ability to perform some activities of daily living. People with psychiatric disabilities may have special housing issues, including a lack of affordable housing. The prevalence of people with psychiatric disabilities is thought to range from one to three percent of the s Published in the October 1, 1999 Federal Register. 6 "Priced Out in 1998 - The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities," The Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. and The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Forcc, March 1999. Regional Affordable Housing .Strrnegy June 2000 Page 14 general adult population. In 1999, the number of people with psychiatric disabilities served with state dollars was 1,742 in Clackamas County, 10,469 in Multnomah County, and 1,688 in Washington County. Another subset of people with disabilities includes those with "developmental disabilities," or people with mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or other neurologically disabling conditions that have been attained before the age of 22. The total number of people with a developmental disability in Multnomah County is estimated to be 19,250 (three percent of the total population), and in Clackamas County is estimated by Clackamas County Mental Health to be 4,300. Similar data are not yet available from Washington County. Low- to Moderate-income Households In addition to housing for the elderly and people with disabilities, each county identified other specific populations that have a critical need for more affordable housing. These specific populations, shown in Table 3, are part of the low-to moderate-income households that have the greatest need for affordable housing. Table 3. Housing Needs Identified b local Consolidated Plans Clackamas Coun Multnomah County Washington County Persons with AIDS/HIV Persons with AIDS/HIV Farmworker families Persons with alcohol/drug addictions Persons with alcohol/drug addictions Large families Farmworkers Renters earnin 80% or less of MHI Recent immigrants Victims of domestic violence Victims of domestic violence Victims of domestic violence Female headed households Formerly homeless persons Single mothers Pregnant and parenting teens Ethnic and racial minorities Ethnic and racial minorities Large families Adults in the criminal justices stem Seasonal workers Youth ages 16-20 who are or have been in foster care V. H-TAC DETERMINED AFFORDABLE MOUSING NEED As mentioned earlier, a key component of H-TAC's charge was to develop fair share targets for jurisdictions in the Metro region reflecting the current and future affordable housing needs of the region. The targets will be consistent with the affordable housing and jobs-housing balance policies established in the Regional Framework Plan. The determination of housing needs and numerical targets will include consideration of existing jurisdictional proportions of affordable and non-affordable housing supply and the roles of existing providers of housing ...The "fair share" targets shall be based upon housing inventories and other factual information concerning the regional and subregional demand, supply and cost of housing and buildable lands, and the income levels and housing needs of current and future residents. (Regional Framework Plan, Section 1.3, p. l). While H-TAC has addressed the items as described in the RFP, some terminology was changed as a result of much discussion. The most important change in terminology was to replace the phrase "fair share targets" with "affordable housing production goals," as described below. H i CHANGE OFTERM Affordable Housing Production Goals (Fair Share Targets) H-TAC decided to replace the term "fair share targets" with a a "affordable housing production goals" because the latter conveys properly the region's cooperative effort towards achieving livable communities within our region. Ong Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 15 However, as indicated in Table 1 in Chapter One describing Metro's policies, the concept of a "fair share" housing policy is not new to the region. The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs), originally adopted in 1991 and amended in 1995, include a set of integrated goals and objectives. Objective 17, Housing, states that "(t)he Metro Council shall adopt a `fair share' strategy for meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a subregional analysis..." H-TAC felt it was crucial to begin with a good picture of the overall regional need for affordable housing prior to developing affordable housing production goals. Based on this conclusion, the RFP charge to H-TAC, and previous regional policies, H-TAC formed a subcommittee in October 1998 to develop a formula and methodology for determining need and distributing affordable housing. This formula may be called the "affordable housing distribution method" and results in a determination of the region's overall need for affordable housing. The goal of the affordable housing distribution method is to "achieve an equitable distribution of housing opportunity among local jurisdictions in the region by working toward a similar distribution of household incomes within each Metro jurisdiction that reflects the regional income distribution as a whole. " The affordable housing distribution method assumes that housing units should be provided in such a way that will ensure that lower income households would have the opportunity to live in any jurisdiction in the region in proportion to the regional average of households in that income group. The method is a supply- oriented assessment of the regional Benchmark Need for affordable housing. The purpose of the Benchmark Need is to show the regional need for affordable housing to 2017. After much research and discussion, the following approach results in a Benchmark Need of 90,479 units for households 50%MHI and below, as described in Figure 5 and shown in Table 4 on the following pages. Regional Affordable Housing Strafegv June 2000 Page 16 Figure 5. Description of Process for Determining the Benchmark Need for Affordable Housing [((Number of Households in Jurisdiction in 2017) *(Percent of Regional Households in Each Income Group))-(Credit for Assisted Units in Jurisdiction) - (Number of Market Rate Affordable Units in Jurisdiction))] = Benchmark Need for each Jurisdiction STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 Number of Regional Adjust Benchmark Households in Distribution of Credits for Existing Regional Need to develop Each Jurisdiction in X Households in - Supply in each = Benchmark 4 realistic Affordable 2017 Defined Income Jurisdiction Need Housing Production Groups Goals Explanation: Explanation: The Explanation: Explanation: Explanation: 9,048 (Existing Households percent of households Jurisdictions will The Benchmark assisted housing in 1994) plus in the region at the receive a credit for the Need is the units, based on 10% (household capacity following income existing supply of number of of the benchmark for each jurisdiction in levels: affordable housing, households in the need. 2017 from the Urban 0-30% MHI which includes below 30% Growth Management 31-50% MHI assisted housing, (66,245) and 30- Functional Plan, 51-80% MHI market rate affordable 50% (24,234) minus the vacancy 81-120% MHI housing, and median rate) = Total vouchers. household household capacity Source: American income groups. for each jurisdiction in Housing Survey, 1995. Source: H-TAC agreed 2017 • Assisted Units: the majority of Work Group on subsidy should Source: Assisted Housing, be focused on the • 1994 households - Metro, 1998. highest need, but The DRC Group, . Market rate units: strategies to • 2017 household Marathon address the capacity - Metro; Management, 1999. needs of the 50- Urban Growth 80% and 81- Management 120% income Functional Plan, groups should be Table 1, pg. 41. developed. In developing the approach described above, H-TAC worked from existing data sources and took into account previously adopted policies to keep the affordable housing production goals consistent with other regional goals and policies. The goals and the Benchmark Need are consistent with the projected density for the region to 2017, as well as being consistent with what is known as "Table I of the Functional Plan." Table I in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan describes the number of dwelling units that local governments have agreed to provide to meet the projected growth for the region. The RFP policy directed H-TAC to consider the jobs/housing balance in the determination of affordable housing production goals. H-TAC conducted an extensive analysis to determine the impact that the i affordable housing production goals might have on the jobs/housing balance in the region. The results of the analysis indicated that achievement of the Affordable Housing Production Goals would be consistent with the region's jobs-housing balance policies because the affordable housing distribution method provides the opportunity for households of all income groups to live in any jurisdiction. i 1 Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 17 r o 6 Table 4. Benchmark Affordable Housing Need to 2017 (Total Affordable Housin Need - Not Targets or Goals Number of Households in each Income Total Need for Affordable Housing 2017 Estimated Housing Units in 19913 Jurisdiction l Group in 2017 based on Regional a Units by Jurisdiction,' by income Households percent es in 19952 Affordable to Defined Income Groups Grou to Year. 2017`* <30% 30 - 50% 51 - 80% 81-120% <30% 30 - 50% 51 - 80% 81-120% <30% 30 - 50% 51 - 800/ 81-120% Beaverton 38,704 4,451 4,296 7,780 7,160 175 2,005 8,557 8,105 (4,276) (2,291) 777 944, Cornelius 3,601 414 400 724 666 16 300 1,244 1,234 (398) (100) 520 568 Durham 533 61 59 107 99 6 23 85 326 (55) (36) (22) 228 Fairview 4,145 477 460 833 767 51 151 1,135 481 (425) (309) 302 (286) Forest Grove 8,227 946 913 1,654 1,522 398 817 2,104 2,076 (548) (96) 451 554 Gladstone 4,582 527 509 921 848 91 413 1,883, 1,462 (436) (96) 962 614 Gresham 45,297 5,209 5,028 9,105 8,380 654 4,004 16,925 5,853 (4,555) (1,024) 7,821 (2,527) Happy Valle 2,583 297 287 519 478 3 8 56 510 (294) (279) (463) 32 Hillsboro 27,911 3,210 3,098 5,610 5,164 180 981 6,865 8,022 (3,030) (2,117) 1,255 2,859 Johnson City 754 87 84 152 139 141 243 25 133 55 159 (126) (7) Kin City 417 48 46 84 77 2 42 660 608 (46) (4)576 531 Lake Oswego 16,452 1,892 1,826 3,307 3,044 42 284 2,823 3,683 (1,850) (1,542) (484) 639 Maywood Park 122 14 14 25 23 5 25 217 54 (9) 11 192 31, Milwaukie 11,709 1,347 1,300 2,354 2,166, 304 1,323 3,471 3,062 (1,043) 23 1,118 896 Oregon City 12,896 1,483 1,431 2,592 2,386 253 1,076 4,137, 3,166 (1,230) (355) 1,545 780 Portland 280,528 32,261 31,139 56,386 51,898 12,396 33,055 89,310 50,141 (19,864) 1,916 32,92 (1,756) River rove 123 14 14 25 23 0 1 23 43 (14) (13) (2) 20 Sherwood 6,395 735 710 1,285 1,183 66 148 891 1,248 (670) (561) (394) 65 Tigard 19,179 2,206 2,129 3,855 3,548 37 11092 3,604 5,038 (2,169) (1,037) (251) 1,490, Troutdale 71096 816 788 1,426 1,313 65 229 2,257 1,564 (751) (559) 831 251 Tualatin 10,552 1,213 1,171 2,121 1,952 6 475 1,948 3,511 (1,208) (696) (173) 1,559 West Linn 81897 1,023 988 1,788 1,646 36 274 1,069, 1,638 (987) (713) (719) (8) Wilsonville 8,842 1,017 981 1,777 1,636 17 184 1,714 1,138 (1,000) (797) (63) (497) Wood Village 1,548 178 172 311 286 14 160 551 282 (164) (11) 240 (5) Clackamas 77,498 8,912 8,602 15,577 14,337 1,603 4,858 19,355 23,713 (7,309) (3,744) 31778 9,375 County Uninc. Multnomah 7,621 876 846 1,532 11410 62 312 1,632 1,820 (814) (534) 100 410 Count Uninc. Washington 116,696 13,420 12,953 23,456 21,589 266 3,526 15,960 24,242 (13,154) (9,427) (7,496) 2,653 County Uninc. Totals 722,909 83,135 80,243 145,305 133,738 16,889 56,009 188,503 153,153 (66,245)" (24,234)' 43,19 19,414 " Parentheses indicate a need for housing units. 'Based on Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. ZAmedcan Housing Survey, 1995. <30%MHI =11.5%; 30-50%MHI =11.1%; 51-80% = 20.1%; 81-120%MHI = 18.5%; 120%MHI+ = 38.8%. 'U.S. Census, 1990; Marathon Management, 1998; Metro, 1999. Assisted rental housing is included but not separately displayed on this table. 'H-TAC determined that the households with the greatest need for affordable housing were those in the 0-30% and 30-50%MHI (66,*5 + 24,234 = 90,479) Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Joie 2000 Page 18 Ism I INI EM -lime ,TT373.Q X .T.TrFTCr X%rdrT The method for determining the Benchmark Need is based on the following assumptions: • 2017 Time Horizon. The Benchmark Need indicate the number of units of housing needed for new and existing households in the H-TAC defined income groups between now and 2017. • Supply-side orientation. This approach is supply oriented - it focuses on the number of households in an income group and the commensurate number of housing units. It does not account for the availability of a specific unit. • Redistributive assumption. Housing units should be provided in such a way that will ensure that lower income households would have the opportunity to live in any jurisdiction in the region in proportion to the regional average of households in that income group. • Formula should be evaluated when 2000 Census data become available. The formula currently redistributes households based on the percent of households in the region in H-TAC defined income groups for 1995, when the most recent data is available. All of the data, as well as the goals, should be updated when regionally consistent good information is available after the 2000 Census. Some general but important caveats regarding the Benchmark Need are as follows: • There is a margin of error in the methodology when it is applied to the smaller cities, such as Johnson City or Maywood Park. • The Benchmark Need may understate the actual total affordable housing need because the method assumes that households will purchase or rent housing commensurate with their income level. Units that appear to be affordable may not necessarily be available to low-income households as households at higher income levels may occupy them. • Tenure (whether a resident owns or rents their home) is an important issue that is not considered in the formula, but can be addressed through strategies and other tools. Tenure can also be included when the 2000 Census data is available. An example of how tenure may impact the benchmark numbers is that owner-occupied housing stock might show up in the data as being expensive when in reality the owner is paying little since the house was purchased many years ago. Based on the Benchmark Need and other analyses of affordable housing need conducted in this region, H- TAC developed affordable housing production goals as described in the following chapter. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 19 ~7 Chapter Three: Regional Housing Goals 1. REGIONAL AFFORDADLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES H-TAC identified the following four principles to guide in the development of tools and strategies to meet the need for additional affordable housing in the Metro region. 1. Maintain the existing supply of affordable housing in the region. 2. Increase the supply of affordable housing in the region. 3. Provide sufficient affordable housing opportunities to households of all income levels that have a member living or working in each jurisdiction or subregion. 4. Enhance the success of the affordable housing production goals. Successful application of these principles will require the efforts of all citizens, neighborhoods, local, state, and regional agencies, nonprofit and for-profit housing developers, and the financial and business communities. The effectiveness of the tools and strategies to encourage the production and retention of affordable housing will be measured against the above principles. Il. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES The Metro Council gave H-TAC the charge of developing affordable housing production goals for all jurisdictions in the region. The objective of the affordable housing distribution method is: To achieve an equitable distribution of housing opportunity among local jurisdictions in the region by working toward a similar distribution of household incomes within each Metro jurisdiction that reflects the regional income distribution as a whole. Five objectives define "equitable distribution": 1. A diverse range of housing types is available within the region and within cities and counties inside the urban growth boundary. 2. Sufficient and affordable housing opportunities are available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction and subregion. 3. An appropriate balance of jobs and housing exists within subregions. 4. The current and future need for and supply of affordable housing in the region is addressed in the distribution. 5. Concentrations of poverty are minimized. H-TAC determined that the focus of affordable housing production goals should be on households with the greatest need - households earning 50% or less of the regional median household income (a family of four in 1999 at 50% MHI earns $26,200). As described in Chapter Two, affordable housing goals are based on the region's current and future affordable housing need. Housing units are allocated to jurisdictions on the basis of established criteria. A mathematical allocation formula was used to determine each jurisdiction's need for additional affordable housing units. Ill. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOAL (5-YEAR GOAL) Affordable housing production goals were developed by first estimating the total need (or "benchmark") for affordable housing, as described in Chapter 2: Affordable Housing Needs. H-TAC estimates that if all households with incomes 50%MHI and less paid no more than 30% of income for housing through 2017 there will be a need for 90,479 affordable units in the region. Currently, the annual average production rate for assisted rental units is approximately 1,146 units for households earning 80%MHI and less. At this rate, it would take many years to meet the region's affordable housing need, and it costs even more to provide units for households at the lower end of the income scale. Due to the exceptional cost of meeting Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 20 the total housing need, H-TAC developed a more realistic five-year affordable housing production goal, based on 10% of the total need for households earning 50%MHI and less. The five-year production goal is 9,048 units, or 1,810 units annually for households earning 50%MHI and less. The region-wide production goals are then apportioned to each city and county in the region based on trying to achieve a mix of household incomes in each community that is similar to the current mix of household incomes region-wide. Table 5 below shows the five-year affordable housing production goal distributed to the local governments in the region. The local affordable housing production goals could be addressed by individual cities or counties or by consortiums such as those formed to develop Consolidated Plans for federal resources. Table 5. Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal Allocated b Jurisdiction Benchmark Need - 90,479' Percent of Benchmark Need by Five Year Affordable Housing Jurisdiction (2017) Income Group Production Goal - 9,0482 Benchmark Percent of less than 30-50% less than 30-50% Totals' need benchmark need 30% 30% Beaverton 6,567 7.24% 65% 35% 427 229 655 Cornelius 497 0.55/0 80% 20% 40 10 50 Durham 92 0.10% 61% 39% 6 4 9 Fairview 734 0.81% 58% 42% 42 31 73 Forest Grove 645 0.71% 85% 15% 55 10 64 Gladstone 532 0.59% 82% 18% 43 10 53 Gresham 5,580 6.15% 82% 18% 454 102 557 Happy Valley 573 0.63% 51% 49% 29 28 57 Hillsboro 5,148 5.68% 59% 41% 302 211 514 Johnson City 0 0.00% 0% 0% 0 0 0 King City 51 0.06% 91% 9% 5 0 5 Lake Oswego 3,392 3.74% 55% 45% 185 154 338 Maywood Park 0 0.00% 100% 0% 0 0 0 Milwaukie 1,019 1.12% 100% 0% 102 0 102 Oregon City 1,585 1.75% 78% 22% 123 35 158 Portland 17,948 19.79% 100% 0% 1,791 0 1,791 Rivergrove 27 0.03% 52% 48% 1 1 3 Sherwood 1,231 1.36% 54% 46% 67 56 123 Tigard 3,205 3.53% 68% 32% 216 103 320 Troutdale 1,310 1.44% 57% 43% 75 56 131 Tualatin 1,904 2.10% 63% 37% 120 69 190 West Linn 1,700 1.87% 58% 42% 98 71 170 Wilsonville 1,797 1.98% 56% 44% 100 80 179 Wood Village 175 0.19% 93% 7% 16 1 17 Clackamas County Uninc. 11,053 12.19% 66% 34% 729 374 1,103 Multnomah County Uninc. 1,349 1.49% 60% 40% 81 53 135 Washington County Uninc. 22,582 24.90% 58% 42% 1,312 940 2,253 Totals 90,695' 100.00% 72% 28% 6,42 2,62 9,04 'The Benchmark Need (90,479 units) includes a need at 30%MHI that is cancelled out by a lack of need (or surplus) in Maywood Park at 30-50%MHI; while in Johnson City there is a lack of need in both of the lower income categories. It is important to Tie the fact that Johnson City consists of a mobile home park on one tax lot, which impacts the data. Calculated by multiplying the "percent of benchmark need" by the Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal of 9,048 units. The result is multiplied by the "percent of benchmark need by income group" to get the goal by income group for each jurisdiction. This goal should be recalculated when data from the 2000 US Census becomes available. 'The total shown here (66,000 for less than 30% and 26,343 for 30-50%) is based on excluding the projected "surplus" of affordable housing at less than 30%MHI for Johnson City, and 30-50%MHI in Johnson City, Maywood Park, Milwaukie, and Portland. 'Totals may not add up to due rounding. Regional AJJ'ordable Housing Sh•oteKn, June 2000 Page 21 A basic assumption of the affordable housing production goal and the distribution inethod is that the goal and allocation numbers will be evaluated when the results of the Year 2000 U.S. Census are available. H- TAC recommends that the Benchmark Need and the Affordable Housing Production Goal be reassessed when the results of the 2000 Census are available. This includes: • checking the estimates to see how accurate they are; • comparing actual unit affordability to the incomes of households living in the units; • recalibrating the Benchmark Need and the Affordable Housing Production Goal; • fine tuning the estimation process for future calculations; and • comparing income to housing tenure to identify barriers to homeownership. IV. ESTIMATED COST OF MEETING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOAL Many H-TAC members identified a need to describe the potential cost of meeting the need for affordable housing in the region. While it is possible to produce a basic estimate of the total cost, it is virtually impossible to actually cost out the production of such a wide variety of units, especially when the cost of producing, acquiring, or rehabilitating units can vary so much throughout the region and will change over time. However, basic information on the general cost of producing housing in the region are provided for illustrative purposes and the amount of current resources available are provided below to help determine how large the need for additional resources may be. Cost of Producing Housing Creating housing units to meet the Affordable Housing Production Goals will be costly. Determining how much it could cost to meet the regional needs depends on several factors. Tables 6 and 7, below, show the actual price associated with the creation of housing units. Information below includes typical cost of new construction from a study conducted by the Housing Development Center in Multnomah County and the cost of acquisition and rehabilitation in Washington County provided by Washington County Housing Services. Table 6. Typical Development Cost of New Construction-1997 Single Family Dwelfin Multi-Family Dwelling Per Unit Cost $85,706 - $124,167 $68,662- $88,274 Per SF Cost $69-$951 $95 - $98 Source: Affordable Housing Cost Study, Housing Development Center, 1998. 'Housing could be produced by community development corporations, housing authorities or for-profit corporations. Note: Land costs are included in the development cost. Production costs can also vary according to the type of developer. The main reasons for this as identified in the Affordable Housing Cost Study are as follows: 0 Single Family Dwelling Units. Nonprofit organizations were able to develop single family units for less than for-profit developers. Nonprofits frequently built units on tax-foreclosed lots, thus keeping costs down. • Muldi-Family Dwelling Units. For-profit developers were able to develop multi-family units for much less per unit than nonprofits, although the square foot cost is almost equal. Most of the for- profit units were less dense, while nonprofits developed buildings four to five stories tall and included more bedrooms per unit. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 22 Table 7. Costs of Rehabilitation/Ac uisition & New Construction -Washington County (1996 -1999) "Acc0i ul$itionlRehabllitation New Construction Number of Total Development Cost Number of Total Development Cost Units . eeAsslsted R®nts :Unit:' Uritts er:Asslsted:Re6W%Unlf., 6 $33,333 40 $51,250 59 $57,941 78 $59,308 5 $43,733 33 $73,935 5 $39,735 20, $63,833 15 $49,333 49 $75,874 84 $68,065 120 $63,425 Average Cost per Unit = $48,690. 1 Average Cost per Unit = $64,604 Source: Washington County Housing Services, 1999. Note: Land costs are included in the total development cost. Table 7 highlights the differences in the cost of producing housing through acquisition and rehabilitation or new construction. In light of this information, several factors arise for consideration in decisions to produce new housing units or to acquire and rehabilitate existing housing: • Is there a difference in the effectiveness of producing more affordable housing if an existing unit is acquired and rehabilitated for affordable housing than if a new affordable unit is constructed? • There may be other benefits to new construction aside from creating an affordable unit, such as revitalizing a neighborhood, directing development to beneficial areas, and possibly mitigating overall housing prices. • There are also benefits accrued by rehabilitating units such as acquiring more affordable units for less cost, reducing the impact of gentrification, preserving neighborhoods, and preventing the loss of existing housing stock. Current Resources Available Historically the federal government has taken the lead in providing funds for the provision of affordable housing. H-TAC identified a need to catalogue the existing resources currently available in the region that could be used for housing production (more information on existing resources may be found in Appendix Q. Table 8 identifies the total dollar amount of resources coming into the region from the federal and state governments. Many assumptions were made in determining how many dollars might be available to produce housing for households earning 50%MHI and less; these assumptions are described in the notes under the tables below. A change in any of the assumptions could have an impact on the amount of resources that could be used to meet affordable housing production goals. -r 3 a a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 23 Table 8. Federal and State Programs and Estimated Resources Available for Housing in the Metro Re lon -1998 Project Selection/ Estimated Funds Program Name Source of Form of Administering Total Amount of Available for Funds Assistance A enc Funds Housing Production State Local at <50%MHI CDBG' Federal Flexible' x $18,371,00 $3,674,20 HOME 2 Federal Flexible` x $5,786,00 $5,207,40 LIHTC (9%) Federal Tax Credit x $17,219,85 $12,914,88 LIHTC (4%)4 Federal Tax Credit x $15,944,28 $3,188,85 Multifamily 5 Federal Tax Deduction x $903,42 $903,42 Revenue Bonds HOPWA Federal Flexible' x $803,00 $200,75% HELP State Cash Grant x $100,00 $100,00 Oregon Housing Trust Fund State Cash Grant x $746,91 $746,91, 1 OAHTC7 State Tax Credit x $141,15 $141,15 Total $59,212,629 $27,077,58 Federal Fund $58,224,56 $26,089,518 (97- State Fund $988,06 $988,068 (3% Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, Metro, 1999. Could be cash grant, low-interest loan, contingent obligation, funding of reserves, or other form of assistance. Notes: 1. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Varying amounts of CDBG funds allocated to focal jurisdictions are targeted towards housing. Because of these other uses, 20% of all CDBG funds are estimated to be available for affordable housing production. 2. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME). Up to 10% of HOME funds may be used for administrative purposes. Thus, the estimate is that 90% of all HOME funds are available for affordable housing production. 3. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) - 9%. Total amount of 9% tax credits in 1998 was $1,721,985. 9% tax credits are generally used for housing that serves people at 50% MHI and less. Tax credits are allocated for a ten-year period. The amount of equity raised from the tax credits was calculated as follows: total amount of tax credits times 10 times $0.75. 4. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) -4%. Total amount of 4% tax credits in 1998 was $2,125,905. 4% tax credits are generally used for housing that serves people at 60% MHI; H-TAC determined that a reasonable estimate of the amount that could be used for serving people at 50%MHI and below is 20% of the total, or $3,188,858 Tax credits are allocated for a ten- year period. The amount of equity raised from the tax credits was calculated as follows: total amount of tax credits times 10 times $0.75. 5. Multi-Family Bond Funds. The value of the subsidized loan is based on the net present value of a reduction in interest on State bond financing of 1% amortized over 30 years. The reduction in bond interest rates is often more than 1% as compared to a private bank's mortgage rate. Assumptions used in calculating the savings are a private bank interest rate of 8%, bond interest rate of 7%, and a 30-year time period. The amount of Multi-family Bond Funds used in the Metro area in 1998 was $9,682,615. 6. Oregon Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Estimate is that 100% of Oregon Housing Trust Fund is available for affordable housing production goals. 7. Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit (OAHTC).The total amount of Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits in 1998 was $4,588,998, which is the dollar amount of loans that banks are given tax credits on. To calculate the value of the subsidy, an 8% market rate interest rate was reduced to the 4% interest rate given on loans under the OAHTC. In 1998 230 units were financed using OAHTC, which amounts to a rent reduction of approximately $51 per month for each tenant. Some federal resources, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME dollars are allocated based on a formula to jurisdictions of a certain size. CDBG funds are allocated to jurisdictions to be used for a wide variety of purposes including housing rehabilitation, home ownership assistance, economic development, social services and physical improvements such as streets, sewers and parks. The funds must be used to benefit low- and moderate-income persons (below 80%MHI) or geographic areas (as identified by census data or neighborhood surveys), or eliminate slums and blight or meet an urgent need. The HOME program was created to expand the supply of housing affordable to low-income households. These funds can only be used for eligible activities that include new construction, rehabilitation, home ownership assistance, and assistance to community housing development Regional Affordable (lousing Strategy June 2000 page 24 organizations. Funds must benefit households at or below 80%MHI and rental housing assistance must primarily benefit households at or below 60%MHI. Other funds are allocated competitively to local governments and nonprofit organizations. Some programs require local governments to provide a match to receive some federal funds, and they also may fund programs through local funds. Tenant based support is channeled to low-income households through local housing authorities. On the other hand, state resources are mostly targeted to for-profit and nonprofit housing developers. Table 9, below, provides an example of how much housing could hypothetically be provided with the resources that are currently available to help meet the Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goals for households at 50%MHI and less. Table 9. Example of Amount of Resources Needed to Construct New Units at H-TAC Defined Income Levels The examples in this table are hypothetical to illustrate the trade-offs that must be made in affordable housing even if a large amount of fundin were available to the region. Affordable Amount of Resources Needed Income Level Monthly Regional Mxi:' Housing Single Family Homeownership Unit Multi-Famlly Rental Unit $52,400 mIly of fore four fam!!y Payment by Cost: $125,000 Cost: $80,000 (1999) Income Number of units that Number of units that Level` Dollars Percent could be built with Dollars Percent could be built with $100,000,000- $100,000,000- Below 30%MHI Below $393 $125,000 100% 800 $80,000 100% 1,25 30% MHI $393 $125,000 100% 800 $70,000 88% 1,429 50%MHI $655 $86,000 69% 1,163 $33,000 41% 3,030 80% MHI $1,048 $15,000 12% 6,666 Subsidy 0% NA 100% MHI $1,310 Subsidy 0% NA Subs d 0% NA 120% MHI $1.572 No Subsidy 0% NA Subsidy No 0% NA Source: OHCSD, Metro, 1999. Note: Land cost is included. 'Affordable monthly housing payment is 30% of household income; including utilities and all applicable taxes. Assumptions: Single Family Unit: Multi-Family Unit: 1. Property taxes = $156/month 1. Property taxes = $100/month 2. Insurance = $401month 2. Maintenance & operation = $170/month 3. Utilities = $100/month 3. Utilities = $40/month for 2 bedrooms, $50/month for 3 bedrooms 4. 30 yr. Mortgage at 7.5% 4. 30 yr. (Mortgage at 7.5% Note: Utility assumptions for multi-family units are based on utility allowances provided by the Housing Authority of Portland. In many multi-family assisted housing units the landlord pays water and sewer, while the tenant is responsible for electricity. Telephone expenses are not included. Local Jurisdiction Resources In addition to resources from the federal and state governments, some local jurisdictions allocate local dollars to be used for affordable housing. For instance, the City of Portland dedicates approximately $2.3 million in General Funds to the Bureau of Housing and Community Development for specific community services such as homeless shelter support. In addition to these resources the City has allocated approximately $30 million of General Fund over two years to the Housing Investment Fund (HIF). It is expected that the city will allocate a lesser amount to the HIF during the upcoming budget cycle with a longer term goal of finding a dedicated funding source for the HIF. Within several urban renewal districts Regional Affordable Housing Strategv June 2000 Page 25 the City of Portland also targets tax increment financing (TIF) to specified housing activities within districts with adopted housing policies and programs. The annual amount of TIF varies greatly but plays a significant role in renewal districts with major housing rehabilitation and production needs. These examples illustrate potential resources available for affordable housing at the local level. Additional Resources Necessary to Meet the Goal Based on the data provided in the table above, the total federal and state resources available annually that could reasonably be expected to be available to produce housing for households earning 50%MHI and less is $27,077,586. Table 10 below describes the cost of meeting the Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal, and compares that with the total resources currently available to determine that an additional annual subsidy of $97,133,358 is necessary to begin to meet the housing needs of residents of the region. Table 10. Estimate of the Cost of Meeting Affordable Housin Production Goals Affordable Housing Production Goals Total Resources Remaining Total Cost Currently Annual 5-Year Annual Available Resources Goal Goal Annual) 2 Needed 10% Benchmark Need 9,04J 1,81 $124,210,94 $27,077,5815 $97,133,35 Assuming a 50/50 split between new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation, with average cost of new construction $105,000 per unit and average cost of acquisition/rehab $60,000 per unit. A 100% subsidy is needed for households <30% MHI, and a 40% subsidy is needed for households at 50% MHI. The percentage of units allocated to <30% MHI and to 31-50% MHI is based on the affordable housing distribution formula: <30%MHI = 72% and 31-50%MHI = 28%. 'Assuming all available resources from State and Federal governments that could be dedicated to housing are used for that purpose, and that resource funding levels remain constant. Regional Affordable Housing Stralegy June 2000 Page 26 Chapter Four: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing 1. INTRODUCTION As stated in the previous chapter, there is an overwhelming need for more affordable housing in the Metro region. According to a National Home Builders study, the Portland metro area was the eighth least affordable housing market in the nation as of the first quarter of 1999. The median household income for a four-person household in the region has increased by 41 % in the last 10 years. However, during the same period, the median sale price of homes increased by approximately 100%, while the average rent has increased by over 34%. While these statistics may seem to indicate that renters are better off, the supply of housing for households at lower income levels has actually decreased, while the number of households in those income groups has increased. According to the 1995 American Housing Survey, approximately 30% of residents in the region are paying over 30% of their incomes on housing (30% is the national standard for housing affordability). About 82% of households earning less than 30%MHI and 65% of households earning 30-50%MHI are paying more than 30% of their income on housing. This data indicates that households with the highest need for affordable housing are not able to locate decent, affordable housing and thus pay much more than they can afford. The housing situation in the region leads to other problems. Workers often have to commute long distances to work in areas where they cannot afford to live. Many low-income residents must forego other basic needs like health care and childcare due to the large percentage of their income that must be devoted to rent. The lack of affordable housing is also a cause of homelessness. When housing costs continually outpace incomes, people will have to work harder just to make sure they do not lose ground - which can make it difficult to realize dreams like a college education for a child, or homeownership. In the development of affordable housing production goals, H-TAC determined a need for 90,479 additional affordable units for households earning less than 50%MHI in the region over the next 20 years. In an effort to develop a reasonable but ambitious goal for housing production in the region, H-TAC developed a five year affordable housing production goal of 10% of the total benchmark need, or 9,048 homes. Even a more realistic production goal will not be feasible without additional resources, the removal of barriers to affordable housing construction, strategies to reduce the cost of production, and key land use regulations. H-TAC members spent many hours identifying and evaluating the strategies described on the following pages. The strategies are organized by the following categories: Land Use Strategies; Non-Land Use Strategies; and Regional Funding Strategies. In the process of developing the RAHS, H-TAC formed three subcommittees' to address these topics, including for-profit and nonprofit developers, local I government planners, local elected officials, housing advocates, representatives from the housing authorities in the region, and other interested parties. H-TAC held focus group meetings bringing in i outside expertise to evaluate their work and to identify any potential pitfalls. After much analysis and evaluation, H-TAC determined that the majority of their efforts should be focused on addressing tools and strategies aimed at increasing the supply of housing for people with the highest need - households earning 50% or less of the region's median household income. However, many of the land use and cost reduction strategies identified by H-TAC can be used to increase the supply of affordable housing at the other H-TAC identified income groups: 50-80%MHI and 80-120%MHI. Land Use and Regulatory Subcommittee; Cost Reduction Subcommittee; and Regional Funding Subcommittee. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 27 Local jurisdictions can use these tools in a way to best address the specific needs of their residents, such as housing for first time homebuyers or affordable rental housing. Evaluating, adopting, and implementing strategies, tools, and funding programs to encourage the development of affordable housing takes time and a certain amount of staff expertise at the local level. This section of the RAHS is intended to serve as a "cookbook" of tools and strategies that can facilitate the development of affordable units. Local governments must determine which of these tools and strategies make sense in their communities, as a "one size fits all" approach will not work to address the affordable housing needs of the diverse cities and counties in the Metro region. Table I I below includes the strategies that are provided in the RAHS for local government consideration. Each strategy includes an overall description, examples of the strategy in use on the ground, other considerations or potential limitations, and recommendations for implementation at the regional and local levels. Complete versions of the reports on each strategy may be found in Appendix C. Table 11. Strategies Addressed b H-TAC Cost Reduction Land Use & Re ulato Regional Funding • System Development Charges Long-term or Permanent Maximize Existing Resources • Permit Fees Affordability - Training Program • Property Tax Exemption . Density Bonus - Consistent Consolidated • Local Government and State • Replacement Housing Plans in the Region Coordination Inclusionary Zoning (voluntary & - Allocation of HOME Funds • Land cost and availability, mandatory) and urban growth - Promote changes in HUD including donation of tax boundary considerations and other Federal Programs foreclosed properties and land • Transfer of Development Rights - Enterprise Foundation banking or land assembly, and Elderly and Disabled Housing Regional Acquisition Fund construction type (size, design) • Regional Housing Resource/ New funding Source • Off-site Improvements Database - Employer Sponsored • Local Regulatory Constraints Housing and Discrepancies in Planning - Real Estate Transfer Tax and Zoning Codes, and Local - Uses and Administration of Permitting or Approval Process a New Regional Housing • Building Codes Requirements Fund. Parkin Through the public involvement process, H-TAC identified other strategies that are crucial to the successful development of affordable housing that is well integrated into surrounding neighborhoods. Neighbors of proposed affordable housing developments are often concerned that the new housing will "...negatively impact their neighborhood with increased criminal activity, increased loitering, increased traffic, stress on schools and city services, changes in neighborhood character, and decreased property values."2 Some strategies that are currently used to address these fears include neighborhood involvement in the design of the housing, providing good management, keeping grounds and structures well maintained, and signing good neighbor agreements. These are very important strategies that are used by housing providers. There are many good examples of affordable housing; in fact many residents do not realize that "affordable" housing exists in their neighborhoods because it has been designed and managed so well. The strategies described here should be considered in a fashion similar to a "cookbook." Local jurisdictions may choose from the array of tools to develop a menu that makes the most sense to meet the affordable housing needs of local residents. z Siting Affordable Housing in Oregon Communities, CPW, June 1998, pg. 6. Regional AJordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 28 ll. LAND USE STRATEGIES Introduction The Land Use Strategies described on the following pages include a number of tools that could be used by jurisdictions to increase the supply of affordable housing. Some of the strategies were identified in Metro's Regional Framework Plan as important tools for H-TAC to consider. Other tools were identified by H-TAC members as having the potential to be successful in this region. Many jurisdictions in the Metro region are already utilizing some of the tools identified by H-TAC. To better evaluate potential tools and strategies, H-TAC wanted to consider and recognize existing local efforts to encourage affordable housing. Metro sent a survey to all local jurisdictions in the region to gather information on tools and strategies currently in use. The survey was sent out in September 1999 and responses were accepted until February 2000. Eighteen jurisdictions responded, a 67% response rate. Table 12 below shows the types of tools currently in use by jurisdictions in the Metro region. Table 12. Affordable Housing Tools Now In Use b One or More Jurisdictions in the Metro Re ion Tools Number of Jurisdictions Land Use Tools Accessory Dwelling Unit 14 Density Transfer 4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing 3 No Net Loss Provisions for Housing 3 Increased Density in Transit Corridors 2 Replacement Housing Ordinance 2 Conversion of Rental to Owner Occupied Unit 2 Requirements for the Relocation of Mobile Home Parks 2 Linkage Programs 1 Incentive Based Inclusions Zoning I Cost Reduction Tools Programs for Seniors and Disabled 7 Land Banking 3 Long-term or Permanent Affordability Requirements 3 Property Abatement for Housing 3 System Development Charges Abatements for Affordable Housing 3 Tax Foreclosed Properties Donated for Affordable Housing 3 Building and Land Use Fee Waivers 2 Funding Tools CDBG Funds Dedicated to Housing 7 General Funds Dedicated Specifically to Housing 3 Other Financial Incentives 3 Source: Affordable Housing Tools Survey, Metro, 2000. As shown by the survey results, local jurisdictions use a variety of tools and strategies to encourage affordable housing production right now. However, H-TAC's analysis of the need still shows a tremendous gap between the housing stock available and the households searching for affordable housing. Thus, local jurisdictions and Metro must work to implement additional tools to enable the production of the housing necessary to meet the needs of residents of the region. A stable, affordable housing stock benefits the community and region in a number of ways, including contributing to a continued strong economy. The strategies and tools described in this section are land use and regulatory tools to be used to encourage affordable housing production. Some of the tools may work better in larger cities, while others could be successfully implemented anyplace. Whenever possible, a local example of a jurisdiction utilizing a strategy has been included to provide further clarification on how a strategy could be implemented. For more detailed information on the strategies, see Appendix C. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 29 Description A density bonus is a land use incentive that allows a developer to EXAMPLES construct more units than would otherwise be allowed in a Clackamas County, OR. specified residential zone in exchange for the provision of Clackamas County has had affordable housing units. The assumption is that with additional provisions in the zoning code since units the developer is able to achieve a higher profit level on the 1980 that allow an increase in housing development. When density is increased, the marginal density if affordable housing is costs per unit are generally lower, since the land prices, soft costs, provided. The percentage increase in density varies with the and foundation costs can be amortized over more units. Comprehensive Plan category as follows: A density bonus could be used as an incentive for increasing the ® for low-density (single-family) production of affordable housing units. Various restrictions may zones, incentive increase is up to apply, such as the income level at which the units must be 5%; affordable, the time period when the "bonus" units must be ® for medium or high-density s, incentive developed, and design standards requiring affordable units to (multi-family) zoneo. appear similar to the market-rate units. increase is up to 8/o Regional Issues Related to Density The increase is allowed at a rate of one additional unit per assisted Many affordable housing tools considered innovative in other housing unit provided, up to the states (outside of Oregon) are tools that may be taken for granted maximum allowable density in Oregon. For instance, including a housing element in a increase. (Clackamas County Zoning and Development comprehensive plan has been identified as an important step in Ordinance, 1012-6) providing more opportunities to create affordable housing. Comprehensive plans, including a housing element, have been required in all Oregon cities and counties since the early 1970's. has Portland, OR. The City u Portland provided d density bonus incentives for elderly and disabled Density is a tool that is used as an incentive to produce affordable housing since 1993. The housing in many jurisdictions outside Oregon. In many cases, regulations allow for increased base zoning does not allow for many multi-family or small lot density in specific multi-family single family units. Allowing increased density in such cases residential zones, and only apply to new developments and projects that provides a developer with needed incentives to produce more involve major remodeling. (Title 33, units. In other cases, such as high demand for multi-family Planning and Zoning, Chapter housing and economies of scale, density bonuses can provide an 33.229) incentive to develop housing that otherwise is not feasible. The units are restricted by a covenant with the city, which lasts In the Portland metro area, efforts to meet the region's housing for the life of the project. needs within the existing urban growth boundary have led to A number of subsidized HUD 202 denser development standards than many other places. The state's projects have utilized the density Metropolitan Housing Rule requires all jurisdictions in the Metro bonus allowed here, which has increased the supply of elderly and region to provide an opportunity for 50% of new housing to be disabled housing in Portland. multi-family. Metro's Functional Plan mandates minimum and maximum density standards, whereas outside of the region many jurisdictions only identify a maximum density standard. These efforts have led to zoning in the region that does not provide much opportunity for a density bonus to serve as an incentive to development. In general, base zoning already allows for as much density as the market (developers, buyers, and renters) will bear, with the exception of certain locations in the Metro region. Regional Affordable Housing Siralegy June 2000 Page 30 LM Other Considerations • In most cases, there is enough density provided by the base zone. In suburban areas like Clackamas County, developers have historically underbuilt, although the trend has recently changed as smaller lots become more acceptable and land prices have risen. A density bonus in this case is not much of an incentive, if developers believe demand for density higher than currently allowed does not exist. • A density bonus may not be effective in encouraging the development of more affordable housing in the region except in specific circumstances. Using a density bonus to target specific populations, similar to Portland's ordinance, may be more effective. Recommendation for Implementation Since a density bonus is tied to land use, Metro has the authority to implement regionwide density bonus incentives for affordable housing. However, a mandatory density bonus for affordable housing is not likely to be effective in this region. Thus, H-TAC recommends that density bonus provisions be determined at the local level. A voluntary guideline or model ordinance for providing density bonus incentives may be considered by local governments to facilitate progress towards affordable housing production goals. Regional Local A. Model Ordinance Encourage local jurisdictions to implement a density Develop a voluntary guideline for a density bonus, bonus incentive to facilitate the development of including a model ordinance, for varying percentages tied affordable housing. Local jurisdictions could consider to certain income groups and permanent affordability. tying the amount of bonus provided to the targeted For example: income group to encourage the development of • 20 percent of the units affordable to households affordable units to meet affordable housing production at 31% - 50% MHI; or goals. • 10 percent of the units affordable to households at less than 30% MHI; or • senior or disabled housing; • permanently affordable housing. A density bonus may not be effective in the region due to high densities already required in local comprehensive plans. However, if local jurisdictions are not already maximizing available land capacity, they would be encouraged to provide a density bonus if a developer agreed to provide a certain percentage of affordable units targeted to income groups outlined in affordable housing production goals. Local jurisdictions could implement the density bonus in a way that best fit local conditions. B. First Time Homebuyer { Recommend that a density bonus proposal, whether local or regional, include some type of density bonus to 4 developers that provide opportunities for households l earning less than 120% MHI to purchase homes. C. Best Practices { A compilation of "best practices" in implementing density bonus incentives should be compiled to enable jurisdictions to determine what models would work best locally. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy h,» e 2000 Page 31 Description The purpose of replacement housing strategies is to prevent the EXAMPLES involuntary displacement of low-income (less than 50%MHI) By funding source residents from existing affordable housing which is lost from the Federal Funding. Federal law inventory due to demolition, conversion to market rate units, or requires that low-income housing price inflation. A replacement strategy is often part of a three demolished by CDBG or HOME pronged approach to deal with displacement that includes funded activities be replaced by preservation and mitigation strategies. Preservation strategies, housing units with the same number of bedrooms, in the same or proximate which can include long term affordability commitments, and neighborhood, and affordable to a mitigation strategies, which include tenant based relocation households of comparable incomes. assistance, are discussed elsewhere. The focus here is on low- This law pertains was established to income housing replacement strategies. prevent widespread demolition within low-income neighborhoods by publicly funded activities, often as part of urban Briefly defined, replacement strategies require restoration of lost renewal programs, without housing units by, typically, an equal number of similarly sized, development of replacement units. priced, and located units by an agency or individual deemed Local Funding/Incentives. The City responsible for loss of the original units. Such strategies can be of Seattle requires any new broadly applicable or more narrowly associated with a particular construction project applying for funding source, geographic area, or a particular housing type. property tax exemptions that is built on a site that contained 4+ occupied In the purest example, a jurisdiction could require that all dwelling units to replace any units that were rented to tenants receiving a housing affordable to a defined income group must be replaced tenant relocation assistance payment in kind by an entity engaged in public or private development (Seattle Municipal Code 5.72.040) that results in the loss of this protected housing. Such a strategy The new units must be affordable at or could mandate that the replacement housing match the lost units below 50%MHI for the first ten years. by location, size, cost, etc. Such a strategy could also require By location that the replacement housing be reserved for those households displaced from the original units. Minnesota. There is a state requirement that cities of a certain size (over 100,000 people) that adopt neighborhood revitalization programs Other Considerations must replace demolished housing in The major limitations on replacement housing strategies in their redevelopment areas with comparable purest form, as described above, are political controversy and housing units. legal uncertainty. As a recent example of political backlash, the By housing tune fairly limited replacement components of Portland's Housing San Francisco, CA. The Hotel Preservation Ordinance ignited sufficient controversy to result in Conversion Ordinance (HCO) has the passage of a State legislative prohibition on the assignment been in place since 1979, and has of per unit replacement fees for expiring Section 8 projects persevered through several legal whose owners did not wish to sell to the city. challenges including a case as recently as 1997. The HCO prevents Regarding legal issues contradictory court decisions have the conversion of existing residential rY hotel units to tourist hotel units without resulted from challenges to replacement ordinances enacted in one-to-one replacement of the units. various cities. The challenges cite the unfair assignment of Units are replaced either by adding responsibility for a community wide problem to individual replacement units to San Francisco's owners of low-income housing; that such strategies constitute a residential housing stock, or by paying tax on the owners beyond the legal authority of a local an amount equal to costs of rebuilding Y an equal number of comparable units. government; and a general accusation of an unconstitutional taking by the government. It is not known how a replacement Regional Affordable Housing Strafegv June 2000 Page 32 housing strategy would fare in Oregon courts. In a discussion of recommended replacement housing strategies before HTAC, members expressed concern that such a strategy not result in a "changing of the rules" for property owners by imposing regulations that limit or negate the uses of the property allowed under current zoning. H-TAC's recommendations address these concerns. Section 8 Vouchers are vouchers provided by HUD through the Housing Authorities that allow qualified households to rent market-rate homes wherever they can find a landlord that will accept the voucher. While these vouchers play an important role in providing people in need with affordable housing, they are not a long-term solution as the vouchers may not be available on a permanent basis. H- I'AC members expressed concern that Section 8 Vouchers not be viewed as an adequate replacement housing strategy since these depend on individual household qualification rather than ensuring a new unit of housing be added to the region's affordable housing stock. Recommendations for Implementation Metro does not have the authority to require local jurisdictions or other government entities to adopt a replacement housing ordinance. However, a regional recommendation that affordable units that are lost be replaced could be included in the Functional Plan for voluntary adoption by local governments. A No-Net-Loss housing policy approach for local jurisdiction review of comprehensive plan changes focused on affordable housing would be based on land use and would therefore fall under Metro's land use authority. Possible strategies are described below. Regional Local 1. Regional Recommendation to Adopt Replacement 1. Replace Housing Lost in Urban Renewal Areas Housing Strategies Local jurisdictions could consider developing policies to Include replacement housing strategies as part of a prevent the loss of affordable housing through menu of voluntary affordability tools in the Regional demolition in urban renewal areas by implementing a Affordable Housing Strategy plan. Jurisdiction's replacement housing ordinance specific to urban replacement strategies that are closely associated with renewal zones. a specific funding source may have the most chance of success. 2. No Net Loss Housing Policy Encourage the use of a No-Net-Loss Housing Policy for local jurisdictional review of requested quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Map amendments with approval criteria that would require the replacement of existing low-income housing that would be lost through the Plan Map amendment. H-TAC is sensitive to the concern that this strategy not result in a "changing of the rules" for property owners by imposing regulations that unreasonably limit or negate the uses of the property allowed under current zoning. This recommendation pertains to zone changes requested by the property owner that would result in a loss of existing affordable housing. Adopting the replacement housing criteria as part of the review process for considering a quasi- judicial zone change or Plan Map amendment would not be a change in the rules when the change in zoning is sought by the property owner. Regional Af)brdable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 33 LM Description EXAMPLES Inclusionary housing is the term most frequently used to Regional describe a wide variety of techniques that link construction of Programsnclusionarv Housing low- and moderate-income housing to the construction of market rate housing. Typically, the lower-income units are State of California. California State included in an otherwise market-driven development. The law requires local jurisdictions to principal objective of inclusionary housing is to increase the prepare housing elements that provide a supply of affordable housing while also fostering greater plan to accommodate the existing and projected housing needs for residents at economic integration. all income levels. In response to this requirement, many jurisdictions have Inclusionary housing can be defined as a city or countywide developed inclusionary housing mandatory requirement or voluntary objective that assigns a programs. percentage of housing units in new residential developments Voluntary Inclusionary Housing with a specified minimum number of units, to be sold or rented Programs to lower- or moderate-income households at an affordable rate (usually below the market rent). City of Camarillo, CA. The City of Camarillo adopted a voluntary inclusionary housing Most inclusiona housing programs, rams, whether voluntary or program to further rY g P g enable the city to meet the housing mandatory, rely on a combination of incentives to ensure that needs of its residents. To qualify for a affordable units are constructed. Some incentives frequently density bonus and other incentives, a used in conjunction with inclusionary housing programs developer must provide: include density bonuses, financial subsidies, development fee • at least 20% of total units for lower Y income households; or waivers, option to produce inclusionary units off site, relaxed a at least 10% of total units for very development standards, reduced impact fees, and donations of low income households; or land or fees in lieu of providing affordable units. o at least 50% of total units for seniors. The Oregon State Legislature passed and the Governor signed Mandatory Inclusionary Housing House Bill (HB) 2658 in the 1999 legislative session. This bill City of Bellevue, WA. Bellevue has the effect of prohibiting mandatory inclusionary housing enacted a mandatory inclusionary programs in Oregon. However, voluntary inclusionary housing program under the mandate of housing programs are permitted. the State Environmental Policy Act and Washington State's Growth' Other Considerations Management Act that required cities to consider the housing needs of all e Inclusionary programs may reduce potential opposition economic segments of the community. from neighbors expressing NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) The inclusionary housing requirements concerns. Under an inclusionary housing program, lower apply to all new residential income units are often constructed and occupied development, all subdivisions, and all concurrently, which reduces opposition to the affordable rezone applications. units. Montgomery County, MD. In 1974 the e Developers tend to oppose inclusionary housing programs County Council adopted the Moderately for several reasons. First, many see it as a governmental Priced Housing (MPH) Law. The interference in their business of housing legislation addressed inclusionary providing zoning and density allowances. Secondly, developers argue the losses they incur by Builders of residential housing must providing below market rate housing are passed on to make some housing units available at purchasers or renters of market rate housing in the form of below-market rate sales prices or rental higher prices, decreasing housing affordability for middle rates. This program is believed to be the first mandatory inclusionary zoning income people. law that specified a density bonus allowance to builders for providing affordable housing. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 34 MINIMIZE! 111111~ • Linkages: The prohibition of direct mandatory inclusionary housing by HB 2658 increases the need to develop a regional funding source and regulatory incentives to achieve the region's affordable housing production goals. • One of the important values of inclusionary housing programs is the ability to decrease concentrations of poverty and increase the mix of incomes in new developments. Recommendation for Implementation Since inclusionary housing programs could be tied to land use, Metro has the authority to implement a regionwide voluntary inclusionary housing program for affordable housing. However, due to differences in housing needs and development standards across the region, the incentives needed to create a successful program are not likely to be the same in all jurisdictions. Thus, H-TAC recommends that voluntary inclusionary housing programs, especially the type of incentives that are offered, be determined by local jurisdictions. A regional voluntary guideline or model ordinance and performance standards for a voluntary inclusionary housing program should be developed to facilitate progress towards meeting the region's affordable housing goals. Regional Local [certain . Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Guideline and Model 1. Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Program Tied to Ordinance Incentives evelop a regional voluntary inclusionary housing guideline, Encourage local jurisdictions to implement a voluntary ncluding a model ordinance, for varying percentages tied to inclusionary housing program to facilitate the development of income groups and permanent affordability. affordable housing, using the regional voluntary inclusionary Developers of new construction in housing projects over a housing guideline and model ordinance. Local jurisdictions certain size may be provided with incentives if they agree to could consider tying a variety of incentives to the targeted provide a certain percentage of. income group to encourage the development of affordable • units affordable to households at 31%-50% MHI; OR units to meet affordable housing production goals. • units affordable to households at less than 30% MHI; OR 2. Zoning requirements that lead to affordable housing • senior or disabled housing. Encourage local government housing requirements such as However, local jurisdictions could implement a voluntary minimum densities, maximum square footage limits, single- inclusionary housing program in a way that best fits local car garage requirements, percentage of accessory dwelling conditions. units, percentage of attached or multi-family development, which tend to result in affordable housing. 2. Tie Inclusionary Housing Requirements to a Regional Fund 3. Tie Inclusionary Housing Requirements to Zone Changes If a regional funding source is established, some of the funds Encourage local governments to consider the impacts on could be used as a tool to encourage mixed income projects affordable housing as a criterion for any legislative or quasi- and to encourage more market-rate developers to participate judicial zone change, which could potentially be expanded to in the production of affordable housing. include approval of conditional use permits for a non- residential use in a residential zone. 3. Consider Inclusionary Housing when Amending the Urban Growth Boundary 4. Tie Inclusionary Housing Requirements to Urban Decisions on the designation of certain urban reserve areas Renewal Zones and urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions currently Encourage local governments, when creating urban renewal allow for consideration of special land needs such as for districts that include housing, to tie inclusionary zoning affordable housing. However, no enforcement mechanisms requirements to redevelopment agreements for public are in place. One possible strategy could be if a developer investment, use of condemnation power, and/or financial applies for inclusion in the UGB based on a special need for support. affordable housing, the decision should be conditioned on inclusionary housing requirements. 4. Best Practices Develop a compilation of "best practices" for implementing voluntary inclusionary housing programs to enable jurisdictions to determine what models would work best locally. Regional Aj)brduble !lousing Strategy June 2000 Page 35 slim Description EXAMPLES The simplest definition of a transfer of development right (TDR) regulation is a zoning strategy designed to direct development from one site to another to preserve a publicly valued resource. Seattle, WA. The City Seattle Examples of such a resource include agricultural land; natural effectively requires all new office development built within the environments such as coastal mountain ranges, forests, wetlands; downtown core at a floor area ratio historic structures; cultural institutions; or affordable housing. (FAR) between 15:1 and 20:1 to The premise is that excess development rights that would obtain development rights from a otherwise encourage the destruction or redevelopment of the housing TDR pool. The housing TDR pool is collected from sending resource at the "sending" site constitute a marketable commodity sites of existing and rehabilitated that can be sold to a "receiving" site that places a value on low- and moderate-income rental additional development density. Within this regulatory housing. The sending site must framework the public benefits derived by the preservation of the retain the housing at a specified resource work in concert with private goals of greater return on affordability level for twenty years. The sending sites can be located in investment generated by increased development opportunity at the most areas of downtown, but the receiving site. receiving sites are limited to the office core and the The bundle of development rights is usually expressed as the mixed/commercial sector near the additional air rights granted under existing zoning to a structure or Denny Regrade. site that does not currently take advantage of these rights. These potential development rights such as additional height, floor area City of Portland. Since the or housing units may pose a threat to the current land use that the adoption of the 1988 Central City Plan, Portland has employed a TDR local government may wish to preserve. By allowing the designed to preserve existing single marketability of these excess rights, it is hoped that the room occupancy (SROs) hotels by transferable value of this development potential may be an allowing the sale and transfer of incentive to preserve the current land use. excess FAR to a receiving site within the Central City. Since the adoption of this strategy there has been one TDRs are distinguished from floating development rights such as successful use of this tool. The those associated with planned unit developments (PUDs) in which former Athens Hotel at NW Everett development permitted under the base zone can be clustered or and Sixth Avenues was purchased dispersed on contiguous and commonly owned sites to preserve by a local nonprofit development open space, protect environmental resources, carry out transit corporation for rehabilitation into housing and treatment services for orientation policies or take advantage of physical infrastructure very low-income individuals. The efficiencies. TDRs, on the other hand, typically involve separate excess development opportunity on sites under separate ownership. the site of the Athens amounted to 50,000 square feet of floor area. Other Considerations This floor area was sold to the • A major advantage of a TDR strategy is, assuming the local adjoining owners of the rest of the block. The rehabilitated SRO, now government does not institute a TDR pool, that owners of called the Sally McCraken Building, sending and receiving sites decide between themselves the is required by a covenant signed by value of the transferred development rights. The local both parties to remain as very low- government's role is limited to reviewing the terms of the income housing indefinitely. covenants to ensure that basic regulations are recorded with the deeds of both properties. On the other hand, the local government needs adequate legal resources to ensure that the covenant is clear and enforceable. • The alternative approach, such as that used in Seattle, is to require the office developer to make a cash payment to 11 Regional.,ifjorduble !lousing Strategy ✓ me 2000 Page 36 nonprofit housing developers in which case the value of the transferred rights is established by the local governing body. • The use of TDRs may work best with a variety of other strategies that serve the purposes of preserving or increasing the supply of affordable housing, H-TAC also observed that TDR strategies work best in a contained area planned with this strategy in mind rather than applying it throughout a jurisdiction. The reason for this is, that the transferred development rights must be utilized in a fashion that does not negatively impact the receiving site. • The local government must plan the overall base level of permitted development to ensure that development made possible at the receiving site does not exceed the intensity envisioned for that site resulting in structures that violate other goals to preserve views, light, or promote other aspects of design compatibility. • This strategy may be less effective under a regulatory scheme with already generous base height and floor area zoning. TDRs adopted in central business districts are often preceded by a downzoning of development potential. Recommendations for Implementation Regional Local 1. Include on List of Recommended Tools Encourage local jurisdictions to implement TDR Metro should include TDRs as part of the list of programs to facilitate the development of affordable recommended practices to help carry out regional housing when planning for Main Streets or Town Centers affordable housing production goals. There are a variety involving upzonings. Local jurisdictions could take into of TDR approaches that can be tailored to the conditions account the utility of TDRs in the ultimate zoning pattern of a particular jurisdiction. of these districts. In a brainstorming session, H-TAC members suggested using TDRs in low density neighborhoods where residents wish to preserve the character of the neighborhood by selling off potential development rights to a nearby development proposal. Some H-TAC members felt that such a strategy may conflict with policy goals for socially and economically integrated communities or minimum density requirements. H-TAC members concluded that such approaches should be examined and, if found to be legally or administratively sound, promoted as models for local jurisdictions. 2. Housing TDRs Coordinated with Regional Goals The use of TDRs should also be considered in conjunction with open space and environmental preservation strategies to further overall development capacity goals. 3. Best Practices A compilation of "best practices" in implementing TDR programs should be compiled to enable jurisdictions to determine what models would work best locally. Regiunul AffiordabIc ;fouling Slrwegy June 2000 Page 37 Description EXAMPLES The local development permit approval process is meant to ensure that new development meets established standards that Portland, OR. The City of Portland enhance community characteristics and property values. The permitting process was viewed by some process is driven by a number of ordinances, standards and citizens and the press as an Y anachronistic and inefficient process regulations that are geared towards: a) acceptable structural that was in need of modernization. The design and characteristics; and b) environmental enhancement modernization process was initiated and protection. The structural-oriented regulations include through a Stakeholders Team new building construction to rehabilitation codes, adequate recommendation (Blueprint 2000) submitted water and sewage disposal standards, and handicapped to the City Council April 1998. The City Council's goal was to provisions, among others. The environmental-oriented "create a system that presents a regulations include zoning codes for minimum lot sizes, predictable, seamless delivery of City density and open spaces, subdivision standards, and planning development review functions and codes for tree preservation, parking, growth controls. provides a clear point of accountability for the performance of review responsibilities." Those regulatory constraints related to the permit approval process and the environmental issues are described further The recommended improvements in the below. The regulatory constraints related to the structural City's development review system and rocess issues have been addressed in other strategy reports. P were organized as follows: gY • Core business process that establishes the primary entry point or Permitting Approval Process location for information and According to a report by the President Bush Advisory application intake for projects, Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing' in provides a process "roadmap" for project approvals and requirements, most jurisdictions across the country the permit approval including inspection and enforcement process is not a logical point-to-point process. The process process and methods for resolving leads to delays that force builders and developers to pay extra conflicts early; interest on borrowed money and therefore increases the overall Y People interactions-oriented system that reinforces a culture of customer cost of housing. Some studies found that the point-rating service and identifies coordinated system approval process in Orange County, California review teams including primary point typically added $20,000 to the cost of a single family home, of contact, technical review teams and in New Jersey, permitting time increased from few months and project approval teams; to three years in some jurisdiction. According to Debra ! Integrated computer system accessible to all stakeholders that Bassert of the National Association of Home Builders, some provides real time and accurate studies in the 1980s found that every month of delay in the information; approval process added one to two percent to the final price of a Co-locate all staff with primary a home. responsibilities for development review activities; • The effectiveness and impact of Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning Codes proposed regulations and existing Discrepancies between local comprehensive plans, zoning regulations should be analyzed, codes, and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional reviewed and modified if necessary Plan can impact the cost of producing affordable housing in a with public input. variety of ways. While a city's comprehensive plan may have been adopted several years ago, the zoning code may be constantly evolving. Ordinances may be adopted over time to address specific issues that arise through the development process, such as a tree cutting ordinance to preserve valuable s Not in My Back Yard" Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing , HUD, 1991. L Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 38 urban forests. The incremental adoption of a variety of ordinances, some of which may have conflicting goals, can have a significant impact on the cost and feasibility of developing affordable housing. While a city's zoning code may contain a variety of items focused on meeting the community's goals, sometimes the code can conflict with itself. A city may have adopted a setback requirement that conflicts a with the level of density the jurisdiction wants to obtain using minimum lot sizes, or the local density goals may conflict with those outlined by Metro. For example, a city may have adopted minimum lot sizes that do not allow for the construction of a single-family house due to setback requirements (the distance a structure is set back from a street, another structure, or the rear end of the lot). These discrepancies can impact the cost of development by reducing the number of units that can feasibly be built on a parcel. This also may impact the ability of builders to provide small houses under the current regulatory system in some communities. Due to setback distances and minimum lot size requirements, small houses may not be economically feasible, as well as possibly precluding "new urban" developments of small bungalow type houses with front porches close to the street. The need for strategies to address the above issues will grow as more development is expected to occur in this region to accommodate the projected increase in population and employment. Recommendations for Implementation Regional Local 1. Regional Guidelines for the Permitting Process 1. Revise permitting approval process Develop regional guidelines for the permitting process, with Encourage local governments to revise their permitting the goal of creating a regionally consistent permitting approval process as follows: process to enable developers to more easily produce Provide a single contact person to shepherd each housing in all parts of the region. project through the process • One stop permitting 2. Metro as a Technical Resource • Cross training of staff Metro may serve as a technical resource for local Interdepartmental review committees jurisdictions, including the development of a regional model Clearly stated time frames for reviews, approval for objective design review criteria. and extensions • Computerized tracking system • Concurrent rather than sequential reviews • Coordinated public hearing • Concurrent (or combined) hearing by different sections or departments 2. Review existing codes Encourage local governments to regularly review existing codes to: • determine their usefulness and impact on new housing developments, and • identify conflicts between local code and state or regional goals as well as internal conflicts (e.g., between setback and minimum lot size requirements). 3. Reduce number of land use appeal opportunities Encourage local governments to work towards reducing the number of land use appeal opportunities for each development. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 page 39 Description EXAMPLES Elderly The nation's elderly population, or seniors, (age 60 years and Shared Attendant Model above) is increasing rapidly. Most seniors typically live on a This model is utilized by the Multnomah County Aging and fixed income, including Social Security Benefits (SSB), Disability Services Department (in pensions, and retirement investments. According to Multnomah conjunction with the Housing Authority County Aging and Disability Services, nearly half of elderly of Portland) to address the needs of renters in Oregon spend over 35% of income on rent, often clients who need services to stay making a choice between food, utility bills, and even independent in their housing. Many seniors and people with disabilities medication to afford housing, need assistance with taking complex medications, bathing, or getting to People with Disabilities medical appointments. Without the The household budgets of many people with disabilities are so services of an attendant, they would low as to make apartment rental extremely difficult. A majority need to be in a care facility. However, finding competent attendants is very of people with disabilities are at 30 percent or less of the difficult, as they earn minimal wages, median household income. Accessible and affordable receive no benefits, and the job is apartments available in the region for this population are not physically and emotionally demanding. sufficient to meet the need. Additional information may be The objective of this model is to found in Chapter Two, Section IV and Appendix C. stabilize the Client Employed Provider Recommendation for Implementation (CEP) - an attendant to assist in the activities described above - and While some strategies for seniors and people with disabilities increase the job retention time of the could be tied to land use, these strategies would be difficult to CEP by providing stable housing. The implement regionwide. Strategies to address the needs of these CEP receives an apartment (with utilities paid) in exchange for caring for specific groups may be best implemented at the local level. 4-6 residents, in addition to a salary. Regional guidelines could be developed to further enable local jurisdictions to make progress towards meeting regional affordable housing production goals. Regional Local 1. If a regional fund is created, consider 1. Encourage local governments to tie the use of funds for these types the needs of vulnerable populations, of housing to locational decisions, such as: a) focusing development including seniors, people with of housing for low and moderate income seniors and people with disabilities, and other populations when disabilities in transit-friendly areas to encourage continued allocating funds. Affordable housing independence and mobility; and b) encouraging the development of goals focus on housing needs for integrated communities, while discouraging enclaves of housing for households earning less than 50 elderly or people with disabilities in isolation from the surrounding percent of the regional median income; community. many of these vulnerable populations fall into this income lavel. 2. Encourage local governments & nonprofits to utilize the community land trust model as a tool to stop rent increases for seniors in mobile i home courts. i 3. Encourage local governments to use other planning tools and strategies (such as density bonus, transfer of development rights, 3 etc.) to increase affordable housing opportunities for seniors and people with disabilities. 4. Encourage local governments to examine their zoning codes for conflicts in meeting locational needs of seniors and people with disabilities (i.e., allowing mixed-use developments in commercial and residential areas). Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 40 Description Parking can be a very large component of the cost of developing housing. Parking spaces are expensive to build, especially where land values are high. The cost of providing structured parking in high density areas such as downtown can add $20,000 to $30,000 or more to the cost of a housing unit. Conversely, minimum parking requirements in suburban areas can increase the cost of individual units be decreasing the amount of land available for housing. Parking in suburban areas is typically surface parking, which is relatively cost-effective but not efficient in the use of land. Environmental impacts of increased impervious surface are also important. While it is important to minimize the impact of providing housing with fewer parking spaces on existing neighborhoods, there are types of housing that justify lower parking requirements. Assisted housing for seniors, many of whom do not drive, may require a minimum number of spaces for residents and guests. Housing for people with certain disabilities may require less parking. Additionally, housing located in transit efficient neighborhoods that do not require use of a car for everyday activities also justifies lower minimum parking requirements. Parking is an important cost consideration in the provision of affordable housing. The requirements for parking are not found at the local level, but are placed on developments by lenders. Many lenders will not fund a project that they believe may not be successful due to insufficient parking. However, much work has already been done in the region to address the costs associated with the provision of parking. Metro's Functional Plan Parking Requirements The State's Transportation Planning Rule calls for reductions in vehicle miles traveled per capita and restrictions on the construction of new parking spaces as a means of responding to the transportation and land use impacts of growth. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development as a means to encourage more efficient use of land, promote non-auto trips and protect air quality. Additionally, the federally mandated air quality plan adopted by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept to fully achieve its transportation objectives. The air quality plan relies on reducing vehicle trips per capita and related parking spaces through minimum and maximum parking ratios. Title 2 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan addresses these state and federal requirements. Title 2 of the Functional Plan requires local jurisdictions to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to meet or exceed specific minimum standards. Cities and counties are allowed to vary from these standards if they provide findings to show substantial compliance. Recommendation for Im lementation Regional Local 1. Encourage lenders to consider unique parking needs 1. Review parking requirements Encourage lenders to consider parking needs for Encourage local governments to review parking i proposed housing on a project by project basis, requirements to ensure they meet the needs of i accounting for the special needs of residents, when residents of all types of housing. evaluating funding applications. a 2. Coordinate strategies Encourage local governments to coordinate strategies with developers, transportation planners and other regional efforts to reduce costs of providing parking for affordable housing. 3 3. Evaluate off street parking requirements Encourage local governments to evaluate off street parking requirements for infill housing developments, ensuring that their requirements are not greater than what current) exists. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 41 Ill. NON-LAND USE STRATEGIES Introduction The Non-Land Use Strategies described on the following pages include a number of tools that could be used by jurisdictions in the Metro region to increase the supply of affordable housing. The basic goal of these strategies is to reduce the cost of producing housing, thereby making it more affordable. Most of the non-land use strategies would help to reduce the cost of all housing, not just "affordable" housing. However, the many of the strategies identified on the following pages can be targeted to help developers produce housing affordable to households at specific income levels, such as households in H- TAC's determined highest need group, those earning less than 50%MHI. For example, some strategies can help reduce costs by speeding up the development process and allowing projects to move through the permit approval process more quickly, thereby reducing costs. This type of strategy benefits all development in a community. In order to target the highest need population, a project aiming to serve that group could be "fast-tracked" through the development process. This example shows how a strategy can be tailored to meet the needs of specific communities. A big problem in producing affordable housing is coordinating the various funding sources in terms of application deadlines, requirements and project monitoring. Costs of producing, managing, and maintaining affordable housing could be reduced by consolidating many of these requirements wherever feasible. Whenever possible, a local example of a jurisdiction utilizing a strategy has been included to provide further clarification on how a strategy could be implemented. For further information on the strategies, see Appendix C I i I Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 page 42 4 Description Long-term or permanent affordability requirements on affordable EXAMPLES housing protect the investment made by the public and retain affordable units for many years of use. When governments invest Long-Term Affordability public funds to create affordable housing options the goal should be State of Oregon. Multi-family to ensure that these units remain affordable for a specific period. projects using funds from the While this type of requirement serves to preserve the value of the Oregon Housing and Community public investment over the long-term, some concerns have been Services Department are required expressed. One area of concern is the involuntary displacement of to remain affordable for a period of tenants that occurs when long-term affordability restrictions expire. 30 years. Although long-term and permanent affordability requirements may Portland, OR. Under the Housing sound like two terms for the same concept, the basic requirements Preservation Ordinance, any units are fundamentally different. Both are used to retain affordability, built with funds from the City of but are based on different legal structures. Portland must remain affordable for a period of 60 years. Long-term affordability requirements retain the affordable units for a specified period of time, such as 10, 20, 40, or 60 years. While 60 years may seem almost permanent now, in the 58`~'year PermanentAffordability such an affordability requirement means little to the tenant. Many Portland, OR- Sabin HUD Section 8 projects that were built with 20 year affordability Community Land Trust was the requirements are now reaching their "affordability expiration date," first land trust developed in and some owners are "opting out" to raise rents or even convert Oregon. Homebuyers will apartments to condominiums. Long-term affordability purchase their home with a 99- year renewable ground lease for requirements are often tied to a specific funding source. the land, for which they will pay $25 per month. Families must Permanent affordability requirements are generally based on earn no more than 70 percent of ownership or a deed restriction on the land. Nonprofit or public the area median income to qualify to purchase a home owned by the ownership of housing is often though not always synonymous with Sabin CLT. permanent affordability. Affordable apartments or single-family homes may have deed restrictions requiring a specific "affordable" Clackamas County, OR - sales price or rental rate. Another form of permanent affordability Clackamas Community Land is a community land trust (CLT), which retains ownership of the Trust is a community based membership nonprofit organization land beneath a single family home, manufactured homes, or an established in 1999. Their mission apartment building. is to buy and build homes to sell to lower income buyers, with the land Other Considerations held in trust for the community. a Long-term or permanent affordability requirements on new rental housing may have the effect of discouraging for-profit Portland, OR - Portland Community Land Trust (PCLT) is -4 developers from building needed units. For-profit developers a new community land trust that a often build affordable units expecting that eventually they can will provide a wide array of "roll-over" the units to rent or sell at market prices. An option homeownership and neighborhood a stabilization strategies. PCLT is a 3 may be to focus on models in which for-profit developers build nonprofit membership organization housing, but ownership is turned over to a nonprofit to retain that was incorporated in long-term or permanent affordability. December 1999. o Long-term or permanent affordability requirements on owner- occupied housing may raise equity issues for households taking part in the program. Some oppose limited equity arrangements Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 43 on the grounds that low-income people should benefit from the increased equity in their home. Allowing households to capture the equity gain removes the opportunity to retain the public subsidy for future use, but may provide some low-income households more help in moving into market-rate housing. • Nonprofit or resident ownership coupled with long-term or permanent affordability requirements may be an especially useful tool to mitigate the impact of climbing rents in manufactured home parks. Recommendations for Implementation Metro does not have the authority to require local jurisdictions or other government entities to tie long- term or permanent affordability requirements to affordable housing subsidies. However, a regional voluntary guideline for long-term or permanent affordability may be considered by local governments in order to ensure progress towards meeting the region's affordable housing production goals. For instance, if affordable units in one jurisdiction have 10-year affordability restrictions and those in another have 60- year restrictions, the relative effects on the affordable housing stock over time would be quite different. Regional Local A. Public Investment A. Strategies to Meet Affordable Housing Production Encourage that all new publicly funded developments in Goals the region, especially for H-TAC defined highest need Some of the long-term or permanent affordability households (those in the less than 50% of the region strategies identified here are better suited to median income category), remain permanently affordable homeownership efforts, community building, and whenever possible. In the event that this is not feasible, neighborhood revitalization. Other strategies can be or that private investment and development activity is utilized to help meet regional affordable housing being discouraged, encourage the use of the longest production goals by providing housing for households affordability requirement possible. earning 50% of regional median income or less. The 1. If public dollars are invested, thenpermanent strategies below can be easily tailored to meet the needs affordability is strongly encouraged to be required. of this income group, especially if combined with a 2. If other benefits are given to the project, such as a tax community land trust. exemption, then long-term or permanentaffordability 1. Limited Equity Cooperatives requirements are encouraged to be required. 2. Permanently affordable rental housing 3. If a regional funding source is created, use of those 3. Mutual Housing Associations funds should be tied to permanent affordability. B. Strategies to Mitigate Impacts of Increasing Rents in B. Legally Enable Local Governments and Non-profits to Manufactured Home Parks Utilize Certain Strategies Some of the long-term or permanent affordability 1. Encourage local jurisdictions to consider adopting strategies identified here are especially well suited to more flexible PUD (planned unit development) codes mitigating the impacts of increasing rents in to allow for different structural types in the same area. manufactured home parks. Key strategies in this 2. Encourage Metro and local governments to lobby the situation include: State Legislature to provide enabling legislation that 1. Community Land Trusts - a non-profit organization would allow banks to underwrite mortgages for may purchase the manufactured home park in order cooperative housing ventures. to hold the land costs down over time 2. Cooperative Ownership - residents of a C. Accounting for Progress Towards Affordable Housing manufactured home park could purchase the land Production Goals and operate as a limited equity cooperative In accounting towards progress in meeting affordable housing production goals, give different credits for units affordable for longer time periods or permanently affordable. 0. Best Practices A compilation of "best practices" in implementing long- term or permanent affordability requirements should be compiled to enable jurisdictions to determine what models would work best locally. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 44 Description EXAMPLES Under state law there are two types of system development charges (SDCs): Improvement Fees and Reimbursement SDC Waiver Exemption Fees. Improvement Fees are SDCs that are applied to Salem, OR. The e SD C imposed under City improvement costs associated with capital improvements to Code Chapter 41 exempts a) housing provided by the Salem Housing Authority, be constructed. Reimbursement Fees are SDCs applied to and b) any housing unit if it receives city improvement costs for capital improvements already administered federal housing funds and is constructed or under construction. SDCs are generally affordable to families below 80%MHI. required at the start of a project, prior to other permit Eugene, OR SDCs exempted for a) rental approvals or construction. Jurisdictions assess SDCs housing for low-income persons <60%MHI, differently, depending on local needs. SDCs increase the and b) home ownership housing for amount of up front cash a developer must have, thus persons <80%MHI. City Manager is increasing the total cost of the housing unit. authorized to waive base amount (totaling $115,000 annually) of SDCs for affordable State law (ORS 223.299) limits system development housing. Unallocated portions of annual base amount are added to the base amount charges to capital improvements related to: for the next fiscal year. (A) {hater supply, treatment and distribution; (B) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal; (C) Drainage and flood control; SDC Deferred (D) Transportation; or Gresham, OR. The City has a program (B) Parks and recreation. that allows deferred payment or financing of SDCs for new development over a period of State law (ORS 223.304) also limits the methodology that up to 10 years. The program is not may be used to impose SDCs as follows: necessarily tied to affordable housing developments. The objective of the program is to offer all property owners an The methodology shall promote the objective gfjuture opportunity to pay SDCs in monthly or lump system users contributing no more than an equitable share to sum installments as an alternative. the cost ofexistingfacilities. Property owners must pay the City the SDC amount plus an interest rate. Local Funding Issues Ashland, OR. Since 1991, the city has One key factor in analyzing SDC fees is to examine the used deferred SDCs as an incentive to larger funding base for all improvements. The sources increase affordable housing supply. The g deferred SDC is secured by a second usually include SDC fees, taxes, exactions such as local mortgage which is recorded and treated as improvement districts (LIDs), and grants. Depending on a loan and accrues 6% interest per year. the mix of funding sources, the SDC fees are adjusted to The accrued interest and principal are due ensure sufficient funding for the improvements. If a local upon the sale of the property to a non- overnment has a well-established infrastructure that has qualifying buyer and/or the property is sold i; for more than the maximum purchase price, been capitalized over a long period of time, one might which is adjusted every year. expect lower SDC fees. However, if a city is in a rapidly a growing area that has required major new infrastructure SDC Graduated expenditures to meet the needs of new and existing Lake Oswego, OR. City Code, Chapter residents SDC fees may be higher. 39.06.105, authorizes that SDCs may be proportionately reduced if "Evidence indicates that construction, alteration, 1 Other Considerations addition, replacement or change in use l e Waiving fees for affordable housing developments may does not increase the parcel's or structure's use of a system or systems to the degree have the impact of increasing costs for market-rate calculated in or anticipated by the housing, as the cost of capital improvement projects methodology for the particular system would be born by the market-rate housing. development charge." Regional.lffbrdable /lousing Strategy June 2000 Page 45 O Local governments need funds to pay for the cost of infrastructure that is a result of growth - funds to pay for capital improvements must come from someplace if SDCs are waived or reduced for affordable housing. Many governments are not able to fund needed projects without SDCs. Recommendations for Implementation Re Tonal Local A. Legal Opinion on Implementation A. Need Based SDC Reduction Strategies Request legal opinion from the Metro General Counsel 1. Defer and Forgive SDCs: Fees could be deferred for on Metro authority on the implementation of SDC affordable housing projects serving persons in the reduction strategies. highest need income group - those in the less than 50% of the regional median household income category. The B. Guidelines for Implementation fees could be forgive n and canceled by the local The intent of reducing SDCs is to reduce the cost of government if the property remains in the affordable producing and operating housing and thereby increase housing program for a period of time (20 years or more) the affordability of housing for the "end user." If one to be determined by the local government. All or a element of development costs is reduced (such as percentage of the fees may be deferred and the local SDCs), it is possible that other elements of the governments may secure the deferred fees by a second development equation (construction costs, developers mortgage (in the form of a Trust Deed) which is recorded fees, etc.) could rise quickly to absorb the reduction. and treated as a loan and accrues a determined interest per year. In the event that the property is taken out of Federal, State, and some local funding programs often the affordable housing program early, the owner would include a review process to ensure that construction, be required to pay principal and accrued interest. (Note: development and operating costs conform to acceptable State law limits the methodology that may be used in benchmarks. However, some local jurisdictions do not implementing SDCs). currently have a method of ensuring that cost reductions provided by the jurisdiction result in an increase in 2. Defer SDCs until permanent financing is in place: housing affordability for the "end user." A mechanism Fees could be deferred during the development of should be developed so that a jurisdiction can be affordable housing projects. The property owner would assured that the reduction in cost of one element of the be responsible for SDCs when permanent financing is in development process is retained in reduced development place (e.g., certificate of occupancy, tax credit equity and operating project costs, rather than being absorbed arrives, etc.). SDCs must be paid in a set time frame. by increases in the cost of other elements of the development process. 3. Defer SDCs until sufficient project cash flow becomes available. Local governments may decide to charge or Local jurisdictions should have their legal counsel review not charge interest on the deferred SDCs. any potential SDC reduction programs to ensure conformance to state law. B. Facilities Based SDC Reduction Strategies 1. Graduated SDCs linked to the impact of the project on public facilities. Transportation and parks SDCs for housing for elderly or people with disabilities who make fewer trips and use parks less than large families living in multi-family units may be proportionately reduced by local jurisdictions. The assumptions are that: a) seniors living on fixed incomes and people with disabilities who are unable to work to supplement their income have less need to use roads; b) elderly and people with disabilities will use parks less frequently than families with children. Wili; L_- Regional Affordable Housing Srraregp June 2000 Page 46 Description EXAMPLES Building construction has been regulated to protect life, health and property of citizens for many years. State law requires local jurisdictions to provide comprehensive building code enforcement The he of Hand nd Portland Development services, including plan reviews and site inspections (ORS Commission administers the City of Chapter 455). Permit fees are therefore charged to support the Portland's program for waiver of city review of construction plans and building site inspections to development fees for nonprofit ensure safe buildings that comply with state and local codes. developers of affordable housing. Fee waivers are available for items including building permits and The amount of a building permit fee is based on the construction zoning fees. Each year the City sets type and anticipated market value of the proposed project. aside a dollar amount to be used for Jurisdictions often base permit fees on formulas provided by the permit fee waivers (recently the State Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building amount has been $500,000). Codes Division. However, jurisdictions do have flexibility in the The Bureau of Buildings has a amount charged for various permit fees as long as they provide separate policy that supports non- the State with a surcharge on fees collected. The surcharge profit agencies that are doing enables the State to administer building codes. Jurisdictions do projects with volunteer labor. Fees not require permission from the State to set or change permit fees normally charged for inspections, plan review and other services are from year to year, however, jurisdictions must notify the State waived for qualifying agencies within Building Codes Division of changes in their fee schedule. For certain guidelines. For example a instance, the City of Portland raises permit fees each year in maximum of $500 per project and accordance with the increase in the COLA (cost of living $2,500 per agency per fiscal year will be waived for approved projects. allowance). Building permit fees include charges for all site, plumbing, City of Eugene electrical, mechanical, land use, fire and life safety reviews, as The City of Eugene waives planning well as subsequent inspections and processing. In general, a and development permit fees (building permit, etc.) for affordable permit is required to construct, enlarge, alter, move or demolish housing projects, up to a total of any one- or two-family dwelling or related structure. $50,000 each year. The amount of money allocated to permit fee Permit fees increase the cost of building housing, and are waivers must be used during each fiscal year, and does not roll over to generally required up front which increases the amount of money the next year. The program began a developer needs to start a project. in 1998 with an administrative decision and did not require City Other Considerations Council approval. Waiving or reducing permit fees for affordable housing may reduce the ability of local governments to carry out their duties. • Equity issue - is it fair to reduce permit fees for a specific class of people and not others? Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 page 47 Ogg! Recommendation for Implementation Regional Local 1. Guidelines for Implementation Need Based Permit Fee Reduction Strategies The intent of reducing permit fees is to reduce the cost of 1. Defer and Forgive Permit Fees: Fees could be producing and operating housing and thereby increase deferred for affordable housing projects serving the affordability of housing for the "end user." If one persons in the highest need income group - those in element of development costs is reduced (such as permit the less than 50% of the regional median household fees), it is possible that the other elements of the income category. The fees could be for iven and development equation (construction costs, developers canceled by the local jurisdiction if the property fees, etc.) could rise quickly to absorb the reduction. remains in the affordable housing program for a Federal, State, and some local funding programs often predetermined period of time. A local jurisdiction include a review process to ensure that construction, could consider designating a set amount in their development and operating costs conform to acceptable budget each year to be used for permit fee waivers benchmarks. However, some local jurisdictions do not for low-income housing. After the set amount has currently have a method of ensuring that cost reductions been used up, then no additional waivers would be provided by the jurisdiction (such as deferred and provided. Forgiven permit fees are paid for by the forgiven permit fees) result in an increase in housing local jurisdiction from other funds. (Note: A local affordability for the "end user." A mechanism should be government is not required to pay the State a developed so that a jurisdiction can be assured that the surcharge on fees not collected. In other words, the reduction in the cost of an element of the development State surcharge only applies to fees that are process is retained in reduced development and collected). operating project costs, rather than being absorbed by increases in the cost of other elements of the 2. Defer permit fees until permanent financing is in development process. plane: Fees could be deferred during the development of affordable housing projects. The Local jurisdictions should have their legal counsel review property owner would be responsible to pay the any potential permit fee reduction programs to ensure permit fees when permanent financing is in place conformance to state law. (e.g., certificate of occupancy, tax credit equity arrives, etc.). The property owner would also be 2. Legal Opinion on Implementation responsible to pay the permit fees within a defined Request legal opinion from the Metro General Counsel time frame. on Metro authority on the implementation of permit fee reduction strategies. 3. Defer permit fees until sulficient project cash flow is available. Local governments may decide to charge or not charge interest on the deferred permit fees. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 48 i Description ~-a All real property within the State of Oregon is subject to EXAMPLES assessment and taxation in equal and ratable proportion (ORS Portland, OR. The City of Portland 307.030) unless exempted as provided by State law. Local has collaborated with the Portland governments and the State collect percentages of the property tax School District and Multnomah collected, which is subject to voter-approved limits such as County to gain the 51 percent valuation needed to authorize Measure 5 and Measure 47/50. property tax exemptions for various programs. The City has developed Property tax is one of the factors affecting the supply of a program that provides an array of affordable housing, hence some jurisdictions allow property tax property tax exemptions for exemptions to owners of housing units targeted for low-income affordable housing and transit- oriented development. residents, which in turn allows the owners to reduce rents or allows homeowners to reduce monthly housing costs. Tigard, OR. The City of Tigard, There are several types of property tax exemptions for affordable after adopting ORS 307.540 to 307.547, has offered a property tax housing that are available in Oregon by law. Statutes relevant to exemption for low-income housing evaluation of this strategy are outlined below. owned by nonprofit corporations since 1996. The program is I . ORS 307.242 The State offers funded property tax exemptions for provided to further enable the city to elderly housing furnished by private nonprofit corporations. meet affordable housing goals. To 2. ORS 307.250, ORS 307.370 The State offers property tax qualify for the tax exemption, a exemptions for veterans or their spouses, and homes provided to property must be owned by a veterans. nonprofit or by a partnership in 3. ORS 307.515 Local governments may provide property tax which the nonprofit corporation is a general partner. The property tax exemptions for low-income rental housing, subject to restrictions. exemption must be applied for each The tax exemption applies only to the tax levy of the jurisdiction assessment year. unless approval of other governing bodies is obtained, which together equals 51 % or more of the total combined rate of taxation levied on the property. A property tax exemption may be provided Eugene, OR. The City of Eugene, for a period of 20 years. after adopting ORS 307.600 to 4. ORS 307.540 to 307.547 Local governments may provide property 307.690, offers a property tax tax exemptions for low-income rental housing owned by a nonprofit exemption for multi-family low- corporation. The tax exemption applies only to the tax levy of the income rental housing. The program is provided to enable the city to jurisdiction unless approval of other governing bodies is obtained, support the concept of a compact which together equals 51 % or more of the combined rate of taxation growth form, and increase multi- levied on the property. A property tax exemption under these family development in the core provisions must be applied for each assessment year. business district. The property tax 5. ORS 307.600 to 307.690 Local governments may grant property exemption is available for housing tax exemptions for newly constructed multiple unit rental housing on eligible property within the city located in proximity to central business districts, transit oriented that is owned by a nonprofit areas and light rail station areas. The exemption only applies to corporation, and that is actually and multi-unit housing, and may only be provided for 10 years. The tax exclusively occupied by low income exemption applies only to the tax levy of the jurisdiction unless people (at or below 60 /o MFI). approval of other governing bodies is obtained, which together equals 51 % or more of the combined rate of taxation. 6. ORS 458.005 to 458.065 Local governments may provide property tax exemptions for single family housing in distressed areas. A city must identify the "distressed areas", and the total area may not exceed 20% of land in the city limits. The tax exemption applies only to the tax levy of the city unless approval of other governing Regional Affordable Housiag.Strateki, June 2000 page 49 bodies is obtained, which together equals 51 % or more of the total combined rate of taxation levied on the property. 7. ORS 308.450 to 308.481 Local governments may adopt legislation to provide property tax exemptions for rehabilitated residential property, single family and multi-family units that are located in distressed areas. A city must identify the "distressed areas", and the total area may not exceed 20% of land in the city limits. The tax exemption applies only to the tax levy of the city unless approval of other governing bodies is obtained, which together equals 5115/6 or more of the total combined rate of taxation. The taxation rate on a property under this program shall not be more than its assessed value prior to any rehabilitation improvements, and this reduced rate may be assessed for no more than 10 consecutive years. 8. ORS 456.225 All property owned by a public housing authority is automatically exempt from property taxes. Other Considerations • It may be difficult for some local governments to form partnerships with other taxing authorities in order to reach the 51 % needed to provide a full property tax exemption for low-income housing. • Many jurisdictions are facing budget cuts after Measure 50, and may not be interested in foregoing additional revenue even for affordable housing. • Phased in property taxes could address the "cold turkey" shock of paying taxes after reaching the end of a 10 year (or other time period) tax abatement. The 1999 Legislature passed HB 3211, which amended portions of ORS 307.600 - 307.691 to allow local jurisdictions to extend tax abatements past the 10-year time period. Recommendation for Implementation Regional Local 1. Provide information. 1. Consider property tax exemptions for highest need Some local governments do not know how to use their housing - for households 50%MHI and less. authority to provide property tax exemptions for This would further enable the region to reach affordable affordable housing. housing production goals. 2. Guidelines for Implementation 2. Consider providing property tax abatements or The intent of providing property tax exemptions for exemptions for renter and owner occupied housing affordable housing is to reduce the cost of producing and preservation and rehabilitation. operating housing and thereby increase the affordability Preserving and rehabilitating existing affordable housing of housing for the "end user." If one cost factor is is often the most cost effective method available to reduced, it is possible that the other elements of the provide affordable housing in this region. development equation (construction costs, developers fees, etc.) could rise quickly to absorb the reduction. 3. Consider providing property tax abatements or exemptions for owner occupied housing Federal, State, and some local funding programs often o Senior housing: For seniors living on fixed incomes include review processes to ensure that construction, from social security, pensions, or retirement plans development and operating costs conform to acceptable who are in danger of being displaced from benchmarks. However, some local jurisdictions do not neighborhoods due to increased property taxes. currently have a method of ensuring that cost reductions H-TAC defined income groups: Housing based on provided by the jurisdiction (such as a property tax H-TAC defined income levels. exemption) result in an increase in housing affordability 0 51-80% of MHI for the "end user." A mechanism should be developed o 81-120% of MHI so that jurisdictions can be assured that the reduction in the cost of an element of the development process is 4. Consider extending tax abatements after the 10-year retained in reduced development and operating project time period in return for a commitment by the costs, rather than being absorbed by increases in the property owner for long-term affordability. cost of other elements of the development process. This could provide additional units of affordable housing for lower income households that would not otherwise be Local jurisdictions should have their legal counsel review available. any potential property tax exemption programs to ensure conformance to state law. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 50 Description EXAMPLES When the supply of land available to develop for housing is public Donation of Land limited, the funding for public improvements lacking and demand Multnomah County, OR. for additional housing is high, the cost of land increases. The cost Multnomah County's Affordable of land is generally dictated by the workings of the market, while Housing Development Program the availability of developable land that is zoned for housing is (AHDP), revised in 1997, was dependent on local, regional and state governments' policies as created to "foster the development of affordable housing for lower well as public investment in roads, sewers, and other public income families using the inventory facilities. of County tax foreclosed property." County Ordinance 895 allows the no The urban growth boundary (UGB) delineates the area in which cost transfer of tax-foreclosed urban development may occur. Outside of the UGB urban properties to nonprofit housing sponsors and sets notification, services such as sewer and water may not be provided, thus selection and transfer requirements. making more dense development impossible. This has the impact of reducing the overall land supply, therefore reducing the amount of land available for residential development and thus increasing Private Donation of Land Faith Based Organizations the cost of land, unless more efficient use of land within the UGB The mission of faith-based is allowed and marketable, organizations is often well served by providing land for affordable Studies have shown that housing developers currently are having housing. Some faith-based difficulties with the cost of land and scarcity of large feces of organizations develop housing y p themselves; others either donate or land on which to build. These conditions reduce the opportunity lease land to nonprofit housing for builders to develop economies of scale. These impacts are developers. An analysis of vacant likely to affect single family units more than multi-family units, as tax exempt land shows that faith- a multi-family development is able to absorb the higher land costs based organizations own approximately 700 acres of by increasing density• undeveloped land in the Metro region. The Oregon Housing Cost Study (December 1998) showed that homebuilders in Oregon operate at a smaller scale than typical for Land Banking other parts of the country. There are smaller companies Eugene, OR. The City of Eugene producing homes at relatively low volumes. The fragmented Landbank program was first building industry also contributes to a lack of economies of scale, established in 1982. The program's which potentially results in higher costs to produce housing. purpose is to have a supply of Small builders may be hard pressed to produce affordable housing vacant land available to support development of public-purpose that is appropriate for infill lots located in existing neighborhoods housing. The program is designed due to the cost of plans and designs as well as difficulty in to ensure that builders who locating potential lots. Additionally, expectations for "starter participate in public-purpose homes" have changed over the years, with many builders housing programs will have operating under the perception that homes will not sell without appropriate sites available. A funds become available, the ci ty certain amenities, which also increase cost. identifies appropriate parcels of land for subsidized or specialized Strategies identified by H-TAC include public and private housing projects. Once the city donation of land, land banking, and public-private partnerships. acquires title, the parcel is "banked" to await development proposals. The city allocates $300,000 of Oregon state law grants governmental bodies the right to transfer CDBG funds each year to the Low- title of developed and undeveloped property that is no longer Income Housing Trust Fund to be needed for public use to a different public agency or a nonprofit used to purchase parcels for the corporation for another public purpose as defined by the State Landbank Program. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 51 r Nhmlbv~ (ORS 271.330). The law includes "transfers without consideration of property held by counties as a result of tax foreclosures." There are many examples of situations around the country and in Oregon where private organizations have donated land for affordable housing. Such donations, when made to a nonprofit housing provider, may frequently be written off income taxes, and may also increase the positive public image of a corporation or private organization. Some private organizations find that their mission is well served by donating land to be used as housing for those in need, such as faith based or fraternal organizations. The development of affordable housing depends, to a large degree, on the availability of sites. Landbanking is a technique whereby a city or county, in anticipation of future development, acquires vacant lard, underutilized sites, or properties with the potential for reuse or rehabilitation. Landbanking gives a community direct control over the location, timing, and type of housing built. Jurisdictions are also able to assemble smaller properties over time to create sites for larger projects. Other Considerations • The market plays the largest role in determining the cost of land and often its availability, while government plays a much smaller part in impacting this cost factor. There are taxation and regulatory tools that could impact the market, but these are outside the scope of this report. Recommendation for Implementation Metro does not have the authority to require the implementation of any of the strategies to address land cost and availability that are described above. Strategies outlined below would help jurisdictions in the Metro region move towards meeting regional affordable housing production goals and encourage the development of additional affordable housing in the region. Regional Local 1. Facilitate public/private partnerships. 1. Donation of publicly owned property. Jurisdictions could cooperate to create subregional or Jurisdictions could cooperate with nonprofits to identify regional public/private partnerships to facilitate the and donate publicly owned land that is no longer in use development of affordable housing, focused in to be used for affordable housing. Temporary use of redevelopment or infill areas. Examples include: such land could be considered by jurisdictions. Support smaller builders. Tools could be Encourage increased donation of tax foreclosed developed including, but not limited to, the properties to nonprofits and public agencies to be used following: for the development of affordable housing. o Inventory of infill lots available for 2. Donation of privately owned property. redevelopment/new development Jurisdictions could encourage private corporations and ♦ Design/subdivision assistance (similar to faith based organizations to donate land for affordable the Portland Design Center), including housing. i plans that meet codes and neighborhood 3. Land banking. expectations Jurisdictions could consider participating in the s Design awards recognizing good infill Enterprise Foundation's revolving fund land bank .4 examples .4 ♦ Hold meetings with program, or consider establishing a local landbanking a homebuilders/realtors/designers to program using local or CDBG funds to support the development of additional affordable housing- coordinate more infill and redevelopment o Internet or other database of possible sale 4. Community Land Trusts (CLTs) opportunities Jurisdictions could encourage the development of 7 community land trusts and other limited equity affordable housing options. (More information on CLTs may be found in the Long-Term & Permanent Affordabilty strategy). Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 52 Description Off site improvements are often required of developers to ensure that EXAMPLES a development has adequate public facilities and services to serve the Most cities and counties impose site and to extend the public facilities to provide for logical requirements for off site continuation of a local government or special district street and improvements on a case - by - utilities systems. Off site improvements typically fall in two case basis under the same general conditioning authority categories: 1) traffic or street related items, or 2) on-site storm for on site improvements. The drainage facilities. Traffic improvements may include traffic lights, requirements may be worded as sidewalks, and gcneral street improvements. Storm drainage follows: "The [city/county] may improvements may include storm drainage, on-site stormwater impose conditions of approval to quality control, water distribution and fire protection. mitigate the impacts of the development on public facilities and infrastructure." In most cases a developer constructs the off site improvement. However, in some cases where the development is in a Local For example, if a development Improvement District, the developer may be given the option to pay is going to generate traffic, a traffic study is typically required. the local government or special district to do the construction. It If the study indicates that the should be pointed out that when the developer chooses to pay off site traffic increase would warrant a improvements fees to the local jurisdiction to do the construction, traffic signal at an intersection such fees are not associated with system development charges and up the street, the condition to permit fees. Off site improvement fees differ from a general fee in install the signal (install contribute to the cost of ation) is that they are assessed for improvements that are directly related to a imposed. development site, rather than to pay for system wide improvements. Very few local governments Private utilities may also assess additional charges on the have express off site improvement requirements development of housing. These charges must be related to the because the need varies from specific impact of the new development. Private utilities include development to development, telephone, electric, and gas services. and because Dolan v. the City of Tigard basically precludes While off site improvements add to the cost of develo in housin blanket "one size fits all" p g g, exactions. frequently a local jurisdiction has no alternative for funding a needed improvement other than the new development. The key is to ensure that a specific development is only required to provide improvements commensurate with the level of impact imposed by the new development. The need for off site improvements often is determined by timing - either the first or last developer into an area is held responsible for improvements that are needed for a larger area. For instance, the first developer in an area may be required to construct a road, along with street improvements, that will serve other developments. The developer may or may not be provided with credit from future developments. For the last developer in, off site improvements that should have been required of previous developments may now be necessary, such as traffic lights. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy ✓u» e 2000 Page 53 Other Considerations • Local governments need funds to pay for the cost of infrastructure that is a result of growth - funds to pay for off site improvements must come from someplace if requirements are waived or reduced for affordable housing. • On site stormwater detention can be a very expensive component of developing housing in many situations. The most cost effective method of addressing the need for on site stormwater detention facilities would be to develop a regional drainage system, rather than on a site-by-site basis. However, this would require a huge public investment that may be difficult to pass through the public approval process. Recommendations for Implementation Regional Local 1. Consider cost of off-site improvements when 1. Reduce the Guarantee of Completion amending the UGB Encourage local governments to consider offering a Some of the undeveloped land inside the urban growth reduction of the Guarantee of Completion to developers boundary tends to be harder and more expensive to of affordable housing in the form of a reduced develop because of their terrain. The cost impact of percentage of the estimated construction cost of the developing these types of land could be considered in public improvement that the developer is required to the expansion of the urban growth boundary. secure in bond or letter of credit. 2. Use a Regional Fund as a "Bank" for Off-site 2. Reduce the Maintenance Guarantee Improvements for Affordable Housing Encourage local governments to consider offering a If a regional funding source is created, use a portion of reduction of the Maintenance Guarantee to developers of the fund as a "bank" to fund off site improvements for affordable housing in the form of a reduced percentage affordable housing developments. The fund could be of the estimated construction cost required prior to the provided at varying low interest rate loans depending on jurisdiction accepting ownership and operation of the the amount of affordable housing provided at the site. privately financed public improvement. 3. Educate Utility Commissions 3. Target CDBG Funds for Public Infrastructure for Work with utility commissions to educate them on the Affordable Housing public benefit of affordable housing, to reduce the impact Encourage local governments to target CDBG funds for fees of providing utilities to affordable housing projects. public infrastructure for affordable housing. Local participating jurisdictions could develop a policy to set 4. Address stormwater on a Watershed Basis aside a certain amount of CBDG funds to offset a Stormwater detention/runoff should be addressed on a reduction in the fees charged developers for public watershed basis when appropriate. On site stormwater improvements constructed by the jurisdiction (instead of detention is an important cost component of developing the developer). Joint development of public housing, and a water shed wide drainage system would infrastructure by a group of developers could get reduced be one of the most cost-effective method of dealing with fee charged developers for public improvements stormwater runoff. constructed by the jurisdiction. 5. Consider Affordable Housing when Developing 4. Allow Project Phasing Natural Resource Protection Plans Encourage local jurisdictions to allow the development of Develop Goal 5 implementation policies that take into projects in different phases, because phasing in of consideration the affordable housing needs of this projects could save money for affordable housing region. developers. 6. Legal Opinion on Implementation Request legal opinion from the Metro General Counsel on Metro authority on the implementation of Off Site Improvement requirement strategies. Regional.4jJ6rdable !lousing Strategy June 2000 Page 54 y Description EXAMPLES Building codes are a set of regulations that govern the construction of buildings and other structures. States across the Codes for New Construction country develop building codes based various model building State of Montana. In 1997, the codes. In Oregon, the State Building Codes Division adopts Montana Building Industry Association various model codes including the International One and Two (MBIA) recruited the Montana Board Family Dwelling Code printed by the international Code of Housing to conduct a study on Council (ICC) and the Uniform Building Cede written by the potential code amendments that could International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). These reduce the cost of housing without affecting life/safety. The Montana codes are adopted and implemented statewide by the division Board of Housing provided a $20,000 and local jurisdictions (ORS 455.030 and 455.040). The state grant for engineering consulting building code includes over a dozen specialty codes dealing with services to assist in the MBIA study. different aspects of a building such as structure, boilers, The study produced 18 separate recommendations on specific electrical wiring, elevators, plumbing, mechanical systems, etc. technical issues, including a request Developers and builders of housing must have building plans for universal code interpretation reviewed for compliance with applicable codes before a building procedure, and was submitted to the permit is issued to start construction. Montana Building Codes Division. According to the MBIA, these new Although the mission of the State Building Codes Division amendments and interpretations are "working with Oregonians to ensure safe building construction estimated to reduce the cost of an while promoting a positive business climate," the codes and the average home by $5,300. The building permit process has been criticized for contributing to association also added that if higher housing costs and thus a shortage of affordable housing theoretically applied to the state's g • average annual total housing starts of Strategies for reducing the cost impact of the building permit 3,500 homes, the package would process have been addressed in another strategy report "Local result in potentially $18 million in Regulatory Constraints - Permit Approval Process c& consumer cost savings annually. Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning Codes: Cost Reduction Factor for Affordable Housing." Building codes have been Codes for Rehabilitation criticized specifically for: a) Lack of uniform interpretation, which contributes to State of New Jersey. In 1996 the difficulty obtaining plan review and permits, expensive State of New Jersey set out to develop a new rehabilitation subcode contract corrections, and increases construction time; of the existing Uniform Construction b) Penalizing owners of older buildings for renovations by Code. The new rehabilitation requiring expensive upgrades; subcode went into effect in 1998. The c) Lack of a cost/benefit analysis when code changes are subcode is one of the strategies adopted and implemented. adopted by Governor Christine Todd Whitman for the revitalization of cities. d) Difficulty changing specific code standards when new A 60 percent increase in rehabilitation technologies, building techniques and building materials of old structures has been attributed could be used to reduce costs while maintaining safety, to the new rehabilitation subcode. The subcode has reduced rehabilitation cost by as much as While each individual code change may not have a large impact, 50%, with the average around 10%, the cumulative cost of increased requirements has a large effect as reported by the state community on the cost of new construction and renovation of existing affairs department. buildings. The New Jersey rehabilitation State of Oregon Efforts subcode has been cited as a national According to the Department of Consumer and Business model. Services, Building Codes Division, Oregon has recently taken Regional Affordable dousing Strategv haze 2000 Page 55 steps to address the issues of code uniformity, timeliness of plan review and inspection, and other related customer and industry concerns. Two Oregon State Senate bills (SB512 and 587) were passed by the 1999 Legislature. SB 521 created a Tri-County State Board for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. The board was granted authority and responsibility to standardize forms, including plan requirement checklists, and certain plan review and permit procedures. The bill also created a Building Codes Division Service Center in the Tri-County area to provide specific centralized services including the label program for minor work that provides for a reduced number of inspections. SB 587 included several facets applicable statewide that are intended to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of local building code services. First, fees received for plan review and permits must now be dedicated to the building inspection program. Fees are also limited to those reasonable and necessary to carry out the program. Second, a revised appeal process goes into effect July 1, 2000 allowing an aggrieved party to appeal a code interpretation directly to the state code experts rather than be delayed by the current local and state appeals processes. Third, authorization for third party plan review and inspection has been created for use where a local jurisdiction is unable to provide timely service (considered to be 10 business days for one and two family dwellings). Another activity currently underway by the Department of Consumer and Business Services and Building Codes Division is an interim study of statewide code administration. The goal is to identify an ideal system to be implemented over time to more effectively meet customer needs and protect public safety. Recommendation for Implementation Building codes are developed at the state level and implemented by local jurisdictions. Metro can only draw attention to the large impact that building code changes have on the cost of producing new housing and renovating older buildings. H-TAC encourages the state to consider the following recommendations. State 1. Analyze current building codes. A cost/benefit analysis of the existing building codes should be conducted that accounts for the high priority placed o providing affordable housing to residents of the state. Amendments to State and local buildings codes should be based on cost/benefit of implementing additional codes, weighing the safety issues with housing affordability. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of SB 512 and 587 and implement appropriate standardized plan review and permit processes statewide. Increase the use of technology and training to effectively implement more consistent code interpretations. 3. Consider developing a separate set of codes for rehabilitation of older buildings. Compare the current Oregon code requirements for the rehabilitation of existing buildings to models used in New Jersey and elsewhere, and develop appropriate code changes for consideration by the Building Codes Division and appropriate advisory committees and boards. This could include developing a separate set of codes for rehabilitation of older buildings, as was done in New Jersey. 4. Improve coordination and cooperation. Improve partnership among state and local building officials, builders and other trade groups involved in housing production with the goal of improving regulatory activities to enhance affordable housing production and improvements. 5. Independent Review Panel Consider setting up an independent review panel to consider the cost impact of new and existing codes. 6. Strengthen the Educational System The state should strengthen the current educational system for code related matters that provides opportunities for all (many community colleges currently offer related courses). 7. Develop a Checklist Develop a checklist of applicable code requirements for specific categories of work to be used by developers and other contractors. This would help to facilitate the permit and code approval process. Regional Affordable Housing Srraregv June 2000 Page 56 Description Affordable housing funding is provided by many sources, including local, state and federal governments, as well as other private and public sources. Nonprofit and for profit affordable housing developers are faced with a complicated process when applying for funds to develop housing. Funders have varying application processes, funding restrictions, and project monitoring requirements. While requirements are important to ensure that funds benefit low-income tenants and that investments are secure, they often complicate the process of producing affordable housing and thereby increase cost. Application timing and requirements often vary, and may be co-dependent. For example, applications for state and federal fiends may require a local match, application deadlines may not be consistent, the result being delay. Additionally, sometimes State policies appear to have contradictory goals that increase difficulties for funding applicants. For instance, the State currently discourages displacement of tenants in any State- funded project, regardless of the income of the displaced tenant. While this is an important policy, there are times when it contradicts goals of preserving and rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock. Allocating scarce project funds to relocation assistance for tenants that do not meet applicable income restrictions may have the effect of making a rehab/preservation project financially unfeasible. This is a key issue in housing markets like those in the Metro region, where tenants tend to relocate voluntarily due to factors other than displacement, such as an increase in income or a change in job location. The State sets housing policy based on priorities, goals, and criteria it develops and in compliance with Federal restrictions, as understood by the State. The State then presents this housing policy for public comment, which sometimes results in conflicts between local housing goals and State funding policies. Other Considerations O The requirements of many funders are not subject to change; thus local government requirements should be revised to facilitate coordination. Application forms are unlikely to be revised by various funders, as a consolidated form may not meet priorities and needs of various fenders. Coordination should aim to ease the development process, but complete consolidation may not be feasible. Recommendation for Implementation Regional Local 1. Ongoing Policy Dialogue 1. Project Monitoring Requirements Create a stable platform for an ongoing policy dialogue H-TAC recommends that local HOME Participating between local governments & the State to ensure Jurisdictions Qurisdictions that dispense HOME dollars) meet coordination between local policies & goals & State funding with the State to develop a recommendation for coordinated decisions. monitoring of a project, thus reducing the burden on nonprofit • Hold a regional forum. Encourage a meeting to be held and for profit housing developers using multiple funding with the following participants: Participating Jurisdictions sources to produce affordable housing. Separate project (jurisdictions that dispense HOME dollars), for-profit & monitoring by a variety of funders places a high burden on nonprofit housing developers, housing authorities, & both the housing provider and the tenant. redevelopment agencies to discuss current coordination issues and potential solutions with the State. • Ongoing policy dialogue. A regular (perhaps semiannual) policy forum should be instituted among Metro region housing authorities, the State (including the State Housing Council), housing providers, & redevelopment agencies. The forum should encourage open discussion among participants with the goal of developing & refining housing policy on a cooperative basis to meet regional affordable housin needs. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 57 00111 so -1 11111011 EIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'Mil Description H-TAC developed affordable housing production goals and strategies that could be used by Metro, local governments, non-profit and for-profit developers and other entities to achieve the goals. The following questions describe the main issues that arise in terms of implementing, monitoring and evaluating strategies and progress in meeting the goals. • How should we measure our efforts towards the goals? What kind of resources will be required? • What kind of data currently exists at Metro? Where will other information or data come from? • Do we need to consider some sort of reporting system? To provide answers to the above questions, H-TAC recommends that Metro serve as a regional housing resource and develop a database that would provide information to be used as follows: • Evaluate implementation of the RAHS, including assessment of progress towards increased affordable housing production and preservation; • Develop and implement local governments' Consolidated Plans; • Provide resources and/or data to help housing developers develop credible funding applications. Other Considerations • Local governments may be reluctant to take on additional data collection and reporting due to lack of resources. In addition, some of the data are available only at a price in the private market. • Metro may have to budget for data that must be purchased on the private market. • Some important sources of data, such as the US Census, are only updated every 10 years. However, the American Community Survey provides a lesser amount of data more frequently. Recommendation for Implementation Regional Local 1. Overall Data Analysis Local jurisdictions should cooperate in • Metro should utilize US Census data, when available, to analyze housing needs the data collection process by in the region. providing the following pertinent • Use a periodic survey to determine what strategies are working/not working, information to Metro for compilation including why a strategy works well in one place and not others. and analysis. 2. Data Necessary to Track Progress in Meeting Affordable Housing Goals i) Publicly assisted rental units 0 By Make efforts to collect at the regional level the following data for measuring group size, location, income group contributions of various entities in the region: Number for seniors, people i) Multi-family rental units by size, location & rental amount with disabilities, etc. Currently existing/Newly produced Existing ii) Single family rental units by size, location & rental amount Newly produced • Currently existing/Newly produced • Accessibility of newly iii) Publicly assisted rental units by size, location & income group produced units • Currently existing/Newly produced Rehab or new construction • # set aside for elderly, people with disabilities, other special groups • Cost of production by • Accessibility of newly produced units construction type, size of iv) Households by income groups and location bedrooms) and location v) Owner occupied units by size, location & value/sale price ii) Amount of subsidy available - in • Detached, attached and condos/coops cooperation with State and vi) Buildable land available by jurisdiction & zoning Federal funders vii) Employment by location, occupation & wage level 3. Data Necessary to Track the Cost of Producing Publicly Subsidized Housing i) Cost of production: new MF by construction type, size bedrooms) & location ii) Cost of production: new SF by construction type, size bedrooms) & location iii) Cost of rehabbed units by construction type, size bedrooms) & location 4. Metro partnership with local jurisdictions Metro staff should work with local jurisdictions to develop a reporting process so as not to increase the burden on local governments more than necessary. Regional Affordable Housing Siralegy June 2000 Page 58 IV. REGIONAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Introduction Using Metro data, H-TAC has estimated the regional housing need by 2017 for new and existing households earning less than 50% of regional median household income (MHI) or less to be about 90,000 units. Currently, the average production rate for assisted rental units is approximately 1,146 units annually for households earning 80%MHI and less. However, H-TAC's determined housing need focuses on households earning less than 50%MHI, and producing housing for this income group requires a significantly larger amount of subsidy. At this rate, it would take many years to meet the region's affordable housing need, especially with the level of resources currently available. Federal and State governments have traditionally provided the bulk of funds for affordable housing. Some local governments, especially urban cities and counties, also allocate local funds for affordable housing production. However, these funds have been declining and are not sufficient to meet the need. A regional fund would enable local governments and other entities involved in the production of affordable housing to better meet the housing needs of local residents. The Regional Framework Plan Policy (RFP) 1.3, Housing and Affordable Housing, charged H-TAC with developing affordable housing goals for the region and identifying tools and strategies to implement the affordable housing production goals. One of the strategies identified in the RFP is regional affordable housing funding. Following is the RFP housing policy language that relates to regional funding: In developing the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee shall also address the following: "D) a variety of tools to ensure that the affordable housing to be accommodated is actually built, such as: affordable housing funding programs" "I) consideration of a real estate transfer tax as a funding source for an affordable housing fund at the state, regional or local level when that option becomes available under state law..." Current & Potential Funding Sources in the Region Funding for affordable housing has been an issue for many years. Shelter is a basic human need, and since the beginning of cities it has been necessary to focus time and resources on providing affordable housing. Historically the federal government has taken the lead in providing funds for the provision of affordable housing. However, long term federal commitments from the federal government for lower income housing are declining, introducing uncertainties for tenants, owners, communities and lenders. The yearly possibility of program reductions to many U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs introduces uncertainties not found in typical tax measures that are not subject to annual appropriations, and are instead regarded as "permanent." Public housing authorities must use the private market, with support from other federal subsidies, for financing new development. Federal government funding for affordable housing is mostly funneled through states, counties and cities. With the reduction in federal funds for the construction of new public housing units through the public housing authorities, nonprofit community development corporations have stepped in to meet local needs for the provision of lower income housing construction. Nonprofits are generally community based and form to meet the needs of specific groups in a community, such as senior citizens, disabled people, or large families. Funds used to develop housing built by nonprofits are typically competitively allocated by the state or federal government, and may be combined with private dollars as well. See Appendix C for more information on the current and potential funding sources available in the region. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 59 11111111111 ~illsons H-TAC identified three main areas that could help jurisdictions in the region maximize use of existing funding sources. 1. Training Program. It takes a lot of time to learn about the various programs for affordable housing funding and to understand the application procedures. Many smaller jurisdictions, newer community development corporations, and small builders do not have the resources to devote to searching for money for housing or to develop local funding programs or tools. Much of the knowledge and expertise needed to successfully apply for and manage funding resources is typically gained over a period of years, while the need for affordable housing in many communities has skyrocketed within the last decade. 2. Coordinate and Improve Federal Programs. A. Consistent Consolidated Plans. Although housing is a regional issue, it is not addressed consistently throughout the region. Each entitlement community4 is required to produce a Consolidated Plan every five years in order to receive funds from HUD. The Consolidated Plan outlines the community's housing needs and priorities and identifies areas most in need of funding. Jurisdictions within a county can cooperate to complete one Consolidated Plan, and dollars for communities with a population less than 50,000 are channeled through the county. The following entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan: Portland, Multnomah County and Gresham (together); Beaverton and Washington County (together); and Clackamas County. H-TAC discussed the potential of completing Consolidated Plans consistently so that numbers and issues are comparable regionwide and a regional picture can be estimated from combined totals. Some of the benefits of coordinating are: • Innovative. It would be innovative - this has not been done elsewhere. Such an effort might give entitlement communities in the Metro region a competitive edge in applying for housing dollars. • Alaximize efficiency. It would reduce duplicate efforts - the regional picture could be easily derived. • Consistent format. Currently, each jurisdiction develops their Consolidated Plan in a unique fashion, using different data sources and formats. This makes it difficult to get a regional picture of housing needs. All Consolidated Plans developed in the region should use consistent data and format. • Coordination. Housing programs and priorities could be consistent throughout the region, taking into consideration affordable housing production goals, jobs-housing balance, and transportation. B. Recommend use of HOME dollars for highest need housing. HOME dollars are awarded by HUD through a formula to participating jurisdictions -each dollar of grant funds must be matched with 25¢ of local money. The funds are targeted for households with incomes less than the median income. This is one of the few sources of money still available from the federal government to develop or retain housing. C. Promote changes with HUD and other Federal Programs. Encourage the Oregon Congressional Delegation to support changes with HUD and other Federal Programs to increase development of affordable housing and opportunities for homeownership. 3. Enterprise Foundation Regional Acquisition Fund. The Portland Regional Land Banking Program is a partnership between The Enterprise Foundation and the Housing Development Center, with support and coordination provided by the City of Portland and other local jurisdictions. The purpose of the fund is to acquire and hold development sites throughout the region, preserving the opportunity for the creation of community-based developments. The fund will function as a revolving account, capitalized with $20 million from The Enterprise Foundation, providing local jurisdictions the opportunity to access the fund by providing loan guarantees to purchase property.. a Jurisdictions that receive CDBG and HOME funds directly from the federal government. Regional Affordable Housing Sirafegy June 2000 Page 60 11111~1 1101 Recommendations for Implementation Regional Local 1. Training Program 1. Coordinate and Improve Federal Programs Develop a training program for staff from local jurisdictions, A. Consistent Consolidated Plans In the Region nonprofit and for profit housing developers, and lenders to Entitlement jurisdictions currently working to develop enable them to increase efficiency in producing affordable consolidated plans (required by HUD) should include a letter units. Possible components include: or short memo in each Consolidated Plan that describes • Management of Program. The program could be run regional efforts to address housing issues. Efforts should be through an existing organization that provides technical made to discuss further coordination in the future. assistance for affordable housing development, such as the Neighborhood Partnership Fund. B. Allocation of HOME Funds • Annual Training Sessions. Annual 1-2 day training Recommended strategies for maximizing the effectiveness of sessions focused on grant writing, resource management, HOME dollars in the Metro region. effective tools and providing opportunities for jurisdictional • Coordination. Possibility of coordinating HOME funds from coordination. cities and counties of the region - regional coordination as • Internet Resource Site. Add to the Enterprise Foundation exemplified by A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) in web site, to provide information from annual training east King County, Washington. sessions as well as resources, best practices, and grant • Prioritize based on highest need. Use HOME dollars to deadlines. meet highest priority regional needs, consistent with local • E-mail List Serve. Compile an email list serve of those priorities described in local Consolidated Plans. interested in receiving updates on funding opportunities, and to serve as a forum for issues related to increasing the C. Promote changes with HUD & other Federal Programs supply of affordable housing in the region. Encourage the Oregon Congressional delegation to support • Expanded Scope. Annual training sessions and other changes with HUD and other Federal programs to encourage resources could be focused specifically on funding the development of affordable housing, especially as opportunities or expanded to provide a forum for dispersing referenced below. information on best practices for cost reduction and land . Change the length of the contract. Federal budget use strategies. accounting should be changed to permit longer-term contracts for all HUD rental assistance, even in the absence of an increase in total units, which should also be supported. This would give greater parity to programs that serve very low income tenants (other federally funded programs providing benefits for higher income tenants than rental assistance programs - such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits - provide 10-30 years of federal benefits). o Allow more discretion to local housing authorities to project base Section 8 vouchers. Change administrative rules to permit simple project basing of vouchers, subject to 15% cap of total units. HUD estimates this would support $90-120 million one time acquisition/construction of affordable and available units. (Note: HUD estimates that nationally 53% of units with affordable rents are not available because higher income renters occupy them). Encourage elected leaders in the Metro region to execute an intergovernmental agreement to require that all publicly assisted projects accept voucher tenants using the same screening criteria as other tenants. 2. Enterprise Foundation Regional Acquisition Fund Encourage all participating jurisdictions to utilize The Enterprise Foundation's $20 million regional acquisition fund. While this is not a permanent funding source, it provides jurisdictions access to capital to acquire quality development sites when they are available. This fund is low cost patient capital that will allow jurisdictions to purchase and hold property for up to five years prior to development. However, the Enterprise Foundation does require a guarantee. The counties should work with Enterprise to develop a consistent mechanism for loaning the money. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 61 1,1, in il I'le IN! 1, ill'I'll~ mom Need for a New Source of Funding There is an overwhelming need for a new affordable housing EXAMPLES fund in the Metro region. Even if all of the jurisdictions in the Employer Assisted Housing- Portland. OR region utilize all of the possible Federal and State funds Siltronic Home Ownership Program available, there will not be enough money to meet the (SHOP). In 1996, Wacker Siltronic, one of affordable housing needs of the region. Portland's largest manufacturers, developed SHOP in partnership with two In the development of affordable housing goals, H-TAC non-profit housing developers, Home determined a need for approximately 90,000 additional Ownership One Street at a Time (HOST) and affordable units for households earning less than 50%MHI in North East Community Development Corporation (NECDC) and Fannie Mae. the region over the next 20 years. In an effort to develop a Under SHOP, eligible employees receive a reasonable but ambitious goal for housing production in the loan of up to $5,000 to be used toward the region, H-TAC developed a five-year affordable housing down payment or closing costs for their first production goal of 9,048 homes based on 10% of the home. In conjunction with SHOP, Fannie Mae will purchase loans made by local benchmark need. lenders. The loan is fully forgiven if the borrower remains employed at Wacker Based on the data provided in Chapter Three: Regional Siltronic for five years. Housing Goals, the total federal and state subsidy available annually that could reasonably be used to produce housing for Legacy Emanuel Neighborhood Home households earning 50%MHI and less is $27,077,586. The Ownership Program (ENNOP). In 1992, Legacy Emanuel Hospital created a total cost of meeting the Five-Year Affordable Housing program to assist employees in purchasing Production Goal can be estimated to be $124,210,944, based a primary residence within targeted on a number of assumptions described in Chapter Three. North/Northeast Portland neighborhoods. Thus, an additional subsidy of $97,133,358 is necessary to EHNOP provides loans to qualified employees within identified geographic begin to meet the housing needs of residents of the region. boundaries. Loans cannot exceed $5,000 and can be used for down payment, pre- in addition to a basic need for more dollars to produce paid reserves, and closing expenses. The housing, H-TAC also identified the importance of controlling loan is forgiven based on 20 percent per the use of new funds at a local level. A regional fund could be year, and interest payments of 8.5 percent used to meet regionally and locally identified housing are deducted from the employee's priorities, while funds from the state and federal governments paycheck. often have different priorities and restrictions. Portland School District "Homeroom" Program. In 1999, the Portland School Funding Sources Considered District and the Portland Teachers Credit H-TAC discussed several possible sources for a regional fund Union created the Homeroom Program to recruit potential teachers to Portland and to devoted to affordable housing. While the following funding keep them working in the city's schools. sources are successful elsewhere, H-TAC decided not to Under the program, full-time teachers and recommend them at this time: 1) Regionwide Bond Measure administrators in their first five years for Housing and 2) Housing Linkage Fee. H-TAC chose to working in the Portland Public Schools are focus efforts on a regional Real Estate Transfer Tax eligible for mortgages that will allow them to proposed buy a house or condo with no down (RETT), as this showed the most potential for raising a large payment. The credit union provides an amount of money for housing. interest-free loan on top of the mortgage to cover closing costs, and also allows the A Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) is paid by the seller of a homebuyer to forgo mortgage insurance. residential, industrial, or commercial property. The tax is paid Loan recipients must remain with the school district is when the is sold, and is calculated as a percentage to continue a receive the low rate property and the interest free portion of the loan. of purchase price. There is a strong nexus between taxing This program provides Portland Public transfer of property and providing affordable housing for Schools with a useful incentive to attract residents in the region in need of assistance. A RETT is not and retain teachers, and also provides the regressive, meaning that the tax is less for a less-expensive sale Portland Teachers Credit Union with additional clients. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Jame 2000 Page 62 Oil than for a very expensive sale. Thus, those more able to afford to help provide the most assistance for those in need. H-TAC is proposing that homes selling below a set "affordable" price be exempt from the tax so as to minimize impact on low- and moderate-income homebuyers. The RETT is also cyclical - when the economy is strong and property sales are up, the amount of tax collected will be higher than when the economy is in a downturn. This means funds raised by the tax will be higher when housing affordability is more of a problem, and lower when housing prices are lower. There are many benefits to the implementation of a regional RETT. The fund would provide dollars to target housing development to those areas of the region most in need of affordable housing, and would provide homes for people with the highest need. As currently proposed, portions of the RETT would be allocated to: help first time homebuyers purchase homes throughout the region; provide affordable rental housing to households earning less than 50%MH1; and fund local infrastructure improvements for affordable housing development. This could help the region achieve our 2040 Growth Concept vision; increasing livability by putting housing near jobs, reducing congestion, and providing residents of the region with more affordable homes. Recommendations for Implementation Regional/Local Cooperation 9. Employer Sponsored Housing Employer Based Programs. Local governments, community and business leaders should encourage employers to consider developing homeownership and rental assistance programs for their employees. 2. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) The RETT provides the best opportunity to raise a relatively large amount of money for housing that could be controlled locally. The concept generated strong support in a focus group H-TAC held to gather additional input from housing and financial specialists not involved in the H-TAC process. A proposal describing the RETT has been circulated among all the local elected officials in the region. Local elected officials and development industry representatives have expressed support for a RETT, with the Realtors providing the only significant objection. Although implementation of a regional RETT does face some major hurdles, H-TAC concluded that the revenue potential and connection to affordable housing provide reason enough to pursue the RETT as a funding source. The implementation of a RETT would raise a substantial amount of revenue to be directed towards meeting affordable housing production goals identified by H-TAC. Implementation of a RETT would require several steps prior to funds actually being collected. Most importantly, the Legislature would have to change the law that prohibits local governments from collecting a RETT. The Legislature may also choose to implement a statewide or Metro area RETT dedicated to affordable housing. There is general consensus that a coalition of local leaders will go to the Legislature to request a change in the current law that prohibits a RETT, or exempt the Metro region from the law, and to allow a ballot measure to implement the RETT in the Metro region to be taken to the voters. Funds raised through a RETT could be allocated in a variety of ways, but would be focused on achieving the affordable housing production goals set by H-TAC. 3. Use and Administration of a New Regional Housing Fund A regional housing fund could be allocated in a variety of ways. Key stakeholders should be involved in decisions regarding the use, allocation and administration of a regional housing fund. Strategies identified by other H-TAC subcommittees for the potential use of a regional fund should also be considered. The following general principles are key in developing guidelines for the use and administration of a regional fund. • Flexibility is crucial. A regional housing fund should allow for various options in the use of the funds to better meet the regional needs for affordable housing. These needs vary by jurisdiction and also may change over time, thus flexibility in utilizing the dollars is crucial to meeting regional housing needs. • Target regional fund dollars to help meet specific needs. Guidelines for the general disbursement of the regional fund dollars should target specific housing needs in the region such as meeting regional affordable housing production goals, aiding first time homebuyers, and helping seniors and people with disabilities find affordable housing. • Final decisions should be delayed until more work has been done. Negotiations over how a fund should be allocated and administered should not be conducted until further work has been done to et a regional fund in lace. Regional AJjbrdable Housing Strategi, June 2000 Page 63 V. STRATEGIES NOT ADDRESSED BY H-TAC While H-TAC addressed many strategies in the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS), theic are numerous others that H-TAC did not have the time to consider. Some of the key strategies not addressed by H-TAC are enumerated here for future efforts at regional or local levels. One strategy addressed separately by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is the linkage of regional transportation funding to affordable housing. Transportation Related Strategies Throughout the public involvement process to get citizen comments on the strategies described in this chapter, numerous participants pointed out the important link between transportation and housing. This is especially crucial for affordable rental housing, and housing for special needs populations who may rely on public transport. Some of the strategies and tools identified in this document do consider the connection with transportation, such as the Parking and Elderly and People with Disabilities strategies. Metro's JPACT also developed a policy linking transportation funding to affordable housing and forwarded its recommendations to the Metro Council in March 1998. Metro's Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) discussed at length the technical and administrative criteria used to allocate regional funds to projects and recommended to JPACT that the administrative criteria should include an affordable housing connection. The policy that was finally adopted states that projects that demonstrate a connection to increasing the region's supply of affordable housing, or which improve the multi-modal transportation service to existing affordable housing, will be flagged for funding consideration. In this way the housing consideration would be in evidence throughout the process of determining transportation projects that will receive regional funding. Location Efficient Mortgage The Location Efficient MortgagesM (LEM) is an innovative homeownership initiative that rewards homeowners who choose to live in densely populated urban communities well-served by public transit and with easy access to jobs, shopping, cultural activities, and other destinations. The reward comes in the form of the savings that results from minimizing use of the automobile (called the Location Efficient Value, or LEV) and acknowledging the increased buying power of households living in "location efficient" areas for mortgage qualification. The LEV savings has been calculated by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a nonprofit organization based in Chicago, for the cities of Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area, under a pilot program sponsored by Fannie Mae in July 1998. Evaluating the Feasibility of a LENT in the Metro Region In September 1998, the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) organized two briefings on the LEM i featuring staff from CNT. Several discussions between the Oregon Environmental Council, Metro and CNT resulted in the formation of an ad hoc group (LEM Technical Committee) that provided the financial and resource commitment to conduct a feasibility study on the viability of implementing a LEM program in the Portland metropolitan region. The ad hoc group members included: o Governor's Community Solutions Team e Oregon Department of Transportation • Portland Development Commission o City of Portland Bureau of Housing and Community Development i City of Portland Office of Transportation • Metro o Oregon Environmental Council Regional Affordable Housing Strategv Jame 2000 Page 64 NINE! The Feasibility Study Report: The Potential for a Location Efficient Mortgage Program in the Portland Metropolitan Region was completed by CNT and the OEC in December 1999. The study determined that there is a clear compatibility between the objectives of the LEM and land use planning at the regional and local levels. A LEM Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from local governments, TriMet, Governor's office, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Fannie Mae, also reviewed the study and conclusions. Results of the Feasibility Study Based on the analysis of the Metro region's transportation, household and land use data, the CNT, LEM Advisory Committee, and LEM Technical Committee concluded that: 1. The Location Efficient Mortgages"' would be an appropriate and useful mortgage product for some areas within the Metro urban growth boundary. 2. The LEM would increase the borrowing power of low-moderate income households as well as middle income households seeking to live in more densely populated areas of the city that are well served by public transportation. 3. Mortgage borrowers who use the LEM are likely to own fewer vehicles and drive fewer miles per year than their counterparts who live in less accessible areas within the UGB. 4. The LEM's effect on homeownership accessibility would be sufficiently large in terms of geographical distribution and numbers of units to justify the construction of a LEM model and the implementation of a LEM program. 5. The magnitude of the economic advantage created by the LEM would make it attractive to potential homebuyers who are willing to choose a location efficient neighborhood and use public transportation. 6. The LEM has the support of community leaders and organizations. Their support is based on the belief that the LEM would fit into an overall strategy that encourages efficient land use and discourages automobile dependency. LEMs could be used in conjunction with other programs currently in place in the region, such as car sharing programs to further reduce the need for automobile ownership and Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) projects that are aimed at encouraging public transit use by targeting development near transit. 7. Fannie Mae has supported implementation of the LEM in Chicago and other locations. As a result of interviews and participation in the LEM Feasibility Study by Fannie Mae, there is strong reason to believe that Fannie Mae will agree to extend its pilot program to the Portland metropolitan area. The aspect of a LEM pilot project in the Portland metropolitan area that may be most attractive to Fannie Mae is the fact that the LEM helps to achieve other regional growth management and land use planning goals. Next Steps Implementation of the LEM would require: a) finding sponsor/s for the development of a detailed GIS based model to be used by lenders in calculating the LEV for individual mortgage customers, including analysis of vehicle cost per household, development of the LEM software package to be used by banks, and design and implementation of a web page for use by potential loan applicants; and b) expansion of the LEM Advisory Committees to help build community support, "roll out" a new mortgage product, and provide liaison with other community organizations. s Expanded Advisory Committee may include key local agencies, organizations, transit systems, Realtors, housing advocates, homeownership coalitions, lenders, mortgage lenders, and secondary market leaders. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 65 Other Strategies • Air Rights. Air rights are the rights to develop above existing structures. Many parts of the region may be "underbuilt" when taking air rights into consideration. This strategy was identified in the RFP, but H-TAC did not have the time to consider it. As the region continues to grow, this strategy could become increasingly important. • Faith Based Housing Initiatives. The faith-based community has historically been involved in providing affordable housing and other services for people in need. HUD recently formed the Center for Community and Interfaith Partnerships to encourage and facilitate additional participation. A local example of a model effort by a faith-based organization to provide affordable housing is St. Anthony's Village, a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for seniors built by the Catholic Church in Southeast Portland. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 66 a Fag= Chapter Five: Recommendations for Implementation 1. INTRODUCTION This Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS) serves as both a short term (5-year) and long-term (to 2017) blueprint to address the need for increased affordable housing production in this region. As such, the RAHS reflects planning efforts that should be expected, encouraged or required of various entities including federal, state, regional and local governments, housing providers, other businesses, community based organizations and citizens. The H-TAC recommendations described in this chapter do not address all of the affordable housing needs of our region. However, they will help to increase the inventory of affordable housing and improving the livability of this region. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part describes the broad planning and administrative actions that various entities are encouraged to make as a first step towards implementation of the RAHS. The second part describes specific actions that must taken by Metro and local jurisdictions to enhance current and future activities for affordable housing production in our region. 11. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES This section includes a description of the roles and responsibilities of Metro, local governments, and other entities that must be undertaken for the RAHS to be implemented successfully. A. Metro H-TAC has recommended Metro action in three planning and administrative areas, including technical assistance for local jurisdictions to enhance their implementation efforts, monitoring and measurement of progress made by jurisdictions and the region toward affordable housing production goals, and staffing a housing advisory committee in the future. 1. Technical Assistance a. Best Practices, Guidelines and Voluntary Model Ordinances H-TAC, through the analysis and development of the affordable housing tools and strategies described in Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing, identified the need for a best practices manual to assist jurisdictions in implementing strategies that would be most effective locally. The best practices manual could also provide information on the types of partnerships that enhance the production of new and rehabilitated units. H-TAC also identified a need for Metro to develop specific guidelines to encourage regionwide consistency in the development and implementation of strategies. In addition, the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) stated that in making recommendations, H-TAC should consider model ordinances, especially for strategies that could be considered for inclusion n „ in the functional plan such as replacement housing ordinances, density bonus incentives, and voluntary inclusionary housing. H-TAC has recommended the development of a handbook containing best practices, regional guidelines, and voluntary model ordinances for affordable housing as described in q Table 13 below. 3 a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy ✓une 2000 Page 67 Table 13. Recommended Content of a "Best Practices Handbook" Best Practices Regional Guidelines Voluntary Model Ordinances Long-Term or Permanent Property Tax Exemption Density Bonus Affordability Density Bonus Incentives Local Regulatory Constraints/ Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Inclusionary Housing (voluntary & Discrepancies in Planning and mandatory) Zoning Codes/Local Permitting or Transfer of Development Rights Approval Process b. Coordination through Regional Forums H-TAC recommends that, in order to reduce the inefficiency created by a lack of better coordination among funding sources, Metro take the following actions to help streamline affordable housing funding application requirements, timing, policies and goals of the funders. • Create a forum for an ongoing policy dialogue that would ensure coordination of local and state policies and goals with state funding requirements in order to meet regional and local affordable housing needs. • Create a forum for an ongoing dialogue among various entities in the region to enhance local first time homebuyer programs. • Encourage coordination among local entities and the Oregon Building Codes Division to minimize the cost impact of codes on affordable housing production in the region. c. Regional Housing Fund Assist local governments in setting up a regional administrative infrastructure for the administration of a Regional Housing Fund when the fund becomes available. d. Other Activities related to Current Metro Programs • Consider the cost of providing infrastructure to land within the urban growth boundary when expanding the boundary since much of the undeveloped land inside the urban growth boundary is located on steep slopes or faces other outside constraints, and thus tends to be more expensive to develop. • Consider using a cost/benefit analysis to determine the impact of new regulations on local housing activities related to housing production. • Address storm-water detention/runoff on a watershed basis so as to facilitate local implementation of off-site improvements, where appropriate, to reduce the overall cost of developing housing. • Consider affordable housing when developing regional natural resource protection programs so as to enhance the implementation of local off-site improvement requirements. • Review Metro's goals for consistency in its overall regional planning policies and their impact on local planning and zoning activities. • Consider "voluntary inclusionary housing" requirements when amending the Urban Growth Boundary. • Provide a legal opinion on Metro's authority on the implementation of strategies recommended for system development charges, permit fees, and off-site improvement requirements. • Include consideration of job wage levels to the cost of housing in a jurisdiction or subregion when conducting an analysis of jobs/housing balance. 2. Monitoring and Measuring Success Monitoring and measuring our success is a vital component in the implementation of the RAHS. As stated in Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing, the region currently lacks the vital data necessary to track progress in meeting the affordable housing production goals. In addition, there is a lack of data necessary to track the cost of producing publicly subsidized Such as local, state and federal governments and other private and public sources. Regional Affordable Housing Strarep, June 2000 Page 68 1 1 mmmi housing which is essential in developing regional and local affordable housing funding goals, policies and objectives. H-TAC has recommended that in the implementation of the RAHS, Metro should use the 2000 U.S. Census data to analyze and update the region's affordable housing needs. H-TAC has also determined that during the implementation of the RAHS, Metro should conduct a periodic survey to determine which strategies are working and not working, including why a strategy might work well in one place and not others. Several questions still remain related to the type of data needed to measure progress towards the affordable housing production goals. The RAHS Implementation Advisor; Committee, described in the next section, should assist Metro in identifying the most appropriate data to use in monitoring and measuring the success of the RAHS. 3. RAHS Implementation Advisory Committee H-TAC recommends that Metro staff a RAHS Implementation Committee that will advise Metro and help to review the effectiveness of the strategies and appropriateness of the regional affordable housing production goal. If necessary, the committee could recommend changes to both the strategies and the affordable housing production goals. The committee could meet on a quarterly basis. The structure and composition of the committee could be the same as H-TAC or downsized. B. Local Governments H-TAC has recommended that local governments take action in several ways, a described in Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing. The roles and responsibilities recommended by H-TAC for local jurisdictions can be grouped into three areas: broad actions that can be taken by local jurisdictions (Section 2); strategies recommended for local jurisdiction consideration (Section 313); and strategies local jurisdictions should use to amend their Comprehensive Plans (Section 3C). 'i. Local Government Functions and Opportunities for Cooperation in the Provision of Affordable Housing While H-TAC has identified a number of tools and strategies that can be used by local governments to encourage the development of affordable housing, the committee recognizes the fact that local governments typically do not build or operate affordable housing. Historically, local governments have deferred housing production to nonprofit, for-profit and housing providers such as the Housing Authorities. However, the local governments do play a key role in facilitating the production and maintenance of affordable housing in their communities. Table 14 describes some of the important roles a local government may play through regulation, funding, and facilitation to impact the provision of affordable housing for local residents. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 69 Table 14. Rotes of Local Governments in Housing Role* Exam le of Mechanisms for Providing Housin Land Availability Development Maintenance Regulation a Comprehensive plans a Development standards a Preservation ordinance e Zoning a Review plans a Building & Rehabilitation e Opportunities for diverse a Building permits and Code enforcement range of housing inspections a Enforcement of Federal Fair e Opportunities for mixed use Housing laws housing e Rehabilitation and use of existing buildings Funding a Donate surplus land a Reduce or forgive fees a Home repair and e Land banking a Loans and Grants rehabilitation loans and e Tax exemptions & grants abatements a Loans and grants to apartment owners to rehabilitate Facilitation a Community Land Trust a Technical assistance in the a Technical assistance funding and development a Coordinate rehabilitation process and repair programs with e Support of Community Community Development Development Corporations Corporations e Public/private partnerships a Volunteerism for tree planting and neighborhood beautification programs 'Three major roles that could increase the supply of affordable housing and improve the quality of housing stock. The mechanisms in Table 14 describe some of the opportunities for cooperation among local governments and private organizations to create and maintain affordable housing. An example of a cooperative effort is the consortium of local government agencies involved in the preparation of the Consolidated Plans required by HUD. Developing programs to encourage the provision of affordable housing requires an understanding of funding resources available to local governments and as well as the types of tools and strategies that can facilitate the development of affordable units. H-TAC found that many local governments, often due to a lack of staff resources, are not currently utilizing some of the existing funding resources in the region. H- TAC encourages local jurisdictions to dedicate some staff resources towards housing in order to meet local affordable housing needs. 2. Guidelines for Implementation The intent of many of the strategies described in Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing is to reduce the cost of producing and operating housing, thereby increasing the affordability for the "end user," or resident. Thus, H-TAC identified a need for local governments to consider developing guidelines for the implementation of the strategies aimed at providing fee waivers or other funding incentives. State and some local housing funding programs often include a review process to ensure that construction, development and operating costs conform to acceptable benchmarks. However, some local jurisdictions do not currently have a method of ensuring that local funding programs and cost reductions provided by the jurisdiction result in an increase in housing affordability for the "end user." Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop mechanisms to ensure that incentives are retained in the form of reduced development and operating project costs and passed through to the "end user." H-TAC recommended that Metro collect information on the cost of producing housing, including amount and type of subsidy, to further enable local jurisdictions to develop guidelines for the implementation of local programs. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Ane 2000 Page 70 3. Regional Housing Fund Federal and State governments have traditionally provided the bulk of funds for affordable housing. Some local governments, especially urban cities and counties, also allocate local funds towards affordable housing production. As stated in Chapter 2: Affordable Housing Needs, H-TAC has estimated the regional Benchmark Need by 2017 for new and existing households earning less than 50% of regional median household income (MHI) to be 90,479 units. H-TAC has also recommended a 5-year Affordable Housing Production Goal of 9,048 housing units for households earning 50%MHI and less ($26,850). A regional housing fund would help meet the 5-year Affordable Housing Production Goals and could also help provide first time homeownership opportunities. As stated previously in Chapter 3: Regional Housing Goals, there is approximately $27,538,7612 available annually for housing production (new and rehabilitated units) in the region. If we rely only on the federal and state resources to meet the 5-year goal, the remaining subsidy needed is approximately $96,672,183. While the other strategies described in Chapter 4: Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing will help to provide additional affordable housing, they will not be sufficient to meet the affordable housing needs of the region. Hence, H-TAC recommends that a regional Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) be implemented to provide dollars for a regional housing fund that could be used to leverage other affordable housing resources. The RETT provides the best opportunity to raise a relatively large amount of money for housing that could be managed by the region. The concept generated strong support in a focus group H-TAC held to gather additional input from housing and financial specialists not involved in the H-TAC process. A proposal describing the RETT has been circulated among all the local elected officials in the region. Local elected officials and development industry representatives have expressed support for a RETT, with the Realtors Association providing the only significant objection. As currently proposed, funds raised from a RETT would be allocated to: a) provide new and rehabilitated housing units to households earning less than 50%MHI; b) help lower income first time homebuyers purchase homes throughout the region ; and c) fund local infrastructure improvements for affordable housing development. A RETT would ensure that part of the benefit of increased land and housing values is dedicated to affordable housing. H-TAC has proposed exempting the tax on all homes sold for less than $120,000. Two potential taxation rates are shown 0.50% and 0.75% in Appendix C, as well as potential revenues in both a strong and weak economy. Potential revenues range from $4.8 to $40.6 million per year. Local governments have a major role to play in the implementation of a RETT. The main actions that must be taken include convincing the Oregon Legislature to: 1) exempt the Metro region from the current law that prohibits local governments from collecting a RETT and allow a ballot measure to implement the RETT in the Metro region, or 2) enact a statewide or Metro area RETT. Local governments also have a major role to play in the use and administration of a new regional housing fund. H-TAC recommends that negotiations over how the fund should be allocated and administered should not be conducted until further work has been done to get a regional fund in place (more detail on this recommendation is in Appendix Q. 4. Consolidated Plans H-TAC recommends that entitlement jurisdictions currently working to develop Consolidated Plans include a section in each Consolidated Plan that describes regional efforts to address housing issues. Efforts should also be made to discuss further coordination in the future. 2 Federal ($9,684,600) and State ($17,854,161). Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 71 5. Monitoring and Measuring Success A key factor in determining the success of the RAHS is monitoring and measuring the region's progress. H-TAC therefore recommends that local governments help in the data collection process by providing Metro pertinent information such as: • Publicly assisted rental units ❑ By size, location, income group ❑ Number for seniors, people with disabilities, etc. ❑ Existing ❑ Newly produced ❑ Accessibility of newly produced units ❑ Rehab or new construction ❑ Cost of production by construction type, size of bedrooms) and location • Completing a periodic survey to assess success of specific strategies C. Other Entities 1. Federal Government Historically the federal government has taken the lead in providing funds for the provision of affordable housing. However, long term federal commitments for lower income housing are declining introducing uncertainties for tenants, owners, communities and lenders. Consistent, year-to-year subsidies provide certainty. If affordable housing is based on federal budgets, investors, residents, and communities need certainty in HUD appropriations. The absence of that certainty increases anxiety and costs as participants factor in additional risks to the cost of participation in HUD programs, leading, for example, to the exodus of owners in the Section 8 project based program. H-TAC therefore recommends that the region should encourage Congress through the Oregon Congressional delegation to: • Expand the amount of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) available for affordable housing production; • Increase the amount of Section 8 Vouchers available to the Portland metropolitan region (currently there are close to 8,000 vouchers in use in the region); • Support changes with HUD and other Federal programs to encourage the development of affordable housing as follows: ❑ Change the length of the contract. Federal budget accounting should be changed to permit longer-term contracts for all HUD rental assistance, even in the absence of an increase in the total units, which should also be supported. This would give greater parity to programs that serve the very lowest income tenants (other federally funded programs providing benefits for higher income tenants than rental assistance programs - such as the LI HTC program). ❑ Allow more discretion to local housing authorities to use project-based Section 8 vouchers. Administrative rules should be changed to permit simple project basing of vouchers, subject to a 15% cap of the total units. HUD estimates that this would support an estimated $90-120 million one time acquisition or construction of affordable and available units. ❑ All publicly assisted projects should accept vouchers. Encourage elected leaders in the Metro region to execute an intergovernmental agreement to require that all publicly assisted projects accept voucher tenants using the same screening criteria as other tenants. 2. State Government The Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD) allocates Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) on a competitive basis to housing providers throughout the state. Thus, the state sets funding priorities and criteria for funding applications. The state also has created housing funding Regional Affordable /lousing Strategy Ane 2000 Page 72 programs, the Oregon Housing Trust Fund and the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit (OAHTC) program, used to generate homeownership and multifamily rental housing opportunities. H-TAC recommends that OHCSD work to increase funds available for affordable housing production and rehabilitation. H-TAC also recommends that the state work with housing providers and local governments to ensure that state funding requirements are coordinated with local priorities and housing needs. The state should also work towards joint monitoring of projecis and streamlining application processes. The state also plays a key role in the affordability of housing by implementing building codes. H-TAC recommends that the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division consider the following recommendations: 1. Analyze current building codes. A cost/benefit analysis of the existing building codes should be conducted that accounts for the high priority placed on providing affordable housing to residents of the state. Amendments to State and local buildings codes should be based on cost/benefit of implementing additional codes, weighing the safety issues with housing affordability. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of SB 512 and 587 and implement appropriate standardized plan review and permit processes statewide. Increase the use of technology and training to effectively implement more consistent code interpretations. 3. Compare the current Oregon code requirements for rehabilitation of existing buildings to models used in New Jersey and elsewhere, and develop appropriate code changes for consideration by the Building Codes Division and appropriate advisory committees and boards. This could include developing a separate set of codes for rehabilitation of older buildings, as was done in New Jersey. 4. Improve partnership among state and local building officials, builders and other trade groups involved in housing production with the goal of improving regulatory activities to enhance affordable housing production and improvements. 5. Consider setting up an independent review panel to consider the cost impact of new and existing codes. 6. Strengthen the current educational system for code related matters that provides opportunities for all (many community colleges currently offer related course). 7. Develop a checklist of applicable code requirements for specific categories of work to be used by developers and other contractors. This would help to facilitate the permit and code approval process. 3. Housing Providers Housing providers in the region have a major role to play in meeting the 5-year affordable housing production goal (9,048 units) explained in detail in Chapter 3. Inasmuch as the for profit developers produce housing for all income groups, some of them produce affordable housing. Nonprofit developers have traditionally produced only affordable housing. Currently there are about 30 nonprofit community development corporations in the region. With the reduction in federal funds for the construction of new public housing units through the public housing authorities, nonprofit community development corporations have stepped in to meet local needs for the provision of lower income housing construction. Nonprofits are generally community based and form to meet the needs of specific geographic areas or specific groups, such as senior citizens, persons with disabilities, or large families. H-TAC recommends that nonprofit, for-profit and other housing providers and developers consider the following suggestions: 1. Efficiencies in the management and rental of affordable housing can often be found with economies of scale. Cooperation among housing providers in managing affordable housing developments should be considered. Regional Affordable Housing Stralepj' June 2000 Page 73 2. Community Development Corporations should consider seeking and retaining a variety of funding sources for operating support to keep housing costs down. 3. Consider the overlapping roles and missions of housing providers in certain areas of the region, and work towards collaboration and cooperation to better serve those in need of affordable housing. 4. Other Organizations Private Funders Financial institutions play a key role in the production of affordable housing. Housing cannot be built without the loans provided by the banking industry. However, many affordable housing developments are financed with resources from a variety of sources. Often, each funding source will have a different application package with sometimes opposing requirements. Lenders could work together to coordinate funding applications as well as ensuring that project requirements are not inconsistent with local priorities and goals. An example is the requirement for a certain number of parking spaces per unit, even when the target population may not even be able to use cars (elderly, people with disabilities, etc.). Lenders should also support funding projects with pro formas that allow good design and management. Community Reinvestment Act: Under the Federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), bank regulators evaluate a bank's record of helping to meet the credit needs of their communities, consistent with safe and sound operations. Included in a community's credit needs are loans for affordable housing. Bank's make direct construction loans, permanent loans, investments and grants to affordable housing projects which helps them achieve a positive CRA rating. Also, as a participant in the Network for Oregon Affordable Housing (NOAH), banks can participate in long-term permanent loans on affordable housing projects throughout the state. Enterprise Foundation Regional Acquisition Fund: The Portland Regional Land Banking Program is an excellent example of a partnership between private funders and public sector that could help the region achieve the affordable housing production goal. The land banking program is a partnership between The Enterprise Foundation, Housing Development Center, City of Portland and other local jurisdictions. The purpose of the fund is to acquire and hold development sites throughout the region, preserving the opportunity for the creation of community-based developments. The fund may also provide an opportunity to the public sector to leverage private sector resources. The fund will function as a revolving account, capitalized with $20 million from The Enterprise Foundation, providing local jurisdictions the opportunity to access the fund by providing loan guarantees to purchase property. Training Program. A training program could be developed by a partnership of local jurisdictions, nonprofit and for profit housing developers, and lenders to enable them to increase efficiency in producing affordable units. Possible components of the training program include: • Management of Program. The program could be run through an existing organization that provides technical assistance for affordable housing development, such as the Neighborhood Partnership Fund. • Annual Training Sessions. Annual 1-2 day training sessions focused on grant writing, resource management, effective tools and providing opportunities for jurisdictional coordination. • Internet Resource Site. Add to the Enterprise Foundation web site, to provide information from annual training sessions as well as resources, best practices, and grant deadlines. • E-mail List Serve. Compile an email list serve of those interested in receiving updates on funding opportunities, and to serve as a forum for issues related to increasing the supply of affordable housing in the region. The Enterprise Foundation website is a good start (ii,ww.enterpri.sefortndation.org) • Expanded Scope. Annual training sessions and other resources could be focused specifically on funding opportunities or expanded to provide a forum for dispersing information on best practices for cost reduction and land use strategies. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Jute 2000 Page 74 Large Employers/Businesses Housing is a pivota.' issue for employees. The availability of convenient, affordable housing enhances a company's ability to attract, retain, and reward its workforce. As found in a national survey by the Work/Life Institute', companies offering housing assistance reported an improved company image, higher employee morale and better employee retention. Employers are also able to use housing assistance as a recruiting tool for new employees, and generally the benefits of providing housing assistance outweigh the costs or are cost neutral. Large employers in the region are encouraged to consider setting up assisted housing programs for their employees, such as the Siltronic Home Ownership Program (SHOP), the Legacy Emanuel Neighborhood Home Ownership Program (ENHOP), the Portland School District "Homeroom" Program, and the Summit at Government Camp Housing Project for the three nearby ski resorts (Timberline, Mt. Hood Meadows and Ski Bowl). (More information on these programs is in Chapter 4: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing and Appendix C.) Tri-Met Increasing, reducing, or removing public transport service from specific routes has a large impact on the development of affordable housing in certain neighborhoods. Thus, H-TAC recommends that Tri-Met take into consideration these actions that would minimize the impact of its actions on the development of affordable housing. Faith Based Organizations Opportunities for partnership between faith-based organizations and other entities, including the public sector should be explored, encouraged and supported. Faith-based organizations can support the development of affordable housing in a variety of ways, including: • Providing land. Many faith-based organizations own land that is not currently being fully utilized. This land can be used to provide housing, donate land for other housing providers to build on, or provided through a long term lease on the land. An analysis of vacant tax exempt land in the Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS) shows that faith-based organizations own approximately 700 acres of undeveloped land in the Metro region. (See Land Cost and Availability Strategy in Appendix Q. • Providing money. Faith-based organizations can provide money to other housing providers through the charitable donations of their congregations. • Providing services. Some faith-based organizations offer social services that would further help to integrate affordable housing residents into a larger community. • Education. Faith-based organizations have the opportunity to influence their congregations and can raise the awareness of the importance of providing safe, decent, affordable housing to families and others in need. For example, faith-based organizations can encourage landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. • Shared housing. Faith-based organizations can develop programs to aid those who own homes but are unable to continue maintaining them as well as providing those in need with a home. Shared housing is often used to connect elderly people with able-bodied people in need of a home. The arrangement benefits both parties, especially with the faith-based organization providing support. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been involved in efforts relating to community and faith-based groups. HUD acknowledges that many of its current programs grew out of the visions and activities of community and faith-based groups. In 1997, HUD established the Center for Community and Interfaith Partnership. The mission of the center is to focus, integrate, and intensify HUD's effort in working with interfaith organizations and other community-based organizations. a Work/Life Institute Survey, November 1998 (preliminary results) Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 75 11=11 mom Several faith based organization in the region are currently involved in providing affordable housing and other services to low income residents and persons with disabilities. For example, the St. Anthony's Village Enterprise based in southeast Portland has successfully developed an award-winning residential community (127 housing units and services at various levels) for seniors and persons with disabilities. The village offers a combination of assisted living facilities, including units specifically designed for seniors suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The combination of housing and other services may eliminate some of the psychological and physical consequences associated with seniors placed in a mdedical-model nursing home or an incomplete care center, which could save as much as $1 million per year in Medicaid costs 4 Other faith-based housing partnerships include Mercy Housing, Downtown Community Housing, Inc., St. Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Episcopal Senior Living Services, Inc., Lutheran Family Services, programs at Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon and other groups and churches. Citizens Assist in the following ways: • Support affordable housing production by participating in neighborhood organization meeting and providing comments on siting projects, design and property management methods; and • Volunteer with non-profit developers in programs such clean-up days, Paint-a-Thons, building homes, donating money, special events and working on boards and committees. a "St. Anthony Starts Pioneering Project." Affordable Housing Finance, April 1999. Pages 38-39. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 76 Ing- NNIN IN 11=11111 11111 Ill. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRATEGIES TO BE INCLUDED IN METRO'S REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN AND/OR URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN A. Introduction Metro implements the region's vision for future growth through two main planning documents: the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) which implements RFP policies, including the 2040 Growth Concept. The RFP contains specific policies to direct the region's future growth. It brings together the contents of previous regional politics to create an integrated land-use, transportation and greenspaces framework. The plan is inte.ided to ensure a coordinated, consistent approach to issues of regional significance. Examples of RFP policies include those that established H-TAC and gave the committee the charge of developing this Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). The Functional Plan is a set of regional requirements and recommendations, adopted in November 1996, for cities and counties to implement. It begins to implement the Region 2040 Growth Concepts The Functional Plan addresses issues including projected housing and job growth, parking management, water quality and a regional road system. An example of a requirement in the Functional Plan is Title I - Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation. The intent of Title 1 is to require local jurisdictions to change their zoning to accommodate development at i:igher density in communities supported by the transportation system. As a matter of regional policy, e.ich city and county must contribute to increasing the development capacity of land within the urban growth boundary. Title 1 includes a requirement that plans allow accessory dwelling units - one form of affordable housing. Title I also includes a requirement that local plans establish minimum density requirements which assure that planned densities are built. This supports smaller, more affordable units in residential zones. H-TAC is now recommending additional strategies in the RAHS that coui6 be used to increase the inventory of affordable housing in the region. H-TAC considered making a recommendation to the Metro Council as to where the strategies described in this section should be placed. ip the RFP and/or Functional Plan. However, H-TAC members concluded that the Metro Council should make the final determination as to the most appropriate places to make amendments in order to carry out the RAHS to increase the supply of affordable housing in the region. H-TAC evaluated many strategies and tools in the development of the RAHS. Through much analysis and study, H-TAC concluded that many of the strategies should be recommended for local jurisdictions to consider in the development of local strategies to meet the affordable housing need. H-TAC also concluded that local iurisdictions should be required to amend their local Comprehensive Plans to comply with broad regional affordable housing land use policies as a means of meeting the affordable housing need more consistently throughout the region. This section describes H-TAC's recommendations for implementation of the RAHS. 5 Metro's 2040 Growth Concept is a regional land-use policy adopted by the Metro Council in December 1995 that: a) encourages compact growth development near transit to reduce land consumption; b) preserves existing neighborhoods; c) identifies rural areas that will not be added to the urban growth boundary; d) sets goals for permanent open space within the urban growth boundary; and e) recognizes that cooperation with neighboring cities - Canby, Sandy, North Plans - is necessary to address common issues. Regional AJJ'ordable Housing Stratew,y June 2000 page 77 B. Voluntary Actions by Metro and Local Jurisdictions H-TAC recommends that the Metro Council and local jurisdictions adopt the Affordable Housing Production Goal as a guideline and appropriate non-land use tools and strategies as essential policies that enable the region to increase the regional and local inventory of affordable housing. As stated previously in Chapter 2, a key component of H-TAC's charge was to develop fair share targets for jurisdictions in the Metro region reflecting the current and future affordable housing needs of the region. While addressing other issues related affordable housing needs of the region, some terminology was changed as a result of much discussion. The most important change in terminology was to replace the phrase "fair share targets" with "affordable housing production goals," as described below: CHANGE OFTERM Affordable Housing Production Goals (Fair Share Targets) H-TAC decided to replace the term "fair share targets" with "affordable housing production goals" because the latter conveys properly the region's cooperative effort towards achieving livable communities within our region. 1. Metro Adoption of Affordable Housing Production Goals The Metro Council should adopt the Affordable Housing Production Goal (Table 15) to serve as a guide for local jurisdictions and the region to measure progress toward meeting the affordable housing needs of the region. These initial goals are established with the understanding that a new regional funding source or other financial resources are necessary to attain significantly increased progress on the inventory of housing affordable for households with incomes below 30% and 50% of median household income. This adoption of Table 15 as a guideline would be followed by a required assessment of the region's progress as described in Section II1.C.5 of this chapter. 2. Local Jurisdictions' Adoption of Affordable Housing Production Goals a) Local jurisdictions should adopt the Affordable Housing Production Goal (Table 15) to serve as a guide to measure progress toward meeting the affordable housing needs of households with incomes between 0% and 50%MHI in the jurisdictions and throughout the region. This income group i comprises the greatest unmet need. Jurisdictions should prioritize the use of the tools and strategies recommended in the RAHS to address this most acute need. b) Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to continue their efforts to promote housing affordable to households with incomes 50% to 80% and 80% to 120% of median household income. i Table 15 on the following page shows the affordable housing production goals of the region and its jurisdictions. As discussed in Chapter 2: Affordable Housing Needs, the Five-Year Affordable Housing f Production Goal is 10% of the Benchmark Need. I I Regional Affordable llousingSlralegy June 2000 Page 78 Table 15. Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal Allocated by JurisdictioW The Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal is 10% of the Benchmark Need. The Benchmark Need was determined for each jurisdiction based on 2017 population projections, the regional distribution of household incomes, and credits for the existing supply of housing affordable to households earning 50%MHI and below. Benchmark Need - 90,479 Percent of Benchmark Need by Five Year Affordable Housing Jurisdiction (2017) Income Group Production Goal - 9,04g' Benchmark Percent of less than 30-50% less than 30-50% Totals' need benchmark need 30% 30% Beaverton 6,567 7.24% 65% 35% 427 229 655 Cornelius 497 0.55% 80% 20% 40 10 50 Durham 92 0.10% 61%, 39% 6 4 9 Fairview 734 0.81% 58% 42% 42 31 73 Forest Grove 645 0.71% 85% _ 15% 55 10 64 Gladstone 532 0.59% 82% 18% 43 10 53 Gresham 5,580 6.15% 82% 18% 454 102 557 Happy Valley 573 0.63% 51% 49% 29 28 57 Hillsboro 5,148 5.68% 59% 41% 302 211 514 Johnson City 0 0.00% 0% 0% 0 0 0 King City 51 0.06% 91% 9% 5 0 5 Lake Oswego 3,392 3.74% 55% 45% 185 154 338 Maywood Park 0 0.00% 100% 0% 0 0 0 Milwaukie 1,019 1.12% 100% 0% 102 0 102 Oregon City 1,585 1.75% 78% 22% 123 35 158 Portland 17,948 19.79% 100% 0% 1,791 0 1,791 Rivergrove 27 0.03% 52% 48% 1 1 3 Sherwood 1,231 1.36% 54% 46% 67 56 123 Tigard 3,205 3.53% 68% 32% 216 103 320 Troutdale 1,310 1.44% 57% 43% 75 56 131 Tualatin 1,904 2.10% 63% 37% 120 69 190 West Linn 1,700 1.87% 58% 42% 98 71 170 Wilsonville 1,797 1.98% 56% 44% 100 80 179 Wood Village 175 0.19% 93% 7% 16 1 17 Clackamas County Uninc. 11,053 12.19% 66% 34% 729 374 1,103 Multnomah County Uninc. 1,349 1.49% 60% 40% 81 53 135 Washington County Uninc. 22,582 24.90% 58% 42% 1,312 940 2,253 Totals 90,6955 100.00% 72% 28%, 6,42 2,62 9,04 Further explanation of calculations in this table may be found in Chapter 3: Regional Housing GoalsH-TAC recommends that these goals be recalculated when 2000 Census data become available. 2The Affordable Housing Production Goal is intended to be a guideline to local jurisdictions, and is voluntary. 3The Benchmark Need (90,479 units) includes a need at 30%MHI that is cancelled out by a lack of need (or surplus) in Maywood Park at 30-50%MHI; while in Johnson City there is a lack of need in both of the lower income categories. It is important to note the fact that Johnson City consists of a mobile home park on one tax lot, which impacts :he data. 4Calculated by multiplying the "percent of benchmark need" by the Five-Year Affordable Housing Production Goal of 9,048 units. The result is multiplied by the "percent of benchmark need by income group" to get the goal by income group for each jurisdiction. he total shown here (66,000 for less than 30% and 26,343 for 30-50%) is based on excluding the projected "surplus" of affordable housing at less than 30%MHI for Johnson City, and 30-50%MHI in Johnson City, Maywood Park, Milwaukie, and Portland. 'Totals may not add up to due rounding. Regional ~tobrdable Housing Sirategv June 2000 Page 79 a 3. Local Jurisdictions' Adoption of Tools and Strategies Local jurisdictions should analyze the full array of tools proposed in this RAHS, and adopt and apply local tools and strategies to promote the development of housing affordable to households at 50%MHI and below, which is the regionally identified greatest need. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to continue their efforts to promote housing affordable to households with incomes 50% to 80% and 80% to 120% of the regional median household income. a. Voluntary Non-Land Use Tools and Strategies i) The Metro Council should encourage local jurisdictions to analyze, adopt and apply locally- appropriate non-land use tools as a means to make progress toward the Affordable Housing Production Goal. Non-land use tools and strategies that could be considered by local jurisdictions are listed in Chapter Four: Strategies for Increasing and Preserving the Supply of Affordable Housing. ii) The Metro Council should encourage local jurisdictions to -port on the analysis, adoption and application of non-land use tools at the same intervals that they are reporting on land-use tools (at 12, 24 and 36 months after the adoption of the RAHS). b. Voluntary Land Use Tools and Strategies H-TAC recommends that the Metro Council and local jurisdictions adopt appropriate land use tools and strategies to increase the inventory of affordable housing throughout the region. The Metro Council should encourage local jurisdictions to consider the implementation of the following affordable housing land use tools shown in Table 16. Table 16. Voluntary Land Use Tools and Strategies Replacement a Consider policies to prevent the loss of affordable housing through demolition in Housing urban renewal areas by implementing a replacement housing ordinance specific to urban renewal zones Inclusionary • When creating urban renewal districts that include housing, include voluntary Housing inclusions housing requirements where appropriate C. Required Actions by Metro and Local Jurisdictions Metro's authority lies in land use planning matters that local jurisdictions can implement through comprehensive plans and zoning regulations. While Metro may mandate that local plans and regulations comply with specific Functional Plan performance standards achievable through land use tools, the intent of H-TAC here is for the RAHS to provide a choice of tools available to local governments to increase the local supply of affordable housing consistent with their respective Affordable Housing Production Goals. H-TAC recommends a process which requires local comprehensive plans to implement affordable housing land use policies, and in the process consider the use of several other land use tools. H-TAC also recommends establishing a specific timeframe for these actions to track progress and evaluate the success of the RAHS. 1. Metro Implementation of Land Use Tools and Strategies The Metro Council shall revise the Regional Framework Plan and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for consistency with each other and with the RAHS recommendations below. The Metro Council shall amend the Regional Framework Plan and/or Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to adopt the following land use tool to increase the supply of affordable housing. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy ✓une 2000 Page 80 Table 17. Metro Implementation of Land Use Tools and Strategies Inclusionary Consider voluntary inclusionary housing requirements when amending the UGB (See Housing/UGB Appendix 8, Inclusionary Housing Strategy for more information.) Considerations 2. Affordable Housing Land Use Policies Metro Council shall amend the Regional Framework Plan and/or Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to require that each local Comprehensive Plan comply with the following regional affordable housing land use nolicies6 no later than 24 months after the adoption of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS): • Local comprehensive plans will include strategies resulting in the development of a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries. • Cities and counties shall prescribe within their plans actions and implementation measures designed to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing as well as increase the opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing within their boundaries. • Cities and counties shall prescribe plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing. The adopted Functional Plan (Title 1) currently requires certain strategies that may result in additional affordable housing opportunities, such as creating minimum density requirements and allowing accessory dwelling units. The regional affordable housing land use policies should be carried out in the context of other regional policies adopted in the RFP and Functional Plan designed to create livable communities, by supporting the regional transportation system, town centers and corridors, and helping to create a jobs housing balance. 3. Local Jurisdiction Implementation of Land Use Tools and Strategies Metro Council shall amend the Regional Framework Plan and/or Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to require local government consideration of use of the following affordable housing land use tools to carry out its Comprehensive Plan affordable housing policies. Local government consideration shall include identification of affordable housing land use tools currently in use and additional affordable housing land use tools, including but not limited to the tools in Table 18 (below), to be implemented in order to comply with the affordable housing land use policies. e Recommended by H-TAC for Metro Council adoption. These policies are based on Metro's adopted policies in the Regional Framework Plan, the RUGGOs, and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, as well as H- TAC adopted Affordable Housing Implementation Objectives. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 page 81 Table 18. Land Use Tools and Strategies for Local Jurisdiction Implementation Density Bonus 1. A density bonus is an incentive to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Local jurisdictions could consider tying the amount of bonus to the targeted income group to encourage the development of affordable units to meet affordable housing production goals. Replacement 1. No-Net-Loss housing policies for local jurisdictional review of requested quasi- Housing judicial Comprehensive Plan Map amendments with approval criteria that would require the replacement of existing housing that would be lost through the Plan Map amendment. Inclusionary 1. Implement voluntary inclusionary housing programs tied to the provision of Housing incentives (Density Bonus, etc.) 2. Develop housing design requirements that tend to result in affordable housing (single-car garages, max sq. footage, etc.) 3. Consider impacts on affordable housing as a criterion for any legislative or quasi- judicial zone change Transfer of 1. Implement TDR programs tailored to the specific conditions of a local jurisdiction Development Rights 2. Implement TDR programs in Main Street or Town Center areas that involve u zonin Elderly and People 1. Examine zoning codes for conflicts in meeting locational needs of these populations with Disabilities Local Regulatory 1. Revise the permitting process (conditional use permits, etc.) Constraints; 2. Review development and design standards for impact on affordable housing Discrepancies in 3. Consider using a cost/benefit analysis to determine impact of new regulations on Planning and Zoning housing production Codes; Local 4. Regularly review existing codes for usefulness and conflicts Permitting or 5. Reduce number of land use appeal opportunities Approval Process 6. Allow fast tracking of affordable housing Parking 1. Review parking requirements to ensure they meet the needs of residents of ail types of housing 2. Coordinate strategies with developers, transportation planners and other regional efforts so as to reduce the cost of providing parking in affordable housing developments 4. Reporting Metro Council shall amend the Regional Framework Plan or Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to require a reporting process for local jurisdictions' amendments to their Comprehensive Plan and consideration of land use-related affordable housing tools and strategies. a. No later than 12 months after the adoption of the RAHS Plan, local jurisdictions shall submit a brief status report to the region through Metro as to where each jurisdiction stands in their Comprehensive Plan analysis. This analysis shall include an identification of affordable housing land use tools currently in use and consideration of the land use tools in Table 18. Based on these reports, Metro { Council and MPAC shall review progress and provide feedback to the local jurisdictions. b. Local jurisdictions shall provide a report to the region through Metro on the status of their Comprehensive Plan amendments and adoption of land use-related affordable housing tools 24 months after the adoption of the RAHS. c. No later than 36 months after adoption of the RAHS Plan (2003), each local jurisdiction shall ' formally report to the region, through Metro, on its amendments to its Comprehensive Plan since consideration of the tools in Table 18, the land use tools and strategies adopted, the outcomes of those strategies, progress toward Affordable Housing Production Goals (Table 15), and any other 1 affordable housing developed and expected within each jurisdiction. i Regional slfjbrdable !lousing Strategy, June 2000 Page 82 t 5. 2003 Assessment Metro Council shall, in 2003, formally assess the region's progress toward achieving the Affordable Housing Production Goals, review new 2000 census data, examine federal and state legislative changes, review the availability of a regional funding source, re-analyze affordable housing need and decide whether any changes are warranted to the process, tools and strategies, funding plans or goals to ensure that significant progress is made toward providing affordable housing for those most in need. Nothing in this section or chapter of the RAHS should be construed to prohibit joint coordination or action by two or more jurisdictions to meet their combined affordable housing production goals. I I I I I I Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 page 83 Glossary Accessory-Dwelling Unit An accessory dwelling unit is a self-contained dwelling unit with a separate entrance and kitchen that functions independently from the primary dwelling. Accessory dwelling units are often seen as a form of affordable housing, as the units are typically small and therefore less expensive. These units also help to create more infill and density within the urban area. Affordable Housing As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household should pay no more than 30 percent of monthly income for housing. Affordable Housing Distribution Method A formula and methodology for determining need and distributing affordable housing, and results in a determination of the region's overall need for affordable housing. Affordable Housing Benchmark Need Estimate of the total need for affordable housing in the Metro region. The formula redistributes households based on the percent of households in the region in H-TAC defined income groups for 1995, when the most recent data is available. The Benchmark Need may understate the actual affordable housing need because the method assumes that households will purchase or rent housing commensurate with their income level. Units that appear affordable may not necessarily be available to low-income households as households at higher income levels may occupy them. Affordable Housing Goal (Fair Share Targets/Strategy) As defined by the RUGGOs: "Each city and county within the region working with Metro to establish local and regional policies that will provide the opportunity within each jurisdiction for accommodating a portion of the region's need for affordable housing." As stated in the Regional Framework Plan (RFP), specific numerical targets of additional affordable housing units for development by each jurisdiction that allow the region to reach its affordable housing goal. Affordable Housing Production Goals H-TAC decided to replace the term "fair share targets" with "affordable housing production goals" because the latter conveys properly the region's cooperative effort towards achieving livable communities. Affordable housing production goals were developed by first estimating the total need (or "benchmark") for affordable housing. H-TAC estimates that if all households with incomes at or below 50% MHI paid no more than 30% of income for housing through 2017 there will be a need for 90,479 affordable units in the region. Affordability Requirements Affordability requirements are generally included through funding mechanisms in the development and construction of affordable housing, typically they place restrictions on the rent for a specified time period. The length of the requirement can range from 5 to 60 years. American Housing Survey The American Housing Survey gives data on apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, vacant homes, family composition, income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment, fuels, size of housing unit, and recent movers. National data are collected every other year, from a fixed sample of about 50,000 homes, plus new construction each year. The survey started in 1973, and has had the same sample since 1985, providing a picture of the changes in homes and households over the years. In Regional Affordable Horsing Strategy June 2000 Page 84 111111 JIM111 - mill __MWJ some metropolitan areas additional samples are taken every 4-6 years, to measure local conditions. The surveys are conducted in person and on telephone by the Bureau of the Census for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Assisted Housing Housing where subsidies arc provided in order to make costs affordable for specific income groups, typically those making less than 80 percent of the median household income. Best Practices A best practice must be replicable in other areas of the country, region, or local jurisdiction and generate a significant and demonstrable positive impact on those being served or managed. Community Land Trusts A community land trust (CLT) is a democratically controlled community based, nonprofit organization established for the purpose of removing land permanently from the speculative market and maintaining it as a community resource. The CLT serves as a trustee or steward in perpetuity of the land it controls. CLT property is separated into two components: the land and the buildings on it. Individuals, families, cooperatives, or other legal entities may own the buildings and enter into long-term ground leases for the use of the land. When a leaseholder moves they may retain the value of their initial investment, any improvements made during their tenure, and some portion of any additional equity created by changes in the market, but the equity they may realize is limited by a resale formula. The rest of the equity remains with the land to preserve housing affordability for future residents. The CLT retains the first option to purchase and resell the building. Consolidated Plan To receive funds from HUD, jurisdictions must produce a Consolidated plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan outlines the housing needs and priorities of the entitlement community and identifies areas most in need of funding for the five-year cycle. Jurisdictions within one county can cooperate to complete one Consolidated Plan, and dollars for communities with a population !ess than 50,000 are channeled through the county. Density The permitted number of dwelling units per gross area of land to be developed pursuant to State and local regulations. Downzoning Changing the zoning of a residential parcel to allow fewer units per acre. Fair Market Rent Fair Market Rents (FMRs) established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for FY 1998. HUD uses the FMRs to determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program. FMRs are gross rent estimates. They include shelter rent plus the cost of all utilities, except telephones. The level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of rental housing units. The current definition HUD uses is the 40th percentile rent paid by recent movers into modest but adequate existing, unsubsidized units that is, the dollar amount below which 40% of these units were are rented in the last 15 months. Floor Area Ratio Floor area ratio is a way to measure how much of a piece of land is taken up with building. In other words, it refers to the ratio of building area to the lot size. For example, if a building is 15 stories and covers an entire lot, the FAR would be 15:1. Regional Affordable Housing Stralegy June 2000 Page 85 Housing Authority Non-Federal entities that administer low-income housing programs. Housing Authorities are not part of HUD, although they may receive HUD funding for some of their programs to assist them as they manage programs that assist low or very-low income individuals. Housing Wage The amount a worker would have to earn in order to work 40 hours per week and afford a one or two bedroom apartment (depending on household size) at the fair market rent. In this region the housing wage is $10-13 per hour. Local Improvement District (LID) Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) are a means of assisting property owners in financing needed capital improvements through the formation of special assessment districts. Special assessment districts allow improvements to be financed and paid for over a period of time through assessments on the benefiting properties. Low Income Housing Tax Credits Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives States the equivalent of more than $3 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower-income households. Median Household Income (MHI) Median household income is the median annual income for households. The median income is the dollar amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups- half with income above the median and half with income below the median. Metro Region The 24 cities and urbanized portions of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties. NIMBY NIMBY- Not In My Back Yard- is the motivation and ability of residents to protect their communities from facilities and activities which they feel will be somehow adversely affect them or their communities. It refers specifically to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an "unwelcome development" in their neighborhood. Planned Unit Development A Planned Unit Development (PUD) as defined in "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" is an area of minimum contiguous size, as specified by ordinance, to be planned and developed as a single entity containing one or more residential clusters or planned unit residential developments, and one or more public, quasi-public, commercial or industrial areas in such ranges of ratios of nonresidential uses to residential uses as shall be specified. Public-Private Partnerships Joint efforts between the public and private sectors in which both provide a service or benefit towards a common goal. This partnership can help facilitate efforts to address problems with innovative solutions. Real Estate Location Model (RELM) A microeconomic model that attempts to replicate the workings of the real estate market in a manner consistent with microeconomic theory. The model simultaneously determines total housing demand, housing location choice, housing tenure choice, housing type choice, housing price, rental rates, land Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 86 prices, and land consumption in conjunction with each location choice's regulatory and physical capacity for a given housing price level. Setback Requirements The distance a structure is set back from a street, another structure, or the rear end of the lot. State Land Use Planning Goals Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong statewide program for land use planning. The foundation of that program is a set of 19 statewide planning goals. The goals express the state's policies on land use and on related topics, such as citizen involvement, housing, and natural resources. Tenure Whether a resident owns or rents their home. Upzoning Involves the selective rezoning of residential land to allow greater density (measured by the number of housing units that can be placed on a parcel of land). Higher density can include both multi-family and single-family housing. Urban Growth Boundary The urban growth boundary (UG13) separates urban and urbanize land from rural land. State law requires that a 20-year supply of urbanizable land be included inside its borders at all times. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy June 2000 Page 87 AGENDA ITEM # 60 FOR AGENDA OF 7/2500 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Central Business District Association Requests - Downtown Manager and Downtown Banners PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) to develop its Action Plan and complete a Resource Report on the downtown. From these two efforts, TCBDA has established its direction for the coming year. TCBDA provided an overview on its activities at the July 18th Council Workshop. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City approve TCBDA's requests to help fund a Downtown Manager for the first year ($30,000) and to provide funds for purchase of 24 new banners for Main Street ($3360). INFORMATION SUMMARY TCBDA is similar to other downtown associations with regards to being composed of local business and property owners. As such, all the members volunteer their time while being actively involved in running and managing their businesses and properties they own and operate in the downtown. This in turn leaves limited time to devote to the ongoing responsibilities and roles for a successful association. A downtown manager is critical to such organizations since the position bridges the gap between what volunteers have the time and/or technical ability to accomplish. The manager is responsible for coordinating all project activities locally and helps guide the organization as it grows and objectives evolve. The manager would also help to implement an Economic Improvement District or Business Improvement District for the downtown. TCBDA has evaluated the need for new banners along Main Street and seeks funding to replace the existing banners and install 24 new four-season banners along the entire length of the street. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not provide funding for a Downtown Manager and/or replacement banners. R VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life/Downtown, Goal #1 - Provide opportunities to work proactively with Central Business District (CBD) businesses and property owners and citizens of Tigard to set the course for the future of the central downtown area; Strategy #1 - Tigard's CBD: Be Proactive; Action Plans - Explore options: Outside expertise (i.e., Economic Dev. Dir., Livable Oregon). FISCAL NOTES Community Development has $50,000 approved in the 2000/01 budget for consultant services to assist in preparation of downtown planning. Funding for the Downtown Manager's first year would be $30,000; 24 new banners would be $3,360. iAcdadm\tcbda 7-25-00 sum.doc L3 111111111 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: July 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) TCBDA will be updating Council at its July 18, 2000, workshop meeting on progress to date and plans for the coming year. Community Development 2000-01 budget includes $50,000 for consultant services to assist in preparation of downtown planning. As Council is aware, TCBDA contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) this past year to help TCBDA complete its Action Plan. The Association also brought in a Resource Team to evaluate and prepare a report on the downtown. Both efforts were presented to Council at previous workshops over the last year. TCBDA established its mission with the assistance of ODDA. The Association's mission statement states: "The Mission of the Tigard Central Business District Association is to set the course for the future of the central downtown area that will promote the heath and viability of the community and businesses while preserving the unique qualities of downtown Tigard and providing a safe environment for families and individuals to work, live and gather." Downtown Manager ODDA recognizes the importance of a downtown manager for any successful revitalization program. The manager is responsible for the development, conduct, execution and documentation of the downtown program as outlined in the Action Plan and Resource Team report. The manager is responsible for coordinating all project activities locally and helps guide the organization as it grows and objectives evolve. Generally, the downtown manager carries out the following duties: o Coordinate activities of the downtown program committees, ensuring that communication between the various committees is well established, and assist committees with implementation of the work plans. TCBDA has several committees including land use and design, promotions, membership, funding, etc. • Manage administrative aspects of the downtown program including purchasing, record keeping, budgeting, preparing reports, and supervising consultants, etc. • Assist the board of directors and committees in developing annual action plan for implementing downtown revitalization programs (design, promotions, organizational, and economic/business mix). • Development and on-going public awareness and education programs designed to enhance appreciation of the downtown's unique character and assets. • Monitor the budget and assure appropriate financial records are kept and required reports are filed. TCBDA is similar to other downtown associations with regards to being composed of local business and property owners. As such, all the members volunteer their time while being actively involved in running and managing their businesses and properties they own and operate in the downtown. This in turn leaves limited time to devote to the ongoing responsibilities and roles for a successful association. A downtown manager is critical to such organizations since the position bridges the gap between what volunteers have the time and/or technical ability to accomplish. The Downtown Manager would work directly for TCBDA with one board member responsible for daily supervision and work program. Th,- board would get progress reports twice a month at their regularly scheduled meetings. TCBDA estimates that approximately $30,000 would be required to fund a half time downtown manager. This would include direct and indirect costs associated with employment including such costs as mileage, rent, utilities, postage, phone, etc. Long Term Funding TCBDA recognizes the importance of securing long term funding. While assistance from the City has been and will continue to be critical to the success of the Association, it is recognized that other sources must be obtained. Over the next 12-18 months, TCBDA wants to establish long term funding for the Association. This will require continued assistance from ODDA, project oversight, and contract services. Economic Improvement District (EID) The EID is the most common funding mechanism for Oregon downtown associations. It is an assessment placed on commercial properties and is governed by Oregon Statutes (ORS 223.112 223.141). Features of an EID include: • City Council establishes the EID within specific boundaries. • Only commercial properties (not residential) can be assessed. • Virtually, any assessment criteria can be used. • The most common assessment criteria is based on ad valorem or square footage. • The maximum length of an EID is five years. • The EID can be voluntary or involuntary. • The EID generally pays for downtown revitalization programs. • The EID cannot pay for large capital projects. • There are two formal hearings held by City Council. • If more than one-third of the assessed property parcels object, it fails. • Failure to pay an assessment generally results in a lien or judgment. Business Improvement District (BID) The BID functions in much the same way as the EID except that it is generally a surcharge of a business tax. It is also governed by statue (ORS 223.141 - 223.161). Criteria for a BID may be number of employees, size of business, location of business, revenue, etc. Strategy for Implementing an EID/BID: • Allow 8-12 months to establish an EID/BID. • Volunteers should plan on about 12 meetings to pass an EID. • Begin a dialog with significant downtown property/business owners. • Schedule regular meetings with the property/business owners to ensure their participation. • Carefully create a scope of work. • Sponsor a general meeting to kick-off the EIB/BID process. • Survey the business community asking about their concerns of the downtown. • Survey downtown property owners. • Contact all commercial property owners (letter, personal contact, meetings). • Provide immediate response to concerns and objections. • Be prepared to delay the process to resolve issues. Other funding mechanisms exist to fund downtown revitalization programs such as Urban Renewal Districts, association fees, etc. The obvious preference for TCBDA would be to pursue a combination of funding sources and develop a partnership with the City and businesses to implement an EID/BID. ODDA estimates that contract services to provide general assistance to TCBDA and to assist with forming an EID/BID would be approximately $10,000. Banners Several years ago, the City funded banners that hang on light and power poles along Main Street. Several months ago the Chamber requested funds to replace missing or damaged banners. TCBDA has evaluated the need for new banners along Main Street and seeks funding to replace the existing banners and install 24 new four-season banners along the entire length of the street. DiJulio Displays, Inc. out of Brier, Washington, quoted TCBDA $3360 for 24 double-sided banners (30" x 84"). TCBDA has a commitment from the Fire Department to install the banners. Initially TCBDA wants to concentrate its efforts along Main Street. In coming years, other streets could be considered for similar treatment depending on property/business owner interest. Incidental costs would occur to replace damaged banners. However, the style chosen is currently in stock and does not require special order to replace. Tigard Daze TCBDA approached the City about possible funding for the Tigard Daze Carnival. Early discussions by the Association indicated that a successful event could be initiated this August. At its June 26, 2000, meeting, TCBDA voted not to proceed with the event. Major property owners - Imam= were not interested in having the event on their property and thus the feasibility of the event ended for this summer. TCBDA is interested in pursuing continuation of Tigard Daze next year and may approach the City about partial funding during next year's budget process. Conclusion The City has long recognized the importance of its downtown. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow reemphasized that citizens value their downtown and want to see it prosper. TCBDA was formed approximately two years ago with bylaws being adopted in October 1998. The board has been active, meeting at least monthly. The TCBDA Action Plan and Resource Team Report on the downtown both point to its potential. However, additional resources are needed to carry out the recommendations from these two efforts. Hiring a part time downtown manager is critical for the continued success of the downtown. Likewise, obtaining long term funding sources is also imperative to continue the progress made to date. TCBDA will request funding for these efforts which will be carried out over the next 12-18 months. i/cdadm/jerree/jim/gen/tcbdajuly l 8,2000 i i i i 3 l:cdadm/jerree/jim/gen/TCBDAjuly 18,2000 a- sub Q" 1$ ROTA Y INTERNATIONAL ' DISTRICT 5100 E irectory/Resource and Policy Manual 1 r~ v n~ f 77 Show Rotary Cares Rotary International Harris Hansen Governor 1997-1998 District Office Phone: (503) 228-1550 District Office Fax: (503) 221-7181 ,O Ij" Show_ Rotar Cares for your community for our world for its people 0 Rotary International f 1997-1998 ! r PROOF RESPONSIBILITY Please review all spelling, designation of ink color on design, placement of design on banner. Note: The appearance of ink color may vary depending on fabric color. Every effort has been made to create this proof accurately. Since there is always the possibility of incorrect interpretation, we request that you review this proof carefully. Printing trade customs relieve us of responsibility if work is printed per customer's OK. I reviewed this proof and it is acceptable to print as shown. NAME: DATE: DiJulio Displays, Inc. 24028 Brier Way Material - Sea Grass Green Brier, WA 98038-8449 Ink Colors - Blue, Orange, Gold, White 1-800-321-XMAS (9827) Size - 30" x 84" 425-483-2581 Local Q _ 425-487-3452 FAX Ty E-Mail: chip 0diiuliodisplays.com Job # - Website: www.dilutiodisplays.com AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7-25-00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Cunu .idci Language of the Transportation System Improvement Projects Ballot Title PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD JK ~v CITY MGR OK ~Z- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider a resolution amending language on the transportation system improvement projects ballot title to comply with statutory word count limits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY See the attached memorandum form City Attorney Tim Ramis. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a FISCAL NOTES This ballot measure is proposed for the November 7, 2000, election. There will be no charge to the City for this election. I:\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\TRANSPORTATION BOND SUMMARY SHEET - 7-25-00.DOC F_A CRO RRIGAN & ~Ml BAC H, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 503) 243-2944 MEMORANDUM TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney DATE: July 24, 2000 RE: Transportation Ballot Title At its June 27, 2000 meeting, the City Council passed Resolution No. 00-33 which called for an election on a transportation bond measure. The Council also authorized certain ballot title Ian guage be placed on the ballot. The version of the ballot title adopted by the Council on June 27 included changes from the City Attorney's draft that took the ballot title out of compliance with statutory word count limits. The enclosed ballot title has been amended to a form similar to the language previously drafted by the City Attorney's office. This form is in compliance with statutory word count limits. The resolution enclosed addresses only the language contained in the ballot title. This resolution is merely a means to approve the ballot title language so it is within the statutory word count limits and may be submitted to the County to be placed on the ballot. Enclosures tvr/acm/90024/transbond. mc2 Y Page 1 of 1 The state parks department notified me by phone this morning that neither the Gage/Bond Street Property or the Stanley/Cache Creek Addition applications has been picked for funding. The City had requested $250,000 in Local Grant Funds grant funds toward the acquisition of each property. According to state parks, 67 applications were received. The top 24 were funded. Our projects ranked 32nd (Stanley) and 38 (Bond). The person who called had no information on the reasons for our project ranking. She promised to check the selection committee evaluation sheets to see what she can discern for us. The scoring criteria included: local needs and planning, patnerships, public support, timeliness (complete project within time frame) , compliance (ADA, zoning, etc.), source of funding, committee member evaluation. I had thought our applications were solid in all the areas. I will be checking with a committee member I know for more information. Duane Roberts, 639-4171 x347 e-mail: dua_ne@ci,tigard..or.us file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00006.HTM 7/:4/00 IMM Ca~heatley - Local Government Grants Page From: Duane Roberts To: Bill Monahan; Ed Wegner; Gus Duenas; Jim Hendryx; John Roy; Nadine Smith; Roger Dawes Date: 7/24/00 10:55AM Subject: Local Government Grants The state parks department notified me by phone this morning that neither the Gage/Bond Street Property or the Stanley/Cache Creek Addition applications has been picked for funding. The City had requested $250,000 in Local Grant Funds grant funds toward the acquisition of each property. According to state parks, 67 applications were received. The top 24 were funded. Our projects ranked 32nd (Stanley) and 38 (Bond). The person who called had no information on the reasons for our project ranking. She promised to check the selection committee evaluation sheets to see what she can discern for us. The scoring criteria included: local needs and planning, patnerships, public support, timeliness (complete project within time frame), compliance (ADA, zoning, etc.), source of funding, committee member evaluation. I had thought our applications were solid in all the areas. I will be checking with a committee member I know for more information. Duane Roberts, 639-4171 x347 e-mail: duane@ci.tigard.or.us -71a L/ IOU 6-L, U'~" 71 V10) 07/24/2000 16:07 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard IaJUOt TX REPORT $sac xe~k&Ss&&~Aes&xc&~~~CR~&~Ic~g~~g TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 0049 CONNECTION TEL 6395697 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID K Scheckla ST. TIME 07%24 16:06 USAGE T 01,00 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK Cathy Wheatle Local Government Grants Y..- - - - - _ Page From: Duane Roberts To: Bill Monahan; Ed Wegner; Gus Duenas; Jim Hendryx; John Roy; Nadine Smith; Roger Dawes Date: 7/24/00 10:55AM Subject: Local Government Grants The state parks department notified me by phone this morning that neither the Gage/Bond Street Property or the Stanley/Cache Creek Addition applications has been picked for funding. The City had requested $250,000 in Local Grant Funds grant funds toward the acquisition of each property. According to state parks, 67 applications were received. The top 24 were funded. Our projects ranked 32nd (Stanley) and 38 (Bond). The person who called had no information on the reasons for our project ranking. She promised to check the selection committee evaluation sheets to see what she can discern for us. The scoring criteria included:. local needs and planning, palnerships, public support, timeliness (complete project within time frame), compliance (ADA, zoning, etc.), source of funding, committee member evaluation. I had thought our applications were solid in all the areas. I will be checking with a committee member I know for more information. Duane Roberts, 639-4171 x347 e-mail: duane@ci.tigard.or.us -7/a y /00 r") cc I o1i 12111111111.1111 July 25, 2000 #10-Non Agenda Item MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council Members FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: July 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Resolution Naming the Nicoli Brothers Athletic Field Addition Attached is a Resolution which I prepared for the City Council to add as a non-agenda item to the July 25 Council agenda. If there are additional changes to be made to the Resolution, we can delay adoption of the Resolution and scheduled adoption for August 8. Please provide me with your comments and suggestions. att I:\ADM\BILL\MEkI0S\NIC0LI ATHLETIC FIELD-COUNCIL.DOC CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION NAMING THE PROPOSED NEW ATHLETIC FIELDS IN THE N.E. SECTION OF COOK PARK THE "NICOLI BROTHERS ATHLETIC FIELD -AHDffIBN" ` h ° °-b 1 I en Qa_*P,: WHEREAS, A master plan for the expansion of Cook Park has been prepared identifying proposed features for development, including the area commonly referred to as the Lamb-Gray Addition (shown on the attached Cook Park Expansion Master Plan) and WHEREAS, The City Council adopted Resolution 99-37 establishing a formal policy to apply for official naming of City Park Facility; and WHEREAS, Resolution 99-37 allows distinct elements within City owned park properties to be named for individuals who have made a contribution to the City through civic duty; and (4 WHEREAS, Jim Nicoli served as Mayor of Tigard from January 1995 through June 2000, until his depth, d throughout his term of Mayor, Mayor Nicoli suggested and supported efforts to enlarge the size and ~i ` &cilities available at Cook Park, especially athletic fields, and WHEREAS, Dave Nicoli has through his association first with the Tigard-Tualatin Soccer Club and now with the Atfalati Recreation Partnership been instrumental in advocating for additional athletic fields at Cook Park, and WHEREAS, Both Jim and Dave Nicoli worked diligently to convince the City Council and Atfalati to create a cooperative arrangement for the purchase and development of the Lamb-Gray Addition, the N.W. portion of Cook Park, and i i WHEREAS, The Lamb-Gray Addition is now part of Cook Park, and plans are being developed for the construction of athletic fields on the property, bound to the North and East by Wetlands, and ' WHEREAS, City Council consensus is to name the proposed new athletic fields at Cook Park in honor of Jim Nicoli and Dave Nicoli in recognition of their significant contributions. s 1 a RESOLUTION NO. 00-- Page I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The proposed new athletic field area in Cook Park shall be named the "Nicoli Brothers Athletic FieldSAfi1." SECTION 2: City Staff shall have a plaque made in conformance with standards kept on file in the Public Works office. SECTION 3: The sign shall be unveiled at a dedication ceremony to be held after the first of the planned new athletic fields is completed. PASSED: This day of 12000. Council President - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard I:WdmtResolutionstNicoli Athletic Fields.Doc I I I I RESOLUTION NO. 00 Page 2 1 1 l' l a l l l J l l J l 1 + a a s"' 1 1 •3; DENT 1. -EMERGENCY ' ICLE CROSSING u~ttg7; TOT F, 44 occ Y' ' rioorI Art rc ~i ~r~ A*~ 'f C01' t ,,y~,~l 'S 't ,...i Sy ♦ 3f - V+<:.1 / t~ ~ M1 3 z ° p mo'd' c ' ~ • e L r p - },nS p is ~V a S 1SHEM R p a n [q _ t in PARK EXPANSION ,t M % N, COOK PAN r~ MASTER PROPOSED FEATURES _,~,s?= p' Aria?" C~Y•. t ~I ~ •~,t~ ~'•.'S~~~Y y~ i Y s - d• L 'i K*