City Council Packet - 04/18/2006
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
April 18, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
I:\0fs10o'uw's1ccP~
db Revised 4/12/06 - Added real property transaction negotiation topic to the Executive Session.
F IGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORKSHOP MEETING
April 18, 2006
p.m. - Executive Session p.m. -Workshop Meeting
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Upon request, the City will 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
APRIL 18, 2006
6:00 PM
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss
labor negotiations and real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(d) and (e).
All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by
ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be
held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions
are closed to the public.
6:301'M
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - Tigard City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE LIBRARY BOARD
• Staff Report: Library Department
3. PRESENTATION ON 2006 TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS
• Staff Introduction: Public Works Department
• Event Organizer: Dave Nicoli
4. DISCUSS WASHINGTON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER WITH JOHN GENOVESE
OF MACERICH CORPORATION
• Staff Introduction: Community Development Department
5. DISCUSS GREENBURG ROAD ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
6. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO
DISCUSS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 2
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
7. DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CREATE A RIGHTS-OF-WAY ORDINANCE WITH A STREET-CUT MORATORIUM
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
8. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE A
PRIVILEGE TAX
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
9. COUNCIL, LIAISON REPORTS
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
12. ADJOURNMENT
i:%adm%cathykcat2006t060418p.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 3
F IGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORKSHOP MEETING
April 18, 2006
p.m. - Executive Session .
p.m. - Workshop Meeting
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Upon request, the City will 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 CMD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
APRIL 18, 2006
6:00 PM
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss
labor negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(d). All discussions are confidential and those present
may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - Tigard City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE LIBRARY BOARD
• Staff Report: Library Department
7:05 PM
3. PRESENTATION ON 2006 TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS
• Staff Introduction: Public Works Department
• Event Organizer: Dave Nicoli
7:15 PM
4. DISCUSS WASHINGTON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER WITH JOHN GENOVESE
OF MACERICH CORPORATION
• Staff Introduction: Community Development Department
7:45 1'M
5. DISCUSS GREENBURG ROAD ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
8:15 PM
6. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO
DISCUSS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 2
9:15 PM
7. DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CREATE A RIGHTS-OF-WAY ORDINANCE WITH A STREET-CUT MORATORIUM
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
9:35 PM
8. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE A
PRIVILEGE TAX
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
10:00 PM
12. ADJOURNMENT
hadm\ca1hylcco\20001000418.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 2006 page 3
a
y al ,
City of Tigard, Oregon
.
Affidavit of Notification
In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of a Change in the Start-Time for the April 18,
2006, City Council Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, 0-ATH Ece :n(F being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath
(or affirmation), depose and say:
That I notified the following people/organizations by fax of a Change in the Start-Time for
the April 18, 2006, City Council Meeting
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
~'qeb -Lveax Cs~ 'e; m 0U Q
A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the
S 4 day of ~I 01"1 , 200t~.
Signature of Person who Performed Notific n
Subscribed and sw rn (or affirmed) before me this 5 day of
20
OFFICIAL SEAL
CAROL A KRAGER
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 402780
*my COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 23, 2010 Signature of Notary Public for Oregod'
iAadmtcatoytcounci14neeting noticest2006\060418 change in starttime notice aff.doc
a
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN START-TIME FOR THE
APRIL 18, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given that the April 18, 2006, Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. as the City
Council meets in an Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(d) to discuss labor negotiations.
The regular Workshop Meeting of the City Council meeting is open to the public and scheduled
to begin at 6:30 p.m.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171,
Ext 2410. n
City ecorder /
Date: 4aA_&
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
mtg notice
imdmlcathytcounciltrneeting noticest2006\060418 change in start time.doc
04/05/2006 10:33 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard (J001
xcxc~c~~c~cxc~e~k~x~~c~~~k~~~~a~~~~k~~~k~~~~c
MULTI TX/RX REPORT
TX/RX NO 1002
PISS. 1
TX/RX INCOMPLETE
TRANSACTION OR [ 0615035460724 TT Newsroom
[ 0915039686061 Oregonian
ERROR INFORMATION [ 1115039687397 Regal Courier
Ism
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN START-TIME FOR THE
APRIL 18, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given that the April 18, 2006, Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. as the City
Council meets in an Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(d) to discuss labor negotiations.
The regular Workshop Meeting of the City Council meeting is open to the public and scheduled
to begin at 6:30 p.m.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171,
Ext 2410.
City ecorder
Date: ~'Iu L ~(~i JUJ
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
mtg notice
i:ladmSOaMftwndf"aMng n*0ws11006N80418 change In start Ume.doc
C fh Wheatle Event Calendar Change
Y Y_. g__. Page Al j
From: Cathy Wheatley
To: webteam
Date: 4/5/2006 10:36:24 AM
Subject: Event Calendar Change
Hello,
There's been a change in the start-time for the 4/18 council meeting:
Notice is hereby given that the April 18, 2006, Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. as the City Council
meets in an Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(d) to discuss labor negotiations. The regular
Workshop Meeting of the City Council meeting is open to the public and scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m.
Thanks,
Cathy
Cathy Wheatley, Tigard City Recorder
639-4171 Ext. 2410
NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
cathy@tigard-or.gov
v
. City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of a Change in the Start-Time for the April 18,
2006, City Council Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath
(or affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in
➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
a copy of Notice of a Change in the Start-Time for the April 18, 2006, City Council
Meeting. A copy f said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part
hereof, on the day of , 20a.
r r,
Signa e of Person who Performed Posting
Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this b day of
rl I , 2006.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JILL M BYARS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Signature of Notary ublic for Oregon
COMMISSION NO. 381793
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008
postingaff
iAadmicathy%wuncMmeeting noticest2008\080418 change in start time past aff.doc
4 r
4
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN START-TIME FOR THE
APRIL 18, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given that the April 18, 2006, Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. as the City
Council meets in an Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(d) to discuss labor negotiations.
The regular Workshop Meeting of the City Council meeting is open to the public and scheduled
to begin at 6:30 p.m.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171,
Est 2410.
' ~-1 rt L 1~ ; ~ ~C
City ecorder 1
Date: ~ Y,
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
mtg notice
i9adm`cathyrcouncilMeeting noticest2008t080418 change in start lime.doc
Agenda Item No. V.
For Agenda of
TIGARD
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: April 18, 2006
Time: 6:36 p.m.
Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding
Councilor Sally Harding
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Nick Wilson
Councilor Tom Woodruff
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Workshop 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council to Order
Meeting at 6:36 p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors
Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Manager Prosser said there were three
housekeeping items under Item No. 10 requiring
brief discussion.
Mayor Dirksen noted that a request had been
received for a reordering of the agenda. Agenda
Items No. 4 and No. 5 have been switched to
accommodate a speaker's schedule conflict.
2. Annual Joint Staff Presenter: Director of Library Services Barnes
Meeting with
the Library Library Board Chair Susan Turley introduced the
Board other Library Board Members in attendance: David
Burke, Brian Kell, Cecilia Nguyen and an Thenell.
Council Meeting Minutes Page 1
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
A recent patron survey received 2,300 responses.
Quality of service is rated excellent or good. Over
950 of those surveyed made comments and those
were overwhelmingly positive.
50% of library patrons do not use self-check-out.
As this is really important to the library, they're
starting a program called, "Self-help with a Smile"
where staff will aid people and teach them to use the
self-check-out machine.
In response to a question from Councilor Harding
regarding the Reference Librarian's role, Board
Member Thenell said even though patrons are
familiar with the internet they sometimes still need
the assistance a Reference Librarian can provide.
Mayor Dirksen asked about internet filters. Board
Member Nguyen said Tigard Public Library has
filters on the computers in the children's section but
not in the second floor computer area. She said they
are considering providing users with a choice of
filters.
Library Services Director Barnes said the City's
Information Technology (IT) Department set up
spam filters and the new filter system will address
this as well.
Board Member Thenell mentioned that library
parking is a problem. Councilor Woodruff said they
will gain spaces when the Wall Street construction is
complete.
Councilor Wilson said the current coffee vendor is
leaving and asked about replacement plans. Board
Chair Turley said they will be sending out a request
for proposals.
Mayor Dirksen said it is good to be able to say that
the library has become everything that officials said
it would when they sought the library bond measure.
Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
3. Presentation Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced
on 2006 Tigard Dave Nicoli who previewed the 2006 Tigard Festival
Festival of of Balloons. It will be held at Cook Park on June
Balloons 16, 17, and 18 and ReMax is the major sponsor.
There will be live music on Friday and Saturday
nights and a church band on Sunday. Their big
challenge is to get people to attend during the day,
as the morning lift-off and night glow are already
popular. To this end, they've planned a 5K run,
soccer tournament, car rally and carnival.
Mr. Nicoli shared with the Council how the Balloon
Festival is funded. He noted charging admission to
the event has provided some funding stability. He
reviewed the number of non-profit organizations
that participate and benefit from the Festival. He
discussed with Council Sherwood the Caring
Community Fundraiser, which was negotiated to
mutual satisfaction.
Mr. Nicoli said he currently pays the salary for one
full-time event organizer for the Festival. His goal is
to eventually have the proceeds from the event pay
for this person and have the festival become self-
sustaining. He is also involving more people to help
with different aspects of the event. He expressed
appreciation to the City for its support, especially
from the Public Works Section.
Mayor Dirksen said the Balloon Festival is in many
ways the signature event for the City
5. (Agenda Staff Presenter: Engineer Duenas
Item heard Consultant: Randy McCourt, DKS Associates
out of order)
Mr. McCourt presented the findings of the Pacific
Discuss Highway/Greenburg Road Alternatives Study.
Greenburg
Road Alterna- . Existing conditions: This is one of Tigard's busiest
tives Analysis intersections. The level of service is rated D. The
Report 99W corridor AM and PM peak hour arterial level of
service is rated F. Problems come from the traffic
volume, short distance between major intersection,
i.e., Hall Blvd. and Greenbur Road, and queuing
Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
overlap due to non-concurrent lights.
. Future conditions: There is an MSTIP Project
planned for 99W/Hall Blvd. to add turning lanes.
There will be an added eastbound lane from
Greenburg to OR 217.
ODOT has the 99W bridge on its list of upcoming
projects. Traffic signals on Hall/99W and
Greenburg/99W can be coordinated.
Mr. McCourt discussed several alternatives and
findings with the Council.
Tigard resident Gretchen Buehner stated that the
city should look at piggybacking work on Greenburg
Road onto the railroad overpass project.
Councilor Woodruff said that this issue is so
important and given the full meeting agenda he felt
rushed for time. He wished to continue discussions
at another time. City Manager Prosser asked if the
Council would like to revisit this issue and the
recommendations at a future workshop meeting.
Discussion on this matter will be continued at the
May 16, 2006 Council meeting.
Mayor Dirksen said we can't be afraid of taking a
hard look at all alternatives to come up with a long
lasting solution. We need to have a policy and
roadmap in place.
4. (Agenda Community Development Director Coffee
Item heard out introduced John Genovese of the Macerich
of order) Corporation. Mr. Genovese expressed appreciation
for the City's efforts to get the Washington Square
Discuss expansion approved and underway. This investment
Washington attracted a lot of new retailers who wanted to be
Square located at Washington Square.
Shopping
Center with Mr. Genovese asked the Council what they would
John Genovese like to see at Washington Square. They want to
Of Macerich consider Tigard's needs as they plan for the future.
Corporation
Mayor Dirksen said the Council looks at
Washington Square as a regional center and how it
Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
all works together, not just as a retailing area. He
said they are interested in the effects overall that any
concept plan would have. He referenced the prior
discussion on traffic, noting that Greenburg Road
and Hall Boulevard are two of the main access roads
to Washington Square from Pacific Highway. He
said these issues all knit together.
Councilor Woodruff said he likes the visually
interesting appearance of the new addition as seen
from Highway 217.
Councilor Harding said the signage is a little big and
she'd like to see it toned down.
Councilor Wilson echoed Councilor Woodruff's
comments and said that in the planning for
Washington Square to be part of the Regional
Center, the vision is that it becomes Washington
County's downtown. The County's largest hotel is
in the area as well as Lincoln Center, its tallest
building. He said there was underutilization of the
intersection at 217 and Greenburg Road where the
vacant theater is located. He hoped that, although
they've concentrated on retail in the past, they'd
consider mixed uses. He suggested building
vertically - constructing housing or hotel above
retail space in multi-story buildings.
Mr. Genovese said they clearly are interested in
mixed-use development such as hotel/
residential/office. He said a perfect area for this
kind of construction is Washington Square Too,
where the vacant theater and some one-story
buildings are now located. He said he would be
happy to sit down with the City and discuss how to
get this accomplished.
The Council expressed interest in exploring the
following:
► Tie in to commuter rail line (perhaps there could
be a people mover from the stop across 217/Hall
to the Washington Square Regional Center)
/ Tigard Police substation
Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
/ Mined-use building such as retail combined with
office or residential
/ Multi-story "European village" style buildings
/ Hotel
Conference and meeting room facilities
/ Finding ways to show the partnership between
the City of Tigard and Washington Square
Considerations:
/ Washington Square Regional Center designation
1 Upcoming commuter rail
/ Washington County's potential urban
renewal strip along Highway 217
/ Urban renewal may be a way to pay for large-
ticket items such as overpasses, etc.
/ Major roads to Washington Square are Hall and
Greenburg, two of Tigard's busiest roads.
/ A partnership between Tigard and Washington
Square might get ODOT's attention and get
some relief for these roads.
/ We are in the process of inviting PGE to move
their headquarters to Tigard.
/ Office space becoming scarce in neighboring
cities creates an opportunity for us.
Councilor Woodruff asked if Washington Square
would be interested in sponsoring the skate park.
Mayor Dirksen said the city is looking for private
corporate sponsors. Mr. Genovese said he would
look into it.
Councilor Sherwood thanked Mr. Genovese for
allowing the Tigard Farmer's Market to relocate near
the former theater site this year.
Councilor Harding said that housing affordable to
Washington Square employees should be considered
if mixed-use construction occurs. Mayor Dirksen
said there is a precedent for requiring a certain
percentage be set aside for affordable housing and
he thought the Washington Square Regional Plan
addressed this.
Councilor Woodruff said he appreciated Mr.
Genovese coming to the workshop meeting and
su ested meeting to ether at least once a year.
I'll
Council Meeting Minutes Page 6
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Mayor Dirksen called a 5 minute recess at 8:54 p.m.
6. Joint Mayor Dirksen reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Meeting with
the Planned Staff Presenters: Interim Community Development
Development Director Coffee and Associate Planner Wyss.
committee to
Discuss Planned Development Code Review Committee
Planned Devel- members present: Gretchen Buehner, Alice Ellis-
opment Code Gaut, John Frewing and David Walsh
Revision
Interim Community Development Director Coffee
summarized the Committee's process and timeline.
He noted that Council packets have copies of the
Planned Development Code Committee
Recommendations, including comments from the
City Attorney and some recent comments from
Committee Member John Frewing. A full copy of
the report is available in the City Recorder's office.
He said that concurrently, Associate Planner Wyss
had been preparing a Buildable Lands Inventory.
The Committee as well as the Planning Commission
viewed this report at last night's joint meeting.
He said the Committee realized that there may be
revisions to their recommendations now that there is
updated information on the type of buildable land
left in Tigard. They want to make changes before
their revision is put into ordinance form to go
through the hearings process.
Associate Planner Wyss gave a PowerPoint
presentation of the Buildable Lands Inventory. The
entire report in on file in the City Recorder's office.
Councilor Wilson complimented staff on the report.
He said it could help the City, during the
Comprehensive Plan update, to focus efforts on
present opportunities rather than reactions to the
past. He recommended exploring unanticipated
building in more depth to identify trends. He asked
what happens when the City is completely built up.
What is next?
Council Meeting Minutes Page 7
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Interim Community Development Director Coffee
discussed layering land values on the GIS
information to compare building values to land
values, and seeing where the potential for
redevelopment exists.
Planned Development Code Review Committee
Member Buehner said it would have been helpful to
them to have had the Buildable Land Inventory
when they started their review. The goal of the
Committee was to look at in-fill projects rather than
just open spaces.
The Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the
Committee's proposed changes last month. In
general, the Commission approved the draft with a
few suggestions. The City Attorney made a few
minor changes. She said they want to make these
revisions before they bring it to the Council for their
comments. She requested that the City Council give
approval for the Committee to have two additional
meetings over the next 60 days to finalize the
language with the intent to bring the Code back to a
Council Business meeting in July.
Councilor Sherwood said the process of studying
Tigard's Planned Development Code began because
the Council wanted to eliminate density bonuses and
lot-size averaging.
Councilor Woodruff said density is an issue. He
said citizens come to the Council complaining about
density, thinking that density is the Council's only
goal.
Committee Member Buehner said preserving open
space is very important to their Committee. She
noted that the present code doesn't take storm water
retention areas out of density calculations. That can
make a difference in how we have to build.
Ms. Buehner said the Committee's consensus was
that some of the provisions they've suggested are on
the nature of a pilot process that could be evaluated
as we o through the Comprehensive Plan Review.
Council Meeting Minutes Page 8
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Some of the ideas they've looked at could be
incorporated in subdivisions and other parts of the
Code. It would give the city an opportunity to look
at green streets and green building issues.
Committee Member John Frewing said he didn't
think the Buildable Land Inventory takes out seven
acres of open space per 1,000 residents which is a
City objective for parks. Mayor Dirksen said this
means we need higher density somewhere else to
make up for it.
Committee Member Alice Ellis-Gaut said an
alternative way to look at open space is not as
recreational use space but rather as a wildlife
corridor. A one-acre parcel that can't accommodate
a picnic ground setting could be designed to have
capacity for wildlife.
Councilor Wilson gave some positive comments.
He said the Committee made it clear that the
Planned Development process is a discretionary
one. It appears to him that the code is now saying to
developers, "If you are not offering something back
to us, then go through the straight subdivision
process." He said that is the point of a planned
development. As we get to smaller and smaller
pieces of property there may be a time where they
should not be developed until the properties can be
aggregated and completely redeveloped. He said it
appeared they addressed Council's major concerns
about density - extremely dense projects right up
against established neighborhoods - which has been
a problem in the past.
He noted a few areas that he wanted the Committee
to look at more closely. He said that some items put
into the Planned Development Code should belong
to all development, i.e., the tree code. He saw some
extra things that he wondered about the necessity of,
such as the site analysis requirement. He encouraged
them to look through it again for brevity and clarity.
The City Attorney asked if applying a zoning overlay
at the end of the process is necessary. He said it was
not legally and can cause a great deal of
Council Meeting Minutes Page 9
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
expense and complication. He questioned whether
the complication was worth some benefit.
Applying the Planned Development process to
commercial parcels was discussed.
Interim Community Development Manager Coffee
introduced the Committee's staff contact, Associate
Planner Sean Farrelly. It was suggested that the City
meet twice a month with the Committee and also
with the Planning Commission once a month. They
will bring a proposed draft back to the Council in
60 days.
Mayor Dirksen stated his appreciation for the
Committee's collaboration and how well they were
working with the Planning Commission.
7. Discuss Staff Presenters: City Engineer Duenas and Right-
Proposed of-Way Administrator Werner
Amendments
to the Tigard Right- of -Way Administrator Werner discussed the
Municipal Code reasoning behind a street cut moratorium. Street
to Create a deterioration due to street cuts costs the city money
Rights-of-Way for maintenance, repair and rebuilding.
Ordinance with Coordination of work on city streets would
a Street-Cut minimize public inconvenience, disruption and
Moratorium damage.
Staff recommends that street cuts would not be
allowed for five (5) years on newly constructed,
reconstructed or improved streets.
Further, street cuts would not be allowed within 400
feet of a major utility installation or upgrade
occurring within the last year, as long as the utility
requesting the cut had notice of a prior installation
or upgrade. This applies regardless of the age of the
street.
Councilor Harding asked if there is presently a
coordination policy. City Manager Prosser said it
was only in the newer franchise agreements and only
for telecom companies.
Council Meeting Minutes Page 10
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Councilor Sherwood asked if the City tracks which
utilities are working on the streets. Right-of-Way
Administrator Werner said that for most work a
permit would have been obtained and those are
tracked on a map. For those without a permit she
said utility locates are painted on the street and the
city can tell who patched it by what utility is located
there.
Councilor Sherwood asked if there was a way for the
companies to post a bond to cover the damage they
do.
Ms. Werner said if it is not in the existing agreement
with a utility they would have to wait until the
franchise is up for renewal. City Manager Prosser
suggested looking at the NW Natural franchise
which is the latest one. He thought there was a
requirement for them to post a bond for
construction work but he was not sure if it was a for
a longer term.
Mayor Dirksen suggested reviewing the adequacy of
the reconstruction requirements we have now. He
felt this was a separate issue.
The City Attorney said he agreed with the staffs
process to get a revised draft out for industry
comment. He reviewed and discussed the
comments received from Qwest.
Councilor Harding said we should apply these
requirements to the City of Tigard as well. She said
we would not be very good leaders if we don't.
Mayor Dirksen said our own utilities should be
subject to franchise agreements. He said we should
consider charging ourselves franchise fees so those
monies could be pulled and used for reconstruction
or street improvements made necessary by our
impacts.
Right-of-Way Administrator Werner said the City
Engineer could grant exceptions and emergency '
work would not be affected. Exploratory boring as
required b state law for locating utilities prior to
Council Meeting Minutes Page 11
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
boring under a street is allowed.
Ms. Werner said the City Engineer, when granting
an exception to the street moratorium, could place
conditions for street restoration. The utility would
be required to restore the street to the condition it
was in. She said this is a way of allowing utilities to
do the work they have to do but making sure that
our streets don't suffer. Exception denial appeals
would be made to the City Manager.
She said there is also a three-year review period that
requires the City Engineer to review the policy for
circumstances of exemptions granted and conditions
imposed and fair and consistent application of
limitations, exemptions and restoration conditions.
At this time we would also review whether or not
the policy was working to keep our streets in better
condition.
Ms. Werner said there is existing language in the
Tigard Municipal Code regarding telecom utilities
and staff recommends applying this to all utilities
that use our rights of way. This Ordinance would
combine two chapters on rights of way and
construction standards, clarifying them and making
them less redundant.
Mayor Dirksen said he thought it was a good idea to
give a year grace period.
Engineer Duenas said that some agreements are
signed by management for the utility companies but
the person out doing the work on the street doesn't
know what the agreement says.
City Manager Prosser noted that a strong lesson
learned from a right-of-way study done for the city
was that we really do need to keep track of who is in
the right of way and who is doing the work.
Otherwise, you have no control of it.
Councilor Woodruff said we should move ahead
with getting comments from the utilities and give
the message that we take this seriously.
Council Meeting Minutes Page 12
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
City Manager Prosser asked about setting penalties
for cuts done in violation of the policy or done
without a permit. He also asked what the best way
to give notice would be - written notice or letting
them know through the website.
Councilor Sherwood wanted to have cost averages
of what it costs to repair the roads so that we have
some amounts for fines to levy. She wanted to
make sure that utilities are responsible for following
up with their sub-contractors to make sure they're
doing the work correctly. She felt we should look at
bonds for larger projects rather than fines.
Councilor Wilson recommended looking at this as
an opportunity for cooperation between the City,
which provides some utilities, and the private utility
providers. He said we should make extra effort to
communicate with these partners and coordinate our
projects.
Mayor Dirksen said that a lot of concerns raised in
the letter from Quest were addressed tonight.
Councilor Wilson asked if any other municipalities
are doing this. Right-of-Way Administrator Werner
said a recent survey indicated many nearby cities are
doing this and it is not uncommon.
Right-of-Way Administrator Werner said that after
revising the draft ordinance and seeking utility input,
staff will bring it back to Council for approval.
8. Discuss Mayor Dirksen suggested tabling Agenda Item No. 8
Revisions to due to time constraints. The consensus was to table
the Tigard this item and add it to the agenda for the May 16
Municipal Code workshop meeting.
to Incorporate
a Privilege Tax Councilor Woodruff said a second issue to be
discussed at the same time is that the City should
apply franchise fees to itself.
9. Council
Liaison
Reports
Council Meeting Minutes Page 13
April 18, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
10. Non City Manager Prosser said the joint meeting with
Agenda Items Tigard/Tualatin School District and the cities of
Tigard, Tualatin, Durham and King City has been
tentatively scheduled for May 31, 2006. He asked
Council members to confirm their availability and to
give him possible agenda items.
City Manager Prosser handed out a memo regarding
the ICMA website access. Council ground rules will
be discussed in June or July. The ICMA website
access will be added as a topic of discussion.
11. Executive Not held.
Session
12. 10:31 p.m. Motion by Councilor
Adjournment Woodruff, seconded by
Councilor Sherwood, to
adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by
a unanimous vote of Council
members present
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Harding Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
Carol Krager, Deputy City Recorder
Attest:
e~f -
Mayor, City of Tigard Date:
I: \ ad m \ cathy\ c c m \ 200 6 \ 060418
Council Meeting Minutes Page 14
April 18, 2006
4/18/2006 4:58 PM
Executive Session Planning Calendar
Meeting Date Topics Est. Time
April 18, 2006 TPOA Labor Negotiations; Sandy 30 min.
Zodrow, Ken Bemis & Real Property
Transaction Negotiations; Dennis
Koellermeier - 6 p.m. -
April 25, 2006 Current Litigation - Sunrise Lane 10 min.
Annexation - LUBA case - Tim Ramis
May 9, 2006 Employment-Related Performance of
the City Manager - Mayor/Council &
Craig P.
May 16, 2006 City Attorney : How cities become cities 30 min.
- Potential Litigation- Tim Ramis
4/18/2006 4:58 PM
4/18/2006 4:58 PM
Executive Session -
The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in
certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any
meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for
deliberation on certain matters."
Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person
requests to have an open hearing).
192.660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.
192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.)
192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660 (2) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law
from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in
the Oregon Revised Statutes.
192-660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which
the governing body is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights
and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed.
192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy
directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related
performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer,
employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an
open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be
used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the
governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has
been an opportunity for public comment.
192.660 (2) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293
with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition,
exchange or liquidation of public investments.
192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board.
192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security.
is\adm\greer\tentatv ag\executive session topics - schedule\exec sess planning calendar.doc
4/18/2006 4:58 PM
A 41l ~o(p
Proposed Consent Agenda for the April 25, 2006
City Council Meeting
4.1 Approve Council Minutes for March 21 and 28, 2006
4.2 Receive and File the Annual Solid Waste Financial Report Findings
City of Tigard franchised solid waste haulers, Pride Disposal and Waste
Management, have submitted financial reports for calendar year 2005. The
aggregate rate of return for the haulers is 9.83%, which falls within the
allowable ranged established by the City Council and Tigard Municipal Code of
8 to 12 percent. No rate adjustment is required.
4.3 Approve Budget Amendment #11 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase
Appropriations in the Social Services /Community Events budget in the
General Fund to fund a portion of the Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Grand
Opening Ceremony Resolution No. 06- -
On April 11, 2006, City Council discussed the request for the Friends of the
Refuge for the City to contribute $1,500 t the Tualatin River National Wildlife
Refuge Grand Opening Ceremony, which will occur on June 3, 2006. The
proposed budget amendment will increase appropriations to the Social
Services/Community events budget to fund Tigard's contribution.
4.4 Adopt Amendments to Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group
Personnel Policies - Resolution No. 06-
Approximately 85 employees are covered by the
Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group Personnel Policies. It has been
about four years since the last comprehensive review of these policies. Recently
Executive Staff completed a full review of the policies and recommended
several amendments. The City Attorney's office has also reviewed and
approved these amendments.
4.5 Appoint Mitchell Brown to the Planning Commission; Appoint Patrick
Harbison as First Alternate and Jeremy Vermilyea as Second Alternate to the
Planning Commission - Resolution No. 06-
The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed Planning
Commission applicants on April 10, 2006 and makes the above
recommendations for appointments.
4.6 Appoint Tony Tycer and Scott Deselle as Citizen Members and Betty Hagen
and Dennis Sizemore as Citizen Member Alternates to the Tree Board -
Resolution No. 06-
The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed Tree Board
applicants and makes the above recommendations for appointments.
Page 1
4.7 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Cooperative
Library Services for WILI (Washington County Interlibrary Information
Network) Internet Filter
An Intergovernmental Agreement with WCCLS to install a filtering system will
allow each user to choose a filtered or non-filtered Internet session on
computers located on the second floor of the Library.
• Council approval of this agreement will allow Tigard to install the system.
• Computers in the Children's Room will remain filtered.
• The decision to provide optional filters does not result from any specific
issue or complaint at the Tigard Library, bust as a part of a County-wide
decision to offer this service.
4.8 Local Contract Review Board
a. Award Contract to Dunn Construction for the Construction of the SW 93`1]
Avenue Sanitary Sewer (Sewer Reimbursement District No. 36)
On March 28, 2006, City Council approved the formation of Sewer
Reimbursement District No. 36 to provide sewer service to 28 lots along
93"' Avenue, Elrose Court and Mountain View Lane south of McDonald
Street. The requested approval would award the contract for the
construction of sewer to Dunn Construction in the amount of $465,012
and authorize an additional $46,502.20 to be reserved for contingencies and
applied, if needed as the project goes through construction. The remaining
funding balance in the FY 2005-06 Citywide Sewer Extension Program has
$2,000,000.
b. Award Contracts to Century West Engineering Corporation, Group
McKenzie, and W & H Pacific for Civil Engineering Services on an as-
Required Basis
Contract awards to the above three firms will reduce the amount of staff
time on Request for Proposal processes and enhance the Engineering
Department's ability to meet the heavy project workload in Fiscal Year
2005-06 and beyond. The services provided by the firms will be on an as-
needed basis for surveying, engineering design and construction
management for improvements to public streets, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer and other City and public facilities. Award of the contracts will not
required funding until projects are assigned to the selected firms. Funding
for assigned projects will be through the respective project budgets.
i1admicathytcca consent agenda - newslettert050425.doc
Page 2
t~
z MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Craig A-ity Diirksand Tigard City Council
FROM: Craig ProsseManager
RE: ICMA Website User Name and Password
DATE: April 13, 2006
Council requested the user name and password I use to access the ICMA website. We have
attached a page from the website to this memo with that information and showing the block
where that information is to be entered.
In the past, I have only made this information to City staff upon request to control access,
limit inappropriate use, and avoid incurrence of unnecessary cost. When I make this
information to other City staff, it is with the following understandings:
1. Access is for City business only
2. The user name and password are not to be shared with any other persons not
authorized by me, and in no case with a non-city employee.
3. The user must not incur any costs (i.e. if a document, service, or product carries a
charge) without my prior approval.
Council may want to consider adopting these, or similar groundrules, to guide their own use.
If you do, I would suggest that the Mayor be the one to grant authorizations or approvals for
Council.
You may want to have a brief discussion about potential groundrules for the use of this tool
at your meeting on April 18.
cc: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
ICMA Web Site Page 1 of 2
"Q NJ CREATING EXCELLENCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ihrc>~it;Ei l,~r~fcasi~~n.il ni:uiafc:m~nc
•
Scholarships Help First-Timers Attend sign in
Conference User name
Apply by May 19 to earn a scholarship to attend ICMA's 92nd Annual Password
Conference in San Antonio/Bexar County, Texas, September 10-13, 2006. Sign In
Read more.,.
Forgot your-password?
Ideas in Action: Eliminating City
Departments _ A lengthy, statewide economic downturn had a major, negative impact on 1 Cthe sales tax revenue that the city of Northglenn, Colorado (31,500)
depends on. Read more.,..
DIM
:Ala
Trust, Leadership, and Courage Keys to
~2at7ire/ Et(I77
Local Innovation bookstore
Year
I 1h Bob O'Neill authored a column that answers the question, "what does it Book 200 6pal
o_2®OE
take to innovate at the local level?" The column appeared in the March 29 Hardcover Edition
issue of Governing.com and is part of a weekly series published in I.E
collaboration with the Government Innovators Network at Harvard's 0
Kennedy School of Government. Read more..,
Sustainability -The Issue of Our
Age..e
RESTORATION
At the ICMA Annual Conference in Minneapolis, ICMA ~l COMMUNITY AND
/ J I ECONOMIC RECOVERY
President Michael Willis engaged the membership in a AFTER A DISASTER
discussion on sustainability: social, economic and
environmental. Here, Willis renews his call to members to continue MAY 16-17
innovating in this area and to share their stories with ICMA. Read more.,.,. SHERATON
NEW ORUA4 HUM
Distinguished Service Award and Honorary NACU
Membership Nominations Due May 5
At its June meeting, the ICMA Executive Board will consider nominations
for ICMA's Distinguished Service Award and Honorary Membership. Read ®IC
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
more...
a
Two..ICMA_U.n yersity._Worksh.ops, in Sacramento:. May, 11-12_ ()SanAntono
Participate in_ICMA's Strategi.c,Planning.Process BemCou ly ISeptember10-13,2006
http://icma.org/main/sc.asp 4/13/2006
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF April 18, 2006
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with the Libra Board
v'
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This is the regularly scheduled, annual joint meeting between City Council and the Library Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Annual meeting with the Library Board to provide information to the City Council. The Library Board is prepared
to update the Council about the following areas of library service.
• Highlight various areas of the collection and get acquainted with services
• Update on statistics
• Annual Patron Survey results
• Discussion on the Importance of Quality of Services
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal #2: A wide array of opportunities for life-long learning are available in a variety of formats and used by the
community.
Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all
ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
None.
ey -board comm roster.jb.xis~ Pa a 30
AAbra Boar'd Membership
David Burke Vice Chair Pro Tem Replaced: J. Lawton Appt: 7/1/05
8986 SW Waverly Dr. Appt: 5/11/04 Ends: 6/30/09
Tigard, OR 97224 Ends: 6/30/05
Res: 503-968-6384
Bus: 503-330-9512
davidburkc04@yahoo. com
Marvin Diamond Replaced: Ken Tolliver Appt. 7/1/03
13325 SW 72nd Ave. Unit 3D Appt: 7/11/00 Ends: 6/30/07
Tigard, Or 97223 Ends: 6/30/03
Res: 503-620-4282
Bus: 503-241-4784
resipse@aol.com
Brian Kelly appointed 5/11/04 Appt: 7/1/04
7045 Ventura Dr. Ends: 6/30/08
Tigard, OR 97223 J~
Res: 503-293-2356
brian.kelly@mitrebox.net
RuthanneLidman-Alt. Appt:5/11/04
10200 SW Century Oak Dr. Ends: 6/30/06
Tigard, OR 97224
Res: 503-684-0351
rlidman@comcast.net
Cecilia K Nguyen Appt: 7/1/05
14079 SW Northview Dr. Ends: 6/30/09
Tigard, OR 97223
Res: 563-579-8838
Bus: 971-235-9533
cn_guyen(c14rAawfitm.com
Jane Smith Replaced: Lonn Hoklin Appt. 6/25/02
9200 SW Elrose Ct Appt: 4/11/00 Ends: 6/30/06
Tigard, OR 97224 Ends: 6/30/02
Res: 503-639-4622
jasmithpdx ,aol.com
3/10/06 Library Board Page 1
g s eaue - aoard comm roster.lb-xis Pa e. 31
r
Jan Thenell Appt.7/1/Ol Appt: 7/1/05
17015 SW Versailles Ln Ends: 6/30/05 Ends: 6/30/09
Tigard, OR 97224
Res: 503-598-8472
j_thenefl@teleport.com
Suzan TulleycbairPro Tem Appt: 6/25/02 Appt. 6/24/03
12200 SW Imperial Ave #4 Ends: 6/30/04 Ends: 6/30/07
King City, OR 97224
Res: 503-620-1919
suzant@.juno.com
Board Meets: 2nd Thursday, 7 p.m., Library Puett Room
Staff Liaison: Margaret Barnes, Director of Library Services
Term: TMC 2.36.030
Board-Established-Term-Appointed Meetings-Officers
(a) Established: There is established Library Board of 7 members,
six of whom shall be residents of the City and one whom may reside
within or outside the Tigard corporate limits.
(b) Term
(2) At the expiration of the term of any member o£ the Library Board,
the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council, shall appoint
a new member to. serve for the duration of the unexpired term.
(3) No person may serve more than 2 full consecutive terms on the
Library Board, notwithstanding prior appointment to an unexpired term.
After a one-year interval, a former member who had served two
terms may be reappointed.
RESOLUTION 95-59: No person appointed afer 1 /1 /96 may serve more than two full
consecutive terms.on the Library Board, notwithstanding prior
appointment to an unexpired term.
3/10/06 Library Board Page 2
..d
AGENDA ITEM # 12
FOR AGENDA OF April 18, 2006
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TIME Presentation on the 2006 Tigard Festival of Balloons
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK AA~CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
No action required The Council is being asked to listen to a presentation on the 2006 Tigard Festival of Balloons.
STAFF RECONIMENDATION
No recommendation.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard has played a role in the Tigard Festival of Balloons for many years. Event organizer, Mr. Dave
Nicoh, will brief the Council on plans for the upcoming 2006 festival.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Not applicable.
ATTACI B4ENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
In 2000, the Council approved Resolution No. 00-20, in which the City of Tigard guaranteed $10,000 in annual funding
for the Tigard Festival of Balloons. This funding falls within the City's social services and community events budget.
Additionally, Tigard's Police and Public Works Departments have historically provided substantial in-kind services and
support for the event.
2006 Tigard Festival of Balloons
Profit & Loss Statement
Actual Budget
I Income: 2005 2006
1 Activities $ 7,518.45 $ 12,000.00
2 Balloons $ 9,000.00 $ 6,500.00
3 Carnival $ 18,455.00 $ 15,000.00
4 Field Merchants $ 27,785.00 $ 28,000.00
5 Food Vendors $ 11,750.00 $ 11,750.00
6 Gate $ 43,840.00 $ 42,000.00
71ce $ 629.97 $ 600.00
8 Merchandise Sales $ 390.00 $ 300.00
9 Parking $ 14,103.80 $ 18,000.00
10 Shuttle $ 2,127.90 $ 2,100.00
11 Sponsorship $ 44,600.00 $ 45,000.00
Total Income $ 180,200.12 $ 181,250.00
11 Expenses:
1 Advertising $ 9,220.66 $ 12,850.00
2 Awards $ 8,560.68 $ 5,615.00
3 Food & Beverage $ 357.50 $ 500.00
4 Commissions $ 19,995.86 $ 24,000.00
5 Electrical $ 6,310.00 $ 6,850.00
6 Equipment Rental $ 1,463.32 $ 3,200.00
7 Fireworks $ 10,000.00 $ -
8 Garbage $ 860.00 $ 860.00
9Insurance $ 9,550.00 $ 11,000.00
10 Labor $ 8,836.81 $ 10,000.00
11 Lodging $ 7,474.56 $ 6,500.00
12 Music $ 18,550.00 $ 14,400.00
13 Office $ 5,789.72 $ 5,900.00
14 Pilot Expenses $ 7,050.00 $ 9,000.00
15 Port-A Potties $ 2,998.20 $ 3,500.00
16 Printing $ 3,851.00 $ 1,000.00
17 Propane & Diesel $ 3,663.57 $ 4,600.00
18 Security $ 6,976.15 $ 7,000.00
19 Shirts & Clothing $ 2,457.25 $ 2,500.00
20 Signs $ 6,781.00 $ 6,000.00
21 Sound Equipment $ 7,690.00 $ 6,150.00
22 Telephone $ 191.14 $ 200.00
23 Tents & Staging $ 17,341.50 $ 15,000.00
24 Videographer $ 4,646.00 $ 4,500.00
25 Website $ 2,039.85 $ 3,000.00
Total Expenses $ 172,654.77 $ 164,125.00
III NET INCOME $ 7,545.35 $ 17,125.00
IV DPN Donated Labor & Admin $ 120,000.00 $ 90,000.00
V Net Loss $ (112,454.65) $ (72,875.00)
4/18/2006 4:54 PM 2006 Final Budget Page 1 of 1
NON PROFIT GROUP INVOLVEMENT
Before DPN Involement Dollars Earned After DPN Involvement 2006 Budget
Tigard Breakfast Rotary Parking $ 6,000.00 Continued $ 6,000.00
Tigard Baseball/Soccer Pancake Breakfast $ 5,000.00 Continued $ 5,000.00
Boy Scouts Coffee and Doughnuts $ 3,000.00 Continued $ 3,000.00
THS Boosters Traffic Control $ 6,000.00 Continued $ 6,000.00
Lions Food Booth $ 1,000.00 Discontinued after one year $ -
Tigard Chamber Sell of field Merchants $ 6,000.00 Discontinued after one year $ -
Tigard Festival Of Balloons Soccer Tourney $ 2,000.00
Southside Church band Concert $ 1,000.00
Lunch Rotary Gate Collection $ 7,000.00
Tigard Football Grounds Clean up $ 2,500.00
Tigard Vollyball Golf cart driving $ 2,000.00
THS Band Exit /Entrance monitors $ 2,500.00
THS Track 5 K run $ 1,000.00
Boy Scouts (Different club) recycling $ 500.00
THS Golf Clean up $ 500.00
THS Grad Commiittee Money counting $ 1,000.00
Tigard Rally Squad Merchandise sales $ -
THS Baseball Hamburgers/Tourney $ 2,000.00
Tigard Studebacker Club Car Rally $ 1,000.00
$ 27,000.00 $ 43,000.00
And More Coming:
We are working very closely with the Tigard high School AD and any club at the High School who would like to hold an
event at the festival. Basketball is looking at holding a tourney this year, Volly ball is looking at a grass tourney next year,
Barbecue contest and much much more.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF ,,QP11 Ar -?®dg
QTY OF TIGARD, OREGON
GOUNQL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Square Discussion
PREPARED BY: Tom Coffee DEPT HEAD OK QTY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Opportunity-to discuss issues of common concern with representatives of Washington Square.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action is requested.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
During the opening of the Washington Square Expansion, the Mayor and John Genovese of the Macerich Corporation
discussed the possibility of a future meeting with City Gouncil to discuss issues of common concem.This workshop
agenda item has been scheduled to allow for that discussion. 4
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Communication: 1) The City will maxim ze accessibility to information in a variety of formats, providing opportunities
for input on community issues and effective two-way communication.
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF April 18, 2006
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLES pGrere~ennbbu`rg Road Alternatives Analysis Report
PREPARED BY: A.P. Dumas DEPT HEAD OK G~ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Presentation to Council of the findings of the study conducted to evaluate circulation issues and impacts of various
alternatives aimed at improving performance at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road/Main Street intersection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That Council discuss and provide input on the alternatives examined for improved performance at that intersection.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
An alternatives analysis was conducted to examine circulation issues and impacts of various alternatives aimed at
improving performance at the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection. The current level of
service on Greenburg Road at Highway 99W is extremely poor especially in the afternoon peak travel hours with
vehicles waiting through multiple traffic cycles to clear the intersection. In addition, forecasts for Highway 99W
along this area show it is well over capacity in future demand. The County funded project at the Hall Blvd/Highway
99W intersection will greatly improve traffic circulation at that intersection. However, improvements to the
Greenburg Road intersection with Highway 99W will be necessary to complement those improvements and ensure
coordinated movements between those two closely-spaced intersections.
The findings of the study will be presented to Council at this meeting for discussion and input. The alternative that
works best will be selected after Council input and will establish the basis for a future project for implementation.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Traffic circulation improvements at the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection addresses the Council
Goal to "Improve 99W Corridor." These improvements also support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation
and Traffic goals of "Improve Traffic Flow" and "Improve Traffic Safety."
J
ATTACHMENT LIST
Draft Memorandum from DKS Associates dated December 15, 2005. Subject Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road
Alternatives Study
FISCAL NOTES
The alternatives examined are conceptual in nature to determine what works best to alleviate congestion and
improve circulation at this intersection. No cost estimates have been prepared at this point. The alternative that
appears best able to achieve those goals without creating significantly adverse impacts on other City streets may be a
candidate project for funding for funding through a new funding source, such as a local gas tax.
1: 1eng%gus%council agenda summadesk-18-08 greenburg mad attematives analysis report ais.dm
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
9400 SW Avenue, Suite 500
Porfland, OR 97209
Phone., (503) 243-3500
Fax: (503) 243-1934
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Gus Duenas, City of Tigard
FROM: Randy McCourt, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Nate Schroeder
DATE: December 15, 2005
SUBJECT: Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study P05227-000-000
This memorandum summarizes the transportation analysis conducted for the OR 99W corridor
from OR 217 to SW Johnson Street in Tigard, Oregon The primary purpose of this study is to
evaluate circulation issues and impacts of various operation alternatives to improve performance
at the OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road intersection
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description
The intersection of OR 99W and SW Greenburg Road is located in downtown Tigard, as shown
in Figure 1. The OR 99W corridor is designated by ODOT as a highway of statewide
importance, and carries between 41,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day'. Improvements to the OR
99W/SW Hall Boulevard intersection are currently being considered by Washington County
through MSTIP2. This project focuses on improvements to the OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road
intersection.
Existing Conditions
Currently, all intersections within the study area operate at level-of-service (LOS) D or better
during the PM peak hour. There are however, extensive queuing deficiencies at the intersection
of OR 99W and SW Hall Boulevard, and along the OR 99W corridor within the study area,
which back up between intersections due to closely spaced intersections. Vehicle delay is also a
problem along the OR 99W corridor under existing conditions, where the AM and PM peak hour
arterial level-of-service is F.
1 2004 Volume Tables, Oregon Department of Transportation.
2 MSTIP = Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program
Q
W
Q
U
4
U
0
w
A~
217
NORTH DAKOTA
PFAFFLE ST
Q Q
GREENSURG
0
rn
a R
0
0) Ca
a ~
MFRc/q Nit °cZ
TiGgRO < G~~~~~ _
✓OyNs°~ sr G~~\G ~~F ~
99W P
~G ST
y9
LEGEND DK Associates
0- Study Intersections T R A N S P O R T A T I O N s o L u T i o s No SCALE STUDY AREA
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 3 of 15
Future Operations and Recommendations
There is currently a plan to improve the OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard intersection, and these
improvements were assumed in the analysis of this project. The proposed upgrades to the OR
99W/SW Hall Boulevard intersection includes:
■ Adding a northbound left-turn lane, which eliminates the need for split phasing
■ The addition of a southbound right-turn lane
■ An additional eastbound through lane that would continue from just east of SW
Greenburg Road to the OR 217 SB on/off-ramps
Theses enhancements improve the operations of that specific intersection; vehicle delay is
decreased and the volume-to-capacity ratio is improved. However, the average delay per vehicle
traveling along OR 99W is increased at the OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road intersection. Several
alternative improvements to OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road were considered. Improvements to
the OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road intersection that would further improve the operations of the
OR 99W corridor includes the following:
■ Adding dedicated left-turn lanes to both northbound and southbound approaches,
which eliminates the need for split phasing and improves operational efficiency
■ Continuation of eastbound through lane from SW Hall Boulevard through SW
Greenburg Road intersection
Under longer term future conditions, additional mitigations are required to achieve acceptable
LOS requirements. The City's Transportation System Plan call for other roadway and
intersection improvements that would cumulatively address future capacity needs in this study
area. A phasing plan will be needed from the short term to the long term to address what could
ultimately be more than five million dollars of roadway improvements. These potential
mitigations include:
■ Widen OR 99W to seven lanes from SW Greenburg Road to OR 217 and beyond
■ Additional northbound left-turn lane at OR 99W/OR 217 NB off-ramp intersection
■ Additional southbound right-turn lane at OR 99W/OR 217 SB off-ramp intersection
■ Dedicated westbound right-turn lane at OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard
■ Additional northbound and southbound through lanes on SW Hall Boulevard at OR
99W as part of the five lane roadway improvement
■ Dual southbound left-turn lanes at OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard
■ Dual southbound left-turn lane at OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road
BACKGROUND
Study Area
The intersections selected for this study were those closest to the OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road
intersection. A total of five signalized intersections were included for analysis along the OR
99W corridor. These intersections operate under actuated-coordinated conditions. As
maintained by ODOT.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 4 of 15
Roadway Network
Table 1 identifies the key roadways located in the study area, their functional classification, and
approximate average daily traffic. These roadways are shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: Roadway Network Summary
Motor -Vehicle Funcii,)na! Class
Roadway - Approximate ADT
QD~>2 Metro TVash. Co. Tigar
State Principal 118 3007 N/O OR 99W
OR 217 Highway Arterial Freeway Freeway 99,2007 S/O OR 99W
freeway)
OR 99W HS htate wa Arterial Arterial Arterial 46,6007
SW Hall District Minor 10,600 N/O OR 99W
Boulevard Highway Arterial Arterial Arterial
11,800 S/O OR 99W
SW Greenburg N/A Major Arterial Arterial 10,000" N/O OR 99W
Road Arterial 6,900 S/O OR 99W
SW Johnson N/A N/A Neighborhood Neighborhood 3,100 N/O OR 99W
Street Route Route 6,400" S/O OR 99W
Notes: N/A = Not Applicable N/O = North of
N/D = No Data Available S/O = South of
Other Modes of Transportation
Within the study area there are several other -
modes of transportation. Bicycles and
pedestrians are accommodated throughout most _ h
of the study area, and at most of the stud ;
Y Y
~'``*~~a°
intersections. The most significant pedestrian
activity occurs at the OR 99W/SW Greenburg -
Road intersection, where a total of 58 pedestrians
utilized the intersection during the PM peak
hour. Other intersections only had 3 to 25
pedestrians during the PM peak hour. Within the
study area, dedicated bike lanes are provided
along most of OR 99W, along SW Greenburg Road north of OR 99W, and along SW Hall
Boulevard. Table 2 summarizes the PM peak hour bicycle activity at each of the study
intersections. Bicycle traffic diminishes significantly near the OR 99W/OR 217 interchange.
3 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Appendix D, Oregon Department of Transportation.
4 Regional Transportation Plan, Figure 1. 13, Metro, 2004.
5 2002 Transportation System Plan, Exhibit 12, Washington County.
6 Transportation System Plan, Chapter 8, City of Tigard.
7 2004 Transportation Volume Tables, Oregon Department of Transportation, Traffic Counting Program.
8 ADT estimated based on PM peak hour counts conducted by All Traffic Data on September 22, 2005.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 5 of 15
Table 2: PM Peak Hour Bicycle Activity
Intersection VarNlbound Sntet{rtnaud Eastbound Westbound Total
OR 99W/OR 217 NB Ramps9 0 0 0 0 0
OR 99W/OR 217 SB Ramps9 0 0 1 0 1
OR 99W/SW Hall Blvd.10 4 2 2 1 9
OR 99W/SW Greenburg Rd.10 1 3 1 7 12
OR 99W/SW Johnson St.10 1 4 3 2 10
Note: Assumes OR 99W is an east-west roadway
- - There are also several transit routes in the area, which
are summarized in Table 3. Several bus routes utilize
the Tigard Transit Center that is located on SW
Commercial Street in downtown Tigard. Bus route
#12 is a frequent service route, and bus routes #64,
#94, and #95 are rush-hour service routes, which
provide service only during the peak hour in the
direction of highest demand. Bus routes on OR 99W
are impacted by congestion during the peak periods.
Bus routes #45, #76, and #78 provide standard service,
which may be limited during off-peak hours depending
on route. Commuter rail is also being developed for the region and will utilize the railroad tracks
that run through Tigard. It is assumed approximately 35-50 additional trains will run through the
downtown Tigard area daily, after full implementation of the commuter rail programs s .
Table 3: TriMet Bus Routes in the Study Area
Primary Roadways PM Approximate Serviec Utilizes
Route Traveled Keadwaj~f LOS Tye Tigard TC
#12 (Barbur Blvd.) OR 99W, Main St., 15 mins. C Frequent Yes
Commercial St. Service
Johnson St. Main St. Standard
#45 (Garden Home) 20-30 mins. D Yes
Commercial St. Service
964 (Marquam Hill/Tigard TC) OR 99W, Main St., 30-35 mins. E Rush-hour Yes
Commercial St. Service
Hall Blvd. Commercial St. Standard
#76 (Beaverton/Tualatin) Main St., Greenbur Rd. 30 mins. D Service Yes
Hunziker Rd., Hall Blvd., Standard
#78 (Beaverton/Lake Oswego) Commercial St., Main St., 30 mins. D Service Yes
Greenbur Rd.
#94 (Sherwood/Pacific Hwy OR 99W 10 mins. B Rush-hour No
Express) Service
#95 (Tigard/I-5 Express) OR 99W 20-30 mins. D Rush-hour No
Service
Level of Service (LOS) for transit service based on headway: less than 10 minutes = LOS A;
10-14 minutes= LOS B; 14-20 minutes= LOS Q20-30 minutes= LOS D; 30-60 minutes= LOSE; and greater than 60 minutes= LOS F.
9 Based on traffic counts performed by Traffic Smithy Inc. on May 4, 2004.
10 Based on traffic counts performed by All Traffic Data on September 22, 2005.
11 Based on phone conversation with Larry Phipps of Portland & Western Railroad Inc. on September 27, 2005.
12 Headways approximated based on bus schedules located online at trimet.org.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 6 of 15
EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATION
Traffic Counts
Traffic counts were conducted at the five intersections located along the OR 99W corridor from
SW Johnson Street to OR 217. The study intersections included the OR 217 northbound ramps,
the OR 217 southbound ramps, SW Hall Boulevard, SW Greenburg Road, and SW Johnson
Street. The intersections were counted during the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) on a
weekday during September 200513. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.
Traffic Performance
An intersection performance analysis was conducted using the PM peak hour volumes and
Synchro14 software to determine the level of service and volume-to-capacity ratios based on the
Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology for signalized intersections 15. Level of service
(LOS) is used as a measure of effectiveness for intersection operation based upon average
vehicle delay. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where vehicles can move freely. LOS D and
E are progressively worse, and LOS F represents conditions where traffic volumes exceed the
capacity of a specific movement resulting in long vehicle queues and delays. Table 4
summarizes existing PM peak hour traffic conditions.
Table 4: Intersection Performance for Existing 2005 PM Peak Hour Conditions
Study Intersection Delay LOS V/C
Signalized
OR 99W/OR 217 NB Ramps 8.8 A 0.68
OR 99W/OR 217 SB Ramps 23.2 C 0.76
OR 99W/SW Hall Blvd. 48.0 D 0.90
OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road/SW Main St. 40.9 D 0.88
OR 99W/SW Johnson St./SW Main St. 19.9 B 0.77
LOS = Level of Service
A/A = Major Street LOStMinor Street LOS
Signalized Delay = Average Control Delay per Vehicle
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
All of the study intersections currently operate within the operational standards set by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT). According to ODOT, the intersections along OR 99W
are required to have a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.95 or betterl6. The intersections perform
slightly worse than documented in the Tigard TSP for 1999 conditions.
s Traffic counts conducted by All Traffic Data, Inc. on September 22, 2005.
14 Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Software, Trafficware, 2003, Version 6 (Build 612).
15 Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000, Chapter 16.
16 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Alternative Highway Mobility Standards, Table 7, Oregon Department of
Transportation. s
217
~RF
Ftie
~Ro J 4_ 5
~m
4
o 3
T/GgRO G~~,`~N 2~
~ s
~s
C9 QPG\~~p p ~
J
99W BG~2 ~Oi9l P~~ P
by
r
7. 99W @ Main & Johnson Z. 99W @ Main & Greengurg 3. 99W @ Hall Blvd
910.1 2g1® 21
W.* ®130. 6~a ~
9~ w c o r®11758
1~ ® arna,~~0 1rj~ ®®0 r 192
r
~0®~ r0®0 ®®~j R ~00 At
1893m01® w
1
ti~ 10ti1®~ 108
1ti 1~3
4.!0W @ 217 SB Ramps 5. 99W @ 217 NB Ramps
4 67
®0 %55
r
1236®®7 j12501-0
LEGEND DKS Associates
Study Intersection & ® Signalized Intersection
Number TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS NO SCALE
00-Peak Hour Traffic Volume +--Lane Configuration EXISTING GEOMETRY AND
mmm -Volume Turn Movement PM PEAK HOUR
Left-Rm.Right TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 8 of 15
Although each of the intersections meets the required standards, there is excessive queuing and
delays along OR 99W and side streets within the study area. The existing arterial level of
service, which is based on average speed, is at LOS F along OR 99W for most ofthe study
area 17. Analysis of travel speed in the study area was conducted by simulation of PM peak
conditions using the Synchro/Sim Traffic software. A summary of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) LOS standards is shown in Table 5Table 5, and a summary of the existing LOS
conditions are shown in Table 6. The results of the simulation match actual travel speed
observations in the corridor during the PM peak conditions, the results of these observations are
shown in Figure 3.
Table 5: Highway Capacity Manual Arterial LOS
Urban Street Class II
Range'offree-flow speeds (FFS) 45 to 35 mi/h
TypicalFFS ' 40 mi/h=
LOS Average Travel Speed (mi/h)
A >35
B >28-35
C >22-28
D >17-22
E >13-17
F = 13
Table 6: Existing LOS Conditions Along OR 99W
" Direction Average Arterial
6R99W Roadmiu Segment
f„ of Travel Seed LOS
Southwest of SW Johnson St. EB 14 E
wB
SW Johnson St. to SW Greenburg Rd. EB 8 F
WB 21 D
SW Greenburg Rd. to SW Hall Blvd. EB 9 F
WB 11 F
SW Hall Blvd. to OR 217 SB ramps EB 20 D
WB 6 F
OR 217 SB ramps to OR 217 NB ramps EB 24 C
WB 6 F
East of OR 217 NB ramps EB
WB 6 F
Overall Corridor LOS,(OR 217 to SW Johnson St.) EB 11 F
WB 10 F
Note: N/A = Not Applicable
17 Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 15, Exhibit 15-2, Transportation Research Board.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 9 of 15
I ~r -I
Peak
c 2005 Weekday _M
„S'
Figure 3: PM Peak Travel Speed Observations
Based on Floating Car Surveys, October 2005
Much of the operational deficiencies that occur today result from sub-standard access spacing
where queues from one intersection spill into adjacent intersections. Access spacing also does
not meet the standards set by ODOT, which requires that the minimum distance from a freeway
interchange to the. first major intersection be at least 1,320 feet 18. The existing access spacing
from the OR 217 interchange to SW Hall Boulevard is approximately only 675 feet and another
675 feet from SW Hall Boulevard to SW Greenburg Road, which are below the standard
spacing.
FUTURE OPERATIONS AND OPTIONS
Circulation Alternatives
There were several alternatives that were examined to improve the operations at the OR
99W/SW Greenburg Road intersection, and relieve congestion along OR 99W and decrease
delay along the corridor. These alternatives are summarized in this section.
18 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Appendix C, Table 17, Oregon Department of Transportation.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 10 of 15
Alternative 1:
The addition of a median at the OR 99W/SW
Greenburg Road intersection would reduce
conflicting movements on OR 99W, improving
operation of OR 99W. However, based on the
Metro Regional Travel Demand Model, there is a
large impact to the immediate neighborhood
streets and surrounding area. Particularly SW 98`h
Avenue and SW Commercial Street would gain
2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on local
streets. Eliminating through and left-turn
.A
ti movements from the intersection results in the
diversion of trips to other routes, many of which
are also congested today or in the future.
' Roadways affected include Scholls Ferry Road,
SW Locust Street, OR 217, SW 72°d Avenue, SW
Pfaffle Street, SW Oak Street, SW Hunziker
Street, and SW Hall Boulevard. Any median alternative would significantly impact access to
downtown Tigard. Due to the impact to local streets and congested collectors/arterials, this
alternative was eliminated.
Alternative 2:
Diverting traffic from SW Greenburg Road to SW
Tigard Street via SW Tiedeman Avenue and
implementing a median at the OR 99W/SW
Greenburg Road intersection potentially improves
conditions along OR 99W. This alternative would
add approximately 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day
to the existing 5,000 vehicles per day traveling on
SW Tigard Street. Three lane improvements to
SW Tigard Street and SW Tiedeman Avenue
would need to be considered. Grant Street would
1 ,
gain 2,000 to 3,000 VPD. Additionally, the
diverted traffic would be funneled into downtown
~
Tigard and would still end up using OR 99W
providing limited operational benefit. This
alternative was eliminated because its impacts
appeared greater than its benefits.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 11 of 15
Alternative 3:
Constructing a connector (backage road)
between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Greenburg
Road helps to relieve traffic on OR 99W and
provides an alternative route for median impacts.
The new connector reduces the impacts noted in
Alternative #1. However, this alternative
significantly increases traffic on SW Hall
u. Boulevard, which has little or no residual
Mme" capacity. The area of impact is confined to a
a smaller area, but the right-of-way impacts to that
area are significant. A large amount of property
would need to be acquired to implement this
alternative and the benefit to OR 99W is limited.
The combination of right-of--way and network
impacts to SW Hall Boulevard from the median
a led to the dismissal of this alternative.
Alternative 4:
Y The addition of travel lanes at OR 99W/SW
Greenburg Road intersection with the connector
between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Greenburg
Road potentially provides improvement to the
OR 99W corridor. These improvements require
" a large acquisition of right-of-way to construct
' the added turn lanes and the connector. The turn
lanes at OR 99W/SW Greenburg are effective in
improving traffic operation (as was found in the
TSP). After analyzing the value of the backage
a road using the Metro Travel Demand Model, it
was determined that the connector does not
. improve conditions along OR 99W
.:.lsx commensurate with the impacts (only about
2,000 VPD use the backage road). This
4~, alternative was analyzed in more depth without
including the SW Hall Boulevard to SW
Greenburg Road cross connection.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 12 of 15
Two more extensive circulation changes were
E - . tested
x
t
Alternative 5:
This option included creating two enhanced
portals to downtown Tigard via improved SW
Tigard Street and SW Walnut Street extension.
The property impacts of acquiring the needed
right-of-way to construct a new SW North
tt Dakota Street connection to SW Tigard Street, a
SW Walnut Street extension, and widening SW
Tigard Street are significant. While the new
A'''te portals increase access to downtown they do not
` . eliminate the need for further improvements at
OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road. The SW Walnut
. Street extension helps reduce some OR 99W
traffic but is a much longer term project as
defined in the TSP. SW Tigard Street widening
to three lanes would help but has operation issues
at the key junctions (SW Greenburg Road/SW
Tiedeman Avenue, SW Tiedeman Avenue/SW Tigard Street) and only attracts 2,000 to 3,000
VPD for the investment (and right-of-way impacts). The alternative was considered a longer
term improvement and dropped from further short term evaluation.
Alternative 6:
A median concept at OR 99W/SW Greenburg
Road combined with a new north/south route via
SW Nimbus Avenue/SW Tigard Street was
tested. The SW Nimbus Avenue extension is
outlined in the TSP and Metro's Regional
Transportation Plan. IT would attract significant
traffic 8,000 VPD) and replace SW Greenburg
Road access to downtown. IT would have the
greatest benefit to OR 99W (over + 7,000 VPD).
1 However, the impacts (wetlands, right-of-way
and added downtown Tigard traffic) render this
alternative at best a long term consideration. The
Downtown Tigard Traffic Study from 16 Years
ago made similar finding about this concept.
This option was dropped from short term
consideration.
k'S
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 13 of 15
Short term Improvements
All alternatives which improve OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road will have impacts (to properties,
wetlands or traffic to varying degrees). The alternative that appears to best balance improved
operational performance with downtown access and impacts, is one that specifically adds
capacity to OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road. Using the assumed improvements to OR 99W and
SW Hall Boulevard, and Alternative #4 as a starting point (Figures 4 and 5), much of the
operational deficiencies can be removed. Although operations at the OR 99W/SW Hall
Boulevard intersection are improved the benefit to the OR 99W corridor is not improved without
further improvement. The elimination of split phasing at the OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard
results in more efficient use of the cycle length, but the split phasing at OR 99W/SW Greenburg
Road still creates a bottleneck along OR 99W. As a result, short-term improvements were
proposed for SW Greenburg Road to improve the performance along OR 99W.
Q
V '9
99W'
Fxtsting
• Existing. • Proposed
N -Proposed HALL. GREENSURG
BLVD RD
Figure 4: Short term Hall Imp. Figure 5: Short term Greenburg Imp.
The additional northbound and southbound turn lanes at each intersection eliminate the need for
split phasing, which increases the efficiency of these intersections. The added third eastbound
through lane is extended through the SW Greenburg Road intersection to increase capacity.
With the added geometry and elimination of split phasing, the coordination along the OR 99W
corridor is also improved. As a result, the delay experienced by vehicles on OR 99W is
decreased with the improvements made at both intersections. A comparison of the overall
arterial level-of-service is shown in Table 7 for short term conditions.
Table 7: Overall Existing Arterial LOS Conditions for OR 99W
Short-term Improvement, Direction Average Arterial
of Travel Speed LOS
Existing Geometry and Lanes EB 11 F
WB 10 F
Add MSTIP SW Hall Boulevard Improvements EB 15 E
WB 9 F
Add SW Hall Boulevard plus SW Greenburg Road EB 18 D
Improvements WB 17 E
• Note: N/A = Not Applicable
These additional lane improvements would impact properties adjacent to the OR 99W/SW
Greenburg Road intersection. Widening SW Greenburg Road would have right-of-way impacts
extending 400 feet away from OR 99W on both sides of the street. The added lane on OR 99W
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 14 of 15
would likely require a wall to minimize right-of-way impact to the south. While detailed cost
estimates are needed, it is likely these added lanes (if done with the OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard
project) would be at least two to three million dollars.
Long term Improvements
Given the substantial impact of adding capacity at OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road, the
performance of the short term was tested in the longer term (approximately 20 year horizon)
using the TSP forecasts. The short term improvements would not be adequate in the TSP future
scenario. It is likely theywould only address five years of growth, although improvements
would be substantially better than existing geometry. The TSP acknowledged the greater
capacity needs in the future. Because of this a phasing plan should be developed that addresses
achievable short term improvements that are consistent with long term needs.
The long term needs were evaluated and three additional improvements were needed at OR
99W/SW Hall Boulevard and two more at OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road beyond the short term
improvements. At OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard (Figure 6) the addition of a second southbound
left-turn lane, a westbound right-turn lane, and accommodation of the five lane (two added
through lanes) cross section on SW Hall Boulevard for at least 500 feet each side of OR 99W is
needed. At OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road (Figure 7) adding a second southbound left-turn lane
and extending the third OR 99W westbound through lane across SW Greenburg Road before
dropping it back to two lanes would be needed.
d 99w,
S 99W 41
s
41tt htr~
HALL GREENBURG
RLVD RD
Figure 6: Long term Hall Imp. Figure 7: Long term Greenburg Imp.
These improvements are significant and will take time to implement. While detailed cost
estimates are necessary, cost beyond five million dollars could be expected. The benefit is that
with these improvements, OR 99W would operate comparably to today, with 20 years of growth.
The intersection performance for the Future TSP PM peak scenario is summarized in Table 8.
Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study DRAFT
December 15, 2005
Page 15 of 15
Table 8: Intersection Performance for Future TSP Mitigated PM Peak Hour Conditions
Study Intersection Delay LOS V/C
Signalized
OR 99W/OR 217 NB Ramps 13.6 B 0.77
OR 99W/OR 217 SB Ramps 26.0 C 0.87
OR 99W/SW Hall Blvd. 50.7 D 0.98
OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road/SW Main St. 24.3 C 0.71
OR 99W/SW Johnson St./SW Main St. 21.2 C 0.73
LOS = Level of Service
A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
Signalized Delay = Average Control Delay per Vehicle
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
When analyzing traffic operations for long-term cases, the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)
standards must be met. However, if any modifications are made to the geometry of an ODOT
facility, it is then subject to the requirements of the 2003 Highway Design Manual (HDM). The
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio standards in the HDM are generally lower than those in the OHP.
The OHP V/C ratio standard for the OR 99W corridor within the study area is 0.9516. The only
intersection that the OHP standard applies to is OR 99W/SW Johnson Street, which meets the
standard. Each of the other intersections would need to be modified and therefore would need to
meet the HDM V/C ratio standard of 0.7519. The only intersection that meets the HDM standard
is OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road. A design exception would be required for the OR 217 off-
ramps and the OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard intersection.
19 2003 Highway Design Manual, Chapter 10, Table 10-1, Oregon Department of Transportation.
Pacific Highway/Greenburg Road
Alternatives Study
I April 18, 2006
City Council Work Session
Overview
Existing Conditions
• Future Operations
• Alternatives
• Initial Recommendations/Discussion
1
{ Existing Conditions
:I
• OR 99W 41,000 to 45,000
vehicles per day
• Greenburg 10,000 vpd
• OR 99W at Hall and
Greenburg are at Level of
Service D - little available -
capacity
• Peak directional traffic _
volume of 2000 vehicles _
per hour - some of the
highest in the region
• Existing access spacing
of 675 feet - standard
1,320 feet to ORE 217
Existing Conditions
T - ^n Y
2005, Weekday PM Peak
° T-w speed
I ~ ,obmnM
mby7~
- ~ ~ • - Mph esri e rtgl/ /
2
Existing Conditions
• Travel Speed on OR
99W from OR 217 to i
Main/Johnson 10 mph - 4
- relates to level of
service F
• Split traffic signal
phases are problematict
to capacity
' Bus transit headways
are 15 to 30 minutes -
level of service E to C
• About 10 bicycles and
25 pedestrians per hour
A in the PM peak
Future Conditions - Hall/OR 99W
• MSTIP Project -
planned for OR
99W/Hall adds turn,
cY 41~,
lanes
• Elimination of split
traffic signal phase
• Added eastbound
lane from
Greenburg to OR
-
217
3
r
Greenburg/OR 99W Alternatives
❖ Congestion
❖ Gateway to Downtown
❖ Access Management
❖ Pedestrian Safety
❖ Alternative Routes
Coordination with other Transportation
Investments .
❖ Achieving Design Standards -Access,
Level of Service, Queuing
~l
Greenburg/OR 99W
i.
4
S
wa1a3NMOO
awvArmo6 mrw al avow ownfb.
w wi_ uv
i9~V ~fD enmt
r
~ P
d t 5
nwnwn oiaevwl
a3w aN1143w1f awYou WON wvu Wd
~1...n....r .....w:e..,..
i •NieurNy L9W03a aNI1fOCi.u,uu ..uu........ w..,,~~ro. •~..'~.Oti
sere a y SNO aaaea. Syl7 aw m
\ Lx
~T Jv ~6 6 ~aaLaierca•g ~e~YRLKOIN••d
~'.niv' \ .4nt ~ MI•YDIi YI•••E Y<oWiM~IYi W•Z ~~Tf•eRMi M•B
~ 'f t s
` I
Findings
• Options that include a median on OR 99W
would increase neighborhood travel by
2000 to 3000 vpd - Commercial, Grant
and Tigard are most impacted
• Diversions caused by a median impact
many near capacity intersections as far
away as Scholls Ferry, 72nd and Pfaffle
Findings
• Backage road connectors on each side of
OR 99W help relieve traffic on Pacific
Highway, but would have significant right-
of-way impacts unless considered with
A_ redevelopment
y. • Turn Lanes appeared to have the most
significant benefit to traffic operation
today and well into the future - confirmed
in the TSP
6
Findings - Phased Improvement
Q t
..,99Wi ':99W
a • Existing 41~
~ -Proposed
GREENBURG GREENBURG
RD RD
7
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF April 18, 2006
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Planned Development Code Review Committee Recommendations
PREPARED BY: Sean Farrelly DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The Planned Development Code Review Committee has made recommendations, for the Councirs consideration, to
change the Planned Development section of the Development Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council determines that the proposed Planned Development revisions are appropriate, staff should be
directed to prepare a draft ordinance for public hearings.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Council established the Planned Development Code Review Committee in January 2004 to study the identified
problems of Planned Developments. The committee worked with staff to develop new code language including a
revised purpose statement, application process, conceptual and detailed development plan requirements, overlay zone
requirements, and definitions. The attached memorandum (Attachment 1) outlines the proposed changes.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Staff has suggested that the Planned Development Code already contains sufficient language to address the
problems with the Planned Development process.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Growth and Growth Management, Goal #1 - Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of
established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community.
Two of the strategies to implement this goal are:
1) Review and modify development code sections to integrate open space preservation and protection into design
standards. (Planned Actions include: revising code sections to ensure that residential development incorporates open
space; and developing and implementing design standards that preserve and protect open space, greenways, and natural
areas.)
2) Develop and implement design standards that preserve and protect open space, greenways, and natural areas.
(Planned Actions include: amending code to promote design that includes natural features and promotes connectivity to
open space, greenways, and natural area access; and implementing a public process for adequate development/ design
review.) 0
ATTACHMENT LIST
1: Memo to Council dated April 6, 2006 - Planned Development Code Committee Recommendations
2: Memo to Planning Commission dated March 9, 2006 - Draft Planned Development Code
3: Option 2 - Reorganize Chapter (Clean Copy)
4: Annotated Option 2 - Reorganize Chapter
5: Draft Planning Commissioners' Toolbox
6: Memo to Planning Commission dated May 12, 2005 - Draft Committee. Recommendations
7: E-mail from Gary Firestone dated March 7, 2006 - initial comments on PD changes
8: E-mail from John Frewing dated March 8, 2006 - comments on "clean copy"
9: March 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner
RE: Planned Development Code Committee Recommendations
DATE: April 6, 2006
The Planned Development Code Review Committee was appointed by the City Council in January
2004 to review and recommend changes to the Planned Development Chapter of the Development
Code (18.350). The concept of Planned Developments is to grant flexibility to the underlying
subdivision code standards in order to achieve a desired public purpose. Concerns arose in the
community about the density, appearance, and lack of open space in some of the developments
approved under the provisions of the Planned Development chapter.
The Committee had its fast meeting April 2004. After a several month delay due to staff shortages,
the Committee recently met to forward its proposals to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Committee's recommendation to the City Council is to substantially reorganize and rewrite the
Planned Development chapter (18.350). Staff worked with the Committee on developing new code
language. The proposed changes include:
1. New Purpose Statement
The purpose statement was completely rewritten to emphasize the link between applying
flexible standards and mitigating impacts with amenities such as preserving open space and
natural resources, the use of alternative building designs, and other public purposes.
2. Revised Approval Process
The revisions make a clearer distinction between the three sections of the approval process:
the Conceptual Development Plan, the Detailed Development Plan, and the Overlay Zone.
(Concurrent applications can be made for each of the three approval steps, but the Planning
Commission must take separate actions on each part)
A. Conceptual Development Plan: New conceptual plans would require addressing these
new approval criteria:
• provision of open space
• protecting natural resource areas
• integration of development into the existing neighborhood
• promotion of walkability/ transit
• identification of the uses and arrangement of the site
• provision of other amenities
B. Detailed Development Plan: The approval of a Detailed Plan was made a distinct step in
the process. The section also would consolidate several sections of the chapter for required
analyses.
The Detailed Development Plan includes the following requirements:
a. Contextual analyses
b. Compliance with specific development standards of the base zone
c. Conformance to the Conceptual Plan.
d. Extensive Detailed Development approval criteria would have to be met, including a
mandatory shared open space requirement (20% of the gross site area).
C. Overlay Zone: The approval process was re-ordered to make the Overlay Zone the final
step. It was simplified to include only an affirmation that the terms and conditions applied
to the Detailed Development Plan had been fully satisfied. The Planned Development
Overlay Zone would thereby no longer applied to unimplemented "development concepts."
3. Changes in Definitions Chapter (18.120)
Open Space: Changes would make distinctions in the types of open space (minimal use,
passive use recreation, and active use recreation).
The full language of the code amendments can be found in Attachments 3 (Clean Copy) and 4
(Annotated Copy).
The Planning Commissioners Toolbox
The Committee developed Planning Commissioners' Toolbox: a packet with requirements of the
process as well as illustrations and case studies of preferred developments around the County. The
Toolbox is intended to be used as a guide for developers and as a reference for the Planning
Commission during Planned Development hearings. The draft of the Planners Toolbox can be
reviewed in Attachment 5.
City Attorney Comments
The City Attorney did a preliminary review of the proposed code amendments and made several
comments. The most significant potential problems are the Overlay Zone (which would need to be
treated as a zone change, with notice to DLCD and comprehensive plan review), and the
inconsistencies in the procedure section. Please refer to Attachment 7 for the full text of the City
Attorney's e-mail comments.
Attachment 2
l
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Memo drafted by Gretchen Buehner, member
DATE: 3/9/06
RE: DRAFT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE
This memorandum updates the Planning Commission since our joint meeting in May, 2005. The
Planned Development Committee continued to meet over the summer and fall working on draft
code changes to implement the ideas discussed with the Commission, incorporating Commission
suggestions. Staff shortages delayed completion for several months. Below is a summary of
how the recommendations included in our 5/12/05 memorandum were translated into draft code
and/or what further study is needed. The Committee would like to recognize the high quality
work done by Morgan prior to his departure from the City in September, 2005.
1. CREATE A TOOLBOX. You have been provided with an updated draft of the Toolbox,
i primarily created by Morgan. Work will continue to streamline it for distribution to developers
at the-pre-application conference. Also see 18.350.050 E (c)(ii).
2. TRANSITION LOT SIZES. Done. A requirement regarding larger lots on the exterior of the
planned development is included inl8.350.050 C (1).
3. CONSISTENCY WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. Done. See 2 above re buffer
lots. Also see 18.350.050 B (d)(e).
4. BURDEN OF DEVELOPER TO SHOW WHY PD IS A "BETTER" SOLUTION. Done.
See 18.350.010 A (2); 18.350.040 A (1); Toolbox.
5. SEPARATE CONCEPT FROM DETAIL PLAN. Done. See 18.350.040 A-(4). (mis-
numbered as 5 in draft code). Clarification will continue give attorney. comments.
6. MANDATORY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. Done See 18.350.050 E (3) (n) and (o).
Some minor tweaking still needs to occur.
7. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Done. CWS provisions.
8. ENHANCE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCESS. More work needs to be done. More
structure needs to be provided to developers . One suggestion is that if the plan included in the
3 application differs substantially from that presented at the neighborhood meeting, developer be
required to send notice to all attendees at neighborhood meeting.
9. ADDITIONAL AMENITIES. Done. See Toolbox; 18.350.050.E (2) c) et.seq.
10. STANDARDS FOR WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. See 18.350.050 (3) More
review is needed.
11. DENSITY AS FUNCTION OF DESIGN EXCELLENCE. Done. See 18.350.050 E (2)(c).
12. RE ZONE TO REDUCE DENSITY AND DELETE UNBUILDABLE LAND SUCH AS
CWS FACILITIES FROM BUILDABLE LAND BEFORE DOING DENSITY
CALCULATION. Not done. Needs to be changed in Chapter 715. This seems to be a fairly
specific code standard that could be changed before completion of the comprehensive plan.
13. LIMIT DENSITY BONUSES. Done. See 18.350.050 E (2) c).
14. LIMIT DENSITY TRANSFERS. Not done. Can't be done in planned development code,
but see side recommendation 7 c from 5/05 memo. The committee is concerned that code
provisions not provide transfers for open space.
15. APPLICATION SHOULD ADDRESS CRITERIA SET FORTH IN TOOLBOX. As stated
above, the Toolbox will be streamlined to make it more user friendly. See 18.350.050 E (2) c)
(ii).
SIDE RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. FUNDING MECHANISM FOR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION. Work in progress.
2. ESTABLISH OPEN SPACE NETWORK MASTER PLAN. Work in progress by parks
board.
3. TREE CODE REVISIONS. Not done. Some suggestions on current City Council list of
changes to be looked in near future.
4. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINE CHANGES. Not done.
5. WORK WITH CWS TO LOOK AT LIMITED BUFFER USES AND OTHERS. Not done.
6. INCLUDE SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS IN REPORT
TO COUNCIL (APPEALS). Not done.
7. OPEN SPACE ISSUES.
A. Review of acceptance of small parcels. Council is reviewing.
B. Policy of private vs. public open space ownership. Not done.
Page 2 - Planned Development Committee 3/9/05 Memo to Planning Commission
C. Zone for Open Space. Not done. There are questions regarding whether such a zone
would work and Measure 37 issues.
D. No density transfers for open space. See discussion in 14.
E. Open space types. Included in revised draft code. Committee recommends adding
this to subdivision code.
8. Reduce storm water runoff in PD's. There has been discussion of permeable surfaces
on private streets. Much more work needs to be done.
The following are a couple of personal comments, not discussed with the Committee. We
received city attorney Gary Firestone's memo at our last committee meeting, but did not review
it during the meeting.
In a quick review of his memo, I agree with his comment about the " PD overlay zone". This is
a policy issue which should be addressed to make the code less open to litigation.
I also understand is his concern about the "concept" plan issue. In theory, the developer brings a
concept plan to the pre-app conference. A form of concept plan is presented at the neighborhood
meeting. The application includes the detailed development plan. Should the application include
the concept plan presented at the pre app conference? A copy of the plan presented at the
neighborhood meeting would need to be included in the application to implement the notice
recommendation of notice mentioned in 8 above. This issue needs more work.
Page 3 - Planned Development Committee 3/9/05 Memo to Planning Commission
Attachment 3
} OPTION 2 - Reorganize Chapter
Summary of Major Changes
Reorganization.
The chapter was reorganized to consolidate several sections, and create a logical progression of the
other sections. The committee expressed concern that in PD applications, there was not enough of a
distinction between the concept and detailed plan. Upon closer examination of the existing code text,
staff found that the code itself did not clearly distinguish the two parts of the process. Elements of
approval criteria were dispersed throughout the chapter, and applying the code to projects required a
bit of gymnastic talent. The code has been reorganized in a more progressive fashion, setting forth
the overall purpose, an outline of the process, miscellaneous procedural requirements, followed by
distinct sections for the three elements of the PD process: the overlay zone, the concept plan, and
the detailed plan.
Revised Purpose Statement.
The committee spent considerable time drafting 'an updated purpose statement to reflect current
trends in development and community desires. A greater balance between development
opportunities and contributions to the community assets was sought. Environmental considerations
were made more central to the purpose of the PD code.
Mandatory Open Space Requirement.
In addition to requiring a certain percentage of open space, the committee made deliberate
distinctions in the types of open space (minimal use, passive use recreation, and active use
recreation). Changes to the definition chapter were added.
Substantial Changes in the Approval Criteria for Detailed Development Plans.
This section was reworked. to create consistency between the purpose statement and the review
criteria, as well as incorporate the recommendations of the committee.
Revised Ordering of the Approval Process
The application of the Planned Development Overlay Zone was physically moved to the end
of the process and simplified to include only an affirmation that the terms and conditions
applied to the detail development plan had been fully satisfied. The Planned Development
Overlay Zone is thereby no longer applied to unimplemented "development concepts".
Chapter 18.120'
DEFINITIONS
104. Open Space Facility related definitions. Open Space Facilities may be privately or publicly owned:
a. Minimal Use Facilities. Areas reserved for low-impact recreation, limited to soft surface trails which are
minimally maintained.. No other improvements (apart from underground utilities) are allowed.
b. Passive Use Facilities. Areas reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses related to the
functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site improvement, including soft
surface trails, raised walkways, pedestrian bridges, seating areas, viewing blinds, observation decks
informational signage, drinking fountains, picnic tables, interpretive centers, and other similar facilities.
Accommodations for ADA access shall be provided where site considerations permit. .
c. Active Use Facilities. Areas reserved for high-impact recreation that require a greater degree of site
development and/or ground disturbance; such as sports fields, playground equipment, group picnic
shelters, swimming pools, hard and soft surface pathways, restrooms, and similar facilities.
Page 1 of 13 June 29, 2005
1
Chapter 18.350
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Sections:
18.350.010 Purpose
18.350.020 Process
18350.030 Administrative Provisions
18.350.040 Conceptual Development Plan Requirements
18350.050 Detailed Development Plan Requirements
18350.060 Overlay. Zone Requirements
18350.010 Purpose
A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
1. To.provide a means for property development which results in development that is consistent with Tigard's
Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential
impacts to the city; and
2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space, alternative building designs, walkable
communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that
contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community
Development Code; and
3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open
space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city . benefits, while respecting
the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources,
ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives,
conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular
site; and
5. To consider an amount of development on a site which will provide a benefit to the owner and developer
consistent with the degree of positive or negative impact to neighbors and to the public resources and, facilities
of Tigard; and
-6. To provide a means. to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and
innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials.
18350.020 Process
A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An
applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of
this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions
of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development.
B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as
)
follows:
1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and
Page 2 of 13 June 29, 2005
.r
2. The approval of the detailed development plan or preliminary subdivision plat.
3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone;
C. Decision-making process.
1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050,
using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.]
2 The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by 1.,8.390.040,
to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept development plan.
3. A planned development overlay zone shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.
4. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone for any other type of application, the application
shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the chapters which apply to the particular land use
application.
D. Concurrent conceptual plan, detailed development plan, and overlay zone applications.
On.residential or mixed use projects over 5 acres, the.detailed plan shall and the overlay zone shall be filed
separately, unless the director waives this requirement. For commercial or industrial development, the detailed
plan and the overlay zone shall be filed separately. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant
may also apply for preliminary plat approval and the applications shall be heard concurrently. All applicants
are advised that the purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing
the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of the detail plan and
overlay zone.
E. In the case of concurrent applications for concept plan, detailed plan, and overlay zone, including subdivision
} applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning
Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the Planned Development application (i.e. the
concept approval must precede the detailed development approval which shall precede approval of the overlay
zone); however each required action may be made at the same hearing.
18350.030 Administrative Provisions
A. Action on the concept development plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-
PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.050.
B. Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. If the concept and detailed plan or preliminary plat were not
heard concurrently, 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 taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.060.
C. Zoning map designation. The approval of the planned development overlay zone shall expire: whenever the
detail plan approval lapses or expires. The zoning map shall be amended to indicate the approved planned
development designation for the subject development site only after the detail development plan has been
implemented. Final action on the zoning map amendment shall be taken by the City Council by means of a
Type IV procedure as governed by Section 18.390.060 and approval of the detailed development plan by the
Planning Commission shall serve as their recommendation to the Council.
D. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an
extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that:
1. No changes have been made on the original concept development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission;
Page 3 of 13 June 29, 2005
2. The applicant can show intent of applying for the detail development plan or preliminary plat review within
the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which
the approval was based.
E. Phased development.
1. The Commission may approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases, but in no case shall the total
time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for conceptual development plan
review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased detail development plan proposal are that:
a. The public facilities shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; and
b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities.
A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard.
F. Substantial modifications to the conceptual plan. If a detailed development plan or preliminary plat does not
substantially conform to the conceptual. plan, a new conceptual development plan shall be required.
G. Noncompliance. Noncompliance with an approved detailed development plan shall be a violation of this
chapter.
H. Issuance of occupancy permits. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved detailed
development plan including landscaping and recreation areas before any occupancy permits are issued. .
However, when the Director determines that immediate execution of any feature of an approved detailed
development plan is impractical due to climatic conditions, unavailability of materials, or other temporary
condition, the Director shall, as a precondition of the issuance of a required permit, require the posting of a
performance bond or other surety to secure execution of the feature at a time certain not to exceed one year.
18.350.040 Conceptual Development Plan Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general
information required for a Type 111-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 [and the additional
information required by 18.350.040.B. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following:
1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach
proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a description of the character of the proposed
development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The statement
should be explicit in defining the architectural style, and what sorts of innovative site planning principles are
utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed. Furthermore, the statement
should explain how the proposal relates to the purposes of the Planned Development Chapter as expressed in
18.350.010.
2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned
development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed.
3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the
planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall include the
applicant's intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders.
5. A narrative statement presenting information, a detailed description of which is available from the Director.
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the conceptual
development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which
can be obtained from the Director:
1. Existing site conditions;
2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and housing types, and their general arrangement on
the site;
Page 4 of 13 June 29, 2005
3. A grading concept;
4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping,
and general location and types of proposed open space(s);
5. Parking concept
6. A sign concept;
7. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants;
8. A streets and utility concept; and
9. A Structure Setback and Development Standards concept, including the proposed residential density target if
applicable.
C. Allowable Uses
1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop
the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone and the density
bonus provisions of 18.350.100 B2. The following uses are allowed with planned development approval:
a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district;
b. Single-family detached and attached residential units; .
c. Duplex residential units;
d. Multi-family residential units;
e. Manufactured homes;
f. Accessory services and commercial uses directly serving the planned development only and which are
customary or associated with, but clearly incidental to the uses permitted in the zone, such as personal services,
preschool or daycare, and retail uses less than 5,000 s.f. in sum total;
g. Community building;
h. Indoor recreation facility; athletic club, fitness center, racquetball court, swimming pool, tennis court or similar
use;
L Outdoor recreation facility, golf course, golf driving range, swimming pool, tennis court, or similar use; and
j. Recreational vehicle storage area.]
2. In commercial zones. In all commercial zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop
the site to contain all of the uses permitted outright in the underlying zone and, in addition, a maximum of 25%
of the total gross floor area may be used for multi-family dwellings in those commercial zones that do not list
multi-family dwellings as an outright use.
3. In industrial zones. In all industrial zones, a planned development shall contain only those uses allowed
outright in the underlying zoning district.
D. Approval Criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when
approving or approving with conditions, the conceptual plan. The Commission shall make findings that the
criteria are not satisfied when denying an application.
1. The concept plan includes specific designations for areas of open space, their intended level of use, and how
they relate to other proposed uses on the site
2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant natural resources and identifies methods for their maximized
protection, preservation, and/or management
3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either
through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the
existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers.
4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include
separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or
other provisions for bus stops, etc.
Page 5 of 13 June 29, 2005
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects
that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in
relation to their proposed location on site.
6. The concept plan identifies other amenities or innovations that would distinguish the project from other
standard developments.
18.350.050 Detailed Development Plan Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general
information required for a Type 111-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional
information required by 18.350.040.13 and the information contained in 18.350.050A.
B. Additional Information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the detailed
development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which
can be obtained from the Director:
1. Contour intervals of 2 to 5 ft, depending on slope gradients, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along
drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed
2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including
demolition, tree protection installation, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, and building
construction for each phase.
3. Contextual Analysis
a. Building typology and hierarchy: An analysis of the particular building type (residential, commercial, public)
relative to the hierarchy of the various building types in the city is useful in deciding the general design
approach of a new building. For example, public buildings may be dominant in placement and design, while
residential buildings are subordinate, it is important to maintain any existing hierarchy that reinforces visual
order in the city. Any predominant architectural solutions and details characteristic of a building type
incorporated in the new building's design can help maintain a recognizable building type.
b. Regional character: An analysis of the city's regional architectural characteristics is appropriate in developing a
design solution that responds to unique regional characteristics. Regional characteristics may be revealed
through unique architectural types, through vernacular building resulting from local climatic and cultural
characteristics, and from historically significant architecture. Historic structures should be saved by modifying
them for the proposed new use or by incorporating parts of the existing structure (s) into the proposed design.
c. City form: The delineation of city form created by road layout, location of major open spaces, and architecture-
created forms should be analyzed. Elements that delineate city form should be reinforced by architectural
development solutions for a particular place within the city. For example, a building proposed for a comer site
should be designed to reinforce the comer through building form, entrance, and design details. A building
proposed for midblock may be a visually unifying element providing connection and continuity with adjacent
buildings. Sites at the ends of important vistas or adjacent to major city squares probably should be reserved
for important public buildings.
d. Building scale and fenestration: It is important to analyze building scale and fenestration of nearby structures.
Reflecting, although not necessarily reproducing, such detailing in the proposed building can provide visual
unity and continuity in the architectural character of the city. One example is the use and placement of cornice .
lines to define the building's lower floors in relation to adjacent buildings. Cornice lines also can define the
building's relationship to pedestrians in terms of scale and use.
e. Building transition: Sometimes it may be appropriate to use arcades and porches to provide transition between ,
the building's private interior and the public sidewalk. Including them may be especially worthy if adjacent
buildings have these elements
f. Views: Important city views of plazas, squares, monuments, and natural features such as waterfronts and parks
Page 6 of 13 June 29, 2005
should be considered. It is important to design the proposed structure to enhance and preserve such views for
the public and for inhabitants of nearby buildings, as well as incorporating them as views from the proposed
building.
4. Moderate to High Density Development Analysis. If proposing development in an area with an "urban
context", the following additional information may be required:
a. Air movement: Prevailing breezes characteristic of a region may be greatly modified by urban high-rise
structures. Predominant air movement patterns in a city may be along roadways and between buildings. The
placement, shape, and height of existing buildings can create air turbulence caused by micro air movement
patterns. These patterns may influence the location of building elements such as outdoor areas and balconies.
Also a building's design and placement can mitigate or increase local wind turbulence.
b. Sun and shadow patterns: The sun and shadow patterns of existing structures should be. studied to determine
how they would affect the proposed building. This is particularly important for outdoor terraces and balconies
where sunlight may be desirable. Sun and shadow pat- terns also should be considered as sources of internal
heat gain or loss. Building orientation, window sizes and shading devices can modify internal heat gain or loss.
Studies should include daily and seasonal patterns and the shadows the proposed building would cast on
existing buildings and open spaces.
c. Reflections: Reflections from adjacent structures such as glass-clad buildings may be a problem. The
development should be designed to compensate for such glare or if possible, oriented away from it.
C. Compliance with specific development standards. The Detailed Development Plan shall conform to the
provisions of the base zone as follows:
1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall be no
minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80% of the minimum
size required in the base zone.
2. Site coverage: The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage
shall be 75%;
3. Building height: Any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the
structure be setback from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2 times the height of the building.
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. Setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone
unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360;
b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply except that:
i. All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements;
ii. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. This
setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances
for backing movements are accounted for.
iii. A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family
dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided. This setback may
be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing
movements are accounted for.
c. If seeking to modify the base zone setbacks, the applicant shall specify the proposed setbacks, either on a lot
by lot, or project wide basis. The applicant may propose, or the commission may require, actual structure
footprints to be shown and adhered to.
Page 7 of 13 June 29, 2005
5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this
chapter.
D. Conformance with the Conceptual Plan required. The Planning Commission shall approve the detailed
development plan upon finding that the plan conforms with the conceptual development plan approved, or
approved with conditions by the Commission. A change from the conceptual plan may be acceptable unless:
1. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount, of
parking;
2. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping;
3. The change involves a change in use;
4. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard;
and
5. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or
other site improvements.
E. Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. If the detailed plan is found to be in conformance with the
conceptual plan, the following specific review criteria must additionally be satisfied. The Commission shall
make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, the
detailed plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an
application.
1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420 Partitions and 18.430 Subdivisions, shall be
met;
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 chapter. In each case, the applicant
must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed below. The applicant
shall respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and clearly identify where
their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application of the standards. For those chapters not
specifically exempted, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a
variance or adjustment has been requested.
a. Chapter 18.360, 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. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. The Commission may grant an exception to, the access
standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer that the resulting access will not be detrimental to
the public safety considering emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of
transportation using the site (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit).
c. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by
the density established in the underlying zoning district, using the minimum lot size established for that
district. Where; a project site encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be
aggregated for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project site, as deemed appropriate by
the commission.
The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or
enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These
factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of
Page 8 of 13 June 29, 2005
1 distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the
Commission may approve according to the following:
i. A 1% bonus for each 5% of the gross site area set aside in open space, up to a maximum of 5%, is allowed for
the provision of active use recreational open space, exclusive of areas contained in floodplain, steep slopes,
drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development;
ii. A 1% bonus for each 1% of total project cost invested in development of pedestrian amenities', streetscape
development, recreation areas, plazas, or other items from the "Planning Commission's Toolbox," up to a
maximum of 5%.
d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The Commission may grant an exception to the landscape
requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall landscape plan was prepared by a licensed landscape
architect, provides for 20% of the gross site area to be professionally landscaped, and meets the intent of the
specific standard being modified.
e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements. The Commission may grant an exception to the
off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone based on
findings that:
i. The minor exception is not greater than 10 percent of the required parking; and
ii. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature, e.g., a
nursing home, and which has a low demand for.off-street parking; or
iii. There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that the property owners are willing
to enter into a legal agreement; or
iv. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining
uses; or
v. There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features of the site which make it in the
public interest to grant an exception to parking standards.
f. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The Commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional requirements in the
applicable zone based on findings that:
i. The minor exception is not greater than 10 percent of the required applicable dimensional standard for signs;
ii. The exception is necessary for adequate identification of the use on the property; and
iii. The sign will be compatible with the overall site plan, the structural improvements and with the structures and
uses on adjoining properties.
g. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The Commission may grant an exception to the visual clearance
requirements, when adequate sight distance is or can be met;
h. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks; and 18.810.060, Lots. In
addition, deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis; and nothing in this section shall
obligate the City Engineer to grant an exception. The Commission retains the ability to not allow an exception
but may not grant an exception to street standards not sanctioned by the City Engineer, other than through the
procedures in 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The City Engineer may determine that certain exceptions to
the street and utility standards are permissible when it can be shown that:
i. public safety will not be compromised
ii. in the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a conforming design.
iii. the design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or amount of runoff from present
standards or increasing the amount of pollutant treatment.
3. In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
Page 9 of 13 June 29, 2005
a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
i. 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 commission may require the applicant to
demonstrate why a particular alternate site plan'that may result in greater preservation of trees, topography and
natural drainage would either not be feasible or would result in a greater loss of those resources;
ii. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding as demonstrated by
the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation;
iii. Using the basic site analysis information from the conceptual plan submittal,]the structures shall be oriented
with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
i Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between single-family and multi-family
residential, and residential and commercial uses;
ii In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be
reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered Landscape Architect is submitted that attains the same
level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered
in determining the adequacy and extent 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.
iii. 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:
(a) What needs to be screened;
(b) The direction from which it is needed; and
(c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round.
c. Privacy and noise: Non-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;
d. Exterior elevations - residential use: Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family
structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following:
i. Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet;
ii. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, °of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of
an overhang shall be 25 feet; and
iii. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.
e. Private outdoor area - residential use:
i. Exclusive of any other required open space facility, each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall have an
outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension
of four feet; i
ii. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and
iii. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space.
Page 10 of 13 June 29, 2005
} f. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas - residential use:
i. Exclusive of any other required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development shall incorporate
shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows:
(a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit;
(b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
ii. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention
and safety;
iii. The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
(a) Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities;
(b) Additional outdoor active use open space facitilies;
(c) Indoor recreation center; or
(d) A combination of the above.
g. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
i. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering
places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be
in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and
ii. These areas may. be defined by, but not limited to:
(a) A deck, patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine;
(b) A trellis or arbor,
(c) A change in elevation or grade;
(d) A change in the texture of the path material;
(e) Sign; or
(f) Landscaping.
h. Access and circulation:
i. The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705;
ii. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency and service
vehicles; and
iii. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site if such facilities are
shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the project site.
i. Landscaping and open space:
i. Residential Development: In addition to the [buffering and screening requirements of paragraph b of this
subsection, and any minimal use open space facilities, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the
developer includes a landscape plan and surety for such landscape installation;
j. Public transit:
i. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a'A mile of a public transit route.
The required facilities shall be based on:
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
ii. The required facilities [may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as:
(a) A waiting shelter;
(b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and
1 (c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area.
k. Parking:
Page 11 of 13 June 29, 2005
i. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.765;
ii. 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.
1. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on the basis that a
reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as
green streets, porous concrete, or eco roofs.
m. Floodplain 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.
n. Shared Open Space Facilities.
Exclusive of any other required open space facilities or buffer areas, the detailed development plan shall
designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as an open space facility. The open space facility may be
comprised of any combination of the following:
i. Minimal Use Facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by reserving areas for
minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or
100 year floodplain).
ii. Passive Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed
development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural
improvements) for passive recreational use.
0
iii. Active Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed
development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural
improvements) for active recreational use.
iv. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the Director.
o. Open Space Conveyance. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development
plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the
dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is
roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.
Where considered desirable by the.Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and
where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may
require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location
suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly
proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. The open space shall be conveyed in
accordance with,one of the following methods:
i Public Ownership. Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it with regard to the
size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations. A determination of City
acceptance shall be made in writing by the Parks & Facilities Division Manager prior to final approval.
Dedications of open space may be eligible for Systems Development Charge credits. If deemed to be not
acceptable, the open space shall be in private ownership as described below;
Page 12 of 13 June 29, 2005
} ii. Private Ownership. By conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or
other legal entity, with the City retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such instrument
of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following:
(1) The continued use of such land for the intended purposes;
(2) Continuity of property maintenance;
(3) When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance;
(4) Adequate insurance protection;'and
(5) Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise.
18.350.060 Planned Development Overlay Zone Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application consisting of the approved detail
development plan and the general information required for a Type III procedure as governed by Section
18.390.050.
B. Approval Criteria. The Planning Commission shall review a proposed Planned Development Overlay Zone for
general and specific conformity to the approved detail development plan. The application and request for the
Planned Development Overlay Zone may be processed concurrently with the detail plan approval.
Page 13 of 13 June 29, 2005
Attachment 4
j OPTION 2 - Reorganize Chapter
summary of major Changes
Reorganization.
The chapter was reorganized to consolidate several sections, and create a logical
progression of the other sections. The committee expressed concern that in PD
applications, there was not enough of a distinction between the concept and detailed
plan. Upon closer examination of the existing code text, staff found that the code itself
did not clearly distinguish the three parts of the process. Elements of approval criteria
were dispersed throughout the chapter. The code has been reorganized, setting forth the
overall purpose, an outline of the process, miscellaneous procedural requirements,
followed by distinct sections for the three elements of the PD process: the overlay zone,
the concept plan, and the detailed plan.
Revised Purpose Statement.
The committee spent considerable time drafting an updated purpose statement to reflect
current trends in development and community desires. A greater balance between
development opportunities and contributions to the community assets was sought.
Environmental considerations were made more central to the purpose of the PD code.
Mandatory Open Space Requirement.
In addition to requiring a certain percentage of open space, the committee made
deliberate distinctions in the types of open space (minimal use, passive use recreation,
and active use recreation). Changes to the definition chapter were added.
j
Submittal Requirements
Significant additions were made to submittal requirements as well as approval criteria for
overlay zones were created.
Substantial Changes in the Approval Criteria for Detailed Development Plans.
This section was reworked to create consistency between the purpose statement and
the review criteria, as well as incorporate the recommendations of the committee.
Explanation of Formatting
These text amendments employ the.following formatting:
StFikethF&Ho - For text to be deleted
[Bold and Italic] - For text to be added
oxe - For staff notes and comments related to specific amendments.
These are not part of the proposed codified text.
Chapter 18.120
DEFINITIONS
155. "Density bonus" -Additional dwelling units that can be earned as an incentive for
providing undeveloped open space, landscaping, architectural character, or tree canopy as
defined further in this code.]
Page 1 of 25 June 29, 2005
[87. "Landscaping"-Areas primarily devoted to plantings, trees, shrubs, lawn and other
organic ground cover together with other natural or artificial supplements such as water
courses, ponds, fountains, decorative lighting, benches, bridges, rock or stone arrangements,
pathways, sculptures, trellises and screens.]
[104. Open Space Facility related definitions. Open Space Facilities may be privately or
publicly owned:
a.. Minimal Use Facilities. Areas reserved for low-impact recreation, limited to soft
surface trails which are minimally maintained No other improvements (apart from
underground utilities) are allowed
b. Passive Use Facilities. Areas reserved for medium-impact recreation and education
uses related to the junctions and values of a natural area that require limited and low
impact site improvement, including soft surface trails, raised walkways, pedestrian
bridges, seating areas, viewing blinds, observation decks informational signage,
drinking fountains, picnic tables, interpretive centers, and other similar facilities.
Accommodations for ADA access shall be provided where site considerations permit.
c. Active Use Facilities. Areas reserved for high-impact recreation that require a greater
degree of site development andlor ground disturbance; such as sports fields,
playground equipment, group picnic shelters, swimming pools, hard and soft surface
pathways, restrooms, and similar facilities.]
[Renumber definitions after #55 according to the above amendments]
}
Chapter 18.350
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Sections:
18.350.010 Purpose
18.350.020 The Process
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
18j50.040 Noneomplianee; Bond
18350.050 Applieability in Commer-eial and industrial Zones
18.350.060 Allowed Uses
18j50.070 Applieabilit-y of the Base Zone Development Standards-
18.350.080 Exeeptions to Under-lying Development StandfiFds
[18.350.040 Overlay Zone Requirements]
18.350.090 [18.350.050] Conceptual Development Plan Submission Requirements
[18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Requirements]
18.350.100 A oval Griterin
18.350.110 Shared Open Spaee
18.350.010 Purpose
A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
buildings, -2. Te f4eilitate the effleient use of land-,
3. To promote an eeefte ent efland use, eiFetilatieft systems, open
spaee, and f
Page 2 of 25 June 29, 2005
4. To pr-esef-,,e to the gFeateSt eXtent possible the existing landseape featuf:es and amenities
development to " particular site. and
[l. To provide promote development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan
through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the
potential impacts to the city; and/
[2. To provide such increased benefits such as preserved wildlife habitat or open.space,
alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural
resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger
community in lieu of strict adherence to some of the rules of the Tigard Community
Development Code; and]
[3. To achieve unique neighborhoods .(by varying the housing styles through architectural
accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their
character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing
neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and]
[4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and
amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning
procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review,
then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a
particular site; and]
[5. To consider an amount of development on a site which will provide a benefit to the
owner and developer consistent with the degree of positive or negative impact to
neighbors and to the public resources and facilities of Tigard; and]
[6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment
through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods
and materials.]
18.350.020 The Process
A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable
to.all zones. [An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in
compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or
industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a
condition of approving any application for the development.]
Staff note: The added text was moved to incorporate 18.350.050 Applicability in
Commercial and Industrial Zones.
B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval
process, as follows:
1. The approval of the planned development overlay zone;
2. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and
Page 3 of 25 June 29, 2005
3. The approval of the detailed development plan [and/or preliminary subdivision plat].
Staff note: "preliminary subdivision" plat was added for clarification, as related to section
D below.
Staff note: Revisions to the fee schedule should be incorporated to relate to the three .
elements of the approval process.
1. e. Planned Development
Overlay Zone $3,040 (same as zone map change fee)
Concept Plan Review $6,770 (current fee)
Detailed Plan Review Applicable SDR or Subdivision Fee
C. Decision-making process.
1. A new planned development overlay zone aed/er- eeneept plan shall be processed by .
means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval
criteria contained in Section 18.3 50.100 [18.350.0401.
[2. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.1
2-.[3.1 The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by means of a [Type III-PC]
procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance
with the approved concept development plan.
-3r.[4.] In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone for any other type of
application, the application shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the
chapters which apply to the particular land use application. a
D. Concurrent overlay zone, aed conceptual plan b and detailed development plan]
applications. The application for the overlay zone and for approval of the conceptual
development plan may be heard concurrently if an application for each of the actions is
submitted. [On residential or mixed use projects over 5 acres, the detailed plan shall be
filed separately, unless the director waives this requirement. For commercial or industrial
development, the detailed plan shall be filed separately. If the application involves
subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for preliminary plat approval and the
applications shall be heard concurrently. All applicants are advised that the purpose of
separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing the detailed
plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of the detail
plan.]
Staff Note: The five acre threshold was added since these larger projects will typically
have more issues in determining arrangement of uses, and other basic concepts of the
planned development than smaller projects. It was noted that there may be instances
where this distinct separation is not so essential, say for example a 5.02 acre single
family development. It was also made clearer that the purpose of the separation of the
concept from the detail plan is to assist the applicant.
ef iand, the applieant fna), apply for- pr-elimiftafy plat appfeval and the applieations shall be
heard eenetifFently.
i
[E. In the case of concurrent applications for overlay, concept, and detailed plans including
subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the
Page 4 of 25 June 29, 2005
detailed plan. The Planning Commission shall take separate actions on each element of
the Planned Development application (L e. approval of the overlay must precede the concept
approval, which shall precede the detailed development approval); however each required
action may be made at the same hearing.]
Staff note: The committee discussed separating the overlay and subdivision into two
separate applications. The general consensus was to allow a joint filing of the
application, but place greater emphasis on having the applicant clearly distinguish the
two parts instead of merely 'proposing a concept which is the detail" Additional text was
added to clarify the three parts of the process and to require the Planning Commission to
take distinct separate actions on each element of the PD.
Staff note: A 5-acre threshold for requiring separate applications is recommended for
larger residential and mixed use projects to afford time between developing the concept
and the detail plan to offer the greatest flexibility to the decision makers during the very
formative stages of the planning process for a site. Commercial-only and Industrial-only
projects are required to submit separate applications for concept and detail plans.
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
A. Zoning map designation. Where a planned development overlay zone has been approved, the
zoning map shall be amended to indicate the approved planned development designation for
the subject development site. The approval of the planned development overlay zone shall not
expire.
[B. Prerequisite for filing of concept plan. If the applicant did not file for concurrent approval.
of the overlay and concept plan, prior to filing a detailed development plan, the owner shall
prepare and file a conceptual development plan. Action on the conceptual development
plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.050.1
Staff note: The current code is inconsistent in its application of the three elements to the
PD. To resolve this, a new section has been added to address applications that are
developed following the overlay zone approval, when not done concurrently.
B-.[C.J Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. [If the overlay zone, concept, and
detailed plan or preliminary plat were not heard concurrently, the owner shall prepare and
file with the Director a detailed development plan] within 1-1 /2 years after the date of
Commission approval of the conceptual development plan. the ewner- shall pFepar-e and file
with the Pir-eete- ° detailed development Action on the detailed development plan shall
be [taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed
by Section-18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.060.1 m *°fi^' and taken by the
er-iteFia belew
1 . The Dir-eeteF shall apffeve the detailed development plan upon finding that the final plan
b), the Commissien. The detailed plan shall be appr-eved tialess the Dir-eeter- fi
a. The eh i the Fesidential densities, iner-eases the let eever-age by buildings
the afneunt of par-king;
f b. ,
Page 5 of 25 June 29, 2005
1
The ehange 1 majer- shift in the 1,. .,t:,, ef buildings, pese'1 stMeets
o landseaping eF Other- Site .
pi64ies te the Commission and the Gemmissien shall deraide whether- the detailed
based the ffiteria t f .-th ' S b t' 1 of this seeds. This appeal shall be
Staff Note: This section was deleted because now the detailed development plan is
required to be heard by the planning commission, and the review criteria apply to the
detailed plan and not the concept plan.
&.[D.] Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the
required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that:
1. No changes have been made on the original conceptual development plan as approved by
the Commission;
2. The applicant can show intent of applying for detailed development plan [or preliminary
plat] review within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance
provisions on which the approval was based.
DJE.] Phased development. i
1. The Commission shall [may] approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases,. but
in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without
reapplying for conceptual development plan review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased detail development plan proposal are that:
a. The public facilities shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase;
. and
b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of
temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed
to the applicable City or district standard.
E-.[F.] Substantial modifications to conceptual plan. [If a detailed development plan or
preliminary plat does not substantially conform to the conceptual plan, a new conceptual
development plan shall be required)
[G. Noncompliance. Noncompliance with an approved detailed development plan by the
developer, owner or successors and interests shall be a violation of this chapter.]
Note: moved from 18.350.040.
[H. Issuance of occupancy permits. The development shall be completed in accordance with
the approved detailed development plan including landscaping and recreation areas before
any occupancy permits are issued However, when the Director determines that immediate.
execution of any feature of an approved detailed development plan is impractical due to
climatic conditions, unavailability of materials, or other temporary condition, the Director
shall, as a precondition of the issuance of a required permit, require the posting of a
Page 6 of 25 June 29, 2005
;l performance bond or other surety to secure execution of the feature at a time certain not to
exceed one year.]
Note, moved from 18.350.040.
18.350.040 Noneomptionee., Bond
A. Netieemplianee. Neneemplianee with an appr-eved detailed development plan shall
vielation of this ehapter-.
elifnatie o tinavailability of > > the Dif:eeteF
--d Afl xrear,
Note: moved to 18.350.03
18.350.050 Applieebility in Commereial and industtial Zones
Note: moved to 18.350.020.
18.350.060 Allowed Uses
Note: moved to 18.350.05
Wal may develep the site to eentain afni*wr-e of uses subjeette the density provisions 0
1. All uses allowed outright in the wideFl5'iHg zefting ;
2. Single c ^"l„ a°taehed and ^`t"..1,°a F ";a°"t;"1 units;
units;
3. Dupley. residential 4. Multi family residential units;
pefmit4ed in the zone;
7. Cemmunity building;
> peel,
temis eauf4 or- similar- use;
-0. 61-ltdieeff Feffe, golf ~f > > b f peel, tennis ,
or- similaF use-,-and
Page 7 of 25 June 29, 2005
. 1
e-~e
ote: moved to 18.350.06
Fi s r
Alaeves
o
to 18.350-06
ed c
ote: mov b
,
June .
9,2
vane S of 25
B. E*eeptiens to sign requirements. The Gemmi fit an exeeptien te the sign
sta of s gas;
3. The sign mill be eefnpAteh~A 404th the evefall site plan, the stmettwal impr-eveffiefits and
with the stmeWFes and us ir-epeffies.
0 118.350.040 Planned Development Overlay Zone Requirements]
Staff Note: This is a totally new section developed to address the shortcomings of using
the somewhat irrelevant zoning map and text amendment criteria of 18.380. The basis
for determination of applying a PD should be particular site constraints or opportunities,
and an evaluation of whether such an overlay zone is appropriate for a given site.
[A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing
all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.050.1
[B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A
above, the application for a Planned Development Overlay Zone shall include the
following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director.
1. Vicinity Map
2. Tax Map identifying subject parcel
3. Survey Data. An aerial photograph and an accurate survey showing the following
information:
a. Scale, north arrow, benchmark, and date of survey
b. Tract boundary lines
c. Easements: location width, and purpose
d Names and locations of existing road rights-of way on or adjacent or across streets
to the tract, including bridges, curbs, gutters, driveways and culverts
e. Position of buildings and other structures such as foundations, walls, fences, steps,
and paved areas
f. Utilities on or adjacent to the tract-location of gas lines, fire hydrants, electric and
telephone pole& and street lights, and direction, distance to, and size of nearest
water mains and sewers and invert elevation of sewers
g. Location of wetlands, springs, streams, bodies of water, drainage ditches,
watershed areas, flood plains, and other physical features
h. Outline of wooded areas with names and condition of plant material
i. General topographic information
j. Additional information may be needed, depending on site complexities such as soil
information and studies of the geological structure of the site. Requirements for
additional information will be determined during the preapplication conference.]
1 [4. Basic Site Analysis. The physical analysis of the site is developed primarily from field
inspections. Using the survey, the aerial photograph, and where warranted, infrared
Page 9 of 25 June 29, 2005
aerial photographs, the site designer, working in the field and in the office, verifies the
survey and notes site design determinants. These should include, but not be limited to
thefollowing:
a. Areas of steep and moderate slopes
b. Macro and microclimatic conditions, including sun angle during different seasons;
prevailing breezes; wind shadows; frost pockets; and sectors where high or low
points give protection from sun and wind
c. Potential flood zone and routes of surface water runoff
d Possible road access to the site, including potential conflicts with existing road
systems and carrying capacities of adjacent roadways.
e. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit access
f. Natural ecological and aesthetic areas as designated by Goal 5.
g. Significant wildlife habitats that would be affected by site modification according
to a wildlife assessment together with a list of mitigation measures or limitations.
h. Soil conditions relative to supporting plant material, areas suitable for
construction, erosion potential and septic tanks, if relevant
i. Geological considerations relative to supporting structures
J. Exceptional views; objectionable views (use photographs)
k. Adjacent existing and proposed land uses and zoning classifications within 500 feet
with notations on compatibility and incompatibility
L Potential noise sources, particularly noise generated from traffic that can be
mitigated by using plants, berms, and walls and by increasing buffer distance
between the source and the receiver.]
1
[C. Approval Criteria. An application for approval of a Planned Development Overlay Zone
must provide findings which shall be reviewed according to the following criteria and not
the criteria of 18.380. In determining whether a site is appropriate for a Planned
Development Overlay Zone, the Commission shall find that at least one of the following
criteria is met:
1. The site is unusually constrained by parcel size or configuration.
2. Access to the site is constrained by preexisting development.
3. The site is constrained by the presence of sensitive lands.
4. There are other unique circumstances that prevent the site from being developed in
conformance with the applicable standards in this Title.
5. In the case of a consolidated application for overlay and concept plan approval, the
applicant has demonstrated that the site lends itself to an innovative planning
approach, that cannot be achieved through a standard application of the Development
Code standards.
5. In the case where the approval authority has required a planned development review as
a condition of approval for a commercial or industrial development 18.350.020.A, the
overlay zone shall automatically be applied]
18 0.090 [18.350.050 Conceptual Development Plan Submission Requirements]
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application. containing all of
the general information required for a Type HIB[ PC] procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.050 [and the additional information required by 18.350.040.8.1 In addition, the
applicant shall submit the following:
1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through
the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a
description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the
assumptions and choices made by the applicant. [The statement should be explicit in
Page 10 of 25 June 29, 2005
defining the architectural style, and what sorts of innovative site planning principles
are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed
Furthermore, the statement should explain how the proposal relates to the purposes of
the Planned Develo ment Chapter as expressed in 18.350.010.
Staff Note: A stronger tie-in with the purposes of the planned development principles is
included here. While the purpose is not a review criteria, the burden of explaining how
the proposal meets these goals should fall upon the applicant.
2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of
the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and
completed.
3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all
or portions of the planned development. [In the case where a residential subdivision is
proposed, the statement shall include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant
will build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders.]
5. A nmmtive statement presenting inf4matien, a detailed deseftiptien efwhieh is available
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A
above, the conceptual development. plan, data, and narrative shall include the following
information the det iled e.,me nt of hieh " be obtained f-e the Di t
1. Existing site conditions;
2. A site concept [including the types of proposed land uses and housing types, and their
general arrangement on the site];
3. A grading concept;
4. A landscape [vegetative cover] concept [indicating a percentage range for the amount
of proposed open space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed
open space(s)];
[5. Parking concept]
-5-.[6.] A sign concept; and
6-.[7] A copy of all existing [and/]or proposed restrictions or covenants[,]
[8. A streets and utility concept, and]
[9. A Structure Setback and Development Standards concept, including the proposed
residential density target if applicable]
[I0. The pedestrian, bicycle and access concept including routes to transit, schools and
other neighborhood activity centers.]
C. Allowable Uses
Staff Note: these were moved from 18.350.060
[1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development
approval may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density
provisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of 18.350.100 B2.
The following uses are allowed with planned development approval.
a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district,
b. Single-family detached and attached residential units;
c. Duplex residential units;
d Multi family residential units,
e. Manufactured homes;
Page 11 of 25 June 29, 2005
f. Accessory services and commercial uses directly serving the planned development
only and which are customary or associated with, but clearly incidental to the uses
permitted in the zone, such as personal services, preschool or daycare, and retail
uses less than 5,000 s .f. in sum total,
g. Community building,
h.. Indoor recreation facility; athletic club, fitness center, racquetball court, swimming
pool, tennis court or similar use,
i. Outdoor recreation facility, golf course, golf driving range, swimming pool, tennis
court, or similar use; and
j. Recreational vehicle storage area.]
[2. In commercial zones. In all commercial zones, an applicant with a planned
development approval may develop the site. to contain all of the uses permitted outright
in the underlying zone and, in addition, a maximum of 25% of the total gross floor
area may be used for multi-family dwellings in those commercial zones that do not list
multi: family dwellings as an outright use.]
[3. In industrial zones. In all industrial zones, a planned development shall contain only
those uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district]
[D. Approval Criteria. Application submittals must include findings to provide the
Commission the basis to make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when
approving or approving with conditions, the conceptual plan. The Commission shall make
findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application.]
[l. The concept plan includes specific designations for areas of open space, their intended
level of use, and how they relate to other proposed uses on the site]
[2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant natural resources and identifies
methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management]
[3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing
neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing
type, or by providing a transition between, the existing neighborhood and the project
with compatible development or open space buffers.]
[4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership,
such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter
pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops,
etc.]
[5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site.
In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density,
or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in. relation to their proposed location on site.]
[6. The concept plan identifies other amenities or innovations that would distinguish the
project from other standard developments.]
Staff Note: This section is entirely new. Conceptual plan criteria were previously the general
approval criteria of 18.350.100, which have now been incorporated as approval criteria for the
detailed plan.
[18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Requirements]
Staff Note: This section is a combination/consolidation of 18.350.060 Allowed Uses, 18.350.070
Applicability of Base Zone Development Standards, 18.350.080 Exceptions to Underlying
Page 12 of 25 June 29, 2005
Development Standards, and 18.350.100 Approval Criteria, as well as some additional changes.
Where language has been carried forward from other sections, these are shown as unchanged
text, even though the numbering may be different. This is to better distinguish where substantive
language changes have been made to previous standards.
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing
all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the
information contained in I& 350.050A.
B. Additional Information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A
above, the detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following
information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director.
1. Contour intervals of 2 to 5 ft, depending on slope gradients, and spot elevations at
breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed
2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction
activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, ground breaking,.grading;
public improvements, and building construction for each phase
3. Contextual Analysis
a. . Building typology and hierarchy: An analysis of the particular building type
(residential, commercial, public) relative to the hierarchy of the various building
types in the city is useful in deciding the general design approach of a new
building. For example, public buildings may be dominant in placement and design,
while residential buildings are subordinate, it is important to maintain any existing
j hierarchy that reinforces visual order in the city. Any predominant architectural
solutions and details characteristic of a building type incorporated in the new
building's design can help maintain a recognizable building type
b. Regional character. An analysis of the city's regional architectural characteristics
is appropriate in developing a design solution that responds to unique regional
characteristics. Regional characteristics may be revealed through unique
architectural types, through vernacular building resulting from local climatic and
cultural characteristics, and from historically significant architecture. Historic
structures should be saved by modifying them for the proposed new use or by
incorporating parts of the existing structure(s) into the proposed design..
c. Cityform: The delineation of cityform created by road layout, location of major
open spaces, and architecture-created forms should be analyzed Elements that
delineate city form should be reinforced by architectural development solutions for
a particular place within the city. For example, a building proposed for a corner
site should be designed to reinforce the corner through building form, entrance,
and design details. A building proposed for midblock may be a visually unifying
element providing connection and continuity with adjacent buildings. Sites at the
ends of important vistas or adjacent to major city squares probably should be
reserved for important public buildings.
d Building scale and fenestration: It is important to analyze building scale and
fenestration of nearby structures. Reflecting, although not necessarily reproducing,
such detailing in the proposed building can provide visual unity and continuity in
the architectural character of the city. One example is the use and placement of
cornice lines to define the building's lower floors in relation to adjacent buildings.
i Cornice lines also can define the building's relationship to pedestrians in terms of
scale and use.
e. Building transition: Sometimes it may be appropriate to use arcades and porches to
Page 13 of 25 June 29, 2005
provide transition between the building's private interior and the public sidewalk
Including them may be especially worthy if adjacent buildings have these elements
f. Views: Important city views of plazas, squares, monuments, and natural features
such as waterfronts and parks should be considered It is important to design the
proposed structure to enhance and preserve such views for the public and for
inhabitants of nearby buildings, as well as incorporating them as views from the
proposed building.
4. Moderate to High Density Development Analysis. If proposing development in an area
with an "urban context'; the following additional information may be required:
a. Air movement. Prevailing breezes characteristic of a region may be greatly
modified by urban high-rise structures. Predominant air movement patterns in a
city may be along roadways and between buildings. The placement, shape, and
height of existing buildings can create air turbulence caused by micro air
movement patterns These patterns may influence the location of building
elements such as outdoor areas and balconies. Also a building's design and
placement can mitigate or increase local wind turbulence.
b. Sun and shadow patterns: The sun and shadow patterns of existing structures
should be studied to determine how they would affect the proposed building. This is
particularly importantfor outdoor terraces and balconies. where sunlight may be
desirable. Sun and shadow pat- terns also should be considered as sources of
internal heat gain or loss. Building orientation, window sizes and shading devices
can modify internal heat gain or loss. Studies should include daily and seasonal
patterns and the shadows the proposed building would cast on existing buildings
and open spaces. {
G Reflections: Reflections from adjacent structures such as glass-clad buildings may
be a problem. The development should be designed to compensate for such glare or
if possible, oriented away from it.
C Compliance with specific development standards. The Detailed Development Plan shall
conform to the provisions of the base zone as follows:
1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum Vie, lot depth and lot width standards shall
not apply ewept as related to the deasity eempawien under- Chapter- 18.7 ; There shall
be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less
than 80% o the minimum size required in the base zone.
Staff note: the provisions related to computation of density were moved to subsection
E. 2., below. To address the concern related to small lot sizes abutting larger parcels
exterior to the PD, a method to transition lot sizes was added, so that perimeter lots
could be no less than 80% of the base zone lot size, the same as would be allowed with
a standard subdivision.
2. Site coverage: Tie eev a is efthe base zone shall appl;; The maximum
site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage shall be
75%;
Staff note: the previous standard required compliance with the underlying zone, which is
in conflict with the PD standards that require 20% landscaping.
3. Building height: The building height pfevisions shall not ap ly afAAny increase in the
building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the structure be )
setback from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-112 times the height of the
building.
Page 14 of 25 June 29, 2005
Staff note: the previous standard was a blanket exemption on the height limits..
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. ROM 5'af-d and rear- yard Setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall
be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter
18.360;
Staff note: the previous standard only required front and rear yard setbacks to be
maintained. should be replaced by something more explicit and clearer, such as a
perimeter setback. Setbacks may be required from intemal roads that are not designed
to serve abutting parcels. le. Private streets.
b. The side "'l sett e , . isiens shall . of apply pt that all det abed-°h"'.:etur-es
shall meet the UaifeFm Building Code r-equireFaefAs for- fire walls; and
e. Rent 5wd and rear- 5,af:d sethaek mquir-efnefAs in the base zone setbaek sh
apply to stmetwes an the interief: Of the pFejeet exeept that--.
b
b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply
except that.
i All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements;
ii. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure
which opens facing a street This setback may be reduced for rear or side
loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for
backing movements are accounted for.
iii. A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening
for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the
required off-street parking spaces are provided This setback may be reduced
for rear or side loaded garages that do not access public streets, if specified on
the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing movements are accounted
for.
c. If seeking to modify the base zone setbacks, the applicant shall sped the proposed
setbacks, either on a lot by lot, or project wide basis. The applicant may propose,
or the commission may require, actual structure footprints to be shown and
adhered to.
.5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply
except. as modified by this chapter.
D. Conformance with the Conceptual Plan required The Direetef Planning Commission
shall approve the detailed development plan upon finding that the plan conforms with the
conceptual development plan approved, or approved with conditions by the Commission.
A change from the conceptual
plan may be acceptable unless.
1. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or
reduces the amount of parking;
2. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping;
Page 15 of 25 June 29, 2005
3. The change involves a change in use;
4. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject
to a potential hazard; and
5. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking
lots , landscaping or other site improvements.
E. Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. If the detailed plan is found to be in
conformance with the conceptual plan, the following specific review criteria must
additionally be satisfied Applications shall provide findings to provide the Commission
with the basis to make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or
approving with conditions, the detailed plan. The Commission shall make findings that the
criteria are not satisfied when denying an application.
1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 Partitions and
18.430 Subdivisions, shall be met;
Staff Note: 18.410 was deleted since this chapter refers to lot line adjustments, not land
division.
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 seetien [chapter]. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to
justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed below. The applicant shall
respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and
clearly identify where their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application l
of the standards. For those chapters not specifically exempted the applicant bears the
burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has
been requested
additional open spaee dedieatien anWer- prevision ef additienal afflenities, lands
tFee-planting.
Staff note: this subsection is a combination of 18.350.070 and 18.350.080. The
suggestion that the commission may require additional open space is replaced by a later
criterion that stipulates a mandatory amount of open space.
[a. Chapter 18.360, 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.
Staff Note: The current PD chapter exempts PD projects from SDR criteria. The
committee suggested that. the SDR criteria should be applied, as there were some areas
that were not addressed by the PD criteria. Staff compared the two sets of standards
and found that only 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations) and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation
of semi public and private spaces) were omitted entirely. The other SDR criteria were
substantially the same. The omitted sections have been added into this chapter. By
having the review criteria in the PD chapter they can be tailored to specific PD issues.
As a result, staff is recommending that the exemption from SDR criteria remain.
b. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. [The Commission may grant an
exception to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer
Page 16 of 25 June 29, 2005
that the resulting access will not be detrimental to the public safety considering
emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of
transportation using the site (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit).)
c. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below,
density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district,
[using the minimum lot size established for that district. Where a project site
encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be aggregated
for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project site, as deemed
appropriate by the commission.)
The Commission may further authorize a density bonus [as defined in 18.1201 not to
exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character
and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a
substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of
distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of
density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following:
Staff note: This section has been slightly revised. First, a provision was added to allow
density to be transferred within the PD. For example if a PD included an acre of R-12
and an acre of R-7 zoning a total of 19 units would be permissible. Rather than require
12 units on one acre and 7 on the other, the commission may allow a reallocation of
density to either spread it out (an aggregate of about R-10) or concentrate it in one area
of the site.
1
i. [A]% bonus for each 5% of the gross site area set aside in open space, up..lo1 a
maximum of [5%]3-%, is allowed for the provision of active use recreational open
space, exclusive of areas contained in floodplain, steep slopes, drainageways, or
wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development;
Staff note: a formula of I% per 5% was added for more objective guidance. Also, since
mandatory open space (in some fashion, either minimal use, passive use or active use)
is a recommended requirement, and sensitive lands are typically reserved by other
regulations for open space, this creates an incentive for providing active recreational
area.
ii A maximum ° ; development;
stFeetseape developed open spaees, plazas and pedestfian pathways Md Felated amenitiesrL,
[A I% bonus
for each 1% of total project cost invested in development of pedestrian
amenities, streetscape development, recreation areas, plazas, or other items
from the "Manning Commission's Toolbox," to a maximum of 5Y61
Staff note: a formula of I% to 1 % project cost was added for more objective guidance.
iii. A fnwiimum of 9-0,4 allowed f °°tien of Nis...,1 feat points; of exisiin.9,
view, ,
Staff Note: aside from visual focal points, which is really tough to assign a value to,
these other items are market driven and generally will be utilized by the developer to
reduce project costs (less grading) or increase lot values (sun, view). This section
should be deleted.
Page 17 of 25 June 29, 2005
iv. A ma*imum of 0
materials; >
Staff Note: This is the stated purpose of PD's. Why should a bonus be provided for
projects that do what they are supposed to do? Perhaps varied use of building types
and/or pricing levels to meet affordable housing objectives would be something to
consider, but as written, this bonus provision should be removed. Another consideration
would be to grant density reductions, based on site specific criteria with a potential
mitigation program (i. e. Transfer of Development Rights)
d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. [The Commission may grant an
exception to the landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall
landscape plan was prepared by a licensed landscape architect, provides for 20% of
the gross site area to be professionally landscaped, and meets the intent of the
specific standard being modiftedl
Staff Note. The requirement for a licensed landscape architect was added to ensure that
a greater understanding of plant types and their appropriate uses and placement is
followed in the development of a landscape plan. A professionally prepared landscape
plan should also be able to show how a specific standard may be met through an
alternate means, e.g. a narrower buffer with a greater use of evergreen trees and
shrubs, instead of a masonry wall.
e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements. [ The Commission
may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum i
number of space requirements in the applicable zone based on findings that.
L The minor exception is not greater than 10 percent of the required parking;
and
ii. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to
be permanent in nature, e.g., a nursing home, and which has a low demand for
off-street parking; or
iii. There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that
the property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement; or
iv. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will
not adversely affect adjoining uses; or
v. There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features
of the site which make it in the public interest to grant an exception to parking
standards.]
f. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The Commission may grant an exception to the sign
dimensional requirements in the applicable zone based on findings. that.
L The minor exception is not greater than 10 percent of the required applicable
dimensional standard for signs;
ii. The exception is necessary for adequate identification of the use on the
property; and
iii. The sign will be compatible with the overall site plan, the structural
improvements and with the structures and uses on adjoining properties.
g. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. [The Commission may grant an exception 1
to the visual clearance requirements, when adequate sight distance is or can be
meld
Page 18 of 25 June 29, 2005
J
[h. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks; and
18.810.060, Lots. In addition, deviations from street standards shall be made on a
limited basis, and nothing in this section shall obligate the City Engineer to grant
an exception. The Commission retains the ability to not allow an exception but
may not grant an exception to street standards not sanctioned.by the City Engineer,
other than through the procedures in 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The
City Engineer may determine that certain exceptions to the street and utility
standards are permissible when it can be shown that.
i. public safety will not be compromised
i4 in the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a
conforming design.
iii. the design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or
amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of pollutant
treatment.]
Staff note: Adding Chapter 18.810 is new, but the exemptions are limited. The
applicable sections from this chapter refer to specific site planning standards such as
block length dimensions, general connectivity, and lot size and shape. There are
certainly cases to be made where these standards do not fit a particular design concept
that better meets the intent. An allowance for the city engineer has also been included
for the other street and utility standards with a very narrow allowance for deviations.
Public streets and utilities are the domain of the city engineer and public traffic
circulation and safety are his charge. However, there may be instances where new
} technologies or design techniques are superior and have not been able to be codified in
standards. This would permit use of such techniques or standards.
3. In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
i. 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 commission may require the applicant to demonstrate why a
particular alternate site plan that may result in greater preservation of trees,
topography and natural drainage would either not be feasible or would result
in a greater loss of those resources;] .
ii. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and
sliding [as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation;]
(3) TheFe shall be adequate distaftee bePween on site buildings and ether- on site and
off site buildings oft adjoining PFOpeFties to pr-evide feF adequate light and aiF
Staff Note: the previous requirement "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" was deleted since the perimeter
setback requirement should account for offsite separation distance. Fire and building
codes regulate on site building separation. If not attached, typical setbacks are three
feet (6 feet between buildings.).
[iii. Using the basic site analysis information from the conceptual plan submittal,J
the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind
directions, where possible; and
Page 19 of 25 June 29, 2005
Staff note: the previous requirement Trees preserved to the extent possible." Was
deleted as it repeated subsection (18.350.060.F.3.a.i.) above. In that standard, the
commission may require the applicant to defend why their plan achieves greater
protection than an alternative concept proposed by the commission or why the
commission's plan is infeasible.
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
i Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses; e.g., between
single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses;
ii In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the
requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a
registered Landscape Architect is submitted that attains the same level of
buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following
factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer
required under Chapter 18.745.:
Staff note: a registered landscape architect is required to prepare a plan for
requesting landscaping adjustments in order to ensure a greater level of
appropriate plant type understanding to satisfy the following.
(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 buffet needs in terms of width and height to achieve the i
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.
iii. 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:
(a) What needs to be screened;
(b) The direction from which it is needed; and
(c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round.
c. Privacy and noise: Non-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;
[d Exterior elevations - residential use: Along the vertical face of single-family
attached and multiple family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every
30 feet by providing any two of the following:
L Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet;
ii. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of
eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 2S feet; and
iii. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.]
Page 20 of 25 June 29, 2005
l
e. Private outdoor area - residential use:
Staff note: These standards were revised to apply to all residential (single family and
multi family) development. Previously, only multi family dwellings.
L In of any other
required open space facility,J each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall
have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square
feet [with a minimum width dimension of four feet;J
ii. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the
sun; and
iii. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the
use of the space.
f. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas - residential multifamily
use:
L In additien to s.,bpafagr- phs (2) and (3) of this seetien Exclusive of any other
required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development shall
incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan
as follows:
(a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit;
(b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
ii. Shared outdoor recreation and-open-space shall be readily observable from
adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety;
iii. The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
(a) it may be all eutdoef: spaee; e
, an eutdoof
(e) it may be all publie of: eemmen spaee; e
square -feet.
[(a) Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities;
(b) Additional outdoor active use open space facitilies;
(c) Indoor recreation center, or
d A combination o the above.
Staff Note: The SDR standards permit balconies to be used for semi public outdoor area,
but this seems a weak level of excellence to expect from a planned development project,
therefore its recommended that this provision be deleted.
[g. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
L The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas
such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private
outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in
the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance
responsibility; and
ii. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to:
1 (a) A deck, patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine,
(b) A trellis or arbor;
Page 21 of 25 June 29, 2005
(c) A change in elevation or grade,
(d) A change in the texture of the path material,
(e) Sign; or
(n Landscaping.]
h. Access and circulation:
i. The number of [required] allowed access points for a development shall be
provided in Chapter 18.705;
ii. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate
emergency [and service] vehicles; and
iii. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways [abutting and through
a site] if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan [or terminate at the
boundaries of the project site].
i. Landscaping and open space:
i. Residential Development: In addition to the [buffering and.screening
requirements of paragraph b of this subsection, and any minimal use open
space facilities)
subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. [This may
be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on
individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan and surety for
such landscape installation];
i'1 r 1 Development- A fakikaum of IS r"e em of the s to shall be
landseaped; and 1
iii tndus t6al Development. A of 15 p t of the site .-hall be minimmum landseaped;
Staff note: These sections were deleted as they are repeated.in and conflict with
18.350.060.D.2. Site Coverage.
j. Public transit:
i. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts [or is within a
mile ofl a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on:
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
ii. The required facilities [may include but are not necessarily limited to] shall be
l-imited-te such facilities as:
(a) A waiting shelter;
(b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and
(c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area.
i. Signs:
(b) The signs Shall Bet ObSGUFe vehiele dr-iVeF'S Sight istanee;
Staff Note: the sign requirements were deleted as redundant and meaningless criteria.
k. Parking:
Page 22 of 25 June 29, 2005
i. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter ChapteF 18.765;
ii. 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.
1. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter X5-[18 8101, and the er-iter-ia in the adep
1981 fnaster- drainage plan, An applicant may propose an alternate means for
stormwater conveyance on the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an
increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as green
streets, porous concrete, or eco roofs.
m. Floodplain 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 areashall 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.
n. ' 8ro,350.110 Shared Open Space [Facilities].
A. Requiremefitsfer-shar-edepenspaee. Wher-e the open spaee is designated-on
the plan as eemmen open spaee the following appliegi
1. The open spaee aFea shall be sheA% on the final plan and r-eeer-ded
with the Direet&F; and
2. The all be ~ r.l,
_ "Y-n "»e~a sh».. be eJ ~ea .+..-v. a .....aee with one of
aan
following fnetheds-
a. By dedieatien te the City as publiely owned and maintained
mast be aeeeptable to it with regard to the size, )
leeation, impfevement and budgetary and liens!
entity, with the City retaining the d eve!Opfileflt Fights tO th-e
pr-epei:ty-tYYe t fms of sueh lear7. Ge OF O«QheF i2iJLI nient=e
,Jtltnrne.. ntpeing the followingi.
(1) The . «.tinued , of s eh land f - the intended
pur-peses;
(2) rent: nui j of pr-pew" t ;
(9) VAen appropriate, the availability of funds Fequi-r-ed
;
(4) Ade. 3e prateretienj and
(5) Reeevei-y ef less sustained by easualb, and
Page 23 of 25 June 29, 2005
3
[Exclusive of any other required open space facilities or buffer areas,
the detailed development plan shall designate a minimum of 20% of the
gross site area as an open space facility. The open space facility may
be comprised of any combination of the following:
L Minimal Use Facilities Up to 75% of the open space requirement
may be satisfied by reserving areas for minimal use Typically these
areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes, wetlands,
streams, or 100 year floodplain).
ii. Passive Use Facilities Up to 100% of the open space requirement
may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for
improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other
structural improvements) for passive recreational use.
iii. Active Use Facilities Up to 100% of the open space requirement
may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for
improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other
structural improvements) for active recreational use]
-1-iv. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and
recorded with the Director; an4f
[o. Open Space Conveyance Where a proposed park, playground or other public use
shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a
subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such
area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly
proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.
Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted
comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not
indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or
reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and
location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the
reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision
on the park system. The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of
the following methods.]
[i Public Ownership.] maintained
as epen spase-.Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable
to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and
maintenance limitations: [A determination of City acceptance shall be made in
writing by the Parks & Facilities Division Manager prior to final approval
Dedications of open space may be eligible for Systems Development Charge
credits. If deemed to be not acceptable, the open space shall be in private
ownership as described below],
[ii. Private Ownership.] By4easing-ee-conveying title (including beneficial
ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the City
retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such other
instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney '
for guaranteeing the following:
(1) The continued use of such land for the intended purposes;
Page 24 of 25 June 29, 2005
(2) Continuity of property maintenance;
(3) When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance,
(4) Adequate insurance protection; and
(5) Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise.
Page 25 of 25 June 29, 2005
Attachment 5
l _
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' TOOLBOX
The following list and illustrations are intended to provide guidance to both the Planning
Commission and the applicant in developing and reviewing applications for Planned
Developments. A planned development approval should be reserved for situations where
either the peculiarities of the developing parcel or the specific proposed design deserve
special judgmental consideration outside the strict constraints of the subdivision
ordinances. In evaluating a proposal, the commission should see evidence that the
applicant has conducted a site analysis.
SITE ANALYSIS
- Survey Data (scale, north arrow, date, boundary, easements, abutting rights of
way, existing buildings and paved areas, utilities, location of water features, tree
data, contour intervals)
j - Constraint Analysis (steep slopes, flood zones, surface water channels, road
access, geologic soil constraints, adjacent land uses, major noise sources)
- Opportunities (sun angles, pedestrian linkages, exceptional views, wildlife habitat
areas, tree groves)
CONVENTIONAL YIELD PLAN
- This plan should show a conforming subdivision that has no special attributes.
The basic premise is to just show how density can be achieved by meeting the
standards.
PROPOSED PLAN
- This plan reflects the maximization of opportunities and avoidance of the
constrained portions of the site. There should be no regard to what the typical
development standards require. The objective here is design excellence.
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Conceptual Plan Requirements:
If applying for conceptual and detailed plan approval at the same time, the concept plan
must be presented at the neighborhood meeting. The applicant and planning staff shall
determine at the preapplication conference whether a joint conceptual/detail plan can be
submitted or, based on the size or complexity of the project, whether the two approvals
must remain separate. It is the express intention that the concept is entirely open for
discussion. The applicant is responsible for soliciting input and documenting the ideas
that are put forward during the meeting. There is no obligation to revise the plan based
on this meeting, but the planning commission can examine and request defensive
II oil
:r.
argument .from -the applicant on why a.particular concept raised at the meeting was not
further explored ` if explored, why it was not chosen.
If applying`for_concept plan approval prior to detail. plan (i.e. separate actions), the same
neighborhood meeting method shall be used, except that after the PC approves the
concept, the detail plan that implements'the concept is not open for discussion as far as
changing the concept elements. For example if the PC approved a 3 and 4 unit attached
product;for 15 units, 80% max coverage, reduced front and rear setbacks, 22% open
space, with an alpine flair, while certain aspects of the detail are alterable like building
orientation and placement, street layout etc., the PC could not come back and require
additional open space, limit the buildings to 3 units only, reduce lot coverage and require
a cosmopolitan style design, without the applicant's consent.
Concept Plan should identify the, following:
o Housing type (duplex, attached, detached, zero lot line, efficiency units, flats,
apartments)
o Use Type (Services and Commercial Uses for PD residents Community Building
Indoor Rec Facility Outdoor Rec Facility RV Storage, Residential Living)
o Should other uses be considered, such as neighborhood retail <5,000g.s.f.? Would
require amending the list of allowable uses.
o Number of units (or range, within the allowable densities of 18.715 and 18.350)
o Lot coverage specs.
o Setbacks (front, garage, rear, side, street side, any specific projections such as
porches or decks)
o Parking (where any additional is provided off street, except for in garages)
o Percent of open space (range or ballpark estimate)
.o Other unique site design aspects that would be assisted by the PD process (such as
rear loaded alley units, front yards out to open space, common courtyards between
homes, unique street design, odd shaped lots, etc.)
o Development theme-(e.g. English Park-tudor style architecture with old english
park benches OR Northwest Forest - Craftsman with natural materials highlighted
throughout, boulders in landscaping)
o Schedule for construction/completion
Detail Plan Requirements.
There is a provision allowing an applicant to receive concept plan approval at PC and
then through an SDR get detail plan approval at a staff level. This should not be
permitted. There is too far a leap between the concept and detail to infer the PC's intent.
In other words, the concept should be just that, a concept. Leave it loose, for public and
PC discussion. The detail plan (which in all likelihood would be submitted
simultaneously) needs to show how the concept is being implemented.
The Detail Plan should include the following:
o Site plan
o Building Envelope Plan (setbacks which could also include specific allowances
for porches, dormers, bay windows, lot coverage, height, other site development
specs.)
a2
o Lot plan (i.e. preliminary plat)
o Landscape plan
o General Utility Plan(s) (sewer, water, streets, drainage, etc)
o Preliminary street profiles ,
o Architectural details or design controls (CC&R's) both for the structures and for
other site amenities (benches, street lights, ped path lights, walkways, bike racks
etc)
FOR COMMISSIONER CONSIDERATION:
These are not criteria for approval but are instead intended to be considered by the
commission to help determine whether the project sustains the burden for granting
variations to the other development standards in the code.
-Open Space/Natural Area
The degree of open space required should be. commensurate with the intensity of the
density within the development. In other words, if the homes are packed tight together
with small lot sizes, more open space should be required. Mathematically, this could be
expressed in percentages: if the average lot size of PD lots in the R-7 zone are 3;000.
square feet, they are 40% smaller than required in the zone. Therefore, 40% open space
or natural area should be provided. If there is unsuitable area for open space or natural
areas on site, then the applicant may propose to pay a fee. in lieu or an off site location,
which the commission may accept or reject.
There should be a baseline requirement for "Natural Areas or Open Space" with any PD.
A minimum of 20% of the net buildable area should be reserved. This may be a
combination of
Natural Area. An area of land and/or water that has a predominantly undeveloped character.
Natural areas may be pristine, or may have been previously affected by human activity
such as vegetation removal, agriculture, grading or drainage if such areas retain
significant natural characteristics, or have recovered or been restored to the extent that
they contribute to the City's natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, or wildlife
habitat. Natural areas shall be permanently reserved by common ownership among the
owners of a development, dedicated to the public, or by other appropriate means
committed to the use for which it was intended.
Open Space. Land to remain in natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a
scenic, aesthetic appearance and/or protecting natural processes, providing passive or
active recreational uses, and/or maintaining natural vegetation. Open space shall.be
permanently reserved by common ownership among the owners of a development,
dedicated to the public, or by other appropriate means committed to the use for which it
was intended.
a. Active Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses that tend to be
more organized and/or that require a greater degree of site development and
conversion of natural area, including sports fields, playground equipment, group
picnic shelters, hard surfaced pathways, permanent restrooms, accessory parking lots
and similar facilities.
b. Passive Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses related to the
functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site
improvement, including soft-surface trails, signs, pedestrian bridges, seating, viewing
blinds, observation decks, handicapped facilities, drinking fountains, picnic tables,
interpretive facilities, and similar facilities.
If the amount of natural area does not meet or exceed 20%, then the applicant should
provide additional area (either open space or created or enhanced natural area).: With
CWS's consent, buffer areas may be utilized for some passive recreational uses.
If the development proposed a condo or multi family project (no lots, and therefore -no lot
size equation) then the minimum 20% would be required and then the formula 'in
[18.350.100.B.3.e.] would be used to determine additional increases: usable outdoor
recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common
use of all the residents in the following amounts: (1) Studio up to and including two-
bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (2) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square
feet per. unit.
Unlike the similar SDR criteria which allows balconies and semi-public/private yards
behind the units, this space would have to be in a consolidated form for all occupants of
the development (See The Village at Washington Square for an example).
-Lot Size Transition.
Lots that abut existing single family lots which conform to the lot size standard in the
zone should transition to smaller lot sizes interior to the subdivision. This should not
apply to lots across a public street, open space, or significant natural resource from
existing SFD's. (When exempting this requirement due to the presence of significant
natural resources or open space, the commission shall determine that the width of the
intervening area provides a suitable buffer. Typically this buffer would be the equivalent
depth of a conforming lot)
Since averaging lot sizes is permissible in standard subdivisions, the minimum size for
lots abutting existing SFD's should be no less than 80% of the minimum size for that
zone. An exception to this standard should be recognized for attached single family units
(3 or more per building). In cases where attached units directly abut SFD's, the
commission may consider limiting the number of contiguous units to break up the
massing of the building, or change the orientation of the units, or require additional
architectural design features to mitigate for the height and bulk of the proposed building.
It is within the purview of the commission to stipulate building height envelopes as well
as setback envelopes if an impact nexus can be shown.
- Open Space Amenities
In addition to passive use recreational trails, the commission may require a program of
interpretive signage to be installed if deemed relevant and sensible. The purpose of this
signage would be to educate users about either how the development was responsive to
the natural features and constraints on the site, or aspects of the environment and
ecosystem present on the site. The commission may require final review and approval of ,
the sign design templates and proposed locations.
u
- Transit and Pedestrian Networks
i For larger scale developments, an integrated system of off street pedestrian trails should
connect various points both within and adjacent to the development. :Opportunities for
future trail extensions (similar to the future streets plan) should. be explored as well.
Also, transit amenities should be incorporated where relevant (i.e. where bus service is
available or planned in the Transportation System Plan} Other considerations fouschool
bus transport (such as rain shelters) could be provided, but Should be to a highly visible
location and designed to thwart vandalism and other criminal acts:
- Intensity of Density
The amount of density above the minimum should be correlated to the level, of added
amenities the applicant is proposing. The commission should feel that on,the:.wliole, the
project is going above and beyond the minimum level and quality of improvements.
- Other Amenities
The developer may propose other types of amenities that make a project unique. These
can include public art or sculptures, fountains, artificial water features, professionally
designed landscape' theme' (for lots, or common trads)
- Public Facility Design Features
• Retaining walls should be constructed or faced with natural or natural appearance
materials' Large mass'retaining walls should be discouraged, unless forming a public
? space..-.`.'. Generally, wahs should not :exceed 4 feet in lieight.
• Sidewalks should be allowed to step off the beaten path:
i
. Ps
• The shortest distance may be a straight line, but that is not always a good thing.
• Fixtures should be distinctive:
• O en S aces should be invitin
• Innovative and/or unique building materials should be used, such as brick or other
modular avers, green roofs, green streets,
1 '
OTHER IDEAS:
*Standard subdivision only allowed for projects°meeting minimum density. All other,
projects must go through a PD process. Th s=prov des the r i needed' incentive to
direct projects to the PD review, while still ahowu g an o"er to:Oursue an'administrative
approval. This also balances the higher density uripacts with a'highei degree, of
oversight. Lower density projects have not been as controversial,`and are generally -less
impacting on natural resources and adjoining neighbors:
• Purpose validation: The developer/applicant'should address how their project achieved
the following principles: -
Housing stock diversity?
Architectural Detail and Diversity?
Pedestrian Amenities?
Improved Public Safety?
Accommodates Children and/or seniors?
Sustainable Development?
Preservation of significant natural resources?
Integration with the existing neighborhood?
P~
PLANNING BASICS 1
Plan Layout Type. In small projects, the specific layout may not be apparent, but this
may'• help to identify what the greater neighborhood plan is, and whether the proposal is
consistent with the general pattern around it.
Orthogonal Grid Grid with Diagonals Diagonal Grid
I loft
4 ~ . ! + I LM P O d;
N' ~ MIN
aim
a:
I is co
r FA
m. C3
"IfAMiAH WAW@ICTWL O.G NAwWwoNr .
ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES
L E.wtp.+lda. l:w..l a.i.ntati.w t. SO.gtlsrnrMw A Qww~ul~ br A.ow+~ t.~ 1. Strrt hira~M,r weh .
2,4nvN!MYawmo7sW LEi.n d3o.ndd od6c QuoaG►+Ma OGd 2. E..o star O.i~.plt aa(fic
3. Swd 6iraida witftaed Ulocks'a s~loaan cn!tK a:pan.ls atspend m ®.le~+.in d'w"~++r •'"`e tf.a.Oh M...iwat
I.6+aiid~a.s.ldaal':Woaphti..Orid a s. Kapenabi.lo.nd+o+asale
6. Sar!idt 4.aa awh.eoi ~.Eatptw.aa+ DatDOna+s ib.'aptae.aola+~ d E+a vi1 a 45i~aira4 ier..eeq W i~aardC •.i:er
DtSAD VANYAGCS a Caeretr~. wi.tyd0lseas a.a+en
1 E/6o.Y daki4badnp d dap awd utidwa I. Ur~oneea.pu. ra.;ary d 4ledra..d bn S. efidwt dMA66io" d A" %t WAR."
OlSAOV ANTA"$ Z , la+~i9Y T. papon.l CtiorM Wad/ daYead
t Maaaeora taWnp.Aoda:+a'!p in+«MK+4 3. MOO"owww"o-s "040r d40fined 04SAOVA04TAGES
L Doq Po(aoea+~odau w.vi.pnmanul Ywrnpoala 1. Taada w b. d11o.4.si.tO
lU~wpond~wr a1.aPresale
Organic Curvilinear t Discontinuous
`l`
,
A A I , , , f
op.- v
a• e. 1 1.
_m ~ ° a i~~-y ~ ~ 11 a r
WWWI
$ • ~~~t 'o ;~l' a®~ ' 1.
® i
MANT{IC1CaT ae.voscaoe• atwwuRN
ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGED ADVANTAGC8
69ewa6i..weAywiMrna+aa«br 0-ugh v.Hie I_htd..k f% wewwfi1q Sy d.Mct%w .uu•' ~Sa..e.~i...aAr.•w'. eaMcmn br A.w,O~aal6o
2 fwwdagwl d va1Rc d.ay4 n.e.r.At L eaaa►a.tnew.edrr. 2 Ci.m.iaM. •a~.s/ at LltraV awd bn
x fetllnlii ar Ywrp+ilq b. p.wn.wiG vwi..P 1 Myttb..aee.at. b t-m Z Faaiq.aoe..~.sMa s a..drow.wanal in~wwpdo.•
a A.tvanh• m e..as a E..e dl.o.r.w dvallc dv.upt. tM..two.k a.IQO+~•.awe.6. t. o t«sdn
SE.aNaoa.ram.d.aa..Y:w.n.eeJ wtanuptiana DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
0. 411OR a...b(_ /.....llt.ib wta. 1.1./ea dii.edMM OMM..be CaNbnb.fe. O/-ffl. try atweoa al wew..t
OISADVANTAGES 2- Uwcowwaa0a.a...lr of tet. 2 T.edo ro o. d~rw
L Wmned.N. -.4w ei bi-*...d ae a. lie e.a..si .r.r.ee>hr d.a.w .
All diagrams and text information excerpted from "Site, Community, and Urban Planning" by G.
Greenan, A. Duany, E. Plater-Zyberk, K. Zaharin, I. Shafie; The Cintas Foundation.
Block Types: The disposition of blocks has distinct socioeconomic implications.
The Square Block
This type was an early model for planned settlements in America, - --fi-~"7
particularly Spanish colonies. It was sometimes associated with
agricultural communities, providing four large lots per block, each lot
with a house at its center. When the growth of the community
produced additional subdivision, replatting created irregular lots
IL ~V-
(Fig. 1). While this may provide a useful variety, it is more often
J
regarded as a nuisance by a society accustomed to standardized
products. A further disadvantage is that discontinuous rear lot lines `
make alleys and rear access utilities impractical. Despite these short i
comings, the square block is useful as a specialized type. When Ell
platted only at its perimeter, it can accommodate the high paddng
requirement of certain buildings. The open center, well insulated ~ d 16 V
from traffic may also be used as a common garden or playground
(Fig2)
L SQUARE BLOCK ' 2'SQUARE BLOCK
Y
The Organic Block
This is characterized by its irregularity, type y its variations are
ICU
unlimited The original organic block was the subdivision of residual _
land between well worn paths (Fig-3). It was later rationalized by / I µ
-1 1
Frederick Law Olmstead to achieve a controllable, picturesque effect
and to negotiate sloping terrain gracefully. The naturalistic block,
despite its variety, generates certain recurring conditions that must be
resolved by sophisticated platting At shallow curves it is desirable to
have the facades follow the frontage smoothly. This is achieved by
keeping the side lot lines perpendicular to the frontage line (Fig.4).
At the same time it is important for the rear lot line to be wide enough
to permit vehicular access. At sharper curves, it is desirable to have
the axis of a single lot bisect the acute angle. In the event of
excessive block depth, it is possible to colonize the interior of the DOUM~
block by means of a close.
a. ORGANIC BLOCK A. ORGANIC BLOCK
The Elongated Block
The elongated block overcomes some of the drawbacks of the square
block. More efficient and more standardized, elongated blocks /
provide economical double loaded alleys, with short utility runs, to N
eliminate the uncontrollable variable of lot depth and maintain the
option of altering lot width. By adjusting the block length, it is !
possible to reduce cross streets toward rural edges or to add them at j
urban centers. This adjustment alters the pedestrian permeability of
the grid and controls the ration of street parking to building capacity.
The elongated block can "bend: somewhat along its length, giving it I
a limited ability to shape space and negotiate slopes (Fig. 6) V
Unlike the square block, the elongated block provides two distinct
types of frontage (Fig.5). Residential Buildings are placed on wider go'
lots on the quieter side of the block. Commercial buildings can be O
set on the short end of the block, platted to face the busy street; the
amount of parking behind these properties is controlled by the s ¢LONGATEa CLOCK
variable depth. s. ELONGATED CLOCK
a7. ~
r ~~n►
ny fi r
tit
o ~
3 z
-it
IMO A
s g t + 15 CLII
its
a
o
A ~
10
v It
tilt-
.4 IL
.
~q~
x C3 x 4 g3~ tilt+~x s s Y Q s cu
tilt
a sit 41
• R 4 C
?
tit
A~
o it x:.
Cep I'll t I I 0
Qo ; sit
Low
o
alp
a'
too
3r s z ta'''g Y Y%"Y z
2.1
sr z
IL 3"
IL am
A O 91 LAi o
2-_
r
0
i
M NINE
EMEMM
w u
u yyyy y w'
p ~ Ny
M ME
MENNE
A
A: .
N NA _ N
i
N N \
p ON -I
W
- a
I' 1/ 1 ~ 1
L IN,
~ J
1 ~
/
k---__-,
I < I Q ~ 7 O
lit t ~
Z3. IS tj
. l • all
.0.9 a
F--~ - IS g
q• ~s W J ai s S F Y a~
CIS w
a 16
10
46 0
X4 01 a{~g~_ $
.4 0
ar -114 Z.
it
ISO-it
fa R 3~ ; fill5
~ F ~ F F ~ H
g s aj
pit
all
Halo 2.
. L;
1"4 \N\ OX
001
10 X
OZ, \ ) \ \ A °
\ m \ \ \
IF p
110 \
\N ~\N OR
l/'1
0 g A s. A r C P a Xo 0 o n o s g m
a Mw
a g s• o io is Qs~ s o X18 8a 1. 1 >
rr} 0
ILI
a
z R ~ ran r N'} A I a" $ CA
I
Y { -v O Y 3 A
# ra a A c ti R ~t 4
ILI
tot t
< < a A
Z I s ~ r Pi
r ! O
o ego
I
1 I I
a f1 A
C I , ; I \
r i m I o
> ~ A I -
ca 'cl
I
o ~ I r D 0
Q n. n,
A
a]
_ O
-
- I . Q d
I
I I '
I I
I I
71
W
D
D ~
Z'i • t.t E~a f S n•r ti• •iii ~ i<.~ < r' bQ` f~i a ~ Qc`
.1. is
its
a i a s e
$ $
-its
~cc*.r. ~•}{n(y Q ~ ~ W~ W3 .r cp y ~ ..~~.~gq C aB .Q{
W L U a e R 8 C ~ E W_ W Sir W ySr .1 N F Z C Et R•a
V ~ . e w r' ~~00 X < tt 3aa ~ ~ w a < as ~ a . b -ell 0 2 A l
~ N A eC i
~ w • • 2 W• A •7 O$ QE O 's
C~
CC,
~ D
D
~ D
D ~
o . Qo ~ o00 ~ Q®o ~ }
01 1 Q~~ QQ~~ c Q~~ z a
. Ov
• 0.
37
IL
N s
g
d
a~
h,
n 4 n ~ 1 ~
H z
-F m
]EIN
g or 4R sY " R if. g~ Edo g''~ e o ao,o!$e ya,~,
5V
C > 3 ~ ~Q~ ~Q~• ~ •~`~~q •iS Y~ ~•~4, s~ ~ ~~s~~~q~~g a ~ r~i •~3 ~ g q73
IL 2.
r J . l S i i r • 2.
7 E • n
8 - a CD
s$ p a
fit x , 9 $ CD
19 - 8 CL
E ~
~M j• 3 fl T i • * 9 T • Q i '3 Volt
r
N 'o P -4
Hell
o DD
~21D
~_gr s
Hill.
31 H a[ alla
59 g
1
Y S ~8 8 to 3 s~Y ~ ~
-Tj 8 !3 11 0 F-1 F-7 F7
s L1
is r CZ
po Y
1 $4
a> a s g Q .aft x
1-3
^~_~~$R$ r € s€ gds gr3tcc z
1.11
P. lit
r x~ • ~~Fr9, L'PR 4'•~•7R T~
^ ~ n
? `y N
i3 R Rwijs3. ~N( e~it IL
DIM
!'3~ g, g rasa ~3 5
x 8~ N
35L2. j cs $ ~as~ 83 ills
o : 3 ggggs a 3jis 1.
3 $e N al
L a .iR4s►.ia~•og4• Q-r•R3
1flarl! 1111 ia _
p O
O G T V N
~ o
4 t I z
g •sa ~ g3$ 'Egx
41 Ul
a
PROJECT PHOTO ALBUM (IN PROGRESS)
This is where, as other'projects are identified by the commission, they are added to the
portfolio. This should include plat maps if available, and specific photos of innovative
design principles.
These are sam les`of developments that are "good"
World Idea Networks
CASE STUDY LIBRARY
Playa Vista is the City of Los
Angeles' largest urban infill
development by far, a 1087-
acre, compact,'and mixed-use
new town. `The most notable
fact' is. not that the site will
accommodate 28,000 people
in the midst of one of the
-country s lowest density
metropoLses, :but do so with
eaily' half of .the 'site remain-
in g as opeis'Tp , e
C
' ,
• Playa Vista will be at least 90°/a multi-family housing ri a region dorninated,by &in&4amily homes. A
• It'is the first of many failed attempts by developers to gain community and city counal approval.: Pi"a v
• 260 acres of deteriorated wetland habitat will be restoieil. a'r'Of1"°
Res. Streetscape Ratio 1 :3
7777
Recorrowicied Limit (1:1 ideal)
L 3-4
stories
Fortner Howard Hughes Aircraft site 15 It. 4 ft. 6 ft. 36 ft. 6 ft. 4 ft. 15 ft.
Note four of the six neighborhoods-, the marina, the village center, office park (site of Spielberg's Dreamworks studio, and wetlands.
O 1/4 mile radius r f-=.~ ; s Village Center
Max walking dirt. ~r r Residential Over Retail
Residential 0
CommunitylCivic
Park
T F_: a 1C i~R
"'000"'
:,.w' ,K. :._~-,r„~•~ .;q~_~. ~ 1'4 .~~.~%~S: :j'` - a"' qty.
y~$s , y: Fl in •::i?% k& y 'sky e'- / e_ „N.ia4,~`~3~~
. 3$ '
~LZ
Bridging the Inequality. Gap
The officelmotion picture park will provide thousands of jobs, with basiclaffordable housing a walk away.
Creating Diversity
Housing units range from under 600 sq.fL to over 3000 sq.ft, `districts' and open space are dispersed
isi.
utirizing Mixed Use
Each neighborhood will have a park surrounded by civic, cultural, retail; and residential-over-retail buildings.
Designed for Pedestrians
Narrow streets were hard fought; Smaller blocks: trees, promenades, and mused use support walking.
Laid owner/Dmeveloper: Case History - vital Signs
Maguire Thomas Partners, ;
Siixe Howard li the land ra the Act age: 1087 .
Nelsoriflising, Partner4mChaige bOia
11 Doug Gardner, Project Manager 1940 s, the $te lias;<emair>,ed largely undevel- Population: ° 28,000
(310):822-0074 oiled as an auport Surrounded by a resider tensity:
tral population, nearby citizens worked with
Gross: 120. UnaslAcre
Design Finns: the.developer'to change. the commercial zon- Net 45 ii~Acre
: oowe LegorettaArquitec tos, Moore ug that suppax e a mixed-use, walks= Housing Units: 13,000
Ruble Yudell, Hanna-Olin, ble community and preserved the wetlands. RetaillOffice 2 m0.sq.tt
Elizabeth Moule and Stefanos To convey these principles into a master plan, Open Spacenooo People:
Polyzoides, Duany-Plater Zyberk the developer hired a team of leading design- 16.7 Acres
Primary Consultants: ers and engineers with extensive experience e► Parking Ratio:
Psomas and Associates (Civil in mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented com- Residential 225
munities
engineering), Barton-Aschman . Office 211000 sf
Associates, Inc. (transportation) In 1 9961 1 997, Dreamworks SKG, a major Retail 5Ing: 00 100 %
movie studio headlined by Steven SPielberg, ® Hidden Parking:
Latham & Watkins, attorneys sf
Sharon Lockhart (environmental will begin construction on the first phase of underground, courts
counselor) June Kailes & Bill the site where the office park (see map) was -A► Neighborhoods: 6+
Jordan (disability consultants) originally per- w Street Width:
Residential 36 it
Commercial 44 it
Providing The greater the number of people in a greater Sq. FtiPerson:
Public Suety amount of places, at all hours of the day, the safer. +Residential 561
That is inherent for Playa Vista's 28,000 people. Office 180
Retail 21
A,,, iufi Family Housing
Improving Our Daily routines once requiring a car are now
Health walkable. Playing fields, parks, and jogging Playa .;A Vista. 90+0/0
trails are prevalent
f Including parks and playgrounds are never more than two Aoows dtectton wward erns
aalfw%ty
ChiidreWYouth blocks away. Teenagers have much greater
access to friends.
Sustaining Our Playa Vista accommodates more than twice the
Environment average. density of Los Angeles, even including
half the site as open space.
For case studies of your own project, contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
~L3
M I-Iner Park World Idea Networks _ j
CASE STUDY LIBRARY
There are countless stories
i..,~ of people visitml;,Mizner'
Park simply because it
caught their eye ;when driv-
ing by_ It's Ai &.46:
able presence,has made it .
a de facto tovvin center for
Boca Raton and its'`fman-
cial success bas become,a
model for Southeast devel-
opers_
R-- Raton
Rwi
- 30 miles N Boca
of Miami Raton
Haff of the apartments were rented before construction. All were leased before open-
ing day. Rooms facing the public square were filled before those with an ocean view. Skeetscape Ratio 1 : 4
• The restaurants and theater complex are among the top-giossing outlets in their (1+1 ideal. t:s max
respective national chains. Average general retail sales continue at over $4001sf/yr. Atthbugh the ratio is beyond
the recommended limit, road
• The developer's plans are city approved 8 months after purchase. The project opens pang is very minimal (see map).
fully leased 23 months later.
Apwtmwft Over Retail
O 1110 mile radius TO~
About two blocks Townhomes Apartmer a Townhomes
t '11.0r,
t.V•-
w
' -
i Reaidentlal Over Retail •
AINE
M Office Over Retail
Residentlal
M AMC Multiplex 8 Theater
d w~tn
Building a Sense of Community
} Attracting over a million visitors yearly, Milner Park has become the focal point for year-round public events.
f
Redefining "Conventional Wisdom"
The retail has rp arterial visibility, residents live above the stores, office space is not monumentally distinct. ,
creating Diversity.
Milner Park attiacts a diversity of people based on its many primary activities. yet affordable horsing **king
Understandirig Model Precedents
The developers modeled MTown Alexandria, Virginia; Fast Hampton on Long Mapol; Worth Avemoe; Palm
h
Beach: South Strad in Seaport; NY;and Cress Keys in Baltimore.
Contacts Case History eta! Signs
Developer 1987 Boca, Raton S, Cotnmunrty Redevelop- gCleage: 28.7
Crocker 4 Company' . menL Agency s recono>nends replacing a faded Population: 480 .
Plaza Real; Suite 335 00potag man wrth'a mixed u9e the
433 .
des Housing Unit's: 2.
Boca Raton, FL 33432 Crocker & Co. bought the land, sold it to the
(407) 362-M city, then leased part of it Density t4et nitsJAcre 22.7
Open Space 67%
City of Boca Raton: 1988, June- A private developer, Crocker & -#,Hidden/Par(Qng
Co. purchases the land, aware of the city's (Structured)
} Andy Redevelop- Agency mtenhons..After negotiations, the City buys the
(407) 393-770)0 land for M million through tax increment 1
financing and agrees to lease the land back to
Design Ft~rn: ` Parking Ratios:
Crocker & Co. at $280,000/yr. for, ten years
Cooper Cary & Associates °Resideritial: 1.75
(202) 986-0130 1989, January- Crocker & CoL and the city hold Coaimerclal: ' I /M sf
a referendum to determine commwuty support...
Lender: Overwhelming support results in a develop- Sguaie; Footage
Teachers Insurance Annuity Go. went contcact,the neat month .ResWehVa) 272.000
1991, January-The project opens,. subsequently Reta;: " 256,000
becoming.a model of financial success. 200,000
Costs (1n millions)
site-
Providing $58
Milner Park's grand promenade of people serves as the
;Site.lmprovernen
Public t $6.5
"aM most effective and least costly 24 hr. watchforce. Cons ori: $53
Improving Our Rent (monthly, 1991)
Most of Mizner Park is pedestrian only. The infu- ;Residential
Health sion of activities fasters a healthy social network.
1 BR-1 BA $745-850
3BR-28A $1400
Accommodating Children, youth, and the elderly alike thrive in an environ- Retail $2-2.50 st
Children ment where activities are accessible without driving. Office $1-1.20 sf
Arrows suggest rdrectlon toward enN-
. Sustaining Our "The average density of Boca Raton is 2428 people/ sq rornmU and ecurkomic sustatrabeny
Environrnent mi. Milner Park averages 10,700 with 67% open space.
For case studies of your own project, contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
t ZS
K AL ILA ZAh
AM I=
C WE Midtown (Center) World Idea Networks
itland :8 )
Lakelands CASE STUDY LIB'RA.RY
Kentlands .continues to
receive significant publicity
as a newly built example of
traditional peighborhood
development; :Designs are
being finalized foi Midtown.
t: - a much more compact and
`r mixed-use town: center" for
Kentlands and Its new
neighbor, Lakelauds...
2-` ~aeeasbuflg~
3__o times :,r
y fx'
O 1/4 mile radius '~`°~if, • Big box retail parking lots are street block sized for for
5 minute walk future infill.
. ` A ; ..~R'=,~ • Neighborhood centers (4) ate strongly identified
_ through axial vistas terminating at squares and buildings.
♦ Streetscape, Ratio 1 : 2+
N Good (1:1 Ideal, 1:3 max:)
• During 1993, the project achieved
the highest sales in the county.
• After one model hillside home was 2 stones .
built (photo above) with no front
street for cars, the entire row was Near 1:1 with trees
sold in three weeks. setback 0-20`' 6' ' 28 ft 6` 4` 040'
Bridging the Inequality Gap - Can a person making $8/hr. live in Kentlands?
In a $600/mo. cottage with a nearby job, no car, and no debt in a tight-knit community, many people would
Homeowner Diversity
Within one typical block, living units sell between $120,00 - $600,000?, from 7.50 sq.ft. to over 5000 sq.ft
Arctitectural. Detal,& Diversity
Comer boil have two facades .Sheets may have. five dffemnt builders, twoJthree stacies, but same setback..; .
Designed for Pedestrians
Hidden pathways; unexpected views; hillside stairways, and lakeside vistas are some of the stroller's assets.
Hentl4adsLifocenter. Chronology Vital Signs
(301)948 ffi53 Acres a 352
1997. Alfandre obtains a'one-year option on 9
Land ownerlDevelopa : anwued land Population' 2500 Ptt.t
Great Seneca Develop. Corp. 1989 Alfanidre purchases land, hues DPZ to
Gross: 4.7 UrddAcre
(Chevy Chase Fed Say. Bank design a more communty orierned pLm At
Chevy Chase MI) a public chatctte;'density:cogcernssre ru9ed Net 7.0 Units%Aae
y
(301) 986-60M by the City, not by the citizens. City adopts Housing Units. --1500
plan later that same year. RetaillOffice 2 mcsq.tt
De /Const ltant; In 1991,Chevy Chase undertakes mutual Park msmO°°Peopie: 27
TtaditiooalNeighbolrbood Desips foreclosure in midst of deep recession and Parking Ratio:
(Joseph Alfandre & Co., Inc.) S&L bailout Alfandre is retained as consul- Residential 2.0 !
1355 Piccard Dr. Ste 380 tant and continues to build homes on site. Commercial 5/1000 st
Rockville MD 20855 Hidden Parking: 100 %
(301) 738-W 1991-1994 800 homes sold mostly on a con- Parking courts and alleys
Town Planner: tract basis with smaller builders. Neighborhoods: 5
Duany-Plater Zyberk (DP27 1997-1998. Coostniction of Lakelands, 2000
units, 400 ada, to share Midtown- CoStS (in millions)
320 Firehouse Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878 1998 Expected completion of Midtown. Site: $40.0
(301) 948-6223 Site Improv.: $20.0
Construction: $2.0
Providing Kentlands front doors open onto very visible pub- (rec center, school, childcare)
VMjMjA .
lic streets and usually active with le. Soft COs a $5.0
..Public Safety : y people. (Lender is developer, low rates)
Sales
Improving Our The neighborhood encourages walking, de-empha- 477 Single-family det.
Health sizes traffic, and is surrounded b} open space. 1200-6000 sq.ft
$275,000-$500,000
Indudin 378 Townhomes
g Parks and playgrounds are never more than a" " hua1= 1200-3000 sq.ft
Children dyed yards away. Pedestrian streets are safer for kids. $215,400-$319,900
560 Condominiums
1000-1400 sq.tt
Sustaining Our Compact development conserves land as well as $126,990
Environment energy. Wetlands and lakes are preserved 240 Apartments
650-1200 sq.ft
$815-1385 rent
For case studies of your own project, contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
The Crossings World Idea Networks f
C A S E S T '.U D Y L I B R A R Y i)
y:.. The Crossings is a true
transit-oriented develop-
ment, prompting the relo-
cation'of an existing low,
density train stop to the .
compact neighborhood
and providing over'700
people with :an aveiage
200 yard walk.,~to`,S.F.
r - 'r Bay Area accessibility:
F
Moiirtain ? J
View,
cartfornia <
Streetscape Ratio 1 : 2.1
Good (1:1 ideal, 13 max.) 1
• The housing units were the fastest selling in the region.
~ ti
• Higher densities, narrow streets, hidden parking, and mixed uses are mot;
unique to the city, yet are the key selling points for the residents. The ::>2 stories
word 'convenient' is most often mentioned in interviews.
Near 1:1 with trees
• Construction began less than five months after the architect was hired.
5 4' 4' 28 ft 4' 4' S' setback
O 1/4 mile radius
Train Station
Max. walling list. O 1/10 mile radius
About two blocks
Mixed Use
Demolished:
Suburban 'island'
shopping mall r
z
The New Transit - -
Oriented Neighborhood
~Z~
Integrating Affordable Housing
80% of the homes are below the median home price in the city.
Designed for Pedestrians
All residential parking is hidden, blocks are short, and front porches welcome neighbors.
Citizen Involvement
The neighborhood became a quick reality through the collaboration of the developer, the City, and its citizens.
Creating Di., rsity
Affordable housing, a 24 hr. concentration of people.(residents), a walkable environment, short block& and pri-
mary uses (the parks, market, and transit station) all promote diversity Jane Jacobs, urban author
City of Mountaln View: Case'History Vital Signs
Ken Airman, Planning Director After the iiiallfailed financially, the City Acreage: 18
Michael Percy, Project Manager designated the site as 'a Planned Community Population:
20
903-6306 (415) Zone Citizens asked for open space height Housing. Uttitts:. ; 360
limits and tow densrtres' The City succeed-
Developer: - . & Densfy UnWAae: `''20
ed in convincwg ~ public, that higher densi-
TPG Development ties were vital to supporting transit Parks'Acresnooo People: 4
Chris Wuthman, v- Street Width: 28 Q
Project Manager TPG Development purchased the site and
t (415) 917-0926 proposed a high-density, mixed-use master Hidden Parking: 100%
plan The City rejected this proposal for its Attached: Underground
ArchiteCt/Urban Designer: lack of social and transit planning. The City Single-family: Behind Home
Caithorpe & Associates recommended Calthorpe & Associates,'the 'v Parking Ratios:
Peter Calthorpe, Dan Solomon, developer agreed, and the City Council Single-family. 2-0
Matt Taecker, Gary Strang, approved the plan five months later. Townhouses: 2.4
Patricia McBrayer As of 1996, the single-family and townhouse Apartments: 1.4
(510) 548-6800 phases were completed and sold Square Footage
Retail: 5000
(7.0 sq_ft./person)
Grocery: 42,000
Providing Safe places require: 24 hr. `eyes on the street', clearly
Public defined public streets with no dead ends, street lighting, ®Muiti Family Housing
and strong building entry visibility to neighbors. The crossings: 71%
US Average: .33%
Housing Types
Improving Our Physically, residents can walk to most amenities. single-family: 103
Health Mentally, they may benefit from a community-orient- Townhomes: 30
ed environment de-empbasiiing auto-related stress. Ro, i Houses: 99
Apartments: .128
Accommodating Playgrounds are never more than two blocks away Sales
Children and continuously used A day care facility is planned Single-Family:
The project attracts more families than expected $300,000
Townhouses:
Sustaining Our Affordable housing, a concentration of residents, a $120,000
} Environment walkable environment. and primary uses (the parks,
market, and transit station all promote diversity. ronmennmen direction toward envy
. tal and economic sustalnabildy
For case studies of your own project, oontact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
. P2~
o 01 t t wn r Ct World Idea Networks
C A S E S T U D Y L I B R A R Y
Uptown District ..is a
major precedent for infill'
urban development:, "It
replaces a strip mall, is
high-density 43 tm Wacre, .
in the middle of an upper
middle-class neighbor-
hood, incorporates, big-box
retail, and its residential
neighborhood' is complete-
- 4 -
ly free of automobiles.
San Diego,
Camomia
Streetscape Ratio 12 : 1
Exoenemc {1+:T MeaO
• All housing units. were leased within three months of operation.
• The supermarket opened just two years after the City of San Diego issued the RFP.
• Uptown District is Ralph's highest grossing supermarket in its chain, exceeding revenue
projections by 25-30 percent. However, the other retail mix needs reevaluation.
Former Sears strip Retail
mall center. Residential
11111111 Mixed Use
M Community
- ~1
9L i.
(D1/10 mile radius t j ~t 1I
About two blocks <<
The new neighborhood = -r~ ~1 _ _ »•ro • _
integrating big box retail
"
~~U
Building a Sense of Community
Residents share a community center, pool, and courtyards. On site cafes make for English pub-type gatherings.
Human-scaling Big Box Retail
A
A row of shops fronting the 42,500 sf grocerystore, 40°fi underground parking, and supported by mixed-use. tq},
Designed foi~ dditrianS P`
Architectural design strongly.emphasizes a village scale. Large supermarket street sigorge is,nonex. steet
Working watt COL mtjni.W.;Grt)UOs'...
-Mesurest way to nu mite risk from an entitlement point of view" -joint developer Ted Odmark.
Contacts Chronology. Vital.$igns `
City of San Diego: 1986- The City purc> la,
's'Sears store site. Acioage: 14
Michael Stegner when resdenfs object tproposed hbrary; the
Population: X600
Project Manager City fonds a committee of citizens businesses, Housing Units: 318
(619) 236-7195 city officials a.uiban designers tode':the
dl Am: 43
site s fuwre_ The'pnonhes agreed upon were a Density tJr
Developer: human-scale, mixed-tise.prolect that _supported , Hidden Parking:. .
Oliver MCMillan/Odmark & pedestrian activity and a large grocery store. Residential 100%
ThelThelon Retail 40%
} 457-0911 1987- A two developer joint venture is chosen
by RFP. Because of its investment, the city ''r Parking Ratios:
Architea Urban Designer: fast-tracks the project, faster than the developer Residential: 2.25
SGPA Architecture and desires! Commercial: 1/285 sf
Planning 1989- While the supermarket and housing Square Footage
Lorimar-Case (Housing) opened to success, retail has been slow, Residential 304,000
although 70% is leased after 3 months. The Retail: 100,000
~
Lender:
pedestrian-oriented retail does not have a sub- Grocery 42,500
Great America Savings Bank stantial counterpart base of pedestrian-onemed
residents (600) within an auto-oriented suburb. COStS (in minions)
Site: .$12.1 (1986)
Providing Uptown's layout is very clear and simple, allowing good Construction: $66
PUDIC visibility among neighbors at all hours. Restaurants and
Safety the market provide round the clock public activity. Sales (1990)
Residential $100,000
Improving Our Residents are able to do many of their errands on Retail $2-$3.50 sf
Health foot, reducing auto-related stress. Courtyards and Office $1.85 sf
cafes spur frequent neighborly socializing.
Anows suggest direction toward evil-
Accommodating Uptown's walkable layout serves as excellent playground mnmental and economic sustatnabaay
Children territory, surrounded by watchful neighbors, and allowing
safe social exploring, key to healthy child development
j Sustaining Our R San Diego were of the same compact and balanced
Environment layout as the residential and retail areas of Uptown
District, 86% of that land would be open space.
For case studies of your own project, contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
R'lVerplace World Idea Networks
CASE ST*
T U DY L I B R A R-Y
Basking on the site of a for-
mer freeway, RlverPlace
has become a local and
tourist destination,,attiibut-
able to its well-defined
waterfront promenad'e' lirnea
with shops, restaurants and
outdoor "seating. i24 ;hour
public life. is, "abuzz from its
resident population; `hotel,
and marina:
PorUard, E'
oregon
i
4.
• Housing units have awaiting list, increasing in value one and a half times faster than other Streetscape Ratio
Portland properties, offices remain at full occupancy, retailers see increasing sales yearly.
RiverPlace does not have a
e RiverPlace hosts the highest occupancy hotel, the most popular athletic club, and the high- street system, with only a
est restaurant volumes in the state. single entry into the entire.
waterfront project
• Time from submission to City Design Commission to final approval: Six weeks.
Phase 118 Phase IIA Phase 1 \
f
O 1 /10 mile radius
About two blocks
O 1 /4 mile radius
Max. walking list
i - - ii
t ~ - i=f=s
1 1
Il' r_4-J ~'JJJ J' J~y ~ ai; lI .4=:~
, J s.... t. ly1"1
~r ..5 .„•:yy a4.. '.,"'Tr Ld .u,•~.Y
Residential Over Retail
Office
Residential
♦ New Townhouses
M Community y Sri t~ t, ts°`sitfs"Y?;~kfuy~ay y '
i.~ it .1 H r..l tY ' ~s~ } •tl ~ nit'...~~'rh' Sra:.E r.a y~~ri:{.n~K~^~E..c
X32
Building a Sense of community
RiverPlace residents are quick to tell people they five there. It's strong identity attracts the city's major events.
The Village Square
A U.S. rarity, RiverPlace's square is an esplanade, lined with shops, restaurants, a hotel, and outdoor seating::
Redefining'Cony. Wisdom'
The City demolished a freeway in the 1970's to build a neighborhood and park They are targeting others.
creatang Diversity
While RiverPlace lacks a diverse population (affordable restaumfitsfhousins), its festivals are,very diverse.
Contacts Chronology Vi#at Signs
City of Portland: 1976 City of Portland denrobshes watEtfroat free- Acreage 15 ti'
Portland fvlelop Commission way 0esigna4rig'a ?3-acre South' Water front Population: 655
823-3254 Project4ea,, downtown's only undeveloped tract
(503) Housing Units: 448
(until another freeway:is a ismaNled
Developer: Density:
The Portland Development Commission (PDC) Gross: 31 Units/Acre
Phase 1, IIA: Cornerstone selects Cornerstone Columbia based on manage- Not 43 Unds/Acre
Columbia Development. Co. ment depth, extensive mixed-use experience, and At Hidden Parking:
i (206) 623-9374 substantial financial ccredibiility.
Residential 100%
Phase IIB: Trammel Crow The project follows the City of Portland's down- Retail 60%
(206) 828-3003 town guidelines to create pedestrian activity, and the w Parking Ratios:
PDC guidelines. One major design issue was monu- Condos: 1 /bedrm.
Design Frms: mental visibility, more successfully captured as a
Phase 1: The Bumgardner village rather than an iconoclastic building. COStS (millions)
Architects, Seattle, WA 1987 Phase I is completed Site: $15.6
Phase 11: GGLO Architects Construction: $66
(206) 467-5828 1991 Phase IIA is completed Phase
1995 Phase IIB is completed Condos 190 units
(235;000 sf) $15.9
Hotel 74 units $12.1
Providing Intrinsic in the master plan: 24-hr mixed-use activity, Offices $7.6
Public Safety windows looking over clearly defined public streets. Retail 452
Athletic Club $7.5
..,.Phase IIA
improving Our
The adjacent Waterfront Park and athletic dub are well Apts. 108 units $9.5
H"th used by residents. The social atmosphere is car free.
Phase IIB
Twnhs.,182 units $12.7
Induding Teens and the elderly as well have the same accessibility
Children (wAabiiity, transit stop on site) as adults - without a car. Sales (1990)
1 Bedrm. Studio
800 sf $85-$125,000
, Sustain
ling
I Our The population density is 27,000 pe%Ae/sq mi: with one- Esplanade 2 Bedm1.
EnVIMMnent third open space, five times similar land uses in Portland 1300 sf $204$215,000
Avows suggest drection toward ernF
tonmental and economic sustainabW
For case studies of your own project. contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
Y33
Aft LLD U HAfL IL
a a db Y, England World Idea Networks
C A S E S T U D Y L 'I B R A R Y
' The philosophy of.Pidund-
bury has ve much to do with
the careful; detaiteij ptaaning
T. of an attractive;';modetn and
Pleasing Place'in w+liich People.
can live, work sliop'and'play,
including not just ho ;uses and
_ V flats, but also work":places,
shops, schools; leisure and
butldings
. community
Streetscape Ratio 1 : 1.5
very
• ity in Britain incorporating the Principles community of the Prince of Wales'
A Vision of Britain.
X24 ft.
A Vision of Britain ten PrinciPles include: Place respouse; "
hierarchy of buildings;
human scale; harmony; enclosure: defined growth boundaries, squares, courtyards;
traditional materials; decoration, art, signs and lights, and an involved community. ` -%t, -24 ft. ~wf- ft.
Phase L Neighborhood square is dearly j Poundbury development is defined
identifiable by residents. Radial pattern of . by black fine. Circled region is
120 degrees is most efficient angle. phase I of four. Note the well-
defined urban boundary
.
1 /4 mile radius
Max walking dist
0 1 /10 mile radius` h
About two blocks
A Sense of Community
j A well-defined market square at the neighborhood's center provides a public watering hole and town identity.
Designed for Pedestrians
15 ~k Roads are narrow, winding and irregular, pleasantly interesting for walling. All parking are behind buildings.
V
.x
Building in Craftsmanship
Vernacular materials of marble, stone, cob, thatch, brick, and file used by local builders working over 100 yrs.
creating Diversity
20% of housing is deemed for local people, each house is instantly recognizable and distinct, but none dorm
City: Chronology Vital Signs
Duchy of Cornwall -
In 1987, the local planning authority, West Acreage: 400
10 London SW 1 E Buckingham Gate Dorset District Council, selected the Duchy Population: -700 Ph.1 6LA +44 (0)171-834-7346 of Cornwall's land, owned since 1342, for 5000 Complete
future expansion to accommodate local hous-
+44 (0)171-931-9541 fax Housing Units: 240
1IIg needs.
A, Density un amre: 20
Master Manner: In 1988, The Prince of Wales appointed the Open Leon Krier architect and urban planner Leon Krier to AcresM WoPeopie: 27
~
Development Director: prepare a master plan for the development, Hidden Parking:. 100 %
Andrew Hamilton adding one-third to the existing town of Parking courts and alleys
Dorchester (AD43).
Coordinating Architect: 'v" Street WfKW -24 it
In 1989, the master plan was exhibited at a
Peterjohn Smyth of the Planning Weekend attended by The Prince of This Neighborhoods:
P Mw Percy Thomas Partnership project is ~ Phase I. -
Wales at Poundbury Farm (the site) encour-
aging public participation in the scheme. Status: Colutructior150%
WDDC District Architect:
David Oliver In 1993, construction began
arrows suggea dredbn towartl eco•
nwk am w mrtnental s alai fry
Providing Public Safety
England's low crime and violence rates may be related to its tighter, higher-density, community network.
improving our. Health
The neighborhood encourages walking, de-emphasizes traffic, and is surrounded by open space.
Accommodating Children
d Streets are prioritized for walking, alleys for cars. One-third of the entire 400-acre town will be open space.
Pis
Sustaining Our Environment
Compact development conserves land as well as energy, with Energy Ratings at 8.4110, the avg. being 3-4.
For case studies of your own project. contact World Idea Networks at (415) 957-1203 Version 1.01
Attachment 6
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: 5/12/05
RE: DRAFT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planned Development Review Committee has been meeting since April, 2004 to review and
make recommendations regarding changes to ordinances governing planned developments. The committee
met on May 4, 2005 and orally agreed on draft recommendations that the committee wants to discuss with
the planning commission. Due to Morgan Tracy's absence for his wedding, Gretchen Buehner prepared
minutes and the revised draft of recommendations. Individual committee members may have additional
recommendations. After the meeting with planning commission, the committee will meet in early June to
give direction for implementation of committee recommendations into draft ordinances. The committee
plans to meet with City Council with these draft ordinances at the July or August workshop meeting. The
committee appreciates the opportunity to meet with and receive input from the planning commission on the
draft recommendations.
MAIN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - applying directly to PC code
1. Create a toolbox of ideas and concepts for Planning Commission and applicants to use to develop and
assess the merits of proposed PD's. (You have a copy of the draft Morgan prepared before he left).
r 2. Create a method to transition lot sizes
3. Ensure the new development is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (to the extent practicable
in light of changing density requirements)
4. Place burden on applicant to demonstrate that a PD is a "better" solution. The developer/applicant
should address how their project achieved the following principles:
Housing stock diversity?
Architectural Detail and Diversity?
Pedestrian Amenities?
Improved Public Safety?
Accommodates Children and/or seniors?
Sustainable Development?
Preservation of significant natural resources?
Integration with the existing neighborhood?
5. Clearly separate the concept from the detail plan.
6. Open space as a mandatory requirement, some portion to functional for humans.
7. Promote sustainable development, including storm water.
8. Enhance the neighborhood meeting process.
9. Encourage general additional amenities.
10. Develop standards that will promote walkable neighborhoods.
11. Density as a function of design excellence.
12. Re-zone to reduce density and delete unbuildable land such as CWS facilities from buildable land
survey (see policy recommendations below)
13. Limit Density bonuses.
14. Limit Density transfers.
15. Application should address all of the criteria set forth in the tool box
COMMITTEE SIDE RECOMMENDATIONS - relate to other code provisions or policy issues
1. Establish ,a mechanism. for. collecting a funding an open space acquisition program
a. General Obligation Bonds
b. Local Assessment Districts
c. Create a fee in lieu program for transfers and consolidation of open spaces, don't use park
SDC's for park acquisition
2. Establish, an. Open Space Network Master Plan to identify general, areas where open-space; should. be
:1 .1 accepted by the city, rather than on an ad hoc basis. Alternatively, create a new zone or pass an ordinance
authorizing either the Planning Commission or Parks Board to decide matters.of;public ,land acceptance. .If
donating land, the applicant or staff should prepare an estimate of the annual costs associated with
maintenance and insurance for the property.
3. Revisions to the Tree Code to impose a more specific standard set of protection guidelines
4. Possible revisions to street and utility improvement: section (TDC 18.810) to allow for other types of
public, and/or develop standards for private streets, such as requiring green private streets.
5. Work with CWS to expand allowable uses in buffer areas on a site specific basis,marnely, passive
recreation uses such as trails, signs, pedestrian bridges, seating, viewing blinds, observation decks,
handicapped facilities, drinking fountains, picnic tables, interpretative facilities, and similar facilities. Also
work to see if an alternative to fencing off an area can be found to clearly demarcate a sensitive area. Such
ideas could include a road or driveway that separates the lots, low totems, rockery,walls, all with
appropriate signage.
6. Include in reports from Planning Commission appeals to Council, a summary of deliberations during
the hearing. Meeting minutes are insufficient.
7. Open space issues.
a. Look at policy of not accepting dedication of small parcels. All."undisturbed natural areas
should be in public ownership. (No access to site, except for authorized personnel. No
maintenance. This would apply to areas where there are endangered species, which need absolute
freedom from any disturbance freedom from any disturbance.
b. Review policy of open space in private v. public ownership.
c. Create a zone for open space.
d. Development should not allow density transfers for open space.
e. Open space types
1. Minimal Use Facilities for recreation, limited to soft-surface trails, which are minimally
maintained. No other facilities would be allowed.
ii. Passive Use Recreational Facilities. Facilities for recreational uses related to the
functions and values of an natural area that require limited and low impact site
improvement, including soft-surface trails, signs, pedestrian bridges; seating viewing
blinds, observation decks, handicapped facilities, drinking fountains, picnic tables,
interpretative facilities and similar facilities.
iii. Active Use Recreational Facilities. Facilities for recreational uses that tend to be more
organized and/or that require a greater degree of site development and conversion of
natural area, including sports fields, playground equipment, group picnic shelters, hard
surface pathways, permanent restrooms, accessory parking lots and similar facilities..
8, Reduce storm water runoff in PD's.
Seen Far:tly - Re: Proposed Planned Development Code Changes µPage 1w
Attachment 7
From: "Gary Firestone" <garyf@rcclawyers.com>
To: <Sean@tigard-or.gov>
Date: 3171200611:17:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Planned Development Code Changes
Sean:
I have both some general comments and some specific comments. One of the general comments
invovles a major change in approach. I will start with the general comments, and then go to the specifics.
General Comments
1. The biggest question I have is whether we want to have the PD be an overlay zone. Some attorneys
have started to claim that application of an overlay is a zone change. If it is a zone change, arguably it is
reviewable not just under the CDC, but is subject to review under the Comprehensive Plan. CDC
18.380.0306.1 Also, the City is arguably required to provide notice to DLCD in advance of a zone change.
See OAR 660-018-0020(1). One option is to require a PD plat (with all the restrictions and requirements
shown on the plat), but not an overlay zone. Also, it seems incongruous to have a Type III process for that
zone change when the standard is essentially a check for consistency with the detailed development plan.
(I recognize that Type 111 is needed for a zone change). If the City does want a zone change, then I do not
see any reason to keep steps 2 (detailed design plan) and 3 (zone change) separate.
2. There are substantive inconsinstencies throughout, mostly relating to procedure. One of the reasons
for the inconsistencies is that there are redundancies. Section 18.350.020 is entitled "Process" and
Section 18.350.030 is entitled "Administrative Provisions" which is another way of saying the same thing. I
think these two section can be combined and some of the redundancy eliminated. One example of an
inconsistency is between 18.350.020C, which states that detailed development plan shall be processed by
at Type II procedures, while 18.350.0306 and 18.250.050A both state that this will be a Type III procedure.
To repeat my original comment, it seems strange (at best) to require three Type III procedures.
3. The draft code revision is inconsistent in terminology. For example, there are refences to "detailed
development plan" and to "detail plan."
Specific Comments
Section 18.350.0206.2 Is the preliminary subdivision plan truly a substitute for the detailed development
plan? This seems inconsistent with most of the rest of the provisions, which require a detailed
development plan. 1 do not see any reason to refer to the preliminary subdivision plan, except to state
somewhere that if a subdivision'is proposed, the application for preliminary subdivision plan is to be filed
concurrently with the detailed development plan.
Section 18.350.020C.2. As discussed above, this provides for a Type II process of the detailed
development plan review, whereas other sections call for a Type III review.
Section 18.350.020E, This section creates the possibility of concurrent applications for concept plan,
detailed plan, and zone change. A requirement for a zone change application is submission of the
approved detailed plan. 18.350.060A. These provisions are inconsistent.
Similarly, the provision that all actions may be at the same hearing (second sented of subsection E) is also
inconsistent with 18.350.060A and with the provision that the detailed development plan is a Type II
approval.
Section 18.350.030A. The reference to the approval criteria should be to 18.350.040D, unless the
} sections are renumbered.
Section 18.350.0306. The Type III procedure requirement for detailed development plans is inconsistent
q,
Sean Farrelly Proposed Planned Development Code Changes - age 2
with the provision in 18.350.020C.2. The reference to the approval criteria should be to 18.350.050E.
Also, although there is a requirement to file the detailed development plan within 1.5 years of conceptual
plan approval, there does not appear to be a similar requirement for zone change application to be filed
within a certain time of detailed plan approval. Also, it might be advisable to rephrase the provision to
state that the conceptual plan approval expires after 1.5 years unless an application for for detailed
development plan approval or request for extension is filed.
Section 18.350.030C. This section provides that the overlay zone expires if the detailed development plan
approval lapses or expires. As long as the PD is a zone (even an overlay zone), a zone change process is
needed to change the zone back. It cannot happen automatically. Also, it does not specify when the
detailed development plan approval lapses or expires.
This section also provides that the zoning map amendment is by a Type IV procedure, which is
inconsistent with both 18.350.020C.3 and 18.350.060. Furthermore, if it is a Type IV, then the statewide
planning goals, as well at the Comp Plan apply. CDC 18.390.060G.
Section 18.350.030D. This should be clarified as to which approvals can be extended. See comments on
subsections B and C.
In subsection D.2; the City needs to decide whether an application for a preliminary plat review is
sufficient, or whether the application for a detailed development plan is needed to be filed before the
conceptual plan lapses. Note that in Subsection B, the requirement is that the detailed development plan
be filed within 1.5 years, without reference to a preliminary subdivision plat.
Section 18.350.030H. The issuance of occupancy permits is tied to completion of the development
consistent with the detailed development plans, without any reference to the PD overlay zone. If the
overlay zone is required, then no occupancy (or arguably even development) should occur prior to overlay j
zone approval.
Section 18.350.040D.3. I suggest adding "if any" to the reference to significant natural resources.
Section 18.350.050A. The last reference should be to 18.350.050B.
Section 18.350.050C.2. What does "site coverage" mean. This needs to be defined or explalined.
Section 18.350:050C.3. Is there a maximum building height? Should be stated if so.
Section 18.350.050 This section is very long, especially subsection E and has too many levels of
subsections to be easily understandable. You may want to readjust the formatting/organization. Maybe
approval criteria should be a separate section.
Section 18.350.050E.l . We may want to add "if applilcabie."
Section 18.350.050E.2.d. You may want to clarify landscaping as to whether natural areas count as
landscaping.
Section 18.350.050E.2.e. I do not like the "based on findings" phrase. They should simply be standards
or criteria. Findings are required by statute.
Also, in subsection e.i., there is a reference to "minor exception" which is not defined, and appears
unnecessary. Possible language: The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than
10 percent.
Section 18.350.050E.2.f. Again, replace "based on findings that" with "if'. Change subsection i to read:
The sign are is not increased by more than 10 percent.
~
,Sean, Farre!,!y - Re: Page 3
j Section 18.350.050E.2.i.i. Again, some clarification of "landscaping" may be appropriate. Does this
include natural areas? Note also that there is an opening square bracket in the first line. You may want to
combine all the various landscaping and open space requirements into a single section. As is, the
landscaping and open space provisions are confusing.
Section 18.350.050E.2.j.ii. A random opening square bracket.
Section 18.350.060 As noted above, this is inconsistent with various other provisions as to procedure.
Also, subsection B states that the zone change may be processed concurrently with the detailed
development plan (actually uses the term detail plan) approval, which is inconsistent with subsection A,
which requires that the approved detailed development plan be submitted with the application.
Please let me know if you have questions or comments.
Gary Firestone
This message originates from the law firm of Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP. This e-mail message and all
attachments may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and
delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message
or its attachments is strictly prohibited. All personal messages express solely the sender's views and not
those of Ramis, Crew, Corrigan, LLP. This message may not be copied or distributed without this
j disclaimer. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately at (503) 222-4402 or reply
to the e-mail address above.
1
li- l - Frewin Su lemental Comments on PD Code Chan es y Pa e 1
Attachment 8
From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com>
To: "Tom Coffee" <Tomc@tigard-or.gov>
Date: 3/8/2006 3:56:59 PM
Subject: Frewing Supplemental Comments on PD Code Changes
Tom, below is the comment memo I promised last night. Thanks for guiding our discussions FORWARD
in a pleasant way. John Frewing
TO: Tom Coffee (for forwarding to committee members and Sean)
FM: John Frewing
SUBJ: A Variety of Comments on Clean Draft Distributed at 3/7/06 Meeting
As long as this task has taken, it is still good to let things sit for a bit and revisit them in the light of a new
day. On receiving the clean draft distributed at 317/06 meeting, I compared it with the previous draft, which
we discussed at our 10/26/05 meeting and with my notes of that evening and previous notes, eg the
7/20/05 meeting. I offer the following comments in the spirit of trying to make the new planned
development code a strong useful document for whatever remaining sites in Tigard which can use it.
A The definition of 'density bonus' and 'landscaping' existed in the 10/26/05 draft and have now been
I deleted without any reason per my memory. Both were terms we had discussed at length.. My comment
is to reinstate them in the revised planned development code language. In the 'landscaping' definition, I
would make it consistent with other references in the code language by adding 'developed under the
guidance of a licensed landscape architect after the first word 'Areas'. See use of this term in
18.350.050E2.d.
B In the first item under the 'Purpose' section of the draft, I would simplify the language by having it read
'To promote development that is consistent
C Under 18.350.040A.1, 'Conceptual Development Plan Requirements,' my comment is that the first
sentence should start'A statement of city planning objectives . This will ensure that the applicant keeps
his/her focus on city purposes. The second sentence should be supplemented by adding the following:
'and the benefits to the neighborhood and city to be achieved by the planned development over and above
benefits which might accrue using a subdivision process.'
D Under 18.350.040A.3, the applicant's intent with regard to selling/leasing lots or building homes
him/herself should be supplemented with the requirement for applicant to state his/her view of the role of a
homeowners association in common area ownership and maintenance, including other amenities, eg
playground.
E Under 18.350.040B.1, the term 'existing site conditions' should be clarified by adding "including physical
S]6W".nGr3Lffi9 RlS 's'i~3 Ada
Sean Farrell - Frewin Su lemental Comments on PD Code Chan es Pa A-2
features and unusual flora or fauna which occupy the site".
F Under 18.350.0408, an additional element of the narrative should be required, stated as 'Any planned
habitat friendly development approaches, eg matters identified in the'Planning Commission's Toolbox'. .
G The approval criteria of 18.350.040D (conceptual development plan) and 18.350.050E (detailed
development plan) should each begin with the basic requirement that the submission requirements have
been met.
H The approval criteria of 18.350.040D and 18.350.050E should each clarify that the Commission must
find that the items below are consistent with the purpose of this section of the code (18.350).
I Reference in 18.350.050A to 'the information contained in 18.350.050A' seems wrong. Maybe reference
to 18.350.0506 is intended?
J The requirement for contour data in 18.350.0508.1 should be supplemented by adding 'to show
compliance with flood plain limits, drainage plans, sight and view distances, etc.'
K In 18.350.050B.3.c, there is a misspelling of 'comer' in line 4 and in line 6, the use of the word 'probably'
does not seem consistent with advising applicants of Commission intent - it should be changed to
'preferably'. Similarly, in subitem f. of this subsection, the word 'considered' is not advisory - it should be
changed to 'favored'.
L The wording of sections 18.350.050C and D are not in the form of information requirements, but appear
to be approval criteria. I suggest moving these sections to the approval criteria section for detailed
development plans, 18.350.050E and renumbering as necessary.
M In 18.350.050C.2, the term 'site coverage' appears. Looking at the definitions in the front of Chapter 18
of the TCDC, this definition does not have apparent meaning. I suggest restating the definition of 'site
coverage' in a way which will enforce a limit on building and impervious cover over an entire site.
N In 18.350.050C.3, reference to site 'perimeter should refer to 'exterior lots' as was discussed at the
3/7/06 meeting.
O The construction of 18.350.050C and D should be modified to_clarify that BOTH paragraphs include
approval criteria. This can be done by adding 'and E. below' to the first sentence of 18.350.050C. In this
Sea Faaelly - Frewing Su elemental Comments on PD Code Chan es ~ _ Page 3
same paragraph, subitem 1. should be clarified to indicate that increased densities mean reduced lot sizes -
add in parentheses '(eg, reduces lot sizes)".
P In 18.350.050E2, the current draft has given up the prerogative of the Planning Commission to require
additional open space; which exists in the current code.. This flexibility should be retained by adding back
the appropriate words of 18.350.1006.2 in the existing code. In Approval Criteria 2.b of this same section,
the Commission has given up its authority to judge adequacy of access plans by saying that only a
provessional engineer must demonstrate adequate access - the Commission approval right should be
retained by adding a phrase "acceptable to the Commission" after the term 'professional engineer'.
Q In 18.350.050E.2.c.ii, reference is made to project cost, not normally available. As discussed at the
3/7/06 meeting, perhaps public infrastructure cost should be used instead, but then the 1% bonus should
be adjusted downward accordingly, perhaps to'/4
R In 18.350.050E.2.g, the term 'sight distance' is used, but it is not defined at the front of the TCDC; it
} should be defined. The term 'stopping distance', another term used in street design, should also be
defined.
S At the detailed development plan stage, 18.350.0506 should include the requirement to submit any
proposed homeowners association charter for the PD. This is necessary in order for City Attorney to
review its adequacy, as noted in 18.350.050E.3.o.ii.
T As we noted at our 3/7/06 meeting the requirements for openspace and landscaping need additional
work to make them consistently use the same terminology and work together to produce a development
consistent with stated purposes.
Tom, I would appreciate it if you would forward this to all members and carry a copy of these comments
forward in the packet for Planning Commission and City Council work sessions on this project. The
meeting of 317/06 was most useful in planning the latter phases of our committee work.
Attachment 9
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-President Munro called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Tigard Civic Center, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Vice-President Munro, Commissioners Buehner, Caffall (arrived
late), Duling, Haack, Inman, Meads, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Tom Coffee, Director of Community Development; Dick Bewersdorff,
Planning Manager; Barbara Shields, Planning Manager; Beth St. Amand,
Senior Planner; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary
3. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION PRESIDENT
It was decided to hold the vote until Commissioner Caffall arrives. Vice-President Munro said
that if the Commission is unable to reach a decision, she would agree to continue as acting.
President until the Planning Commission vacancy is filled and the new Commissioner has
attended a few meetings.
4. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Commission will meet on April 3rd for a public hearing on the Wall Street extension; they
will meet April 171' to discuss buildable lands and incorporation of cities.
• Planning Commission Appointment to Transportation Financial Strategies Task Force -
after Commissioner Caffall arrived, he agreed to serve on this Task Force.
Commissioner Buehner reported on the Transportation Financial Strategies Task Force.
They are currently working on the 99W/Hall intersection and the grant for the 99W study.
They are proposing a gas tax which may come to Council.
Commissioner Buehner also reported on the City Center Advisory Commission. They
decided on recommendations for the Burnham Street projects and had some suggestions
for major revisions to the Transportation System Plan, e.g., the bike plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page I
Commissioner Meads advised that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board is moving
ahead on forming an organized recreational program for Tigard. They will ask Council for
staff funding to do studies. There may be a bond measure in the future. Regarding the
purchase of park land, the City will approach people who have property of interest to the
Board to see if there are any willing sellers. Meads said she had read that the lease on Potso
Dog Park goes thru 2012. In the meantime, the City is looking for other sites for another
dog park.
Commissioner Duling reported on the Committee for Citizen Involvement. She said at
their last meeting, they met with the principals from Fowler Middle School and Metzger
Elementary School to discuss public involvement in local schools. They also had a
neighborhood program update from Liz Newton. The School Board encourages linking
the neighborhood program to the schools. Each neighborhood will have their own web
page at some point.
Commissioner Haack advised that the Tree Board has 2 nominations for recognition of
being a "Heritage Tree". One is on property being considered for development. The
developer is considering reducing the size of one of the houses to preserve the tree. The
Tree Board also discussed the trees in the Costco parking lot. The store was built 12 yrs
ago and had a condition that the trees would have a 35% canopy by year #20. The City
Arborist estimates it to be 1% in year #12. The Tree Board will research what options
Costco may have to re-engineer their parking lot or do something else.
Haack asked about the development on SW North Dakota where 8 major trees that were
supposed to be saved were cut down. Dick Bewersdorff advised that this was a big
mistake. The contractor was given the wrong set of plans. Bewersdorff said the developer
would be fined $500, plus pay $24,000 for mitigation, and give us an assessment for the
value of the trees.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PROGRAM
Planning Manager Barbara Shields advised that the public involvement process will comply
with the current Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Beth St. Amand handed out a revised
chart listing tasks and completion dates (Exhibit A). She advised that the current
Comprehensive Plan includes having the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) review
the public involvement program. She met with the CCI in February and they provided
comments to her. The Planning Commission will act as the steering committee for the
update. The PC work sessions will be public work sessions; some sessions will be for public
comment.
St. Amand said there are three different ways to approach the citizen involvement:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page 2
1. Provide information - make sure everyone knows what's going on, when the
meetings are, what the community can expect from this process, basic language
2. Outreach - how can we get out into the community; use the pilot program for the
Neighborhood Program; tap into other board & committees
3. Involvement - public work sessions, interactive open houses to get input
There will be 6 topic areas and staff will develop a specific program for each.
St. Amand advised there will be a community attitude survey conducted every other year.
The first survey will be a benchmark. One topic this year will be the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commissioners had the following comments/ suggestions:
• The information in the Oregonian and Times is not always accurate and never
includes the agenda item.
• Look at going to the Chamber, Kiwanis, etc.
• How can we get a diversity of people here - maybe hold coffee talks.
• Give people a reason to care.
• Use e-mail for folks who don't want to leave their home but want to participate.
• Consider a live workshop on cable access where people can call in.
• A 5 minute stream on the website.
• Contact neighborhood associations/homeowner's associations.
• Use the SW weekly section of the Oregonian to keep it in front of people all the time,
e.g., "Did you know?".
• One of the biggest hurdles will be helping people see how will it impact them
personally.
• Develop some "hook developing mechanisms" for bringing people in.
The Planning Commission agreed that the general structure of the proposed public
involvement program fits with the Comprehensive Plan. The next Planning Commission
meeting will be dedicated to discussing buildable lands.
VISITOR
Donya Wiland shared her thoughts with the Commission about living in Tigard. She is
concerned about how much land is being ripped up for multiple housing. She has ideas for
making Tigard a desirable place to live. She suggests giving tax breaks to people if they won't
sell/develop their property for 20 years. This will help to control traffic. Possibly, the loss in
tax revenue could be made up by increasing taxes to others already in living here. She
believes that if Tigard was more desirable, we could concentrate on the people who want to
stay.
She referred to the City of Avalon. They allow x amount of people to live there, x amount
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page 3
of cars on site, and there's a waiting list of people wanting to move there. For the
Comprehensive Plan public outreach, she suggested putting flyers into grocery bags.
6. WORKSESSION WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Additional Planned Development Code Review Committee members in attendance: Sue
Beilke, Alice Ellis-Gaut, John Frewing
Tom Coffee reported that when the Planning Commission had their joint meeting with
Council, the issue of code revision was discussed. Council is anxious to see a product
referred to them. Staff met with the Code Review Committee recently and brought everyone
up to date on the status of the revisions. The Commission can review the recommendations
and provide input. The Committee will have a worksession with Council on April 18th to
discuss the recommendations. The Council will then decide if they would like to initiate an
amendment.
Commissioner Buehner provided details for the 15 recommendations listed in her 3/9/06
memo to the Planning Commission [in the Commissioner's packet]:
• #1 - The toolbox will be streamlined.
• #2 - Should also look at implementing this in the subdivision code as well.
• #3 -The code section should read 18.350.050 B 3 (d)(e).
• Enact the purpose clause as written.
• #5 - May not be feasible because of 120 day rule.
• #6 - The Committee came up with more classifications. More work needs to be
done on this item.
• #7 - Sustainable development refers to storm water issues.
• #8 - Sometimes the application submitted to the City differs substantially from what
was presented at the neighborhood meeting and those attending the meeting have no
idea that changes have been made.
• #9 - Suggestions for developers going through the PD process.
• #10 - More work needs to be done on this.
• #11 - This also needs to be looked at in the Comp Plan - do we want to follow
Metro's directives?
• #12 - Parcels can be downzoned to lower densities.
• #13 - Density bonuses should be earned - it should not be a presumption.
• #14 - This can't be done in the PD Code, but there is a side recommendation.
• #15 - This is an issue of guidelines to the developer, giving them more structure.
Buehner highlighted the side recommendations listed in her memo. Regarding #7, the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page 4
Committee wonders if there's a possibility of creating an Open Space Zone. Tom Coffee
noted that rezoning of private property for open space would be considered a "taking". The
current maps showing green open space only indicates designation of a resource (floodplain,
wetland, etc.).
Regarding the last comments in her memo, Buehner said she agrees with the City Attorney
about the overlay zone. She believes the code should be rewritten to make it less open to
litigation.
Comments from the Planning Commissioners and Committee members:
• Has anyone looked into the impact on staff and Planning Commission with how the
new process will work? Tom Coffee responded that the more steps added, the longer
it takes for staff to process. On the other hand, these revisions may be more a
function of the way staff addresses issues and writes their reports. Bewersdorff noted
that if there is a separation between the conceptual plan and the detail plan, there may
be 2-3 hearings for each case. Also, because of a longer processing time, costs and
fees will increase. Separating the conceptual plan from the detail plan and having a
third step of a zone overlay at the end may create three steps of appeals.
• The concern was raised as to whether this could all be done within the 120 day
timeline.
• A concept may be easier to debate because it's more of a sketch. There may be more
give and take than with a detail plan.
• This is a way to help the Commission become comfortable with the language and
being trained. Also, expectations can be set for staff.
• The 120 day rule clock starts when the application is deemed complete. Using a
toolbox, staff doesn't have to say an application is complete until they get something
that looks like it might pass.
• Did the Committee discuss how to offset additional maintenance costs to the City for
open space? Commissioner Buehner said the majority of the space will be open and
will require minimal maintenance, plus Council would like to increase park and open
space. Staff said maintenance will be an issue for parks staff. Sue Beilke suggested
that voters may be willing to approve a park maintenance fee measure.
• Who defines the types of open spaces, e.g., conversion of natural area? Staff
answered that it would be in the Parks Master Plan.
John Frewing referred to his e-mail to Tom Coffee (Appendix F). For comment D, he
would like to have the applicant's intent supplemented with the requirement for them to state
their view of the role of a homeowner's association in common area ownership and
maintenance. For comment G, he would like to see that the approval criteria for both the
conceptual plan and the detailed plan begin with the requirement that submission
requirements have been met. For comment H, he would like to clarify that the Commission
find that the items (various descriptions of what has to come in) are consistent with the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page 5
purpose of the section of the code. This ties the review back to the purpose. For comment
P, he would like to retain the flexibility of the Planning Commission to require open space by
adding back words of code section 18.350.100B.2.
Commissioner Buehner brought up the need for dedication of easements on private streets
for people to be able to access public open space.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Vice-President Munro advised that she had talked to Tom Coffee about training for the
Commission. She also noted that there may be other areas in which the Commission could
provide policy direction to Council.
Tom Coffee briefed the Commission about the possibility of Walmart coming to Tigard He
said Walmart has not contacted any City official as of this date. However, Pactrust has held a
pre-application meeting for a 220,000 square foot "big box" at Dartmouth and 72nd Ave. We
do not know if the two are connected or not.
Commissioner Buehner advised that Gramar Development has proposed a new 180,000 Fred
Meyer complex in the Beaverton quarry area, which is currently zoned for 50,000 maximum.
They are asking for a zoning change to allow this. She thinks this issue may happen in Tigard.
Election of Planning Commission President -Jodie Inman was elected as the new President.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Je ee ewis, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2006 - Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Participation Program "1'~. Phase 2 begins h (Phase 4 begins
beg'i a '~3' ~ '~"=^,.,~,t-',r;•'~ r h se'=5
April May tine July Au Se Oct. Nov. Dec Ian Feb March April May June July Au Se Dec
l.Information
1.1 (pct the Word Otit fn ■1„
1.2. Set a News Network ■ '''■i:
W f R nb r f;•' 'S, i7" .fit ■~',f,~ru ■ ■N.s, ■ Sz ■•5r.a iy.;;.
lsstie Ness 1tc'l('ascs ■.F v,_.t._ t;■ .■L. 4■}l ~h ■77f 3t.r i7 f G i'. { 1KtMSi i N_ia t P
1.3 Make Materials Accessible All Phases
e ~e~~,a
1.4 Producc Citywide updates a ° ■ i~
1.5 Maintain interested parties list All Phases
2. Outreach
■'=`YI ■`'S 'r
2.1 Huard/Committee updates
2.2. Neighborhood Updates ■~15- '■.A xJ:.' Sa
2.3 Additional outreach As heeded
3. Involvement
3.1 Use Citizen Surve's
AL
3?. •I'i °ard lic'ond'I'omorrow .■F:~~n" >~`Y''
3.3 Conduct 01301 1 louse/'l'ours `■{`T~► !■ii ■ 1'
3.4. Youth and Schools
3.5. P(; Work Sessions !x#54 ■cy,, '■rl; ;■`S.. i~4 ~f t~ ■:tr~:;`
3.6 Council Update,
3.7 Public I Icarin gs l? t
a.r,';:• :■'>i(va%
3.8 C(:1 meeting,
y;'"alley - board comm roster.ib.xls Page 36
/11755 nned Development Code Review Comm. Membershi P
`ltd-term Apt 1, tI%uBeilke Appt: 3/23/04
SW 114th Place
gard, OR 97223
Res: 503-639-3519
Bus: 503-330-0220
e-mail: sbeilke@europa.com
Gretchen Buehner Appt: 1/3/05
Planning Commision Liaison
13249 SW 136th Place
Tigard, OR 97223
Res: 503-684-1031
Alice Ellis-Gaut n ^ , Appt: 3/23/04
10947 SW Chateau Lane
Tigard, OR 97224
Res: 503-639-8930
e-mail: aeg@csgpro.com
Ron Ellis-Gaut Appt: 3/23/04
10947 SW Chateau Lane
Tigard, OR 97224
Res: 503-639-8930
Bus: 503-804-7272 '
e-mail: rcg@csgpro.com.
John Frewing Appt: 3/23/04
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Res: 503-245-5760
e-mail: jfrewing@teleport.com
Bill McMonagle Appt: 3/23/04
12555 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Res: 503-617-4995
Bus: 503-639-3453 x14
e-mail: bill@h-mc.com
3/10/06 Planned Development Code Review Committee 1
attey - board comm roster.jb.xls _ Page 37
A11cm:uc Mtd lcrm .spat: 1 ' L u'! «1 f tit '
Charles Schwarz Appt: 3/23/04
14135 SW 93rd Avenue
Tigard,' OR 97224
Res: 503-624-7826
Bus: 503-731-8290
e-mail: ccnm_schwarz@msn.com
David Walsh Appt: 3/23/04
10236 SW Stuart Court
Tigard, OR 97224
Res: 503-620-4807
Bus: 503-537-6368
e-mail: davidw@spnewsprint.com
Pager: 503-938-4275
Committee Meets: Generally monthly, but may vary determined by activity level.
Staff Liason: Long Range Planning Manager
Established: RESOLUTION NO. 04-08 on 1/27/04
Terms: No designated term of service has been assigned.
3/10/06 Planned Development Code Review Committee 2
7ylP~'7ei I y~~/6 G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Buildable Lands Inventory
DATE: April 17, 2006
The Planning Commission will be given the opportunity to review, discuss and ask questions
regarding the updated buildable lands inventory (BLI) at the April 17 h meeting. This review and
discussion will provide important information to help commissioners in their role during the
Comprehensive Plan update process.
The BLI identifies and includes undeveloped land that is available and meets current zoning
standards. The Tigard BLI defines buildable land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant or 2)
larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with 'A acre or greater of the taxlot vacant.
Publicly owned land, environmentally sensitive lands, water quality tracts, and homeowner
association owned lots within subdivisions are not included. Platted, vacant lots within subdivisions
are considered buildable until development has occurred.
The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2005 (2005
BLI). Following are some key findings /observations from the 2005 BLI:
• Less than 10% of land within the city limits is identified as buildable and the majority lies in
residential zones
• The majority of commercial land is zoned General Commercial, with no Community or
Neighborhood Commercial land included
• No Heavy Industrial land is included and the majority of remaining industrial lands lie in
three lots under the same ownership
• Mixed-Use land is predominately located in the Tigard Triangle
• Large lots available for residential development are scarce within the city limits with only 43
(6%) lots greater than 2 acres; meaning smaller partition and infill developments may
become the norm or the consolidation of lots will be necessary for future large
developments
• Vacant lots available are predominately less than 10,000 square feet, while the majority of
lots greater than 10,000 square feet are partially vacant; thus increasing the likelihood of
minor land partitions, consolidation and infill development becoming more important in the
future
• Over the past four years, 132 acres have been annexed that were on the BLI at the time
• Within the city limits over the past four years, 82% of new single-family residential
development has occurred upon lands included on the BLI; demonstrating that unexpected
infill redevelopment is occurring and that the buildable lands inventory has certain
limitations in predicting future growth
For more detailed data and analysis, please refer to the attached report and map.
t~
BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2006 4QQp °
Introduction
The purpose of the buildable lands inventory (BLI) is to identify undeveloped land that is
available and compatible with development policies and practices. The inventory is useful
for informing policy and also as a tool for tracking and analyzing development activity and
trends, as well as helping to project future capacity. This identification of buildable lands is
completed by the city on a yearly basis (since 2002) and total acreage is reported at the end
of a calendar year. The BLI process uses a protocol that employs the same basic structure,
but is refined each year for efficiency and to increase accuracy. However, the attributes of
buildable land have remained the same over the years.
The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2005
(2005 BLI). This report provides information on the 2005 BLI and changes in the inventory
over the past four years. Basic information on residential building permits and annexations
are reported to show their relationship to and influence upon the BLI. Finally, a map
showing the spatial location of land included on the 2005 BLI is included as Attachments A.
Definition of Buildable Land
The Tigard BLI defines buildable land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant or 2)
larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with'/4 acre or greater of the taxlot
vacant. While Metro uses a'/z acre minimum for partially developed land, protocol reduced
it to reflect higher densities on infill taxlots. Additionally, publicly owned land, sensitive
lands, water quality tracts, and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions were
not included. Platted, vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable until
development has occurred.
2005 BLI Key Findings /Observations
Figure 1 displays the relationship between
the 2005 BLI and the total area of Tigard. Figure 1. Relationship of 2005 BLI to Total Area
Less than 10% of land within the city Commercial BLI
Mixed-Use BLI
limits is currently classified as buildable.
Industrial BLI
This of course does not limit
Residential BLI
development to this less than 10%, but 6%
points to the possibility of increased IV
pressure to redevelop properties, to Developed
increase density, and to look for mixed- s+%
use areas in absorbing more residential
development.
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 1 of 6
Table 1 displays total acreage for the 2005 BLI,
based on four planning designations. The 2005 Table 1. 2005 BLI (acres)
BLI is separated into two categories: 1. inside Tigard ard Urban
the city limits and 2. unincorporated urban City Services
Zoning Limits Area Total
services area. The buildable lands inventory Commercial 51.07 0 51.07
has been divided in this manner since 2002 in Industrial 69.14 0 69.14
order to show the relationship that exists Mixed-Use 45.15 0 45.15
between the two areas and also because of the Residential 435.55 235.41 670.96
Urban Planning Area Agreement. It provides a 11 Total 600.91 235.41 836.32
good look at temporal and spatial patterns.
Inside the city limits, the breakdown of the 2005 BLI is commercial (8.5%), industrial
(11.5%), mixed-use (7.50/6), and residential (72.5%). The inventory contains only residential
land in the unincorporated urban services area.
Table 2 breaks the 2005 totals down into
Table 2. 2005 BLI (acres) zoning districts and gives a more complete
Tigard Urban look. at what is available.
City Services
Zoning Limits Area Total Commercial Land - Only two of the four
C-C 0 0 0 commercial districts contain buildable land and
C-G 40.84 0 40.84 83% of that is zoned General Commercial.
C-N 0 0 0 The lack of Community and Neighborhood
C-P 9.16 0 9.16 Commercial land available limits the ability to
CBD 1.07 0 1.07 develop neighborhood markets, restaurants, or
I-H 0 0 0 coffee shops within walking distance of most
I-L 25.55 0 25.55 residences.
I-P 43.59 0 43.59
MUC 3.38 0 3.38 Industrial Land - No buildable land remains
MUE 28.11 0 28.11 in the Heavy Industrial district and of what
MUE-1 8.30 0 8.30 remains in Light Industrial, 69% (17.64 acres)
MUE-2 0.75 0 0.75 is located on the Fields property. Likewise,
MUR-1 3.90 0 3.90 80% (34.7 acres) of the buildable Industrial
MUR-2 0.71 0 0.71 Park land is also located on the Fields property.
R-1 3.35 0 3.35 This distribution inhibits the possibility of
R-2 1.36 0 1.36 developing a large project without redeveloping
R-3.5 24.25 .0 24.25 property with an existing use.
R-4.5 205.45 8.12 213.57
R-7 123.61 220.77 344.38 fixed-Use Land - Mixed use districts all
R-12 44.03 5.66 49.68 contain some buildable land, but the majority is
R-25 33.50 0.71 34.21 zoned Mixed Use Employment (63%) and
R-40 0 0 0 located in the Tigard Triangle.
Total 600.91 235.41 836.32
Residential Land - Buildable land located in
residential districts also shows some interesting patterns. Looking at the unincorporated
urban services area, 94% of buildable land lies in the R-7 zoning district (as mentioned
previously, all buildable land located here is zoned residential). This leaves very little low,
medium-high, or high density land available outside the city limits. Within the city limits, a
large portion of the 2005 BLI is zoned low density (53% is R-3.5 or R-4.5) or medium
density (28% is R-7). The remaining low density residential land (R-1 and R-2) comprises
only 1% of buildable residential land and all is partially developed. No land zoned R-40
remains on the inventory, within the city limits or urban service area.
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 2 of 6
2005 BLI and Lot Size
Tracking the
buildable acres Table 3. Distribution/Number of Lots - 2005 BLI
is a helpful Tigard City Limits Urban Services Area
exercise, but f6 m m .2 N m
taking a look CV - Z) Z)
a) CD
E
E
at a few E X ,:2 -FU
n E x 0 '0 additional Lot Size U ~ i-° U C IY t-°
attributes can Less than 5000 sq ft 6 5 12 69 92 0 0 0 57 57
help to paint a 5000 to 10,000 sq ft 9 4 17 241 271 0 0 0 82 82
clearer picture 10,000 sq ft to 1 acre 27 11 50 246 334 0 0 0 93 93
of what lies 1 to 2 acres 7 2 6 79 94 0 0 0 33 33
ahead for the 2 to 5 acres 5 2 2 35 44 0 0 0 24 24
city. Table 3 5 to 10 acres 1 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 8 8
breaks the More than 10 acres 0 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
2005 BLI Total 55 27 87 678 847 0 0 0 297 297
down into the
planning designations and distributes the lots based on size (the buildable land inventories
for all years are now clipped to taxlot boundaries, as opposed to the previous method of
allowing "parcels" of land to cross taxlot and zoning boundaries). In the city limits, a
majority of buildable lots he within residential zoning. However, the more telling story is the
size of the residential lots inside the city that are included on the 2005 BLI. 82% of the
buildable residential lots are less than one acre in size and 46% are less than 10,000 square
feet. Large lots available for residential development are scarce within the city limits with
only 43 (61/6) lots greater than 2 acres for a total of 260 acres. This distribution shows that
consolidation and partitioning of lots may become the primary means of increasing
residential capacity.
Vacant vs. Partially Vacant
Figure 2 expands upon lot size by breaking the numbers into vacant or partially vacant. This
distinction gives a sense of the effort needed to develop the lot. According to the BLI
definition of buildable land (see page 1), vacant lots in Figure 2 have no development and
partially vacant lots have development present, but t/4 acre or more undeveloped. Looking
within the city limits at residential lots on the 2005 BLI, a great majority of lots less than
10,000 square feet are vacant, meaning they are more than likely part of a platted subdivision
and cannot be divided further. The opposite is true for lots greater than 10,000 square feet
as the majority are partially developed and few (21 lots) remain vacant greater than 2 acres.
The future of large
Figure 2. Distribution of Residential Lots Within City Limits residential
2005 BLI developments may
250 ' 212 he in consolidating
lots that contain
200
150 existing homes.
150
Otherwise, partitions
and infill
too
2g 51 development will
50 23 29 - - r=fl
16 19
~~lLgVl_ 3 3_2 0 become the primary
° Q s o o N; o means c, expanding
y o °o c o0 o m o u g u d o c d
o o N o y N .o the housing base
within the city limits.
a Vacant o Partially Vacant
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 3 of 6
Table 4 simply provides a glimpse at all planning designations and how the buildable land is
distributed between vacant and partially vacant lots.
Table 4. Development Status - 2005 Buildable Lands Inventory
Tigard City Limits Urban Services Area
U a) t0 6 a) fa
N
N
a)
E v a)p E in
E E :3 a)
Lot Size U E of F- c0 S of
Vacant Lots 38 16 56 403 513 0 0 0 186 186
acres 39.93 62.10 33.14 204.07 339.24 0 0 0 98.30 98.30
Partially Vacant Lots 17 11 31 275 334 0 0 0 111 111
acres 11.14 7.04 12.00 231.49 261.67 0 0 0 137.11 137.11
Changes from 2002 to 2005
We now take a look at the changes in buildable land over time. A comparison of the BLI
from 2002 to 2005 is included in Table 5. Within the city limits, there has been minimal loss
of commercial buildable land (2.44 acres, 4.60/6), while the loss of industrial buildable land
(1.23 acres, 1.7%) is more than likely a result of data clean-up over the years. Mixed-use
losses from the BLI are 8.9 acres (16.50/6), while residential losses total 71.91acres (14.2%).
This shows that the city is predominately developing properties on the BLI for residential
uses. However, residential land on the BLI has increased over the past two years (18.07
acres). This is due to the annexations that have occurred. The annexations and
development have combined for a total loss of 41.1% of buildable land in the urban services
area.
Table 5. Buildable Lands Analysis (acres)
Tigard Urban Services Area
Zoning 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
Commercial 53.51 51.87 51.99 51.07 0 0 0 0
Industrial 70.37 70.87 70.04 69.14 0 0 0 0
Mixed-Use 54.05 52.88 53.86 45.15 0 0 0 0
Residential 507.46 417.48 419.75 435.55 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41
Total 685.39 593.09 595.64 600.91 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41
The increase of buildable land within the city limits is due to annexation, which also removes that land from the urban service
area (slight variations between years within zoning districts may be the result of data clean-up)
Table 6 (see next page) compares the buildable lands over time by zoning district. There has
been a steady decrease in all residential zoning districts, both inside and outside of the city
limits, except for the R-7 zoning district. It has seen a 15.1% increase in the amount of
buildable land within the city limits and a loss of 41.1% in the urban services area. This is
again due to a noteworthy transfer of buildable land into the city limits through annexation.
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 4 of 6
Table 6. Buildable Lands Analysis (acres)
Tigard Urban Services Area
Zoning 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
C-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-G 42.58 41.79 42.11 40.84 0 0 0 0
C-N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-P 10.05 9.15 9.18 9.16 0 0 0 0
CBD 0.87 0.93 0.70 1.07 0 0 0 0
I-H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I-L 25.33 25.27 25.60 25.55 0 0 0 0
I-P 45.04 45.59 44.44 43.59 0 0 0 0
MUC 10.24 10.08 9.98 3.38 0 0 0 0
MUE 27.96 27.64 28.61 28.11 0 0 0 0
MUE-1 8.58 8.57 8.70 8.30 0 0 0 0
MUE-2 0.76 0.85 0.75 0.75 0 0 0 0
MUR-1 5.09 5.06 5.11 3.90 0 .0 0 0
MUR-2 1.41 0.68 0.71 0.71 0 0 0 0
R-1 3.19 3.19 3.35 3.35 0 0 0 0
R-2 1.35 1.35 1.36 1.36 0 0 0 0
R-3.5 30.79 24.97 25.79 24.25 0 0 0 0
R-4.5 256.62 223.32 215.46 205.45 9.20 8.37 8.14 8.12
R-7 107.40 70.27 79.04 123.61 374.52 320.58 284.87 220.77
R-12 65.29 54.20 56.06 44.03 11.67 5.77 5.66 5.66
R-25 42.82 40.17 38.70 33.50 3.99 1.51 0.75 0.71
R-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 685.39 593.09 595.64 600.91 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41
The increase of buildable land within the city limits is due to annexation, which also removes that land from the urban
service area (slight variations between years within zoning districts may be the result of data clean-up)
Annexations and the BLI
Table 7 displays the Table 7. Annexation and Buildable Lands Inventory
annexations that have Number of Acres Lots Acres on Percentage
occurred over the past Year Annexations Annexed Annexed BLI on BLI
four years and how 2005 5 71.76 77 63.91 89.1%
much of that land was 2004 3 91.8 16 18.51 20.2%
included on the BLI. 2003 2 4.24 3 1.94 45.8%
The 63.91 acres on the 2002 4 52.91 16 47.48 89.7%
BLI that were annexed Total 14 220.71 112 131.84 59.7%
in 2005 directly led to
the jump in R-7 buildable land within the city. This table shows the majority of land being
annexed is considered buildable (59.7%) and that number increases to 75.9% if you remove
the 47 acres of land annexed in 2004 that is owned by Clean Water Services and located in
the floodplain.
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 5 of 6
Residential Permits and the BLI
Table 8. Residential Permits (10 Years) To get a sense of the how well the BLI acts as
Total Urban a predictor of development capacity, we can
Permits Tigard Services look at building permit numbers and
Issued City Limits Area locations. First, to get a sense of the
2005 221 209 12 residential building activity taking place in the
2004 284 257 27 city and urban services area, Table 8 shows
2003 422 270 152 the number of permits issued and finalized
2002 335 216 119 over the past 10 years. The total number of
2001 494 253 241 yearly permits has fluctuated and is down over
2000 401 258 143 the past two years, due to the limited activity
1999 273 174 99 in the urban services area. Within the city
1998 375 179 196 limits, 2005 saw the fewest permits since 1999.
1997 346 263 83
1996 335 335 0 Predicting future development needs to
3486 2414 1072
account for past trends, but market forces and
the composition of available land increases the difficulty. Table 9 makes the connection
between the residential permits and the BLI. Although the majority of permits over the four
year period were being issued to lots on the BLI, there is still a significant amount (16.9% in
the city limits) that is not captured in the buildable lands inventory. This means that the city
is experiencing development on lands where it was not anticipated to occur. This can be
attributed to a number of reasons, including:
the demolition of an existing home and new Table 9. Residential Permits On BLI
construction taking its place, the combining of All Urban
lots and demolition of homes for new Permits Tigard Services
construction, or an oversight of a partially Issued City Limits Area
vacant lot that had the attributes to be included 2005 91.7% 92.3% • 80.0%
on the BLI. 2004 77.0% 75.4% 92.6%
2003 86.0% 84.2% 89.0%
Next Steps 2002 76.6% 81.9% 66.9%
Total 82.4% 83.1% 80.5%
A more in-depth analysis of these statistics will need to be undertaken to create a better
understanding of what lies ahead for the city in relation to development, particularly
residential. Factors that must be considered include: will annexations continue to occur at
the rate they have in the past, the shrinking amount of buildable land in the urban services
area, the amount of development not captured on the buildable lands inventory, the size of
lots available and whether development is present on them. Once this analysis is complete,
the capacity of the city to accept growth will become clearer. Additionally, the 2006 version
of the BLI is being updated quarterly to continue the tracking of trends over time.
Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 6 of 6
2003 aWe4Ma L„1., Nrwrt.ry 14cm1 - Zl' •
T~. s Buildable Lands
6wvkas _ _
zwJm umm Tay - .
c-c
0 a o o .S o 4541 Inventory - 2005
c.P BJe o e.m - }
C6l , Y2 1.W w~ i'• - City of Tigard
IH . o o
25.55 6 :S u F" '
W 43.59 o ..1. Oregon
MUE Vt Q1 1. .1 l. l
MUE-, e.]a 0 e.]0 _ W
MILE-2 0.13
MUR -1 ].BO OB 1041390
BulkaOle lTntl-2005
M00.-2 ~.'1 Y 0421 Tde3 V*UaW
0.-
✓ 1 S '.d5 l
1.51 a .51
24.25 24.25 ^w~ _ - TNe 3 Enn ecunental BuBar
R~.S 2(13.43 0.12 21].5] Tde 3100yr RWOPLain
R-1 12].61 22,.22 ]IS.32 r , _
R-12 .4115 5.68 49.M '11
R-25 15 SO 0.21 ]4.21 '
R- 0 0 0 - "•1 1T i.}'Q - - MW. Tile 3Stream
Taal eoe22 23621 .4293. f ` v
Slape.125%or Greater
- ':.~/%a~ i 1'.. 0.•(~ Tgr6 City Limb
] y ~ i u _ w a,.a a lkean SarNws BOUntlary
Tall Boundary
L I S
Zoning Classfwtions
c-c cenamrlty cnenercial
-.-i; + w Ganeralc.mmawl
f - a., af• ~f)S - L, -n -lam I - - C-N NelgtlEOrhood Cwnmercml
C -P Pmlassi x al COnene 1
- f j e Ceo [an a Bus nese District
l-N Reavy 6mosaial
fr 1u - ' . 3", _ P~= L 1 k Lgtl l,laustdal
w Intl-tal Perk
MUG Mmetl Use C.mne, tal
} MUE Went U. Employment
{ -i' nID - / - MUE4 Mixm Uu Enpbynront 1
MUE-2 Maad Use Employment 2
• / / F D.R" - ~ ~r r _ r.i ~ j MUR-1 Ma.d Uae Resi0anW11
MUR-2 Wad U. Rasidenlel2
R-1 30.000 Sq Ft MN LW S1za
R-2 20,500 Sq Fl Min L.151ze
Ra.5 10.000 Sq Ft Me, W Size
i
RAS 1.500 Sq Fl Mn Lot Size
R-1 5.000 Sq Ft MN W S¢e
R-12 3.050 Sq Ft Mn La Sate
5 Jw`' :t. _ - R-25 1,480 Sq Ft Min Lot San
rah - •'t w S.: µ ,PO, Planned D"lopnent Gverby
ler..r.m,i 1~4naa a .145,4 mwcec,n,mPm,
-1d brm,araJww4lhve,ewV 141 nf m
emad.w ke ®idned 4n eA,®.e e, of vlra, iv6, ne,
aw
. k l I s n • ~ y ~ _ t _ maa.aaaamdo9mww M,,.,aic repmwualm la.W
w. J~..r>blram Isluem eon mr w®, Poem .m
' ' - - 7 1 w endoyvwe<„mmdaeb mn.mcvkama eow ne,
1 ..4 nr+,. { , wmm.waamrrfi®e.rdaa.,s i. w. rwma. Fw w9wn
` F
f'T"9 _ - dlen m,<.w~.I.amN. mJ...mlm.rdnPOpnr
y~ mh dTa4 ] 1e0.0,r we
- - 5d . 5 ~G ~`'r•l 5- - - ~ ( 1 Fmr.aw ®e,.d~J pn,a1
' q / 2.ILndly r,ww.hMope4ln.a,lvr~nedpxeb
. rdTr u 'a lA waw ®edlke p,vd
MJ•
i Tkc 1(1.51 wwwnad a b, w~ is cvrmn u d
• _ t F.4~
1.2W6.Mtiam.Jl6emhnw. Jeenem
. x. - ~ - _ v, ~a w.~memrmf gang b,kw,b ®mdrfic map
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF - ~Q
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed Amendments to Tigard Municipal Code to Create a Rights of Way
Ordinance with a Street Cut Moratorium
PREPARED BY: Nancy Werner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code to create a Rights of Way Ordinance that would implement a street
cut moratorium, clarify existing utility franchise requirements, and eliminate redundant provisions of the Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide guidance to staff regarding the implementation of a street cut moratorium and a new Rights of Way Ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff has been considering options for improving the management and quality of the City's streets and rights of way.
One of the main factors in the deterioration and reduced service life of City streets is street cuts by utilities installing
facilities in our rights of way. Studies have shown that streets with pavements cuts can exhibit a 33% loss in remaining
service life, and that a street cut impacts the pavement from three to six feet around the cut. Cuts can lead to more
rapid fatigue cracking, and if the cuts are improperly sealed, can allow water to wash away fine materials from the
underlying base and subgrade, which results in a loss of pavement strength. The more cuts on the pavement, the more
likely it is that water will penetrate and weaken the street.
This physical damage results in higher costs to the City for maintaining, repairing, resurfacing and rebuilding the streets.
Some of these costs include: increased overlay thickness required to compensate for the presence of the cut, shortened
period of time between rehabilitation and maintenance, and more costly rehabilitation due to a weakened base or
subgrade layer through slumping of the trench sides.
Proposed Moratorium:
After discussions among departments that would be impacted by or charged with enforcing new limits on street cuts,
staff recommends a two-part street cut moratorium:
1. New Streets: Street cuts would not be allowed for 5 years on newly constructed, reconstructed or improved
streets.
2. Streets With Recent Major Utility Work: Street cuts would not be allowed within 400 feet of a major utility
installation or upgrade that occurred within the last 12 months, so long as the utility requesting the cut had
notice of the prior installation or upgrade. This prohibition would apply regardless of the age of the street.
The City Engineer could grant exceptions to both parts of the moratorium for (1) emergencies, (2) small cuts necessary
to locate existing utilities when boring under the street, and (3) when there is no other feasible way to provide service.
In granting an exception, the City Engineer could impose conditions determined to be appropriate to completely
restore the street and pavement surface. Conditions may include surface grinding, base and sub-base repairs, or
similar work, and may include up to a full-width surface paving of the roadway of not more than 70 feet in either
direction from the cut.
Together, these two measures will reduce street cuts, improve coordination of construction, increase the service life of
City streets, and reduce the delays and inconveniences associated with utility construction in the rights of way.
Implementation:
In reviewing the Tigard Municipal Code to determine the appropriate Chapter for a street cut moratorium, staff
recognized that the current Code provisions regulating use of the City's rights of way are located in two different
chapters: a "Telecommunications Franchise Ordinance" (Chapter 5.14) and a Chapter on "Work in the Right of Way"
(Chapter 15.04). The former Chapter applies only to telecommunications providers and sets out the application process
for, and terms of, telecommunications franchises. The latter requires a franchise for any person seeking "annual
permits" to work in the rights of way, but does not set out the specific requirements for obtaining a franchise. Both
Chapters set out similar, but not identical, construction standards and requirements.
Staff recommends that Council consider combining these two Chapters into a Rights of Way Ordinance to clarify utility
franchise requirements, eliminate redundant construction provisions, and ensure that the street cut moratorium, if
implemented, will apply to all utilities using the City's rights of way. This new ordinance would include the following:
• The existing permit requirements, construction regulations and regulations for driveway approaches
from the Right of Way Chapter.
• The franchise provisions of the current Telecommunications Franchise Ordinance, which will be
revised to apply to all utilities.
• The Rights of Way Restoration Policy, which would include the street cut moratorium described above.
• The existing construction coordination provisions with a new notification requirement for the
installation or upgrading of facilities of 400 feet or more in length.
If Council directs staff to pursue these amendments, staff will submit a draft of the revised Chapter to franchised
utilities for comment. A final draft incorporating these comments will be presented to Council for review and approval.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None considered at this time.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The street cut moratorium and recommended Code amendments would contribute to the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
goals of "Improve Traffic Safety" and "Improve Traffic Flow." The purpose of the moratorium and the amendments
are to improve the management of the City's rights of way, reduce the delays and safety issues associated with lane
closures, and to improve the quality and service life of City streets.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Draft Right of Way Restoration Policy
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with the amendments beyond staff time and City Attorney review.
ATTACHMENT 1
Right of Way Restoration Policy
1. Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Section, after any street has been constructed,
reconstructed, paved or improved by any person, the pavement surface shall not thereafter
be cut or opened for a period of 5 years.
a. The City Engineer shall make the final determination on what construction or
improvement will result in a limitation set forth in paragraph 1 of this Section and
shall create, maintain and make available to the public a list of the streets and street
segments subject to the limitation. Only streets named on the list shall be subject to
the limitation set forth in paragraph 1.
b. The five year limitation period shall begin upon the City's acceptance of the
completed street or street improvements.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Section, after any street has been cut or opened
for the installation or upgrading of utilities that are 400 linear feet or greater, the pavement
surface within 400 feet of the previous cut or opening shall not be cut or opened for a
period of 12 months, provided that the person requesting to cut or open such a surface
received notice of the prior street cut or opening, pursuant to Section [insert reference to
"Coordination of Construction" section]. The 12 month limitation period shall begin upon
the utility's completion of the restoration of the street.
3. The City Engineer or designee shall grant exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Section when cutting or opening the street is required to locate
existing facilities when tunneling, boring, or pushing under the street and to provide
necessary utility services to a property where no other practicable alternative exists. The City
Engineer or designee may grant exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2 of this Section when, in the sole discretion of the City Engineer, compelling circumstances
warrant the cutting or opening of the street.
a. In granting an exception, the City Engineer may impose conditions determined to be
appropriate to completely restore the street and surface paving. Conditions may
include surface grinding, base and sub-base repairs, or similar work, and may include
up to a full-width surface paving of the roadway of not more than 70 feet in either
direction from the cut.
b. In the event that the City Engineer requires the partial or full repaving of street
segment, a bond must provided to the City in the amount of the estimated cost of
the repaving.
c. The denial of a request for an exemption or the conditional approval of an
exemption under this Section may be appealed to the City Manager, whose decision
will be final and binding. Appeals must be in writing and received by the City
Manager not more than 15 business days after the applicant's notice of the denial of
the request.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, in emergency situations, verbal authorization
may be granted by the City Engineer or designee for an exception to the limitations set forth
in this Section. Emergency situations are those in which immediate repair to damaged or
malfunctioning facilities is necessary to restore lost service or prevent immediate harm to
persons or property. Verbal authorization shall be subsequently documented in writing by
the City Engineer or designee, and the owner of the facility shall be subject to any
restoration conditions imposed by the City Engineer pursuant to paragraph 3.
5. Within three years after this provision becomes effective, the City Engineer or designee shall
review the application and effectiveness of this Section. The review shall include
measurement of its impact on the quality and surface life of City streets, City and utility
compliance with this Section, and the circumstances of exceptions granted and conditions
imposed under paragraph 3.
Coordination of Construction
1. Prior to January 1 of each year, each utility shall provide the City with a schedule of known
construction work for that year in the City's rights of way or that may affect the rights of
way.
2. Each utility shall meet with the City at least once per calendar year, at the request of the City,
to schedule and coordinate work in rights of way. The City shall share with utilities
information on plans for other construction projects within the rights of way.
3. All construction projects within rights of way shall be coordinated as ordered by the City
Engineer or designee, to minimize public inconvenience, disruption, or damage.
4. At least 60 days prior to installing a new facility or performing a facility upgrade within the
right-of-way that is 400 linear feet or greater, the utility intending to install such facilities
shall provide notice to the City and all other utilities identified by the City as utilities that are
franchised or permitted to place facilities within the project area.
a. The notice must be provided in a manner which documents receipt of notice by
utilities.
b. The notice shall state the anticipated location, project schedule and general
description of the proposed work. No permits for work shall be issued until notice
has been given and other utilities have had adequate time to coordinate construction.
5. All utilities performing work in the rights of way subject to the notice requirement set forth
in paragraph 3 of this section shall cooperate with other utilities with permits to do work in
the same location at or near the same time to coordinate construction and colocate facilities.
6. Nothing in this section shall require a utility to reveal proprietary information. A utility shall
signify any proprietary information as such and the City will protect such information from
disclosure to the extent allowed by law.
7. The notification requirement set forth in paragraph 3 of this section shall not be required for
the installation of facilities in new developments that are being processed through the private
development review process.
k
City of Tigard
t RIGHT OF WAY RESTORATION IMPACT OF STREET CUTS
PROPOSAL
• 33% loss in remaining service life
• More rapid fatigue cracking
• Loss of pavement strength from 3 to 6 feet
I on either side of centerline of the trench
April 18, 2006 • Additional cuts on a street increase likelihood
of loss of pavement strength
RESTORATION POLICY
IMPACT OF STREET CUTS GOALS:
• Higher costs to City due to: • Reduce number of street cuts on City streets
- Increased Overlay Thickness • Lengthen service fife of City struts
- Reduced Time Bmveen Rehabilitation and • Require better coordination of construction
Maintenance
projects among users of the rights of way
- More Costly Rehabilitation
• Reduce frequency of delays and inconveniences
• "Traff
ic delays and inconvenience to mNidents from construction in the rights of way
CURRENT STREET CUT POLICY
CURRENT STREET CUT POLICY (Cont.)
• Unwritten 1 year moratorium on street cuts • Concerns with current policy:
on newly constructed or reconstructed streets _ Length: 1 Year is Insufficient to protect New
Streets
- No Provision for Repeated Cuts on Same Street
- Enforcement: Unwritten Rule; No List of
Streets Subject to Moratorium
1
PROPOSED RESTORATION POLICY RESTORATION POLICY
j 2 COMPONENTS: New Streets:
1) NEW STREETS: Street cuts limited for 5 • No street cuts for 5 years after street is constructed,
reconstructed, paved or improved
years
• City Engineer determines which streets are subject to
2) STREETS (ANY AGE) WITH RECENT moratorium
SIGNIFICANT UTILITY WORK: Street • City must publish a list of streets subject to the
cuts limited for 12 months within 400 feet moratorium, including starting and ending dates
of a major installation or upgrade
I
RESTORATION POLICY EXEMPTIONS
Streets with Recent Utility Work: • City Engineer MUS'r grant exemptions
• No street cuts for 12 months within 400 feet of a when:
previous street cut of 400 feet or more to install or - Emergency Situation: Immediate repair is
upgrade utilities necessary to restore lost service or prevent
• Utilities (including City) must give notice to all immediate hams to persons or property
franchised utilities of any installation or upgrade of - "Potholing" to locate existing facilities when
400 feet or more tunneling or boring under the street as required
• Limitation on cuts within 400 feet of recent work by state law
ONLY applies to utilities that receive notice of the - No other practicable alternative exists to provide
previous street cut service to a customer
EXEMPTIONS (Cont.) EXEMPTIONS (Cont.)
• City Engineer MAY grant exemptions when • In granting any exemption, City Engineer
compelling circumstances warrant the cutting may impose restoration conditions as
or opening of the street appropriate to restore the street
- Grinding, base and sub-base repairs
- Up to a full-width surface paving of not more
than 70 feet in either direction of the cut
• The denial or conditional approval of an
exemption may he appealed to the City
Manager, whose decision is final
2
Review of Implementation of Policy IMPLEMENTATION
• Within 3 ears of implementation of •
Y policy, ~ Enact Rights of Way Ordinance
City Engineer must review the policy for: _ Amend Tigard Municipal Code to include a
- Application: Circumstances of exemptions t Rights of Way Ordinance
granted and conditions imposed; consistent
application of limitations, exemptions and -Ordinance eotnbines 2 existing Chapters on
( restoration conditions Rights of \Clay
9 rmclise Ordiuarce
- Effectiveness: Impact on quality and service life •'relt-mumcanons F
of streets; compliance with cut limitations (Chapter 5.14)
• Work in Right of \\5ry (ataptcr 15.04)
r • Periodic review?
IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION
• Provisions of Rights of Way Ordinance • Provisions of Rights of Way Ordinance (Cont.)
Existing telecom franchise requirements made _ New Right of Way Restoration policy
applicable to all utilities using the rights of way Gctsting construction coordination requirements with
Existing construction standards from both Chapters new notification requirement for major utility
combined, eliminating redundant or conflicting installations or upgrades
provisions
i
1 IMPLEMENTATION
• Provide draft ordinance to utilities for comment
• Revise draft and submit to Council for approval
• Compile list of streets subject to moratorium
• Rate condition of streets
• Implement the ordinance
1
3
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of -is . 5 c P
Owest
421 sw oak street
Room 810
Portland, 97204
Telephone: R 503-242-5623 Qwest. •
Facsimile: 503-242-8589
Alex.Duarte@gwest.com Spirit of Service
Alex M. Duarte
Corporate Counsel
April 18, 2006
Via Facsimile and U. S. Mail
Ms. Nancy Werner
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: City of Tigard, Council Agenda Item #7
Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code (Rights-of-Way/Street Cut Moratorium)
Dear Ms. Werner:
On behalf of Qwest Corporation, we submit the following general comments regarding the
above-referenced agenda item that will be discussed at the April 18, 2006 City Council meeting.
Qwest acknowledges the City's interest in managing its streets and rights-of-way, and will
certainly continue to work cooperatively with the City regarding any Qwest construction or other
activities that may impact the same. While Qwest has not reviewed specific ordinance language,
nor reviewed the studies referenced in the City Council Agenda Item Summary, it appears that
some of the proposed ordinance's provisions, as discussed in the Summary, may extend beyond
the City's rights-of-way management rights and responsibilities. Accordingly, to the extent the
final ordinance may have the effect of restricting Qwest's ability to provide telecommunications
services, or otherwise result in unfair, unreasonable, onerous or discriminatory treatment or fees,
Qwest opposes and reserves all of its rights under state and federal law, including but not limited
to Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to challenge the same.
Specifically, Qwest has concerns about a general street cut moratorium. Although Qwest
recognizes that the policy provides for the City Engineer to grant exceptions, it is not clear what
criteria the City Engineer would apply to the exceptions and conditions, and whether the policy
would apply to all parties utilizing City rights-of-way, including non-telecommunication utilities
and municipal utilities. In addition, although Qwest attempts to notify the City as soon as
possible of any planned activity, it does not always have the ability to provide 60-days notice.
In any event, if the City Council decides to move forward with amendments to the
Municipal Code, Qwest would welcome the opportunity to review and comment on language
proposed for the new Rights-of-Way Ordinance. Please adv' us of th ppro hate process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, p e fee fr to cal me at your
convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matt
Very y ,
cc: Ms. Judy Peppler, President, Qwest- Ore on
b~A N
fMMq ^
O
• TONI
V O
H
O
~~,,i,. a ° .i~\ <
Iwo
lolm
RM,
;e
on,
a• l
e \
V,l
~10V ~3
a a•\~a~,~",... ~ „tZ.~: ._,n .,'~:„s~,,.~ v. a~..,.,e , ..:...e :\i~a•' `A~•~\.;,~\\.\\::i~~~'•• . ~ex~,*,e.:,i.~i;...,, ;°\~.,,..3.:,:'i~ :°~~t.: .:.~\`'r.
.fir ::\?~~a; ~ 'a~'~ =<a~ ,-•:~=d ~;,r~~~.. ~ i:.; , W Via:. , • r.a~~~.
"ZZ t
i,`
IMPACT OF STREET CUTS
• 33% loss in remaining service life
• More rapid fatigue cracking
• Loss of pavement strength from 3 to 6 feet
on either side of centerline of the trench
• Additional cuts on a street increase likelihood
of loss of pavement strength
I
IMPACT OF STREET CUTS
• Higher costs to City due to:
-Increased Overlay Thickness
- Reduced Time Between Rehabilitation and
Maintenance
- More Costly Rehabilitation
1 • Traffic delays and inconvenience to residents
RESTORATION POLICY
GOALS:
• Reduce number of street cuts on City streets
• Lengthen service life of City streets
• Require better coordination of construction
~ projects among users of the rights of way
• Reduce frequency of delays and inconveniences
from construction in the rights of way
I
CURRENT STREET CUT POLICY
• Unwritten 1 year moratorium on street cuts
on newly constructed or reconstructed streets
CURRENT STREET CUT POLICY
(Cont.)
• Concerns with current policy:
-Length: 1 Year is Insufficient to Protect New
Streets
- No Provision for Repeated Cuts on Same Street
-Enforcement: Unwritten Rule; No List of
Streets Subject to Moratorium
PROPOSED RESTORATION POLICY
2 COMPONENTS:
1) NEW STREETS: Street cuts limited for 5
years
2) STREETS (ANY AGE) WITH RECENT
~ SIGNIFICANT UTILITY WORK: Street
cuts limited for 12 months within 400 feet
of a major installation or upgrade
RESTORATION POLICY
New Streets:
• No street cuts for 5 years after street is constructed,
reconstructed, paved or improved
• City Engineer determines which streets are subject to
moratorium
• City must publish a list of streets subject to the
moratorium, including starting and ending dates
i
RESTORATION POLICY
Streets with Recent Utility Work:
• No street cuts for 12 months within 400 feet of a
previous street cut of 400 feet or more to install or
upgrade utilities
• Utilities (including City) must give notice to all
I~ franchised utilities of any installation or upgrade of
400 feet or more
• Limitation on cuts within 400 feet of recent work
ONLY applies to utilities that receive notice of the
previous street cut
EXEMPTIONS
• City Engineer MUST grant exemptions
when:
E - Emergency Situation: Immediate repair is
necessary to restore lost service or prevent
immediate harm to persons or property
a - "Potholing" to locate existing facilities when
3
tunneling or boring under the street as required
{ by state law
- No other practicable alternative exists to provide
service to a customer
E
7~ 1, WOE 71
g;
I A/1
10
EXEMPTIONS (Cont
City Engineer MAY grant exempt-tons when
compelling circumstances warrant the cutting
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
or opening of the street
E
~ EXEMPTIONS (Cont.)
• In granting any exemption, City Engineer
may impose restoration conditions as
appropriate to restore the street
- Grinding, base and sub-base repairs
- Up to a full-width surface paving of not more
than 70 feet in either direction of the cut
• The denial or conditional approval of an
exemption may be appealed to the City
Manager, whose decision is final
t
_
Review of Implementation ofPolicy
• Within 3 Years of implementation ofpolicy,
City Engineer must review the policy for:
- Application: Circumstances of exemptions
granted and conditions imposed; consistent
application of limitations, exemptions and
restoration conditions
- Effectiveness: Impact on quality and service life
of streets; compliance with cut limitations
• Periodic review?
6
t ,
f IMPLEMENTATION
• Enact Rights of Way Ordinance
- Amend Tigard Municipal Code to include a
Rights of Way Ordinance
- Ordinance combines 2 existin Chapters
on
g
Rights of Way
• Telecommunications Franchise Ordinance
j
(Chapter 5.14)
• Work in Right of Way (Chapter 15.04)
i
i
i
i
1 y `
IMPLEMENTATION
• Provisions of Rights of Way Ordinance
- Existing telecom franchise requirements made
applicable to all utilities using the rights of way
- Existing construction standards from both Chapters.
combined, eliminating redundant or conflicting
provisions
I
E E
I
I
ry h. y K/.
IMPLEMENTATION
E
i
i
• Provisions of Rights of Way Ordinance (Cont.)
- New Right of Way Restoration Policy
- Existing construction coordination requirements with
new notification requirement for major utility
installations or upgrades
~ o
I.
' IMPLEMENTATION
• Provide draft ordinance to utilities for comment
• Revise draft and submit to Council for approval
• Compile list of streets subject to moratorium
~ • Rate condition of streets
0 Implement the ordinance
li
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF S~/dam
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code to Incorporate a Privilege Tax
PREPARED BY: Nancy Werner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code to establish Council's authority to set a privilege tax by resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to draft an amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code to establish Council's authority to set a privilege tax
by resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In a prior discussion with Council on December 13, 2005, Council directed staff to consider implementation of a
privilege tax, potentially limited to telecommunications providers. After reviewing the relevant provisions of the Tigard
Municipal Code, staff recommends revising the Code to establish a privilege tax that Council could set by resolution.
"Privilege tax" is a term from the Oregon Revised Statutes that refers to a fee that a municipality may charge to utilities
for use of the municipality's rights of way. The privilege tax is similar to the franchise fee the City currently receives
from utilities pursuant to franchise agreements between the City and the utilities using its rights of way. The primary
difference is that the franchise fee is established in franchise agreements whereas a privilege tax is imposed by the
Council.
Staff recommends revising the Code to incorporate a privilege tax provision that would:
• Authorize Council to adopt a privilege tax by the City's Master Fee Resolution;
• Potentially apply to any utility using the City's rights of way, but ONLY if Council's resolution sets an applicable
privilege tax; and
• Allow utilities to deduct any franchise fees paid from the privilege tax owed.
The proposed privilege tax provision would have the following advantages:
• Council would be authorized to pass a resolution implementing the 5% telecommunications privilege tax
previously discussed;
• Council would have the flexibility to implement a privilege tax by resolution rather than amending the Code if,
in the future, it decides to apply a privilege tax to other utilities;
• Council could set the privilege tax at the same rate as the existing franchise fee so that it would impact utilities
only after their franchise expired or was terminated (as discussed with respect to telecommunications
providers); and
• Council could set a privilege tax rate that is higher than the existing franchise fee, up to the privilege tax limit set
by state law, thereby earning more revenue than the current franchise fees. (State law appears to limit the
privilege tax that can be applied to most private utilities to 5% of gross revenues. The maximum statutory limit
for a telecommunications privilege tax is 7% of revenue from local exchange access only.)
If Council directs staff to pursue this amendment, staff will submit a draft of the revised Chapter to Council for review
and approval.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None considered at this time.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The privilege tax would contribute to the Council Goal to "Stabilize Financial Picture" and the Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow goal to "Identify and Develop Funding Resources" for Transportation and Traffic by providing additional
revenue that would be available to the General Fund, or which could be used to supplement other funding resources
for improvements to City streets.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
Implementing a privilege tax could generate the following additional revenues for the City:
UTILITY CURRENT FEE POTENTIAL EST. ADDITIONAL
% of ross revenues FEE/TAX REVENUE
Electric 3.5% 5% $540,000
Natural Gas 5% 5% $0
Telecommunications 5% 7% $128,000
Water 0% 5%* $230,000
Sewer 0% 5%* $57,000
Total $955,000
* State law allows the City to charge a higher rate; 5% is used for illustrative purposes.