The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/24/2009 a TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 24t 2009 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I : \Ofs \Donna's \C cp kt 3 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov x ' II , 2 i1 City of Tigard Revised 2/23/09 - Joint Meeting with TVF &R Board of Directors starts at 5:30 ,��f , Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CITY CF NTE R DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE: February 24, 2009 MEETING LOCATION: 5:30 p.m. — Dinner /Joint Meeting with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Board of Directors at TVF&R Station 50, 12617 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223 7:30 p.m. - Business Meeting at City of Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 tilt PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign -up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7 :15 p.m. to sign in' on the testimony sign -iri sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after. 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 -684- 2772 ODD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 -639- 4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA For Cable Viewing: Tigard City Council - Business Meetings TVCTV — Channel 28 2 nd & 4th 7:30 pm Tuesday - live Thursday 6 pm Friday 10 pm Sunday 11 am Monday 6 am TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB /CCDA AGENDA- February 24, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 5 ,_.x City of Tigard � Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda ,_ , ,,„, ,,,,, „i,ft,„,,.,,,,,..„, .,,,,„:,-,„$,,.-„ ....., -,_ ,,.... , ,...,„...._ ,w.,„ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) CITY CFNTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CODA) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2009 MEETING TIME /LOCATION: 5:30 p.m. — Dinner /Joint Meeting with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Board of Directors at TVF&R Station 50, 12617 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223 7:30 p.m. - Business Meeting at City of Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 730 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council, Local Contract Review Board & City Center Development Agency 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. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Chamber of Commerce Representative • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication • Citizen Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council, Local Contract Review Board and City Center Development Agency) These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 20, 2009 3.2 Re- appoint Rick Parker to the Budget Committee and Dan Goodrich as an alternate member Resolution No. 09- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB /CCDA AGENDA- February 24, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 1 www.tigard- or.gov 1 Page 2 of 5 3.3 Re- appoint Rick Parker to the City Center Development Agency Budget Committee and Dan Goodrich as an alternate member CCDA Resolution No. 09- 3.4 Extend the Incentives to Annex until February 2010 Resolution No. 09- 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Water Division Engineering Contract • C o n s e n t A g e n d a - I t e m R e r n n z e d for S e p a r a t e Discussion. Any k e n s requested t o b e m i m e d f r o m the Consent A la for separate discussion will he considered innvdiately after the Coil /Local Contract Rezie-w Bavzl/CCDA has wted on those items whit do not nosd discussion 4. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00008/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00002 - FIELDS PLAN & MAP CHANGE - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps- to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for one parcel (approximately 25 acres) from Light Industrial (I -L) to Medium High Density Residential (R-25). The parcel is located east of Hall Boulevard at the dead end of Wall Street. Surrounding properties are zoned I -L to the north and south, R-12 to the west, and I -P to the • east across the railroad tracks. LOCATION: The site is vacant and has no address. It is located east of the Hall Boulevard and Wall Street intersection, east of. Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. Washington'County Tax Assessor's "Map -2S10100, Tax Lot 1200. ZONES: I -L: Light Industrial District. The I L zoning district provides appropriate locations for gLI a1 industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. R-2.;: Medium `High - Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing 'of all types and new attached single- fainily and Multi-_ - family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial to Medium -High Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, & 10 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policies 3 and 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Titles 3, 4, 7, and 13, and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. a. Open Public Hearing b. Hearing Procedure Statement - City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony - Applicant TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB /CCDA AGENDA- February 24, 2009 ��.w....�� City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of 5 - Proponents - Opponents Rebuttal f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 09- 5. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00012/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00006 - COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN & MAP CHANGE - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for three parcels (approximately .98 acres) from Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to Mixed Use Residential - 1 (MUR 1). The site is located on the east side of Hall Boulevard between Hunziker Street and Knoll Drive, within a small pocket of R-4.5 zoning. Sites on the west side of Hall Blvd. are zoned Central Business District (CBD). All three parcels of the site are within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. LOCATION: 12340 and 12360 SW Hall Boulevard, and 8485 SW Hunziker. Street. .Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101BC, Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1000. ZONES: R-4.5: Low Density Residential District. The R-4,5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single - family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single - family units are prm eitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally; and MUR 1:. Mixed. Use Residential District. The MUR -1 zoning district is a high density designation applied to predominantly, residential areas where, mixed -uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • DESIGNATION: Low- Density Residential to Mixed Use. Residential 1.. APPLICABLE RE VIE-. CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters • 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10 ,and 15 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policy 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Title 1; and - Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 12. a. Open Public Hearing b. Hearing Procedure Statement - City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony - Applicant - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB /CCDA AGENDA- February 24, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 4 of 5 h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 09- Recess City Council Meeting Call Local Contract Review Board to Order 6. LOCAL CONTRACI' REVIEW BOARD PUBLIC HEARING - CONTRACT' AWARD TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR RE- VEGETATION SERVICES ON VARIOUS QTY PROJECTS a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Public Works staff d. Public Testimony e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Motion Adjourn Local Contract Review Board Reconvene City,Council • - • • 7: - ' DISCUSS GOOD QTIZENSHIP AWARD NOMINATION AND SELECI1ON PROCESS . • Staff Report — Community Development and Administration- • 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. 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. 11. ADJOURNMENT I: \ADM \CATHY\CCA \2009 \090224 P.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/CCDA AGENDA- February 24, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 5 of 5 )1( -/ - Cow n Li Cu z Item No. - For Council Newsletter Dated ,p.. — O o9 ys C-(- LOC' MEMORANDUM fiTIGARD .6-ciLeiurvs2)u TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council FROM: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director ° RE: February 20, 2009 DATE: Council Direction Regarding Proposed Urban and Rural Reserve Study Areas Introduction A decision on recommended Urban and Rural Reserve study areas is being requested at the March 2, 2009 Washington County Urban Reserves Coordinating Committee (RCC) meeting. Council is being asked to provide direction at the February 24 Council meeting for Councilor Buchner, the city's RCC representative. The issue is coming to Council in this format because the timing of the County's request did not make it possible to schedule it for inclusion in the Council's regular agenda packet. Background / Discussion The proposed Urban Reserve study areas are not proposed for inclusion to the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); nor is the Rural Reserve study area proposed to be excluded from UGB consideration. Rather, the RCC is asked to approve study of them to arrive at a decision on lands best suited for long -term urban and rural designations in Washington County. Additional analysis and associated decisions are needed to actually propose Urban and Rural Reserve areas. When the study is complete and areas are proposed, Metro Council will deliberate and designate official Urban and Rural Reserves in fall 2009. a There have been concerns about Washington County's Urban Reserve Planning process. Also, concerns have been expressed by some parties that the proposed Urban Reserve study areas include much of the County's prime farm land. However, the lands identified for urbanization may be quite different. In conversations with Metro staff and other cities, it is felt that the evaluation /analysis process needs to proceed in a timely way to identify proposed urban and rural reserves for Metro Council consideration. ° Therefore, we recommend that Council direct Councilor Buehner to indicate Tigard's approval to proceed and further evaluate the proposed Urban and Rural Reserve study areas. Attachment #1 outlines the Urban and Rural Planning process. Attachments #2 and #3 are general maps of the candidate Urban and Rural Reserve study areas. Please note that the candidate areas overlap. Both Reserve areas will be evaluated for urban and rural area suitability. Also appended, (Attachment #4) is the ° most recent Washington County Staff Report. It provides more detail about the Urban Reserve and Rural Reserve planning process. Attachments: 1. Key Milestones for Designating Urban and Rural Reserves 2. Proposed Urban Reserve Study Area 3. Proposed Rural Reserve Study Area 4. Phase III - Interim Staff Report: Urban and Rural Reserves Planning in WA. County , 4 '-- '. :,.'. ('■4 ',.,”1.6.'.1, ,Zaq:'.:Ff-f'%!§14.;t:';',...,';','.',S15.:'::!.?-,,,,,ett' Attachment 1 - '''''''I''''' ''''''''''''''"'''"' Re Res erves . .. ;-.. . . . ...:::::„.„.,..„,,,-,,,,,,Awm.g1:1";:',:5-..,itriRtfitto.„2J. .,..--,..-S.1,„....:,,-;,,A,-zm.',3.=:;44,- „,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„„„,,,,,,,,,,,,..1„,„:„4„ , ,, .-1,04. : p-;;IyApnati„,,_,,cli„.. .. ._ lz,,,,,.. -..,:„.,,,,, .:,,,,,E, :. --, .,., es: -o, , e ..,".p„..„,„:,..„.....,_,.,..„....„__ 2010 Identifying 316 IttAt),T4-. y..,::::--'.yw:-,,i(1....-,riiii:,,.0-;:fiootog;-5z=,dg,'-14-,?,,,,,,z---'-'- ----- 2009 Future .-aezypt,,,,..,,.4.-Re..6).:•__F:',7'...''''''''' - --- ' ,. k.,,,,i...„.•:..-$.;;;;;;”' decisons work in progress 2008 „.-. Identi and analyzing options for urban and rural reserve-s study areas _ , , . . . . . • ... .... .::,....._ .. ...,:svrumR......... .'. . . en ... Fina an , al:: s , s piz is ul a 6: id ,,., d ,,.. e c , o, .1 , on urban and il ., reserves . • WINTER ' . - ... SPRIN . ..„.. — iig5.:;,,K,i i=t0ifiPiTi,' , .... , ........... -....- .--:,' -;.' _ .... I :-.. .. , . E ' e ;*-:t t_r" Alt ', '' .. -., ,..../ : ...,...,,,,..,. . ' , ,, . . -. Ie.serves... N , . - : ....1..a:PR:eoginfo:nmm nvestment track a p tr e a • s .ho i us : in,, ..".. . ' needs and trends - ., , L. . rfp.,,,i§:§-#0.-...',!..:-. -... ' 3, t .-c ) - 4 4 . - d - - - fitoihy.i.e" - ,t4t.t.i.., - ..._.Inpi..', tdinvestrnentirack taiirlifi., -441e$0,1,4- .:■., Loca i asp irat e a., I a s:, n . ;. . . ... • Public investment , . = corridors „.:-..z.,..,,,--,.iper, Aas•nrcpW'r"a4 ?g,„1-igi. "-J1Pr!...-.'c.1., . ,. gig.. . kg .4. , . . . -: '. "4 .. , er- — - . .,. , „ ...., - ......., ,. - ,....,....,„....„..„ ,_ „ _ ,.,,,,„.„,...,,,.. !.. •.. • fo • iiiiii4§emipc . ,., , ._ ,-. .' ' • / '' stu dy areas in'corpoiating:1 ,,- ',' .,- - - -- -- ,,...,,, - ,..,..... -. r n, sr?.1=7 '''',4 LCDC ,..,,_ •.• . ,- Analyze, reserye Stu_ y: .. , - , , ., p'''' c,r.-1 . -decisions 6 -. • ,,„ • , :; ,,,,,„ 4 . --- .., . -,..< i lands assessrnerA' ' '. -. ' - '''--- - r 'Hie ,. ..,.. 4 ,-- . 4,414 ;;.. . .., Agricultur . , . , .,, .. . .-, ..,, -. , 'r,„: .. (L4. - , recorryien,...9d „ ., ..,..::, g)fi,.-401-;44 „. - :. , ,t 4. ; , :Aok,. , 3 - i.: , ...g:. .. Natural features: .; ..- -.-.• -........: ...,, k,,.. rtec,...., ::::.., .,&,:.....x ibigi Technical .ds.,•; ' ' : tk . li 0.,, . ..,,,,,,,,,%„,t,,,.„...!e,,,,.,,f,,, ;',5,,",'Reketlfe,SCA. .. • -' . fw ''..,. 1 if'4114".",-' C miliiitiet .,; - .,..,-,,.-.4./.44% M12". .- qr.vp,4,47 ,.,!eIi : . , - - • f r ':e1S.95.4-011 ' V'41,e,I. 'tti.11:19'.are.41.5:1:: - ' '(- bYernahCe; c91t1PI.qe..,.!??., i .:.,. ' ... ., 1 - ffl ,, - T-,--,Iiirifi ,‘. , fxdesignates:, ' - . .' ana 'Y is o .. - 1r:e41:.- - - : ' 'ig A- ' ' ',.'qf-,4-'-l'iaR-(2 '.•- - f ' . ' ;.., :.".„. - ' ,,. ;' , ' ,- ,'''' - . 1, .' 1 .':;,:-.'?,.-'• -;--.'.•.,'-' -; In ',.-.:” 4 P!.,,,,,,y,,-;:,--:,k,,i - .'1?road":.,. • • - - A,,..„.:cil -.4.13,,,,a-F-.,--./* -.::A....e9,,A-.5....„;;;;fr ., . ,-,finarice).,'..::."- ,...,..:,,,-).,..,,,,c,......,,,,..; - .;,y.„) . 1,......: . 4..., , , , , * . '; ' T:rriiii,.:-',i . 1 .,,,,-. - ,- Vgi ; :.,'. ' " - ,?..L - .":?.;:L"':,*-4 - ::z",-,t,C.,9,- ', . Input from. Investme ..! .7::: r '.."' '''''' stud areas - 7 gs r e serv e ' Ws.: .4-V 7.4?,:-......;',.-,= .. In put from Trans portat i on ,. , reSer - -fr-•-,2„,1,, ',. . • ,.... --,-..,,, . Y$ , , -, ,,„•,,,,,,,, , ,,,,, idf#)0:0F,::4!, .: • /. ., :,..i.CriC Br.!enTY4; '' 443141,41,ggrflegI t..cooBiiefirig , -..‘"°-...` N • -' .. . . . • . - , . . _,. . , Legend -. • , . ... ,. - — - . ,--. - , - • . . milestone/Decision Preliminary recommendation , .1n : P R u T t p ,-f :u ro p m c.4 R ie eg .: 1 . ,71 ... !177 . 7portatr..on .. track, - , , : . ,. . Input to Transportation track , . ., — .... - ... Analysis work Public input - - — ' ,' .' . - • . - .. . . ... . .. ... . . ..,. , :. 7 ,, 71 . ? t‘..,I .,„ plannin : j CI. ACK-ost.,..5 i • Potential '_ Candidate � ,. - I DAfvT iiiiNil, �P Areas v F ebruary 9, 2009 i 1 *II Approx. 106,010 Acres �a ! � in area 4 It /�� 6,'tr i - Reserve Study Area N. v �� f - Potential Candidate Area L e illsamit'� tir - -- i Washington County Line Oli ft 11 Non Potential Candidate UR Area lill F ir Oita IW f ir Cities W i 1. r litidie , Urban Unincoporated Area ! ___,..._,.....,.., ik, marrimuir finch = 20,000 feet Ir Alti ! EEL, T iriarr mhsrrtpwasda�e7kandgt<il da A ",i V irr a CU cn s sma)so cM vie h o 9ptan1 ai d Cde v�t3catinthe ae�'mdtlis ntp,haea.V�irp6mQUty card accept ay reep:ndtility foreras, arisdcrt5 a poYtad re � _ Pod d.I m alyN7a5Ni,BRa7B Wd1aA71'paytYiS r'l t y - GTONCO Washington County . r: ati ®k Z e Department of Land Use S Transportation alt ' .1 I-0 9 Range Planning Division 155 N. First Avenue ,.� Suite 350, MS 14 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 (503) 846-3519 O REGON lutplaneco.washington.oru5 t ial Candidate 0, DR AFT .; , NI. , . � �ll'i Area ;. =t FePotenbruary 9, 2009 � Approx. 171,390 Acres Ifitt � � in area V ail Me 411111- .i■ I Almffetiolx,.... vio .,.., r Reserve Study Area ' Potential Candidate Area 111111 r . i Washington County Line i do Cities ° °" -- Urban Unincoporated Area -- i ilP � tti Outside Study Area /f .C°1 1 inch = 20,000 feet 1 "O i filla Osdans i ieirtcm�m miism�'tiasdarsedfrandalal da�a�sm '— um ��i � L� irrJm Oari yssT ept icldundu� Drdn tc n. Cae v�itdvan in tte amtlm dlNsri�. bower. yt�tirglm Gusty z c e a ax�tay r lflyfcreias minims a potiaa ° `. mla lhedaetliee n tra ovaratliesvfidieomTpa I ■ 4% r r ` r MOW' , prodid Nc56c�imda be ai i 1' 4' 4t0N C Ng Washington County Department of Land Use N Transportation 3 Long Range Planning Division 155 N. First Avenue 1111 Suite 350, MS 14 Sal Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 (503) 19 �QEGON utplan ®co.wasashinghing[on.or.us • DRAFT Attachment 4 Urban and Rural Reserves Planning in Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report Submitted to: Washington County Reserves Coordinating Committee • Prepared by: Department of Land Use and Transportation Long-Range Planning Division February 9, 2009 I. Recommendation The Planning Directors of Washington County presents the Washington County Reserves Coordinating Committee (RCC) potential Draft Urban and Rural Reserves Candidate Areas. Staff recommends RCC members review these candidate areas with their staff and prepare to concur, at the March 2, 2009 RCC meeting, on those candidate areas that will receive further analysis. II. Background A. Introduction to Urban and Rural Reserves Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties and Metro are collaborating on a regional effort to help shape future growth in the tri- county region over the next 40 to 50 years. The designation of Urban and Rural Reserves are a significant component of this process and are intended to provide greater certainty as to where future growth may take place both inside and outside the current urban growth boundary (UGB), while protecting important farmland and natural areas from urbanization. B Oregon Administrative Rules. Factors The Urban and Rural Reserves designation process derives from Senate Bill 1011 adopted in 2007. The LCDC adopted an administrative rule to govern how Urban and Rural Reserves are determined. OAR 660 - 027 -0050 and OAR 660 - 027 -0060 provide the framework for how future reserves are determined through the application of "factors" used to identify and select lands appropriate for designation. Washington County staff analysis is based on the OAR's eight urban factors and four (plus subset clarifications) rural factors. All of the factors are of equal importance in the designation process and all factors will be addressed in the course of the analysis. Relevant factors shall be applied. Factors will be applied with increasing specificity in successive process refinements. C. Washington County efforts Washington County staff began presenting preliminary maps to the public in late October 2008 addressing the suitability of lands for rural and Urban Reserves. These maps represent initial efforts to use spatial data and geographic information system (GIS) applications evaluating different factors to identify candidate reserves areas. The analysis was subject to continuous refinements and improvements. This work constitutes the Reserves Work Program Phase 3 and will conclude in summer 2009 with final recommendations for both Urban and Rural Reserves. D. Using screens to refine analysis Initially, the administrative rule factors were broadly applied encompassing all potential county areas suitable for both reserve candidates. Successive "screens" have been applied which provide a greater measure of detail in considering the reserve candidate area. Results from these screenings have been brought back to stakeholders, interested parties, the Reserves Coordinating Committee and planning directors for review and comment. Efforts toward a final determination of reserves as described in this • interim staff report continue to be refined with successive screenings. Staff considers all work to date to be draft. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report I IL Suitability Analysis • • A. GIS and suitability mapping One of the approaches Washington County has taken to identify candidate areas is to perform a suitability analysis for Rural and Urban Reserves. This method processes spatial data in a geographic information system (GIS) to measure the suitability of a location for a particular purpose. Data layers that can define or quantify criteria are selected and then their attributes are ranked based on their ability to support the intended use and given a numeric value. Once all of the layers are selected and assigned they are weighted based on their relative importance and added together to generate a suitability layer that can be mapped. Some of the benefits of this approach are that it allows the user to objectively measure the outcomes of decisions and by changing the weightings different scenarios or values can be easily mapped and compared. B. Suitability values and weightings Staff utilized data layers to represent or define the LCDC factors identifying Urban and Rural Reserves. Figures 1 and 2 indicate which factors staff used : for the initial reserves analysis. Attributes for each factor were assigned a value from one (1) up to nine (9) with nine (or the highest value for . that attribute) being the most suitable for reserve consideration. For instance the agricultural inventory was assigned three values (based on foundation, important and conflicted lands) with three being most suitable. Irrigation was assigned nine values with nine the most suitable for consideration. For some factors, we were unable to determine a data layer to use or how to apply it. Multiple factors were then combined into one map with each factor given a "weighting" relative to other factors. In all cases the total weight of any compilation is 100 %. Tables 1 and 2 indicate the relative weightings of the initial compilation of six factors (with Water Resources representing three attributes) for Rural Reserves and five factors (with Transportation representing eight attributes) for Urban Reserves. The following two sections provide greater detail regarding specific factors. C. Rural Reserves suitability factors For Rural Reserves eight data layers were identified, one of which is identified in the rule itself; the Oregon Department of Agriculture's (ODA) Agricultural Lands Inventory (divided into Foundation, Important and Conflicted lands.) The Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) Wildland Forest Inventory was used to represent forestry in the same way as ODA's inventory represents agriculture. A second set of ODA attributes, soil types, was also used and their productivity Classes I, II, III, & IV soils were all valued as being most suitable. Acknowledging the impact of water resources on farming, three data layers were ranked and weighted for this component. The first was whether a location was inside or outside of the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District because it would allow for the possibility of receiving irrigation. The second was for properties with existing point -of -use water rights for agriculture or forestry use, this data came from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The third layer was to identify those lands located inside ground water limited areas as determined by ORWD. To address the criteria for being subject to urbanization, proximity to an existing urban growth boundary (UGB) was used as a proxy with areas closer to the UGB presumed to be more . suitable for a rural reserve than those farther away. The final element used was to identify those lands meeting the requirements for being an American Viticulture Area in Oregon. These elements were then weighted, with water resources, the ODA inventory, and the ODF inventory given a total weight of 70% and soils, proximity to the UGB, and viticulture given the remaining 30 %. The values and weights assigned to data layers for rural reserves can be found in Table 1. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 2 Figure 1 4xRlral it3i# .,- :sF; rh.;: F C1;ibY r ,. ,Z... • i 2c 3 2a I 2h I Suitable Soil Su CapaAld tit • :Capable of Natural and,. ',Suetalning Sustaining. Landscape .Uibanliatlort Aveilablo AgrJdvlture.. ,Forestry - Features Water'... / / P o rt ity l Land ; !` Forest /Sob Cless / �� 1i vontory I i.+ itu� +o:i is ( Viticulture Irrigation `. Lands y. - Ground Witor 7VIQ WAter Rghtc '.:. :.: 0. r ywa 2 t #E p 5 Table 1. Rural Reserve Suitability Values and Weighting Water Resources Ground ODA Soil Vtticulture' Irrigation Water Proxim Value.: OD> Lands . Water Rights Lands Type Lands... - District Limited to ,UG , .. Area 9 '. Foundation Wildland..` I, II, ill, Inside.., " Inside Agriculture or Outside < 0 25 mi • Forest IV Forestry Use Wildland 8 ... 05mt Range ... 7 0.75mi'' Mixed • - • 5 Important Forest V 1.5smi.:. • ;Agriculture, Mixed' • 4 - Range, VI 2 nii. -: Agriculture • intensive VII 2 5 mi Agriculture Low . Density . 2 VIII 3:m1 Residential/ • Commercial • • • Urban & . No ' • • No Agriculture 1 Conflicted Other Data Outside Outside or Forestry Inside ? 3 rrli Use • 30% 30% 40% Wgt. 20% 20% 10% 10% 30% • 10% Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 3 • • D. Urban Reserves suitability factors Twelve data layers were used for reviewing urban reserve suitability, eight of which were related to transportation. The ranking of attributes for most of the data layers focused on efficient uses of existing investments and infrastructure. As with the Rural Reserves suitability, proximity to an UGB was used with locations closer to an existing UGB being assigned higher values than those farther away. Proximity to an existing incorporated area was also used because of a working agreement in Washington County that future urban areas will be governed by cities. The limitation of slope on urban development was likewise considered. Limited development can occur on steep slopes given environmental constraints and the difficulty of creating well- connected, compact communities. For these reasons, Staff ranked slopes less than 7% as the highest scoring. Three of the eight elements of the transportation component were based on the distance from the following features (or layers in the GIS): freeway access, proximity to light -rail /commuter rail, and proximity to railroads. The remaining five elements were based on 2005 data for evening two -hour peak modeled travel times. The overall attempt was to depict how an existing rural transportation zone may relate to the rest of the region. Travel times from the central city, regional centers and industrial areas were used to tie into the existing investment in 2040 centers, The average travel time for each zone was also used as was the percentage of trips on congested routes. The percentage of trips on congested routes identified zones that may exacerbate existing roadway deficiencies and was used because such deficiencies may be difficult, expensive or impossible to fix. A final element was the County's Mineral and Aggregate Areas. These areas are comprised of District A, which would be the site of extraction, and District B, which is a buffer of that use. The inclusion of these districts is due to the often incompatible interface between quarries and urban uses. Transportation and distances to a city and UGB received 75% of the weighting with each being assigned 25 %. Slope was weighted with 15% and mineral and aggregate areas 10 %. The values and weights for data layers for Urban Reserves can be found in tables 2 and 3. Figure 2 sI dy f',nt a �rfT- �lyt3R un�r • 1 2 I 3 4 1 5 I 6 1 7 1 8 1 '.P .-1000* G Cast r r s �F Preserve! gi'' ate of - o1 PV6tta t 19Uppo - t.. aAti t - ha ° Preserve Minimize a g � °Gi k� txottDecfad $ En s �� °St9or4t .,si Naturat Eftocla on +! Prlvatq PfRilf{j4a Natural !XoPtsing ctnvesi Rgho I 1t44 i Features FarmiS°rest blFl . _r: .. ..:,� ,�Y 'SgtYfCe6; �." , .. 3,.. .a:; ;, Systems . - FZYPes.,.. l tq %I�ttr{t}i , toUGdt ' - 'Stb e ery - 3_,' � TkNnspbfrT. ,"r � opal r syrH,In��to < > �'Sa spar£. - �.COmponenp, t�br'PpoPQJit :. ��on4Y1t GQmpatf�.P Cfin1 a,rei�! Travel � + , raven$ 7 /axgt 'T�avai 77 e o ; t 7metlo } f _ I �{na iD 11 0 040 ' ape i40 Xy{t _ t140 T 04Mype F v e .,Aggregalo'; - , r P;Zb QtfS � `,, • .+ c t ? r i I �� 1 areas t t �. ' to TYana 1 r $ 01i roximl fig fml rs Ave b Tal's b� Y p� r t� e i avfaY ` -h '1444.7.0 ♦ C `x + n ) + x -con, neat ti fo �i T1ma. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 4 Table 2. Urban Reserve Suitability Values and Weighting • . Transportation ' • Distance to Distance to See Table 3 • M!neral & • Value Slope : . Aggre UGB City for detail Areas : :.:; 0.25 mi < 0.25 mi 7% Outside All 8 • 0.5 mi _ 0.5 mi 7 0.75 mi 0.75 mi 10% - 6 1 mi 1 mi 5 1.5 mi 1.25 mi Inside D "strict' 4 2 mi 1.5 mi 15% 2.5 mi 2 mi 2 1 3mi 3mi 20% • 1 > 3 mi > 3mi >'25% Inside District A Wgt. 25% 25% 15% 25% '10% Table 3. Detailed Transportation Component Pro :Average Time from Time from Time from Value Freeway " to Proximity • Travel Central Regional Industrial Per on Access LRTNVES to Rail Time : City Centers ; Areas Cong . . . 9.:: 1. mi. : 0.25 mi " 250 ft • .< 15 rnln: < 10 min .'.:<:;10 min " ::: < 10 min 8 •2 ml 0.5. mi 500 ft 15 20 Min:: 11 -15 min 11.15 min:,` 11 -15 min ,10 % -20 %0 3mi 0:75 .• 750 ft 20 % =30 %' 4 mi 1 nii 1000 ft • 16-20 min _ 16 20:min'.: 16 -20 min •30 %- 40%. • 5:.;. 5mi 2mi".: 1250ft 40 %50 %: 41. 6 mi 3mi 1500 ft 2'1 -25 min. 21 -25 min 21- 25•min:,: 21 -25 min 3 7 mi . 4 mi 1750 ft 25 -30 min . 26 -30 min '.26= 30.inm 26 -30 min 50 % -60 %0 :, 2 8 mi 5 mi • 2000 ft .. 30 -35 min' 31 -35 -min 31- 35- niih•: 31 -35 -min •60 % -75% • ' 1 > 8 mi .: > 5 mi >2000 ft > 35'rriin . >35 min >35 min >35 min >:7.5 %:; 6% 6% . 7% 20 %... 12% • 12% .:. 12% 25% Wgt.. 25% E. Summary of suitability factors application While the suitability maps do not provide a definitive answer on where to draw a boundary for reserves, they do provide guidance into what areas would likely make better reserves than others. For both Urban and Rural Reserves the areas along existing UGBs are the highest scoring. With regards toUrban Reserves this is largely due to their proximity to existing infrastructure and service providers. The scores are high mostly from the almost ubiquitous assessment of a large percentage of rural Washington County as Foundation lands in the ODA inventory along UGBs in Washington County and from being considered as subject to urbanization through the use of proximity to UGBs. IV. Subject to Urbanization A. Proximity to Urban Growth Boundary One of the factors to be addressed when selecting land for designation as a rural reserve requires a consideration of the potential for urbanization. Rural Reserve Factor (2)(a) requires a consideration of those areas that: "Are situated in an area that is otherwise potentially subject to urbanization...or proximity to properties with fair market values that significantly exceed agricultural values for farmland, or forestry values for forest land." Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 5 B. Fair Market Value Staff has compiled more than a dozen analysis variations to address this factor. Because adequate data necessary to explore fair market value was not readily available, Staff utilized real market values (RMV) for individual parcels as recorded in Washington County's Department of Assessment and Taxation. Study areas included land at one to nine mile intervals from the existing Urban Growth Boundary. Based on the results, elevated RMVs occurred within one, six and eight miles of the UGB. Successive iterations included: • Utilizing only natural resource lands' zoning designations (Exclusive Forest and Conservation — EFC; Exclusive Farm Use — EFU; and Agriculture and Forestry, 80 -acre minimum lot size -- AF-20) with .5 acre minimum lot size and 10 acre minimum lot size. • Removing non - natural resource use lands, for example golf courses. • Adding updated A &T data. • Changing the data to only lands in farm and forest deferral (zoned farmland, un -zoned farmland, and forestland) with attention to calculating the RMV per acre values from the portion of the tax lot in deferral. • Comparing RMV's in quarter -mile increments from the Urban Growth Boundary for lots of similar size (0 -10 acres, 10 -20, 20 -40, 40 -80, 80 -120 and greater than 120 acres.) For example, this provided comparable average costs for 10 -20 acre plots beginning at one - quarter up to 3 miles from the UGB. • Applying visualization method (Kriging) as additional aid to viewing the data. Based on results from the above iterations, planning staff determined that the notion of "Fair Market Value" independent of other indicators does not provide a conclusive indication of land areas that may be "subject to urbanization ". V. Status of Population /Employment Projections and Capacity Analysis A. Status of Population and employment projections OAR 660 -027 -0040 requires that land designated as Urban Reserves be planned to meet the needs of at least 20 but not more than 30 years of population and employment growth. In order to determine the approximate amount of land to be designated as Urban Reserves, Metro must first determine the amount of population and employment growth that is likely to occur in the area where Urban Reserves are to be located. In recognition of the need for this determination, Washington County has sought a regional and sub - regional population and employment forecast for many months. In the fall of 2008 Metro prepared and analyzed a series of future growth scenarios incorporating growth projections to the years 2035 and 2060. In November of 2008 those scenarios, which included both regional and sub - regional dwelling units and jobs allocations were distributed to the three metropolitan counties and the regional Reserves Steering Committee. The materials included with the distribution included two scenarios (Reference Case and Tight UGB) both of which included sub - regional growth allocation tables. Following this distribution, Washington County staff reviewed these scenario based forecasts and allocations and reported the results of that review to the WCRCC at their meeting on Monday, December 5 This review included recommendations that Metro do further analysis and develop both a "base- case" growth scenario tied to historic growth trends as well as a second "reference- case" scenario utilizing a more market based approach based upon the new Urban and Rural Reserve Rule(s) in OAR 660 -027. Additionally, the.Washington County review of the Metro growth scenarios included a series of important questions designed to assure that future modeling scenarios incorporate inputs that are reasonably achievable and assumptions that would not lead to unrealistic growth allocations. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 6 Following this meeting, Metro staff prepared and distributed a memorandum intended to clarify the scenario modeling results. This memo stated that the scenario results were not intended as "an official allocation of households and employment ". As of February 6 2009, Metro has not responded to the Coordinating Committee acknowledged request for additional scenario modeling and has not addressed the questions included in the memorandum. Metro staff has however, verbally agreed to prepare growth allocations to be utilized in developing land needs estimates. B. Capacity within Washington County A core data element in determining long -term land need is the existing capacity of our urban areas to accommodate future growth. Washington County staff, in cooperation with city staff throughout the county has begun to develop detailed estimates of current and projected growth capacity. This effort is being developed in four phases: a. Vacant lands b. Infill opportunities c. Redevelopment opportunities (next 20 years) d. Growth `Aspirations' (Long -term redevelopment — years 2029 to 2060) As of February 6, 2009, technical staff working on this effort has begun to compile preliminary estimates of vacant land capacity and have begun to develop the infill estimates. Completion of preliminary estimates of overall growth capacity is expected within the next couple of months. Refinement of these estimates will likely continue along with the refinement of emerging Urban Reserve and Rural Reserve Candidate Areas. In conjunction with forecast growth, these capacity estimates will aid in estimating long -term land needs. C. Cities' aspirations • As noted above, city aspirations are an important element of the long -term growth capacity of urban Washington County and Metro has begun a concurrent effort to solicit long -term growth aspirations from cities throughout the region. Aspirations focus on the desired future characteristics of urban design in each city, with special attention to primary centers.and transportation corridors. The main urban design characteristics include building heights (low -rise, mid -rise, high- rise), activity hours (8, 12, 18 hrs. /day), housing densities and accessibility (walk, bike, transit...etc). It is expected that the relative change from existing plans expressed through these aspirations, will generally give rise to estimates of increased growth capacity. Most cities in Washington County have developed at least preliminary concepts reflecting the general character of expected future growth. At the January 2009 WCRCC meeting, the cities of Hillsboro, North Plains and Sherwood presented their preliminary aspirations. The majority of remaining Washington County cities will present their preliminary aspirations at the February WCRCC meeting. VI. Stakeholder Discussions and Analysis Refinements A. Stakeholder discussions A variety of stakeholders have been invited to review and comment on iterations of staff efforts. Staff has attended meetings of key stakeholders and has held discussions with business, agricultural, real estate, and environmental interests and property owners seeking their comment. Staff has also solicited base data some stakeholders may have used for other analysis purposes. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 7 B. Analysis refinements Every stakeholder comment has been reviewed by staff and many have contributed to significant analysis approach changes. Stakeholder input will continue to refine staff efforts. VII. Summary of Analysis Several sources and issues were used to reach recommendations for potential candidate rural and urban reserve areas. The approach for identifying areas for potential consideration as Urban Reserves will be explained first. Discussions with cities in Washington County about their aspirations and what areas they deemed more conducive to meeting the factors for Urban Reserves were a primary source. The suitability analysis highlighted many of the same areas and in some locations went further. Input was also received from Group Mackenzie, on behalf of a coalition of business interests, requesting the inclusion of areas not constrained by steep slopes, floodplain, or wetlands. Those three sources were brought together and aggregated with the boundary drawn so as not to create Urban Reserve islands. A 1000 foot buffer was then added to ensure consideration of impacts to adjacent uses. If there had been a known need for population and employment that could have been used to estimate the amount of land needed as Urban Reserves it would have been possible to assess whether there was too much, too little or the correct amount of land inside that boundary. Since those needs are unknown the boundary was left at the extent shown in Exhibit B. The potential Rural Reserve Candidate Area is shown in Exhibit A. It represents the entirety of the regional reserves study area in Washington County. This recommendation was reached due to a number of reasons. Labeling areas as potential candidates for Urban Reserves also results in them being considered as potential Rural Reserves (those areas are "subject to urbanization.) Additionally the Natural Landscape Features Inventory has not been incorporated into the analysis so impacts have not been identified. Staff decided not to pare any lands from consideration at this time. VIII. Next Steps A. Test cases — assessment of additional attributes Considerable additional analysis will be conducted, regarding: 1) Parcelization and ownership patterns 2) Soil productivity B. Additional Regional Considerations Staff is attempting to map agricultural /forest infrastructure. Food producing farms involved in direct market sales in the Portland metro region are also mapped to visualize the geographic extent of farms engaged in direct marketing through farmers' markets, CSA, U -pick, restaurants, etc. Other data being mapped includes precipitation patterns, rural communities, historic structures, rural churches, and century farms. This mapping effort attempts to show rural connections to the land by mapping a visual perspective of existing rural communities. I. Apply additional and more specific criteria Consistent with the overall project methodology, increasingly finer "screens" will be applied to the emerging candidate urban and rural reserve areas. These increasingly finer screens will rely on increasingly higher levels of detail in the technical analysis being applied to increasingly smaller areas of land. Examples of additional and more specific criteria include: information related to existing and potential buffers between urban or potentially urbanizing areas and important agricultural, forest or sensitive natural areas; relative costs of service provision (water, sewer, transportation ...etc.); preliminary concept planning to determine potential achievable densities; relative efficiencies in Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 8 utilizing existing infrastructure; ability of service providers to serve the area in a cost effective manner ...etc. 2. Factor population/employment projections into consideration of need As discussed under section V -A above', the population and employment projections are key to developing long -term land need estimates. The most recent discussions with Metro staff suggest that these projections should be available in March. In conjunction with the capacity estimates currently under development, preliminary land need estimates may then be developed. C. Stakeholder and public involvement The reserves public involvement staff from the three counties and Metro are developing materials and planning events that will engage citizens in a robust discussion during Phase 3 of the work program. The factors used in analyzing lands within the study area and the implications of each reserve designation are central to the discussion agenda. The focus is on the suitability of lands for consideration as an urban or rural reserve. Many of the same activities and tools used for raising public awareness in Phase 2 will be used in Phase 3, including: o Public meetings hosted by counties and Metro o County coordinating committee deliberations o Presentations, publications and articles provided to: advisory committees, organizations • and citizen groups a Media coverage o Up -to -date county and Metro reserves websites The public involvement team has identified a number of other potential outreach tools and activities including: o Self - guided, thought - provoking interpretive displays in public places such as malls and schools o Radio talk shows o Interactive web pages o Workshops and charrettes The public involvement team is setting priorities based on those activities that best support the reserves decision process, that provide citizens the opportunities for learning and commenting and finally are feasible to carry out effectively with limited time and resources. Outreach Content The Coordinated Public Involvement Plan focuses Phase 3 activities on educating the public regarding the application of factors to the reserves study area and soliciting feedback on how the Metro Council • and county commissions might weigh various factors when designating reserves. As candidate areas are identified, the team sees value in working with citizens in these areas via their county planning organizations (CPOs) or other appropriate local community groups in order to collectively explore the application of factors to particular areas and to seek a deeper understanding of the implications of each reserve designation. The focus will remain on land suitability for urban or rural use. Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 9 Although these meetings are still in the planning stage, we currently anticipate that at each meeting the team will: • Present an overview of the reserves designation process and the Making The Greatest Place context for regional decision - making. • Discuss the factors in -depth and their relative local importance • Present candidate areas and the refinement process used to identify them a Explore implications of urban, rural or no designation ▪ Share aspirations of nearest city /cities and discuss implications o Ask citizens for their support of the candidate areas or if candidate areas are not supported what additional information should be considered. Activity Tirneframe Phase 3 public outreach activities began in January. Because the candidate areas will not be identified until early March, public meetings and workshops will likely take place in late March, and April. IX. Recommendations The Planning Directors of Washington County presents the Washington County Reserves Coordinating Committee (RCC) potential Draft Urban and Rural Reserves Candidate Areas. Staff recommends RCC members review these candidate areas with their staff and prepare to concur, at the March 2, 2009 RCC meeting, on those candidate areas that will receive further analysis Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 10 li .. • . . 1 • . . . x. . Potential. • . • .: ,..,,i Candidate , t ■■• 7 , :tt. • ‘4 - 711.-.. i'.'N .p.. . '''':::f.:fglq:.:' ',,'''i-4'1,';:,.0i::,.,--;:if,':...;' ,:..,,, 1, g ..., :.,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,A„,,...... . ....„,,,,,,,,,,,„:„ ,..,,,,..„,.... • , , • ..,. „,,,,,„,,,,,•,..,,„,. • •.,..„,:„.„....,:.,,,,..., ;74,......`.'S f ,. i': . . . . • , ''.A.Ati . .' , ,.;....,.....,..:, .:g...., ta' • • . ,.:.:' .,, ..: ,., -,31r_r. , ..-. , -.,=-..:.,-;.:,;., r, ,...,..,- „ ,,,,, • ••,,,,t,.. , ,,- .., -.. • .,e.'. N . --= ., • e,..s.:tt..-.• ''.,:,., • &i::›1 •1•037. .'rftF?:,=,•...V:.:ir; . ,i, i7`....=',:iiia ,;:.;k.,•:-... iSlog::::', W,i1..;' • z. '-r er .../. Areas ,-; -,' ',..;•e-•:>:-1,,...;.,,,,,,,,t,,,Jz--,,,,..4:',t,..5.,,;: "• ., .. 4, 4...?., ....Z.Wii.,:: ., ' , ',: , S;;• ,. .1a'•; . ; , ':.!.•.::::;',..:,", - Vg;`,.:1'.',..41,” ,!'..... " :?.. ';',''1 ..."''' Fe b u a ry 9, 2009 ....,,,,.,.:,,,•;.,-::::::.,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,, k •.. ,,,,-,„,-..s.,..,,,,,, ,•,,,,,,..,,,,,.„,, ,..:•;,..,,,..-,..-: xx,,, k,„,,,.,- f b . .. .. '.:• '''"..:•:W•'.-",•-77.--;-?•;'-.', .... •,.•••...•,.....,.......... ,,: .• ; - • , .. - : .• •• : :',..7, ,. .••• •, .i' s , ..: . •..,_ 2 ,''':::'.':'."'"'''''. '' ' , ..I.4V:;•.,„ .., -. . ',, . , :• ' .' .. . , f; • wzc::,,,,,,,,:,,,N,„ .‘,,p,..,,,,,,i,‘,,, -- " '' al N '-,:iiv.of....-. .,:ri INiz.:4 '''' - --:: ' . . . '4,.-....''''' • - Approx. 171.39 Acres .• ,•••,,,,.••••:•„..,,,,.• -•* • ...:',"e.'.'•:;' .4.2:;:-'4,? , Ik.';'''',1'-';',.,6.1;;:-,'!:t...‘i•'•''''''.V4$?,-1,,,,,,?-,i.'..,.:. ,•.?.,,, R.•,,,•,",,,",„,"....„..„,,,_ :zt,,,:,.4..,..• •. ,..,....„,::,,,•„.,....„,:„„,_„.:„:„4„,„, :,:,.....,:.:• ,• ?,,,:.:•,,iiie.,,„;:i.,,,,,,i,,A-0...,, , ..•„:::„. . •,..,,:..... --wri in area •„•::, ,..„:„.., ,.. , =,,,,,,, . r.7 -.7: - ."4, ,,,, . ,::::;::..-..-, .,;,:-.:-., ,:•::,...,..,..... i itillpt, , 't 1,-• '',•.. • • -I", ..."' “,• t•c p',:;i:.1.;•;5:7,ai.',';'-',17 -, •:: , :yf.',..:1•.`: , , 17; '" . 1 • ' -1, " - " , 'W'''''' ,. 41111111. . "4 1_ ,.,. , . .•,...• ,' . "t ... .W.:.--17...a,', . . •:•.;:i7:3:1',-.:•V:,:'..0;:V..;•=0.*:f:'''J';%. '' -- - 7 ''''''' . - 7---''': '•i"...'''''.. i I Reserve Study Area --, • - -. f,,,± , :,,..;.:•:•......i.,..::-:.:,..,, , ...... , , , ,„:„ , .;,, , „...,- . • , 4 , . , ..i-Ylo'; ,. .? . .4 , 6:P4 ,...- •.-- • li . '''';',-••„.. -' •.- t. ..•,,!'". ,!..!.. . 40 , Poki-nual t-andtUateAre :g9:: , , E'T= 1 :. ,.,.-: ' .:=,:f co so .,,.._. . _ .. .. - ...„ '7',,,,11,7::•,,,t,t,,,''',",•:,9"1!..;":,!;i4.77;,, ;..,:::•,, 1-r 4.,;.'•,i,';' :53.,g • ,--- -'! 'ANS • "" ,- ' . ..A.:.5,,, ' ' : ;?; . it . - !s' - ' - . - ...-.. 11111n111 ,-•= 2 :..„?.','"•,;‘,..,."' - ,.. - - -,. „ - . ir'SP. • • ,:ei.,, 4. c . jporm., ,, ,, ,.. ,1111/, :11 111 - totl Cc.funty Lne vf.. ., ,I N. , :•;J-,.;t? .. ..:.,4 - --,i;14:x ,c..t.:v.K;-, .v.,,..„...„.. I W 1 11 1 11, 1111 1 14 . 2 T . -,,, -, , ',..• ..14:7-„•:.:,..,„,,„:„„; ..- ' -,•..',.'ii,1'4*,i- s',. ...•,;,..,fkir).'ig,,i; ,-.;-,-„,: - .7 ,, ,111111111 . ,•:- , - . " -----,-- •.-45.:,,,, -,,,,,- : .. k . ' ''' ' , 4,. ,-,,,,,, W i• • ,L . • .•• -....-...... ./. - ' -' -' 'F • ii*iirlarai - 77. 4 -•‘ ,-.. 4.,1 -' ,,, •: .° ‘•=FW•', ',,, •' ''''1,-'46';'''''''•V'41,'.N-'. :','S',4;:•%:: - ,-"," • ...r; %i.inli - •: 040 si . ,i...; ' • • .. • •• ' - ''i•il •" VI''' ;:,:..:-... '2,,,.. \..' "v".'"‘f:4." '4 • , - -- - ' "'il ' - ''' . VOAMMIlerg4g.Aal4AZIAA,:"qt .' .117.7'''..-'• .g -".4.X.M?4 c 'ya,.. •7:;;;M.:. . - • ..''', '-' '.::'''..4:::: : • ,1 '..' ,,•:: - 4i.•S%''Fz's's r 7F , - , ,, , , V,•- , ..v-1., ,:717, , - - t ' - , ......,,0 : ;,...i.: S,if,.. ';'_•1-. - , i;:ggi'-''' , i i ,:: .-,-4-, i•...,: ;:..., ...,.., ,,,,24,-,., .: d'". , i- • ':: , , , i7.47e"..4.??4?; 4- 3 1' ' . ' ‘1,..±.... I inc b = 20,0ER1 f.e. :.:1';, .:-- 1:1it 'Z':. ..11-'1, , 4 , 4: .4ir.oss ' • .1,47 , _. . 00Wri %Ti '...4 .1 A . i ii ....., . . 4 ', . - . : ,,,- -"A" P?*: '.r-ii.-1.,:v .7:•:';',.-11.'...,!:!;:.:A Am :„:„,— -re 6-sliedlmktlacplesstrbaitand,RVISzt...se.c s . -L;"'..i: ..4111110V:,..„.,.;- . ..,...,,,,,, ..„:,:. 5 ‘791 • ••• - " ' - . ' . . .. '•''. ' ' '' ' ' C3' , 1.7. • :--;•',:re.,?•,--t ., _,, qTrft-VISX.XlitfiVita v.trep4z.inetn‘crpcencra . . . i tall .. sum!. ttcetrerve.acrolcasssektuavv4wett • .7..P.:'.. _ csait.a.itrlyvtiffezmoissedi. :.,gA:.*•e ' a:17.k..,,• ,:•-,,, - . " '• " ' '''f ',,',..i. • , .3, 7 .1 , ;' , A , • ..' .;,474I. —',•: 41111„; - S. _ 4-•,,IY,7,,t., , , r r• . .....,,.•.•5,:::;,:„.;,11 r: ,..., . .... .... f . ,, , i 7,,,,,,..93,dia .„...,...4„ . ,......„ : „_,•,1 : ,:z.„1.,,, ..., ,,,,,... ,, _, •._ ,,, Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report 11 • . . I $• I- Potential , Candidate -,-, Ny ":"T• ! "''''''' ' .4 i ,trz--;) . F5= w ,.. -) ..,. e , 4 k.: %..?.• 'it-'. -a. - i. - - v - Amilltile ....-:"'" '.....:;=. .-:.:::k4:.:Zi., Areas ,.._ ..„ ,-,:::.:: _ - , .-,..;...,,.:...- ...:,,..-4 ., , '-' .0, - ;..: -. ';':' , :.....f.."- .. , .. . . . February 9, 2009 . . ,., . . . . „ . ..:„.:,::-;':,-,,,::::',:.,"---- .., . .- . :,..._ :,. , f.N..„ '''''' i . .. , . . _ . .. ... ...,. ,,.. ,- , . ',..:'::.. ‘.., _ Approx. 106,010 Acres i . in area .,i, .; .....- - tor -NI - •7;',- .1 ...e.Ntw'malffilllt iuiok L III IIIIIIIfvlvtt r ' L _ w7. , t, ' StudyArea ,,-------- candidate Area - • -..-y.-,. , : : :- - 3 , , , - : ,.. , ? - . 2 /40 . 1 tto \IV.:Ist County Line fq-:*:: rar Iiiiiiti.* ._ *.r. .,,,.. I 4 ': . . ..... , 1 . 4 . -,- ..-.,;.#--'.?,..-::--•,.. _ L „,.,_-__ -. '' .. . ,-- •:4' , : iik - iimprillA . . . ., 1 111C h = 20,000 feet - -, ': mt, ,,r . 4111114111 . TIVItnecuirIG5-ziFt C/ LI 0, , ' JIMIPrillipPir ; .., 4:1131:V.Ttretretre rr Ccatzt rttlzetnatrau ens Aar aRmizia f ' il --:::•;:-. ! A . 111* - _,,,,,f l - .iattNi 44 ! : ..., ,. ,,„ ..... . .._ . 12 Washington County Phase 3 Interim Staff Report CITY MANAGER Citizen Communication Follow Up For the February 24, 2009 Meeting At the last City Council business meeting held on February 10, 2009, the following individual testified during Citizen Communications to the City Council. 7 :38:03 PM ....................... _........................... Lisa Hamilton - Treick, representing CPO 4B, announced that Curtis Tigard is celebrating his 100 birthday in April. The CPO has asked the Tigard Historical Society to come to the March 5 CPO 4B meeting to present the history of Tigard. Mr. Tigard has agreed to attend this meeting. (Meeting will be at the Alberta Rider Elementary School Library, 7 -9 p.m.) Ms. Hamilton - Treick explained that CPO 4B is a citizens organization sponsored by Washington County. This- organization's boundary covers about one -half of the City of Tigard and all of the Bull Mountain area. She said the meetings are open to everyone; there are no boundaries. The CPO addresses many issues important to local residents. In response to a question from Council President Wilson, City Manager Prosser advised that Mr. Tigard's birthday is April 25. The Tigard Historical Society is-planning an event that night. I: \ADM\CATHY\CCM \citizen communication follow up \citizen corn 090210.docx Agenda Item # 3 • . 2 Meeting Date February 24, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title A Resolution Re- Appointing Rick Parker to the Budget Committee, and Dan Goodrich as an alternate member. Prepared By Toby LaFrance Dept Head Approval: I City Mgr Approval: cP Cv`I C t.! ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council re- appoint Rick Parker to the City's Budget Committee and appoint Dan Goodrich as an alternate member as recommended by the Appointments Advisory Committee? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Act on the recommended appointments to the Budget Committee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Rick Parker's term on the Budget Committee expired on December 31, 2008. The Appointments Advisory Committee recently conducted interviews with several citizens who applied to become members of the Budget Committee. The Appointments Advisory Committee is recommending that the City Council appoint Rick Parker to a three -year term beginning January 1, 2009. The Committee is also recommending that the City Council appoint Dan Goodrich as an alternate for a one -year term beginning January 1, 2009. Mr. Parker has been a Tigard resident for 12 years and currently works as a Firefighter for Clackamas Fire. Mr. Goodrich has been a resident of Tigard for over thiry years, is currently retired. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. CITY COUNCIL GOALS City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST • Resolution appointing Rick Parker to the Budget Committee and appointing Dan Goodrich as an alternate member. • Budget Committee Recommended Appointees Biographical Information FISCAL NOTES N/A \ \tig20 \inetpub \tig20 \wwwroot \tones \form docslcouncil agenda item summary sheet 07 .doc BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPOINTEES BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Rick Parker has been a firefighter for Clackamas Fire for 18 years. He has lived in Tigard for 12 years and has been very active within the community. He has served one term on the Budget Committee, as well as the Financial Strategy Task Force. He is also the Treasurer of the IAFF Local 1159. Dan Goodrich has lived in Tigard for over 30 years. He is a graduate of the University of Oregon. He retired from Commercial Banking and now volunteers his time at a non -proft agency, Network for Oregon Affordable Housing. He has also served on the Tigard - Tualatin School District's Budget Committee and the Washington County Planning Committee for development of the Bull Mountain area. Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date February 24, 2009 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title A Resolution Re- Appointing Rick Parker to the Budget Committee, and Dan Goodrich as an alternate member. Prepared By. Toby LaFrance Dept Head Approval: / City Mgr Approval: C P Ctti,l C vr/ ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Should the City Council re- appoint Rick Parker to the City's Budget Committee and appoint Dan Goodrich as an alternate member as recommended by the Appointments Advisory Committee? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Act on the recommended appointments to the Budget Committee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Rick Parker's term on the Budget Committee expired on December 31, 2008. The Appointments Advisory Committee recently conducted interviews with several citizens who applied to become members of the Budget Committee. The Appointments Advisory Committee is recommending that the City Council appoint Rick Parker to a three -year term beginning January 1, 2009. The Committee is also recommending that the City Council appoint Dan Goodrich as an alternate for a one -year term beginning January 1, 2009. Mr. Parker has been a Tigard resident for 12 years and currently works as a Firefighter for Clackamas Fire. Mr. Goodrich has been a resident of Tigard for over they years, is currently retired. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. CITY COUNCIL GOALS City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST • Resolution appointing Rick Parker to the Budget Committee and appointing Dan Goodrich as an alternate member. • Budget Committee Recommended Appointees Biographical Information FISCAL NOTES N/A \ ltig2o\ inetpub \tg2o \wwwrootl forms \tom docs\ceda agenda item summary sheet 07 .doc BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPOINTEES BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Rick Parker has been a firefighter for Clackamas Fire for 18 years. He has lived in Tigard for 12 years and has been very active within the community. He has served one term on the Budget Committee, as well as the Financial Strategy Task Force. He is also the Treasurer of the IAFF Local 1159. Dan Goodrich has lived in Tigard for over 30 years. He is a graduate of the University of Oregon. He retired from Commercial Banking and now volunteers his time at a non -proft agency, Network for Oregon Affordable Housing. He has also served on the Tigard - Tualatin School District's Budget Committee and the Washington County Planning Committee for development of the Bull Mountain area. Agenda Item # J L Meeting Date February 24, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Resolution to Extend the Incentives to Annex until February 2010 Prepared By: Marissa Daniels Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: l J� ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council approve a resolution to extend the offer of incentives to property owners who voluntarily annex until February 2010? STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Approve the proposed resolution to extend the offer of incentives to annex until February 2010. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 13, 2007, City Council approved Resolution 07 -13 establishing policy to guide City actions pertaining to annexation of unincorporated land to the municipal City limits. The policy emphasizes Tigard's desire to work with property owners and residents of the unincorporated Urban Services Area to secure voluntary annexation based on the benefits to be gained by both parties. Section 4 of Resolution 07 -13 directs the City to work directly with property owners who express voluntary interest in annexation and sets out incentives to annex, including: • waiver of the City annexation application fee until July 1, 2008; and • phasing in of increased property taxes over a three -year period at the rate of 33 %, 67 %, and 100 %, for properties that annex during the period of March .13, 2007, to February, 2008 per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 150 - 222.111). For the property tax phase in, a year's time was given to allow Council to assess the effectiveness of this effort and make changes during the annual review of the annexation policy. Resolution 07 -47 amends Resolution 07 -13 to expand the incentives to include City payment of the Metro mapping/ filing fee until July 1, 2008. On March 25, 2008, City Council passed Resolution 08 -12 extending the offer of incentives to property owners who voluntarily annex to the City until February 2009. It is the intent of the annexation incentives to make the annexation application process essentially free . to individual property owners who voluntarily choose to annex to the City before the incentives expire. As such, it has been the operational procedure of the Community Development Department to waive the pre - application conference fee to individual property owners interested in voluntary annexation, and to offer the Development Engineering Division's assistance in preparing legal descriptions as long as they do not require field survey work. I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \2 -24 -09 AIS_Annexation Resolution.docx The attached Resolution gathers all of the incentives to annex into one place and includes the Community Development Depailtnent's efforts to make the annexation application process free to individual property owners interested in annexation. All incentives are to be reviewed in one year during Council's annual review of the annexation policy. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution amending Resolution 07 -13 Attachment 2: Resolution 08 -12 Attachment 3: Resolution 07 -13 Attachment 4: Resolution 07 -47 Attachment 5: Fiscal Notes Memo FISCAL NOTES Please see attached memo (Attachment 5). I: \1 RPIN \Council Materials \2009 \2 -24 -09 AIS_Anncxation Resolution.docx ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY: COUNCIL • RESOLUTION NO. 08- l A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 07 -13 TO EXTEND THE INCENTIVES FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED LANDS TO THE MUNICIPAL CITY LIMITS TO FEBRUARY 2009. WHEREAS, Resolution 07 -13 establishes policy to guide City actions pertaining to annexation of unincorporated lands to the municipal City limits, and provides incentives to annex, including waiver of the City annexation application fee until July1, 2008 and phasing in of increased property taxes over a three -year period at the rate of 33 percent, 67 percent, and 100 percent, for properties that annex during the period of March 13, 2007, to February 2008 per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 150- 222.111); and WHEREAS, Resolution 07 -47 amends Resolution 07 -13 to expand the incentives to include City payment of the Metro mapping/ filing fee until July 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City's operational and administrative procedures have been to assist in the preparation of legal descriptions as long as they do not require field survey work and to waive the pre - application conference fee for individual property owners interested in voluntary annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the incentives to annex at its annual review of the annexation policy at the February 26, 2008 work session and agreed to continue to offer incentives to property owners who voluntarily annex to the City until February 2009; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for the purposes of administrative ease and clarity to have one resolution that addresses all the above mentioned incentives to annex. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution 07 -13 is hereby amended to extend the offer of incentives to annex until February 2009, including • Waiver of the City annexation application fee; • Phasing in of increased property taxes for properties that annex during the period of March 13, 2007, to February, 2009, per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 150- 222.111); • City payment of the Metro mapping /filing fee; • Assistance in the preparation of legal descriptions, not to include field survey work; and • Waiver of the pre - application conference fee for individual property owners interested in voluntary annexation. SECTION 2: An annual review of the annexation policy and associated incentives shall occur concurrently. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. RESOLUTION NO. 08 - J Page 1 PASSED: This a5 8 " - day of ii /.1.fi. 2008. Ma r or City of Tigard A 1 "1'EST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 08 - f 3 Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTACHMENT 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 07- 3 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD ESTABLISHING POLICY TO GUIDE CITY ACTIONS PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE MUNICIPAL CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, Oregon law provides standards and procedures that permits annexation of unincorporated lands to cities and the City of Tigard has adopted, as part of its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, guiding policies pertaining to annexation; and WHEREAS, Washington County and the City of Tigard have, by intergovernmental agreement, mutually determined: a) the extent of an area called the Tigard Urban Services Area (TUSA) within which the City shall be the ultimate provider of urban services and, b) these lands shall be eventually part of the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, accessible governance and complete urban services are essential to the quality of urban life and annexation is a necessary means to: a) ensure delivery of complete urban services to the TUSA, and b) guarantee the cost of services are more equitably shared among all those that use them; and WHEREAS, annexation is an important tool to establish and maintain regular and logical city boundaries necessary for effective planning for public facilities services; the provision of said services and timely response by law enforcement; and WHEREAS, parts of Tigard's municipal boundary are irregular and confusing, and there exists unincorporated lands (islands) completely surrounded by the City; and this situation is incongruous with the City's responsibility to promote the effective and efficient provision of urban services; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard offers a wide range of benefits to its citizens including, full urban services; proximate and responsive governance and political representation; opportunities for civic participation, and quick to respond law enforcement, and consequently many property owners within the unincorporated TUSA have expressed interest in annexation; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote the benefits of being part of the City and wishes to encourage voluntary annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City shall not resort to involuntary annexation of unincorporated land, except in cases where it is found that such action is in the overall City's interest, such as to resolve public safety and /or health issues where it is necessary to extend or provide essential City services consistent with an adopted Community RESOLUTION NO. 07 1.3 Page 1 Investment Plan (CIP) or Public Facility Plan (PFP), and /or resolve incongruous municipal boundaries. SECTION 2: Tigard shall work with other cities, Washington County, Metro and the state to promote regional and statewide policies and actions that recognize that logical, efficient and economically sustainable urban development can best occur in existing incorporated cities. SECTION 3: The City shall proactively promote the benefits of being within the municipal City limits and invite owners of unincorporated properties to voluntarily join the City. However, each annexation shall be evaluated on its own merits to ensure it is in the City's overall interests. SECTION 4: The City shall communicate with and otherwise work directly with those that express voluntary interest in annexation to facilitate the annexation process. This shall include providing incentives to annex such as the following: • Waiver of the City annexation application fee until July 1, 2008. • Phasing in of increased property taxes over a three -year period at the rate of 33 percent, 67 percent, and 100 percent, for properties that annex during the period of March 13, 2007 to February, 2008, per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 150 - 222.111). SECTION 5: In consideration that conditions and circumstances change over time, the City Council shall revisit this policy in February 2008 and make changes if warranted. SECTION 6: This resolution takes is effective upon passage. k 2 PASSED: This ' day of 2007. OP/ Mayor - I .ty of Tigard ATTEST: t e e./3 1- a c City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 07 - Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTACHMENT 4 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 0747 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-13 TO EXPAND THE INCENTIVES FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED LANDS TO THE vIUNICfP,IL CITY LIMITS TO INCLUDE CITY PAYMENT OF THE METRO MAPPING /FILING FEE. WHEREAS, Resolution 07 -13 establishes policy to guide City actions pertaining to annexation of unincorporated urban lands to the municipal City limits, and provides incentives to annex, including waiver of the City annexation application fee until July 1, 2008, and phasing in of increased property taxes over a three-year period; and WHEREAS, Metro charges a mapping /filing fee for annexation and boundary change applications according to the following schedule: $150 for a single tax lot less than 1.0 acre, $250, 1.0 to 5.0 acres, $300 5.1 to 40.0 acres, $400 greater than 40.0 acres; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Metro fee at its May 22, 2007 work session and agreed to provide funding for the Metro mapping /filing fee to property owners who voluntarily annex to the City until July 1, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution 07 -13 is hereby amended to expand the incentives to annex to include City payment of the Metro mapping /filing fee until July 1, 2008. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This , t day of .I _ 2007. ,1 Mayor - City of Tigard A'1"1'EST: V 7U Lkt uk)/ City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 07 - Page 1 11111 ATTACHMENT S City of f Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: City Council From: Marissa Daniels, Assistant Planner Re: Annexation Resolution, Fiscal Notes Date: February 11, 2009 The following outlines the basics of phasing -in of City property taxes. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 150 - 222.111 provides for phasing in of property taxes and sets out the process. The City is required to notify the assessor's office that taxes are to be phased in for annexed property and of the tax ratio it wishes to be applied. The Assessor, in turn, establishes separate tax -codes for territory subject to "phased" property taxes. If the City wishes to phase -in the City's property tax -rate over a period of time; for example three years, it would notify the Assessor that a newly annexed property shall pay a proportional increment of property taxes each year. For instance, as proposed, the City could request the County levy 33% of the City's tax -rate the first year, 67% the second, and 100% the third year. When cities have general obligation (GO) bond levies, as Tigard does for the new library, phased in levy taxes are calculated using the same general methodology applicable to the permanent tax rate. The table below summarizes the loss in tax revenue for a single property valued at $350,000: Loss in Revenue for a Property with an assessed value of $350,000.00 1 Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Taxes 33% 67% 100% Paid $316.11 $641.81 $957.92 Annual Lost Revenue $641.81 $316.11 0 Total Lost Revenue $957.92 * FY 2007 -2008 There is also revenue loss due to foregone annexation application and pre - application conference fees. During fiscal year 2006 -2007 there were four annexations, six during 2007 -2008, and five during 2008 -2009. Based on an average of five annexations per year, the total revenue loss due to foregone fees would be about $14,340. In addition to the Tigard annexation application fee, Metro charges a mapping /filing fee according to the following schedule: $150 Single tax lot less than 1.0 acre $250 1.0 to 5.0 acres $300 5.1 to 40.0 acres $400 Greater than 40.0 acres The total cost to the City of Tigard depends on the number of annexations and the number of acres annexed. For example, during fiscal year 2006 -2007, four annexations resulted in a total of $1,100 in mapping /filing fees paid to Metro. During fiscal year 2005 -2006, five annexation applicants paid Metro $1,400 in mapping /filing fees. Annexation Acres Metro Fee FY 2007 -2008 Cross .53 $150 Phelps 3.6 $250 Cach 1.43 $250 Brentwood 7.45 $300 Montage 2.0 $250 Total $1,200 FY 2006 -2007 Goodlett 1.74 $250 Sunrise Lane 39.42 $300 Topping /Kemp 1.81 $250 Cach Creek 35.78 $300 Total $1,100 FY 2005 -2006 Wilson Ridge No. 2 3.50 $250 Sunrise Lane 25.61 (Withdrawn) Alberta Rider School /Summit Ridge 19.56 $300 Wilson Ridge 2.68 $250 Arlington No. 3 16.97 $300 Mountain View Estates 6.94 $300 Total $1,400 Average Fee Per Year $1,233 Agenda Item # 3 ' Meeting Date February 24, 2009 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consider Awarding Contracts for Three Water Syst Engineering Consultants of Record Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB): • Award engineering consultant of record contracts to Murray Smith and Associates Inc., Carollo Engineers P.C., and CH2M HILL Inc. • Authorize staff to execute contracts with the three firms for projects totaling $50,000 or less. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the LCRB awards water system engineering consultants of record contracts to Murray Smith and Associates, Carollo Engineers, P.C., and CH2M HILL Inc., and authorizes staff to execute contracts with the three firms for projects totaling $50,000 or less. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Engineering services, primarily related to the City's water system, are routinely required by the Public Works Department. Engineering services might be used to: - Design, update, or fin9lize water system master plans. - Design and provide construction management for water system infrastructure. - Provide expertise in long -term water supply matters. - Provide plan review and recommendations for private development projects. - Provide professional services in association with asset management studies, professional society publications, alternative energy projects, water reuse projects, etc. • Establishing engineering consultants of record will reduce costs and staff time by eliminating the need to conduct a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process for every project. Additionally the City can evaluate a firm's qualifications and ability to meet the City's needs on an annual basis versus a per - project basis. • Six engineering firms submitted proposals in response to the City's Request for Proposals. Each proposal was evaluated separately by a panel of three City staff members and a representative from a neighboring water agency. • Based upon the evaluation process, the panel determined Murray Smith and Associates Inc., Carollo Engineers P.C., and CH2M HILT. Inc. had the qualifications, capabilities, staffing, and experience to best meet the City's needs. Firms not selected included Winzler & Kelly, Tetra Tech, and Brown and Caldwell. • If approved by the LCRB, the contracts will be for an initial term of one year and may be renewed for four additional one -year terms. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The LCRB could choose not to award the contracts to all three proposed firms and could direct staff on how to proceed in the selection of an engineer of record. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES The funds needed to pay for engineer of record services will be budgeted on a project by project basis. Any projects that exceed $50,000 will come before the LCRB for approval. For example, the current budget includes $150,000 for water system master plan services and each of the engineers of record would be asked to submit specific information regarding their firm's ability to perform these services. The LCRB would then consider awarding the project to the engineer of record who was able to best meet the City's needs in developing the plan. • Agenda Item # V Meeting Date February 24, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Fields Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Prepared By: Cheryl Gaines Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the attached resolution denying a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Classification for one, 25 acre parcel zoned Light Industrial (I -L) to Medium High Residential (R -25)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council deny both the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment based on the findings in the Staff Report and the Planning Commission recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed amendment is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development, Tigard Comp Plan Goal 9 — Economic Development, and Comp Plan Goal 2 — Land Use Planning. 1) The proposed amendment is inconsistent with Statewide and City Comp Plan Goals regarding Economic Development which call for the City to develop and maintain a diversified, sustainable local economy. • Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has reviewed the proposal and commented that it is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development. (see letter from DLCD in attachment 2). • Tigard currently exports employment. By rezoning this site from Light Industrial to R -25, the City looses an opportunity for additional family -wage jobs within the City and a significant source of property tax revenue. • Tigard has a limited amount of vacant industrial land with limited potential for expanding into new areas that could be designated industrial. • The 2008 buildable lands inventory indicates that the site has approximately 17.64 acres of buildable land after removal of sensitive lands. The City has identified a total of 24.51 acres of buildable land zoned Light Industrial. Re- designating this site to R -25 would eliminate 72% of this land — leaving only 6.87 acres. These acres are spread out over 10 properties with the largest being 3.3 acres. 2) The proposed amendment is also inconsistent with Policy 15 under the City's Land Use Planning Goal 2.1, which outlines the criteria for amendments to the Tigard Comp Plan / Zone Map. These include: a) The new use shall fulfill a proven community need and demonstrate that there is an inadequate amount of developable land for the proposed land use. • Tigard currently meets its housing capacity goals. • Several other areas within the City allow higher density housing, such as Washington Square Regional Center, Tigard Triangle, and the Central Business District. • There is an adequate amount of land zoned for medium -high density or multi - family housing. b) Transportation and other facilities must be available, committed to be available or of sufficient capacity to serve the proposed land use. • Access to the site would be by extending Wall Street across Fanno Creek. • Significant wetlands are present, which requires a Comp Plan Amendment (CPA) to remove the Goal 5 protection to construct the road within these wetlands /wetland buffers. • This application has been made, but it is unknown if the CPA will be approved at this time. • The previous Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.3.1 listed location criteria for Light Industrial lands that stated industrial traffic shall not be channeled through residential areas. This criterion was eliminated by the adoption of Goal 2 — Land Use Policy in the revised Comprehensive Plan. The adopted ordinance was effective July 4, 2008. This application was submitted on July 10, 2008. 3) The applicant argues that the property is ill - suited for industrial uses. • The applicant has not conclusively shown that the site could not be developed with a use allowed within the Light Industrial (I -L) zone. While the site is located near the library and residential uses to the south and west, it still is adjacent to industrial uses and the railroad to the north and east. In addition, Fanno Creek provides a natural buffer area between this site and nearby residential sites. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED During the Planning Commission hearing it was noted that the designation of the property could be addressed through the Legislative Process. Through a policy approach the City Council could look at the designation in a broader context of an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Such an analysis needs to take into account the entire community, not just a specific site. The EOA will be part of the City's periodic review. CITY COUNCIL GOALS City Council has a 5 year goal to implement the Comprehensive Plan; this amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan regarding Economic Development and Land Use Planning. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: "Draft" Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 26, 2009 Attachment 2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 8, 2008 Attachment 3: Comment Letter from Sue Beilke dated January 25, 2009, received January 27, 2009 Attachment 4: Applicant's packet submitted at Planning Commission Hearing, January 26, 2009 Attachment 5: Resolution FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact anticipated for this action. ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 26, 2009 *x. 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon, to approve the January 5, 2009 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was approved as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Fishel EXCUSED: Hasman 5. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2008 -00003 — RED ROCK CENTER PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman read the Quasi Judicial Hearing Guide. There were . no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex -parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioners Walsh and Muldoon reported site visits. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 1 of 15 STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. He referred to the two comment letters he'd just distributed to the Commissioners (Attachments 1 & 2). He also passed out a Transportation Impact Analysis for Tigard Retail Center, saying this would relate to the ODOT comment letter which was addressed in the staff report. He said they'd wanted it entered into the record, so it's being given for reference. Pagenstecher gave some history on the property — that the request to remove the PD standards overlay had been denied previously, citing that the standards were important to evaluate the relationship between the built environment and the natural resources on the site. He noted it's different from the Tigard Retail center application in that it does not have detailed plan from current review associated with it — a concept plan review only. One decision is being asked and it's on the concept plan review. Pagenstecher summarized that staff believes the applicant made a good faith effort in approaching this project with an opportunity in constraints analysis that fits the spirit of the PD concept plan review. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) Were there any elevation issues in the proposed plan or the concept? Retaining walls were brought up in the Scott! Nordling comment letter. They believe that retaining walls on the south edge of the property, adjacent to their properties, which front on Elmhurst, would be significant. The applicant addressed the retaining walls in that area and in other areas in their neighborhood meeting — also in their project description. There are significant walls on the south side 0 — 5 feet is what the applicant says they are — not terribly high — and they also suggest they can be stepped back to minimi the height of each wall. The applicant made a real effort to address the natural resource in their proposal. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ben Altman, with SFA Design Group, introduced himself as the Project Planner representing the applicant. He introduced Brad Pihas, the applicant; John Anderson, architect; Brian Lee, with Pace Engineering; and Todd Mobley, traffic engineer from Lancaster Engineering. Altman asked the commission to keep in mind that they were dealing with the concept plan at this point — not the detail. He noted they were primarily looking for direction on the issues that haven't yet been addressed. They generally agree with the staff report but have a few comments or issues of concern that they want to address. He went through what they'd done to this point to get to the concept plan presently before the commission. He said the concept plan provides the framework to guide them into the final development stage for this property. He noted there are no hard conditions imposed so far as they know at this point but he wanted to clarify a few points. Through their site evaluation, they determined that there are opportunities to leverage the constraints that consisted on the site into opportunities for creative design which provide the anchor for the planning objectives for this planned development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 2 of 15 They follow the following factors: e Wetland forms a physical barrier at the n/w corner, and provides an opportunity to create a visual window, or aesthetic attraction, at this point. It can create views into the wetland from the site. o There is an FAR easement over lot 33 — s/e corner of the site — that limits buildings in that area — so they used that area for parking. ® Street frontage on all four sides. ® No access from 72nd, ultimately limited access on Dartmouth, with primary access on 70th and limited access on Elmhurst. ® Key advantages are the ability to enhance and incorporate the wetland into the site as an integral part of the site. o Provides a nice visual backdrop for what is envisioned in the Tigard Triangle Plan. ® Nice natural enhancement which results in allowing a more pedestrian friendly environment at a point which would otherwise be the intersection of two major arterial streets in the triangle. He then went over some of the concerns and issues raised in the staff report: e Missing trees in the survey: He said they'd provided a visual of the tree plan. Of those trees — 9 of those trees within the site are 12" or greater — another 9 trees of the 12" caliper in the ROW of 70th. They will provide details later. ® In the phasing plan they are requesting to proceed with the storm drainage improvements within the Dartmouth ROW as soon as possible following approval of the concept plan and that this is allowed to occur before they submit the detailed plan. There are timelines imposed in the mitigation by DSL — particularly weather related timelines for them to complete that work — and that timeline is during the dry weather months. So they need specific authorization for that. ® Transportation impacts: They have comments from ODOT. Their general concerns are in terms of the way they proposed their conditions, first by saying they didn't agree with the traffic report and would like to substitute one not related to the site — they think that's inappropriate. A completely different traffic report inserted into this hearing doesn't make sense. Their intent is to work with the City and ODOT on updating the traffic impact for that area. ® 70th Ave: They anticipate using 70th as the primary access, as Dartmouth would limit turns. They requested interim improvements — as an option they would like to consider in the detailed plan providing Phase I access from Dartmouth until such time as a center medium would be imposed. Also, the scope of what this site is expected to deliver on 70th Ave — staff report implies full street improvement and then mentions an LID which implies that others would benefit from this improvement. They need feedback. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 3 of 15 e Concerns about impacting traffic thru residential neighborhoods to the south: They believe phasing in the improvements on 70th and Elmhurst would help minimize impact to the neighborhood. • In summary, he noted that they've demonstrated compliance with Development Code in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and have specifically addressed the attempt to have the triangle focal point at the intersection of Dartmouth and 72nd as an element in their plan. What they're asking for is a general deferral of the conditions of approval specifically related to street improvements to the detailed development plan where they have specific uses in a revised traffic report. They would expect to continue to work with ODOT and the City on traffic details and defining specific impacts of this project. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT The commissioners questioned the applicant extensively regarding: • The phasing in of the 70th Ave improvement and of the development itself. O Trees • Structure of the walls • Flooding into residential properties o Benefit being provided by the site • © Big picture goal o Surface parking • Landscape plan PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION Debi Scott, 7085 SW Elmhurst Street, spoke in opposition. She reiterated the main points as were in her written comments (Attachment 1). There were no questions of Ms. Scott. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, addressed the following issues: ® Canopy cover — If the commission would put in as a condition, some canopy numbers — that'd be an advantage. There might also be a condition regarding covered walkways — due to precipitation. • Public access on walkways O Greenstreet Design — he believes the commission should require that this development review and propose what elements of Greenstreet design features would be included. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 4 of 15 ® Piping of the small stream — immediately downstream is the proposed PacTrust development — Frewing said a pipe here inhibits the achievement of the downstream PacTrust goal for the stream. This minor area of the stream should be opened up — not piped. ® CWS has said in the recent past that they don't want vault underground detention and treatment. It looks like that kind of engineering is going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong. (Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager, commented that that was on residential.) ® This streamside area appears to be mapped on the significant fish and wildlife map of the City of Tigard and there are development limits that I've not seen any discussion on. Those limitations ought to be discussed in the application and in your approval. There were no questions of Mr. Frewing. No other opponents to the application. There were some questions of staff — particularly of Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager regarding issues relevant to the street piece of the project - possible supplemental TIFS (Transportation Impact Fees) - the appropriateness of using the Tigard Impact Study, etc. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Ben Altman noted that, in terms of supplemental TIF's, the city of Wilsonville did it for their interchange area. They created a specific impact area based on trip generation through the interchange as a way to fund the next phase of improvements for those interchanges. The real concern they had is defining the proportional contribution for off -site — not just frontage. At what point do we have to participate in all those improvements when it's really a cumulative impact on 72 that's driving all this? It's an existing deficiency that creates the problem. In terms of passing that on to the development community — it appears to me it's an area the City hasn't adequately addressed yet. He spoke about Elmhurst — do we need the access on Elmhurst? We could come out the south end of 70th and not use Elmhurst at all. We'll look at that in the detailed plan. As to storm drainage — backyard privacy — to the degree we can, we will try to preserve that. We can look at covered walkway areas. In the narrative we specifically address the intent to have public walkways, particularly the one going through the wetland to the south. Anyone could walk through the site — like any other retail center. We can look at the issues of Greenstreets and other details of "green" design. The piping of the stream was directed to us. We're open to a swale design if that's acceptable to the City. QUESTIONS /COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Vermilyea said he would like to go on the record as saying he would be much more in favor if the stream wasn't piped. He'd be interested in what they have to say in the detailed plan. There were other concerns from the commissioners regarding the traffic issues and saving trees. It was suggested by one of the commissioners that with regard to trees, the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 5 of 15 applicant should get together with City arborist and Tree Board. The applicant said they could look into that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS There was significant deliberation regarding tree canopy cover, surfaces of parking lot, phasing requirement, Greenstreets, ODOT traffic issues, stepping and retaining walls, the importance of meeting with the Tree Board, etc. Vermilyea asked about the process. Commissioner Vermilyea suggested that there were two options. 1) Ask them to come back in a month and address these questions to our satisfaction — at which point we'll approve it — and 2) approve it with these conditions and require that they be addressed as part of the detail plan — whenever that comes forward. McMillan gave some information and answered some of the commissioner's questions. Vermilyea said he would like to ask the applicant a procedural question in terms of timing. Inman said the hearing would have to be reopened to question the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED Question by Commissioner Vermilyea - If we were to carry this forward another month — how long would you need to be able to come back to us to address our concerns? Brian Lee, Pace Engineering, replied that they would need several weeks and then 6 weeks to approve it. He said several permits would be expiring and all this would need to be taken into consideration. He said this work needs to be done this year and that the Army Corp of Engineers and DSL is reluctant to agree to any further time extensions: and if the work is not completed this year, their permits are in jeopardy of expiring in 2010. Mr. Lee explained the process that they'd been through to date and then talked about where they may go from there to address some of the concerns. He talked about the different experts (a wetland specialist, wetland biologist, and a representative from ODF &W, DSL, and Core of Engineers) that had met at the site to review the site and the natural resources and determined that their application plan offered no significant impact. In other words, the resource on the site did not offer any significant benefit to either aquatic or plant life. They felt the piping system proposed was acceptable and therefore they gave them the permits to do all of the mitigation for the on -site wetlands & onsite vegetative corridor. There were questions regarding the re- meandering of the stream and the applicant talked about where the stream bed would be located. There was some explanation by Kim McMillan regarding the history of the property. PUBLIC HEARING RECLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 6 of 15 DELIBERATIONS CONTINUE • Vermilyea stated what he believed should be conditions of approval. There were more deliberations and then a motion was made. MOTION The motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon (with some of the conditions articulated • by Commissioner Vetinilyea), seconded by Commissioner Doherty as follows: I move that we approve PDR2008 -00003 Red Rock Creek concept plan - that's the 12625 SW 70th Ave. - permitting improvements for the storm drainage on Dartmouth Right of Way and hydrology improvements for the wetlands and subject to five conditions that have been articulated to be included in the detailed plan: the Greenstreets concept; the canopy coverage and meeting with the Tree Board; (at this point Commissioner Vermilyea was asked to continue) - the alternatives to ingress and egress on Elmhurst; revision or addressing the concerns on the traffic impact analysis, both ODOT's concerns and the City's concerns; and addressing the detail on the step retaining walls. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: Commissioner Vermilyea (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman (1) BREAK 6. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (Originally scheduled for 12 -15 -08 canceled due to weather) (CPA) 2008 - 00008 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00002 — FIELDS ZONE CHANGE President Inman read the Quasi - Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex -parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Muldoon reported a site visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 7 of 15 • STAFF REPORT Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She mentioned two letters - one dated December 10, 2008 from Group MacKenzie (Attachment 3) and another letter from ODOT dated December 15, 2008 (Attachment 4) — that she would like to enter into the record. Staff recommends that PC recommend denial to the City Council because the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, Statewide Planning Goal #9, and the Tigard Development Code. 1) Policy 15 under Land Use Planning Goal 2.1, outlines the criteria for amendments to the Tigard Comp Plan / Zone Map. These include: e Transportation and other facilities must be available, committed to be available or of sufficient capacity to serve the proposed land use. - Access to the site would be by extending Wall Street across Fanno Creek. - Significant wetlands are present, Comp Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protection. - Application has been made. Currently incomplete. - Unknown if the CPA would be approved at this time. m New use shall fulfill a proven community need. Demonstrate that there is an inadequate amount of developable land for the proposed land use. - Tigard's target capacity under the Metropolitan Housing Rule is a density opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. - Based on 2008 buildable lands inventory, the City is currently in compliance as it can provide and overall density of 10.42 units per net buildable acre. - Several areas within the City allow higher density housing, such as WSRC, Tigard Triangle, and the CBD. Capacity is also expected to increase with the implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan. - There is not an inadequate amount of land zoned for medium -high density or multi- family housing. 2) Comp Plan Goals 9.1, 2 and 3 call for the City to develop and maintain a diversified, sustainable local economy, make Tigard a center for innovative business, and make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live by providing options for people to live in close proximity to where they work. - Tigard currently exports employment. By rezoning this site from Light Industrial to R -25, the City loses an opportunity for additional family -wage jobs within the City and a significant source of property tax revenue. - Tigard has a limited amount of vacant industrial land with limited potential for expanding into new areas that could be designated industrial. Surrounding residential and mixed use. 2008 buildable lands inventory indicates that the site has approximately 17.64 acres of buildable land after removal of sensitive lands. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 8 of 15 . The City has identified a total of 24.51 acres of buildable land zoned Light Industrial. Re- designating this site to R -25 would eliminate 72% of this land — leaving only 6.87 acres. These acres are spread out over 10 properties with the largest being 3.3 acres. - The applicant has not addressed the full impact of the proposed amendment on the Tigard economy, nor have they identified other areas of the City where the jobs lost could be provided. - In addition, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has reviewed the proposal and commented that it is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development. Staff finds that the proposal to re- designate this Light Industrial site to Medium High Density Residential will not promote the City's economic goals and is not necessary at this time to meet housing goals. The applicant has not shown that the increased residential density created by the amendment outweighs the loss of potential jobs and the impact on the local economy. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) The applicant implies that there is difficulty with industrial access to the land, if I understand correctly, is that necessarily correct? It looks to me like there's potential access to n/w thoroughfare that would allow truck access to that area but have you looked at that? Is this an area you can bring semi - trucks in? Wall Street that would be the access that they're proposing to the site, would have to be constructed as a collector street and therefore could handle the capacity of truck traffic. It has to be a collector because it's on the Tigard Transportation System Plan as a collector. It has to be developed that way regardless of whether it's residential or industrial. • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION The applicant distributed a large document to each commissioner and staff entitled "Hearing Exhibits for Fields Zone Change" which included 9 tabs of information and a copy of the PowerPoint that they would be going through at this meeting. Rhys Konrad, Project Planner with Group MacKenzie, introduced himself and those with him. He said he respectfully disagrees with the conclusions and findings in the staff report. Specifically, he feels they met the burden of proof and all the applicable criteria surrounding the application. He said they would do their best to address all the points on the staff report and DLCD's letter; however, there have been written materials just passed out to the commission that would touch on the information that was previously submitted. At this point Konrad, with help from Attorney Will Rasmussen, with Miller Nash, went over a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 5). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 9 of 15 The conclusion of the presentation was that: • The burden of proof has been met; • The site is not suitable for industrial; • Approval criteria met; and • Residential is the most appropriate designation QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There were several questions by the commissioners relating to the issues below: • Access, and whether residential generates more revenue than light industrial. • Has a traffic study been done? • Are you planning a bridge across the wetlands? • Rail access precluded from crossing — is there anything in writing stating that? • Can you address tab 8 and answer the question whether there has there been, in fact, a master plan and help us understand what the greater idea is in light of that plan? • How does the Memo of Understanding relate? • Have they purchased property to site their school buses? • How many people do you think would live in this area? • Your claim is that the site is better off with residential, and in looking at the zoning map around it, you're proposing that R -25 — why R -25 and why not compatible with the R -12 or R -7? Rhys and Rasmussen answered the questions and the hearing was opened up to public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR Clayton Hering signed up to speak but did not speak. Mike Wells, 15780 Upper Boones Ferry Road, said his company develops industrial, office & retail buildings. He said typically he would object to losing employment type lands as suggested here but his concern is market based. He noted that access to the site is through residential zoned area and the library. Its access is through Hall Blvd. He said he would not develop this site for industrial, the concern being that employers will be very reluctant to have the cars of their employees and delivery vehicles access the site through the library and the residential neighborhood. If it's a very light industrial it would be more car intensive with employees having more office and production — or if it's warehouse, then it would be more truck intensive — either one of those not mixing well with the library and residential traffic. Fred Fields, the property owner, got up to speak. He said several of those present didn't seem to be aware of the fact that originally the plan was to extend Wall Street from Hall Blvd to Hunziker. That plan was a very important plan for the City of Tigard as they were trying to establish an arterial from Hall to Hunziker to divert some of the traffic that congests at the intersection of Hall and Hunziker. The railroad shot that one down at one point in time. They said they would consider crossing at the point we've discussed but they PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 —Page 10 of 15 said the requirement for them to consider it was they'd have to see complete detailed drawings of the street and the crossing and so forth. The City spent $150,000.00 creating the drawings for that street. The agreement I had with the City was that I would form an LID to extend the road from Hall to Hunziker and I would pay for that if the City were to provide the engineering and the necessary inter - connections at Hunziker and Hall Blvd — meaning traffic lights and so forth. I would pay the balance of the cost. The railroad took that away from us but the agreement I had with the City was that in the event the railroad turned down the crossing, the contract would still be in effect. I would have access to the library property that crossed Fanno and so forth. I must say the City did everything in their power to get that road built from Hall to Hunziker but unfortunately the railroad has more power. The City did put forth 100% effort and I have no complaints about that but, in the meantime, 7 years had gone by and I've been trying to get access to that property since then. Unfortunately, I've not been able to accomplish that. I'm not going to live forever and I don't know whether you're trying to wear me out and hope that I vanish — but someone else is going to have the problem if you don't help solve it. I've met with at least 4 different City Managers here and had meetings with Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern, both, and had very detailed discussions with those involved - and everyone agreed that it was important that • that road be established crossing the railroad — including the railroad. I have letters signed by the appropriate individuals at Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern, but at that time economically it wasn't practical. Times have changed and now things are different. Someone mentioned that there are only so many acres of industrial land in the Tigard area — what was that number? Staff answered - of light industrial it's about 24, 25 acres. That's all there is? of buildable lands yes — including this parcel. I've got the 42 acres across the railroad track as industrial — somebody didn't count right. It's industrial park versus light industrial — so it's a slightly different— the uses are a little bit different. They break it down into specific industrial ones. Well, all that to say there's 42 acres across the railroad that is industrial. Thank you for your time. There were some questions of Mr. Fields regarding the bridging at grade crossing. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION There were four individuals who had signed up to speak but, due to the late hour, they decided to let James R. Essenberg, of 13688 SW Hall Blvd. #3, Tigard, speak for all of them. He said he lives in the condos adjacent to the library. His main points were: ® The wetlands would have to be torn apart and filled in to build a bridge to a piece of property with only one way in and one way out. • If housing is put in there — and a 100 year flood comes, you've got all these people and houses on the other side of a bridge and no way out and no way in for emergency vehicles. ® If it's light industrial, there are businesses in there — there won't be people in there at night if there's a flood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 11 of 15 © Who wants to live in apartments right next to the railroads? I live in the condos and I hear the trains constantly — now WES — during their hours of operation - every 15 minutes - they'll hear these trains. o They'd have to cut down so many trees. ® Sewerage problem. • There were some questions of Mr. Essenberg regarding pick -up trucks, vans, & heavy semi's if it was zoned light industrial. They asked what his preference on zoning type would be (Not high density.) No one else who had signed up on the list in opposition wanted to speak, so President Inman opened it up to members of the audience. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, spoke about his concern that he did not have access to the new material provided by the applicants. He was concerned that the applicant was providing information outside of the normal process. He said he'd like the opportunity to review that material. He noted this area is quite isolated from other areas. To the west are wetlands and the stream, further west is the library, to the south is natural area. If you call this a triangle, on two sides its natural areas surrounding this area — and on the third side the railroad of course. I think the characterization of this being a residential area isn't quite fair in my mind. Regarding the Oregon laws and so forth, they talk about sites — not things off the sites. It concerns me that you're giving too much weight to things that are off the site itself. I think that's irrelevant. Frewing went on to talk a bit about the DLCD letter of November 25. He said they find this doesn't meet their rules for economic development. He thinks great weight should be given to the agency and respects the applicant's arguments on this point, but he thinks when DLCD says this doesn't meet the economic development goal, that should be considered a big deal. Frewing went on to speak about the EOA (Economic Opportunity Analysis) and the Comprehensive Plan. He said as of now in the rules and the Comp Plan — this doesn't fly. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Phil Grillo, of Miller Nash, a Land Use attorney working for Mr. Fields, addressed the points the commissioners had made and the public testimony. He discussed the EOA and the idea of "one way in and one way out." As to emergency access, he said some sort of secondary emergency access would have to be done whether it's industrial or residential — either way. He talked about the railroad being a barrier rather than an asset to the area. He spoke about the "push" and "pull" factors. He said this is just not the site for industrial use. He said there may be some further discussion as to whether R -25 is the best designation. He believes that type of discussion is appropriate — rather than talking about whether it's appropriately designated as light industrial if you actually do an EOA for this. It just doesn't work for that purpose. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 12 of 15 Rhys Konrad spoke a bit about railroad sound — he said there are ways to help mitigate sound issues. He noted that the site can be developed and that the reason R -25 was chosen is that it allows mixed uses of density. And as to floodplain impacts — residential structures on this site certainly would not be proposed within the 100 year flood plain, nor would the access proposed to serve this site. There were some questions of the applicant from the commissioners. Commissioner Doherty said she was speaking on her own behalf when she said the message they were sending to her by giving them all this extra material at the very last minute, is that the commissioner's study of something - the time they take to go through materials that they have ahead of time - that the City sends to them in ample time - is apparently not very important to the applicant. She said that's the message she's getting and she doesn't appreciate it. "If you're giving us something like this, make sure we get it before the hearing." `Duly noted — we apologie. " There was some discussion as to how to proceed — whether this should be legislative or judicial. The applicant said their strong preference is to have it decided quasi - judicial. He gave several reasons as to why — first is because they have the access application in process. That will be moving forward soon. That's a critical piece and it's important to know what use they're trying to get access for. They need the use issue solved so they can focus on what access they're trying to solve from the use standpoint. Secondly, the EOA for this site really hasn't been done and we have that information in here for you today. We want to be able to show you why, if you run the EOA, the constraints don't work for this site for industrial. That won't change in the legislative process. At this point, Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, said they plan to do a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan and one of the compartments is to do an EOA - essentially update what we have now. This particular proposal proposes to remove a substantial part of the available light industrial land. It also proposes to do a number of things which the state and Metro may have some concerns or questions about - as you see in the record today. The essential question is whether this should be done through a policy approach — essentially whereby the City Council can take broader discretion and look at this piece of land in context of all of the economic and job related uses in the city — not just individually, and then make the decision in that context. The Planning Commission tonight can determine whether, based upon this application, for this particular use, they meet the burden of proof, and whether or not it should be proved quasi - judicially. The other option is to go forward and ask staff to address it through the legislative process. There were a few more questions as to whether there would be new numbers were they to come back at a later time. At this point, President Inman said to be quite honest she's ready to move on it but they've already started down a path. She said she wasn't positive from her own personal opinion that there's much of anything the applicant's going to bring back that's going to change her PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 13 of 15 leaning. She asked if they would just be sending them on a fruitless task. She said she didn't want to waste their time or the commissioner's time. Another commissioner said he believed others may be able to rule on it as well. He suggested taking a consensus. At this point they closed the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11:08 DELIBERATIONS The commissioners discussed if the answer to this is R -25. One of the commissioners said he was not ready to go that far. There was talk about rail accessibility and whether the freight lines are not accessible. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, spoke about access to the property and that there are a number of issues and, unfortunately, the applicant made the case that it should be reviewed through a Periodic Review process rather than this process. All the issues they brought up indicate it's not clear what the best use for this property is — based on what's been provided. The commissioners continued their deliberations and then a motion was made. MOTION • There was a motion was by Commissioner Walsh, seconded by Commissioner Doherty as follows: I move we deny the application of CPA2008- 00008 /ZON2008 -00002 Fields Zone Change and adoption of the staff's recommendation in support of denial in the staff report. Following the motion, Commissioner Vermilyea made the following statements: I do think this piece of property is a problem piece of property. I think we need to look at making a change - and quickly. I'm not, convinced that when that change happens, it needs to be at our designation — I think there are other alternatives. Some things that concern me are — I don't see a demonstrated need for higher density residential development in light of our current residential capacity in the city. There's a 30 year historic designation as light industrial that [inaudible] against changing it at this time. We have a real need to develop employment centers in this area — especially light industrial. We have a real need to develop and expand Tigard's tax base and the fact that the changing in the zone would significantly reduce available land for dense employment centers all lead me to vote to deny the application, but I want to emphasize that I'm very sensitive to the issues that have been brought up today by the applicant, and I urge staff to work closely with the applicant to find a compromise that makes sense for this piece of property in light of the concerns that I just raised. At this point the vote was taken. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 14 of 15 The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted'as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea and Commissioner Walsh ( NAYS: Commissioner Caffall (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman (1) President Inman noted that the application is on the City Council agenda for February 24, 2009. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — None 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:26p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary AI President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: January 26, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE ;. s e „ice ` ` ®® PLANNING COMMISSION; FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON _ _ - 120 DAYS = NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2008- 00008 Zone Change (ZON) Z ON2008- 00002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Classification for one parcel (approximately 25 acres) from Light Industrial (I -L) to Medium -Nigh Density Residential (R -25). The parcel is located east of Hall Boulevard across the Fanno Creek wetlands at the dead end of Wall Street. Surrounding properties are zoned I -L to the north and south, R-12 to the west, and I -P to the east across the railroad tracks. APPLICANT: Fred Fields APPLICANT'S Group Mackenzie 1149 SW Davenport Avenue REP.: Attn:Rhys Konrad Portland, OR 97201 P.O. Box 14310 Portland, OR 97293 LOCATION: The site is vacant and has no address. It is located east of the Hall Boulevard and Wall Street intersection, east of Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100, Tax Lot 01200. CURRENT ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: I -L: Light Industrial District. The I -L zoning district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. PROPOSED ZONE / COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R-25: Medium High- Density Residential District. The R -25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single - family and multi- family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 & 10 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policies 3 and 8 of the previous Comprehensive ?Ian; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3 and 7; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,11 and 12. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 1 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History Staff reviewed the zoning history of the subject property utilising old zoning maps and City records. The 1977 Land Use Map and Existing Comprehensive Man Map show Tax Lot 1200 as M -3 (Light Industrial). All subsequent versions of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Classification show the subject lots designated I -L (Light Industrial). The site is vacant. Records show a sensitive lands review to construct a water quality facility within the Fanno Creek floodway for the Tigard Library project in 2003 (SLR2003- 00009). In September of 2008, Tree Removal Permits were issued for the removal of 1,876 trees within areas identified as Significant Habitat Area, but no trees have been removed at this time. The Tigard Development Code prohibits commercial forestry, which is the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. There is a question as to whether this removal is considered commercial forestry. Vicinity Information The subject site is located east of Hall Boulevard across the Fanno Creek wetlands at the dead end of SW Wall Street. Railroad tracks run along the eastern boundary of the site. The 25 adjacent properties are zoned R -12 (Medium Density Residential to the west and I -L (Light Industrial) to the north and south. The sites are developed with the Tigard Public Library, a condomiuum project, and an apartment complex. The site to the south zoned I -L is owned by Metro and like the subject property, is currently vacant. Beyond the immediate area, properties to the south and west are developed with residences. Sites to the north and east are predominantly developed with industrial uses. Site Information and Proposal Description Tax Lot 1200 is vacant; about half of the site is an open field. A wooded area with dense trees is found along the western and southern boundaries. Sensitive lands exist on -site including the 100 -year flood lain, no drainageways ( Fan Creek & Red Rock Creek), wetlands, and Significant Habitat Area. The site currently has no street access, only an unimproved access easement across City property to Wall Street. The applicant intends to extend Wall Street from the west in the future for access, but this requires a Comprehensive Plan Review and Sensitive Lands Review since the street would be constructed within Tigard significant wetlands. That connection is not part of this proposal; the applicant has submitted a separate application for the street extension, which is currently deemed incomplete. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications for one parcel totaling 25 acres from Light Industrial (I -L) to Medium High Density Residential (R-25). Summary of Issues • There is a limited supply of buildable land zoned industrial in Tigard with little opportunity to expand the supply. • The community of Tigard exports employment. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide options for people to live in close proximity to where they work and develop /maintain a diversified and sustainable local economy. • The Long Range Planning Division indicates the City has enough designated housing to meet Metro density goals. Areas such as Washington Square, the Tigard Triangle, and the Central Business District provide higher density housing opportunities. ♦ Access to the site may be problematic regardless of the zoning. The site is bound by railroad tracks, Fanno Creek and associated wetlands. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMIISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 2 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE ♦ There are potential conflicts between the adjacent railroad switching yard and the proposed residential zoning. ♦ The applicant did not satisfactorily address all the policies and criteria. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: 18. 380.030 Quasi- Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map Quasi - judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III -PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B below. A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.3 The proposed zone change application to change the zoning on the subject lot from I -L to R-25 also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to Council on the proposed zone change application and comprehensive plan map amendment. B. Standards for making quasi - judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 18.380.030. B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan consistent with the statewide planning goals. The applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are addressed in this section of the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan is being updated, and new policies have been adopted since the application was first received. Two applicable policies from the old Comprehensive Plan are addressed at the end of this section. State and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within the Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). In addition Title 4 of Metro's plan seeks to provide and protect the regions supply of sites for employment. Title 7 of the Metro Plan encourages the voluntary establishment of affordable housing goals and implementation strategies by local governments to increase the supply of affordable housing. These requirements are applicable to this application and are addressed under the Housing and Economic Development goals below. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 11.2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 3 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters ' newsletters, the Internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. Policy 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on June 2, 2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, 18 people attended. Discussion related to future development of the site, impacts on sensitive lands, the extension of Wall Street, and alternative access points to the site. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies, published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to '1'DC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, this application is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro - designated Centers and C and employment and industrial areas. Policy 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance . of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. The site is a Metro - designated employment area and is zoned industrial. The Long Range Planning Division performed an Employment Lands Inventory for the Tigard 2007 report and found that Tigard's supply of industrially zoned land will be inadequate to meet the 2024 forecasted job demand. Re- designation of this property to residential zoning will further increase the industrial land deficit. Of the remaining 66 acres of buildable industrial land, only 24.51 acres are zoned Light Industrial. This particular site has 17.64 acres of that buildable land, representing about 72% of the Light Industrial buildable lands. Policy 8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. The site currently has no street access, only a private access easement across the Tigard Library site. Prior to the approval of any specific development application, regardless of zoning, the applicant must provide information to show how the site would be served. There is a 16 -inch sewer line that runs through the wetlands around Fanno Creek. Storm water would be treated and released into Fanno Creek. Both sanitary and storm service may require construction within the Tigard significant wetlands, which is not permitted without a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protection from the wetland. The closest public water line is found on the Metro property to the south of the site. An easement would be required to access the water line. Access is proposed via an extension of Wall Street. This extension is discussed further under Policy 15. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 4 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE Policy 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. The applicant has not shown how the proposed zone change is consistent with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. This staff report illustrates the inconsistencies with the Land Use Plannm and Economic Development Goals. In addition, comments received from the Department of Land Conservation and Development indicates that the proposal does not meet the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 9 — Economic Development. (See attached DLCD letter — Attachment 1) Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; The applicant proposes to extend Wall Street from the west to access the site. This access has not been approved for construction. The applicant has submitted a Sensitive Lands Permit and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the construction. The Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map shows significant wetlands on -site. These wetlands are protected by Goal 5 safe harbor provisions and no land form alterations or development is permitted unless the applicant can show why the protection should be removed. At this point the applicant has not secured an access to the site. There is no guarantee that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the significant designation would be approved, or that the applicant would construct the access. Utilities were not addressed by the applicant. As with the Wall Street extension, the Goal 5 protection of the significant wetlands may prevent the applicant from providing sanitary service to the site since the public line appears to be within the wetland In addition, the public water line is located on the Metro property to tie south. An easement would be required to access that water line. No information regarding a secured easement to install a line across the neighboring property was submitted with this application. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; A letter from the applicant's Traffic Engineer has been rovided that shows the peak PM trips for residential uses being lower than for industrial uses; therefore the amendment will have no significant impact on transportation facilities. This issue is discussed further under the Transportation Goal. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particularlocation, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; Tigard can provide adequate opportunity to meet its housing goal of 10 /units per acres. Several areas within the City such as, Washington Square, the Central Business District and the Tigard Triangle, allow the development of higher density housing. The supply of industrial land is limited, and the City has little opportunity to create more. Approving this amendment would eliminate 72% of the buildable lands zoned Light Industrial. The proposed amendment is not in compliance with C or D above. A detailed analysis can be found under the economy and housing sections of this report. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING C'A2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 5 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE The applicant states that all future development will occur within the bounds of applicable land use regulations and performance standards but did not provide a demonstration of how the site could be developed meeting with the regulations. No overlay districts are found on the site. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and According to the applicant, the re- designation is intended to better accommodate the natural features of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood because medium to high density residential development can be clustered. An example site plan showing an industrial development has been provided. This plan shows the location of the sensitive lands ( floodplain, wetlands and 50 -foot buffer and Tigard Significant Habitat Area). The area outside of these sensitive lands has been called the usable site area by the applicant. There are no standards that prevent development within the upland portion of the site, only encourage protection by offering adjustments to specified criteria. There is no uarantee that future development will not occur within these areas. In fact the applicant has requested tree removal permits for 915 trees within these areas, but tree removal has not begun at this time. Any future development must comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding development within or near sensitive areas. Residential development on the site would be compatible with the residential uses to the west, but would be located next to a railroad switching yard and near industrial sites beyond the railroad. The City has received complaints from residents in the Rolling Hills subdivision to the northeast about noise from the railroad switching yards. The applicant has not addressed the impacts of noise on future residents if the parcel were re- zoned. The current industrial zoning provides the opportunity for buffering between the railroad and residential uses to the west. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The applicant states that no adverse impacts to Fanno Creek or the natural system are permitted nor contemplated with this proposal, and that future development will observe all required setbacks from the system in the future. "this statement regarding future development compliance with setbacks is true for any development regardless if it is residential, industrial, or commercial. The Tigard Development Code does allow development within the 100 -year floodplain in commercial and industrial zones, but a wetland and wetland buffer lie between the developable portion of the site and the floodplain creating a barrier to development within the floodplain Policy 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan /Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. Staff is not proposing any conditions of approval with this report. Policy 22. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use program. Fanno Creek runs through portions of the subject roperty. Wetlands and floodplain associated with the Fanno and Red Rock Creek also are on the site. The City has implemented standards for development in these areas through the Sensitive Lands chapter of the TDC (18.775). Any future development must show compliance with these standards. Development of either industrial uses or residential uses will likely mean the significant loss of habitat and trees. This is exemplified by the applicant's tree removal permit requests to remove 915 trees. Policy 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. The applicant states that the proposed re- designation to residential would make development of the site more compatible with adjacent residential land uses to the west. They also say that the traffic created by a residential development would have fewer conflicts with traffic from the nearby residences and Tigard Library. As stated earlier these conclusions are based on the applicant's assumption that the site will STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING OOMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 6 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE develop with an intense industrial use with heavy, large truck traffic, but there are many businesses in industrial zones which rely on pick -up and deliveries from delivery services such as UPS. The applicant lists environmental constraints as a hurdle to developing an industrial use on the site. These constraints may actually facilitate development of a less intense industrial use that is more compatible with the residential uses to the west. Fanno Creek also provides a natural buffer between the industrial and near -by residential properties. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for air quality. The applicant's general argument is that residential development has less impact on air pollution than in dustnal development. 'l his argument assumes the site will be developed witri a more intense industrial use with heavy truck traffic. The Light Industrial zone could accommodate Postal Services, Auto Repair, Manufacturing and Production, Research and Development, Wholesale Sales. Policy 3. The City shall promote land use patterns which reduce dependency on the automobile, are compatible with existing neighborhoods, and increase opportunities for walking, biking, and /or public transit. The applicant does not address Policy 3 which promotes less auto - centric development. The Tigard 2007 study stows that Tigard residents travel to other areas in the region for work. Industrial development on this site would provide job opportunities to Tigard residents inn close - proximity to their homes and therefore increase their options of commuting to work. Residential development on this site would continue the existing pattern of exporting jobs. The applicant Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for water quality. Any future development of the site must comply with standards to protect Fanno Creek and associated wetlands on -site. Review of future development applications by the City, state agencies, and Clean Water Services 'will ensure compliance with regional, state and federal standards. HAZARDS Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. The site contains areas of 100 -year floodplain. The Tigard Development Code protects people and property from flood hazards by limiting development in these areas and requinng structures to be designed for placement in these areas. The only proposed activity is extension of Will Street through a separate land use application; approval has not been granted for this extension. All future development must comply with the standards outlined in the Tigard Development Code. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 2. The City shall actively encourage businesses that provide family -wage jobs to start up, expand, or locate in Tigard. Policy 5. The City shall promote well- designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. Policy 6. The City shall promote actions that result in greater, more efficient, utilization of its Metro - designated Employment and Industrial Areas. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 7 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE Policy 11. The City shall develop industry clusters by encouraging the retention, expansion, and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. Policy 12. The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. Goal 9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on environmental sustainability. Policy 1. The City shall institute appropriate land use regulations to accommodate a contemporary mix of economic activities. Policy 2. The City shall periodically review and update its policies, land use regulations, and other efforts to ensure the City's land use program is responsive to changes in the economic structure, and is adaptable to businesses changing development needs. Policy 3. The City shall engage with state and regional economical development organizations and agencies to sustain and expand its current economic activities and be prepared for future economic trends. Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Policy 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. By rezoning this site for residential development, the City looses an opportunity for additional job creation, and therefore this re- designation is not m compliance with the City's Economic policies to provide family -wage jobs, promote utilization of vacant Metro - designated Employment Areas encourage the expansion and recruitment of industries in Tigard, and make Tigard a center for innovative businesses. Tigarc= has a limited amount of vacant land zoned for industrial uses and has limited potential for expanding into new areas that could be designated for industrial uses. The applicant does not address the full impact of the loss of jobs on the local economy, nor identify other areas of the City within which these jobs could be provided. The applicant asserts that according to their analysis, only 7.88 acres of the subject property is developable. This analysis is based on the following Metro definition: 3.07.1010 Definitions (bbb) "Net uzcant buildable land" Ymans all uzcant land less all land that is: (1) within Water ity Resource Areas; (2) uithin Habitat Cor�seruition A was; (3) publicly mimed by a local, state orfaleral ; (4) burdened by myor utility easeiwnis; and (5) necessary for the prnzision (f wads, schools, parks, churhs, another �ic facilities. The applicant's calculation of only 7.88 acres of developable land available makes the assumption that all areas mapped on the Tigard Significant Habitat Areas Map are restricted from development. This is not true. The "Tigard City Council adopted the map and associated development regulations m accordance with the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordination Committee (1 "BNRCC) as allowed by Metro Functional Plan Title 3.07.1330(B)5. The result of the "1BNRCC efforts was the adoption of voluntary habitat - friendly development provisions, which laces no further restrictions on the subject property. This adoption satisfied Metro Title 13 and Statewide Manning Goal 5 requirements. The current restrictions on the subject property are found in the Sensitive Lands Chapter (18.775) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The City compiles an annual Buildable Lands Invento 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. The calculanon of buildable land on the subject parcel shows 17.64 acres as being Buildable after removing the sensitive lands (according to the City's for identifying buildable lands, the sensitive lands are removed (100 -year floodplain, Clean Water -SServices vegetated corridor and significant wetlands identified on the Tigard "Local Wetland Inventory). Area identified on the Tigard Significant Habitat Map is not removed (moderate and lower value habitat) as there are currently no code provisions to stop development from occurring there. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 8 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE The argument over the number of potential employees supported by the Light Industrial zoning is not really relevant to this application. The more relevant point is that the City has identified a total of 24.51 of buildable Light Industnal zoned land left in the community. Rezonu-1g the subject property to R -25 would /o eliminate 72 of Light Industrial zoned buildable lands. Additionally, if the property were rezoned, the remaining 6.87 buildable acres would consist of 10 properties with the largest being 3.3 acres. This would leave the City at a severe disadvantage if an employer were looking for a site for their business. The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan designates industrial lands as industrial areas and employment areas. This site is designated as an employment area. Title 4 of the Metro Plan provides guidelines to limit the size and scale of non - industrial uses within industrial /employment lands and encourages "clustering" of similar industries. The applicant states that the subject property is designated by Tigard as Light Industrial which limits or prohibits certain uses permitted within employment areas, which conflicts with the Metro classification of employment. he applicant concludes that the mismatched City /Metro designations make determinations of employment levels difficult to assess, but that a cogent analysis would suggest that the potential employment levels of the site are less that that assumed by Metro. The Metro plan does not identify specific uses for areas within an employment designation, but is intended to limit new and expanded commercial retail uses within industrial and employment areas. Thus, the Light Industrial zoning is not in conflict with the Metro classification. The Tigard Light Industrial zoning allows a variety of uses (e.g. Postal Services, Auto Repair, Manufacturing and Production, Research and Development, 'Wholesale Sales) that have the potential of employing 20 or more persons per acre. For example, Ma no- Humphries (Tigard employer manufacturing dietary supplements) employs 42 persons on 1.78 acres (23.6 employees/acre) and would be a good example of a permitted land use in the Light Industrial zone. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies codes, and standards that rovide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and f nancial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. Policy 2. The City's land use program shall be consistent with applicable state and federal laws. Policy 3. The City shall support housing affordability, special -needs housing, ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation through programs administered by the state, Washington County, nonprofit agencies, and Metro. Policy 4. The City shall adopt and maintain land use regulations that provide opportunities to develop housing for persons with special needs. The scale design, intensity, and operation of these housing types shall be compatible with other land uses and located in proximity to supporting community services and activities. State and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within the Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). Both focus on increasing jurisdictions' housing capacity in order to use land within the UGB efficiently. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660 - 007 /Division 7) established regional residential density and mix standards for communities within the Metro UGB. It set minim residential density standards for new constructi on by jurisdiction. Tigard's target capacity is for an overall density opportunity of 10 or • more dwelling units per net buildable acre. In addition it requires that jurisdictions designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential units to be attached housing (either single -family or multiple - family.) STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMIISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008 -00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 9 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE Metro implements Goal 10 through Title 1. To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80% of minimum density requirement for development in 1998, which means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation. The City has committed to providing the development opportunity for an additional 6,308 dwelling units between 1998 — 2017. This number shows Tigard's zoned capacity for additional dwelling units. It is an estimate based on the minimum number of dwelling units allowed in each residential zoning district, assuming minimum density requirements. The applicant asserts that the rezone will help the City meet its target density of 10 units /acre as required by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The applicant then proceeds to perform an analysis on the current and potential (7.09 units /acre) residential density of the community from the Tigard 2007 report. The analysis concludes that Tigard cannot meet its target density and the rezone would increase the potential to 7.2 units /acre (based on 25 units /acre on 20 acres of the site), but the Metropolitan Housing Rule does not require the City to reach a goal of 10 units /acre of residential density. The Metropolitan Housing Rule is as follows: OAR 660 - 007 -0035 (3) Multnomah County and the cities of Portland Crreshan; Beazerton, Hillsboro, Lake Os '•;. and Tigard must prnzide for an ozerall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre :.e are larger urbanized junsdutions ziith regionally coordinate population prrjatwns of 50,000 or more for their actzze planning areas, z¢huh encompass or are near minor enploynEnt enters, and which are situated along regional transportation corridors. OAR 660- 007 -0005 (1) A "Net Buildable A av" consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designate) buildable land after exduding present and future rights -of zwy rest7icza4 hazard areas, public open spaczs and restrict nsourze przzwn areas. The City is currently in compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule as it can provide for an overall density of 10.42 units per net buildable acre (2,979 potential units divided by 286 net buildable acres*"). *Based on current zoning regulations for each property found on the buildable lands inventory. ° 1Based on a total of 409.15 acres of residential and mixed -use buildable lands as of January 1, 2008 minus 20% for future rights -of -way and 10% for future parks /open space). Additionally, the applicant states that the rezone has the potential to increase the overall residential density of the city to 7.2 units per acre is based on 25 units /acre iouilt on 80% of the site, or 20 acres (footnote 12 page 7). This is directly contrary to their argument that only 7.88 acres are available for development and thus the need to rezone as that is not appropriate for a Light Industrial zone. Furthermore, the City anticipates increased housing capacity with the Downtown Improvement Plan. Currently, the CBD zone grows for, but does not require, single - family housing at 12 units /acre and multi- family housing at 32 units /acre. In 2005, only 10% of downtown acreage was used for housing (Downtown Improvement Plan, September 2005). It is likely that the plan will result in greater residential density estimated at 40 unit /acre on a greater percent of downtown acreage (up to 80 %) estimated to yield approximately 1 200 units. Although these changes are not yet assured, they represent a general trend toward increased residential use and density in other areas of Tigard. Metro Title 7 calls for voluntary affordable housing production goals to be adopted by local governments. The City has not adopted the goal of 319 affordable housing units, but does have policies to encourage the development of affordable housing. Tigard provides the opportunity for single - family attached and multi- family within high density areas such as Washington Square, Downtown Tigard, and the Tigard Triangle. The applicant states that approving this re- designation would increase the multi- family housing in Tigard and that high density /multi - family housing is the primary source of affordable housing in the Metro region. Both of these statements may be true, but there is no guarantee that the site would be developed with affordable housing units. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 10 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE The City of Tigard maintains an up -to -date buildable lands inventory, a permit tracking system for development, as well as complying with Metro's Functional Plan. The City is responsible for monitoring residential development. All of these tools aid the City in monitoring its progress toward the above goals, and determining if the opportunity remains for current and future residents to have diverse housing choices. Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. Policy 8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another, B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. The applicant argues that the proposed residential zoning will further this goal since the site is in close proximity to the 'Tigard Library and other residential development. Their argument is that the change of zoning would reduce possible negative impacts to the established residential areas because of noise, air and water pollution generated by industrial activities and reduce future movement of trucks through residential areas. The applicant assumes the development of an intense industrial use on the site. Based on the definition of the Light Industrial Zoning district, the zone accommodates activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor and vibration. Any development would have to meet local, state, and federal regulations regarding water and air pollution. Fanno Creek and the associated wetlands are protected resources which provide a natural buffer between the uses. Chapter 18.745 of the '1'DC outlines buffering and screening requirements between differing uses. These would be required at the time of development. The applicant does not address the impact of the railroad on future housing units. The industrial zoning provides a transition from the industrial uses to the east and the railroad switching yard to the residential uses. The following applicable portions of the previous Tigard Comprehensive Plan were in effect at the time of application. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE Policy 3.2.4 The City shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands map. No development shall- occur on property adjacent to areas designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map within twenty five (25) feet of the designated wetlands area. Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall be allowed under the planned development section of the code. This policy is carried out by the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775) of the Tigard Development Code. Any development, residential or industrial, must comply with the standards of the 'll)C. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The 2001 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates the comprehensive plan and policies. However, it does not fully replace all elements of the comprehensive plan adopted prior to the 2001 TSP. Goal # 4, Policy # 1 of the Tigard TSP correlates to the following comprehensive plan policy: Policy 8.1.4: Set and maintain transportation performance measures that set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the city of Tigard and requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. No comments were received from the Oregon Department of Transportation. Based on previous assessments by ODOT the local government must make findings that the proposed zone change /comprehensive plan amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR 660 There must be substantial evidence in the record to either make the finding of "no STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 11 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE significant effect" on the transportation system, or if there is a significant effect assurance that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility within the plan horizon of the local Transportation System Plan or 15 years whichever is greater. For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments: OAR 660-012-0060 1) Where an anvndnrnt to a functional plan, an acknozdadged cmrprehenszze plan, or a land use relation . uould significantly a'ect an ex zstz or planned transportation facilittyy, the toed g z shall put in place rn2asures as .. ..f in section (2) of rule to assure that allozied land uses are consistent zzzth the ident si function, capacity, and perfo mince standards (cg lezel of serzicc zalurre to capacity ration etc) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation anrndnFnt significantly affects a transportation facility if it zeould• (c) A s zrrasur d at the end of the planning penal identz l in the • ...tad transportation s tem plan. (C) Worsen the perfornnnw of an existing or planned transportation facility that is of ee rzerse prrjected to perform below the minimum aczptable perfdrrmnec standard zdci flat' in the TSP or con pr eherzs zze plan The applicant's traffic engineer provided PM Peak Hour trips for both Light Industrial uses (352 trips) and Residential uses (261 trip Comments received form DLO) indicate that while the TPR analysis appears adequate, there is a question about the number of residential trips. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (I'll.) code used in the traffic analysis is based on ownership units and not rental units, which are permitted within the R-25 zone. Staff reviewed the IlE and calculated the number of trips for rental units at 310. This is still lower than the 352 for an industrial use; therefore the proposed amendment will not significantly impact transportation facilities. Of course all of these numbers are based on a 20 acre site. 1'he applicant's engineer deducted 15% from the total site area for public right -of -way dedication. Since the site has less buildable area than this, the number of trips would actually be lower than estimated. DLCD suggests placing a cap of 352 PM peak hour trips on the site, which would only potentially be appropriate if the land use designation was changed from industrial to residential. Policy 8.2.3 The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that: A Development abuts a publicly dedicated street or has adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; B. Street right -of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; C. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city standards within the development; D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces belocated as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle /pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. The applicant has not proposed a specific development plan at this time, only a re- designation from I -L to R -25. A separate application to extend Wall Street to the subject property has been submitted, but is currently an incomplete application and has not been reviewed for compliance with applicable standards and policies. Prior to the construction of any development on -site, the applicant shall obtain approval and construct street improvements to the site. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 12 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and For the the purposes of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, the applicant has not satisfactorily addressed the applicable Sections of Chapter 18.380, Zoning Map an d Text Am endments, of the Tigard Development Code. Please see the findings under 18.380.030.B.3. The standards of Chapter 18.390.050 for Type III -PC procedures are applicable to this proposal, as identified in 18.380.030. The applicant has submitted an Impact Statement as required under 18.390.050.B.e. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change do not include a specific development proposal. Any proposed development will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards. An impact statement will also be required for the development application. FINDING: The proposal is not consistent with the applicable standards of the Tigard Development Code. 18.380.030.B.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The applicant states that industrial is not the appropriate zoning for the site as it is incompatible with ir envonmental zoning regulations. They say that industrial development will have more impact on the sensitive land areas due to size of building, circulation requirements, and loading areas, whereas residential development can be clustered to avoid these areas. The applicant is assuming an intense in' dustrial use for the site. Also the environmental features will be protected by the 'I'DC regardless if it developed as industrial or residential. The applicant contends that there is a change in the neighborhood; adjacent sites have been developed with new residences and the Tigard Public Library. Developing the site with an industrial use would cause conflicts between the residential and industrial traffic. In response staff finds that surrounding sites have been zoned residential since at least 1982. The permitted use oI residences within a residential zone has not changed, only that the sites have been developed with the permitted uses. In addition, Wall Street is classified as a collector. These streets handle a larger volume of traffic. The Tigard Transportation System Plan shows Wall Street connecting Hall Boulevard with Hunziker Street. FINDING: The proposal demonstrates that there may be an inconsistency in the comprehensive plan and zoning map as it relates to the subject property. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi - judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or denied. FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi - judicial as it is limited to specific parcels and does not apply enerally across the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation to Counci i may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided information, which is included-in findings for the Housing_ and Economic Development Goal sections of the staff report. Generally these findings indicate there is already capacity for housing needs, but industrial land is limited. The loss of one of the larger industrial sites inhibits the City's ability to provide job opportunities near Tigard residences. Clean Water Services reviewed the 'proposal and recommended that all of the relevant provisions of the IGA between the City and CWS be followed and that a site certification will be required prior to development of the subject parcels. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has reviewed the proposal and sent a comment letter which is attached as Attachment 1. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 13 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE ODOT Rail Division has reviewed the proposal and requests that any residential development include • fencing of the railroad right -of -way to reduce trespassing and increase safety of railroad operations. The City of Tigard Arborist, Building Division, Engineering Division, Police Department, Public Works reviewed the proposal and had no objection. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Metro Land Use and Planning, ODOT (Region 1), Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: The 2007 Tigard Comprehensive Plan Resource Report is the factual basis used to develop the current Comprehensive Plan policies. This study shows that Tigard is deficient in buildable Industrial land. Roughly 66 acres zoned Industrial remain' emains within the city. Because Tigard is "land- locked" it is not likely that sizable areas zoned industrial will be added to the inventory. The Department of Land Conservation and Development, through Statewide Planning Goal 9, prioritizes the protection of land zoned for industrial and employment uses because it enerates well- paying jobs and large capital investments. In addition industrial provide a signiicant source of property tax revenue. Tigard will be able to meet its housing goal - of 10 /units per acre through development opportunities provided within high density areas such as Washington Square, the Central Business Distnct, and the Tigard Triangle. In addition, annexed properties are likely to be residential or mixed use based on existing County zoning that borders the City. There is not an inadequate amount of land zoned for medium -high density or multi- family housing and the City clearly has a need to provide family wage jobs for its citizens. The applicant argues that due to site constraints and the cost to develop an industrial use on the site, it is not realistic, nor probable that the site will be developed for its intended use. The applicant cites access sensitive lands, tree coverage, and usable area as barriers to development. Access and the sensitive lands will be barriers regardless of the zoning. Wetlands, 100 -year floodplain, and drainageways are protected by regulations within the "lUC and through other agencies such as Clean Water Services. The applicant • assumes that residential zoning will have less impact on ems xisting trees because many are within Significant Habitat Area. The '11)C allows tree removal and development within these areas. The only mandatory regulation for development in these areas is that a tree removal permit is required. The applicant has already obtained such permits. There is no guarantee that future residential development will be clustered to save trees or Significant Habitat Area. The applicant has provided only one potential layout for an industrial use. This site plan assumes development of an intense, large scale development reliant upon heavy truck traffic. The Light Industrial does allow uses such as Warehouse /Freight Movement, Industrial Services, and Wholesale Sales, but also allows Research and Development, Light Industrial (finished roducts from previously prepared materials and components /all activity and storage within the building, and General Industrial (semi - finished or finished materials from raw materials, all activities indoors with some outdoor storage of raw materials). The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that the site could not be developed with a Light Industrial use. SECTION VII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment is inconsistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Goals 2 — Land Use Development and 9 — Economic Development), statewide planning goal 9 — Economic Development), and t_ie Tigard Development code (18.380). STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 14 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE SECTION VIII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to City Council. - December 8, 2008 PREPARE BY: Cheryl Caines DATE Associate Planner Attachments: 1. 11/25/08 Letter from DLCD 2. 12/11/08 comments from Rev. Martin Stewart 3. Vicinity Map 4. Spatial Relationship Map STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00008 /FIELDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 15 OF 15 ZON2008- 00002 /FIELDS ZONE CHANGE ATTACHMENT 1 O regon N : eY t4l i N�;:� . z \ : ` •. ,. Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor ' *59 Department of Land Conservation and Development Meg Fernekees, Portland Area (West) Regional Representative Portland Regional Office 800 NE Oregon Street, M/S 18 Suite 1145 Portland, OR 97232 (971) 673-0965 FAX (971)673 -9100 November 25, 2008 Ms. Cheryl Caines Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 SENT VIA EMAIL Subject: Local File No. CPA2008 -0008 DLCD File No. Tigard 009 -08 Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Light Industrial to Medium High Density • Dear Ms Caines: The Department of Land Conservation and Development received a notice of proposed amendment for the file referenced above. The proposal is to change the plan designation and zoning on approximately twenty -five (25) acres from Light Industrial to Residential Medium High density. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above proposal. We respectfully request that this letter became part of the official record for the above proceedings. We hope you will find the following comments helpful in the city's deliberations on this matter. Goal 10 — Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 1. As we understand the proposal, Wall Street is slated for extension across the railroad and this site so that it connects Hall and Hunziker. This proposal is noted in the applicant's submittal as well as illustrated in the TSP. Although the City will not make this connection right away, we would suggest that the city reserve adequate right -of -way to make this connection in the future, with the understanding that additional at -grade railroad crossings may not be permitted. A grade separation will likely require more right -of -way than an at -grade crossing. 2. The TPR analysis appears adequate, although there is an outstanding question about the number of trips the residential uses would generate. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) code used by the transportation analysis consultant assumes ownership units, but rental housing is also possible. A traffic analysis using apartments would show a higher number of trips generated. We would suggest that the City of Tigard place a trip cap on the site based on the current zoning. In this case it would be a cap of 352 trips in the PM peak hour. Goal 9 — Economic Development Oregon Administrative Rule 660 - 009- 0010(4) states: For a post - acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660, division 18, that changes the plan designation of land in excess of two acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a non - industrial use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or county must address all applicable planning requirements, and: (a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division; or (b) Amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate the proposed amendment, consistent with the requirements of this division; or (c) Adopt a combination of the above, consistent with the requirements of this division. Comprehensive Plan and or Zoning Map Change not consistent with Goal 9 The department believes that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 9 because is not supported by a correct analysis of the loss of industrial land. The proposal does not meet the requirements of OAR 660, division 9. Further, the proposal is not accompanied by factual information as required by the City criteria contained in 14: Policy 14. Applicants shall hear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Response: This Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal includes responses to ali applicable goals and policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, and Statewide Planning Goals. As a specific development is not proposed, compliance with the Tigard Development Code will be reviewed at a later time. This policy is satisfied. Comment: We determine this is not a finding that is consistent with Goal 9. When a plan amendment changes the plan designation of land in excess of two acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a non - industrial use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, OAR 660 - 009- 0010(4) requires a city or county to make findings that the proposal is consistent with its comprehensive plan or amend its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the proposed amendment. In reviewing this proposal, Tigard must rely on the most recently adopted Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) (OAR 660 - 009- 0015). The BOA should contain the factual information and data for determining whether or not the proposal will result in a deficit of industrial or commercial land for the planning area for the planning period. The proposal is deficient regarding the justifications given for the proposed conversion of industrial land to residential. Here are two, with the Department's comments below each: "Given the conflicting Metro /Tigard designations of the subject property, and the obvious access and environmental constraints affecting the site, it is dear that the subject property cannot be a significant contributor to economic development as currently designated." (pg. 2) Comment: This rationale does not address Goal 9 requirements. " "By changing industrial classification of the subject property to allow high- density residential helps address the identified need for higher levels of residential density." (Pg 5 ) Comment: According to the City's Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI, 2007), approximately 453 acres of vacant residential land exists in the city limits. It appears that there is not an identified need for additional residential. An analysis of this proposal must include a comparison and findings regarding how much industrial land by type is needed and how much land by type already exists in the city. Land type is defined locally based on the site requirements of uses expected to occur during the planning period. This analysis and information does not appear in the applicant's submittal. Preventing conversion of industrial land The proposal appears to degrade Tigard's supply of industrial and other employment land by either direct or indirect conversion or encroachment of land possessing attributes difficult to replicate or replace within the planning area. Local governments are encouraged to work closely with department staff in advance of making changes to employment land designations. Please refer to the Industrial Conversion Study Report available on the department's economic development web page for more information. Preventing loss of industrial family wage jobs. It is noted that approximately 71 industrial -type jobs would be lost, with no analysis of where these jobs could be added elsewhere in the city or any discussion of the impacts of the loss of these jobs. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask for your kind consideration of these comments. To continue the trend of conversion of industrial land is not in the State's or the City's best interest. If you or other city officials have any questions on the above comments, please contact me at 971- 673 -0965 or meg.fernekees @state.or.us. Thank you. Sincerely, Meg Fernekees DLCD Metro Area (West) Regional Representative cc: Tom Hogue, Economic Development Planning Analyst Angela Lazarean, Urban Planner Darren Nichols, Community Services Manager Gloria Gardiner, Urban Planning Specialist Bill Holmstrom, Transportation & Land Use Planner Ray Valone, Principal Planner, Metro ATTACHMENT 2 Cheryl Caines From: MARTIN STEWART [ch3no2x @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:48 PM To: Cheryl Caines Subject: FEILDS ZONE CHANGE To Tigard city counsel - planning commission and Mayor. Unfortunately I an unable to attend the meeting on 12/15/08 I live opposite the rail yard from this proposal, I'm trying to envision who would buy a condo or establish a business in a wet land / flood plane with trains polluting the environment with known toxic cancer causing diesel fumes from engines that sit and idle for as much as 12hrs at a time doing nothing! refer cars that run for literaly days! with horns and crashing that can wake the dead at all hours of the night, the only reasonable conclusion is that it would be perfect for a drug and gang community with the max at the front door perhaps the first owners will only lose their shirts when they find it uninhabitable, I'm sure the Times will print nobody's complaining! There are deer, owls, coyotes, raccoons and an wide ranging bird population to consider, the creek in 96 and 97 flowed right up to the library, with global warming witch the train seems to be exempt from any and all responsibility for will surly flood again and again causing who knows what kind of industrial waste to pollute the entire area, and all for what? once this has passed theres no turning back and no politition will take responsibility it will be just like what happened with the train yard we were sold out, never notifyed infact it was skillfully kept a secrect that our proporty value and our quality of life was being destroyed, we have fortunatly been able to work with P &W to minimize our problem, what would you do if this was in YOUR backyard? Signed, Extreamely concerned about our leaders judgement. Rev. M. Stewart i 7 : / — T'S - i \ x \ ,� ^� -,•- s „ C ; ITY o f:TIGARO . f �-- % /// I I ' GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM r- \ L %' I� VICINITY MAP J ----- L __- \/ \—; �/ 1 —,-- C PA2008 -00008 ___�_I I ZON2008- 00002 YARNS ST _ FIELDS ZONE o T' CHANGE > W a ct re ,\ Er f— co ir Tr s i ______ 7 I LEGEND: 1 _. SUBJEC I 1 PI . , SI lE I ° - J 0„5„‘ • i I _./: -- Q g o , / ��O/ NTER a r - 87TH r � T /'• Tigard Area Map ` . N L ll rk 0E ni_CT 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet n CHAR CT I 1” 484 \ . ,, ,, � C� A G F < , COLONY CREEK CT P� 2t r , m 1 T U I—� J � � S it� f z.' \*P 71 DRIVE ' O� 'c am �` �2 )0 AMU y " ■ ( 7 Q 'Q� I on this map is for general location only and Z r should be verified with the Development Services Division. p - `. FANNO / \ -� 13125 SW Hall Blvd I n I �i T igard, OR 97223 1 I I 1 I( I I I )\ ' (9i1 - -- a , _1 %\ I U1i" I — I \ <�� X503)639 -4171 �` I http: / /www.ci.ligard.or.us Community Development Plot date: Oct 27, 2008; C: \magic \MAGICO3.APR REC ATTACHMENT 3 JAN 2 7 2009 January 25, 2009 CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard /Planning Commission RE: Fields Comp.Plan & Zone Change Request /CPA 2008 -00008 and Zone Change 2008- 00002 Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing to comment on the above referenced application before the Planning Commission (PC) on January 26, 2009. The property in question is one of the last and largest of its kind, open space /wetland /forested sites left in the city of Tigard. It is a property that is surrounded by wetlands, a Metro owned forested wetland and the railroad tracks, and which all together make it a site not feasible for development. Instead, we would rather see the city purchase the entire site for a natural area/open space for the citizens of Tigard because of its uniqueness and because it is not possible to access this site except for a soft, walking only trail. To do anything else with this unique site would ruin it, as much of it is classified a "significant wetlands" under Tigard's zoning laws. In addition, the current zoning of Light Industrial on this site has been in place for some time, and if this zoning designation were to change to Medium High Density Residential, the city would stand to lose an estimated 17.64 acres of Light Industrial land (city's estimate). If this happened, the city would lose 72% (city's estimate) of what is left of Light Industrial land (24.51 acres) within the entire city limits. As we all know, there has been much attention to the lack of industrial land in the Portland metro region for some time. This attention has included the fact that all cities have vehemently complained and requested of the Metro Regional Govermment /Council, that they were desperately short of all industrial type lands and needed more to meet the Regions's growing needs. So it does not make sense and we hereby oppose, any effort to rezone this or any other property currently zoned as Light Industrial to another zoning classification. In addition, we oppose the request to change the zoning for this site to "Medium High Density Residential. Tigard has already met their residential density requirements due to the intense and unregulated growth and development that has occurred here in the past 15 years. A City of Tigard staff member recently said that Tigard has met the 10 units per acre capacity requirement. In addition, a private study done on Bull Mountain, determined that this area along exceeded it's density requirements by 1700 units! There are massive traffic problems not only on Hwy. 99 by on just about all streets in the city. Adding more traffic to Hall Street would only exacerbate this already huge traffic problem we face in Tigard and especially on Hall Street. We therefore request that the Planning Commission deny this application to change the zoning on this property from Light Industrial to Medium High Density Residential. Sincerely, Sue Beilke Fans of Fanno Creek Board Member . . If , ' '. s's' it:t Attbsl..-,. dil -_ . , . 4r, erilli,,,„ W „a ` fir.+ ' � r �`' ,y " CPA2008 00008 -- .;, �+ 7 �� k t � a FIELDS ZONE y r: \ •Y. . CHANGE I-0 �- Y,. t % + � � City of Tigard d` t -- >; e ti. • Oregon I, � T C .: I el ' 4''' � p 7 E : H �. •. tee•. ' v.. t! �► ; „. 1441I �t ' ' , �: Subject Property s s, �- L ' * !" I i_ Zoning I; 4 . . 4 ,,,,.., • .., 1;:i,71 ..... }.'} 14. x \ * " , 4 ,, T '`� Streams . tZ,- • ,, - + • , , , • !� • - � � } :" ' } " '�r , - - <all other values} ` r� ' 1 3w � R ,ten t ' 1 �► ,. "; _ a . •,?', PIPED .. '''s Y t � '° `it r . �; • .� Est, t OPEN � J • J� i s `. _ \ '' _ 4 ' 7 4.E y . . • R.. SW WA. - i NP., L t tT{�. ;4,044' -a 4 . _ z!1 .. PIPED • �., � ° CWS Buffer 100 -yr Floodplain • n t y r ! 1 6. 2 f4 3 ,. .^' � , xrrt • ` - w - . 1 4 ,r , A 1 • , , • '� • r ',. 1 i,', � •� 41, _ 431 , �rti,. ^ice � • i -. 4. ,,1. �7. 4l , - 1r I F , 4.4 ti. i 4 . .- J ,t 1 . ' 4 1 ♦ !!l111 y 1 1 ' 1. i ` ' ' Jr' , . ' . . : w :�V *' . �1f ' ' " 1 ' � � it l ^ . .�v5 *v a ^ + 1 : , • ti .rt ' • ;1 - , ; a - _.: {" ` ° _ 91:rri 1 N „ "W Of r' ' ah ." ' e Yt'i ti ad � E f ti.'' _ A l t - ` ' 2 s *, ,, .{�, , �' ' ' ' h 7 ', � . - 1 �. y NI. a A - .r, n m,:,..; 11:.;„nikr/namirni ,,M,,, wm. I. ^ i t XI 1 \ . 1 :fr .3 elkatte *el . r in v , _ ! _ D ‘1 V .: I 1, ` R . M N , y , :,4t : a -;.' k.� , 6 , .J.' Z '_d 411%, ,•2 'x c . - - �ya- ' ' ` - � � . .�_ ,.__..� slik - ' _1` • m . 1j - / l • � V : &".cCr r . It .fir — '-•,1 � '4 � • • � . EXHIBIT F Hearing Exhibits for Fields Zone Change (CPA) 2008 -00008 and (ZON) 2008 -00002 1. Comprehensive response to staff report 2. Fields property timeline 3. Response to DLCD letter and staff report regarding compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 9 4. Statewide Planning Goal 9 Rules 5. Option Agreement for library property in which Tigard agrees to cooperate with Fields regarding access from Hall Blvd. 6. Metro denial of access to the South 7. Final easement across library property 8. Memorandum of Understanding between Tigard, Fields, and School District 9. Copy of PowerPoint slides with maps PDXDOCS:1813717.1 G R O U P Teto‘O —} ACKENZIE' TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 II. Comprehensive Plan Policies and Criteria 3 A. Land Use Planning 3 B. Environmental Quality 7 C. Hazards 9 D. Economic Development 9 E. Housing 12 F. Natural Features and Open Space 14 G. Transportation System 14 III. Conclusion 16 Response to City ATTACHMENTS Staff Report 1. Historical Timeline 2. Goal 9 Analysis To City of Tigard For CPA2008 -00008 ZON2008-00002 Submitted January 26, 2009 Project Number 2070334.02 GROUP MACKENZIE Since 1960 RiverEast Center I PO Box 14310 ( Portland, OR 97293 1515 SE Water Ave, Suite 100 I Portland, OR 97214 T 503.224.9560 ( F 503.228.1285 I www.grpmack.com G R O Il P -4- MACK NZIE I. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Fred Fields, Group Mackenzie submitted an application for a comprehensive plan amendment /zone change on July 10, 2008. Staff requested additional information, a response to which was provided on September 24, 2008. On December 9, 2008, Group Mackenzie received the final Staff Report, which recommended denial based on alternative analyses of relevant comprehensive plan policies. The essence of the recommendation was based on staff's contention that the subject site is an essential economic development asset of the City of Tigard and should therefore not be re- designated. We respectfully disagree with staff. As shown below, site characteristics such as environmental features, configuration, and access Iimitations undermine any potential economic development capacity of the subject property and preclude it from being designated industrial under state law. The subject property has been zoned I -L (Light Industrial) for over 30 years and has failed to develop. During this time, several changes have occurred in the surrounding area as well as in regulatory changes that have made the site unsuitable as industrial. Furthermore, during the largest economic expansion in Washington County history, the site failed to develop under its current designation. It is simply not suitable for industrial development. Despite disagreement related to the land "supply" of certain zones and the economic development needs of the City as they relate to the subject property, the facts and the law support our analysis. Since the I -L zone was applied, regulatory encumbrances have only exacerbated many practical development challenges. The City has applied Goal 5 related environmental restrictions on the property that further constrain its industrial development potential. Specific to access, assuming an extension can one day be established, only an oddly shaped portion of the site can be developed due to wetlands, floodplains, and the regulations established to protect them. This presumes that development can proceed within Tigard's Significant Habitat Areas without significant constraints or costly mitigation. In reality, the net developable area of the site is far lower than the 17 acres staff asserts due to its sliver -like shape, as industrial development typically requires symmetrically shaped sites. Furthermore, any industrial development on the site would have little or no visibility, no rail access, and no connectivity to similar designated properties in the nearby area, a significant detractor for many types of businesses. The site was most likely designated industrial because of its proximity to the adjacent rail line, but now the closest rail track will be used by the regional commuter rail, making industrial rail access impossible. It is a mistake to consider the subject property part of Tigard's industrial land supply. Even if a portion of the site could be industrially developed, the costs of extending necessary infrastructure into it are prohibitive in the context of the limited development such an extension would serve. Under the current scenario, a bridge designed and built to serve an industrial area is necessary to provide connectivity to only a single small to medium -sized industrial building, which requires a comprehensive plan amendment to remove Goal 5 protection. Staff has indicated that other infrastructure, including water and sewer, may be prohibited and therefore subject to yet another comprehensive plan amendment to remove Goal 5 protection. In its Periodic Review Evaluation, the City does in fact recognize the constraints affecting this site, though in more general terms, "The largest section of light industrial and industrial park is owned by one individual and both have development 1 Industrial Conversion Study Committee and DLCD. "Promoting Prosperity: Protecting Prime Industrial Land for Job Growth." State of Oregon. November 19, 2004. C:\Documenis and Settings \wrasmussen \Desktop \Cient Folders \Relds \2070334 02 12-18-03 Report - basic -.doc 1 6 R 0 II P constraints, primarily related to transportation. " In summary, these are the factors which "push" the proper designation of the site away from industrial. The primary question of this application is not whether the current designation is suitable, however relates to which specific zoning district is appropriate for the subject site. Options include public, commercial, and residential zoning districts. The site is not owned by a public entity, making a public zone inappropriate. Many commercial uses are prohibited by Metro Title 4 restrictions on retail and service activities. Also, commercial uses generally require a degree of visibility that this site does not possess. On the other hand, medium - high density residential development is appropriate on this site and makes sense for several reasons: ▪ It is consistent with the character and development of the vicinity. • Residential development techniques are more adaptable to sensitive /constrained land, which will enable a better development while preserving more natural resources. ▪ The site is near Tigard's downtown area, which has been determined to suffer from a lack of quality housing. • Medium -high density residences are desirable as "workforce housing," and create the potential for more affordable housing options. Additionally, the proposed zoning district, R -25 allows ancillary retail and service uses that could potentially serve the subject site and surrounding residential areas. Furthermore, established mixed -use zones are area specific, and may not adapt well to the subject property. R -25 allows anywhere from medium- density residential development (such as row houses) to fairly high- density multi- family development (such as apartments). As it is essential to preserve the greatest degree of flexibility on constrained sites, we feel that this zone is the most appropriate for ensuring successful development of the subject property. These are, in essence, the "pull" factors that make the proposed land use designation desirable. In response to the Staff Report and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) letter, the following discussion and attachments clarify how the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and criteria. 2 City of Tigard. Periodic Review Evaluation. Page 2. 3 Leland Consulting Group. "Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard, Oregon." Page 64. 4 Haughey, Richard M. The Case for Multifamily Housing, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI — the Urban Land Institute, 2003. Page 16. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Gent Folders \Fields \2070334 02 12-18-08 Repot - basic -.doc 2 6 R 0 11 P -1- ACKENZIE II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND CRITERIA A. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Response: This goal is primarily for the City to implement, although it certainly has bearing on this proposed comprehensive plan re- designation. What this goal and the policies listed below are intended to do is to ensure that sufficient buildable land is available in different use categories, and that such land can be developed efficiently. Policy S. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro - designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas. Policy 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Response: Staff has relied on a quantitative approach in its application of these policies by simply indicating that the subject parcel constitutes a large percentage of the vacant I -L land. While this appears to be correct, to more appropriately understand the subject site's economic value, a qualitative analysis (as is more consistent with OAR 660 - 009 -0015) is important. A qualitative analysis clearly shows that a combined lack of serviceability and constraints (e.g., configuration, environmental, etc.) eliminates the economic value of the site as it is currently designated. Policy 6 requires the City to promote land development of sufficient value to be economically viable in order to advance economic development objectives and to fund needed public services. As has been discussed throughout this proposal and related documents, the costs of developing this constrained parcel to accommodate industrial activities undermine the potential economic value of the parcel itself as currently zoned. Additionally, as is discussed in more detail in the attached Goal 9 analysis, the site fails to comply with state law which governs what sites should be considered industrial and employment lands. Given this fact, the property should not be considered as sufficient economic value as it is currently designated. Re- designation of the subject property for residential uses will better meet this goal and Policies 5 and 6 because it will use the subject property far more efficiently and generate economic value that will support needed services. Furthermore, it will not prevent the City from maintaining an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan; rather it will ensure that the plan designation of the subject property is more attuned to real on -site development constraints, as required by law. Such constraints are not properly reflected in the comprehensive plan, an Economic Opportunities Analysis ("EGA") which the City is supposed to prepare under state law, or even City policies intended to support development of industrially designated properties. C:\DocumentsandSetlings\wrasmussen\Desktop\COent Folders \Fields \2070334 02 12-18-08 Report - basic -,doc 3 GR011P KENZIEL Policy 8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. Response: This criterion applies only to provision of public facilities prior to "development approval." Development is clearly defined in the TDC to be limited to physical alteration of the land or division of land. No development is proposed in conjunction w ith this zone change application. Provision of public facilities needs to be addressed in conjunction with a specific development proposal and not at this tune. Staff accurately recognizes that the subject property has challenges in regards to providing access and public facilities. However, the fact is that a public access easement granted by the City to the applicant is intended to serve this property in compliance with the City's TSP. This access will require a costly bridge extension, which cannot be justified given the current zoning designation's economic value. Necessary public utilities exist on -site or can be extended to serve the site with this roadway extension. Furthermore, the applicant has continually agreed to finance construction of necessary public utilities assuming that enough economic value can be realized from the site to make such improvements logical investments. Provided that the subject site is re- designated as requested and the concurrent comprehensive plan amendment /sensitive land review is approved, appropriate public facilities can be constructed. Furthermore, the City committed to support Mr. Fields in his efforts to build a road to the subject property. Mr. Fields sold the City the parcel on which the City of Tigard library now resides, which land locked the subject property. As part of the transaction, the City agreed to consult and reasonably cooperate with Mr. Fields regarding establishment of a road from Hall Boulevard to the subject property. The City further agreed "to do such other acts, as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of the agreement, including construction of a road from Hall Boulevard to the site. It would not be fair for the City to take the library in exchange for access to the subject site and then not provide that access. Policy 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Response: The applicant has provided and continues to provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other state and local policies. Although staff may disagree with the conclusions and reasoning presented, the fact is that the burden of proof has been satisfied with this and previous submittals. Well - reasoned alternative analyses have been submitted for the consideration of decision makers showing that the subject site cannot be reasonably developed as intended under its current zoning and is not suitable for industrial designation under state law. Additional information has been submitted detailing the benefits of the proposed re- designation to residential. In terms of its consistency with Goal 9, it is clear that the applicant and the City must rely on a site - specific suitability analysis rather than the current comprehensive plan because no EOA exists in Tigard. The most recent Tigard economic assessment was completed in the late 1980s and failed to evaluate land suitability as required by Goal 9. Although a very thorough analysis was performed and issued under the Tigard 2007 Report, the information prepared does not represent a lawful EOA, and therefore cannot be relied upon to draw conclusions about the subject site. The EOA methodology set forth in Goal 9 is thoroughly addressed in the attached C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Client Folders\Helds \2070334 02 12-18-08 Report- basic -.doc 4 G R n 0 P • 121 ._ document and based upon the information presented in that document, it is clear that the subject site is not a significant element of Tigard's industrial development potential. Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; Response: In its report, staff indicates that no access to the subject property is available as the site is currently zoned because of Goal 5 safe- harbor protection which essentially "land locks" the site. Note that legal access is in fact available through an easement connecting to Wall Street, and a concurrent request for removal of Goal 5 protection has also been submitted. The applicant has indicated a willingness to construct essential public facilities provided that the applicant is permitted to do so. As mentioned above, the City has agreed to cooperate with Mr. Fields regarding construction of a road from Hall Boulevard to the subject property. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; Response: Group Mackenzie traffic engineers performed an analysis based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine what transportation impacts, if any, would result based on the potential vehicle trip generation of the proposed zoning classification in comparison with the existing zoning. As detailed in Attachment H of the original submittal, this analysis shows that under a typical development scenario, industrial use of the subject property would generate approximately 352 PM peak hour vehicle trips, while a change to R -25 suggests that future development would generate approximately 267 PM peak hour trips. Accordingly, a net reduction of 85 PM peak hour vehicle trips indicates that the proposal would have no significant affect on the existing capacity of transportation facilities directly impacted by future residential development; therefore, no mitigation should be necessary. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; Response: In its updated response to all applicable comprehensive plan goal and policies, submitted on September 24, 2008, the applicant presented an analysis based on Tigard's 2007 buildable lands inventory which showed that there was a need for additional high - density housing. This was based on the overall goal of 10 units per acres for all residential lands and the potential density of buildable residential lands according to their zoning. City staff have presented an alternative analysis which concludes that the Tigard Triangle, Downtown Tigard, and Washington Square areas can provide sufficient residential density to meet its goal. As the applicant and staff have not agreed on a single methodology, both should be taken into account by decision makers when they review this proposal. In either case, the applicant has provided significant evidence which demonstrates that additional 5 A minimum average of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre is required by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Note that the applicant's initial analysis was based on the net buildable vacant residential land and the existing gross developed land. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Client Folders \Felds \2070334 02 12-18-08 Report - basic -.doc 5 G R n I I P A C K E N Z I E housing would not adversely affect the overall development potential of the City, is generally consistent with Tigard's stated goals, and increases the potential for low- income and affordable housing. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; Response: There are no applicable overlay zones affecting the subject property. All future development will occur within the bounds of applicable land use regulations and performance standards, subject to development proposal and building permit review. The proposal is consistent with this policy. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and Response: The proposed re- designation is, in large part, intended to better accommodate the natural features of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. As is well documented, industrial development in environmentally sensitive areas is not good for the environment and is not good for industry. Medium- to high- density residential development can be clustered in order to protect identified natural resources and does not generally require large wide streets and truck courts that define industrial sites. Residential buildings are significantly smaller and can be situated to accommodate wetlands and existing trees. Narrower meandering streets, which respect existing natural features, are suitable for the transportation needs of residential development, but do not accommodate industrial uses. Future residential development would have much less impact on the natural features of the site than would industrial development. Residential development would also better conform to the existing development pattern in the vicinity. Surrounded by medium- and high- density residential buildings along the west and south, and by public uses to the west and north, the subject property would be the only large industrial development with a reasonably direct access to Hall Boulevard between SW Durham Road and SW Burnham Street. Such a use would result in noticeable increased levels of truck traffic on an arterial that is almost entirely used for residential trips. Staff has indicated that the railroad switching yard located to the east would cause nuisances to future residents; however, there exist many methods for reducing the impact of noise generated by rail lines and switching yards, including dense landscape planting, earthen berms, sound - resistant construction techniques, and site design. Any potential negative impacts caused by rail noise can be addressed through design elements, whereas the impact of industrial development to traffic and to surrounding residential development cannot be easily mitigated. Further supporting this conclusion is the statements that were received by surrounding neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, which concluded that neighbors desire to see residential development on the subject site as opposed to industrial development On balance, the proposed land use designation would be far more compatible with natural features of the site and surrounding land uses. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Response: The amendment fosters better protection for the City's natural systems by enabling more adaptive residential development as opposed to industrial development. The primary natural system present adjacent to the subject site is Fanno Creek, its associated floodplain area, and wetlands. As a regionally significant waterway, no adverse impacts to this creek are permitted nor are contemplated with this proposal. Any future development C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Chen' Folders\Felds \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 6 G R O U P ACKE 2 Ej will observe all setbacks required by the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services, or undergo specific permitting steps for associated impacts. It should also be noted that residential development typically generates less impacts to natural features, suggesting that the residential designation better accommodates this policy than the current industrial designation. Policy 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan /Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. Response: City staff did not suggest any conditions of approval. Policy 22. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use program. Response: This is a legislative mandate for the City to set up zoning and performance standards intended to protect natural resources. As no standards related to the protection of natural resources are proposed, this policy is not applicable. Policy 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. Response: As no specific development plan has been proposed, this policy does not directly apply to the proposed zone change. Nevertheless, staff suggests in its report that industrial development would be just as compatible with the surrounding residential and public land uses as any proposed residential development of the subject property by pointing out that only "intense industrial use with heavy, large truck traffic" would cause nuisances to surrounding properties. Staff further suggests that less - intense industrial land uses might not cause conflicts with surrounding land uses. This reasoning fails to appreciate that intense industrial use is not only permitted outright in the zone, it is also encouraged by Goal 2.1, Policy 5 and is almost certainly necessary in order to generate any economic return from the property, given the constraints already discussed. Permitted I -L uses that do not generate truck traffic are mini- storage and pseudo - commercial uses such as industrial services, outdoor storage, automotive sales and repair, and wholesale. Given staff's stated preference to reserve this parcel for large industrial employers, it is unlikely that the City would also support inefficient uses that generate comparatively few family wage jobs. Additionally, it is assumed that the surrounding neighbors would be opposed to such uses of the property as well. It is therefore more likely that this theoretical industrial development would require large trucks, which would affect the nature of the vicinity and area traffic patterns. B. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. Response: As stated in the original and subsequent responses to applicable comprehensive plan policies, a re- designation of the subject site from industrial to residential will have a positive benefit on the local airshed by limiting the potential for diesel particulate emissions. Staff disagreed with the applicant's initial response that residential 6 This policy calls for intense urban uses within designated zones to increase land use efficiency. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Client Folders \gelds \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 7 6 R 0 1 P ACK EN Z I E development typically generates less air pollution than industrial development because "postal services, auto repair, manufacturing and production, research and development, and wholesale sales" are permitted in the I -L zone. In fact, with the exception of auto repair and research and development, all those uses cited by staff do generate significant amounts of truck traffic, which increases particulate pollution. The important implication here is that industrial development does tend to generate more air pollution than residential development, despite staff's exceptions. Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for air quality. Response: Both city staff and the applicant agree that any future development will be required to comply with regional, state, and federal air quality standards. Policy 3. The City shall promote land use patterns which reduce dependency on the automobile, are compatible with existing neighborhoods, and increase opportunities for walking, biking, and /or public transit. Response: Residential development near town centers is a proven method of reducing dependency on automobiles. The subject property is near several employment centers and transit facilities, which are located in or near downtown Tigard. Staff assumes that any residential development would increase dependency on the automobile but did not recognize the availability of transit: Hall Blvd. is a main transit corridor with a main stop and the Tigard Library, and the Tigard Transit Center (with its future TriMet WES service) is located less than 3/ of a mile to the north. Although a majority of Tigard's residents work outside of Tigard, "there are more jobs in Tigard than people in the workforce living within the city boundaries. 70% of residents commute outside the city; therefore Tigard is a net attractor of commuters. " Further, the. Economic Development section of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan notes that, [t] housands of workers from throughout the region are regularly commuting to Tigard jobs (2000 Census). The City shall seek to expand the opportunities for residents to work closer to where they live. This will require promoting a mix of high quality housing opportunities for households with varying incomes. These statements can be read in two ways. First, most people in Tigard work outside of Tigard, suggesting that reliance on the s.o.v. is structural and will only increase with additional housing. On the other hand, more people are coining into Tigard to work than are of working age within the City itself. Another understanding of this pattern suggests that Tigard is simply one constituent city within a regional context, where people are typically willing to live and work in different cities. Obviously this is the reality in the Metro area and Tigard, as many people are coining into Tigard to work as are leaving it. It is doubtful that a relatively small amount of additional residential development in Tigard significantly alter existing commuting patterns. If it does, it will reduce trips by enabling people to live closer to where they work because Tigard is a net attractor of commuters, Despite staff's assertion to the contrary, there is no demonstrable relationship between new housing units in or near core areas and additional reliance on the s.o.v, even though any development tends to increase the number of vehicle trips. Industrial development could Tigard 2007 3 -25 8 Tigard Comprehensive Plan, 9 -2 C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Cfient Folders\Fields \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 8 GROUP cx - „Lill ILL potentially create a demand for new commuters from outside Tigard especially in light of Tigard's status as a net attractor of commuters. Conversely, the proximity of the subject property to very good transit facilities suggests that housing units built there would utilize transit options more than residential development in other outlying areas. In any case, the subject property does offer the opportunity for alternative forms of transportation for a large number of residents. Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for water quality. Response: Both the applicant and city staff agree that any future development of the subject property will be subject to all regional, state, and federal water quality standards. C. HAZARDS Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. Response: Both the applicant and city staff agree that any future development of the subject property must account for hazards affecting the subject property, including the 100 -year flood plain. D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 2. The City shall actively encourage businesses that provide family -wage jobs to start up, expand, or locate in Tigard. Policy 5. The City shall promote well - designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. Policy 6. The City shall promote actions that result in greater, more efficient, utilization of its Metro- designated Employment and Industrial Areas. Policy 11. The City shall develop industry clusters by encouraging the retention, expansion, and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. Policy 12. The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. Goal 9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on environmental sustainability. Policy 1. The City shall institute appropriate land use regulations to accommodate a contemporary mix of economic activities. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Gent Folders\Relds \2070334 0212 -18-03 Report -basic -.doc 9 GRUIIP fa AsjLE Policy 2. The City shall periodically review and update its policies, land use regulations, and other efforts to ensure the City's land use program is responsive to changes in the economic structure, and is adaptable to businesses changing development needs. Policy 3. The City shall engage with state and regional economical development organizations and agencies to sustain and expand its current economic activities and be prepared for future economic trends. Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Policy 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. Response: Economic development considerations are the central issues of this proposal. A complete response to economic development considerations has also been submitted and is attached to this report. To summarize, removing the subject site from the industrial land use category will have a negligible affect on the potential economic development of the City because the site is unlikely to be developed for industrial uses; given its site characteristics and development constraints. Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 9, all cities in Oregon must develop and implement policies intended to encourage economic development within their boundaries. A mandatory component of this goal is the designation of "suitable" lands for economic development purposes, typically industrial and commercial lands. City staff has indicated its resistance, based on the response of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), to recommend approval of the proposed amendment because it would eliminate a majority portion of "buildable" I -L land. However, designation of such land for industrial use is not appropriate in the context of state policies calling for industrial land that is suitable for industrial uses. Although Goal 9 is more completely addressed in the attached analysis document, the following table summarizes a host of constraints that limit the economic development potential of the subject property as it is currently designated: Site Characteristics Subject Property Condition (OAR 660- 009 - 0005(11)) Site configuration including shape Triangular shape not conducive to industrial development. Acreage Most of the site's acreage is impacted by industrial development constraints. Topography Slopes around Fanno Creek pose a minor constraint on industrial development. Visibility No visibility. Site not visible from Hall Boulevard or Wall Street. Specific types or levels of public Industrial access to roads, water, sewer facilities very difficult at best. Proximity to a particular transportation or Very poor. Zero -modal access, as opposed freight facility such as rail, marine ports to multimodal. Site is adjacent to railway, and airports, multimodal freight or but Washington County commuter rail transshipment facilities, and major precludes industrial rail access. transportation routes Significant residential use of Wall Street. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Ckent Folders\Felds \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic,doc 1 0 GROUP ��!! Development Constraints Subject Property Condition (OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(2)) Wetlands Significant wetlands on site reduce buildable area and complicate industrial access. Environmentally sensitive areas such as Most of site is covered by Significant habitat Habitat areas. Environmental contamination No known contamination. Slope /topography Slopes around Fanno Creek put a minor constraint on industrial development. Cultural and archaeological resources Industrial site may conflict with adjacent library resource. Infrastructure deficiencies Significant problems with access to roads, sewer, and water. Parcel fragmentation Parcel is isolated from industrial development to north and east by railroad and industrial development, and to south by Metro parcel. Natural hazards Significantly present. The western boundary of the site is impacted by the floodplain. In its report, staff maintains that, "full impact of the loss of jobs on the local economy" 9 has not been addressed and suggests that re- designation of the subject property would be a loss of potential jobs for the City as a whole. This reasoning is based on two incorrect assumptions. First, that re- designation of industrial lands would result in job loss, and second that industrially zoned -land has some intrinsic economic development potential simply because it is zoned as such. To address this first issue, there is no guarantee that the subject site will ever produce the number of jobs ascribed to it. In fact, the site has been zoned for industrial uses for over 20 years and has remained vacant while every suitable industrial parcel within the City has developed. Moreover, increasingly complex and burdensome land use requirements have made development of the site less possible over that same time period, not more. To address the second issue, it is illogical to suggest that simply zoning land for particular uses will do anything to support or encourage such uses. Zoning merely limits alternative uses as opposed to making a particular use easier. The City has in fact reduced its support for industrial development of the site by restricting vehicle access and the extension of utilities. Because the subject property is so constrained as to prevent its use for industrial purposes, amending its land use designation and zoning will have no real impact on the economic development potential of the City. Staff responds to these issues by suggesting that the same constraints would similarly apply to residential development, which is not correct. Far more innovative ways exist to develop constrained land for residential uses than for industrial, which is a large part of the reason why so many municipalities in Oregon go to great lengths to protect "prime industrial land. " Industrial development is typically the most disruptive to sensitive land because of 9 City of Tigard Staff Report. 12/15/08. Pg. 8. 10 Pr Industrial Land was defined by the Governor's Industrial Conversion Study Committee in part as having "minimal or no development constraints," that developable acreage is in "large, flat, and symmetrical configurations," and that there is "sufficient capacity in the local transportation system." None of these attributes are represented in the subject property. Source: C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen \Desktop \CNent Folder5\Fields \2070334 0212 -18-03 Report- basic -.doc G R 0 ll P N IE the need for large rectangular buildings, truck courts, outdoor storage, and parking areas. None of these preconditions exist for residential development, which is far more adaptable to challenging sites. This fact is important because certain development intensity is required to make a site useable. Staff is mistaken in its statement that, "the argument over the number of potential employees supported by the Light Industrial zoning is not really important. " None of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan goals are served by a site that is too constrained to produce any jobs. Furthermore, the Goals on Economic Development call for the efficient use of such lands, which is not possible on this site. It should be noted that the City's own Periodic Review Evaluation concluded that, "Tigard is not at a lack for jobs. " Staff ultimately relies on the acreage of the site to be rezoned as the primary reason why the application should be denied. We agree with staff that the amount of suitable industrial land in the City is the critical issue, and firmly contend that the site represents far less than the 72% of "buildable" I -L land as suggested by the City's buildable lands inventory. In light of the interrelated constraints of the subject site, it does not actually represent any significant percentage of "buildable" I -L land. The City is not faced with a choice of re- designating suitable industrial land, rather it is being asked to resolve a conflict between the physical capacity of the subject property and its intended uses. Furthermore, the term "buildable" as used by staff does not represent the legal terminology applicable to the determination of economically viable properties. The fact, by lay, is that this site is not suitable for industrial uses. In conclusion, the industrial designation of the subject site appears to be erroneous when the full scope of site constraints is appraised. In the same way that the industrial comprehensive plan designation is not consistent with Goal 9 policies, it fails to meet the intent of many, if not all comprehensive plan policies for economic development because the subject property is not developable as designated. The best alternative designation is medium -high density residential, which allows more efficient utilization of the site while protecting natural features and blending with adjacent uses. Stated plainly, a realistic development approach would include residential or mixed uses on the subject property, but not industrial uses. Inasmuch as residential development potential would directly result in real construction jobs while also providing a market for economic opportunities located in the downtown area, the proposed amendment better achieves Tigard's economic development objectives. E. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. Industrial Conversion Study Committee and DLCD. "Promoting Prosperity: Protecting Prime Industrial Land for Job Growth." State of Oregon. Nov. 19, 2004. 11 City of Tigard Staff Report. 12/15/08. Page 9. 12 City of Tigard. Periodic Review Evaluation. Page 2 C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \Cient Folders \fields \20703340212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 12 GR1 11 P ACKENZIE Policy 2. The City's land use program shall be consistent with applicable state and federal laws. Policy 3. The City shall support housing affordability, special -needs housing, ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation through programs administered by the state, Washington County, nonprofit agencies, and Metro. Policy 4. The City shall adopt and maintain land use regulations that provide opportunities to develop housing for persons with special needs. The scale, design, intensity, and operation of these housing types shall be compatible with other land uses and located in proximity to supporting coin Mil n ity services and activities. Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. Installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. Response: Each of theses policies were individually addressed in the initial and updated application narratives and in summary, the proposed amendment will facilitate medium - high density housing. The policies listed above generally encourage a diversity of housing opportunities, high- quality and livable housing units, opportunities for affordable housing and housing for people with special needs, and the mitigation of impacts of differing land uses. All of these policies can be furthered by the proposed medium -high density residential comprehensive plan designation and the R -25 zoning district because medium - high density housing provides opportunities for workforce and low - income housing far better than low - density housing. As the majority of land in the City is zoned for low - density residential uses, this will become more and more important as Tigard's population grows. Residential livability can only be ensured by a high- quality site development plan, which is not required for this application. Finally, re- designation of the subject site to a residential zoning district will result in development that is more compatible with the vicinity, which is dominated by residential and public uses. Staff did not disagree that the proposed medium -high density residential zoning districts fulfill applicable residential development goals. Rather, it focused on the issue of residential land need based on the residential capacity assigned in Metro's Urban Growth Management Framework Plan. While disagreement surrounds this particular issue, additional residential land does not in any way subvert, harm, or otherwise fail to comply with applicable residential development goals. Also, no state land use policy prohibits cities from maintaining inventories of residential land in excess of projected need. For theses reasons, the proposal is clearly consistent with the housing goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \CNent Folders \Fields \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 13 G R 0 I! P A KEN�IE� F. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE Policy 3.2.4 The City shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands map. No development shall occur on property adjacent to areas designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map within twenty five (25) feet of the designated wetlands area. Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall be allowed under the planned development section of the code. Response: Both the applicant and staff agree that no development will be permitted in significant wetland areas or within 25' of such areas. G. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Policy 8.2.3 The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that: A Development abuts a publicly dedicated street or has adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; B. Street right -of -way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; C. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city standards within the development; D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle /pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. Response: Both the applicant and staff agree that extension of adequate roadway facilities are necessary as a predicate to development. To that end, a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and sensitive lands review to permit the extension of a roadway into the subject property has been submitted. Any future street construction will proceed in accordance with the policies stated above and their implementing ordinances. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Response: Staff asserts that such standards have not been addressed but staff has not indicated which standards it deems applicable. For this application, the standards of Chapter 18.380 are the only applicable considerations, as no development plan has been submitted. Other standards of the development code which could come into play once a development plan is established are listed below: • 18.350 Planned Developments • 18.360 Site Development Review • 18.430 Subdivisions • 18.540 Residential Zoning Districts • 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation • 18.745 Landscaping and Screening C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen \ Desktop \C6ent Folders \gelds \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 1 4 G R 0 II P ACKENZIE', • 18.765 Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements • 18.775 Sensitive Lands • 18.790 Tree Removal Compliance with each of these items will be reviewed when a development plan is submitted. It should also be noted that all additional informational items requested by staff were provided to the greatest detail possible; such requested information did not specify any specific provision of the code itself that the initial application failed to address. 18.380.030.8.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Response: There have been many changes in the neighborhood since the subject property was initially zoned I -L, not the least of which is the profusion of residential homes in the vicinity. More recently, the City of Tigard built the Tigard library, further solidifying the non- industrial elements of the vicinity. Several relatively recent legislative changes have also occurred that make industrial development of the subject property difficult. These include the application of a Goal 5 safe harbor area around Fanno Creek, City Significant Habitat Areas, and Metro habitat designations. All of these are changes which affect the potential developability of the subject site and its suitability for industrial designation. The subject site is truly improperly designated. Goal 9 requires that industrial and other employment lands be designated based on a constraints analysis so that such land will be suitable for development. A constraints analysis was never undertaken (the economic assessment from the 1980s does not include a constraints analysis) The City's own Periodic Review Evaluation notes that economic circumstances have changed such that it must undertake an EOA before it can determine whether or not sufficient buildable sites are available for economic development purposes. The level of constraints affecting the subject site make it unsuitable for industrial use, suggesting that there is a mistake on the comprehensive plan and zoning maps as they relate to the subject property. The essence of that mistake is that the subject site was zoned in such a way that it cannot realistically be developed for the intended uses. 13 This is based on the documentation provided by the City per a request for its most recent economic opportunities analysis. 14 C of Tigard. Periodic Review Evaluation. Page 3. C:\ Documents and Settings \wrasmussen\ Desktop \CientFolders\gelds\ 207033 -18-03 Repot - basic -.doc 1 5 6R u ACKENZIE-1 III. CONCLUSION This comprehensive plan amendment has been proposed in response to clear and long - lasting site constraints on the subject property that make industrial development particularly difficult. We have appreciated the guidance by City staff throughout this process and believe they have provided an alternative analysis of the situation that should be considered by decision makers. Nevertheless, staff's analysis fails to fully consider the practical difficulties that any developer would face in an attempt to actually develop the subject property for industrial uses. Based on our constraints analysis, and the lawful requirements through Goal 9, the subject property does not have any significant economic development potential as it is currently designated. A re- designation to residential will allow the most efficient use of the site, while generating economic value. In addition, a residential designation responds better to the surrounding area and more adaptable to the site's natural features. C: \Documents and Settings \wrasmussen \ Desktop \Client Folders\gelds \2070334 0212 -18-08 Report - basic -.doc 16 GR UP ,A C PORTLAND, OR ► SEATTLE, WA I VANCOUVER, WA MEMORANDUM RiverEast Center 11515 Water Avenue, Sulte 1001 Portland, OR 97214 P.O. Box 14310 ► Portland, OR 97293 T: 503.224.9560 ► F: 503.228.1285 ► www.groupmackenzle.com DATE: January 26, 2008 TO: City of Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Rhys Konrad, Planner SUBJECT 7Fields Pro ex Tarr elane Below is a detailed timeline of events associated with the subject property: 1961 City of Tigard incorporated from Washington County. 1972 Mr. Fields purchases the subject property with the intent of eventually developing the site. 1974 Statewide Planning Goals created. 1977 • Mr. Fields becomes owner of COE Manufacturing and grows it into one of Tigard's largest employers. • City Comprehensive Plan designates site Industrial in light of proximity to railroad and separation from residential development. 1977 — Present City of Tigard, Clean Water Services, State of Oregon, and United States successively enact more strict environmental and land use regulations to protect streams, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive areas that further constrain development on the subject site. December 7, 1977 Clean Water Act of 1977 enacted, strengthening environmental protections for streams and wetlands, and limiting development that impacts wetlands. 1980 — 2007 Industrial land to south is purchased by Metro and held as a natural preserve, preventing industrial development and access to the south. Lands to west and south of the property developed for residential uses with apartments, condominiums, and single- family dwellings. 1987 Congress passes Water Quality Act of 1987, pertaining to stonnwater run off. 1993 — 2008 Tigard enjoys the largest economic expansion in its history. Nonetheless, the subject site does not develop due to site characteristics and development constraints. 1998 Tigard adopts Sensitive Lands provisions restricting development in floodplains, wetlands, and drainageways. H: \PROJECTS\207033402 \WP \MEMO RTC \090126- Attachment I.doc Fields Property Timeline January 26, 2008 Page Number 2 2001 Tigard threatens condemnation of a portion Mr. Fields property abutting Hall Road which is now the City of Tigard library site ( "Library Property "). Mr. Fields expresses concern that doing so will land lock his remaining property between Hall Boulevard and the railroad. December 18, 2001 Under threat of condemnation, Mr. Fields and Tigard enter into an option agreement, under which Tigard receives the exclusive right to purchase the Library Property in exchange for cooperating with Mr. Fields to build a road from Hall Boulevard to the subject property. October 30, 2002 The City of Tigard takes title to the Library Property and subsequently builds the library along the access route to Mr. Fields industrially zoned property. 2005 — 2006 Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas designated by Metro and City of Tigard. January 19, 2006 Tigard grants Mr. Fields an easement from Hall Boulevard across a portion of the Library Property to the subject property, furthering the purpose of 2001 option agreement. October 2006 Construction begins on Washington County Commuter Rail Project. Several parallel rail tracks abut the property. The closest rail line is dedicated to commuter use, effectively preventing the site from obtaining industrial rail access. July 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached between the Tigard/Tualatin School District, City of Tigard, and Mr. Fields. The MOU is intended to accommodate a school district bus facility and City public works facilities on other land owned by Mr. Fields, in exchange for access across School District property to the subject site. 2007— 2008 Mr. Fields works in good faith with all parties subject to the MOU to address all parties' needs. After several meetings and negotiations, a deal could not be reached. 2008 • Mr. Fields proposes rezoning the property to residential. City staff uniformly gives positive feedback of the concept, indicating that they would be supportive of a rezone application. • Mr. Fields spends substantial time and money to prepare necessary documentation to facilitate the rezone application with the understanding that City staff support the rezone. June 2008 Neighborhood meeting held which concludes general support of rezone. Neighbors on abutting residential property generally preferred residential development over industrial. December 8, 2008 Without explanation or warning to Mr. Fields, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application. Document2 Fields Property Timeline January 26, 2008 Page Number 3 The site has become unsuitable for industrial use since it was zoned Light Industrial in 1977. In addition, changes in the surrounding properties as well as increased federal, state, local and regional regulations have made industrial development largely impossible. Construction of residences, Metro buying the industrial parcel to the south, and the City of Tigard library on adjacent parcels has changed the nature of the area and created the potential for conflicting uses. The Washington County Commuter Rail prevents industrial rail access to the site. The site is currently zero - modal, instead of multi- modal. Despite the City's best intentions of the site's original designation, the site is not suitable for industrial use. Document2 { PORTLAND, OREGON 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower ll S EATTLE, - ASH NCSON 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 7 5� �qe VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON Portland, Oregon 97204 -3699 si: s MILLER ASI—ILLP CENTRAL OREGON OFFICE 503.224.5858 ATTORNEYS. AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM FAx 503.224.0155 i 1 t William L. Rasmussen William .rasmussen @millernash.com (503) 205 -2308 direct line January 26, 2008 City of Tigard Planning Commission 11 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard _ '.... Tigard, Oregon 97223 -8199 Subject: Goal 9 Analysis Regarding Fred Fields' Zone Change Dear Commissioners: This letter provides information regarding Goal 9 in response P g g to the staff P report and the November 25, 2008, letter from Meg Fernekees at the Department of Land Conservation and Development ( "DLCD "), which conclude that the proposal of applicant Fred Fields is inconsistent with Goal 9. Yet, the proposed rezone is consistent with Goal 9. In fact, designating the property as industrial actually violates Goal 9 by ignoring the property site characteristics and development constraints. The intent of Goal 9, "Economic Development," is " jt]o provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." This goal requires local cities and counties to provide "an adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth in Oregon."' Comprehensive plans are supposed to maintain a base level of industrial and employment land to reserve opportunities for economic growth through PP businesses g� g locating or expanding in those areas. As a constituent government of Metro, Tigard has bee assigned its share of economic development capacity, some 1 801 � � g P 7 jobs between j 1 994 and 2017.2 Goal 9, as implemented through OAR Chapter 66o, Division 9 ( "Division 9 "), sets forth the preconditions for designation of industrial lands. Cities are directed to prepare an Economic Opportunities Analysis ( "EOA ") as the factual basis upon which lands are to be designated or not designated industrial /employment land.3 This exercise performs two essential tasks: (1) review of national, state, regional, county, and local trends to identify industrial /employment land needs, and (2) identification of "suitable" land within the jurisdiction based on site characteristics r OAR 660 - 009 -0000. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 3 OAR 660 -009 -0015. PDXDOCS:1812367.1 art' N, PORTLAND, OREGON - - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON s MILLER ASH- CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM I I Tigard Planning Commission .5 January 26, 2008 Page 2 4 and development constraints to meet those needs. Tigard must critically and carefully I. review its buildable lands in order to determine which sites are most appropriate for anticipated industrial /employment uses. z It is essential that only "suitable" lands be designated industrial/ * employment because state and regional policymakers base decisions on these x P „,-„, designations. Division 9 defines "suitable” land as "serviceable land designated for .= industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide, the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use. "4 DLCD's November 25, 2008, letter indicates that Mr. Fields' application �; for a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA 2008 - 00008 /ZON 2008 - 00002) is not supported by Goal 9 because it fails to rely on Tigard's most recent economic opportunities analysis to justify the proposed redesignation and does not include a '' " correct analysis of the loss of industrial land." In response, the following analysis will review what Tigard offers as its most recent EOA, as well as more recent analysis that ' , - was done for the Tigard 2007 project. A. Designating the Subject Property as Industrial /Employment Violates Goal 9 _, The subject site is not suitable for the industrial /employment designation because of its site characteristics and development constraints under Goal 9 and Division 9. Division 9 directs that site characteristics such as configuration, visibility, access to public facilities, and access to transportation facilities be used to determine whether a site is suitable for the industrial /employment designation. It also directs that development constraints such as wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, topography, f . P and infrastructure deficiencies be considered in designating land as industrial /employment. A complete copy of Division 9 is attached. It is, in fact, a violation of Goal 9 to have the subject site designated as employment /industrial. At Neither the staff report nor the DLCD letter analyze the proposal in the context of the substantive provisions in Goal 9. The staff report and DLCD letter correctly jumping-off cite the ` in -off P oint for a Goal 9 analysis, which is OAR 660 -09o- P g 1 0010(4), but both then fail to actually apply the goal. OAR 660 - 009 - 0010(4) provides 4 OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(12). V hD\DOCS:1312367.1 ..-4 ,,. PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON ILLER JIASF[LLP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM • SYT Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 3 three options for applicants to redesignate employment or industrial lands in this context: "(a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division; or "(b) Amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate the proposed amendment, consistent with the requirements of this division; or "(c) Adopt a combination of the above, consistent with the requirements of this division. "5 B. No Economic Opportunities Analysis Tigard does not have an EOA. Upon request by Mr. Fields, Tigard w 3 provided a document drafted in the 198os entitled "Economy: Comprehensive Nan _ Report" (the "1980s Report "). Suffice it to say that this document does not provide the factual basis required by code for an EOA. Common sense dictates that reliance on 20- { year -old data to make and use decisions will fail to respond to current economic reality and future opportunities. The 198os Report provides data on the economic position of Tigard in the late 198os. It notes that Mr. Fields' Coe Manufacturing was the second- largest producer } of industrial jobs in Tigard at 34o jobs. At that time, Tigard represented some 2.4 percent of the total Metro population, and was not under pressure to respond to economic problems. " Tigard boasted relatively high real estate values, the overwhelming majority of which were in single- family homes. More than 75 percent of residents commuted to the Portland or other regional employment centers, and the EOA regarded this fact uncritically: "Because of the regional nature of employment, the adequacy of job opportunities within the region is the critical issue and not employment within any single jurisdiction." 144. 5 OAR 660 - 009 - 0010(4) (emphasis added). 6 198os Report I -136. 7 198os Report at 1 -142. PDXDOCS:18 12367.1 ■14 PORTLAND, OREGON ��; SEATTLE, WASHINGTON :. VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON y MILLER NASH- CENTRAL OREGON ,may ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page4 x '� . At a local level, the 198os Report did find that Tigard was deficient in its supply of industrial land. Nevertheless, it recommended that instead of new industrial lands' being annexed, existing industrial lands should be reserved for industrial uses. It made this recommendation by suggesting that more industrial land was needed, but failed to indicate how much. In that respect, the 198os Report fails to satisfy the first requirement for an EOA: that need for industrial /employment sites be clearly X identified. "E • I,_ It also fails on the second EOA requirement, which is to provide a = "constraints analysis" to select sites that are suitable for industrial uses. The 1980s Report does note that the majority of industrial land was covered by floodplain, which appears to be the only test it used to evaluate and suitability.9 Recognizing that such a caveat is insufficient to clearly define appropriate industrial sites, the 198os Report . suggests considering a "more detailed, site specific inventory of the remaining inventory of vacant industrial in terms of slope and floodplain constraints in order to determine how much of this and is developable and to facilitate its availability for industrial use. "1 Tigard staff has not indicated that any such analysis was completed. Aside from its age, the 198os Report provided by staff does nothing to .. -- establish the actual number of industrial sites that were needed in 1990 for the planning period, nor does it even attempt to review the suitability, serviceability, and constraints of this land supply aside from mentioning that the land was constrained but serviceable: "Tigard's inventory of vacant commercial and industrial and is composed of a multitude of small parcels and * * * comparatively few unconstrained, larger sites remain for future expansion and growth. On the positive side, g p g ' P all of this land is already serviced or services can be easily extended. "1 �= The 198os Report does not meet the requirements for an EOA. Neither Mr. Fields nor Tigard can rely on the 1980s Report in good faith based on its paucity of diligent analysis and the age of the data. 8 OAR 660 -009 -0015. 9 198os Report at I -148. , a 10 Id. 11 198os Report at I -1 45. s 4A 4 PDXDOCS:1812367.1 y.,, a,! PORTLAND, OREGON ': - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 7 4 MILLER l -1Sl t«r VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 5 C. Subject Site Not Suitable Industrial/Employment Land Under Goal 9 Mr. Fields can achieve the desired redesignation under OAR 660-009 - 0010(4) by amending Tigard 's Comprehensive Plan in a way that is consistent with the requirements of Division 9." Those requirements indicate that this plan redesignation should be approved because of the subject property's site characteristics and development constraints. Division 9 has six sections: 660 - 009 -0000 Intent and Purpose 660 - 009 -0005 Definitions 660 - 009 -0010 Application 660 - 009 -0015 Economic Opportunities Analysis " 66o- 009 -002o Industrial and Other Employment Development Policies 660- 009 -0025 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Other Employment Uses 660- 009 -0030 Multi- Jurisdiction Coordination The substantive "requirements of this division" referenced in OAR 660- ��E 009- 0010(4) are found in Sections 660 - 009 -0015, 660 -009 -0020, and 660 -009 -0025. - -4 The other sections do not provide substantive requirements. Section 66o - 009 -0010 pertains to the scope of the Goal 9 rules and process for comprehensive plan review. See the attached copy of Division 9 for the complete text of the rules. Generally speaking, OAR 660 - 009 -0025 provides methodology for determining whether a site is appropriately designated as industrial /employment lands. Among other things, that section requires: "Plans must designate serviceable and suitable to meet the site needs identified in * * * this rule. * * * [T]he total acreage of land designated must at least equal the total projected and needs for each industrial or other employment use category identified in the plan during the 20 -year planning period. "12 And: C 7 12 OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(2) (emphasis added). PDXDOCS:1812367.1 (]y.N, PORTLAND, OREGON �--'� SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON ILLER ASH lP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM s Tigard Planning Commission �* x January 26, 2008 Page 6 "Plans for cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization or cities and counties that adopt policies relating to the short -term supply of and must designate suitable and to respond to economic development opportunities as they arise. " 13 t�= The importance of these rules is that (1) cities must designate lands for industrial /employment use, and (2) those designated lands must be suitable. Division 9 defines "suitable" land as "serviceable and designated for industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide, the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use. " 14 Division 9 defines these key terms: "'Serviceable' means the city or county has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR 66o, divisions 011 and 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period. "15 "'Site Characteristics' means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site - characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or ;# levels of public facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to =fit a particular transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes. "1 It is a fact that the subject site has been designated for industrial use, but it • does not meet the definition of "suitable" and therefore should not be considered to meet Tigard's employment projections under Division 9. Tigard staff has commented in the staff report that the site is not serviceable because of the sensitive lands provisions that require a comprehensive plan amendment to allow impacts in city- designated wetlands. This is in direct conflict with Tigard's own TSP designation of Wall Street, 13 OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(3) (emphasis added). 1 OAR 66o - 009 - 0005(12) (emphasis added). 15 OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(9)• 16 OAR 660- 009 - 0005(11). PDXDOCS:1812367.1 PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON T gg{� /q, T ASH {-y VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON MILLER LLP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission 1 January 26, 2008 Page 7 - which is proposed to be extended from its current terminus near the library and serve the site. Additionally, Tigard staff has commented that in order to utilize the existing public sewer line that runs through the site, an additional comprehensive plan amendment would be required. Because planned and existing infrastructure serving the site requires significant amendments and approvals to utilize these facilities, the subject site does not meet the definition of "serviceable." The subject property's site characteristics further limit the site's suitability to provide employment capacity for Tigard. Specifically, the subject property is oddly rt shaped, which limits the ability to provide industrial development, which is further emphasized by the existence of sensitive lands constraints on the site. Also, the site has no visibility because it is situated behind the current city library and existing residences and has no public street frontage. The public facilities necessary to serve potential industrial development are limited by Tigard's sensitive lands requirements and by state F t and federal law. The site abuts a rail line to the northeast, but access to this line is prohibited because the adjacent rail line is dedicated to serve the commuter rail. Because of these factors, the site characteristics do not comply with the suitability requirement for industrial properties in Division 9. Furthermore, cities are directed to inventory their industrial lands, and that inventory is to include "[a] description of any development constraints or infrastructure needs that affect the buildable area of sites in the inventory. "17 Tigard has not yet performed the mandatory constraints analysis on the subject site. As with the „ " "site terms suitable, serviceable, and characteristics, „ Division 9 is very specific about the meaning of "development constraints ": "'Development Constraints' means factors that temporarily or permanently limit or prevent the use of land for economic development. { Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard =4„;.F areas. "1$ I. 17 OAR 660 009 o015(g)(a)(B). i OAR 66o- 009- 0005(2). £Y�r PDXDOCS:1812367.1 4 /IN PORTLAND, OREGON v -; - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER � , N ®@ ®j� ASHL`P VANCOUVER, WASH4NGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 8 gin} Furthermore, the State of Oregon's "Methods for Evaluating Commercial and Industrial Land Sufficiency" acknowledges that in addition to Goal 9 EOA standards, other important practical considerations must be taken into account when designating industrial land: 1 "Business decision makers in the market for commercial and industrial land may have definitions of 'adequate supply' independent of the definitions in state statute. Prospective commercial and industrial employers want to see an ample supply of land within a primary market ° area that they deem competitive in terms of: - Parcel size, steep slopes and configuration; - Adequacy of infrastructure: roads, utilities, and telecommunications; Y Wit - Environmental issues, such as wetlands, floodplains and hazardous materials; • - Land ownership and and availability; - Land price and overall development costs; and - Local and use regulations. "All of these site development constraints affect the cost and timing of development, which are bottom line site competitiveness determinants. The local economic development strategy should address what a jurisdiction is willing to do to be competitive for certain types of rte, commercial and industrial activities. " To summarize, under Division 9 Tigard not only must provide a sufficient supply of industrial land, but must also designate only that land that is suitable based on site characteristics and development constraints. The exercise must include a site review and constraints analysis. This is imperative so that the facts relating to a given site do not result in a de facto moratorium on development or an inverse condemnation. 19 Otak, Inc. & ECONorthwest, Advisory Committee on Commercial and Industrial Development, "Methods for Evaluating Commercial and Industrial Land Sufficiency: A Recommendation for Oregon Communities" (Dec. 9, 2002). PDXDOCS:1812367.1 PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON . '1: MILLER MILLER iSHLLP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW. MJLLERNASH. COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 9 No analysis of site characteristics and development constraints has been w done for the subject property. Tigard staff has provided Mr. Fields with two documents, the 1 8os Report and the Tigard 2007 buildable lands inventory. No 9 P g 7 �'• explanation of the P nature of the constraints, their extent, or serviceability of the site has been provided. Such a auci of information makes it necessary for Mr. Fields to clarify the constraints p �' rY fY affecting the subject property for consideration of the proposed amendment. In summary, the subject property suffers development constraints to such an extent that it is improperly designated and cannot be a significant source of economic growth in Tigard. Several environmental constraints affect the site. First and most obvious is Fanno Creek, which separates the property from its lawful access point at Wall Street. Floodplains and wetlands also cover many acres of the site The floodplains and wetlands on the site not only preclude industrial development on the acreage they cover, but also make industrial access potentially impossible. Constructing a small residential access road would be difficult enough across the wetlands; constructing industrial -grade access may not be feasible. Also, Metro's Habitat Conservation and Tigard's critical habitat areas are } ` both located on the site and together cover at least 17 acres of the subject property. ` Although these areas may be impacted subject to potential mitigation, it is clear that the Although Y P j P g subject property is burdened by considerable environmental constraints Furthermore, many trees are on the property. Mr. Fields obtained a permit authorizing removal of these trees, but if he is able to rezone the property to residential, he intends to keep many of the trees. If the property is designated as an industrial site, the trees will likely need to be removed to accommodate larger - footprint industrial uses. D. Subject Site Not Suitable Industrial /Employment Land Because of fl Infrastructure and Access Limitations Industrial sites must have industrial access and industrial infrastructure. By law, the city must provide adequate access and infrastructure to serve industrial and employment lands, including streets, water service, and sewerage. "The plan must also include policies, through public facilities planning and transportation system planning, 1 PDXDOCS:1 S 12367.1 , . - i PORTLAND, oREco N SEATTLE, WASHINGTON W. � �JT T g—Yp ��p VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON ' TLL,ER 1 `A CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM rik 4? Uri. 11 Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 10 to provide necessary public facilities and transportation facilities for the planning area. "2O The site does not benefit from any improved street access. Ostensibly, transportation is available via an easement connecting the subject property to Wall Street, although to date Tigard has not permitted the extension necessary to serve the proposed development. Tigard has also indicated that a comprehensive plan amendment would be necessary to allow access to the subject property. Note that crossing the railroad tracks directly northeast of the subject property and crossing the ��. Metro land to the south have both been proposed in the past and were rejected by the Portland and Western Railroad and Metro. Tigard promised to help Mr. Fields construct a roadway from Wall Street to the subject property when Mr. Fields sold v Tigard the library under threat of eminent domain. V- Further, as the staff report points out, the subject property is not benefited by necessary public facilities needed for industrial /employment use. Currently, no infrastructure is physically available to serve the site. The nearest improved street system is Wall Street, which terminates approximately 400 feet to the A west. Sewer and water access is limited. Mr. Fields finds himself trapped in a cycle of apparently contradictory interpretations by staff. On the one hand, staff states that this site represents a significant portion of the buildable lands zoned for light industrial, so the land should Vx not be redesignated. On the other hand, staff states that industrial access may not be granted to the site. Mr. Fields is unsure what is meant by "buildable" lands if access is V, not considered part of a site's being buildable. "Suitable" lands, which is what is A • required for lands to be designated industrial /employment under Division 9, requires that those lands have access. E. Conclusion - , Tigard 's ostensible intent of zoning the subject property for industrial uses is to preserve a large parcel of industrial land for a user that may need it. Even though the site has been zoned IL for 30 years, such uses have failed to materialize, and are unlikely to do so in the future. Mr. Fields has been a manufacturer in Tigard for decades. If this parcel had industrial potential, Mr. Fields would have used it for such 20 OAR 66o- 009- oo2o(1)(c). 1 PDXDOCS:1812367.1 PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON MILLER ASHLLP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 11 purposes. Site characteristics and development constraints prevent this site from being suitable industrial land under Goal 9. While an uncritical look at the property suggests that it benefits from locational efficiencies provided by nearby industrial uses, the inability to cross or access the railroad tracks renders those efficiencies moot. The letter provided by DLCD and the staff report express concern that the proposed redesignation may contradict Goal 9, which protects the industrial/ employment and supply. Goal 9 protects only industrial /employment lands that are suitable in light of their site characteristics and development constraints. Below is a chart summarizing the nonexclusive components of site characteristics and development constraints under OAR 660 - 009 -o005 for the subject site: Site Characteristics Subject Property Condition #r 1 (OAR 66o- 009 - 0005(11)) Site configuration including shape Triangular shape not conducive to industrial development. { Acreage Most of the site's acreage is impacted by industrial development constraints. r " Topography Slopes around Fanno Creek pose a minor constraint on industrial development. Visibility No visibility. Site not visible from Hall fp'r Boulevard or Wall Street. Specific types or levels of public facilities Industrial access to roads, water, sewer very difficult at best. Proximity to a particular transportation Very poor. Zero -modal access, as - or freight facility such as rail, marine opposed to multimodal. Site is adjacent ports and airports, multimodal freight or to railway, but Washington County transshipment facilities, and major commuter rail precludes industrial rail '' transportation routes access. Significant residential use of Wall Street. PDXDOCS:1312367.1 s-! ;et • ( 1 141,-; PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, wASHiNCroN T 7} _ a gSH -g�-yT VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON MILLER — CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 12 Development Constraints Subject Property Condition '� (OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(2)) Wetlands Significant wetlands on site reduce buildable area and complicate industrial aF access. Environmentally sensitive areas such as Most of site is covered by Significant habitat Habitat areas. Environmental contamination No known contamination. Slope /topography Slopes around Fanno Creek put a minor but ° constraint on industrial development. Cultural and archaeological resources Industrial site may conflict with adjacent • library resource. Infrastructure deficiencies Significant problems with access to roads, sewer, and water. Parcel fragmentation Parcel is isolated from industrial development to north and east by railroad and industrial development, and to south by Metro parcel. Natural hazards Significantly present. The western boundary of the site is impacted by the floodplain. In the context of Goal 9 and general state policy, the subject property does �r s not qualify as suitable industrial /employment land. It has no easily provided access, _ little environmentally unconstrained area, no street exposure, and no true locational efficiencies. Recognizing that most of the practical site constraints are due to increased land use regulation, the relative serviceability and developability of the subject property • has doubtless decreased over the last 30 years. � r 1 L PDXDOCS:1812367.1 tee mN ) PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON ILLER ASHLLF CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Tigard Planning Commission January 26, 2008 Page 13 , In the absence of a clear constraints analysis done by Tigard, our analysis shows that the characteristics and constraints affecting the site render it less than suitable. The site's limited access, poor visibility, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive areas make residential development difficult and industrial development potentially impossible. The implication of these facts is that the subject property is not a viable part of Tigard's or the region's industrial and supply and is improperly designated. Maintaining this site's designation as industrial /employment violates Division and defeats the purpose of industrial land use planning under Goal 9 P p P g 9. Very truly yours, William L. Rasmussen lu .fx � PDXDOCS:1812367.1 | � | �2 Oregon Regulations Search � () CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5erch DIVISION 9 JNDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCAL DEVELOPMENT Search El 660-009-0000 Purpose �] 660-009-0005 Definitions -- El 660-009-0010 Application Fl GGO'UO9-OU15 Economic Opportunities Analysis [l 660-009-0020 lndustria! and Commercia! Development Policies [] 660-009-0025 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercia Uses � | [l 880 Multi Coordination | | / � | | ! / | ! � ! � � ! ] | ` ! � | � ] Oregon Regulations - 660 - 009 -0000 Purpose Page 1 of 1 Oregon Regulations Oregon Regulations LI CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660- 009 -0000 Purpose The intent of the Land Conservation and Development Commission is to provide an adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth in Oregon. The intent of this division is to link planning for an adequate land supply to infrastructure planning, community involvement and coordination among local governments and the state. The purpose of this division is to implement Goal 9, Economy of the State (OAR 660 - 015 - 0000(9)), and ORS 197.712(2) (a) to (d) . This division responds to legislative direction to assure that comprehensive plans and land use regulations are updated to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities throughout the state (ORS 197.712(1)) and to assure that comprehensive plans are based on information about state and national economic trends (ORS 197.717(2)). Hist.: LCDC 4- 1986, f. ef. 10- 10 -86; LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http:// www. loislaw .com/pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &dockey= 5462294 q/COL , .. 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 -009 -0005 Definitions Page 1 of 3 Oregon Regulations Oregon Regulations CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "';i DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660 -009 -0005 Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS chapter 197 and the statewide planning goals apply, unless the context requires otherwise. In addition, the following definitions apply: (1) "Developed Land" means non- vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period. (2) "Development Constraints" means factors that temporarily or permanently limit or prevent the use of land for economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard areas. (3) "Industrial Use" means employment activities generating income from the production, handling or distribution of goods. Industrial uses include, but are not limited to: manufacturing; assembly; fabrication; processing; storage; logistics; warehousing; importation; distribution and transshipment; and research and development. Industrial uses may have unique land, infrastructure, energy, and transportation requirements. Industrial uses may have external impacts on surrounding uses and may cluster in traditional or new industrial areas where they are segregated from other non- industrial activities. (4) "Locational Factors" means market factors that affect where a particular type of industrial or other employment use will locate. Locational factors include, but are not limited to, proximity to raw materials, supplies, labor, services, markets, or educational institutions; access to transportation and freight facilities such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes; and workforce factors (e.g., skill level, education, age distribution). (5) "Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)" means an organization designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning on urban land of the state including such designations made subsequent to the adoption of this division. The Longview- Kelso - Rainier MPO is not considered an MPO for the purposes of this division. Cities with less than 2,500 population are not considered part of an MPO for purposes of this division. (6) "Other Employment Use" means all non - industrial http:// www. loislaw. com/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &docket'= 5462295(COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 -009 -0005 Definitions Page 2 of 3 employment activities including the widest range of retail, wholesale, service, non - profit, business headquarters, administrative and governmental employment activities that are accommodated in retail, office and flexible building types. Other employment uses also include employment activities of an entity or organization that serves the medical, educational, social service, recreation and security needs of the community typically in large buildings or multi- building campuses. (7) "Planning Area" means the area within an existing or proposed urban growth boundary. Cities and counties with urban growth management agreements must address the urban land governed by their respective plans as specified in the urban growth management agreement for the affected area. (8) "Prime Industrial Land" means land suited for traded- sector industries as well as other industrial uses providing support to traded- sector industries. Prime industrial lands possess site characteristics that are difficult or impossible to replicate in the planning area or region. Prime industrial lands have necessary access to transportation and freight infrastructure, including, but not limited to, rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes. Traded- sector has the meaning provided in ORS 285B.280. (9) "Serviceable" means the city or county has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR chapter 6 . 60, division 011 and division 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period. (10) "Short -term Supply of Land" means suitable land that is ready for construction within one year of an application for a building permit or request for service extension. Engineering feasibility is sufficient to qualify land for the short -term supply of land. Funding availability is not required. "Competitive Short -term Supply" means the short -term supply of land provides a range of site sizes and locations to accommodate the market needs of a variety of industrial and other employment uses. (11) "Site Characteristics" means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public-facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes. (12) "Suitable" means serviceable land designated for industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use. http:// www. loislaw .com /pns /tcdoeview.htp ?logaUtO TCAUTO &docket' = 5462295 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 - 009 -0005 Definitions Page 3 of 3 (13) "Total Land Supply" means the supply of land estimated to be adequate to accommodate industrial and other employment uses for a 20 -year planning period. Total land supply includes the short -term supply of land as well as the remaining supply of lands considered suitable and serviceable for the industrial or other employment uses identified in a comprehensive plan. Total land supply includes both vacant and developed land. (14) "Vacant Land" means a lot or parcel: (a) Equal to or larger than one half -acre not currently containing permanent buildings of improvements; or (b) Equal to or larger than five acres where less than one half -acre is occupied by permanent buildings or improvements. Hist. LCDC 4 -1986, f. & ef. 10- 10 -86; LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 - - 07 Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http: / /wwwaoislaw. colas/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?3ogauto =TCAUTO &docket' = 5462295 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 66U- U09 -UUIU Application Page 1 of 2 Oregon Regulations ( '_l Oregon Regulations i CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [ DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660- 009 -0010 Application (1) This division applies to comprehensive plans for areas within urban growth boundaries. This division does not require or restrict planning for industrial and other employment uses outside urban growth boundaries. Cities and counties subject to this division must adopt plan and ordinance amendments necessary to comply with this division. (2) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations must be reviewed and amended as necessary to comply with this division as amended at the time of each periodic review of the plan pursuant to ORS 1 Jurisdictions that have received a periodic review notice from the Department (pursuant to OAR 660 - 025 -0050) prior to the effective date of amendments to this division must comply with such amendments at their next periodic review unless otherwise directed by the Commission. (3) Cities and counties may rely on their existing plans to meet the requirements of this division if they conclude: (a) There are not significant changes in economic development opportunities (e.g., a need for sites not presently provided for in the plan) based on a review of new information about national, state, regional, county and local trends; and (b) That existing inventories, policies, and implementing measures meet the requirements in OAR 660 -009 -0015 to 660- 009 -0030. (4) For a post - acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660, division 18, that changes the plan designation of land in excess of two acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a non- industrial use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or county must address all applicable planning requirements, and: (a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis and the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division; or (b) Amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate the proposed amendment, consistent with the requirements of this division; or (c) Adopt a combination of the above, consistent with the requirements of this division. http: / /www.loislaw. coal/ pns/ tcdocview .htp ?logauto =TCAUTO &dockey= 5462296 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 -009 -0010 Application Page 2 of 2 (5) The effort necessary to comply with OAR 660 -009 -0015 through 660 -009 -0030 will vary depending upon the size of the jurisdiction, the detail of previous economic development planning efforts, and the extent of new information on national, state, regional, county, and local economic trends. A jurisdiction's planning effort is adequate if it uses the best available or readily collectable information to respond to the requirements of this division. (6) The amendments to this division are effective January 1, 2007. A city or county may voluntarily follow adopted amendments to this division prior to the effective date of the adopted amendments. Hist.: LCDC 4 -1986, f. & ef. 10- 10 -86; LCDD 4 -2001, f. & cert. ef. 10 -2 -01; LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http:// www. loislaw. com/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto =TCAUTO &docket' = 5462296 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 - 009 -U015 Economic Opportunities Analysis Page 1 of 3 Oregon Regulations ( Oregon Regulations .,..-I CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT t DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660 - 009 -0015 Economic Opportunities Analysis Cities and counties must review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans to provide economic opportunities analyses containing the information described in sections (1) to (4) of this rule. This analysis will compare the demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. (1) Review of National, State, Regional, County and Local Trends. The economic opportunities analysis must identify the major categories of industrial or other employment uses that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area based on information about national, state, regional, county or local trends. This review of trends is the principal basis for estimating future industrial and other employment uses as described in section (4) of this rule. A use or category of use could reasonably be expected to expand or locate in the planning area if the area possesses the appropriate locational factors for the use or category of use. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to analyze trends and establish employment projections in a geographic area larger than the planning area and to determine the percentage of employment growth reasonably expected to be captured for the planning area based on the assessment of community economic development potential pursuant to section (4) of this rule. (2) Identification of Required Site Types. The economic opportunities analysis must identify the number of sites by type reasonably expected to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the site characteristics typical of expected uses. Cities and counties are encouraged to examine existing firms in the planning area to identify the types of sites that may be needed for expansion. Industrial or other employment uses with compatible site characteristics may be grouped together into common site categories. (3) Inventory of Industrial and Other Employment Lands. Comprehensive plans for all areas within urban growth boundaries must include an inventory of vacant and developed lands within the planning area designated for industrial or other employment use. (a) For sites inventoried under this section, plans must provide the following information: (A) The description, including site characteristics, of vacant or developed sites within each plan or zoning district; h. ttp:// www. 1oislaw. com/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &dockey = 546 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 -009 -0015 Economic Opportunities Analysis Page 2 of 3 (B) A description of any development constraints or infrastructure needs that affect the buildable area of sites in the inventory; and (C) For cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, the inventory must also include the approximate total acreage and percentage of sites within each plan or zoning district that comprise the short -term supply of land. (b) When comparing current land supply to the projected demand, cities and counties may inventory contiguous lots or parcels together that are within a discrete plan or zoning district. (c) Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies providing for prime industrial land pursuant to OAR 660 -00970020(6) and 660- 009 - 0025(8) must identify and inventory any vacant or developed prime industrial land according to section 3(a) of this rule. (4) Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential. The economic opportunities analysis must estimate the types and amounts of industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The estimate must be based on information generated in response to sections (1) to (3) of this rule and must consider the planning area's economic advantages and disadvantages. Relevant economic advantages and disadvantages to be considered may include but are not limited to: (a) Location, size and buying power of markets; (b) Availability of transportation facilities for access and freight mobility; (c) Public facilities and public services; (d) Labor market factors; (e) Access to suppliers and utilities; (f) Necessary support services; (g) Limits on development due to federal and state environmental protection laws; and (h) Educational and technical training programs. (5) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to assess community economic development potential through a visioning or some other public input based process in conjunction with state agencies. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to use the assessment of community economic development potential to form the community economic development objectives pursuant to OAR 660- 009- 0020(1)(a). Hist.: LCDC 4 -1986, f. & ef. 10- 10 -86; LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 http: / /www.loislaw. coin/p ns /tcdoeview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &docket'= 5462297(COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660- 009 -0015 Economic Opportunities Analysis Page 3 of 3 Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http:// vnvw,l oislaw. com/ pns /tcdocviewhtp ?Iogauto= TCAUTO &dockey = 5462297 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660- 009 -0020 Industrial and Commercial Development Policies Pagel of 2 Oregon Regulations l Oregon Regulations I CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660 -009 -0020 Industrial and Commercial Development Policies (1) Comprehensive plans subject to this division must include policies stating the economic development objectives for the planning area. These policies must be based on the community economic opportunities analysis prepared pursuant to OAR 660 - 009 -0015 and must provide the following: (a) Community Economic Development Objectives. The plan must state the overall objectives for economic development in the planning area and identify categories or particular types of industrial and other employment uses desired by the community. Policy objectives may identify the level of short -term supply of land the planning area needs. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to select a competitive short -term supply of land as a policy objective. (b) Commitment to Provide a Competitive Short -Term Supply. Cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization must adopt a policy stating that a competitive short -term supply of land as a community economic development objective for the industrial and other employment uses selected through the economic opportunities analysis pursuant to OAR 660 - 009 -0015. (c) Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities. The plan must include policies committing the city or county to designate an adequate number of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations. The plan must also include policies, through public facilities planning and transportation system planning, to provide necessary public facilities and transportation facilities for the planning area. (2) Plans for cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization or that adopt policies relating to the short -term supply of land, must include detailed strategies for preparing the total land supply for development and for replacing the short -term supply of land as it is developed. These policies must describe dates, events or both, that trigger local review of the short -term supply of land. (3) Plans may include policies to maintain existing categories or levels of industrial and other employment uses including maintaining downtowns or central business districts. (4) Plan policies may emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity from existing industries and firms as a means to facilitate local economic development. (5) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt http:// www. loislaw. com/ pns/ tcdoeview. htp? logauto= TCAUTO &docicey= 5462298 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations 660 -009 -0020 Industrial and Commercial Development Policies Page 2 of 2 plan policies that include brownfield redevelopment strategies for retaining land in industrial use and for qualifying them as part of the local short -term supply of land. (6) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt plan policies pertaining to prime industrial land pursuant to OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(8). (7) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt plan policies that include additional approaches to implement this division including, but not limited to: (a) Tax incentives and disincentives; (b) Land use controls and ordinances; (c) Preferential tax assessments; (d) Capital improvement programming; (e) Property acquisition techniques; (f) Public /private partnerships; and (g) Intergovernmental agreements. Hist.: LCDC 4 -1986, f. & ef,. 10- 10 -86; LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 Copyright © 2008 Lois Inc. All Rights Reserved • http : / /www.loislaw. con- i/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &docket'= 5462298 a,COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 66U- UU9 -UU2.3 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercial ... Page 1 of 4 Oregon Regulations Cj Oregon Regulations CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660 -009 -0025 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercial Uses Cities and counties must adopt measures adequate to implement policies adopted pursuant to OAR 660 - 009 - 0020. Appropriate implementing measures include amendments to plan and zone map designations, land use regulations, public facility plans, and transportation system plans. (1) Identification of Needed Sites. The plan must identify the approximate number, acreage and site characteristics of sites needed to accommodate industrial and other employment uses to implement plan policies. Plans do not need to provide a different type of site for each industrial or other employment use. Compatible uses with similar site characteristics may be combined into broad site categories. Several broad site categories will provide for industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in most planning areas. Cities and counties may also designate mixed -use zones to meet multiple needs in a given location. (2) Total Land Supply. Plans must designate serviceable land suitable to meet the site needs identified in section (1) of this rule. Except as provided for in section (5) of this rule, the total acreage of land designated must at least equal the total projected land needs for each industrial or other employment use category identified in the plan during the 20 -year planning period. (3) Short -Term Supply of Land. Plans for cities and counties within a Metropolitan Planning Organization or cities and counties that adopt policies relating to the short -term supply of land must designate suitable land to respond to economic development opportunities as they arise. Cities and counties may maintain the short -term supply of land according to the strategies adopted pursuant to OAR 660 - 009 - 0020(2). (a) Except as provided for in subsections (b) and (c), cities and counties subject to this section must provide at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial and other employment uses as short -term supply. (b) Affected cities and counties that are unable to achieve the target in subsection (a) above may set an alternative target based on their economic opportunities analysis. (c) A planning area with 10 percent or more of the total land supply enrolled in Oregon's industrial site certification program pursuant to ORS 284.565 satisfies the requirements of this section. http:// www. loislaw.com /pns /tcdocview.htp ?l ogauto= TCAUTO &dockey = 5462299 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 -009 -0025 Designation of Lands tor Industrial and Commercial ... Page 2 of 4 (4) If cities and counties are required to prepare a public facility plan or transportation system plan by OAR chapter 660, division 011 or division 012, the city or county must complete subsections (a) to (c) of this section at the time of periodic review. Requirements of this rule apply only to city and county decisions made at the time of periodic review. Subsequent implementation of or amendments to the comprehensive plan or the public facility plan that change the supply of serviceable land are not subject to the requirements of this section. Cities and counties must: (a) Identify serviceable industrial and other employment sites. The affected city or county in consultation with the local service provider, if applicable, must make decisions about whether a site is serviceable. Cities and counties are encouraged to develop specific criteria for deciding whether or not a site is serviceable. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to also consider whether or not extension of facilities is reasonably likely to occur considering the size and type of uses likely to occur and the cost or distance of facility extension; (b) Estimate the amount of serviceable industrial and other employment land likely to be needed during the planning period for the public facilities plan. Appropriate techniques for estimating land needs include but are not limited to the following: (A) Projections or forecasts based on development trends in the area over previous years; and (B) Deriving a proportionate share of the anticipated 20 -year need specified in the comprehensive plan. (c) Review and, if necessary, amend the comprehensive plan and the public facilities plan to maintain a short -term supply of land. Amendments to implement this requirement include but are not limited to the following: (A) Changes to the public facilities plan to add or reschedule projects to make more land serviceable; (B) Amendments to the comprehensive plan that redesignate additional serviceable land for industrial or other employment use; and (C) Reconsideration of the planning area's economic development objectives and amendment of plan objectives and policies based on public facility limitations. (d) If a city or county is unable to meet the requirements of this section, it must identify the specific steps needed to provide expanded public facilities at the earliest possible time. (5) Institutional Uses. Cities and counties are not required to designate institutional uses on privately owned land when implementing section (2) of this rule. Cities and counties may designate land in an industrial or other http:// www. loislaw. com/ pns/ tcdocview. htp? logauto= TCAUTO &dockey= 5 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660 - 009 -0023 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercial ... Page 3 of 4 employment land category to compensate for any institutional land demand that is not designated under this section. (6) Compatibility. Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to manage encroachment and intrusion of uses incompatible with industrial and other employment uses. Strategies for managing encroachment and intrusion of incompatible uses include, but are not limited to, transition areas around uses having negative impacts on surrounding areas, design criteria, district designation, and limiting non - essential uses within districts. (7) Availability. Cities and counties may consider land availability when designating the short -term supply of land. Available land is vacant or developed land likely to be on the market for sale or lease at prices consistent with the local real estate market. Methods for determining lack of availability include, but are not limited to: (a) Bona fide offers for purchase or purchase options in excess of real market value have been rejected in the last 24 months; (b) A site is listed for sale at more than 150 percent of real market values; (c) An owner has not made timely response to inquiries from local or state economic development officials; or (d) Sites in an industrial or other employment land category lack diversity of ownership within a planning area when a single owner or entity controls more than 51 percent of those sites. (8) Uses with Special Siting Characteristics. Cities and counties that adopt objectives or policies providing for uses with special site needs must adopt policies 'and land use regulations providing for those special site needs. Special site needs include, but are not limited to large acreage sites, special site configurations, direct access to transportation facilities, prime industrial lands, sensitivity to adjacent land uses, or coastal shoreland sites designated as suited for water- dependent use under Goal 17. Policies and land use regulations for these uses must: (a) Identify sites suitable for the proposed use; (b) Protect sites suitable for the proposed use by limiting land divisions and permissible uses and activities that interfere with development of the site for the intended use; and (c) Where necessary, protect a site for the intended use by including measures that either prevent or appropriately restrict incompatible uses on adjacent and nearby lands. Hist.: LCDC 4 - 1986, f. & ef. 10 10 - 86; LCDD 7 - 2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 http: / /www.l ois l aw: com/ pns /tcdocview.htp ?logauto= TCAUTO &dockey = 5462299 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 66U- UU9 -UU2J Designation o1 Lands tor Industrial and Commercial ... Yage 4 of 4 Copyright © 2008 Loisl_aw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http: / /www.loislaw.com/pns/ tcdocview. htp? logauto = TCAUTO &dockey = 5462299 @COL... 1/26/2009 Oregon Regulations - 660- 009 -0030 Multi- Jurisdiction Coordination Page 1 of 1 Oregon Regulations I Oregon Regulations CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 9. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 660 -009 - 0030 Multi - Jurisdiction Coordination (1) Cities and counties are strongly encouraged to coordinate when implementing OAR 660 - 009 -0015 to 660 - 009 -0025. (2) Jurisdictions that coordinate under this rule may: (a) Conduct a single coordinated economic opportunities analysis; and (b) Designate lands among the coordinating jurisdictions in a mutually agreed proportion. Hist.: LCDD 7 -2005, f. 12- 13 -05, cert. ef. 1 -1 -07 Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved http:// www.loislaw.com/pns /tcdocview.1 tp ?Iogauto= TCAUTO &docket' - 1.8924322 @COL... 1/26/2009 A6 5 OPTION AGREEMENT 7lit `I'IHIS OPTION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 18 th day of December, 2001, by and between Fred W. Fields ( "Fields ") and the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation ( "City"), with reference to the following facts: A. Fields is the owner in fee of that certain real property located in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property") B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has communicated to Fields that necessity and the intention of the City to exercise its power of eminent domain with regard to the property unless the parties can agree on terms for (i) acquisition by the City of an option to purchase the Property, and (ii) the actual purchase of the Property by the City after exercise of such option. C. After discussions and negotiations between the parties, Fields desires to grant to City an option to purchase the Property upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and City desires to acquire such option. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements herein set forth, and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 GRANT OF OPTION Fields hereby grants to City the exclusive option to purchase the Property upon all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein (the "Option "). ARTICLE 2 TERM AND MANNER OF EXERCISE 2.1 The Option shall be exercisable by City at any time during the period commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and terminating March 31; 2003 (the "Option Period ") only by delivering to Fields written notice of exercise of the Option in the manner set forth in Section 12.9 hereof prior to the expiration of the Option Period. Page 1 - OPTION AGREEMENT G :\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite \Documents \Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc f 2.2 If City fails to exercise the option on or before the last date for such exercise specified above, the Option and this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. If City timely exercises the Option, this Agreement shall become a contract for the purchase of the Property on the terms and conditions herein set forth. ARTICLE 3 OPTION CONSIDERATION The consideration for the Option consists of the mutual promises contained herein, and the following covenants of the City: 3.1 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise of the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding establishment of a road (the "Extension Road ") from Hall Boulevard providing access to other real property owned by Fields (the "Adjacent Property ") which lies generally eastward of the Property. 3.2 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields and will establish discussions among the City, Fields (or his representative), the owner /operator of that certain railway track(s) and right -of -way (the "Railway ") bordering the Adjacent Property, and property owner(s) having property(ies) abutting the Railway and having rights that may be affected by the Extension Road, with the purpose of negotiating a crossing of said track and right-of-way for the Extension Road. In the event the Railway refuses to permit a crossing of said track and right -of way, the,_.City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields with regard to the establishment of alternative roadway access from Hall Boulevard and from Hunziker Road to the Adjacent Property. 3.3 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields in the formation of a local improvement district to finance construction of the Extension Road, with such consultations to include: (i) the appropriate siting of the Extension Road, (ii) construction of the Extension Road across the Adjacent Property (and possibly across the Property), and (iii) the appropriate location of a Railway crossing for connection of the Extension Road to SW Hunzilcer Avenue. As part of such cooperation, the City agrees - to assume, and promptly pay as required, the costs of engineering work and construction management for the formation of the local improvement district and construction- of the Extension Road, will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding ari=r cquital3le .' distribution of Extension Road costs through_ local improvement district assessment liabilities; and will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding allocation of local improvement district assessment 1' .s! • • - - - • ! - - • i - or f. o 'ass o bond -me. . • Page 2 - OPTION AGREEMENT OAReal fistate \Tigard \LibrarySite \Documents \Fields Option Ag 8(121801).doc . obtain funds for construction of a library facility on the Property. The obligation of the City to pay costs of engineering work and construction management for the Extension Road is a continuing obligation that shall survive the termination of this Option Agreement and continue in force even in the event the City does not exercise the Option, 3.4 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding possible amendments to the provisions of this Option Agreement setting forth the terms for the purchase of the Property after exercise of the Option in order to provide lawfully available tax benefits to Fields. ARTICLE 4 TERMS OF PURCHASE In the event City exercises the option, City shall purchase and Fields shall sell the Property on the terms set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (the "Sale Agreement ") attached as Exhibit 13. ARTICLE 5 TITLE 5.1 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a preliminary title report (the "Title Report ") showing the current state of title of the Property. City hereby approves such state of title, as it may be amended by the City's comments set forth as a part of Exhibit C. 5.2 City's fee title to the Property shall be insured by an ALTA owner's extended coverage policy of title insurance to be issued by First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon at the Close of Escrow (as that term is defined in the Sale Agreement) with liability in the amount of the Purchase Price, containing such endorsements as are acceptable to City, and showing title vested in City subject only to: (a) Non - delinquent real property taxes and special assessments, if any; and (b) Such other matters accepted and approved by the City as set forth in Exhibit C hereto. 5.3 Non - delinquent real estate taxes and assessments are subject to proration as provided in the Sale Agreement. Fields agrees that he will not create or permit any encumbrance, lien or other matter to affect or encumber title to the Property during the term of this Option Agreement without first securing the written consent of City, except that Fields may create Page 3 - OPTION AGREEMENT 0:1Real Estate\ Tigard \LibrarySite \DocumentsTields Option Ag 7(121701).doc leases, licenses or other minor possessory interests in the Property so long as such interests are extinguished as of the Close of Escrow. In the event that any matter not shown on the Title Report affects marketable title to the Property prior to the Close of Escrow and City objects thereto, Fields shall at his option discharge such matter, or obtain title insurance coverage for the benefit of, and acceptable to, the City with respect to such matter. If City elects to take title to the Property subject to a monetary lien or encumbrance which can be discharged by the payment of less than $10,000,00, City may take title to the Property subject thereto, and reduce the Purchase Price accordingly. If any matter affecting marketable title has been created through no fault of Fields, as the sole remedy of City (but only if such matter materially affects marketable title and City elects not to purchase the Property as a sole result thereof), City may terminate this Option Agreement and the Sale Agreement prior to the Close of Escrow. ARTICLE 6 INSPECTIONS /ZONING MATTERS/PERMITS /SIGN 6.1 From and after the date of this Agreement, City shall have the right at City's sole cost and expense to enter onto the Property (through its employees, designated agents and representatives) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner after giving reasonable notice to Fields for the purpose of making such inspections as City deems necessary in connection with this Agreement; provided that City shall, if requested by Fields, be accompanied by Fields' - employees in connection with any inspection of the Property, and shall not make any physical alteration to the Property without first securing the written consent of Fields. Fields shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to such right to enter by City. In addition, the City may enter onto the Property and erect a sign mutually acceptable to the parties hereto identifying the Property as the future site of a library facility. . 6.2 Fields agrees to join with City in any applications to governmental authorities for permits, modifications to land use regulations affecting the Property, and any other authorizations the City deems necessary or appropriate so long as Clyt all expenses incurred « in connectio therewi h_ 6.3 City shall indemnify and hold Fields harmless from any loss, liability, expense or amage (including reasonable attorneys' fees) in connection with any such inspections and applications, and in the event City shall not exercise the Option and purchase the Property, City will remove any physical alterations to the Property made by City without Fields's written consent, and shall restore the Property as nearly as possible to the condition in which it existed at the date of this Agreement, Page 4 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\Real Estate\ Tigard \Librarysite\Documents \Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc ARTICLE 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 7.1 As an inducement to Fields to enter into this Agreement, City represents, warrants and covenants that it is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Oregon; that it has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and to consummate the transaction herein contemplated; and that the execution and delivery hereof and the performance by City of its obligations hereunder will not violate or constitute an event of default under the terms or provisions of any agreement, document or instrument to which City is a party or by which City is bound. 7.2 As an inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Fields represents, warrants and covenants as of the date hereof as follows: (a) Fields has the requisite power and authority to (i) enter into this Option Agreement, and (ii) sell the Property. The execution and delivery hereof and the performance by Fields of its obligations hereunder will not violate or constitute an event of default under the terms and provisions of any agreement, document or instrument to which Fields is a party or by which Fields is bound; (b) This Agreement is a valid and binding obligation of Fields; (c) There are no leases, subleases, licenses, tenancy or occupancy agreements, service contractors, union contracts or other agreements to which Fields or the Property is bound, whether written or unwritten, covering or affecting the Property which will affect the Property on the Close of Escrow other than the matters shown on the Title Report and approved herein or otherwise approved in writing by City; (d) Fields has not received actual notice from any governmental authority that existing uses of the Property are not in full compliance with all applicable zoning laws (and applicable variances) and any other local, municipal, regional, state or federal requirements or that the improvements on the Property do not comply with all applicable building, safety, health, zoning, environmental, subdivision and other laws, ordinances and regulations; (e) To the knowledge of Fields as of the date hereof, there is no action, proceeding or investigation whether in the nature of eminent domain or otherwise, pending or threatened, with respect to the ownership, maintenance or operation of the Property, and Fields has no knowledge of any litigation or threatened litigation affecting title to the Property or its use or operation; Page 5 - OPTION AGREEMENT o \Real_Estatc \Tigard \LibrarySite\Documents \Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc (f} Fields has not granted any options or any other rights to acquire fee title or other interests in the Property, other than as set forth in this Option Agreement; and (g) If (i) any of the representations, warranties or covenants contained in this Section 7.2 are materially inaccurate on the Close of Escrow, and (ii) such inaccuracy materially and adversely affects the Property or City's intended use thereof and (iii) City elects in writing not to purchase the Property as a sole result of such inaccuracy, then City may terminate this Option Agreement. 7.3 The truth, accuracy, and completeness of each of the representations warranties and covenants of City and of Fields herein set forth, shall constitute a condition precedent to the obligations of Fields and City, respectively, hereunder. All representations, warranties and covenants herein set forth shall survive the Close of Escrow, and City and Fields each agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other from any claim, demand, liability, loss or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) which the other may sustain because of any material breach of or inaccuracy in the respective representations, warranties and covenants of Fields and City set forth in this Agreement. '7.4 City acknowledges that, except as provided in Section 7.2, Fields makes no representations or warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the Property, its present condition or its fitness or suitability for any particular purpose and that the Property is to be sold in an as is condition. In this respect, City confirms that it is relying solely upon its own investigation of the present condition of the Property and all governmental laws and ordinances which might affect City's use and development of the Property. ARTICLE 8 COMMITS SIONS Fields and City each hereby represent and warrant to the other that it has not dealt with any broker or finder or any other person who might be entitled to a fee in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property and that no fee or commission is due to any broker, finder or other person in connection with this Agreement or the sale contemplated thereby. Fields agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City, and City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Fields, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, judgments, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising directly or indirectly out of any claim for a fee or commission due to any broker or finder or other person arising from the actions or failure to act of Fields and City, respectively. These representations, warranties and agreements shall survive the Close of Escrow. Page 6 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\ Real_ EstatelTigard \Librery8ite \DocumentsTietds Option Ag 7(121701).doc ARTICLE 9 ASSIGNMENT Neither City nor Fields may assign this Agreement or any of their rights hereunder for any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the other party (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by either party) and any purported assignment shall be absolutely void and of no force or effect. ARTICLE 10 RISK OF LOSS In the event that, prior to the Close of Escrow, the Property, or any part thereof, is destroyed or materially damaged, City shall have the right, exercisable by giving notice to option or within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of such destruction or damage, to terminate this Agreement, in which case Fields shall refund the Option Price to City and, upon City's receipt thereof neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder. ARTICLE 11 CONDEMNATION • If prior to the Close of Escrow all or any material portion of the Property is taken or threatened to be taken by eminent domain, Fields shall so notify City. In such event, City may elect (i) to purchase the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, in which case Fields shall assign to City on the Close of Escrow all of Fields's interest in any proceeds of eminent domain, or (ii) to terminate this Agreement without further liability to either party hereto, in which case City . shall have no further interest whatever in the Property. ARTICLE 12 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto. 12.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Page 7 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\Real_ Estate\ Tigard \LibrarySite \Documents \Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc 12.3 Attorneys' Fees. Should any action be brought arising out of this Agreement, including without limitation any action for declaratory or injunctive relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings or in any action or participation in, or in connection with, any case or proceeding under Chapter 7, 11 or 13 or the Bankruptcy Code or any successor statutes, and any judgment or decree rendered in any such actions or proceeding shall include an award thereof. 12.4 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Fields and City and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 12.5 No Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver Constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver, 12.6 Further Acts, Each party shall, at the request of the other, execute, acknowledge (if appropriate) and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other acts, as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 12.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each o_fwhich so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement. 12.8 Amendments. This Agreement may not be changed or modified except by an instrument in writing executed by the party asserted to be bound thereby. 12.9 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which either party may be required or may desire to give to or serve upon the other, shall be made in writing and delivered by personal service to any officer of the other party or sent by certified or registered mail, postage paid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: To Fields: Fred W. Fields 1149 SW Davenport Portland, Oregon 97201 To City: City of Tigard Attn: William A. Monahan, City Manager 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Page 8 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\Real_Estate \Tigard \LibrarySite \Documents \Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc With Copy to: Dominic G. Colletta Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Any such notice sent by mail shall be presumed to have been received by the addressee forty - eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States mail. Either party may change its address by giving the other party written notice of its new address as herein provided. 12.10 Headings. Any headings in this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties and are not part of this Agreement. 12.11 Governing Law. This Agreement and the transaction herein contemplated shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. 12.12 Recording. A Memorandum of Option Agreement referring to this Agreement has been executed and delivered on the date hereof and will be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Oregon, In the event that City does not exercise the Option herein granted prior to the expiration date, it shall immediately deliver to Fields a duly acknowledged quitclaim deed of all of its interests in the Property under this Option Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fields and City have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation 4 0 By:. _ Fred W. Fields Its: mayor Page 9 - OPTION.AGRBEMENT 0:\Reai Estate\ Tigard \LibrarySite \nocumentaVF0eids Option Ag 7(121701).doa Order No. 935232 • EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL I: The North one -half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL II: • - The South one -half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard; County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL III: All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 1 93 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0 °22' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47 0 43' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47 °43' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S. "; thence continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37 °01' East 110.0 feet; South 26 °58'. West 126,0 feet; South 6 °44' West 86.8 feet; South 30°08' East 40.5 feet; South 73 °51' East 44.8 feet; North 53 °56' East 71.7 feet; South 74 °06' East 33.1 feet; South 4 °44' West 72.6 feet; South 24 °24' East 64.3 feet; South 51 °2' East 137.0 feet and South 11°35' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence North 89°00' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89 °00' East 17.1 feet; thence running downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39 °18' West 32.8 feet North 58 °29' West 104.5 feet, South 86 °48' West 41.6 feet and South 12 °02' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89 °00' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning, SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County. 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE I PORTLAND OREGON 97 232 2736 7 1 1 . 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 F A X 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 9 7 METRO 3/2/05 Mr. Fred Fields 1149 SW Davenport St. Portland, Oregon 97201 Dear Mr. Fields, This letter is in response to your easement/right -of -way request that was sent to Metro Regional Government on February 8 , 2005. Metro staff have reviewed your request and determined that the proposal alters the Open Space to the point of significant negative impact to the natural resource. The proposal was put up against the Metro easement policy, point by point, to make this determination. Your request is being denied. If you have further questions, please call me at 503- 797 -1554. Sincerely, Laurie Wulf Metro Regional Parks 600 NE Grand Ave Portland, Or 97232 C: Michael Wells • Recycled raper www metro - region org 71)0 7 9 7 1 8 0 4 09/17/2008 WED 16:15 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace 12 002/007 ' 7 � M ETRO OPEN SPACES PEOPLE PLACES Application for Easement / Right-of-Way 1 Lease For Non -Park Uses Applicant: Contact person: Name: Fred W. Fields Name Fred W. Fields Address , Title 1149 SW Davenport St Owner City, State, Zip Phone. Portland, OR 97201 -2225 (503) 228 -7084 Phone Fax (503) 228 -7084 (503) 228 -7089 Applicant shall fully and completely explain, describe and identify the elements of its proposed easement / right-of-way / lease, for non -park uses in accord with Metro Council Resolution No, 97- 25398, attaching additional materials if necessary, as set forth below. Type of Request 1 Easement ® Right-of-Way ❑ Lease Describe the purpose of your request: The purpose of this request is for secondary access to my adjacent industrial property of approx 25 acres. A primary access street is to be built to service my site from Hall Blvd to the west, entering adjacent to the Tigard Library. It will be called Wall Street. The City of Tigard is in the process of forming an L.I.D. for its construction. Secondary access through Metro's parcel is necessary for fire department and other safety issues. It would connect from my parcel to Milton Court. A possible swap or exchange of open space on my parcel should be explored. Describe proposed terms of your requested easement/lease /right of way: A perpetual right -of -way or easement over the land is necessary. Permission is requested to construct a public street to extend from City of Tigard owned property at the end of Milton Court northward across the east end of Metro's parcel to my property. bwz •14 Qnni;rtwQ7EAS Dux of= Um too N.Y.WWean roN 1 PAGE 2/7' RCVD AT 9/17/2008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Time]" SVR:PDXFAXl2" DNIS:8660 CSID:503 797 1849 " DURATION (mm- ss):03 -12 09/17/2008 WED 16:16 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace 0003/007 METRO OPEN SPACES PEOPLE PLACES '.. Application for Easement 1 Right-of-Way 1 Lease For Non -Park Uses Identify location of proposal on a base map of not fess than 1" -500' showing topographical lines at 10' intervals and include significant natural and manmade features of the area: See the attached plan and aerial prepared by Group MacKenzie. The access street will cross Metro's preen space that was formerly grazing land. Possibly 1 or 2 trees will be removed in a manner consistent with City of Tigard's code. Describe the size of easement requested in both dimension and total area required: The street length will be approximately 400 feet. The width of the right -of -way is supposed to be 50 feet for a City of Tigard local commercial /industrial street. Pavement width is specified as 36 feet. ( Describe all components of your proposed use (grading, fill and removal, sub - surface elements, structures, etc.): The street will run directly to my property from Milton Court. It would rise several feet from the elevation at the end of the cul -de -sac, following the natural grade of the Metro parcel. Topsoil will be stripped, and could be placed on Metro's parcel or removed at your election. Base rock, asphalt, curb and sidewalk will be installed to City code. Describe the existing conditions of the site: The parcel currently is open space, formerly used as grazing land. There is a combination of trees and meadows. Much of Metro's parcel is wetland or in the floodplain, but the subject portion is upland. Two rail lines and a utility easement are adjacent to the east. N iNtammk e. YJ UC *M4apmeweesElEACEMTZONOTh.wvLT hINIIN1iJwMNNNIcEte* lain1C6dm EGMCONRMEWX04 2 PAGE 3/7* RCVD AT 9117/2008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Time] * SVR:PDXFAXI2 * DNIS:8666 * CSID:503 797 1849* DURATION (mm- ss):03.12 09/17/2008 WED 16:16 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace U004/007 „__ I , To METRO OPFN 6P+CEB PEOPXZ PY>CE9 Application for Easement / Right-of-Way 1 Lease For Non -Park Uses Describe the proposed modifications to the site that would be required to accommodate your request (e.g., tree removal, soil disturbance, stream crossing, etc.): A few trees will need to be removed. Once surveying is completed, then engineering will be done to minimize impact to the area. There are no stream crossings. The site is only slightly sloped, so soil disburance by cuts and fills will be minimized. Describe your proposed project schedule and phasing: The work will be completed in mid to late 2005, if approvals and permits allow. The first phase will be documentation with Metro, then surveying and engineering, then permitting by City of Tigard. Explain your need for ongoing access. What is your proposal for accommodating this need? This secondary access to my 25 acre property is necessary in order to develop it. The City of Tigard requires a secondary access for such a large parcel for fire department and other safety issues. Development will generate over 1.500 jobs and increase the tax base. The sites close proximity to 1 -5 and Hwy 217 make it especially suitable for development for employment. Such is in keepinq with major regional goals including greater density, fewer vehicle miles traveled, and employment areas in proximity to transportation resources such as the freeways. Also, commuter rail is set to go right past the site. MA.0 ne.4erfdotlLFH Optnep.MEAECNP.CO1000 riugeeGT.mphWlE , r snw4101.1.oAtCIC7D01.d0o 3 _PAGE 4/7 * RCVD AT 9/17/2008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Timer * SVR:PDXFAXI2 * DNIS:8666 * CSID:503 797 1849 * DURATION (mm- ss):03 -12_ 09/17/2008 WED 16:16 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace 1005 /007 � r'. METRO OPEN EP))C. P8 MX= El Application for Easement / Right -of -Way / Lase For Won-Park Uses Describe your ongoing maintenance requirements: Once constructed, the street will be dedicated to the City of Tigard. Then the City will be ,responsible for maintenance on a long term basis. For the first year after construction, the contractor and /or developer will be responsible for warranty related maintenance. Describe other reasonable alternative routes that avoid the park or natural area property but are believed to not be feasible: Wail Street was proposed to extend from Hall Blvd, adjacent to the library, in a northeasterly direction over the two rail lines and connect to Hunziker Rd, Unfortunately that proposal is now infeasible due to opposition by the railroad and ODOT's rail division. Therefore the subject of this request is the only alternative route. • What is the public benefit of this lease, easement or right-of-way? The public benefit of this request is four fold, First, my property will be developed to create over 1,500 jobs. Second, fire and other safety risks will be mitigated by this secondary access. Third, vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion will both be reduced by an alternative route. Fourth the •ermitfees assessed b Ci of Tigard as well as increased property taxes will help the City and County to continue providing necessary services to the public. umumetcaWaw.AN OpmsparAMEASCUTCOMW CUrirn701701. Wwnon1 AlgOdbnmWm90,4.. 4 PAGE 517* RCVD AT 9117/2008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Time] * SVR:PDXFAXJ2 * DNIS:8666 * CSID:503 797 1849 * DURATION (mm- ss):03 -12 09/17/2008 WED 16:17 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace 2006/007 til l~ M E OPEN SPACES PEOPLE MUSS Application for Easement / Right-of-Way / Lease For Non -Park Uses Include any other relevant information describing and quantifying your proposal: A small portion of my property, at its southwestern comer, is in the floodpiain adjacent to Metro's o• ens. ace arcaL Perhaps a swag orexchan•e of the rou•hl 1/2 acre impacted b this requested right-of-way could be made with a like sized greenspace portion of my property. Thank you in advance for your prompt processing, so I can respond to interested tenants! By completing, executing and submitting this Application, Applicant hereby agrees to pay all Metro costs associated with processing, reviewing, analyzing, negotiating, drafting, approving, conveying and assuring compliance with the request hereunder and any easement, right -of -way or lease approved or.denied hereby, in accord with Metro Council Resolution No. 97- 2539B, unless waived by the Metro Council via resolution adopted at public session. APPLICANT METRO Received and Accepted By: / t 1 w By: i l Date: r k } X71 is ( Date: Contact For Questions: METRO Regional Parks & Greenspaces Department Attn: Laurie Wulf 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 -2736 • Telephone: 503/797 -1850 • Facsimile: 503/797 -1849 E -Mail: • wulfl aAmetro.dst.or.us • OSlIMP4OA O ]ALENUiT,11 O W FermAr eemeN Algi b00191011Eec 5 PAGE 6/7* RCVD AT 911712008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Time]* SVR:PDXFAX12 " DNIS:8666 * CSID:503 797 1849 " DURATION (mm- ss):03 -12 09/17/2008 WED 1617 FAX 503 797 1849 Metro Parks & Greenspace iZ1007/007 >-- - - Z . si. • ' 5 ' ■ - . . • . i . .it . ' 611' 1 t _.°' g d‘ ti tf• . . . a :-..• 1 . hi .,_ 1 \ •-i .1 • I j; ) , , 1 1 ; , . 3 4 1.11 1 \ \ - ;1 1\ •• I, c.-...- • in 4 1 a ft v 1 i ,.. . . ..,. . i • .14- .____.... ___. —. — .______ , 1 —r---49•eii4 ditt..--w . • • • , ... . • . .... . _........,„„.....,.... ft- 1 0 ...... 1 , 1.41....11 1 Imasswic a Oft.* } .01.16; . it *.T..42:a t. e • •• ---• ••• - - • 1 \ \ . ' ..- ,(40SIT • ...• 1 • I ■ ._,- 1 , .1 ‘'l • , , .... . 1 t i 4* * - \ • i, q. ...1 . . i . i i. h cl 1 - . . \ ' tit • 1 . • -,,.,... \ I . . ...,•.......,......_ . ,. • p, \. • . 1. ....._....._ ......_ ..,-, • . x . ce, \ • • ,...,,,,.. \• ., ..., ........,•— •„. I • 1 \\••••,.. • • r . . .. . \ i . . • • • 1 . _ ... . . \ . t , . . . E• a . \I . .., , . . .. ___.. •____________- -- PAGE 717 * RCVD AT 911712008 4:12:47 PM [Pacific Daylight Time] * SVR:PDXFAX/2* DNIS:8666 CSID:503 797 1849 * DURATION (mm-ss):03•12 _ D 6 AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: City of Tigard Attn: City Recorder 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT ( "Easement ") is made and entered into the / day of - yttArA , 2006, between THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation raptor ") and FRED W. FIELDS ( "Grantee "); WITNES SETH WHEREAS, Grantor is the record of owner of that certain real property in the City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon more fully described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Grantor Property "); and WHEREAS, Grantee is the record owner of that certain real property also located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon more fully described in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Grantee Property "); and WHEREAS, Grantee is desirous of obtaining an easement on, over across and under the Grantor Property for the construction, installation, repair and replacement of utilities and a roadway for ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property to a public roadway, and Grantor is desirous of providing such an easement to Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor conveys and grants to Grantee a permanent non- exclusive easement for the purposes of construction, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and replacement utilities and a roadway on, over, under and across that portion of the Grantor Parcel described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Easement Area "). 2. Grantor's Right To Convey And Exceptions. Grantor warrants that Grantor has the right to convey this Easement and quiet possession for the uses to be made of the Easement Property by Grantee as set forth in this Easement, subject to all prior easements and encumbrances of record. 3. Grantee's Rights. Grantee, and Grantee's agents, employees, and independent contractors, shall have the right to enter upon the Easement Area for the construction, installation, repair and replacement of utilities and a roadway for ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property to Hall Boulevard. Page 1 - Grant of Easement 4. Grantee's Notice Of Entry. Grantee recognizes that the Grantor Property is used by the general public for library and other purposes, and agrees to notify Grantor prior 1.0 commencement, and coordinate with Grantor, the timing and scheduling Grantee's construction, repair and replacement of improvements to be located in the Easement Area. 5. Maintenance. Grantee shall maintain and care for the Easement Area and all improvements thereon constructed or operated by Grantee at no cost to Grantor. Grantee shall also replace or restore to its original condition all portions of the Grantor Property which are damaged, disturbed or destroyed by reason of Grantee's, and Grantee's employees', contractors', agents' and invitees', negligence, actions or failures to act. 6. Agreement to Terminate Easement on Public Road Extension. Grantee acknowledges that the Easement Area is part of the alignment of an extension of that certain public roadway currently named Wall Street, and that Grantor may, at some future date, desire to extend Wall Street or its successor public roadway on, over, under and across the Easement Area. In the event the City shall intend to extend the said roadway, it shall give to Grantee written notice thereof. Within sixty (60) days of said notice, Grantee agrees to deliver to Grantor a quitclaim deed conveying to Grantor all Grantee's right, title and interest in the Grantor Property created by and set forth in this Easement. In consideration for delivery of said quitclaim deed, Grantor agrees that it shall at all times after the recording of said quitclaim deed, and during and after construction of said roadway extension, keep open a public access way to - and from the Grantee property that is suitable for passage by motor vehicles, and shall relocate and reinstall at the Grantor's expense any utilities located in the Easement Area in a manner that will permit continuation of the use of such utilities without unreasonable interruption. Grantor's obligations pursuant to this Section 6 shall survive the termination of this Easement. 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rights. The Easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated November 14, 2002, and amended September 13, 2005, by which . Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement, Notwithstanding the foregoing, the license set forth in the License Agreement, as amendud- is, not terminated by the easement anted herein, but shall remain in - ■ - ct until such time as antee shal ave actua , physical access to t e antee Property. 8. Indemnification. Grantee agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Grantor from any loss, claim or liability to Grantor arising in any manner out of the use of the Easement Property by Grantee, its agents, employees, independent contractors, and other such parties. Grantee assumes all risk arising out of Grantee's use of the Easement Property and Grantor shall have no liability to Grantee or others using the Easement Property by or through Grantee. 9. Grantor's Warranty. Grantor, its heirs, successors and assigns, covenants that Page 2 - Grant of Easement Grantor has the right to convey this Easement to Grantee and to provide quiet possession thereof in Grantee for the purposes stated herein. 10. Time. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of this Easement. 11. Notice. All notices given pursuant to this Easement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or if mailed, notice shall be deemed effective 48 hours after mailing as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address below or such other address as the party may indicate by written notice to the other: City of Tigard Fred W. Fields Attn: Agustin P. Duenas, P.E, 1149 SW Davenport Street City Engineer Portland, Oregon 97201 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 12. Breach - Remedies - Equitable Relief. The parties acknowledge that the uses provided by this Easement are unique in that money damages along for breach of this Easement are inadequate. Any party aggrieved by a breach of the provisions hereof may bring an action at law or a suit in equity to obtain relief, including specific performance, injunctive relief and any other available equitable remedy. 13. Legal Effect and Assignment. The provisions of this Grant of Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The rights granted herein nin with the land for the benefit of the Grantee Parcel and as a burden upon the Grantor Parcel. 14. Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action, including arbitration and any action pursuant to bankruptcy laws,.is instituted to interpret or enforce the terrns of this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the arbitrator or court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at arbitration or trial and on appeal and review. 15. Severability. Nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and wherever there is any conflict between any provisions contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail; but the provision of this Easement which is affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it within the requirements of the law. 16. Modification or Amendments. No amendment, change or modification of this Easement shall be valid, unless in writing and signed by all the parties hereto. 17. Waiver. Failure of either party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Easement shall not limit the party's right to enforce the provision, nor shall any waiver of any breach of any provision be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the provision or a Page 3 - Grant of Easement waiver of the provision itself or any other provision. 18. Entire Agreement. This Easement constitutes the entire agreement between and among the parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Easement as of the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation e l (VII A CA / W/� 7 Al C _ aL r By: Craig Prosser Fred W. Fields Its: City Manager STATE OF OREGON. ) County of WillAwt � Ar ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this I I O day of , 2006, by • — 5 ....07...'",...."1.....'" - . -•.-�.. 'Cv - •. �.- - 1 - - -, 04- lam /• i r { > OFFICIAL SEAL ) � NOTARY PUB or Oregon 1 4,'1, DIANE M JELDEFIKS ' lik NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON! 1 MY COMMISSIIONEXPIR S PT 25, 200 State of Oregon ) County of i: / i III ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of a t 0a/1� , 2006, by -F•/ - �'f/vv-ii1 i , %7 I14. l CAt [ i i v U _ d:1 • . ,... ...-. .-.- -.., ti.,,-.,- ► 6 TARY 'IJ:LIC for Oregon • OFFICIAL SEAL j� J BENGTSON I NOTARY PUB - OREGON ( J 7 COMMIS NO O MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR, 27, 2007 Page 4 - Grant of Easement 11 /ILI`J /2U0b 22: 2,S tVU.l9'(z IdeJ (,. , . s ` 8N HALL BLVD . . r TT1 L ., ' t o L • Utz« `J e ...._ ) . ■': I ....: ...... ,..1„...„ . .„, ...._ 1 4... — „OA ___ WA li / r ' : t a _ } , = t r l � • . ('-' 3 ,-----rC: :rl • ." " - - ) .. - q -, -- - . ,,, , ------.,,,_,/` „- - l ogi 1 ' --- -----t ,. • . s a ; ° .4r • ' l Z. 1 o la 1 , • • 4 . 11! . . 0 .. . -Q o . . . -P . t? ''..- A VV_,. 1\t tt i . E 07/16/2007 10:01 FAX 5034314047 Tigard- Tualatin S.D. - +.Nilier Nash 0 004 4 1 2' ° 4 6 Exhibit A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PARTIES TO THE ME O TJM: Fred W. Fields "Fields" 1149 SW Davenport Portland, OR 97201 City of Tigard "City" c/o Craig Prosser City Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard/Tualatin School District 231 "School District" Rob S. Saxton Superintendent Larry Hibbard Administrative Center 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, OR 97223 The Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding each has real property needs within the City of Tigard. The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to outline the Parties' needs and provide a process which enables the Parties to work towards a solution for all Parties to this memorandum to fulfill their needs. The definitions of the respective Parties' needs are as follows: NEEDS: 1. Fields owns the following lots: a. North of railroad tracks: i. Tax Lot 1100, ] 3.21 acres ii. Tax Lot 800, 24.32 acres; these two parcels are zoned industrial park (I -P) and serviced from Hunziker Road and accessed by a private road owned by Fields. This road is in the process of being improved to a 24 foot two -way, right of way. iii. Tax Lot 300, 3.11 acres; fronting Hunziker Road; zoned commercial park (C -P) iv. Tax Lot 004, south of Tax Lot 300, 2.0 acres; zoned residential (R- 3.5). PDXDOCS!) $56127.1 07/6/07 6:49 AM PAGE 4111' RCVD AT 71161200710:13:24 AM (Pacific Daylight Timej SVR:PDXFAXI2 2 DNIS:8666 `CSC:5034314047 DURATION (mmis):03.56 07/16 %2007 10 :02 FAX 5034314047 Tigard- Tualatin S.D. y Miller Nash 05 Memorandum of Understanding May 9, 2007 Page 2 b. South of railroad tracks: i_ Tax Lot 1200, 26.32 acres; zoned light industrial. (I-L) Fields believes the above properties may be developed to their highest and best use under a revised master plan to include substantially more residential. Fields also does not have access appropriate to the commercial development under the current zoning and /or any future zoning changes that may include more residential use. Fields desires to position the approximately 70 acres of land for development in a manner satisfactory to Fields and the City. To do so Fields seeks support from the City of Tigard within the same spirit documented in the sale of land by Fields to the City for its public library. 2. the School District currently owns Tax Lot 500, 8.41 acres south of the railroad tracks, of which more than 50% may not be useable due to wetland issues. The property has access from SW Hall Boulevard. School District currently needs additional property, approximately six acres, for purposes of the maintenance and parking of the School District's buses. In addition there is some concerns with regard to traffic congestion created by the buses departing from their property onto Hall Boulevard. Any future location will require the construction of a maintenance facility to replace the existing facility. 3. City of Tigard has multiple locations for its Public Works facilities scattered throughout the city. The City desires and believes there are economic efficiencies to be gained by consolidating the public works maintenance facilities onto 'a single property. It is estimated the City may need up to ten acres with facilities to be constructed. 4. There is the possibility that the City and the District might achieve future savings by combining the maintenance facilities for the School District and the City of Tigard's Public Works. PROCESS: 1. Fields, working with the Parties to this memorandum, will prepare a master plan for the entire property to and including appropriate zoning and comprehensive plan changes to include residential development which may be more appropriate, i.e. the portion of the property that abuts residential and has the greatest severity of contour change. 2. Fields seeks commercial access for the parcel south of the railroad tracks. Fields and the City previously executed an easement and an agreement of cooperation whereby the City would cooperate with Fields in resolving access issues. Without deferring any of these agreements, the Parties herein seek a more viable option to provide access. A possible solution to the access needs of Fields is the acquisition of the School District property. In addition, Fields will need PDXDOCS :1356$27.1 07/6/07 8:44 AM PAGE 5111' RCVD AT 11161200710 :1:124 AM (Pacific Daylight Time]' SVR :PDXFAXI2 DMS :8666 CSI :5034314047 DURATION (mmis):03 56 007/16/2007 10:02 FAX 5034314047 Tigard-Tualatin S.D. 4 Niller Nash 0 006 Memorandum of Understanding May 9, 2007 Page 3 commercial access to the property north of the railroad tracks from Hunziker via a dedicated street currently privately held. This concept will be studied including the creation of a public right of way with dedidations to the appropriate municipality. It may also be appropriate to study access from SW Varnes Street and SW Tech Center Drive for the property north of the railroad tracks. 3. School District will need a larger site (up to 8 acres) and more appropriate location for access purposes to mitigate it's current traffic congestions on SW Hall. Fields has property available that appears to be acceptable for relocating the School District's bus maintenance and parking needs. 4. City of Tigard's needs with regards to consolidation of their Public Works maintenance facilities can also be accommodated on Fields property. ACTIONS: Fields will prepare a master plan to submit to the City with the intention of moving towards the following: 1. Applications for approvals allowing Fields to proceed with the development of his parcels referenced above. These applications may include a master comprehensive plan and zoning change and access to Fields property, including all planning and approvals necessary for permitting of the to be agreed upon allowable uses. 2. City of Tigard Staff will investigate the amount of land and building required for the consolidation and relocation of its various Public Works facilities currently spread throughout the City of Tigard. A tentative timetable will also be developed. The concept is to sell land to the City of Tigard from within the Fields holdings to accommodate the City of Tigard's needs. Fields and City will agree as to the location of the property within Fields holdings north of the railroad tracks. 3. School District will appraise its property in order to evaluate the option of transfering the real estate to accommodate Fields' needs for access in exchange for a site within Fields holdings to provide the School District expansion, shop maintenance facility, and traffic mitigation needs. Any difference in land values will require cash consideration. The Parties hereto will study a site within Fields holdings north of the railroad tracks. 4. All Parties to this transaction will work in good faith with a sense of urgency to develop a plan which could produce an agreement in which the School District receives a site to house and maintain its busses; Fields receives commercial access and the appropriate master plan change and zoning to allow permitting for the uses PDXDOC3:1556827.1 07/6/07 8:49 AM PAGE 6111' RCVD AT 11161200714:13:24 AM [Pacific Daylight Time]' SVR:PDXFAXI2 ` DNIS:8666 `CS D:5034314447 `DURATION m ss) :0356 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH FRED W. FIELDS AND THE TIGARD TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT IN EXPLORING OPTIONS FOR A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE HALL BOULEVARD BUS STORAGE SITE AND THE FTFLDS PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the City could benefit from consolidation of public works facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council is aware that the Tigard — Tualatin School District is examining options to replace its bus storage site, located at 13000 S. W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard because of inherent access issues and because the site is not large enough to accommodate all of the District's busses; and WHEREAS, the City and the District have made efforts over the last several years to explore options for meeting their respective land needs; and WHEREAS, the City and the District have been approached by Mr. Fred W. Fields, who owns approximately 70 acres of land (the "Fields Property ") adjacent to and nearby the Bus Storage Site; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fields has expressed a desire to explore the possibility of relocating certain City of Tigard public works facilities and the Bus Storage Site to a site within the Fields Property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fields has expressed a desire to purchase from the District the Bus Storage Site to provide access to adjacent property within the Fields Property; and WHEREAS, there may be some cost efficiencies in the City's public works facilities and a new District bus storage site being located near to each other within the Fields Property; and WHEREAS, a non - binding memorandum of understanding ( "MOU ") has been prepared to establish the District's, the City's and Mr. Fields' understanding of the needs of each party and the process by which the parties will endeavor to proceed with a further exploration of the options available to meet the parties' needs through the use of the Fields Property and the Bus Storage Site, attached as Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and Community Development Director to proceed with discussions and negotiations that may lead to a mutually acceptable real estate transaction involving the Bus Storage Site and the Fields Property. 1 n7/16/2007 10:02 FAX 5034314047 Tigard- Tualatin S.D. -.Willer Nash 2007 Memorandum of Understanding May 9. 2007 Page 4 mutually agreed by Fields and the City. The City may agree to consolidate its Public Works facilities on Fields property on a site and at a price to be mutually agreed upon by Fields and the City. All values will be mutually agreed upon and with the appropriate support required by public agencies. The foregoing is an outline of non - binding discussion points among the Parties. No Party will be bound in any manner by this memorandum of understanding unless an agreement among the Parties has been fully negotiated, executed, and delivered. • ::ODMA\PCDOCStPDxDOCS\ 1556827\1 P DXDOCS:1556327.1 07/6/07 8:49 AM PAGE 1111' RCVD AT 7116/200T 10:13:24 AM (Pacific Daylight TimeJ' SVR :PDXPAXI2 DNIS :8666 CSID:5034314047 DURATION Jmmis) :03.56 2. The City Manger and Community Development Director shall report to the Board from time to time on progress made in those discussions and negotiations. 3. The City Manager shall bring any tentative offers and purchase and sale agreements back to the Board for its review and approval. 4. The MOU is not a binding document against the City, and no part of any negotiations or discussions with respect to this matter shall be binding on the City unless agreed to by the City Council. DATED THIS day of , 2007. Tigard- Tualatin School District Board of Directors ATTEST: • G. \DRF\ !Clients \Tigard\FieldsResolutionCLEAN. DOC 2 January 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing CPA 2008 -00008 ZON 2008 -00002 r- _ ilol II y r R II i \1 ,_ p c -------71, 1 , rk ...., _, 1 r l � „ _ I F _1 ,_, p i , i ,, 1 to 1 , L 1 p rte t Ig i ! r s . 111 s ' r� � Introduction • Site violates Goal 9 and is not suitable for industrial development • Surrounding neighborhood has changed and the current designation is not appropriate • Residential designation is more suitable and ensures most efficient use of property History Overview 1972 — — Site purchased by Applicant. 1977 — — City designates site Industrial on its Comprehensive Plan. 1977 - Present — — Various land use and environmental regulatory changes adopted. 1993 -2008 Tigard enjoys largest economic growth in its history. Site remains undeveloped. December 18, 2001 — — Sale of the Library Property. Tigard agrees to cooperate with Mr. Fields regarding access. January 19, 2006 — — Tigard grants Mr. Fields an access easement from Hall Boulevard to subject Property. 2006 — — City agrees to the construction of the Commuter Rail project, and construction begins. July 2007- Present — — Mr. Fields engages with Tigard /Tualatin School District and City to develop a Memorandum of Understanding. 2007 -2008 Mr. Fields discusses rezone from Industrial to Residential, City is generally supportive of concept. June 2008 — — Neighborhood meeting held where general consensus is that Residential is preferred over Industrial Violation of Goal 9 • "Plans must designate serviceable land suitable to meet the site needs identified in * * *this rule." OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(2) (emphasis added). • "Cities * * * must designate suitable land to respond to economic development opportunities as they arrise." OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(3). Violation of Goal 9 Cont'd • "Suitable" land means "serviceable land designated for industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide, the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use." OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(12) (emphasis added). • "'Serviceable' means the city or county has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR 660, divisions 011 and 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period." OAR 660 -009- 0005(9). V iolation of oa Cont'd • "'Site Characteristics' means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes." OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(11). • "'Development Constraints' means factors that * * * limit or prevent the use of land for economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat, environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard areas." OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(2). n usria ls ui • .• a bit ii Site Characteristics & Development Constraints , , et ` iii` ® It ` i t, � • Configuration 1 . . :,� Cit "Hall ,s., 4 g, .I • • Visibilit y le r r . '�'� r ,4 ; -4 A } + ".../ . N �0.I • Rail Access / s ;; �' 111IlJ • Pu blic Facilities (/ / ' Il t` • Environmental Cs Tigard Libr =�' i • EM MEN' I Constraints - - 7 '' ��''� •Floodplain / ■ �' --- -��, .,. ` � Wetlands Bile= ,� Viiiiiiiii. �► ,•Habitat fi r-} 1- 1 // z 11 1116. III MI"' li ttliffp / 7 \ 0`,/ . 111.01 1 i -' ZZ / , \ ■ MEM - -- c J��J/,•,.,� /71 , , ►S tsi es� en �a l s ., , \\,..., ` 4 6 d� •Compatibility - ; Mir" . . ,. , 4—;" ,, a „n. Cit Hall .,,:' w Umill WWI _.....,,,. A '`�'' •Environmental ■ ■ ■� Adaptability i ■ ■■ ' `` I - Min. •Access & Transit f T Li ry .11 1■ •Jd�l ! ■ • i_... +! �-, ■■. � . •Transportation r • luu i ii. �' = ' 111 C al 1 i 1 r . J 9 I - t fao i -t' T,4 ,l pr. 111 11 . 111 MMILINWAIN f r i N ° . �14Y2i ««fa\■« T o EMM Mt f',. .. A. ' NO . 1*1 4 . ' ' .; 5 • . ' ' ' 414,47 j 1 1.11111 !JON ,�' : - - r 4 ■■a ' � = W 1 1 ■■M1. Y Approval Criteria Compliance Comprehensive Plan TDC 18.380.030.B.1 • The site cannot provide sufficient economic value as currently designated as the site is not suitable for industrial development given its site characteristics and constraints. Goal 2.1, Policy 6. • Public facilities are available to serve residential use of the site. Goal 2.1, Policy 15. • Current industrial designation does not promote efficient development of industrial lands. Goal 9, Policy 5. Approval Criteria Compliance Comprehensive Plan TDC 18.380.030.B.1 • Residential allows additional opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that are near employment areas (both current and future with the planned redevelopment of the Downtown). Goal 10.1, Policy 1. • Residential will provide the greatest economic value for the property and will utilize the site most efficiently Goal 2.1, Policy 6. • Compatible with surrounding land uses. Goal 10.1 Policy 4. Approval Criteria Compliance Other applicable ordinances TDC 18.380.030.B.2 • Site not suitable for Industrial designation. OAR 660 - 009 -0025 • Site provides opportunity to meet attached housing goals. OAR 660 - 007 -0030 Approval Criteria Compliance "Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." TDC 18.380.030.B.3 • Industrial Rail access cut off • Surrounding residential uses • Public ownership /Open Space abutting site (Library and Metro) • Increased land use and environmental regulation Conclusion • Burden of Proof Met • Site not suitable for industrial • Approval criteria met • Residential most appropriate designation February 24, 2009 �a ' line' City Council Hearing a/a t1/ c -./ n . CPA 2008 -00008 `� Y -ei)det,// ZON 200 8 -00002 �� ,-,::\ pry i ° 4�r \ \ /f��p'r / �\, y ,. ` ? f ; �`4 o `' 4 v,/,./.0, ` j j � e � C r t ' . l\\,,,;/:\ � ; // , � � \kt � � ;/� "�n� "„ f�; �. � ti ( • . +/ ,, ,' , c : ,,� y d., c ,c �` �` "' . „...„: , ,.. ,„ .,,,,,, . ".. 4\ et..,, ..,. ,,, ,,, -,. _,... —__ i ...:::,.../: ,/..c.:,. ::: - N.. • \ V \ // ' If ':"'^,,, '0,-c ( 2, . r , ..- .,..' :, R'�: --'".-''..\\,.=-',; ' ° [!+� v1' tr -' � / � 0 \ \ k. ;` "� / ' ` c r \ • � q r � j 5� \ , rl , �� ! �� o l ta x ' ` •J f �.� � - � ill \ � > � � I ti t i �� C , � �, 2 , / h r - � v r� , ERN; ® F' i . _ \ tt om r „ > ? `� _ \ . / ( ' 1 � . �, � t r c'' ,‹„V;," C • ^!” v ` c, " `Q, s s . C y) ti e C ; C '-�I C _ �y + n 3 h " r ' � ' J a c« - - , ,. n fi 1 F:i/' • - ' ' ` � ?� ` P/ , . r- , • � o " y � ,' � - d r y t', j,r R Ma ~ °�[ � ` , _ j =, r t � � ` , , ` Y � ±ILl �Z �u �' y , �s JI su tFF t. , c if ' j ' '} r ~'i' c4 --,.. �'.'; 1 ` `\ '� L � �., f �� li r- ,. ,, eta . r? 't ' �. n 4 ! t c 4 II rt; n , n ' �. � ` , r. t rF C ,/,--- � ` r !Y... + I r r , • " . „ . , � • �] fl qt r �, � ; � ,� � , .. \ �- ; ?J + . a� ., 1 roc „, r , -� �� t ® �0 a r- � r. - i , 1 , ®ry , - r ,� � • t Cx�r' er n ie � / q a , r , � p ♦ r V l Y t,. '(,, rg , �c. ' Exi hi p , 4Ia li p,„/ f .pm� f , ' t -. ., !<---,',-.: � } � 4 1 t . a J ob �� fi ®� r v` ,� r I G �.,.. r• • f . ' -�"� ; k ) l \ �, : \ f ` r q I IY ' _ [� 0� l ' �® ✓✓✓ ® 111••• ® NOUN PI _ r . 41,. � � 4 '1'x * i OOP X- <T .:J �-�• / 1 1 F . 1, \ 4 1 �. " '� �4; 1 1 � ® , +�N �� 2 f s History Overview 1972 Site purchased by Applicant. 1977 City designates site Industrial on its Comprehensive Plan. 1977 - Present Various land use and environmental regulatory changes adopted. 1993 -2008 I I Tigard enjoys largest economic growth in its history. Site remains undeveloped. December 18, 2001 - Sale of the Library Property. Tigard agrees to cooperate with Mr. Fields regarding access. January 19, 2006 - Tigard grants Mr. Fields an access easement from Hall Boulevard to subject Property. 2006 - City agrees to the construction of the Commuter Rail project, and construction begins. Industrial rail access cut off. July 2007- Present - Mr. Fields engages with Tigard/Tualatin School District and City to develop a Memorandum of Understanding. 2007 -2008 Mr. Fields discusses rezone from Industrial to Residential, City is generally supportive of concept. June 2008 - Neighborhood meeting held where general consensus is that Residential is preferred over Industrial Introduction • Industrial designation violates Goal 9 and is not suitable for industrial development • Surrounding neighborhood has changed and the current designation is not appropriate • Residential designation is more suitable and ensures most efficient use of property as workforce housing Goal 9 Post - acknowledgement Plan Amendment • A city or county must address all applicable planning requirements, and: — "(a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis* * *; or" — "(b) Amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate the proposed amendment, consistent with the requirements of this division; or" — "(c) Adopt a combination of the above, consistent with the requirements of this division" OAR 660 - 009 - 0010(4) Violation of Goal 9 • "Plans must designate serviceable land suitable to meet the site needs identified in * * * this rule." OAR 660 -009- 0025(2). • "Cities * * * must designate suitable land to respond to economic development opportunities as they arise." OAR 660 - 009 - 0025(3). Violation of Goal 9 Cont'd • "Suitable" land means "serviceable land designated for industrial or other employment use that provides, or can be expected to provide, the appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use." OAR 660 - 009 - 0005(12) (emphasis added). • "'Serviceable' means the city or county has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities, as defined by OAR 660, divisions 011 and 012, currently have adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within the 20 -year planning period." OAR 660 -009- 0005(9). . . Violation of Goal 9 Cont'd • "'Site Characteristics' means the attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate. Site characteristics include, but are not limited to, a minimum acreage or site configuration including shape and topography, visibility, specific types or levels of public facilities, services or energy infrastructure, or proximity to a particular transportation or freight facility such as rail, marine ports and airports, multimodal freight or transshipment facilities, and major transportation routes." OAR 660 -009- 0005(11). Violation of Goal 9 Cont'd • "'Development Constraints' means factors that * * * limit or prevent the use of land for economic development. Development constraints include, but are not limited to, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat . environmental contamination, slope, topography, cultural and archeological resources, infrastructure deficiencies, parcel fragmentation, or natural hazard areas." OAR 660 -009- 0005(2). I nd u str i al Site Characteristics & Development Constraints . MIK ''' , // . r g Configuration ;, Cit Hall ,,„ . \\ • Visibility ,9 ,,, \ \ a\`o� � 1 1 • Public Facilities _Z / pr ip_ T T 1 -- i I I � • •Rail Access \ <, , i _ ! L ' rh • Environmental _ .- Tigard Lib ry t II 1 Constraints ..F •Flood lain j „. r =71 •Wetlands • t . •Habitat � T t i . I 1111 rok v. - / miro 1� ram. k , ,. , I — t �M�M ■■■ ■od ,-r� I ndustrial Site Characteristics & Development Constraints 1 L i • Configuration Cit Hall 4 , I y ti '`„ • III; \ #,„ ■ 110* ',:( '�� UMW 411.111.11 • Public Facilities , 1111111 •Rail Access . 4 . in • Ligill• Environmental . m om ��kt. Tigard Lib ry Constraints *JO - • V i - � � .! &Ins •Floodplain _, R� •Fld I in p a �, �� •Wetlands Nie ) I - ■■■� •Habitat ' IP, ., , 0 OP i i - sum. I 11 ................... , 1 i , ,, . n 1.64A, inal mr,i'-- Mk nil. 1111 nisi 5.0.10 Arimmlislie,,. , N • I ndustrial Site Characteristics & Development Constra I I \ \ • Configuration Cit Hall �` , Visibility ce MI ., ,, mu r I C - Publi Fac i 1 *Rail Access \ // [ i . • Environmental _ Tigard Lib ry \ \.\ Constraints } I I J+ i i.e.. - V a, r , \ J I �. : . *4 , a _ •Floodpla •Wetlands ) 1 ., / m_ " `, • _� �`\ = r •Habitat \ j _ - I l ilt 1 ' II iiiklill ' — \ "ktg =Imimm e� I ndustrial Site Characteristics & Development Constraints ' NliiftNii. . \\ _ \ 4 ,,,, , / 4,- i , .... , ./0',/,./,/ `` . • Configuration 4 0 4. �, /,, ' Visibility • p �� UU�U111 • Public Facilities \io • in N�� •um• 'Rail Access Q MIN .______. ��--- -�� i 1111 1.11111111 • Environmental I 41 ga Litir�ry \ Ti Constraints 11.1111A111 j, - I. \� �, �, ,,� •Floodplain li p%• .. _ 2 w� ios 'Wetlands RE I 4 \ \\ 1i lll1I . • Habitat _ Eli .. 9 ., ,,, ,-= 4, IWO. 1 , i / \ _ Mitt IlilligA :, ,.,, ... \ a I* r MIS E �M% �� , Industrial Site Characteristics & Development Constraints 1 � ` \ , \ - 11- - // ,-. // , � � \ � `. .,:' • Configuration A . CityHall � 'v � .: , , • • visibility " 7 , _1 f 111111 • Public Facilities Q .' • i Rail Access t _ Environmental 1 ' Tigard �i `r ary Constraints i 4 1111111 � I Flo I in - od a p N ,, Mill • R� \ H Mi ` � � Wetlands i � 1 / Habitat ��.f// j ,. 'I' ! ! 11111`4* f if i //� �.� r. e, 'Oleo I ndustrial Site Characteristics & Development Constraints ‘// ///74/7 ,>" ; - t • Configuration „.. , C l 'Hall _ /f /// 111 III �,�,,, ,,�: • Visibility iii 4, 9�ry� �a \ �� i ,,, , / # ` . Z //; ma- • Public Facilities ,� _ , • / `\ 11 EN NINE • Rail Access • an- 111111111 r .r I �� r / A , �I � � ; • Environmental Tlg ibrar;r, ; IIIIMill I Constraints we. - • is % �`� � % , ,* . • J , r ; f%j : ri �,,,,,,,. •Floodplain :MN ,. / v*'- Y� �� li •Wetlands ■ nu -,� _ r ` ///1 '��" •Habitat �� , ', \ i - y _; ' i 1 - , / ./,, - . MIAs 1II ti r _ ,_,://, / 7/ ; ' 4 ' „ a , _ r it �� ; JU . _ /0; tat , • R esidential Suitabilit Med Density Development Opportunities t ftillp.ii-i\ • r \ \ -P •Compatibility ill& , 4 , +y :..r 4 ...Al a -- % 1 : 7.71 °' C �� _ i ;^ r ;. : / i s.,, . ..:1"" -- _ II- *Environmental 4 '�4o. ublic /Ope „v, te �� 1� $ Adaptability i t? • a pace ,; �' r . ' \. \ , R-3.5 • Transit & z_7 „; i-P gill 111_111 Downtown 4 4 Y -- Mi i proximity i ,' � a R - 12 \ \ ,MIlli1 rlj� Residential I - � ` H •Transportation R-4.5 �r r 4 . j �� .. \\ IWO in ,.... ..::..‘.., ---Tztc. .. . MIN - 11 -- pp . lit III -. a , , s R -12 Z .� �-� ® � ii i _ �,�: t�c a®a R esidential Suitabilit Medium Density Development Opportunities r _ e `� �� ' \ •Compatibility • 4 01 . p ' • , '! .; ,.. City Hall .. F�� it i y 4 � / i �` % a 111111 ' Environmental 10 Adaptability ■ ■■ Min z ■■�■ IR • ate -■ . , ■ ■� � - swim • Transit & %� Ti Lib ry .,,, .. Lib II VI& Downtown N ., i ii. s - r. < 111111,111. m q t � p rox imit y 1141111111111411 is t - :. ,, . .. � - ■ ■■ ■ ., PIN nib N _ °� ' .r .. - ■ •Transportation : p ati on -- .41;011 two ,, __ :i. _. _: i, . . , i g ® lipmrif,• „, ..4.1 13!x , vi . Ilii�i tion :. J : 'ii■ �� uI- N .., ■ li - i ... ..■�v ■ rAtie�._� ■ ■1�E. . . R esidential Medium Density Development Opportunities \__ . . s \ \ -, /`y r 'it,. r •Compat ibility \ r \ F ��i :, � �� C it Hall \ f } �. . " rte, II •iiii 1 • Environ mental ! Ilk ''` % •� �� Adaptability ,/, ' ,, , . i Ill Eli iii r , � ; MI MIN f - I a '; ! \ `, � I / I = I ; ; \ IMO Mill. • Transit & Tigard Library ®�1 I Downtown \ �- proximity 4 • i. _ ��g rr _im MI 1 NA /. ! ‘\. l �� , /// 1 111 ,�,� Transportation /� 1 I , ' % ` ,\ .:� /j %, il IN lett r : int II I M Iii i r r AP : J '' �;. / \' N ,_ a 1 r Vi i. N �'� Chi 7 , � � , lin >ai■..rn •• " tad: . . R esidential Medium Density Development Opportunities :� ° 'Compatibility WV/ f :. ' 1► E«i 1 p y 1 1. /4" / Al - -4 < - ",. ! � � 4, r •Environmental .r . * • �`= 44 � '� Adaptability -----....---; _ L ilt#__ \ \/ e/ \N i \ / i • s. ►�� # �dA► \WM • Transit & ,,��: +�� ++ ��' � %� ill i�� Downtown O..* *A 414 • a 1.■ o Al \%,.. \ 4 a ma %elm �, �� # 4 proximity m it :� 1■■ # #40 Art, A .111: Alk 1 � � ` 0 + �� a11 ♦� •■0►� fr o m j `,. •T ransportation ‘ � 2 1,1 �IN IIIIII r at /'i�l+ k SV 111118110111111111n1== :: • \ ',■ A46 4911111 1 ,11111111111 A be an ma \ , , % s A mmmu 1 2 .,._ E:b1 **MI. 111:311.114411 RI"Plir /��■ ■ 11`x: IA 11 ��[ �� - • Me i _ -te �. . ° 1 Lt01/46,;741 R esidential Medium Density Development Opportunities \f2tJ�i \ .,••.R,rz 1 • 1 '� *Compatibility cL w Cit Hall \ %;., s \ y ex ._ ` `, ' *Environmental */ . ;� fiL� E , , , NC I Adaptability p Y _ 11111111111 I \ + • Transit & Tigard Lib ry \ 0 N Downtown 3 r: �� I proximity j � p Y I . �• : `. <. r • Transportation . -,,-1,1*.. \ ,--_-: In 1 . , r_ , -- )0 116 -, I III Irliii k \IHI _ 4 r 11111i + \ , n MIL= EN el. s'arilli 111111=111111111661■\ \ _ -,-..._ Workforce Housing Vision WORKFORCE HOUSING CONCEPT IMEMATEIKE RCM Homes Inc. R.0 TO YVON CT UNIT TYPES DESORPTION TOTAL . A _ INA tlioderoyslaismpapke 704 GIFANNOWINft 30 1- ,NA 1 ANNINNIpAp111, 133 0P)PANNPINLN 10 C utminhodersocelonlI888 co$F. 41:9080889 D 1.=111011411014 15 Dl yag~mwagNgstmos soar us 02 400300.41pwips041)1,1111006F,I.OZONISMINI 15 _ e ..Aa± 1 . 01 s.W1 , 41.0 4 15 El 390.0189.18818•01.18108F,I.018/1818818186 15 SCAR 9 0, ES Ipt211•044,11■14deelMAFAMplotSda014 15 ,A14** • ow wrA4.4 ma • too op Imo Aram* 72 N Ommillmt444.11.1111.2300(0, IMO Nelialseb 44 \ WAT BULL. TOTAL 228 • 4/4•0143<*i PARKING STATISTICS 4 PARKING TYPES TOTAL 401, INTEGRAL GARGAGES 138 „ . ATTACHED GARAGES A FORESTED AREA DETACHED GARN3ES 30 9 85 ACRE S OPEN STALLS 51 $ Ap e SWOT 277 St. APRON GUEST STALL 108 317- TOTAL 473 elF V • V " O 111_12 21/D.U. a / Acr. - I 4 itg, 116 • II Emil rem.41. ‘1, 1 II .4.1■4 ammo d oi k sumo 111% Ant 411 - 1 0 MIDI CI II z r_ I . r P • r ( • 19411.___111. - • - - L 04)10 j LI • it ' • _ ± i •._.•... OMB AT • 111 m - - - . , TYPICAL SIM UNIT 40.114810E WON RUT. L. APPROX 87 ACRES •44. SITE PLAN 02 24 2000 Pr \ r ■ y ye t. „ / `-. , ,, a 1 '` / `' ` vim `\ /,‘,/,/,,, vaib, / \ 7 , . , .;, ,,,,,. XI' '7 / 4. '''''''' I. � \ r b. II � ,i • 4_ i - 1 1 � � 11 — � F J — _tom , 1 rd • - ' ' I ' E- ' . ' '''' 1 . — r — '. 1 -f +■ — , 1, _ ---1 [7 r ,.., .. tri ,,,,„„„ ,:,4,:b ,-.---1-1 1 _ 0,.. ,,„.. .03 ,, ... 'INP 1 1 1 1 1— (1H _--- --- .) I - 1 - I -- L --- - 1 I — r \ ... ' \ , •••• r _ mom it m � Mug , , ,) __ ,,,,, „.4 .., 1 1 i 's, .„, ,.: ‘ _,-1 _-_-_. ,.,---.:„ • , _____:„ , -'-_'!- lit / q` i Ilk Cit}, `Hall / '--- .41.4 „/ 0 r.1.5.4,„0.441.‘ / , , „ \ im 1 111.■I '''''. -,I. /---------11 '' ",- • : E-EMI .,,, .. a opi • Tigard Li ry ~.q: , .4* 444 ‘4,0. NO -____,...,,,z___---aki., I.. 4, .... , . . a III Vlwl IR: ; C11 4 1ii■ - = - I .. I 1 a g... _ ' I ' i IMF I Ink Imes . 11WM A MR t era [ .. s----/ I1!! i� ,40:11h. 1111k Inlirmile _ 1 il . , N 44 4 : . Ira I•. .... •111•■.wdmorm i m N--1 ' i•\ `,\ \ � � M y ` a �i ;; Cit Hall i I� ''s /` -, .,,,, MIME , \ 9 .,„ , , \\ ,,,,,/. ,,,,,„, 1111 • ...,_.__.... , • .,,,,,, \ ..., x .. .., . i , ..,, " . ., INF- , . ,.. /., . \ ,..., _. , „.- / _ . , , . ,,,, , , . , .,.. , .,...„ • , . . Mt 11 111111111111 , 1 ,.. v"-- \ 4,,, , 111 , 11 Eno ,_, ,..; //, . .< r it \ ,, 4 , . , ,, „,,,,,-/# , /. \ \ • : 111 - NOM < � � , ■ or ` Ti y r • 11111 Y ■ . t i iii 1Ba. IN 1.. - i .0,,,I. „ <, / • l'A Milairla ill T -- " 4 ot ....- ' 1,1,4 / /;;;A' \, Op (1 g _ 1 : °� / 4 Irell. r % 4 4 , (.• . affO / -- N �r / . 1 , 4 t // 7 _. 4 , \ , .10 ,,,,, # .., 4, ..,• , „ - ,. , erok , z, \ ... . w . 1111P Iv • N /IN CL , j______ y 1 I CL Ire + � E.. ■ _ • Mir ' V \- / ,/ /- /' N T 1 / // CL p .. ' I, /f 41110 „ '' J / �, j /. 40 i s /, ," /- ./ __,. a L oll ,,e /./ % i ,, N iii n MIN i L T l i III; 1 if i ,p a / 1111 - . ■ . ... , , .„_,:„, _,_„:... .--- Y u i n 1 111111 l � ■ llbH _ iii , - ini , ism 111! I '.. °. -1, . . nu? gil Ill •riii 7 — - .. Legend , � .� Site Outline v IC.- Legend la Y MN Wetlands (per Metro) ` ' m e MICH 50' CWS Buffer Ni: mew Highest Value Habitat l r Moderate Value Habitat / Lower Value Habitat L fl `�� i _ as G I+T^ i T� / , , / Or ..ire. MRS - 7.00 PA- • 741 t Y! sr P > / (� � i a 6 . i / I sw R.�a�, �o, W L .. 1.4 AL • 6Y.4. S Ge a � � % Co v tJLPr.t 11% go. Leal •�' _, / °� Z � � � r ' TYrICAL M<nn.ItCTib 6lt i C r / � �� i <I r � a ' , � .1 I . s rrL G-'tt1At+e - 13 • el l.00e Si� ,..o .. II 'T r NV r fly Iel4Aait ". fie i A d oa.�! I.I port f ,.~«' !� silkiiii ,, N - 44k ■11.1, , ..f 141110.11'. ----• „ — s ' •i , , '� �_--. J l �\ /' — U S t ,� It - L E 'SITE ^17 ew '7.66 �, 3 e _ - e7w _ � � .. LlSS Rowe .1m.14*. I. �S2 eY / \ � ., r \ FIELos PRoln.t:r sTuo`r 7 ...en.; C -- - - w g2 o Lt P rot" I f� I'. ie. CS.,Tl ° I• B. pea olT.o. -1 A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Attachment 5 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION DENYING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA 2008 - 00008, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, ZON 2008 - 00002, TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING MAP CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ONE 24.51 ACRE PARCEL FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I -L) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -25). WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires quasi - judicial zoning map amendments to be undertaken by means of a Type III -PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection 18.380.030.B; and WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030. B.1 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, requires demonstration of compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and map designations; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development, Tigard Comp Plan Goal 9 — Economic Development, and Comp Plan Goal 2 — Land Use Planning. WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 2, 2009 and recommended denial of CPA2008 -00012 and ZON2008 -00006 by motion with a 7 -1 vote in favor; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA2008- 00008, and Zoning Map Amendment, ZON2008- 00006, are hereby denied by the City Council. SECTION 2: The attached findings are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2009. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 09 - Page 1 GoLm\Q: ak4 . ti • MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner C RE: Metro Comment Letter dated February 24, 2009 Fields Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (CPA2008 -00008 and ZON2008- 00002) DATE: 2/24/09 Attached is a comment letter received today, February 24, 2009 from Metro Principal Regional Planner, Tim O'Brien regarding the Fields Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. The site is designated Employment Land on Metro's Functional Plan Title 4 Map. Mr. O'Brien states that Title 4 does not prohibit residential uses on Title 4 designated lands. This is true since there are no limitations to residential development of these lands explicitly stated within Title 4. Commercial retail development is limited to protect these areas from being developed with non- industrial uses. Mr. O'Brien states that Tigard was in compliance in 1999 with the Title 1 assigned job capacity level of 17,801 jobs by 2017. Tigard's Periodic Review Evaluation in January 2009states that between 1997 and 2004, Tigard added approximately 3,800 jobs. At this rate Tigard will not meet its assigned capacity, and therefore will not be in compliance with Title 1. n � a 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736 :� TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1 797 • J ; fr. AEC a� ' METRO • 2 February 24, 2009 r EB 2009 cry)/ W v �, �'��46� 5..•7ii Ef„,ET -ti pp G Mr. Darren Wyss Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Wyss: • This letter is in response to your request that Metro review and submit comments on Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendment CPA2008- 00008. This amendment proposes to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map classification for one parcel from Light industrial (I -L) to Medium -High Density Residential (R -25). This industrial zoned parcel is designated as Employment Land on Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) Title 4 Map. Functional Plan Title 4: Industrial and other Employment Areas, is intended to protect the supply of sites for employment by limiting the types and scale of non- industrial uses in Title 4 designated Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs), Industrial and Employment areas. However, Title 4 does not prohibit residential uses on Title 4 designated lands, thus a proposal to change the zoning of this Employment- designated land to a residential use is not in conflict with Title 4 of the Functional Plan. Functional Plan Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation, directed local jurisdictions to determine its capacity for housing and employment and to maintain at least that capacity level, as outlined in Table 1 of Title 1. The City of Tigard was deemed in compliance with Title 1 in 1999. The • Title 1 job capacity level is not differentiated between types of jobs. Thus, as long as Tigard's job capacity is not below the level indicated in Title 1 Table 1 (17,801) as a result of this application, there is no conflict with Functional Plan Title 1. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 503 - 797 -1840. - Sincerely ( 1 Tim O'Brien, AICP Principal Regional Planner • • Rc, vcfed Paper www. metro-region ,org TDD 797 1804 p refer- -go --il it olcW il - PAIL , z9 - -ed-ctiAAS-o .6cy- ._-4120„Aina, 8 QA J -ry 41- C c.)u1.rtc2 C. m . a .r,)%{, 09 r� "'�+ CPt1?008 -00008 ' ti .. j. I :"j 3 I w .. FIEL,DS ZOrE �' � ,< 4 f, et. CH.�L GE • 'e� , e '' � 1..5,04} -it + , City ofTieard "" , ' .. ,, ; .. �'s � it i' 4- ,u$ • • ' * _ �.. r 4IRi Idly Subject Property 1 �" = r - ,"1 s --- I z� Streams .t - T '4 , ' . .i. ' • �. 4 - 4 . eall ot"e• values K rf y . : ! . PIPED i s V: "rt � '"..-Y,-4'.. l $ - ; OPEN ir, t "-ir' c *+ � i 5 PIPED CWS Buffer 1 �"• ` {, - 1DD yr Floodplain t - r . a S , 7, i If , - 1 1 L. �. ; r. r r "', +� t1/4‘4 " ■ r1 . ':. 1 . +, 1.6 • 1V - y 0 �+ , } r . " fix 4 .. - ! n t . • • p j � r r r4 AV l iiR EE A r F#{ � N YFi EEK CY : t'' i � ' � 't: �.,� . } - d.r" '.. ' ) � " tig Pit, if— 11: - ', , ,. , •c ,. _.,,,, • :i - . "r` rtl t_ _ . � �++t�l '?` w. sl T+ '� { `14 0 ino • > I , rn _ I ^� 7r ' Iiill =` 3 ? A �'i ` � lit. t !► • ¢ ' 'f ; ' 1 a ' : - Lk': 1 • J , ,1'� r - � *gar ��ti� `1f - s w.w.. Statement by City Attorney - Quasi- Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entranc The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available in the Tigard Public Library for the last seven days. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the application standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member will not participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the parties requesting AL- "ill and those in favor of the proposal testify. Next witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the proponents can respond to them. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the proponents can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re -open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. \o- v2- 'O vvo St ` You.may testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Yo hould 41t raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue, recludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state tha and add any additional points of your own. Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. The point is, come to the microphone to get your comments on the tape, otherwise, they won't be preserved for appeal. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask . ve v& I: \ADM\CATHY\CCA \quasi judicial rules of procedure \Rules of Procedure - City Attorney QJ Statement - 2009.doc 11111■ - _ Ark "et 7-t . _ 1 t I N '-- . N ..,„ , .. - • ..- • _ . 1 i -- -....... . 1 - r r...: • .. , ,_ '''' - ,:- . . 1.. _.‘.. .5_._. - I I _ . I i Iii 4. I 1 ....I ,E- ._ ,,, ,,, ,ti 1:•• - VE el . • . . . . • . , - -... ,, • , . : rr r-11: 1 . lir i I I IF - - • 4 . 4 Li - . 11............1 I , • • unimi r ..i . i _ Amyl, : . . ..7' fl• ?, — j - ... "11111111111191 14 ill ..... OP en ;•••••■ .. ... , , .. . --------------- i _ _ . . t , a -... . . ; ...... ., _ . • \ /". I. W. . . .. .... a ... 4 0 . t , - • . .. . _ . .").• 0. . g A - 440440. - ar 4 ... .- . • - 01;,"0111). - , . IP. . 11- . . /7 ' v...A/ 1442/ i w / .42ui7v b,/ 7r/c ,LP / 02 7 z1rgs'a - sly ...7,7& p 2 _ 0 r2 / clp2 „7-?f2' . , C rd ,4"/ ,i-Jai . \ ir' Ot WS& '''.. II I I f i ; j i 1 . 1 • ; N .t . e , • ',....J:11t ,II , ,,,,'"-1 . .' IN Mgt_ .• "... - , ..r:: :: S , ' ° ...7` k • 0 /.....',.,AN.' 4,, • 1 : - - 1 . .— . -..:, i ' . •-• - .- .c.. . - ,, .-,1s.;7$4 ' •t• A. t ' >'. \ ■ ,, .• ' , i t41K, k . , • . ' : i , ; 1 0 : l . r i .- '- 1 , f ' • * ,. ' s : ‘" 4 ' . .• A.- . i-ki, ,„4• '. urrnillr • • • '-' t , ••,„; - i , , • .,: . rp. .. . .. 1,4#. ....1 .`s I i ... .. . 1., 111 4 ., • - . -!' ' --;„ t . • ..-.. a: ' . ,. 1 ,4, ' '''41:-' :,.-131., ;.. . •••:-.".- :.... AA 7 * , •4 4c._ ___„ $ ,.. -......; ; .... . ,.. • , ., ■IL'illlillr . . ' II •.' - '''' . ; ' ' F 1 : r i .::. - , Aorz, f„i•-.4.,- "; - - .- ',...0e- - 4,.. *- ,,,, „ , .., . . 4 , .1r. 4 .1P . ,, .. ,....„ . I ili __J ow/ 4 ; 1 1%w likl i tl ' A ; :. . ' -, •• . , .- • .. 4. ' fli t , t ''' ' 'T. ' 1 4- -..' f's ;* , • '1 • ,%.,-.: •:. ., t.,• ,.. • t . * ve , , . i, • .-, 3 %..7 :, % - 1- ■ I •■• . • 4 . „L. t - i ' ','I' , f i ''. Al*: - I1 A..,... 4: • -4-..."`t1 . ;7} .` 4; 1,. ..f..' ' - • I Ir . ..'410 - 4 " • ■ , 1, - ' ' , • !if , If' ‘.. .",,..,. .4 ' 41C' „„, 4r „, , • • /4t, ,, . •■/, 4\-,, 1 I •, , ,, , „ ,, 1 . ‘ 4i) . •• T T-T. :. , P r. .4",) ' A - Ore' ,?0 - -.. .....1...,;.( ... 3 ,..,.. ..,,,,..„... ..., .,, 4 * ' . i.;, ' 71 f- te . ,. ' ''',” 7 . iri .I. • • • % - '4 •;;;;;,... ' .-* ,/ 1'1'7 4. , , A 0' ' 4.....•.". 4 , : ,, lose,` . •,_ , N "Nie , . - 4 ‘ .:‘!"1, 4 ) 6 4 ‘,,,' ; '1'. ''' i.,. - r , . , ,5to • .5L 4 • ,.. :U,' _ . ..., ._,k . A I* \ , . , , i, • 7. - . , !' " - 1,-,-- el *' ' ' . ' .._... "I ' ' • , '''' . :. ',- I . '',/ - , 0 .k.. 1 . '■■ F 4 . $ , I.... ) %7- ..i:,- • 4, ik ,....--,,,,'. • r•-, . i , , : ,. ,'\ -: Iii‘ "' Ikti';;•.: -----• , -..:. 11 - 1 1111 11 r - '-''.. ,...,....), 4 OM a ... ,. .• 4 ,7„ ,'' 1„. ,,, 4- 1 i „/Sit.'i r 41 '' ' • ' . ,,,"■:- - •-+ .e •*" it i liiiiioil'Iiiiiiiiiiiiti4WI'it ill 4111HIllinli ; : 0 1 it l ii", : ,/ s/" ,, : / ; 5 ' . 4 '• rn 4 ' - • tt - t - ,,,r . , , , •, ,.... 1 i -7... A 4 1.. i ..... lit .10........,.. .... 4 $ ..7 . ., . 4 \ "'" . # t•., , . , .._.„, .. 4 -. t A ,!t ' '• --# ,,"•,'.• - ..•••••••11 • h m , i i,/ . • s .4,.......... . ' 1 t I . ' t ., ii• .--- - pt ---1 , • i I e / 0 i . ._ . , . r i 1 . a . --.; .; ',, ;,,,, , ' 1 ..,'-," t 4. .4:7'''..; '',,.- -% ,4'' ..,. „ , •0.' .0 ... - . . e . ,,;,', " ":I .1, .i.: 40, , ,,,., • 1. . , ' ' ‘ f .0. yr ,,,,e / — r• 1 ,-;• 'f'.' 61, . -.4 - -- -,- ,' . . 7 • * ..:'-). .); •;.. .•• 4 ,, ,.. , .4 4. ..,.; . 1 ' 111.111 . t .... . , ,.. singi.,........ .,. -.,,, mffilmi km\\\\\N\\\ •.,.. .,,.... . tilicv ,-.,..,,..,.. $ \... a .... , \,\ , i t A 4 I , A t ••• i , , . • 4 .. . - ,...... . ,. .. . ■ .. -, , . . 1,.; ' 1 ' ., ■ '' : ' -'.7,1: i .., _ , . • r' . , .....■.........- . ..;._,:. . . . ., _ ... .. i ._.,.. . .,, . _.. ,., • „ , ,,, i„,„ _..., ,.,., . ., ...,.:.. ,„/ . , r , f . ' / I i ,,... •_ _-, / mis ,71: a ff, .1 - A I .... _ Wiffiff//// .''. ' .. ,i- .....v Ali> y :.„ I - 4•■... . i 4P ,. . - - - , . I • *No ' • I 'Ms wets a the, Sig o - i d Qs K br1 uce, Ow. hew; owl , pr, o.- 4-0 hadva AGENDA ITEM No. 4 4&1 s Wag pI4Ie ` Date• Feb. 24, .. alreirs toes /e • -tin%;isms •1 416s !islet tw PUBLIC HEARING Ail 4 01441. (Q UASI-JUDICIAL ) TESTIMONY" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00002 - FIELDS PLAN & MAP CHANGE- Note: The Public Hearing will be opened and Council will hear the Staff Report. Public Testimony will not be heard tonight and will be continued to a later date set by Council. I: \ADM\CATHY \COUNQL \CCSignup \QJPH FIELDS.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: Feb. 24, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI- JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008- 00008 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00002 - FIELDS PLAN & MAP CHANGE- REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for one parcel (approximately 25 acres) from Light Industrial (I -L) to Medium High Density Residential (R-25). The parcel is located east of Hall Boulevard at the dead end of Wall Street. Surrounding properties are zoned I -L to the north and south, R-12 to the west, and I -P to the east across the railroad tracks. LOCATION: The site is vacant and has no address. It is located east of the Hall Boulevard and Wall Street intersection, east of Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100, Tax Lot 1200. ZONES: I -L: Light Industrial District. The I -L zoning district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. R-25: Medium Hiigh- Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single- family and multi - family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial to Medium -High Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, & 10 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policies 3 and 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Titles 3, 4, 7, and 13, and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 I:\ ADM\ CATHY\ COUNCIL\ CCSignup \ PH Testimony QJ FIELDS .doc AGENDA ITEM No. 4 February 24, 2009 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. r Agenda Item # Meeting Date February 24, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Community Partners for Affordable Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Prepared By: Cheryl Calves Dept Head Approval: Y/ City Mgr Approval: Ua ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt the attached ordinance approving a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment with conditions to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Classification for three parcels (totaling .98 acres) zoned Low Density Residential (R -4.5) to Mixed Use Residential 1 (MUR -1)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and findings in the Staff Report. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff is recommending approval of the requested re- designation because the site is located within the City Center Urban Renewal District and the change provides opportunities to further Tigard housing goals. Urban Renewal District • The site is located within the Urban Renewal District. The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan applies to this area. • The downtown plan calls for higher density residential along Hall Blvd. MUR -1 is a high density zone. • The downtown plan also identifies 1 of 8 catalysts projects that will bring more people in to the city center and spur further development. One of these catalyst projects is Downtown Housing Development. ♦ The site is located within a pocket of R -4.5 zoning (Low Density Residential), having these three parcels designated as Low Density Residential is not consistent with the downtown plan. Housing ♦ Comprehensive Plan Goal 10.1, policy 5 states that the City shall provide for high density housing in the downtown. ♦ Policies 1, 3 & 4 of the same goal address affordable and special needs housing. Properties zoned for multi - family provide more opportunity to develop with affordable housing since the developer has a lower cost per unit. Multi- family housing is allowed within the MUR -1 zone, unlike the R -4.5 zone. ♦ The applicant wants to construct affordable, senior housing on the site. A conceptual plan was provided with the application. There is no guarantee that the site will be developed with this type of use, but it does illustrate how the site could be developed with a use not allowed under the current zoning. ♦ Currently the City is meeting housing capacity goals. This change will net additional units for that capacity. ♦ The 2008 buildable lands inventory shows 3.17 acres of buildable lands zoned MUR -1 and 172.4 acres of buildable lands zoned R -4.5. The loss of 0.98 acres of R -4.5, Low Density land is not significant. Condition • ODOT has requested a condition be put on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment approval. The condition is as follows: A condition of this zone change is that the site is limited to 300 trips per day, with a maximum of 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips. If the applicant or future property owners wish to allow for more trips by removing the condition, the applicant must re -apply for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment showing consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660- 012 -0060 analysis will be required to determine whether the limit can be revised or removed. • Staff is recommending that the condition only be attached to the Zoning Ma- Amendment since that map is the implementing document for the Comprehensive Plan. Doing so would make t_ze condition easier to track when the site develops. ♦ ODOT requested the trip cap after reviewing the applicant's traffic analysis that assumed the site would be developed with a 49 unit apartment complex as a "reasonable worst case scenario ". ODOT staff noted that this study was based on a density of 50 units per acre. The MUR -1 zone requires a minimum density of 50 units per acre and has no maximum density; therefore the site could be developed with more than 49 units. This cap will help ensure that the zone change will not have a significant effect on State facilities at the Hwy 99 /Hall Boulevard intersection and comply with the state Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660 - 012 - 0060). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance Attachment 2: "Draft" Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 2, 2009 Attachment 3: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 22, 2009 FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact anticipated for this action. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Muldoon & Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Due to the short interval between meetings, the 1 -26 -09 meeting minutes were not distributed in adequate time to be reviewed, therefore, the 1 -26 -09 minutes will be up approval at the next Planning Commission meeting, which will be held February 23rd. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 p.m. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2008 -00001 - TIGARD RETAIL CENTER — PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Matt Oyen, of Pac Trust, asked for a continuance to May 18, 2009, to allow them more time to adequately research and respond to the items that were brought up at the December 1st Planning Commission hearing. President Inman said they would be put first on the agenda for May 18th. 6. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 1 of 7 (CPA) 2008 -00012 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00006 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN & MAP CHANGE President Inman read the Quasi - Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex -parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. There were no site visits reported. STAFF REPORT Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She gave the location as being on the east side of Hall Blvd between Knoll Drive and Hunziker Road. She noted that it's 3 parcels (.98 acres) located within a small pocket of what is currently designated as an R4.5 residential zone. She said that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve with conditions to the comp plan amendment and the zoning map. She noted that was a bit of a change from the staff report which simply says "approve" but the condition is going to be based on an ODOT request. She gave several reasons to approve due to the following changes: • Significant changes in the neighborhood in last few years. • The change would be more in line with Tigard housing goals. • It's included in Urban Renewal District, adopted in 2006, TDIP applies to these 3 parcels. • The TDIP calls for high density residential along Hall Blvd. The proposed change to Mixed Use Residential 1 (MUR -1) is in line with that because MUR -1 is a high density zone. • The TDIP identified 8 catalyst projects that would spur development in the Downtown and one of those projects is Downtown Housing Development. This will bring more people into the Downtown. • The site has been zoned low density residential since at least the 1970's and that no longer fits in with the Plan. This amendment would bring that more in line with what we're looking to do in the Downtown. Gaines went on to explain that another reason for re- zoning the site and amending the Comp Plan is to make it more in line with the current housing goals for the City of Tigard: • Policy 5 under Goal 10.1 calls for higher density housing in the Downtown. • Policies 1, 3 & 4 of the same goal call for affordable and special needs housing in the City of Tigard and this amendment provides opportunity for that type of housing. • Tigard is meeting its housing capacity goals. This change would not affect that — it would just add additional units to that capacity. • There are currently 3.17 acres of buildable land zoned MUR -1; 172.4 acres of buildable land zoned R -4.5 — so this loss of just under 1 acres of land to the low density housing zone would not make a significant impact. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 —Page 2 of 7 Gaines addressed some of the issues that were raised during the comment period regarding the zone change and comp plan amendment. The first was brought up by ODOT. She noted that Attachment 1 of the staff report outlines their issues with this specific code amendment. They're asking for a trip cap to be put on the site which would be 300 trips a day with a maximum of 23 AM peak hour trips and 27 PM peak hour trips. The reason being that the traffic study provided by the applicant assumed a worst case scenario of a 49 unit multi- family housing project. And that's based on a maximum of 50 units per acre for this site but actually, in the MUR -1 district, it's a minimum of 50 units per acre with no maximum. Another reason they're asking for this is because anything above and beyond the 300 vehicle trips would make the intersection of Hall and 99W operate at an unacceptable level. The other possible condition was brought up by the City Arborist, who had noticed several existing significant trees on the site that had not been incorporated into the site. She said he was asking for plan development overlay — but it may have been overkill. The thought was to apply a condition for having the applicant show different scenarios, taking into consideration existing trees, or putting a condition which would require that they retain certain trees. Gaines said she was not saying she recommends that one way or the other but that she's leaving that up to the Planning Commission. She said that that had been of concern to the City of Tigard arborist [Todd Prager]. Gaines noted that those comments were passed on to the applicant and that she didn't know what changes they may have made to their conceptual plan since they'd received them. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) What kind of impact on the neighborhood would changing the zone have? With MUR -1 zone, there's a required front yard set -back — the maximum is 10'. The building would be oriented to the front yard set -back and they'd be required to have a landscape buffer of maybe 10 feet or so that would require a wall, or a fence, or a hedge — and depending on whether its a wall, fence or hedge, the landscape buffer changes. The conceptual plan shows the building oriented to the street. Is the MUR -1 the best zone for this site? That's what's outlined in the Downtown Improvement Plan — the proposed zoning. I don't know if it's going to remain that way because the Downtown Plan is just conceptual at this point. But that's what they have pointed out as the proposed zoning for that area. There were a few other questions by the commissioners and then they moved on to the applicant's presentation. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Greta Lavador of MGH Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant. She said they generally support staffs findings and appreciate staffs help with this process. She said they have one comment regarding trees. Pages 6 & 7 of the staff report talk about the arborist's suggestions for a planned development overlay. She said they feel the development code provides adequate regulation for tree preservation as it is and they do not need additional conditions PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 3 of 7 to protect them. She noted that a lot of the trees are in the right -of -way that will be dedicated for Hall Blvd and Hunziker Street. Some of the trees on the site will be evaluated as part of the site development permit and they will be looked at to see if they're healthy and if they can be retained. She said they would like to recommend that an additional condition [regarding trees] is not required as part of this process. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS (Lavador's replies in italics) The additional condition of the trip cap — is that problematic? It's not. We are proposing that once you take the right -of -way dedications out of the site area we are proposing over the minimum densi And also — senior housing generates fewer trips than the multi family housing that's documented in the reports. We're well under the trip cap. Is your interest in this project strictly around the senior housing? Yes. In other words, if the senior housing project falls through... I represent the applicant who is a senior housing developer. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR One of the owners of the property, Pat Clickener, spoke in favor. She said, first, she wanted to point out that she loves trees. She said that, unfortunately, the previous owner planted dual trees — together - and they are having issues with the trees. The reality is — with every storm they are having major issues with the trees. She stated that the design accommodates as many of the trees as they can, given the fact that the City has asked for additional footage off of the property. She said she believes there are enough trees. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION None APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL None QUESTIONS OF STAFF Of the materials presented, it appears that the project wants to be affordable senior housing? I just don't know, since they've mentioned that — can we put conditions that it'll be senior housing? Is the developer dedicated to senior housing? My concern is the idea of - can we force them to do it? Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, answered: The Comp Plan is a picture of whatyour future is. When we start putting conditions on Comp Plans, I have a real difficult time - because jiou 're going to have a hard time tracking it. You can put conditions on the one change —you can put conditions on development review, but putting conditions on the Comp Plan is something that is extraordinary, very difficult to relate to, and it's hard to track. It's not the function of the plan to be made site - specific. If the property should be zoned MUR —Multi family — then it should stand on its own in the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 4 of 7 Comp Plan. You can put conditions on the one change — such as what ODOT has asked us to do. I would suggest that you put that on the one change itself and that'll ride with the property just as if were to put the condition on the actual SDR My concern is whether there's a commitment to put affordable housing in that Downtown area. I don't care if it's seniors or whatever. But it's been characterized that this will be an affordable housing project and I just don't know how serious the developers are to have it as affordable housing. I think the applicant can speak to that ifyou allow them to talk about their commitment to this property. They didn't bring that out in their presentation, but I think its necessary so you'll feel comfortable with the change. Sheila Greenlaw Fink spoke on behalf of the applicant. She said their name is "Community Partner's for Affordable Housing" and that's all they do — affordable housing. She went on to explain that 100% of their projects are designed for folks at 60% median income or below. She said they'd looked at many sites and that it'd been a long road and they were not about to let this one not happen if they can help it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS There was a short period of deliberations including some questions of the Engineering Manager, Kim McMillan, regarding whether Scoffins will ever be connected smoothly into that intersection. She answered, yes, and explained how ODOT has a plan for the intersection that will impact this development — not negatively - because they're going to swing the intersection to the south slightly — but it won't align with Scoffins until basically Scoffins is realigned to match Hunziker - which will require acquiring that property. She noted that down the road that is in the bigger scheme of things. MOTION There was a motion was by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Anderson as follows: I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the Comp Plan Amendment 2008- 00012, and approval of the Zone Change 2008 - 00006, with the condition of the ODOT trip cap. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 5 of 7 ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Muldoon & Vermilyea (2) Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, clarified that the Comp Plan ordinance will be crafted so that it says the condition is a part of the Zone Change — so that's clear — [since that's what had been discussed.] President Inman agreed with Bewersdorff. President Inman then noted this is scheduled to go to City Council on 'February 24, 2009. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — ELECTIONS President Inman reminded the Commission that, according to the bylaws, in every odd year elections need to be held for the offices of President and the Vice President. There was a short period of discussion, at the end of which, a motion was made. MOTION - FOR PRESIDENT Commissioner Doherty moved to nominate Jodie Inman for another term as President of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, and Commissioner Walsh (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: President Inman (1) ABSENT: Commissioners Muldoon & Vermilyea (2) MOTION - FOR VICE PRESIDENT There was a motion was by Commissioner Inman, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to nominate Commissioner Walsh for another term as Vice President. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, and Commissioner Inman (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Walsh (1) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 6 of 7 ABSENT: Commissioners Muldoon & Vermilyea (2) At this point, President Inman introduced the new Planning Commission alternate, Tim Gaschke, who'd been faithfully attending the Planning Commission meetings since he was appointed. She commended him for so consistently attending. She told Gaschke that he is welcome to sit at the Dais if he'd like to join them. She said he would be welcome to sit with them and enter into the discussion - the only caveat being that he wouldn't be able to actually vote. Gaschke said he'd prefer to sit in the background and watch it from there. Inman said the invitation stands and that at some point, if he'd like to join the other commissioners at the Dais, he'd certainly be welcome to. Commissioner Caffall added that as an alternate years back, for quite some time he too sat in the back. He encouraged Gaschke to sit up front when he's comfortable with doing so since he believes you get more of a flavor of what goes on, and you also get some interaction with fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Walsh agreed with that and recommended that he sit up front when he feels good with it. He said it helped him when he himself had been an alternate. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, asked Gaschke to simply let her know ahead of time if he would like to begin sitting with the other Commissioners — so she would have a microphone ready for him. Gaschke nodded. At this point, Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, said he would like to express how much he appreciates this particular group of commissioners. He said this commission is outstanding and that he appreciates their insightful questions. He added that it's refreshing to see them in action — and thanked them again. 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 2, 2009 — Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: February 2, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE 4 qo PLANNING COMMISSION :: FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2008 -00012 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2008 -00006 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for three parcels (approximate)yy�98 acres) from Low Density Residential (R -4.5) to Mixed Use Residential - 1 (MUR 1). The site is located on the east side of Hall Boulevard between Hunziker Street and Knoll Drive, within a small pocket of R-4.5 zoningg. Sites on the west side of Hall Blvd. are zoned Central Business District (CBD). All three parcels of the site are within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. APPLICANT: Community Partners for APPLICANT'S MGH Associates Affordable Housing REP.: Greta Lavador P.O. Box 23206 104 W. 9th St., Suite 207 Tigard, OR 97281 -3206 Vancouver, WA 98660 OWNER: Robert & Patricia Clickener 8485 SW Hunziker Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 12340 and 12360 SW Hall Boulevard, and 8485 SW Hunziker Street; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101BC, Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1000. CURRENT ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R Low Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7 500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single - family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. PROPOSED ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: MUR - 1: Mixed Use Residential District. The MUR 1 zoning district is a high density designation applied to predominantly residential areas where mixed -uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 1 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10, and 15 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policy 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Title 1; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 12. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal Description. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zonin g Map Classifications for three parcels totaling approximately 43,124 square feet (.98 acres) rom Low Density (R-4.5) to Mixed Use Residential (MUR 1). The application package includes a schematic site plan and elevations for an affordable senior housing project, The Knoll at Tigard, but this project is not part of this application. The plans are only provided for informational purposes. Any development on the site must be approved under a separate application. Site and Vicinity Information The subject site is made up of three tax lots and located east of Hall Boulevard between the intersections of Knoll Drive and Hunziker Street. According to the applicant all three tax lots are developed with single - family residences. These homes may have been used as day care facilities in the past based on City records (see Site Rigor)). The site is located within a small pocket of single - family homes zoned R The three tax lots that make up the site are within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The district was approved by voters in May 2006 after the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) was adopted in September 2005. Maps within the TDIP do not show the three parcels within the downtown, but the inclusion in the Urban Renewal District applies the TDIP to the site. The site is bound by streets on three sides, Knoll Drive to the north, Hunziker Street to the south, and Hall Boulevard to the west. Adjacent properties to the east are zoned R-4.5 like the subject site. Beyond the small pocket of residences the properties are zoned Light Industrial (I -L), Industrial Park (I the Central Business District (03,D, and General Commercial (G). The area has a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. E xcluding this pocket of single- family, residential development in the area is multi - family, apartment buildings. Site History Staff reviewed the zoning history of the subject property utilising old zoning maps and City records. The 1977 Land Use Map and Existing Comprehensive Plan Map show Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1000 as R 5/7 (Urban Low Residential). All subsequent versions of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Classification show the subject lots designated R-4.5 (Low Density Residential). The three parcels were developed with single - family residences. Records show Conditional Use Permits to utilize the residences as day care facilities (Tax Lot 1000 - CU13 -67 & CU16 -68) (Tax Lot 900 - CU 15 - 80 & SDR 1 -81) (Tax Lot 800 - CU 1 -84), but all three structures are currently used as single - family residences according to the applicant's representative. In addition, a two lot Minor Land Partition was approved for tax lot 800 in 1980 (MLP 9 -80), but was never completed. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 2 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE Summary of Issues: • The site is located within the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (DIP), which calls for development of medium to high density residential along Hall Boulevard between Garden Place and Commercial Street. Currently this site is designated as Low Density Residential (R-4.5 zone). The proposed amendment will designate the site as Mixed Use Residential 1 (a high density mixed use zone, MUR 1). This change would bring the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation of this site in agreement with the '1DIP. • The '1DIP favors the concept of moderate to higher density mixed use development, with housing availability for a wide range of income levels. The applicant has presented a conceptual plan for affordable, senior housing on the site. This type of development is possible within the MUR 1 zone, but a separate application and approval would be required to ensure it is constructed on the site. • There are 3.17 acres of buildable lands zoned MUR 1 within Tigard compared to 172.4 acres of buildable land zoned R-4.5. Loss of 0.98 acres of R-4.5, Low Density land is insignificant. • ODOT commented that the proposed MUR 1 Zone Change /Comprehensive Plan Amendment could result in unacceptable service levels at the Hwy 99 /Hall Boulevard intersection. A trip cap has been requested to ensure the proposed amendment will not result in a significant effect upon transportation facilities. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: 18.380.030 Quasi- Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map Quasi - judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III -PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B below. A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390. The proposed zone change application to change the zoning on the subject lot from R - 4.5 to MUR 1 also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to Council on the proposed zone change application and comprehensive plan map amendment. B. Standards for making quasi - judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 18.380.030. B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan consistent with the statewide planning goals. The applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are addressed in this section of the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated. All the applicable goals and policies are within the updated Plan with one exception, Transportation (Chapter 8), which is addressed at the end of this section. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 3 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE State and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within the Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). These requirements are applicable to this application and are addressed under the Housing goal below. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 1.1.2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters, newsletters, the Internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. Policy 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property and held a neighborhood meeting on November 11, 2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, 12 people attended. Attendee questions were related to the future development of the site, impacts of a mu_ti -story building on neighboring properties, changes to public streets (Hall and Knoll), and public transit. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies, published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to '1'DC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, this application is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Re- zoning the site from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Residential 1 will increase the economic opportunities on the site. Currently the parcels are developed structures used as single-family residences. Redevelopment of this site with high density residential units may be a catalyst for other development within the Downtown Urban Renewal Distnct. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 4 OF 14 ZON2008-00006/ COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CEIANGE Policy 8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. Public water and sanitary sewer lines are found in all surrounding streets. Storm water must be collected and treated before released into an approved public system. There is a storm manhole at the corner of Knoll and Hall, but it is unknown if that is adequate to serve any future development. Prior to the approval of any specific development application, regardless of zoning, the applicant must provide information to show how the site would be served. Policy 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. The applicant has shown how the proposed zone change is consistent with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. This staff report illustrates how the request is consistent with both the code criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; The site abuts three public streets (Hall Boulevard, Hunziker Road, and Knoll Drive). A Traffic Impact Study was repared by the applicant's traffic engineer, Frank Charbonneau of Charbonneau En ineenng, LLC. Staff at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the study. Comments received from ODOT note that the study assumes only a 49 unit apartment complex for the worst case traffic scenario under the proposed MUR -1 zoning, but that MUR -1 zoning allows more units than this to be constructed. More units are ppossible since 50 units per acre is the minimum density, and there is no maximum density within the MUK 1 zone. More units could mean more vehicle trips from the site. ODOT requests that the City condition a trip cap be placed on the approval. Traffic impact is discussed further under the Transportation Goal. Sanitary and water lines are available in the streets. Storm water currently drains to a roadside ditch that parallels SW Hall Boulevard. Comments received from the Public Works department indicate that stormwater is an issue at this location. Prior to future development, the applicant would need to upgrade or connect to current facilities. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; A traffic impact study has been prepared by the applicant's engineer, Frank Charbonneau. The study considers development of the site with the maximum estimated density under the current R - 4.5 zoning, with the anticipated use of senior adult housing, and with apartment units which is the allowed use that generates the most vehicle trips. The analysis shows the proposed zone change will not have a significant effect on the transportation facilities. ODOT agrees with this analysis, but requests a trip cap be placed on the approval. This issue is discussed further under the Transportation Goal. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial oods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 5 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE The Downtown Improvement Plan ('IDIP) identifies the need for moderate to high - density, mixed use development with housing for a wide range of income levels. The site is located within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The current zoning is low density and the estimated maximum density is six units. Re- designation of the site to MUR 1 would help meet the desire for higher density housingg within the downtown. The applicant expects to develop the site with senior adult housing. Other possible uses could include multi - family housing. Both of these uses present opportunities to provide housing to a wider range of income levels than does single - family homes. This site is served by public transportation making it well- suited for higher density residential. A bus line runs along Hunziker Road. The Tigard Transit Center, with bus and commuter rail service, is within 1/4 mile of the site. Proximity to the downtown puts future residents within walking distance of restaurants, shops, commercial uses and the Tigard library. In addition, the applicant states that the City's Buildable Land Map (January 1, 2008) shows a supply of 0.76 acres of MUR -1 compared to 172.4 acres of R zoned land, but the map actually shows 3.17 acres of MUR- 1 land and 0.76 acres of MUR 2 land. Regardless, the reclassification of one acre of low density residential land to Mixed Use Residential will not adversely impact the supply of low density buildable land. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; The applicant has provided conceptual architectural elevations and a site plan . that demonstrate how a multi amily, senior housing development could be constructed in compliance with the MUR 1 regulations. There currently is no overlay distracts for the site, but this may change in the future as new zoning is developed for the downtown. Any future development would be reviewed for all applicable regulations prior to construction. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The site is located within a small pocket of single - family homes near a mix of industrial, commercial and multi - family uses. Only the eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the single- famil residences. The site is bound by streets on all other sides. If the site were redesignated to MU then future development must meet the setback and bufferin /screenin standards outlined in the Tigard Development Code. Setbacks in the MUR 1 zone are 20 feet when adjacent to residential zoning such as R - 4.5. The applicant states that redevelopment of the site under the MUR 1 zoning would provide a buffer between the noise and traffic of SWHall Boulevard and the existing single - family homes. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. There are no natural areas on or adjacent to the site that would be adversely impacted. If and when the site was redeveloped with higher density homes all stormwater would need to be collected and treated by an approved system. The applicant points out that allowing compact urban development will promote the preservation of open space in other areas of the City. The sites location will enable future residents to walk to services, reduce the dependence upon the automobile, and possibly improve air quality. Policy 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan /Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and noted that the conceptual plan appears to not take into consideration several large trees on site. He is suggesting the addition of a Planned Development (PD) overlay to ensure preservation of existing trees. While applying this overlay would allow more discretion by the decision makers for plan approval, the process may be excessive in relation to the desired outcome. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 6 OF 14 ZON2008-00006/ COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE It is unknown if the applicant is considered existing trees when developing plans for future development. To ensure measures are taken to incorporate existing trees, the Planning Commission may choose to impose a condition for the applicant to design the site and locate buildings to preserve existin trees to the greatest degree possible, to demonstrate alternatives considered, to present information to show why the trees cannot be preserved, and /or to work with staff and consultants to find measures of preservation. ODOT has requested a condition be put on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment approval. The condition is as follows: A condition of this zone change is that the site is limited to 300 trips per day, with a maximum of 23 a.m. peak hour tnps and 27 p.m. peak hour trips. If the applicant or future property owners wish to allow for more trips by removing the condition, tie applicant must re -apply for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment showing consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660 012 - 0060 analysis will be required to determine whether the limit can be revised or removed. Policy 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. As discussed under other policies, this change from R -4.5 (Low Density) to MUR 1 (Mixed Use Residential 1) will encourage development of the site that is more comp with the existing and future n development i the downtown. Conflicts between the existin single- family homes in the area and future high density development would be mitigated by larger required setbacks and landscape buffering. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies codes, and standards that rovide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. Policy 2. The City's land use program shall be consistent with applicable state and federal laws. The City of Tigard maintains an up -to -date buildable lands inventory, a permit tracking system for development, as well as complying with Metro's Functional Plan. The City is responsible for monitonng residential development. All of these tools aid the City in monitoring its progress toward the above goals, and in determining if the opportunity remains for current and future residents to have diverse housing choices. State and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within the Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). Both focus on increasing jurisdictions' housing capacity in order to use land within the UGB efficiently. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660- 007 /Division 7) established regional residential density and mix standards for communities within the Metro UGB to measure compliance with State Goal 10. It set minimum residential density standards for new construction by jurisdiction. Tigard's target capacity is for an overall density opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. In addition it requires that jurisdictions designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of n ew residential units to be attached housing (either single - family or multiple - family.) STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 7 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE The Metropolitan Housing Rule is as follows: OAR 660 - 007 - 0035 (3) Multnomah County and the cities of Portland Gresham Beaverton, Hi lslxm, Lake Os - •; and Tigard must prazide for an ozerall density of ten or more duelling units per net buildable acre ae are larger urbanized jurisdictions z¢ith n Tonally coordinated population projections of 50,000 or metre for their acme planning areas, zehith encompass or are near major employment ct�nters, and z¢hich are situated along regional transportation corridors. OAR 660 - 007 - 0005 (1) A "Net Buildable A cre" consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designated buildable land after excluding present and future rights -of zetty, restrict& hazard arms, public open spaces and restricted resoune protection areas. The City is currently in compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule as it can provide for an overall density of 10.42 units per net buildable acre (2,979 potential units divided by 286 net buildable acres**). *Based on current zoning regulations for each property found on the buildable lands inventory. **Based on a total of 409.15 acres of residential and mixed -use buildable lands as of January 1, 2008 minus 20% for future rights -of -way and 10% for future parks /open space). Metro implements Goal 10 through Title 1 of the Functional Plan. To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80% of minimum density requirement for development in 1998, whirl means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation. The City has committed to providing the development opportunity for an additional 6,308 dwelling units between 1998 - 2017. This number shows Tigard's zones capacity for additional dwelling units. It is an estimate based on the minimum number of dwelling units allowed in each residential zoning district, assuming minimum density requirements. The numbers above are based on current zoning and density rates in Tigard. The City anticipates increased housing capacity with future zone and density changes brought about by the l'DIP. Currently, the Central Business District (downtown) zone allows for, but does not require, single- family housing at 12 units /acre and multi - family housing at 32 units /acre. In 2005, only 10% of downtown acreage was used for housing (WIT), September 2005). It is likely that the plan will result in greater residential density estimated at 40 unit /acre, on a greater percent of downtown acreage (up to 80 %), estimated to yield approximately 1,200 units. Although these changes are not yet assured, they represent a general trend toward increased residential use and density in the downtown. Re- designating the site as MUR 1 increases Tigard's residential capacity, which further meets the state and regional housing goals and residential density goals within the downtown. Policy 3. The City shall support housing affordability, special -needs housing, ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation through programs administered by the state, Washington County, nonprofit agencies, and Metro. Policy 4. The City shall adopt and maintain land use regulations that provide opportunities to develop housing for persons with special needs. The scale design, intensity, and operation of these housing types shall be compatible with other land uses and located in proximity to supporting community services and activities. Metro Title 7 calls for voluntary affordable housing production goals to be adopted by local governments. The City has not adopted the goal of 319 affordable housing units units 2027 Report), but does have policies to encourage the development of affordable housing. Tigard provides the opportunity for single - family attached and multi-family housing within high density areas such as Washington Square, Central Business District (downtown Tigard), and the Tigard Triangle. The applicant would like to construct affordable senior housing on the site. A conceptual plan was provided with the application, but a specific development would require separate approval and is therefore not guaranteed. Even if the site were not STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 8 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /C0MMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE developed with this plan, any multi - family development could possibly be offered as affordable housing. High density provides the developer lower land costs per unit than does low density, but it should be noted that development of this site with affordable housing is a possibility and not a guarantee at this point. Any future development requires approval under separate application. 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. The site lies within a small pocket of R-4.5 zoning (Low Density Residential), but is also within the downtown. The current zoning is incompatible with the 'IDIP which calls for creating more housing of various types within the downtown and to accommodate a wide range of income levels. The proposed change to Mixed Use Residential 1 will allow the site to develop with high density residential in accordance with the downtown plan and Policy 5. The site is located along an existintransit corridor (Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Road), near employment opportunities anc. commercial services in downtown, and about 1 /2 mile from the Tigard Library. Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. Policy 8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another, B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. The applicant states that the roposed MUR 1 zone will provide an orderly transition from the heavily used transit corridors of Hall -BBoulevard and Hunziker Road to the existing low density residential uses. Standards within the Tigard Development Code such as larger setbacks between the proposed MUR -1 and existing R -4.5 zoning and buffering /screening requirements will also mitigate the impact of a more intense use adjacent to the existing single - family homes. Future development will be reviewed for compliance with these standards prior to plan approval. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS - DOWNTOWN Goal 15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people live, work, play and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard. The applicant states that by approving the zone change to MUR 1, more people will be active in the downtown area. Future residents will walk from their home to work and to recreational amenities within the area. They will be patrons of the downtown retail and restaurants. Development of the site with multi - family residential will spur interest in the area and promote the City's vision of a vibrant urban village. Goal: 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Policies: 1. New zoning, design standards, and design guidelines shall be developed and used to ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown as the "heart" of Tigard, while being flexible enough to encourage development. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00012/ COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 9 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE City staff is currently developing new zoning, design guidelines, and standards for the Downtown. The applicant intends to develop the site with a high quality project that takes steps to incorporate sustainable building practices where possible. The zone change ap ?roval does not ensure specific design standards will be met. Any future development will be requrrec to meet the standards in place at the time of application submittal. As stated above, the new Downtown standards have not been adopted, but the applicant has been working and brainstorming with City staff and design professionals to create a more detailed plan in accordance with the City's goals. 2. The downtown's land use plan shall provide for a mix of complementary land uses such as: A. retail, restaurants, entertainment and personal services; B. medium and high-density residential uses, including rental and ownership housing; C. civic functions (government offices, community services, public plazas, public transit centers, etc); D. professional employment and related office uses; and E. natural resource protection, open spaces and public parks. 5. Downtown design, development and provision of service shall emphasize public safety, accessibility, and as primary objectives. 6. New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including ownership, workforce, and affordable housing in a high quality living environment. The proposed zone change will allow the site to develop with high density residential uses in accordance with this goal. The applicant would like to develop the site with high- density, affordable housing for seniors which will complement existing and future uses within the Downtown. As this' proposed project has not been approved, there is no guarantee that it will be constructed. Any multi -family housing will be consistent with these policies. Specific design elements such as public safety and accessibility will be reviewed during the development review application. Goa l 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. Policies: 1. The downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi -modal transportation services including auto, transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities. 2. The downtown shall be Tigard's primary transit center for rail and bus transit service and supporting land uses. 3. The City, in conjunction with TriMet, shall plan for and manage transit user parking to ensure the downtown is not dominated by "park and ride" activity. 5. Streetscape and public area design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly environment without the visual dominance by automobile oriented uses. 6. The City shall require a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of parking to provide for downtown land uses. Joint parking arrangements shall be encouraged. If re -zoned to MUR -1 any future re- development of the site will require the applicant to construct improvements along abutting street frontages for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycles. These improvements could also incfude a bus shelter as noted by the applicant. Placement of high density housing on this site will provide more riders with access to public transit choices within the Downtown and decrease the dependency upon the automobile for residents. The following applicable portions of the previous Tigard Comprehensive Plan were in effect at the time of application: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /00MMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 10 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The 2001 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates the comprehensive plan and olicies. However, it does not fully replace all elements of the comprehensive plan adopted prior to the 2001 TSP. Goal # 4, Policy # 1 of the Tigard TSP correlates to the foll comprehensive plan policy: Policy 8.1.4: Set and maintain transportation performance measures that set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the city of Tigard and requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. Comments were received from the Seth Brumley and Doug Baumgartner with Oregon Department of Transportation (Attachment 1). The letter states that the local government must make findings that the roposed zone change /comprehensive plan amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule (11'R) OAR 660- 012 -0060 There mus be sub evidence Ln the record to either m ake the fincmg of ` no significant effect" on the transportation system, or if there is a significant effect, assurance that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility. For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments: OAR 660 - 012 -0060 1) Where an an'ndn rit to a functional plan an adenozeledged conpr bensize plan, or a land use regulation would significaaly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local shall piz in place nnasures as prozid in section (2) of this yule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent zzz 9 the ider6fied funlion, capacity, and perjainzaw standards (e.g lezel of service; zolunx to capacity ration, etc) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation anzndnvnt significantly a ecs a trans fortation facility if it 'timid. (c) A s nrasured at the end of the plararing penal ident • in the .. • •ted transportation system plan (A) A llow land uses or lezels of dezeloprrent that would result in types or lezels of trawl or access that are inconsistent zeith the unctional dass a tion of n existing or planned transportation acility (Bf Ram the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the nininwn acaptahle perforrrrzno standard identzfi4o in the TSP or con rehensize plan; or (C) Worsen the of an. existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise prz j�l to perform below the minimum ac eptable pefo mnc standardidentOed in the TSP or conprehensize plan The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a Traffic Impact Study analyzing the traffic impacts from the proposed zone change for a year 2011 development build -out and a year 2025 planning horizon in order to meet the requirements of OAR 660- 012 -0060. The study analyzes "reasonable worst case scenarios" for 6 sin homes for the existing zoning and a 49 unit apartment complex for the proposed zoning, IVIUR 1. Based on the proposed 300 trip generation from the apartment complex of 306 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips, the zone change would not have a significant effect on the transportation facilities. However ODOT staff comments that MUR- 1 zoning allows development density greater than a 49 unit apartment complex and could generate more than the 300 vehicle trips estimated in the traffic study. Additional trips could result in a significant effect on the Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard intersection. To ensure that the proposed zone change /comp plan amendment does not significantly affect State facilities, ODOT requests the City conditions a trip cap be placed on this approva_. The cap would limit the site to 300 vehicle trips per day, with maximums of 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 .m. peak hour trips. To allow more trips, the applicant or future property owners will need a Plan Amendment with '11'R OAR 660 - 012 - 0060 analysis to determine if the limit can be revised or removed. Policy 8.2.3 The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that: A Development abuts a publicly dedicated street or has adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; B. Street right -of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 11 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE C. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city standards within the development; D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces 'De as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle /pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. The applicant has proposed only a conceptual development plan at this time, but this application is only for a re- designation from R-4.5 to MUR -1. Prior to the construction of any development on -site, the applicant shall obtain separate land use approval and construct required street improvements along all frontages. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and - For the purposes of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the applicable Sections of Chapter 18.380, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, of the Tigard Development Code. Please see the findings under 18.380.030.B.3. The standards of Chapter 18.390.050 for Type III -PC procedures are applicable to this proposal, as identified in 18.380.030. The applicant has submitted an Impact Statement as required under 18.390.050.B.e. Although a conceptual site plan was provided, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change do not include a specific development proposal. Any proposed development will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards. An additional impact statement will also be required for the development application. FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the applicable standards of the Tigard Development Code. 18.380.030.B.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The citizens of Tigard approved an Urban Renewal District in 2007. This site is included within that district and is therefore the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (approved 2005) applies to the site. This plan calls for high density residential along Hall Boulevard between Garden Place to the north of the site and Commercial Street to the south. The site has been zoned low density residential since at least the 1970s, but now the low density zoning is inconsistent with the downtown plan. Re- designating the site to MUR 1 (Mixed Use Residential 1) w� make the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation consistent with downtown development goals. FINDING: The proposal demonstrates that there is an inconsistency in the comprehensive plan and zoning map as it relates to the subject property. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or denied. FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi - judicial as it is limited to specific parcels and does not apply enerally across the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation to Councilmay be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA200S- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 12 OF 14 ZON2008-00006/ COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CHANGE SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City Arborist commented that the conceptual development plan appeared to ignore several large trees on the site and asked that a Planned Development overlay be included with the zone change to allow greater discretion over plan approval. The City of Tigard's Public Works Department noted that water service can be provided to the site, but the water meter may need to be upsized. Drainage at the corner of Hall and Hunziker will need to be addressed, as it is a constant issue. The Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and had no objection. Oregon Department of Transporation (ODOT) has reviewed the proposal and provided comments. Some comments have been incorporated into this report, but the full comment letter and analysis have been included as Attachment 1. Clean Water Services reviewed the pro osal and recommended that all of the relevant provisions of the IGA between the City and CWS be followed and that a site certification will be required prior to development of the subject parcels. The City's Long Range Planning Division, Engineering Division, Building Division, Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Metro Land Use and Planning were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: The proposal to re- designate the site from R-4.5 (Low Density Residential) to MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential) would reduce the amount of land zoned for low density development within Tigard, but would net more units to meet the City's capacity goal for residential density required under Metro Title 1 and the City's Housing goals. The current zoning is inconsistent with the downtown conceptual plan which calls for high density residential along Hall Boulevard. In addition, the '1'DIP identifies downtown housing development as one of eight catalyst projects that will substantively alter the development environment. The '1'DIP favors moderate to _nigh density housing to serve a wide range of incomelevels. Bringing more people into the downtown will support local services, retailers, and mass transit options. ODOT states that re- designating the site to MUR 1 could have a significant effect on transportation facilities because this zoning allows 50 units per acre as a minimum density with no maximum. ODOT has commented that with a trip cap, this issue could satisfactorily be addressed to meet the provisions of the state 1PR (OAR 660 - 012 -0060 SECTION VII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Regional Functional Plan, Statewide Planning Goals, and the Tigard Development code (18.380). STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 13 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE CI-3ANGE SECTION VIII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to City Council. Af � January 22, 2009 PREPARE Pe BY: � Che Caines DA 1'E Associate Planner . ., C..., January 22, 2008 APPROVED BY: Dick . ewersdorff DA "l'E Plan g Manager • Attachments: 1. 1/ 13/09 Letter from ODOT 2. Vicinity Map 3. Current Zoning Map 4. Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (i'DIP) Proposed Zoning Map STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00012 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 14 OF 14 ZON2008- 00006 /COMMUNITY PARTNERS ZONE QBANGE ATTACHMENT 1 • F � q� I I regori Oregon Department of Transportation " ` �"""`' ` o z ODOT Region 1 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 123 NW Flanders St Portland, OR 97209 - 4037 Telephone (503) 731 -8200 FAX (503) 731 -8259 File code: PLA9 2A - 141 ODOT Case No: 3057 1/13/2009 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd E Ce VE :. Tigard, OR 97223 JAN 1 3 2009 Attn: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner r L NNOt P dE 'FIf Re: CPA2008- 00012; ZON2008- 00006: The Knoll at Tigard ZC /CPA Hall Blvd and SW Knoll Dr Dear Ms. Cheryl Caines, We have reviewed the applicant's proposal to change the zoning on three parcels from R -4.5 (Low Density Residential) to MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential). The site is adjacent to Hall Blvd and in the vicinity of 99W. ODOT has jurisdiction of these State highway facilities and an interest in assuring that the proposed zone change /comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards of these facilities. According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), SW Hall Boulevard is classified as a District Highway with a maximum volume to capacity (v /c) ratio of 0.99 and 99W is classified as a Statewide Highway with a maximum v/c ratio of 0.95. For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments local governments must make findings that the proposed amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR 660- 012 -0060. There must be substantial evidence in the record to either make the finding of no significant effect" on the transportation system, or if there is a significant effect assurance that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility. In order to determine whether or not there will be a significant effect on the State transportation system the applicant provided a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated November 2008 and prepared by Frank Charbonneau of Charbonneau Engineering LLC. ODOT traffic analyst Doug Baumgartner has reviewed the TIS for the proposed Zone Change and compared it with the scope of work provided by ODOT to the applicant on December 1, 2008 (see attached memo). The TIS analyzed the traffic impacts from the proposed zone change in the 2011 build -out year and the 2025 planning horizon. The "reasonable worst case scenarios" were assumed to be 6 single family homes for the existing zoning and a 49 -unit apartment complex for the MUR -1 zone. The TIS shows that the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection is forecast to operate above the OHP mobility standard at a v/c ratio of 1.40 in the a.m. peak hour and 1.24 in the p.m. peak hour in 2025. In situations where the highway facility is operating above the OHP mobility standard and transportation improvements are not planned within the planning horizon ; CPA2008- 00012; ZON2008- 00006, The Knoll at Tigard ZC /CPA ODOT RESPONSE 2 to bring performance to standard, the performance standard is to avoid further degradation. With an assumed trip generation of 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips the proposed zoning of MUR -1 will not increase the volume -to- capacity ratio further and therefore will not have a significant effect. However, the MUR -1 zone allows development density greater than a 49 unit apartment and could generate more trips than the 300 daily trips assumed for the 49 -unit apartment complex. The resulting additional site trips generated by the increased density could result in a significant effect on the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection. In order to ensure that the zone change will not result in a significant effect upon State facilities, ODOT requests that the City of Tigard condition a trip cap to be placed on the zone change: A condition of this zone change is that the site is limited to 300 trips per day, with a maximum of 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips. If the applicant or future property owners wish to allow for more trips, a Plan Amendment with Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660- 012 -0060 analysis will be required to determine whether the limit can be revised or removed. It is important that any proposal to allow more trips be addressed in the Plan Amendment process and will trigger a new evaluation of TPR compatibility at that time to determine whether or not the new proposal will have a significant effect on State highway facilities and the limit can be revised or removed. Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in this land use review. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (503) 731 -8234. Sincerely, Seth Brumley Development Review Planner C: Doug Baumgartner, ODOT Region 1 Traffic ODOT Log No: ; CPA2008- 00012; ZON2008- 00006, The Knoll at Tigard ZC /CPA ODOT RESPONSE 3 ( ---- • F -- 2 Oregon Oregon Department of Transportation m `••" A :': z ODOT Region 1 \ ,'�" " °� .. Theodore R. K Governor `�' ' 123 NW Flanders St Portland, OR 97209 - 4037 Telephone (503) 731 -8200 FAX (503) 731 -8259 TO: Seth Brumley — Planner Region 1 Planning FROM: Doug Baumgartner, E.I.T. Development Review Traffic Analyst Region 1 Traffic DATE: January 13, 2009 RE: Hall Boulevard Zone Change HWY 141 (Beaverton- Tualatin) Washington County, Oregon Introduction I have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed Knoll at Tigard Zone Change in Washington County, Oregon. The TIS is dated November of 2008 and was prepared by Frank Charbonneau of Charbonneau Engineering LLC. The scope of work for the TIS was provided by ODOT to the applicant on December 1, 2008. The zone change proposal is for three adjacent parcels on SW Hall Boulevard currently zoned as R -4.5 (Low- Density Residential) and proposed to be rezoned as MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential). The property currently contains three single family residences and, under the R -4.5 Zoning, could contain up to a maximum of six single family residences. The scope of work for the TIS identified the intersections of SW Hall Blvd with OR 99W, SW Knoll Dr, SW Hunziker Rd / SW Scoffins St, SW Knoll Dr, and SW Burnham St as well as the intersection of SW Hunziker Rd with SW 72nd Ave for analysis. According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, SW Hall Boulevard (Highway 141, MP 5.21) is classified as a District Highway with a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.99 and SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W, MP 8.82) is a classified as a Statewide Highway with a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.95. The TIS included the analysis of the traffic impacts from the proposed zone change for a year 2011 development build -out and a year 2025 planning horizon in order to meet the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule Section 660 - 012 -060. Build -out scenarios were analyzed for 6 single family homes (ITE Code 210) for the existing zoning, a 48 -unit independent living facility for the proposed land use under the zone ODOT Log No: ; CPA2008- 00012; ZON2008- 00006, The Knoll at Tigard ZC /CPA ODOT RESPONSE 4 change (Senior Adult Housing — Attached, ITE Code 252), and a 49 -unit apartment complex (ITE Code 220) that represents the highest trip generator analyzed for the MUR -1 zone (300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips). The TIS year 2025 planning horizon analysis for the build -out development scenarios under the existing and proposed zoning revealed that the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection will operate at a v/c ratio of 1.40 in the a.m. peak hour and 1.24 in the p.m. peak hour. Based on the proposed trip generation of 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips from the apartment build out development scenario, the zone change would not have a significant effect on the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection. The City of Tigard Development Code for the MUR -1 zone could allow development density beyond the 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips assumed for the 49 -unit apartment complex that was analyzed and the resulting additional site trips generated by the increased density could result in a significant effect on the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection. In order to ensure that the zone change will not result in a significant effect on State facilities, ODOT requests that the City of Tigard condition a trip cap to be placed on the zone change for 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips. If based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual a proposed development on the site generates traffic above the trip cap, the applicant shall be required to perform a traffic impact study to demonstrate compliance with Transportation Planning Rule Section 660 - 012 -060. TIS Needs for a Development Proposal The proposed zone change site has frontage along SW Hall Blvd and SW Knoll Dr. ODOT recommends that access to the site be served from SW Knoll Dr since a site access to SW Hall Blvd could not meet the access spacing standards for SW Hall Blvd and the site has frontage along SW Knoll Dr. The TIS did not include an analysis of crash data for study intersections as requested in the scope of work. The queuing analysis that was reported in the TIS identified deficiencies in available storage at a majority of study intersections for the proposed 2011 build -out year. Under the proposed build -out development scenarios, site generated traffic increased queue lengths that were already exceeding the available storage. The TIS did not propose any specific mitigation to address the storage deficiencies or the impact of the development from the zone change. When the applicant submits a development application to the City of Tigard, ODOT requests that the applicant update the TIS in order to analyze the impact of the proposed development on State facilities. The updated TIS should address queuing storage deficiencies and identify mitigation for the impact of the proposed development. The updated TIS should also include a crash analysis for study intersections, and address frontage improvements for SW Hall Blvd including any right of way dedication that may be necessary to meet the TSP cross sections. Frontage improvements, right of way dedication, and proportionate contributions may also be required by the City of ODOT Log No ; CPA2008- 00012; ZON2008- 00006, The Knoll at Tigard ZC /CPA ODOT RESPONSE 5 Tigard for any planned improvements for the SW Hunziker Rd / SW Scoffins St and SW Hall Blvd intersection. The Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection is currently operating beyond the 0.95 mobility standard. A Washington County transportation improvement project is planned for the Highway 99W / SW Hall Blvd intersection and is anticipated to be completed in the near future. The project will add an additional northbound lane on Highway 99W through the SW Hall Blvd intersection and will provide separate right, thru, and left turn lanes on both Hall Blvd approaches to the intersection. The County project will improve the v/c ratio for the Highway 99W / SW Hall Blvd intersection. The updated TIS for the development application should include these improvements in the analysis of build -out scenarios for which these improvements will be in place. Conclusion The City of Tigard Development Code for the MUR -1 zone could allow development density beyond the 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips assumed for the 49 -unit apartment complex that was analyzed. Based on the proposed trip generation of 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips from the apartment build out development scenario, the zone change would not have a significant effect on the Highway 99W and SW Hall Blvd intersection. In order to ensure that the zone change will not result in a significant effect upon State facilities, ODOT requests that the City of Tigard condition a trip cap to be placed on the zone change for 300 daily trips with 23 a.m. peak hour trips and 27 p.m. peak hour trips. If based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual a proposed development on the site generates traffic above the trip cap, the applicant shall be required to perform a traffic . impact study to demonstrate compliance with Transportation Planning Rule Section 660 - 012 -060. When the applicant submits a development application to the City of Tigard, ODOT requests that the TIS be updated to address the needs listed above. If there are any questions regarding the contents of this memorandum, please contact me at (503) 731 -8225. ODOT Log No L p -- �, VICINITY MAP --- I� ;� 9 � _ i -- �i CPA2008- 000121ZON2008 -00006 ' N.41 — 1 t z C'P R` -: = ==' v � � -o COMMUNITY PARTNERS PLAN U 0 � F _ _ = - O% & MAP AMENDMENT I-4 ill tie 14‘ ' � � ti p\ H / !Q y ,. M P r ■N z G � o r 12 4401‘ 1 G , -4 VIII , MP IJ . t. --)/ V.. 4. _ . O k. _ j' NIN Selected Site 4 ,09 - 4 'S / \\:\ IR ,..0,,..,: ,,,,,,. __,c 1 * . . s0\ = rf �' ♦ ■ Milli \ \:.,\:\ MR" ' q . vv. vi . . �.� Q C. I. L. f�'L•�I::`I '''' . : 1. :, : , ,, „. .66 4., ', \ .. • ■ `Zs r t 1 1 r ; N� ' 7 ,y t , _ rl Information on this map is for general location � ! r only and should be verified with the Development Y " • ry2 � +' 4' Services Division. 4 Nr ' t' 1i, �� T s r Scale 1:5,500 - tin = 458 ft ,C '7 - `` Map printed at 19- Dec -08 01:41 PM 0 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES. THE CITY OF TIGARD _ MAKES NO WARRANTY. REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE ./. / CONTENT, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE • -y DATA PROVIDED HEREIN. THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO `. -il , 1r -- ii 11 I'.IIN 4 ` LIABILITY MATION ERRORS. REGA HOW RU SE . THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS F O HOW CAUSED. t • \ City of Tigard D 1 3 125 SW Hall B lvd TICAR MA PS Tigard, OR 97223 503 6394171 - (� 458ft 1 www. tigard- or.gov I y `` ' % e4..., PP . . 001..,..,.- CURRENT ZONING Z . LDerty Pax i W Zoning U GARDEN PL ; 30,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Size f 1 20,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Size Q ' I OD a«; . � 4 I I 10,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Size H OD " " L I 7,500 Sq Ft Min Lot Size 5,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Size I 3,050 Sq Ft Min Lot Size el ..- .. i . I 1,480 Sq Ft Min Lot Size ,4. 40 Units Per Acre sC U ��` i I - Mixed Used Residential 1 1 . 4 41_ / Mixed Use Residential 2 t> Central Business District CO i t - Community Commercial J ; -i / `--' General Commercial _ R-4.5 / Neighborhood J � / Commercial Professional Commercial ill �P ' ~ _ r 7 Q5 8. r '`� Mixed Use Commercial + ` CBD v J' / ( III Use Commercial 1 / - _ _ .�--- j I Mixed Use Empoloyment \ k .-` J 1 L 1 r ■. Mixed Use Employment 1 1 � r; t L- . Mixed Use Employment 2 r Light Industrial 4 f / Industrial Park I �� q t, 'A I -P r / ; Heavy Industrial I - / \- .\ � ? / / \� / e ' \; ,� / - I - 7/ ' Map printed at 22- Jan -09 11:25 AM / '! DATA IS D FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD E MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATON OR GUARANTEE AS TO TH ( CON TENT, CC RACY, IM TEINES OR OMPLETNSS OF ANY OF T `• ,' ` DATA PRO UED HER . THE S CITY OCF TIGARD E SH ASSUME NO HE LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE 1 .,,. ` INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED t. ` � fec- �I City of Tigard �.`., -- � 1 \ ?AGA it 1 Tgard, ORallB I v d ,. '\ 3 1 ft 'r' gar 639-4171 www. w.tigard- or.gov r�, ATTACHMENT 4 4 _ ; : i°- • /' / ? / 1, G _ . ,,,,,./ ....: __,„,,,,, . - _„...., ,-.---/ ,,...4.# ... . 1r :c r r .A‘' � / f ". :fit £j l f " - P y- g / � " .' , ., b x < / , ss &5a • w o i t7 1 \ r .p v`' . '' _ M — .. J 7 TC- TC- TC- TC- TC- C ORRIDO K MUE -2 CBD MUR -1 MUR-2 MUC U CRK oP ac OVERLAY V VAIONIV 6.30.05 PRQPQSE® IGAT -co DGWNN➢TOW .1 IMPROVEMENT PLAN ZONING Farametrix AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: Feb. 24, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI - JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the City Council on: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00012 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00006 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN & MAP CHANGE REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for three parcels (approximately .98 acres) from Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to Mixed Use Residential - 1 (MUR 1). The site is located on the east side of Hall Boulevard between Hunziker Street and Knoll Drive, within a small pocket of R-4.5 zoning. Sites on the west side of Hall Blvd. are zoned Central Business District (CBD). All three parcels of the site are within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. LOCATION: 12340 and 12360 SW Hall Boulevard, and 8485 SW Hunziker Street. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101BC, Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1000. ZONES: R-4.5: Low - Density Residential District. The R zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single - family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single - family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally, and MUR 1: Mixed Use Residential District. The MUR 1 zoning district is a high density designation applied to predominantly residential areas where mixed -uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential to Mixed Use Residential 1. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10 and 15 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policy 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Title 1; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 12. I:\ ADM\ CATHY\ COUNCIL \ CCSignup \ PH Testimony QJ COMMUNITY PARTNERS .doc AGENDA ITEM No. 5 February 24, 2009 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. C—oU7( C 61 � c� 6 c� ,v _.V_Q_Ai , A c Zoi inq Map zeiti C — G me LI �u�ava 5antat Site r i 1C,OOO dqR d.ov di 1 [_ j T� PU,J S . !1 aln 1"4 #d!a TI 8 3D �7 Sq F# rim lint Sias :no sa fl Mn LAA'mte FT i''' 9i F #hire did 7w K NOLL [7t7 1 4U ur PctACte ■r��_. La l!Poc---..b.,„, Used 17eadder4e! 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■;� ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ � 31R.w Rwx i.bisd;al 2 ■// ■ ■ ■/■� . ;:::: tia 0-is Dls; / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ® #1r ■yfr�sliC' L`.+ ■ /■■■■■■� ........� R -4.5 . 4,r. rarAna#o, ca ■h1.. a /■� ilo C B D ■ ■ / ■ ■ / ■/� Corru»oro#a# iiiii� / . rr.s��a ^.ti rr..n-1a • / ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■r r . YiM rcad uca Ca irr ryanc ial ■// / ■ ■ ■ ■' woe uao tcrnarataia �� ' f �l itMac4dUc4En�rolayrtwet . 11aCOA UG4 4tdlkllbth5l�ii1 - - n U Ird�atr iI ware Hoard Ind isla t#� Mtllta it l�I.1"111 IM 4 at5agittod:0414Vii IR ° . i -L 114 Agenda Item # Meeting Date February 24, 2009 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Contract Award to Multiple Vendors for Revegetation Services on Various City Projects Prepared By: Joe Barrett Dept Head Approval: L k City Mgr Approval: cc? C0 ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board award contracts to multiple vendors for revegetation services on various City projects via permissive cooperative procurement as allowed under ORS 279A.215? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award contracts for revegetation services to eight firms utilizing permissive cooperative procurement, as allowed under ORS 279A.215, through a solicitation and subsequent contracts administered by Clean Water Services. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City will have a need for revegetation services on various projects over the next few years. While the City has projects identified in the broad scope, the details have not yet been identified as it is much too early in the projects to do so. As such the City, in effort to reduce the cost associated with multiple solicitations for the various projects, has a need for on -call revegetation services. In late 2006, Clean Water Services issued a Request for Proposals for the same services that the City now requires. Under ORS 279A.215, Permissive Cooperative Procurements, the City may establish contracts with vendors awarded contracts by Clean Water Services through their Request for Proposal process. The City has found eight vendors that signed contracts with Clean Water Services via their Request for Proposal that the City would like to, and is eligible to, enter into contracts with. The vendors the City would contract with are: • Greenfill Landscape Irrigation & Maintenance • Reutov Forest Services, Inc. • C & R Reforestation • R. Franco Restoration, Inc. • Ash Creek Forest Management, LLC • • Tom Fery Farm, Inc. • Henderson Land Services, LLC • Rue Forest Contracting, Inc. All of these firms agreed, through Clean Water Services Request for Proposal and contract, to offer the same established unit prices and hourly rates contained in their contract with Clean Water Services to other agencies. Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board award contract to these vendors under ORS 279A.215. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not award on -call service contracts to multiple firms and direct staff to solicit for revegetation services on a project -by- project system. 2. Do not award on -call service contracts utilizing permissive cooperative procurement as authorized under ORS 279A.215 and direct staff for prepare a Request for Proposal for the service. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The estimated total spend against these contracts is $345,000 over five years. The projects will be funded through the Water Quality /Water Quantity fund and a possible $20,000 annually from the Tree Replacement Fund. Agenda Item # No. 7 Meeting Date February 24, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon • Issue /Agenda Title Discuss Good Citizenship Award Nomination and Selection Process Prepared By: Liz Newton Dept Head Approval: taf City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider the CCI recommendation on the nomination and selection process for the Good Citizenship Award. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the CCI recommendation and provide direction to staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the January 6, 2009 Annual Goal Setting meeting, City Council also identified a list of tasks to be accomplished in 2009. Council Task #4 is to " Honor Good Citizenship by developing a city award to be presented at the Chamber of Commerce Shining Stars Banquet." Staff was directed to meet with the CCI to develop a recommended nomination . and selection process. The CCI met on February 18, 2009 to discuss the nomination and selection process. A recommended draft nomination form is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Task #4: Honor Good Citizenship by developing a city award to be presented at the Chamber of Commerce Shining Stars Banquet. ATTACHMENT LIST Draft nomination form FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \ADM \City Council \Council Agenda Item Summaries /good citizen090219.doc • Tigard 2009 Exemplary Citizenship Awards 04), • 4NA). Ci • t • • zen • sh mom. ■1111111011■11■1 Pronunciation: \si- to -zan -ship\ Function: noun 1 the status of being a citizen 2 a: membership in a community (as a college) b: the quality of an individual's response to membership in a community (Merriam- Webster) Tigard's City Council believes it is important to recognize and honor those of you who help to make our community, "A place to call home." We're looking for those who have dedicated their time and energy to help make Tigard such a wonderful place to live, work, and play. Do you know someone who exemplifies the spirit of citizenship in Tigard? The Exemplary Citizenship Awards are presented to those who have made positive contributions to our city and neighborhoods over the past year. Winners will be honored during the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Annual Shining Stars Banquet. Exemplary Citizenship Award recipients will be chosen based on the following criteria. Recipients must exemplify a commitment to the community by: ••••• Implementing and /or assisting in the implementation of outstanding projects, programs, or services; Enriching and revitalizing our community and neighborhoods; •�•• Demonstrating responsiveness, creativity, and civic values; Promoting cross - cultural awareness. Please attach a one page written narrative telling us why this nominee should receive an Exemplary Citizenship Award. Please address all of the criteria listed above in your narrative. The selection committee, made up of representatives from City Council, the Committee for Citizen Involvement, and staff, will not review additional pages. The Award will be presented at the Tigard Chamber's annual Shining Stars Banquet on April 24, 2009. For more information, please contact Marissa Daniels at 503 - 718 -2428 or marissa@tigard- or.gov. The deadline for submission is 5 p.m. on March 27, 2009. TIGARD .1 9;t City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard • Tigard, OR 97223.503- 639 -4171 • www.tigard- or.gov ,* A', FT Tigard 2009 Exemplary Citizenship Awards NOMINATION FORM • Name of Nominee: Telephone: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Email Address: Please select one award category: ❑ Individual... A City resident using his /her own knowledge, talent, and resources to effect change. ❑ Neighborhood, Business, or Organization... A neighborhood, Homeowners Association, or a Tigard business or organization using their knowledge, talent, or resources to effect change. PLEASE ATTACH A ONE PAGE WRITTEN NARRATIVE telling us why this nominee should receive an Exemplary Citizenship Award. PLEASE ADDRESS CRITERIA in your narrative. The selection committee, made up of representatives from City Council, the Planning Commission, Committee for Citizen Involvement, and staff, will not review additional pages. Nominated by: Telephone: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Email Address: The deadline for submission is S p.m. on March 27, 2009. TIGARD City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard • Tigard, OR 97223 • 503 - 639 -4171 • wwwtigard- or.gov • SPAPE RS 0005 SE Le Read, Polhill, Polhill, 0R 01222 • • PO Box 370 • Bearertoo , OR 07075 V , 11111 Pboee: 503.884.0380 Fax: 503. 020 3433 Email: Iepals@cammaewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION T I G A R D P U B L I C HEARING ITEM: State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday February 24. at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing general circulation, published at Beaverton, on this matter will be hel4 under Title 18 and rules of procedure in the aforesaid county and state, as defined adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Council will by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that receive the Planning Commission's recommendation and hold a City of Tigard public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Notice of Public Hearing Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard TT11248 Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503- 639 -4171. A copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 1 2008- 00012 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00006 week in the following issue - COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR February 5, 2009 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN & MAP CHANGE - U t_adi f 1,D ,t REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Mana er) Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for three parcels (approximately .98 acres) from Low Density Residential (R -4.5) to Mixed Use Residential - 1 (MUR-1). Subscribed and sworn to before me this The site is located on the east side of all Boulevard between ebruary 5, 2009. Hunziker Street and Knoll Drive, win a small pocket of R -4.5 zoning. Sites on the west side of Hall Blvd. are zoned Central Business District (CBD). All three parcels of the site are within the Downtown Urban Renewal , District. LOCATIH er „....._,r � 12340 and 12360 SW Hall Boulevard and 8485 SW NOTARY PUBLIC FOR EGON Street. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101BC, N TARP PUBLIC expires Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1000. ZONES: R -4.5: Low - Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without Acct #10093001 accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square Attn: Patty Lunsford feet. Duplexes and attached single - family units are permitted City of Tigard conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also 13125 SW Hall Blvd permitted conditionally; and MUR -1: Mixed Use Residential Tigard, OR 97223 District. The MUR -1 zoning district is a high density designation applied to predominantly residential areas where mixed - uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. Size: 2 x 11.75 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low - Density Amount Due $196.23 Residential to Mixed Use Residential 1. APPLICABLE 'remit to address above REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10 and 15 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policy 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Title 1; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 12. .a "� `� � _yt��s. - c..� VICN1fT YNM ,....7 `^ ) \ y InMONTYKeaoat ", / � # \ COITE tinut�n • / \ ., I, PLAN •N \ 4: .......... ) a -- . Imi ,----- -,„,,,, . .j.,) 7 • - .s.\ \ ' . ' '1 -14---- Publish 02/05/2009. TTI 1248 • , COMMUNITY ■ NEWSPAPERS q 0805 SE Lake Road, Plraaad, 00 07222 • PO Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 87015 • 1. Photo: 503 - 884-0380 Fax: 503 - 820.3433 Emali: legals @commaewspapers.com TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS on Tuesday February 24. 2009 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Center - Town.Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. depose and say that I am the Accounting Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of general circulation, published at Beaverton, procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Council will in the aforesaid county and state, as defined receive the Planning Commission's recommendation and hold a by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Y Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW City of Tigard Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503- 639 -4171. Notice of Public Hearing TT11247 COMPREHEI'1SIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00008 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 -00002 A copy of which is hereto annexed, was - FIELDS PLAN & MAP CHANGE - published in the entire issue of said newspaper for REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to 1 the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the week in the following issue: Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Classification for February 5, 2009 one parcel (approximately 25 acres) from Light Industrial (I- L) to Medium High Density Residential (R -25). The parcel is located east of Hall Boulevard at the dead end of Wall Street. UtiLl/ (0 * � UL /" n Surrounding properties are zoned I -L to the north and south, R- W 12 to the west, and I -P to the east across the railroad tracks. Charlotte Allsop (Accounting M LOCATION: The site is vacant and has no address. It is located east of the Hall Boulevard and Wall Street intersection, east of Subscribed and sworn to before me this Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. Washington County Feb l 5, 2009. — Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100, Tax Lot 1200. ZONES: I -L: Light Industrial District. The I -L zoning district provides appropriate 1 locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, G(� ^� l!� i manufacturing and production, research and development, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OR 10 warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities My commission expires with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. R -25: Medium High- Density Residential Acct #10093001 District. The R -25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single - family Attn: Patty Lunsford and multi - family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 City of Tigard square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses 13125 SW Hall Blvd is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional Tigard, OR 97223 uses are permitted conditionally. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial to Medium -High Density Size: 2 x 11.25 Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Amount Due $187.88 Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390; Comprehensive `Please remit to address above. Plan Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, & 10 of the updated Comprehensive Plan, and Policies 3 and 8 of the previous Comprehensive Plan; Metro Functional Plan, Titles 3, 4, 7, and 13, and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. `-s VICINiI MAP SI wNawa -00002 •■ �� 1 ZONE I t�I = imiali mu a / _ _.- sn sur r 1 Erm1 ��I /111111 >_� . =mi. MITI �!i�I �, .'-j" z , . Nu' ig arrr eo �. mminj t� _ i I It t� <: 1.161616111* — EN VCCIIIRIP ' - � t4 • 3 11,1► Jn aia q — q !,?- — Publish 02/05/2009. TT11247 I