The URL can be used to link to this page

CPA1991-00003POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. r��'d'PVU�'"tl +Y "t�mi4bpr ++.•euws.. ZO CHANGE CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639 -4171 1, GENERAL INFORMATION Between S.W. (New) PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION Scholls Ferri! Road and 135th at prdposed Murry extension FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE OTHER CASE NO'S: nl 311=122.0 a RECEIPT NO _ L: 2 , _ APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: Application elements submitted: CAS Application form (1) B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO.1Map21E -4B western art of Tax_ Lot 101 J_. SITE SIZE 19.49 acres ap�proximateiy . PROPERTY OWNER /DEED HOLDER* 1Mar ery . Crist ADDRESS PHONE CITY ZIP APPLICANT* Albertsons'• Inc. (Don Buncombe) ADDRESS 17001 N.E. San Rafael PHONE 251 -9500 CITY Portland Ore on ZIP *When tbe owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must.be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with writ ten authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner- with Written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY authorisation (C) Applicant's statement (pre -app check list)��u`L►+; +aal it y (D) Filing, fee (7Z7 "• Additional information for Comlpre- sive Plan Map Amendments /Zone Changes Maps indicating property location (pre -app check list) The owners of record of the subject property request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ci,f applicable)' from residential to General, Commercial and a Zone Change from R -25 & R -12 _. to OR The -;per t requests an amendment to the owing sect the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development d der commeraia, zone 0Communit " Commercial to 12,4 and CDC 18.61 0737P 23P Rev' d: 5/87 (G) Assessor's Map ( 1) _N(H) Title transfer 'instrument (1) DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE`: 'FINAL DECISION '.DEADLINE: COMP. PLAN /ZONE DESIGNATION N.P.O. 'Number Planning Commission Approva; City Council l Approvay , • List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be ,cons deted as part of this application: . Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachneni described in the attached' information sheet at the time you istabmjit',-thle' THE APiPLICANT(S). SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The ;above re uest does not violatt...12x....dsed., attached to or im osed u on the sub ect ro fart • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and 1.1.niitations of the approval. C. ,,'IAll , , of the , above ,,- s t !, tenants ' and , the , statements the plot , ' . plan, , attaC,htents, *. rand exhibits ',transmitted • herewith, . are ,' . and ' 'the.1, ‘., . aonlieanta''° so ' 'acknowledge ..' that - any .','permit ' issued,,, based, on this H! application, ,nay ',.be, revoked if it is found that any ',such ',.0tatementE2: are ' l' false. , .'',,,,'', , , '',11' ' ' ' ,i'' , ' , •''.. . The applicant has read 'the entire 'contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements-Ifet appreigig or denying the applicatioitt. 'SIGNATURES' of each owner (ego husband and wife) of the subject property. F * Crist under Margery F. Cris t Living Trust 11 am Scott Rua a 1. Individualiy and Estee for Trust Agreemmnta. dat d December 26, 1978 and D cs ib r 27, 1978 rederick, Xenry Individually and Estee for Z�u�� r � and Nay. 3, 1985 e , ._,. R weevil; �... . Nad .du fly and Trustee under 20e 1979 And bec ah 21, 10 /ti Vinciant Russell Trust Agrsente dated ' December and as o- conservator for Garai MEAD DM CITY OF TI, OREGON TO: Planning meai sgoner FROM: J ffer, Development Review Planner DATE: December 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Albertsons/Crist CPA 91 ®03 /ZON 91-08 On November 4, 1991, the Commission continued the hearing for the Albertsons Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to December property attempt to 16, 1991 tea'. allow the staff and the � designated area presently resolve the the ` essubject Site. Since that time, Mike Robinson, of the exists ®n th � City attorneys of f n.e:e s an d Garry McMurray, an attorney representing the property owners have spent • p �' a► substantial amount of time reviewin the case law and statutes pertinent determination of both � rat a s sta a Plan and zoning boundary. There is still disagreement at this time with regard to the current nt acr the a site that is zoned It appears th at this issue will need to be determined by either the City Council or a court. The applicants, Alb►ertsons, have submitted an addendum to the traffic study which is intended to provide alternative findings those previously submitted in the traffic study. These • alternative g r. findings are intended to reflect 5.0 . ® acres of 'C. ®Non the found that there are currently only n situ u. t lie zoning �. h y yhe existing subject property. �. point, This should not try At this o�.nt, staff recommends that the Commission N area issue. by to decide the � Thn.�c ass�a�. can be3t b� determined h the City Council or a court, if necessary, prior to th Council taking final action on the current application. Instead the Commis saon. should focus on the l�lhe rtsons Plan /Zone chance request . 1 -N Plan g existing ° ° l Profession 1. Change the oxi.�it�,n � ercaa �� zoning designations on the north side of the SW Walnut Street extension to Medium-High Den .3 ity Residential/ r R -25 Plan and zoning designations; 2 ▪ Change 8 acres of Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 Plan and zon�.trndesignations corner of Scholl Perry G at southeastern r'y the future Walnut extension; and, • Possibl Y �.. . increasing residential zoning densities either the north side of Walnut or ohof the commercial site to High ns�t Residential/R-40. the staff recommn a t on wit a regard remains the, : same `as vet presented,; November 4th hearing, ;'exce bt :with ,re of the 'current C- zoned area. Stagy Deny the applicants. request ,for redesignation of portion Of , 'tax, lot . " 100►;i o the General Co tea ial P .ann designation and C zoning district. " "Deny ... .a plicants ° request :for redesiguation of any :'portiann o ,, tax lot 100. with either" the : Medi 4 igh i ity., Residential or High Density Residential, ' Plan . dea,lgnations # .` and R-.;25 or R -40 zoning districts e • Direct staff to rk with the current. a plicaants, the applicants for 'recently denied or withdra applications to commercial des .gn bons , all' NPOa in ' t e . other interested parties 'on thy' dev= lopmaent . of new Plai and tl zoning de iguaticns patterned loosely upon the applicants discussion t y cial soaae�6 of � a cc�nn�.t ccaarr, Attached are the Albertisons traffic study addendum, a m -i orandum ,from Cal Woolery of NPO #7, , and a letter from Marlin and Marilyn Nopf er. If you do not stilt have the,November 4th packet for CPA .9l 03 /ZOU 91-0dr please let me krsw and X will have it copied LEGIBILITY STRIP CITY ' OF TIGARD Waehington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER » BY- CITY COUNCIL concerning Came ber (s) : S.LA , • Name of Owner: Pear a CriAt pP ° Name of A earn d�l�ae son's Inc. Address 17001 NE San Rafael City Portland State OR Zip 92' 1. Address ` of Property: Ra idc of SW Scholl® °e r road , ih ik:e so a + ed Nurra Blvd. Extension sion o Q� Tax Hap and Lot,' N ®(B) � � r ..c • Request's A egt gor poanorehenaive `Plan Maxi. aamend rent from Mediunn- 'Hi•h Den ®it Re= idential and one Chang!-PD 11e13dentia1 25 units acre ;; Planned vela m:at j ova2rA to the General . Commerci ., l Plan desiq t_ ion and C-G zonin for an el_• ht acre • areal in the soot carat ggadrant . of the Scholia Derr Road, ` urr v Blvd. ;extension intersection. In adelition, thee_1222_.icant reggedts Plan redo ®ignation freaaB 1►leiaahborhood mnnercial t Density Residential and a Iona .change from C -N Nei hborhood 'Commercial to R -40 1.11210.dential 40 units acre at the <,northeaat xadrant of the Schollo Murray intersection on a . 6 r 99 acre aaarcel z or alternatio bly to Hicxh . Deneit r . Gidential and R-40 for 4.5 acre . area rem zoned R-25 to the South of tine pro aed General Commerd .al . site: . Action: Approval as requested pp conditions Denial Approval with, ......_ Not• ice: Notice was Published in the new spaper, Posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X Owners of record within the re applicant owner( s) x The of f set stance required di ed Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected governmental agencies Final Decision:. THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SST' Hall, P.O. _.Hox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of 'inten with the Oregon Laud IIee Hoard of Appeals (LUFM) according to their procedures. 9 QLD sTIO s: If you have any que3tiona, pleage call the Tigard tit Recorder at 639-4171. b an/CPA91 -O3 • B STATE OF OREGON County of Washington City of Tigard L.,--That I served NOTICE ' OF PUBLIC SEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Bearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Nearing Notice /Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked ns at the addre�3s shown on he attached., list marked exhibit each BBon named gers w w M °' �. he ...= a_...( ,_� ddl+ of �1/VI.�oJQ S; 13�_. said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as here o attached® was posted on an appropriate -_— of / and deposit bulletin board On the day , 19 ; and a �.g in the United States Mail on the ; .;.,____ Postage prepaid. day of egcd Notice' Posted (:Fair Decision On11 "M «i.TbAtyb p. x'r�n d "b N±c sworn /af f it �,i to me on the c;+ ---� day of NOT e a PUBLIC OF 0 FL "Y. �,,i:rfission Expires: Person wh Lig V----;--8/1,00-1:4 FS- CO NOTICE 0 T I C E O F PUBLIC H F A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS !METING ON MONDAY, December 16,E 1991, AT 7.30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CPA 91- 0003 /ZON 91 -0006 FILE TITLE: Albertson's Inc. NPO NO: 7 APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. OWNER: Margery Criat, et al (Don Duncombe) Rt. 1 Box 792 17001 NE San Rafael Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97230 REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZONE 91 -0006 ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment approval from Medium -High Density Residential and a Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units /acre, Planned Development overlay) to the General southeast quadrant of designation he Scholl& 'Fazry Road /Murray Blvd. eight acre ion inter ection eou�thr gu �' In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to R -40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential nib of the 9 Y e) at the northeast quads Soholls /Murray intersection on a five acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R -40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R -25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. The General Commercial designation allows civic uses, commercial use including retail, financial, medical, and administrative services. The R-40 designation permits single family, duplex, multi- family dwelling units as well a mobile home parks, residential care, and group care facilities. NOTE: if' the proposed Plan /zone redesignationel by the applicant are not approved as requested, staff will ask the City Council to set the boundaries for the five acre C -N parcel. This five acre designation was approved by the Council in 1986 without firm boundaries. In addition, it is noted that the requested sizes of the various Plan and zoning designations may be varied ri d through the City Council's actions on this proposal. LOCATION.: !: Ea AAIV��s J�a®t olle Ferry Road at the proposed ounity Delopment Code Chapters 13.22,' WCT apt Murray m Extension lot 101) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Plan Policies '1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2 18.32, 18.56, 18 58 18.60, & 18. , Comprehensive 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2,'7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, 12'.2.x, & 12.2.2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13. id THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS OR THE PURPOSE 01? MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT A NG Y ON THE REQUEST PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF R PROCEDURE RULES THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT C E PROCEDURL AD�PTS�D OF CHAPTER 18.32 OD ITS HALL. MAY DO so IN ANYONE WISHING TO PRECENT WRITTEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY G. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY �3E�'PREiSENZ'8D AT WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT HE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL R'ECIEVE A S'IAi LB RL�'PORT RA , AND WRITTEN TE THE CITY THE PLANNING ISSIO MAY' CONTINUE THE PRESENTATION STIM PEN THi PUBLIC HEARING. BOTH O SDNTATYC)N FROM T Ia�rITE PLANNER; Q TION, OR CLOSE T PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE AP'PLICATIdDNf.�NIv' � P1�R8ON' S'UBMY'�'� RVIDENCE� IN SUPPORT TO THE r CATION AFTER I SUANCE OF TB ; „ OTICE , ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED _ TO REQUEST A 'e i�TltiT[TA�10E> OF ' HEARING. UNLESS `ARE IS A CONTINUANCE, IF A 'PARTICIPANT SO REQUESTS BEFORE ' THE CONCLUSION OF TM INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ' THE RECORD SHALL REMAIN OPEN ` FOR AT LIST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS 'A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLECAELB TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE 'HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT TEAT COMMENTS 'RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE' TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY,' APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES TO THE , APPLICATION WITH ' A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE OF APPEALS (LUBA) ALL DOCUMENTS, THE ' APPLICATION, AND EVIDENCE IN THE ABOVE —NOTED FILE ARE I AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED : FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT ° WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST q OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE FOR. FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF P NER a'iERR OFFER AT '639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL,' 13125 SW ' HALL BLVD . , OR CONTACT ' YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD P ING ORGANIZATION . (NPO) CHAIRPERSON: Cal Wooler PHONE NUMBER: 659 -4297 r • aim nig rr�r► glarA if/ 1111 se IR Iuh •1,1 7xi., • 2S104BD- 01600 .. . • • • • • . s '. WILLIAMS, DONNEL N AND STEPHANIE S 13865 SW FERN TIGA.RD OR 97223 2S104BC- 00100 • w•.•.0..0.... BOFFMAN, PAUL RUSSELL AND APLINC, ALYNNES 13985 stir :FRN TIGARD •.,•e:•.0 OR 97223E 2S1048C-- 00300''............ LUDLUM, ROBERT S AND JOHN ;'' F 14065 SW FERN ST TIGARD 2S1O4BC^ -00500 • o i LUDLUM4, ROBERT S 14065 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 OR 97223 2S104BC-00700 00 ................... C$O, MOON S /SANG Y BY DEPT OF VETERAN • S AFFAIRS -! TAX SECTION 14125 ` SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC- -00900 .•......••.•........ LUKER, DARLENB 4285 SW FERN TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-- 01400 .44 •o• ..w •diw•i • e PILMER, BRIAN V AND CONNINGBAM-aPILMEIRE R DIANE 13858 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -01600 • • . ;e• . w . ODELL, ROBERT X JR 13892 SW IIINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -01800 ... .•....' DAMON, GORDON L all AND DEBORAH 13.923 Spa BXNDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -02000 ........... BERN N0RYSSEITE BuILD8 RS, INC' 10400 S►4 ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON OR 97005 .r. 2S104BD- 0370, e e e e u w a el • r s• r r• r e r• BECKHAM, CARVE A MARILYN 12620 SW 135TH TIGARD 2S1042C -00200 . BRIDGWATER, DAVID R LORENE S 13995 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 OR 97223 2S104BC..;O0400 adoo•e.0 LUDLUM, ' ROBERT S . . JOANN F 14065 SW v4• ST TIGARD OR 97223, 2S104BC- 00600 aw'dr0000•o 000.00000_•.. BOHAN, THOMAS D 14115 SW FERN TIGARD .OR: D111223 2S104BC -00800 .•• owi.6•b•.0 • BOWMAN, MAR1IN S 14235 SW' FERN TIGARD OR 97223 2S1O48C °01000 oi.Mo.s..•w•os.aie . o•.w..a -' PORTLAND GENERA:. ELECTRIC COMPANY 121 SW SALMON ATTI�i : PROPERTY DEPA9RTNENT PORTLAND OR 97204 281O4B,A -01500 4. .4 • • • .,• • • FAMEHI, ,AI4IR P4 ADD CUTTING, CAROL L 13870' SW RINDON CT TI G ►RD OR 97223 2sl048h -01700 404 ciigin C 1391$ RIbTbON. CT TIGA°� OR 97223 .444 „'2S. 04BA'dO1.,I+ Oti/ Yr iG w i i 'w'w w ib i s tw i. DRA►GA, ROBERT /04, BENS L 3901 Sal` BX*4DON , ' T1 CARD OR 97223 251048; -02100 kbbRSE"T, ` RATNRYN 13847 S : iSINDON TIGARD + R' 97 • • i ri. • w O. 4,4 . • ft 28104130=0020 r • • :• • • KLICRITAT, VALLEY B; PO BOX 167 GGLUrENAALS WA 98620 23104AC' 00100 wwwwo'wwa.r w.i HL DINELOPMENT, INC PO" E302. 6400 • SE YHAWTBORNE BLVD PORTLAND OR 2510500.01300 ....•.•40.:...,.40.. EVANS, ROBERT V 12745 ;NE, NORRIS ST PORTLAND, OR 97230 2S104A8- -04700 w ......... BBNJFRAN DAP , INC PO B02 6400 503. SE ''HA 0 RNE BLVD POR OR 97228'17k' 2S104AB-13300 ........ BBNJFRAN , D : :4 .: ,t, _. PO BOX 6400 501 SE • : • RNE BLVD POR OR 97228 INC 25104AB -13500 40............ • !. D E ANDERSON INC 9363 SW BVTN —BLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 2S104BD- 001001 ..:l,a'.1... JOHANSSON, MARTIN' L JOAN ' 13535 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 2S1O4BD -00300 .♦•.:.•..4...•.• .. CAGLE, OTIS T RUBY G 13635 SW WALN[D'r' TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD -00500 .:.l.: ♦• •.•..a. ♦! NEWMAN,; JOHN P SHIRLEr' 12615 1 SW 136TH OT TIGARD OR 97223 2510450 -00900 4.. . IIANSON, ! RUSSEL2. AI�YD G i RUTH' 4040 'S10413040201 YHABAD LDBAVITOH 14355 "SW " SCHOLLS ., EAVZRTO P , OREG(N ERRY RD OR' 97007 t: 0- 01200, •.rrw.l..`'.. ♦ *..�•••�..o. 2S105L1 LEBANON. OR 97355 2510500- 01401 ... • 40 40 • ... ;d • CHURCHILTA, . MARGARET A' RT 1. 130X 405 BEAVERTON OR 97007 MORSE:.BROS. , ,1 PO BOX -7 2S104AB•13200 '000 040 .. • ..: 0 0 40 13ENJFR DEVELOP .1:4' „ INC P` BOX .6440 501 'SE BA ;ORNE BL OR 97228 4040 • . "40 •. .'• 2S104AE - 13400 ...... 40 40 ..... ... ■ BENJFRAN DEVELOP ,+'INC PO BOX 6400' 501 "SE BA ORNE BLVD PO OR 97228 2S104AB -13600 • 4040 +...v40 D B ANDERSON 9363 SW B --rit.tpti HWY HEAVER OR 97005 2510480 4-00200 40 40 ...:.. • . r, . e • a, oa • • ilAHIIESON, ." D DR JCE RITA 't3 13585' S'i11 WET TIGAR OR 97221 2S104BD- -00400 ,� • 4040';.,.: C00K. iBELEN B 13735 SW WALNUT TIGARD 2 s104BD- 00800' N'0RTON, JOHN S' AND KATHLEEN A 13590' SW WALNUT TIGARD COOK, ,i�ELEN E 1335 OR 97223 R 972 %A. o 1s133&:.-00300 11331.411.410203 4■••••■••••••••••■••0•••• MoDsIDE VILLAGE LW. 102608W GREENBIJRG RD. SUITE 400 PORTLAND, ca 97224 is133c:D-08700 ' , • . 1s133cc410400t •;•, • • •dd 'de • • 146ORR‘ HOPPER,'' MARLIN & MARILYN D 14190 SW SCHOLLS PERRY RD ntiCARD', OR 97223 1S244.141.411016., 4 4. 4 4 4:4 4 , 0, 111111‘;'■111 .01; WELT, PAUL G & latIsTINR 13909 SW c:RIST CT TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD-08800* ...... • 4 46 4 • 4' • 4* PERRY, RICHARD .7 & LISA 1S133CD-08900 ......... THOMAS, JERRY 14 & BARBARA 24 12027 SW WILTON AVE 7:IGARD OR 97223 i X 4 t ,970C S10SDA- 006043 .. ON ; CHRISTOPHER E EVERLY, " 411 97007 ,2S104BA =00200 •w «.•• .. .,a:...:: AS H, FRANK E JAMS 8 PBTERSCHMIDT, STEPHEN "J FRIDAY,' VICKI 'DIANE 12130 Sal 135Ti TIGABD OR 97223 2S104BA -00800 .....'.. « ..: ... .. e GRONETTA PATRYCK' AND SPINOZZY; "` JULIE 121 "12 S$ . WESTBQRY TIGARD 0fl '97223 2S104BA- 01000 ....... POHLMAN, ARTHUR JAMES AND SOTHHRLA%tD, JEANNIE ANN 1219E SW WESTURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA :01200 ... Y ........ a e' PISCITRLLI, VITO N 12232 SW' WESTBURY TIGARD OR 97223 • vireo 2S104BA =03300 117 000000e boob..« BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L 12087 SW WESTBURY TERRACE. TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -03200 .e «. «boob.e e• STEAL, ICHARD A/KENDRA IrbRA �T 12169 SW WESTBURY TERRACE IGARD OR 97223 2s104BA 0o0® .. .: .. WA TER ',WEST CORPORATXON iELD FOND : RUTH ,D BY' "GQARDThN MGMT 4380 SW MACADAM ,SUITE 380 PORTLAND OR: ' , 97201. 2S104BA� -00700 ' ' COON; 'MARY ANN 'R t3 22098 SW; WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD I-OR .97223 w,e .Y. 2S1048A -00900 • «...........'• • • • MCGEHEE, JAMES R PO BOX 25571 PORTLAND OR 97225 2S104BA -01100 .,. Y ......,,..... , . „.. . MCGE, JAMES R PO 'BOX 25571 PORTLAND OR 97225 2S104BA- 01300 ' .:..: BENNETT, RHONDA M 12254 SW WEST8DRY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 .Yee .: Y . 2S104H14,�03100 .:... e • • boob • HONG, JOHN & MAE R 12181 SW -WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR, 97223 R1 .rigw $ QR P7O 34 CT CAL OLERY 132 12356 SIN ND7223 - T , `." 9 Ali n AFFIDAVIT OF FILING STATE OF OGON ) county of Washington ) se. City of Tigard ) I, te1404ALJ/41.1f1:..--_-----...o.v being first duly .1sworn /3Tfirm, on oath depose and say= (Please print) That I am a /► / / D 7 ' The City of Tigard, Oregon. hatI served NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director ✓ Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard ! City Council copy (Public Nearing Notice /Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Narked A) was mailed to each named rsons at shown 0/lithe Exhibit list marked exhibit "B" on the '- day of h a cos s 19‘11 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as beret ttached, was posted on an ; appropriate bulletin in board y , / __� deposited on the da of . ` '.a�:� .. , 19 `'� , 19 and de Posited States Mail on the day of r Postage' prepaid. Li Prepared�,Noti e Posted (For Decision Only) Seib; V,w * L and sworn/ sworn/affirm . to me on the GV " day of NOT day PUBLIC OF OREGON ission Expires: -!P3 Person, wh delivered to POST OFFIGB, Subscribed and sworn /affirm to me on the o1 � .. day of 66t 'S AVIAl 93HIdX3 NoiSSIWWoo AlN ciS900'ON NO SSfl W Oa A NoT3ao-ailanc M VION S AVH NNYOt''W 1V3S `IV1a14A0 lokm /AFFID IV: BRM NOTARY My Commi IC OF O sion Expires:. NOTICE O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY November 4, 1991, AT 7 :30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD • • .CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE _FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CPA 91- 0003/ZON 91 -0006 FILE TITLE: Albertson's Inc. APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. (Don Duncombe) 17001 NE San Rafael Portland, OR 97230 NPO NO: 7 OWNER: Margery Crist, et al Rt. 1 Box 792 Beaverton, OR 97007 REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 9 -0003; 04 GE LON 91-0006' ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for .Comprehensive Plan Map amendment aResidential� 25 i unit units/acre, Ond a Zone-change frthe -2s (Pb) PF g Y (Residential, , Development overlay) to General CommercciialPa an designation and C -G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the south �drant of the Scholle Ferry Road /Murray Blvd. extension intereeotion. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redeeignation from Neighborhood /acre at the northeast adr quadrant of the Commercial.) to High C neity Residential ae a Z ,ne change from 074 qu Ne ant of the l and to R-40 Residential, 40 u Density /R� idential and R -40 for five acre area preare. els or alternativelg� to High resently zoned R -25 to the south of the po ®ed ro General Commercial site. The General Commercial designation allows civic ueeea, c ammo g administrative services. rcial use including; retail, financial,. medical, and The R -40 designation Permits Singie family, duplex, Multi -famit y dwellin g unite ae well a mobile home Perks, residential care, and gro p pp f the proposed Plan /zone redeaignations by the applicant are not approved as , y rou care facilities. NOTE t Ii the city Council to set ted staff will ask t.. requested* p . acre designation was the boundariee� for the five acre C -N arcel This five acr approved by the Ccuncil in 1986 without firm boundaries. In addition, lit it ie noted that the requested size° of the various Plan and zoning designations may of SW Sc through y City , proposed Murray E tennaion (WCTM 281 4B, tax side halls Ferr Road at the on this proposal. LOCATION Eae, the Cit Council a actions lot 01) APPLICABLE REVIEW ITERIA CRs Community Devel'oppinent Code Chaptere 18.22, lo+3 1 2, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60,'a 18.62; Comprehensive Pian Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2,''7621a, ,7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, *2.2.1, & 12.2.2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13. (see maP side) THE COMMISSIONS REVIEW IS FOR THE.. PURPOSE OF Reverse A REC0MMENDATiON TO THE CITY I REQUEST COUNCIL PRIOR TO MAILING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL ALSO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE G O THE P PUBLIC HEARING F ON CO MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE ,WITH THE RULES 320 �� RULES DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. '' ANYONE WISHIN .._.. TESTIMONY' .... ACTION MAY DO E0 I� WISHING TO PRESENT ON THIS PROPOSED IN WRITING PRIOR. TO OR THE PUBLIC' HEARING. ,..T THE . HEARING, THE PLANNIN COMM/SS/ON WILL RECIE� E A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC I UBLI ITY PLANNER; � C� L.I. OPEN THE P ING, AND I VI STAFF OTHOR AND WRITT ' MONY « COMM/SS/ON MAY CONTINUE THE C . , HEll►Ft ORAL 8N TLS'II THE PLANNING CaOM�iI NTINUE THE INVITE BOTH RESENTAT ON FROM PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL 'INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. 'IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE I. • W.! 'INCLUDED IN THIS, NOTE A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA AP CABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE:, TIGARD COMMON DEVELOPMENT 'CODE ;; AND THE', TIGARD . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR ;DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST ,BY, THE octimrssaoN i ILr,L 'BE 'BASED UPON THESE 'CRITERIA AND 'THESE CRITERIA :ONLY., AT THE 'HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE RE ST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO .THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. ` • FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE , TO' RAISE ' AN `.ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY :.SO,, AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY,` APPLICANT,,' OR OTHER .'PARTIES` TO 'THE APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL- ON • MID ISSUE ' °TO' THE 'STATE' LAND USE BOARD OF - APPEALS '(LUBA) . ALL DOCUMENTS, THE APPLICATION, AND E"VIDENI ° IN THE ABOVE-NOTED , BILE ARE AVAILABLE 'FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED 'FORA TEN CENTS ; PER PAGE. AT LEAST ' SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ' THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT . NO COST, OR .A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TES, CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF' PLANNER JERRY. OFFER AT 639 - 4171,: TIGARD CITY HALL,; 13125 SW HALL BLVD.', OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING3 ORGANIZATION (NPO) I _ L ... CHAIRPERSON: Cal Woolery PHONE NUMBER: 639 -4297 bkm/CPA91 O3 . BEM lull', „a, NOON ETENSl01, ass riga 6 s, W. WALNUT st EZZL6 110 a1 rfoXs NOUN B MS,' ! 8ET NJf►2nav 'masuoa' w . . ...; .. • OOTZO —vat otSZ EZZL6 0 aavoxa x3 NOUNIH MS t06Et NSamwo., ,/4 aalzao i 'YOV1U • • • • • ... f ... • • q i. • • . OO6t0` t?Otsz EZZL6 so auvoiI 3 NOWC.. H 8t6ET O V'IUV3 V 3 HS aNNB}I ' NOSNHOr • • .y o • • ' • • .'e o . i ,• • • • oo tO- vstOTSZ, EZZL6 U0 QUVOIS MO NOUNIH MS;OLBEt 'I 1101110 'ONILSI10 tlNV H 'aim ''IH3xma •�.••••�••• .Y OOS;TO -YgvOTSZ ..... 'OZt 6 110 0w4rIa?m0d zusintxuvaaa aoua:t ix NOWIVS MS t ZT AMVaf 0© 0'11.1087R rIVESKED aNV'LTUOd ..•••..r•••Y• 000TO- 0StOTSZ 00.00... EZZL6 110'' II 0 0' 4110000000 .EZZL6 U0 000000 0.00.0000 auw0ls NUna MS I S£Ztt S NIMI W ' NY%IMOS •.. 00 000- 0H%OTSZ GUVOLL .1183,1 MS StTtit a SVROHS 'MYYHOS .•.. 0090O-OSIOTSZ 'EZZL6 U0 0UVOls AS MS S90$T a .tw or s A1I5 0! °WQ'IQfl'I .. ... ... .... 0016'00- 0SPOTsZ EZZL6 ''1I0 U VOLL AS NMI& MS 566£t S 0'I atIV sI aiAYa dmzam rlWaIiia ***°*** 00E00-3gtotSZ aDLs MISET MS OZ9Zt smEraim aMVV 'was ',OL£O- cavgtsZ 'EZZL6 40 50046 2i0 NOSZUBAA '8'H awls NY MS OO,OT 0NI '- S'aaq'Iina axxassz iow . , , ► » , » ., o .. • 00020'- vavOTSZ EZZL6 $0 QUVOI Tom"] NOONIH MS £Z6£t Hvtoilsa aN? 2ir 7 NOCRIOO `N01XVa • . ******°"*"""""' 008TO- VStOTSZ EZZL6 110 ativeil NOUNIH' MS Z6l3ET w I2i8Ho t '77S00 • / • • • 009T0-VS60tSZ EZZL6 U0 011vpix A0 HOcNIH Ms SS8£t BNKIa i 'maN7Id- HvHsNINN0O' amv A "IIEVIES��{'�ii�8j/�l'IId 1 •• . • • . • ootto' ` tOTSZ EZZL6 110 EZZL6 110 0000.... • • EZZL6 ZIP aUVDL Named 'MS S8 I t 8NS'IuvcI 'am= 00600-08f'OTSZ 0HVOIS AS ;MHZ MS SZtt't' uoxwaS - suIvw 5.1 U21T A dA ut I►8' A s/s low ;.'ow) `,••,•••• 00L00- 0S,OTSZ a301DIz SSA[ MS 5901t` S LIMOS 'W1'Iatl'Y . ... .. 00S00-3e otS EZZL6 ZI0< CANDIL ZS trial MS S9Ott 8 NNVOr atm s m ssom 'wa lun t . • .. • ootoo-ODUOtst 000 00.000001, £ZZL'6 )I0 aurora; NMI !' NS .:S86Et N M1111i °WIWI UNfi erISSS1111 'ma 'NMWUC8 . .................. ..•••••• .00T00- OSb0t6Z • £ZZL6 ?t0 • • 0UMDLL t ts8 . MS ' S98Et S '$IN UJUS N ,'1 1110(1 'overrun --------- Q09tO GatO `Sti • 2510480 - .00200 . .. • • . • • ! ! KLICXITAT VALLEY' PO BOX 167; GOLDENDALE . Wit 98620 28104AC- 00100 °'.... ... °.. • • • . • • . • JFRAN DEVIn4PMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE inAWTMORNE ffi.VD' PORTLAND OR 97228 2810500 -01300 ,. EVitHS, ROBERT V 12745 NE MORRIS ST PORTLIOID OR 97230 28104AB- 04700- .. BENJFRAN 'DEVELOP PO 80* 6400 501 SB "RA PORTLY► • • .'• • • • . • . • • • w • • • . 'INC RNE BLVD OR 97228 2S104ABr13300 ..,......'..•.........e BEEMAN DEV , INC PO BOX. 6 400 501 SE BLVD POR OR 97228 25104AB -13500 r.r.w.•• ••••• • • D 8 ANDERSON INC 9363 SW BVTN -HLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 2S104BD- 00100 .•• ••••••• •w••• •• JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN 13535 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD -00300 .r• • ••e.••..•• CAGLE, OTIS T RUBY G 13635 ', SW WALNUT` TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD- 00500'•.r..w.•.•••..w•w.. ••• NEWMAI, JOHN P SHIRLEY A. 12615 SW 136711 CT TIGA.R 2S104BD- -00900 • HArb'SON, RUSSELL G RUTH OR 97223 2S104B04 ,1 201' w .y 'caAL.AD ,i LUBAVITO oZ' 14355 Sti7 'S cH0LLS =1 F]F BEAVBRTOp 0 • • e•••.• R :97007 2510500•. 01200 • :'...... :, • • ' . MORSE BROS., INC PO HOX 7 =um" OR 97355 2S10500 -01401 ••...•.•••,........•• CHUR�CBILL, MARGARET A RT 1 BOX 405 BEAVERTON OR 97007 .2S104AB -13200 ..... ••••1•• •••••••0 BENJP'R 1 DEVELOP INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE HA !DORMS! BLVD OR 97228 2S104A8- X13400 • ... • ... . 60000 BENJFRAN DEVELOP INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE HA. ORNB' BLVD FOR OR 97228 2S104AB -13600 ..•. •••. D' E` ANDERSON 9363 SW B -HLSDL HWY' BEAVER OR 97005 2S1048D -00200 ...•••••••.•••••,..••••• JAMIESON, D BRUCE RITA E 13585 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 >. 2S104BD -00400 •,...•..•' COOK, MEN ; E 13735 SW WALNUT TIGARD • OR 97223 2S1045D -00800 • • • •.•.• NORTON, 'JOHN S AND KATHLEEN .A 13590 SW WALNUT TIGARD 2S104BD -01500 ...• .,.•. COox, HEL 13735 Ski; . rim ST OR 9722; • • • w • • 131330C••00400 , 4 MOORE, LELA M ESTAT14 'r ^ % HOPPER, MARLIN II & IWULYN D ' 14190 SW SCHOLLS FERRY IU TIGARD OR 97223 1S1330D-00201 .. 4.00 *woo • • r. • , WOODSIDE VILLAGE LW. PARTNERSHIP 10260 SW GIIMEtiBURG RD. SUITE 400 PORTLAND, Oft 97224 1S133C1)...08760, ee■ el.. o ce eoeeete• or • I'D MILLER, NAimW H AND ILB2111 R 13887 SW C1:118T CT TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD-011900 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . THOMAS, JERRY 14 & BARBARA M 12027 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 1s133w,"-08600 v/ELTY, paut. C & 1CRISTIIIE 14 13909 SW MIST CT 'TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD-08800' .... .... PERRY, norm J ia rasa 13865 SW MST CT H TIGARD Oit 97223 2:31041Bli=.00800 se'■,;■'■ o ■ ■'■;'4O ■ ■ • ■ o ' - 2810413116-00900 ,11;■1 ,a; re • '411 049 Ar iv • • PO, BOX 25571 IPORTLAND OR '97225 251.048A-01100 MCGEBEE, ,JAMES R ' PO BOX 25571 , PORTLAND OR 7225 2S1048A-01600 tb' ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ I JAMES AND JEANNIE ANN 12196 SW tfiltSTURY strfrar,LmaD, TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 2S1048,1i-01200 ........... rip ...... IIISCITELL/,, VITO 12232 SW WESTBURY TIGARD OR '97223 . ' 2i104111*..01406 '• r• • • ■ tow', BENNETT, '"NNONDA 12254 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR r§i121 2S104BA..03300 4'4'1 oie••••• os BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L 12087 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-03200 s • STEPH, RICHARD A/KENDRA J 12169 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 ■ 281046A-413100 • oio • or we • • • • • ■ op HONG, JOHN & MAE R 12181 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD- ;00900 HANSON,,,, RUSSELL GRIJTE" 13540 SW WAI NUT TIGARD 2310411A-02200. • ..r DUNK, EOSIN ilaitaaor. 12083 SW WILTON AVE TIGAItD. OR 97223 + ..104111‘,-.023 TtaC1G1lRD,. DAVID A/MARGARET S 12081 SW WILTON AVE TIG4IR1 OR 97224 E 1 DUNQOMSE`'. ALBERTSON' S :INC. /7001 NE SAN RAFAEL PORTLAND, OR 9723() U0IiN W. SCE\J1VICA ILER, 5335 SW MEDOWS SUITE 251 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 CAL !` ' boLER 12356 SW 132ND CT TIGARD, OR 97223 IEW BL $S105DA- 00400 ..... ., ...; SPEZZA, BDD C iB) 2 DAVIS„ ; MICHAEL AND "JBANNE 5970 SW SPRUCE BEAVBRTON _., �,,,' _ OR .:9700! IL 28104BD- 01600'••.• ••..• •••• WILLIAMS, DONNEL N AND STEPHANIE S 13855 SW :FE TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC 00100 • • .000 • HOFFMAN, PAUL RUSSgLL AND APLING,,ALYNNE M 13985 SW FERN TIGARD OR 97223. • 2S104BC- 00300 • ••• 0 .1 *00000 LUDLUM, ROBERT S AND JOANN F 14065 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC- .00500 sb••o.•••'rs••r•••i••• LUDLUM, :R.OBERT , 'S 14065 SW ' FNPN ST TIGARD OR 97223 25104BC- 00700 • «.••.•••r...••.••••• • CHO, MOON'S/SANG Y BY DEPT OF VETERAN'S AFFAIRS — TAX SECTION 14125 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC00900•••••••• • •••••••••••• LUBER, DARLENE 14285 SW FERN TIGARtJ, OR 97223 2S104BA -01400 ••••••••••••••••••••• PILMER, BRIAN V AND CUNNINGHAM— PILMER, R DIANE 13858 SW HINDON _ CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01600 ......•...o...... ODELL, ROBERT M JR 13892 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -01800 •.••..s..••.ii.e•••b• DAMRON, GORDON L JR AND DEBORAH R 13923 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -02000 •b'..•.••. «•'••r..••r HERB 1KOR ISSRTTE BUILDERS, INC 10400 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON OR 97005 2S104BD -037d BECKHAN, GARVS' A MARILYN, 12620 SW ..135TH TIGARD «. • .. . • • e • • . •'♦ • • • ••• OR ;97223' '28104BC -00200 •••••••••• BRIDGWATER, DAVID R AND LORENE S 13995 SW FERN ST TIGARD • • OR 97223 •• • 2S104BC- 00400,; ....'. • .•••••••••••• LUDLUM, I ROBERT S JOANN F 14055 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC •00600 BOHAN, THOMAS 14115 SW FERN, TIGARD A OR 97223 25t104BC -0000 ' e • s s' ••••1••••••,••••• BOWMAN, MARVIN S 14235 SW FERN TIGARD OR 97223 2510421C —°1°°° •.••••••>•.•••••. •••. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 121 SW SALMON ATTN a PROPERTY DEPARTMENT PORTLAND oR 97204 2S104BA- 01500 ••;.,.. •.'.••.400.0.0. PATER', A1"IR M AND CUTTING, CAROL L 13970 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA -01700 •••. «..•. •.•.•.. JOHNSON, KENNETH CSC'ARLA C 13918 HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223' 2S104BA- 019004•4•4t4.4, b•.••..••.•.' DRAGA, ROBERT F/C1THLEEN L 13901 SW HINDON CT TIGARD 1 OR 97223' 2S1048A- 02100 .:•...b.••.b:• «••••• DORSETT, I THRYN 0, 13847 sn . B]NDCN CT TIG ?.;itD OR 97223 12949' SW WALNUT' TIGARD OR 97223 2S104B0 •00200 •...•'i.••............ KLICKITAT VALLEY BARK ' PO BOX ' 167 GOLDENDALE WA 98620 2S104AC -00100 ••.•e•••••••,••i•••.l...• BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97228 2810500 -01300 •.•••• •.••.•••••••••. EVANS, 'ROBERT V 12745 N8 MORRIS ST PORTLAND OR 97230 25104AB -04700 •..`....» .. .. BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE HAWTHORNS BLVD PORTLAND OR 97229 2S104AB -13300 ..- ..•...•..••..e•.•. BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 _ SE HAWTHORNS BLVD PORTLAND OR 97228 23104AB- 13500 .. ... .. ... . D E ANDERSON INC 9363 SW BVTN -RLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 X 792, VAS 00' 2810480. -00201 • •.•.•••••••,•.e • • CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF OREGON 14355 SW ,SCROLLS 'FERRY > RD BEAVERTON 2810500 -01200 MORSE BROS., INC PO BOX 7 LEBANON OR 97007 o • -e OR 97355 2810500 -01401 ......•,..•••.• ••i•.' CHURCHILL, MARGARET A RT 1 BOX 405 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2S104AB -13200 •.•.e. • BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 as HAWTHORNS BLVD PORTLAND OR 97228 23104AB -13400 G.• ... ••..•.. .... BENc1F'RAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97228 ...0 2S104AB -13600 .•.e.• D B ANDERSON INC 9363 SW BVTN- -HLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 2S1O4BD -00100 . • . • ....... • JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN 13535 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 23:104B0000300 ...•.. ••..••..,...••. CiiGLE, OTIS T RUBY ,G 13635 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 28104BD- 00500 w + o . e .. i • NEWMAN, JOuN P SHIRLEY A 12615 SW 136TH CT TIGARD OR 97223 •• 281048D -00900 .. w.•e.•• ..i:... .' !ANSON, RUSSELL'R AND G RUTH 2S10.48D -00200 w....i.! JAMIESON, b BRUCE RITA E 13585 SW WALNU TIGARD' OR 97223 2S1O4BD -00400 ...... • . • .. • ...I.• . • CONK, BELEM 8' 13735 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 2$1048 D -00800 .••.. » »•..•. ..�'.•. NORTON'; JOHNS AND KATHLEEN' A 13590 SW WALNUT' TIGARD 251048D -01 COOK, HBLBN .B 13735 Sw WALNUT ST OR 97223 2S104BA -02400 ,'. h... • o ..;. . KLEIN, STEVEN MARGARET LYNN 12049 ',SW WILTON A TIGARD ' OR 97223" 2S1o4Bh 024.00 • • • • •:....... s ..•; •' • 4 • a L RS,, BILL MI, AND DESBIE, L 13916" SW ISTI TIGARD OR, 97223, 28104BA' 02/OO.' • •r• • • •'• • • (i`s', PHILLIPS, JOHN P/ICRI8TI ' a 13938 SW C,RIST TIGARD OR 97223 1!133CC -003 ©o ••• ••••••••C•• • •.•S;. CLARK, . GEORGE V' . MARGUERITE A • 381 OAX' LW ' DR EUGENE 15133- 40400 .'. •».•••'••d..b '04 :,11' ESTATE „ • % HOPPER, •MARLIN H..& MARILYN . A • 14190., ;,61+1 'SCHOLLS FEARY • IRD ' TIo O'R, 97223 18133CD- 00203`.•. +..... •.•••..: 181330- 08700 • • .. • • •'..... • « • • MILLER, MATTT H AND ILENE R. 13887 SW GRIST CT TIGARD OR 97223 18133CD -- 08900 ....•.•••.:••...• THOMAS, 4HRRY N & SAREARA M 12027 SW WILTON ' AVE TIGARD OR 97223 1i81330D -08600 • . •.• ., • • • • WELTY ;PAUL G & RIRISTINE l! 13909 S'W CRIST' TIGARD OR . 97223 18133CD -08800 .,. •" • . • • • . • . . • • • . • PERRY, ;RICHA'RD r7 & LISA 13865 8W OTST CT TIG AI D OR '97223 ' 12660.` SW ` :13� TIGARD 2S10413D -00900 .......:...: ".. ., WASSON, RUSSZtL R A tD 13540` SW ;WALNUT a,1GARD OR 022. 2S104BA -02200 ... » .. D►UNN, ; 1�6FVIN L /CAROL 12063, 8' ' WILTON AVL T GARD .' OR 97223 BEVERLY A RT 1 BOX 4 9700' 28105DA -00601 • :1. ,'b ` • JACKSON, : 'CHRISTOPHER E AND BEVERLY," RT 1 BOX R 9700' 2S104BA- +00200 1.: ..:• ....o . •. • .... . . ASSMAN, FRANK .B. JANIE E • PETERSCHMIDT STEPHEN IJ FRIDAY, VICKI DIANE 12130 SW' 135TH �1 TIGARD OR '' 97223 y d 251043A -00900 «:'�r•••••e••• ••••,•• ORoNETTA, PATRICK' AND SPINUZ Z I, • JULIE 12112 SW WESTBURY TIGARD OR 97223 251043A- 01000' •I•• "300•••••••••8••••••' POHL MAN, : ARTHUR JAS AND SUTHERLAND, • JEANNIE ANN '12196 SW'WESTURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 28104BA 01200 •• • :,••••••I' PISCITELLI, VITO 'N 12232 SW WESTBURY TIGARD OR 97223 2S1043A -03300 •• .•...•• ••• • BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L 12087 SW WESTBURR,TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 8104BA•OO10C ALTER;' WEST CORPORATI HELDFOND., RL �y.l. GUARDIAN 380 SW HAOA • ASS SUITE RTLAND OR 97201; 281048A=00700 COIN, . MARY ANN 12098 SW' WgSTBURX TIGARD'' ,OR 9722 201048A -00900 1463E BEE, JAMES PO ',BOX' 25571 PORTLAND,, OR 97225 TERRB 0 5 ••.,;• .« •' • -• •• • •,.• •1 • •• 2S1Q48A•O].100 • • • • « • • :. • • • •• i4CGEHEE,.JAMES R PO BOX 25571` _L P RTLAND aR 97225 2E10488A -01300 • ••• •.• •. •. «p' 'BENNETT,' RHONDA 14 • 12254 SW' WESTBURY TERRACE T IaARD oB 97223 • . 2S. . 1048A- 03100 ...•.....••..•.0, 2S1O4BA -03200 ••••••••••G•••••cSSSS STEPH, RICHARD A/KENDRA J 12169 SW WESTEUURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 HONG, . JOHN_ & . MA,E R 12181 SW WESTEURY TSB TIGARD OR .Ha 97223 • INGTON i9° 40" 237:, 629°<47 SCALE N 520 -24' 03" E S: s!! t4' 03" W 550:56: 3t14A N' 0•54`E T 1171.5 AND- . N•61r'37'W 425.26 AND N_ 00 51°E 1249.20 _FEET FROM INE SE CON. .OF SEC. 5- SY DEED FO :1la` IF SE CON. 976/019 S11- Dna a C.3.7111' 3 71111' N 890 49'W 421.29 AND N 0054''E 1752.15 FROM Tt1e SE CAR. Of SEC. S .26 BY DEED. (9 57° 13' 42" E 144.26 .) 44,2E S S9° 34 ,40" E 424.23 N t90 34'40" W /44.53 5 00 2.75Ac N 00 3e' '55 "E 1400 FROM THE SE: COS. SEC. S N S9° 21' OS "W 179 LEGIBILITY STRIP 1/4 CORNER' CANCELLED TAX OM., 503,3301,21100, ; p 100<." 33004;2602, 3301,3302 ;307,2601 - 1409,14 02,14 03,15 01, 1 803, 2400,2404 2300,25042600,, ,2600, 2e03,2604'2700f2soo,2601, _2602,2003,1904,2901,2902, .2903, 300013001,3002,3003, 3003,3100,3104.3102,3103; 3104,3103,-3200,32043300,:' 340,3401,3402,3500,33.02, -- 3600,3401 3602,3=03, 3704,370d,3701,3702, =: 3703,2202,2203,1001,._ • • -- ^v... 4:34' i . b` '1011e. i 3696 -3 5t W 332., 25' 1000 'e+ .IDAc. . 1101 1.34Ae• ! A • des 1502 a. 1600 a 4.48 Ae. 0-0' an • 2001 IJSAt. see 12t .: 337 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER LEE [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] NW I/4 NE 1f4 SECTIaN 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY SCALE RNER • 8400 !t 113 142' 8500 0 114_ Zt 142' 4200 si NITiAL P t121.232910507 $ 12.32 157 t ,..0 4b 77.16 - t58 � Sif Of 83.37 t 1 , '5216 --\ ^ i t3i00 It �4 °49.12800. M= 59 e 93.116 to5.50 11400 0 143 1779 ` i4' .is too 0 3 lO414.a p 11000 ioo 139 `102.02 4 -22 Z64 109.32 2.12700 g 155 10 • .51 in 100.13 11700 146 n 30fl.07 TR. CC TRACT [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] r REQUEST FOR COMPORTS DATE: S a tembe 1 2, 19 91 FROM Tigard Planning Department RE 22MEBpHENSIVA, PLAN AMEND +: NT CPA 91- . 003 .ME " z a ON '..91 -0006 �M`L d l r Com prehensi tan Map amendment from Medium-High D ei � Residential Bone change from R -25 ) pme Overlay) to the General (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development y Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholia Ferry Road /Murray Blvd. extension . Rse requests nt Plan redesignation from intersection. In addition, the applicant Neighborhood Commercial rc vial g to R 40 Y e al and a Zone change from C -N (Neighborhood ) - (Residential, 40 units /acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre area p zoned R alternatively to the south of the proposed General Commercial or alternative) to High area resently Density Residential and Pi 40 for acre P sisite. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholl' Fer ry Road at the proposed y lot 101) Muria Extension (WCTM 2Sl 4H, tait • A. // Attached is the Site Plan and applicant' a statement for your review. From . information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will. be prepared re arced and a decision wii be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your conte by Se .23, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your cements. If you are unable to resvosr�dby the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard I f ou i Planning Department/ NE:` g P an ®e g � 7223. HO 639�6171. � • ' 13125 SW P t, PO Box 23397, Hall. Blvd., Ti and OR 9 STAFF CONTACT: _.. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TEAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no'objectione to it. Please contact. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Writtev Comments: of our office. Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number ikm /CPA91 -,03. BKM; a NPO '*0,. FOR ALL ICAT copies) CITY ,DEPARTMENTS '' ii],diflg Inspector /Brad R Recorder Lng r remits Coordinator /Violet SPECIAL' CTS Fire District (pick -up box bldg.) Tigard Water ;District. 8777 SW Burnham St. Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Water. District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 AFFECTED JURISDIOTICEPIS ash. CO. Land Use i'Tranap. 150 N. First Ave. Hills , OR 97124[1 Brent Curtis {( JCR/yin Martin /aunt Rice - -� Ring Eberle ®► eorreson Jim Hendrya City of Beaverton PO Box 4755 Be verton, OR 97076 State Highway Division Lee • Gunderson PO Box 565 oor, e Beaverton, OR 97075 w,w e r ewr w o• a e w ww a .'.w s e e we a .. w w w4 o SPECIA% AGENCIES CPO Parks & Recreation Police 1 Diet. No. 148 (Bea Joy Pahl APO Box 200 Beaverton, OR 97075 achooliDiatrict 233 (Tg 13137 , SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, -ORR - 97223 - Boundary Commission 320 SW Stark Room 530 .Portland, OR 97204 );' 2000 SW lst Ave. Portland, OR 97201 -5398 DLcD (CPA's only) 11.75 Court St. ME Sales, OR 97310 -0590 • Other • •e•o! wr•'e'o•re•.rw- G•rr'4•rrerr. Portlend General Bleetric Brian Hoore 14655 SW 01d. Sccholli Perry Beaverton, OR 97007 General Telephone Mike Lutz 12460 SW Main St. Beaverton,, OR 97007 NW Natural Gas Don Thomas 220 NW Second Ave. Portlaind OR 97209 TCI Cablevieion Of O egdn, In .1 3500'SW'Bond Portland, OR 97201' Metro Area Communications. Harlan ,Kook Twin Oaks 'Technology Center. 1815 NW 169th P.. late 56020 Beiavertbn, OR 97006 -4886 - US West Pete Ne1iion 421 SW Oak St. POctland, 0R 97204 Halloo •.' »Jlli 1,14. ro ` ORISND CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Planning Commissioners FROM: f fer, Development 'Review Planner DATE: ' December 9 , 1991 SUBJECT: ,A.lbertsoans /Grist CPA 91-- 03 /ZON 91 -08 On November 4, 1991, the Commission continued the hearing for the Albertsons Comprehensive Plan Amendment an d Zone Change to December 16, 1991 to allow the staff and :the property owners to attempt to resolve the issue of exactly how much, C-N designated area presently exists on the subject site. Since that time, Mike Robinson, of City attorneys office, and Garry McMurray, an attorney representing the property owners, have both spent a substantial amount of time win the case law and statutes pertinent to determination Lion of evie �, � disagreement at this reviewing and zoning boundary. There a g �► is still d time with regard to the current acreage of the portion of the site that is zoned 'C-N. It appears that this issue will need to be determined by either the City Council or a court. The applicants, Alber. t son � have submit t ed an n addendum endu m to the e traffic u• intended to provide altern ative findings to those previously submitted in the traffic s tud y. These alternative findings are i ntended to ref lec t the existing situatio n if it is f ound that are cu Trent1 Y only 5. acres o -��n n g ont e subj ect property. At this point, staff recommends that the Commission should not try • C-N issue. can best be determined by o decide the o ncil or a court, if necessary, , prior to the Council the City Council current application. Instead the taking final � d focus on the A.lbertsons Plan /Zone change request: Commission_ should 1. Change the existing Commercial Professional/C-N Plan and g of the SW W zoning Walnut ang designations on the north side, Street extension to Medium-High Density Residential/ R -25 Plan and .;zoning designations- change 8 a of medium-High .. . .. ity .Residential/H- . 25 acres bens. Plan and zoning designations to General Co erci l/ -G at the southeastern corner of SW , Scholls Ferry and the future Walnut extension; and Possibly increasing residential`, Plan and zoning densitS r on either ..the north side of Walnut , or south of t commercial site to High Density Residential/R-40. November 4, 1991 Recommendations, of NPO #7 . for the Albertson 's' application,: 19 NPO #7 recommends denial o:; the Albertson's' application. . ) The density transfer proposed would adversely impact the adjacent single family development. • Further, NPO #7 supports staff' recommendation for denial. NPO! #7 recommends location of the C -N area to the Southeast Quadrant of the Murray alignment and Scholls Ferry Road. NPO #7, also supports the Planning Department's request to develop a new "middle ground commerical°° zone on a city -+wide basis but NOT as a consideration for the Albertson',s application. NPO #7 ;recommends the size of the C-N be reduced to 2 (two) to conform to the two acres t Neighborhood Commercial in the Comprehensive designation i ensure P n since the present size�is non - conformity pfor'a C -N desi gnation, .) This 2 acre C-N at the Southeast Quadrant does not conflict nor create a major change with SUB 90- 04 /PDR 90 -04. Respectfully submitted, Cal: Woolery, Chair NPO #7 4;� the g `aposed° Walnut arx31Murray, extnaasi lie the fine O ate. `ass of the 14stw should be expanded' to include adjacent 4.6 :acres .fora total of 9.6 `acres. A nail buffer zone of apartments could w be , cre .. I V � ♦ � the ,carnnercial site and the �sting� resic1ences cg., �lbdvis`ons ,if .there are objections to a ,c4cia next door to those property owners. ink ' • for your onsideratic in tl matter y el n w m I Sincerely Yours �� _ �iis � • • A . Ar ritaill is psylrztio . : to . 144- %■. 11 WA • sei • ow imp ■///11` : isill /gam �� • 01111111 ";� -1,1111i 1,1,bigm , 71l■ •emu,- -"711111i 11111c1 111111111111 16110 41 November 26, 1991 Mr. ,ferry Offer Land Use Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 : Albertson's Traffic Analysis Addendum # 2 RECEIVED PLANNING DEC 0 '2 1991 SOClATED ANSPOR TA TIOIV GINEERING & ANNING. (ATEP, (503) 636 -9232 (O3) 743 -4491 Dear Jerry: City i�►nl r Attorney This ty . , response John Short e , letter is �n res once t® discussions between C Staff and Mr. at Law representing Albertson's regarding the size and location of the existing zones. This letter is being submitted because of the issue of whether the property north of the Murray Extension is comprised wholly of Neighborhood Commercial or split five (5) acres and 1.99 acres commercial - multi - family. As a result/ ATEP is submitting tehg the s add end um o cover t. he option that t e city ultimate determines that the Neighborhood Commercial Was originally live (5) acres and no larger. This addendum is divided into three parts: Alternative C • °Neighborhood Connmerdal 'is Only five (5) acres in size. Alternative D1 The new R -40' zone would be 'located on SW Walnut Alternative D2 - The new R-40 zone would be located an SW Scholls south of the new eight acre commercial zone. 4040 ' DoUGLA5 .AY LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97038 P.0, e0XC 13185 SALEMk 011 97309 66.9232 rid' Retail Center Addendum'' 1 f t � ri h h h ... 1� 4'..� :••' --•�.... ,.�h ei • K r ; .1� �, .. 1Y.. .�....v, jay., �• his alternative would construct a 47,510 square foot grocery store on the existing zone of five acres of Neighborhood commercial. The development would require two driveways onto the Murray Extension, one driveway would be' located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of SW. Scholls Ferry Road`'' and the second would be at the south property line of the zone. TRIP GENERATION Procedure one as listed on pages 11 and 12 of the orginal ATEP report was used An the development of this report. The figures shown in Table 1 below, represent the expected` number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m peak basis regression found on page 1150 Seaion bans based on hour the mathematical r ression equations 820; of the Trip Generation Manual, (4th Edition). Table trip Generatio n For Five Acre General commercial rcia Land Use. Tigard Retail Center Addendum #2 i November 25, 1991 'Page 3 The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 1 and 2 are shown in Table 1. Table evel of Service for Five Acres of Neighborhood Commercial Land Use. literaectic� S.W ScF�ollc & Murr Oldh Sd► is `& New Scholls. '' r IIrrsN het & 'South SMite Dr ve , Flrat Site'Orive This alternative describes the impact of the proposed development eight (8) acres of Neighborhood Commercial located on the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Extension. The R-40 high density Multi-family zone would be located on the Murry Extension at the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Extension. Figures 3 and 4 shows the trip distribution of the two sites and Table 2 indicates the level o service at the surrounding intersection for this alternative. Table 2 - Level of Service for General Commercial Land Use. PM PEAK Intersection (Critical LOS Ave ,Reserve, %Movement) PM Delay Capaciity. S.W. Scholls & Murray 'Ext. Old Scholls it New 'Schott*. EB Tint ® 34.8 S: hops. '�� 'Drive NB Left :E . 1M 5c t&. rat. Site �rx e 1 s.W Scholls a Second Site Drive " NB Left MurraV Est & Site Drive EB Leh lERIPst/i, inkfinth .:„ . ." "0 .•0 •■• 0 0 This alternative describes the impact of the pro development eight (8) acres of Neighborhood Commercial located on the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Extension. The R-4t0hiehdoesnesd eight density re rn Multi-family zone would be locateceIoaln.SW Scholls Ferry Road to the south of the proposed s of Neighborhood Commercial h two sites and Table 3 indicates e Figures 5 and 6 shows the.triP distribution of , the level of service at the surrounding intersection for this alternative. „ G able -',Level of Service for eneral Commeraal Land Use. • „ . . . Table 4 is a comparison of the level of service impact between Alternatives C, Dl and D2. Included in table 4 is the orginal alternatives described in Addendum 1 of the orienal ATEP report dated October 15, 1991. endue Novem rvice comparison between Alternativ 14 r ti -r✓ 7 t F'.ti Table 4 indicates that the street system as proposed . by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study is sufficient to handle the change in land use zoning regardless of the location of the land use change. If there are q q uestions regarding the assumptio ns in this p lease cmnac at 7434491 or I will answer them at the public hearing December 16, 1991. Sincerely, ASSJCIATED TIIMS'ORT1TION ENGINEERING & PLAN NI NS . (MEP) P ) NORTH 5'C►' NORTH GAO SGY�.i�S EDIBILITY STRIP ; * c - . ; . 5.. • ; • : . • • , _ 4 • - - NORTH MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON- ` TO: Kat Dorsett, NPO 7 Secretary ' FROM: fie. ' . fer, Development Review Planner. DATE: October 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Albertson's CPA/ZC I have received NPO 7's request for additional .information with regard to ATEP's traffic study in support of the Albertson's plan amendment I will forward this request to ATEP and A].bertson's representatives so that they may respond to this request at the hearing on this matter scheduled for November 4, 1991. At this late point in the application review process, we cannot consider the NPO's letter a request to declare the application i.noomplete; instead, these matters can only be considered possible deficiencies with regard to the support for the application. If in fact these items are deficient, the applicants may wish to further amend their traffic study in response NPO's others comments prior to the Council hearing ` on sth s matter. That hearing is tentatively g set for December 10, 1991. With for a determination of the current size of the tC N designation n in the northeastern quadrant of the future Scholls /Murray intersection, staff agrees that the C -N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No reconfiguration or expansion of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1-86. The decision for only allowed creation �a . r parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without a pproval of an expansion of the C-N designated portion of this parcel. This parcel has yet to be created. In the Planning Division's opinion, this parcel would be a split zoned parcel upon its creation. The City's zoning map and Comprehensive Plan Map contain several other split zoned /split Plan designation parcels. An increase in the size of a ' parcel through a lot designation adjustment or the division of a split zoned parcel along other than zoning boundaries does not automatically result in an enlarged Plan designation or zone designation. The Council's decision for CPA 1 -S6' only said that this 5°0 acre are a could be reconfigured, not enlarged. We believe that the Alberts on ° s applicant's statement is in error when it refers to a 6.99! acre Neighborhood Commercial /C -N parcel on, this site. to determine a new it Etaff will ask the City Council • . - council fails to configuration for this 5 0 acre C � area if the C, approve the Albertson's application. pP pP c z John Shonkwiler, representative of Albertson 's Inc. Dick Woelck �� ATEP Engineering Ed Murphy, Community Develop cent Director flYOF 1iG� REGO 13125 SW Hall Blvvd., P.O. Sox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503],639 -4171 n +: t 7 ( + 9 •1 15' M� � October .8 . k 1991 1 A Y�4 :ry Attn: Dic1 8- erssdortf Tigard Pla gag P . O . •.Eo 23397 Tgar • ., OR 97223 RE. MMUNITV DEVELOPMENT NP0 3 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ION Gentlemen : I I NpO / HEREIN SUPPLEMENTS ITS REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR, DATED OCTOBER 4, 1991, to INTERPRET the FINAL DECISIONS- in CPA 1 -86 / 1) The FINAL DECISION in CPA 1 -88 / EC 3-86 declared, 'The CONFIGURATION of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be modified to con orm With the final ' alignment of Murray $v." The term CONFIGURATION should be GIVEN ITS COMMON , DICTIONARY MEANING in ANY INTERPRETATION, PURSUANT TO 18.2.6.010 A. �.�arl.d D�.�.tiaraar defines _C ONFIGURATION Webster's New „�..... �' as "a) arrangement of Parts h) form or figure as determined by the arrangement of the parts; contour; outline". Webster's defines 'CONTOUR as, figure, mass, ,land". Webster' s defines OUTLINE as, "1. a line bounding th+ LIMITS of an object, showing its SHAPE; contour : line". This decision ,declared that ONLY THE CONFIGURATION', NOT THE SIZE, of the five acre C -:N DESIGNATION may he modified. FURTHERMORE, this DECISION ONLY created a C-N DESIGNATION. The INTENT of this DECISION was Ito: LIMIT the C-N DESIGNATION to FIVE acres, BUT b) ALLOW its EXACT SHAPE AND LOCATION to conform with the THEN UNKNOWN final alignment of ` Murray This INTENT ound In the staff report and the dppliod nt l s statement as; NOTED IN NIPO' `Z' s ORIGINAL REQUEST, DA ED OCTOEER 4, 991, li . the outline of a MORE'r this . e Oity CO i I FUia`THE� :. TENT is found �.n?F • Page 2, NPO 7 Request for Interpretation MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 1986. IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, Ruse 'Kruger, the APPLICANT, "stggested this (request) Could be approved now with the understanding that if the extension of Murray Hlvd. were, ( sic) slightly relocated in the future the designation could then be LIMITED or MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR 4 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT ".' IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, staff reconunended approval of a REVISED LOCATION for ,this 4 ACRE C -N DESIGNATION next to New Scho1ie Ferry. This ''REVISED LOCATION was FURTHER ,from the THEN EXISTING COTSWOLD SUBDIVISION' than the applicants or ginal location. This REVISED C -N EoNE' LOCATION was bordered on the east and south by applicant ° s ' VACANT LANDS. IT WAS THIS FACT, PLUS THE FACT THAT No PARCEL WAS TO BE CREATED, possible' the Council,to declare, The that made it pc�s,s CONFIGURATION of the five acre C -N DESIGNATION may be modified to conform with the final al,ignanent' of Murray Bv". ap IT IS THIS FACT that makes it clear that the INTENT of the Council was to LTs NlI .. the C -N DESIGNATION to FIVE T acres. The City Council DID NOT IMAGINE that the applicant WOULD SELL his VACANT LANDS BEFORE the final alignment of Mt,rray By . and IN SUCH A ' WAY AS TO RESULT IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 5 ACRE PARCEL TO MATCH THE 5 ACRE 0-N ZONE. NPO Y FINDS that the INTENT' in this FINAL' DECISION was - TO NO MORE THAN five to LIMIT this C N acres. IN ADDITION, if the GENERAL SHAPE of this zone acx°e is to beccame. SQUARE or RECTANGULAR, its SIZE SH OULD BE REDUCED to four acres. �y The FINAL DEC ISION in SUB 50-°0004 created an INCIDENTAL parcel of 6.99 acres : along the. Murray xtensiof � Five acres of C_$ DESIGNATION from CPA 1- SG / Zc S -SG is WITHIN this INCIDENTAL Parcel. S that t at Schora1s Ferry NPO � FINDS the C N ZONE ..... five acres arid Murray is NO MORE THAN WITHIN this Parcel. The OTHER 1.99 acres in this parcel SHOULD BE R -25 zone. IN THE E EVENT the Director FI%TDa that the G:.. N ZONE at Sc�cSU'E Ferry 99 acres BY OPERATION' OF LAW under rry� and Murr�a ' is G a ..... Y 9C► °0004 « NPO 4/ WOULD PETITION for REVOCATION OF APPROVAL OF SUB 90-0004, PURSUANT TO .18.32.390 A.4. and' 13,e .390 C. to-wit: NPO #7 FINDS a MATERIAL MISTAKE IN FACT in the staff report for SOB 90 -0004 regarding the. SIZE of this C- , ZONE AND PARCEL. NPO #7 HEREIN REQUESTS TEE DIR ECTOR TO ISSUE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL DECISIONS in CPA 1--88 / EC 3-86 and SUB 90 -0004 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON CPA 91-0003 / EON 91- 0008' SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1991. Respeotf fly, For N > #7 By Katy Dorsett, Secretary xc : Ed Murphy Liz Newton NPO #7 Members .4 . • PUBLIC HEARX10 KRUEGER ZONE CHANGE ZC 346 A COMPREINBISZVE PLN4 MANGE CPA 146 NP0 #7 A request by mange Krueger to move a four acre area which is designated Neighborhood Commercial in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoned C (Commercial Neighborhood) from the west side of 135th Avenue to a location on the north side of the proposed Murray alvd. extension, approximately Soo foot west of 135th Avenue. The subject Property `' is located between 135th Avenue and Schalls Ferry Road' approximately 3/4 mile north of Walnut Street (WCTM 151 330, Tax Lot 1000) . • Public Hearing Opened Keith Liden, Senior Planner presented staff report and noted the requirements to relocate the 4 acre design of Commercial—Neighborhood zoning due to the Murray Boulevard' extension relocation. • Public Testimony: Proponents o Russ Krueger, 3615 SW Barbur outlined the history of the request and suggested this could be approved how Iwith the understanding that if the extension pf Murray BlVd. were slightly relocated in the future the design could then be limited or modified to allow for 4 acres of development, o Frank Cssman, owner of lot 100 in area, noted support of the relocation and of the land use application. Senior Planner Liden recomrnended approval newly submitted map to be attached to the Ordinance and Marked exhibit 14B". Discussion followed ,regr9ding whet4�er the parcel should be ,4 or 5 acres and the location. City Administrator stated the proposed location would not. be effected by the tentative location of Murray Sou 1evard ▪ Public Hearing Closes ORDINANCE WO. u X13 AN ° ORDINANCE FINDINGS ANO 1 CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE ADOPTING PLAN , 'AMg!4b . 1" (CPA l-36) AN® 2K*Rt CHANCE (ZC l 3.4(3) PR PP sr. DIY ti RGE R UECE R. • • Motion by COunollor Brian, secondea by Councilor Edwards to adopt ordinance with newly distributed , exhibit "Sm attach ▪ Mlotion by CCUnc%lor Ed am Edwards to end • ct$ermb� of� the �ordinance r � to seconded show hpww t Parcel to be S acre of C zone designation. • pion to amend was a0Proged by unanimdus , vote of Council, pligesen t • tion to adopt, ordinanc4 1VO. urt "imoUs vote of until!' prg3en MINm ....................... SRD, Rif f r s` ,awarldell aPPr oved by AGENDA ITS 5. STC F REPORT TO THE PLANNING . COMMISSION NEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 44,, 1991 HEARING LOCATION: TICITillp CITY ' HALL - ' TOWN �`; 13125, SW HALL BLVD. TIG , OREGON FACTS • General Information Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0003 Zone Change ZON , 91-0006 request for '`a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units /acre P;Lanned Development overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an , 8 acre parcel in the southeast 'quadraint of the, Scholls Ferry Road Murray Boulevard extension intersection. ,In addition, the applicant requests Comprehensive Plan redesignation a from 'dN� Neighborhood- Commercial Change Commercial to High Density Residential, and g from C -N (Neighborhood Commercial.) to R -40 (Residential, 40 units /acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/ Murray intersection ,o11 an approximately 5 acre parcel alternatively, the applicant requests plan redesignation to High-Density Residential and zoning redesignation to R -40 for a 4.5 acre area presently designated Medium -High Density Residential and zoned R-25 located to the south of the proposed General - -Commercial site In addition, the staff notes thate Nei hb orhood Comore roial / C N designated site at the northeast quadrant of the intersection has not had its boundaries re-established after the determination �inatio n of a future alignment of the hurray Boulevard extension through the c subject site If the applicant's reqUest is denied, staff requests that the City Council re- establish the boundaries of this 5 act e Nei g haarhood Commercial Site. r � , App►lxcant. Albertson s Inc. (Don Jun combe ) 17001 NE San Rafael PJR, 97230 Portland, Agent: whin 5hor, moiler P. Attorney at Lair 4040 Douglas Way' FO tax 1568 LakeLakeOsVe o OR, 97035 � e STAFF REPORT cPA9l 0003 ��oN 9- 000 ALBERT8ONIS GE Y8 lk Owner: Margery Crist, et. al Route 1, Box 792 Beaverton, OR 97007 LOCATION. East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Boulevard extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, Tax Lot 101). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA. Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, and 18.62; Comprehensive plan Policies 1 1.1► 2.1.1, 4 .2 . 1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.'1; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 1.0, 11, 12 and 13. . . lkgroun l xnforination The area that includes tax lot. 100 was annexed to the City of Tigard on June 12, 1983. In August, 1983, the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area, including Medium -High Density Residential (R- 20, now R-25 zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 zone) , and Neighborhood Commercial (C-'N zone) for tax lot 100. In February, ` 1984, the City approved the relocation of the C-N area from the west side of 135th Avenue to the intersection of the Murray corner of the proposed ° y Boulevard extension and SW 135th Avenue (CPA 18 -83 /AC 14-83). In 1985, a shift in the location of the C -N designation to the future Murray Boulevard /scholls Ferry Road intersection on the crest side of tax lot 100 was proposed to 4tl85 ZC 4 -85 Because the request was determined (CPA o be premature 4-85). to unanswered' questions e- r lated to the lA b extension, four acre C°-N' Murray Boulevard the designation was reapplied at the original location o:. ales �' on the southwest side of 135th Avenue. It was also agreed that once the alignment of Murray Boulevard rd was determinei ► tae applicant, Russ itruce g er ► would be entitled to propose another Murray Y Boulevard location for the CAW zone.' In 1986, Mr. Krueger proposed shifting t c -N designation to a five acre site at the northeast_ corner of the intersection of Scholls ., Ferry goad and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension (CPA,1 -86 /ZC 3-86). The City Council a pproved the applacant ' s proposa.l and included a declaration that the 'configu.ration ` of the fir e acres designated C-N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard (Ordinance No 86 -12). . A 8E 0 -00o3 / ZoN 91.° -t ►�6 �- 'SoN'S 2 sTA�� REPORT ��9� In 1987, a Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential and a zone change from C-N to R -25 for the 5.0 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and proposed Murra y Boulevard extension and a companion Plan Amendment/zone change ; from Medium -High Density Residential /R -25 and Medium Density Residential/R -12 to General Coxmmmercial /C-G for 15 acres at the southeast corner of erse <:tion was proposed (CPA 87- co the same ant 06 /ZC 87 -20). That proposal was denied by the City Council. A 170 unit apartment complex was proposed in 1986 on the eastern 11.4 acres of the subject property (SDR 4 -86) , but the application was withdrawn prior to a decision ! being made. In April, 1987, an 85 lot subdivision of the eastern 22.4 acres of the subject parcel was approved by the Planning Commission (S.87-04, V 87 -04) . That subdivision was never recorded. Later in 19 8 7, ano Cher :proposal subdivision fox th e eastern portion of the parcel, was brought before the City o s Hearings Officer (S 87 -07 j. That proposal. was to divide the 24 75 acre southeastern portion of the larger parcel, into 128 .lots ranging in size a�etween 5, 35 i and 7,100. 'square f eet . That proposal was approved by the Hearings Officer but also was never recorded. • In :May 1990 , the Plannin g Commission approved a done change to add, the plannedl' development overlay zone to all , ... � ', y.. reiin�.nar. of the parcel south of the Murra Boule and ex The Commission also approved a subdivision, p ° m.' y plat /planned development conceptual plan approval. for a 194 lot, two phase subdivision and reservation of a section _ w ',portion. _ _ at 3.00' for 300 apartment units SHBr90 0 ZON 9G 04 /Z N 90-04/VAR 90- 08 ) a Three parcels to the north of the Murray extension would have been created by this subdivisions, including an approximately 7 acre parcel at the. northeast quadrant of the. Scholls/Murray intersection. These parcels ,were na t affected by the zone changs adding the planned n Oc 23 , 19 1, the Planig p � terb�r develo ffier�t overly e. nnO Division approver an extension. of the approval period for the, subdivision preliminary alat/planned development p ' a m . t tg ve mber The letter pprovin � thi s extensio appendix Two this report / - - ALBERTSON'S PAGE STA]��' REPORT -� CF.A91:� -OCIa� �0�' 91, Q�DOf' '01 Inf oY`jIlati Except for single family residential developileent to the northeast in the Cotswold Subdivision/ the area eloped and currently surrounding the s�.te• is largely 'Undeveloped surr® used for agriculture or is wooded. A few large lot single family residences also exist to the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the, southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry Road. R-25 zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C -N. The area south of the proposed- C -G designation is zoned R -12 (PD) . The area across Scholls Ferry Road from this area is zoned by the City of Beaverton as R -2 (multi-family/ 2/000 square feet lot area/unit. Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include the Murray Hill Shopping ng r located a pp ro ximatel y 3/4 miles north on Murray E o le vard ; the Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately 1 -1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road; ,Washington Square located approximately 2 -1/2 miles east; and a , number of commercial areas along Pacif ic Highway including the Tigard Central ,Business District. • Site forivation The entirety of Tax Lot 101 consists of 63.4' acres spanning g between SW Scholls Ferry Road on the west, to SW ' 135th on the east. The property contains several different Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designations. As previously noted, a . 5 acre Neighborhood- Cokeraial designation exists in the northwestern corner of this site to the north of the ., 29.5 acres of Murray Boulevard extension. Approximately . g tY�e site extending east to west and south of the Neighborhood-Commercial site is zoned R-25 (PD) (Residential/ 25 units /acre (Bess �. re , Planned Deve3..opment) d The southern 28.9 i 2S 9 acres of this site is zoned R -12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units /acre, Planned Development). This site is primarily grass covered with some trees within draina ewe s uthern portion of this site. . , g y on by �'a The areas affected b the proposed Plan and Zone gn western portion the site slope des` of the , re designations at�ons on the weste ort an generally north and west. ereeis presently no enerally to the n developmeft on, the entire 63 STAFF REPORT CFA91 0403 ZON 1- 000 Q AIBER TSON PAGE J. . M± , yu Proposal Description The applicants have submitted a report ' entitled AlJ @rtsOn 9 S , T9C s Anlxcata on , p for Comrehensive Plan l e ,dmen , n., zo: e C . an • e Cs, a. • es or Text and malt • Changes Staff has reviewed this document, and quite frankly finds the document rather confusing as to what exac , y the applicants are requesting. It • appears however, that the 'basic change that Albertson ',s wishes to accomplish, with this application is an exchange of the Neighborhood- Commercial (C -14) plan and zoning designations from the northeast quadrant of the Sch' ®3ls jNiurray intersection to the southeast corner of the intersect..on, with the northeast corner being redesignated for multi- family residential use Albertson's would like the Neighborhood- Commercial designation to be replaced in the southeast quadrant with the General- Commercial desigination and the area ,C commercial, designation increased from 5 acres (the applicant Xsses" 6.99 acres) to 8 acres. adrnt could be 0 ores that � Albertson 's p � at the area in the northeast quadrant e redesignated with either the Medium-High Residential Plan designation and R-25 zoning, or else could be ,� gn }Ii gh Dens `al Plan redesignated with the � -- ity Residential- designation and R -40 zoning. Alternatively, Albertson °s proposes increasing some of the site south of the proposed General Comrmercial can fig Density Residential with R -40 rode High i�en sit �esga�ent zoning Yet another alternative raised by the applicants zoning. is for the City of Tigard to either absorb the loss of housing units into the "surplus' housing opportunity that the City possesses in its housing opportunity index +l by required b the Metropolitan Housing Rule; o else through increasing residential density opportunities at other locations within ' the City through other Plan amendments and one Changes Although not a part of the current request, the Albertson 's applicants, statement.' raises the possibility of the city creating new plan and zoning designations that would fall midway between Neighborhood Coerciai/ C -N and General Commercial/C -G Plan and zoning designations. This a e ive is generally described on It gnat Page 2 of the applicants' statement. Albertson ' s states that Such a zone (which is referred to as a Cormimunity Commercial zone) could, i allow, for a greater Variety of „ current C $ zone and could also be located uses than the cu �° g site on1 . � acre maiu�u�a sae zze for C�-N deli nations as rescri b. the comprehensive ,planks ar er sites than � criD�ed p ocational crite � Aslso y USes P ted it1 thhiis new l criteria. liani.�ed in scope t� zone could be somewhat to not allow 'as STAFF impollip = c pA9i-- 0003/ZDN 91 -OOO6 - ALBtRTSONr s AGF yM great a variety of uses as the C -G zone, and, could have an upper limit on the size of establishments that would be ,located within sUch a new zoning district Age Lcy and NS_C Cnts The Engineering Department" has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: geattp_plimse.. The traffic study submitted by the applicant indicates that 'the proposed changes to zoning ,,would have negligible impacts on the future traffic volumes and levels of service of the adjoining street systems Following receipt of additional information from the traffic engineer, we now support the conclusions of the traffic study. Because there would be little• change in the total zoning multi-family areas of commercial and mu3.t�, f am residential zoning, the proposed zone change would have no impact on the utilities needed or future development of the area. (Planning Division Note :a, this statement was made based on the Engineering'` ° Division's acceptance of the applicants statement's representation of the current sizes of the Plan and a; zone designations applied to the property rather :: . than, the sizes of these areas as understood by the " Planning Division.) The proposal to move the co?aercial zone from' the north side of Murray to the south side has potential benefits, even if the zoning designation and acreage are not changed. The existing wedge- shaped commercial parcel has only future Murray Wextensi r• the collector street system. The result would be reduced traffic impacts. Therefore, we support relocation of the commercial zoning as proposed. aim Hendryx, Planning Manager for the City of Beaverton has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: Z concur with several points that the applicant has made in their presentation about. district size, and ' ose�ntatxon marketing changes for supermarkets. The only issue that I 2.1d is associated with need. The area is well served by retail sites on both Murray Blvd. and Scholls Ferry Roads. If approved, the proposal should be limited in area to the absolute minimum' that is necessary to accommodate the proposed use': This would be consistent with our joint efforts to limit the expansion of commercial development in the Murray /Scholls corridor. Oregon Administrative Rule 660 -07 -035 requires the City of Tigard to Provide for an overall housing opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre on developable land. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. tent (OLCD) has commented that the possible • ` g ... y . the Potential dwelling units from City's inventory of housing opportunity might limit decision making flexibility for future plan amendments that could also result in the loss of potential dwelling units- DLCD also notes that Oregon Administrative Rule E50 -12 - 06 0 requires that land uses permitted as a result of a plan amendment be consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of th the facility. Simply stated, the planned transportation facilities must qu dire the planned uSe. bLCD notes that be adequate t the a licants tr e to se gp � ° affic report analyzes only the proposed change from Neighborhood . to General Commercial g and ignores the d proposed changes in residential. only, �► p designations. Washington County's' Department of'' Land tJse and, Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided' the following comments: S'cholls "Ferry load, adz acent to the . s .,te will soon be transferred from the State to the County's jurisdiction. The roadway is classified as. a mad or' collector in the Washington ' CoUnty Tratspcartation STAFF REPORT . dPA9i- 03, Z9N 00 ALBERTSO1 ' S 1'1G ,yN A• Pa Plan. The proposal did not include an analysis of 2010 level of set -rice for the north Scholls Ferry/Murr'aY intersection, for the north Scholia Ferry /south Scholls Ferry ntersec i n. Such an analysis is warranted to determine effects of the proposed change NP© #7 has reviewed the proposal and has unanimously voted to recommend denial. The NPO has provided the following comments with regard to the proposal: FACTS jurisdiction teHahwa j • Scholls Ferry. is under eta g Y at present. HOIIEVER, it will be under Washington. County jurisdiction within the year- . ▪ .Thee. Functional Classification Nap for the County 2 sif ca P Transportation Plan shows: a. Scholls Ferry will be a 2 -lane major collector street from Old Scholls to Old Scholia, and • The proposed Murray Extension will be a 2 -lane b P collector street. • No TRI -MET transit line serves Scholls Ferry from Old Scholls to Old Scholia. • In CPA 1-86 and Ordinance 86 -12 the City Council �.n approved five acres of C -N and only declared that the configuration and the five acres could be modified > to conform with the final alignment 'o Murray Blvd. FINDINGS Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal assumes IN ERROR that Scholls Ferry will be a 5" Ir lane arterial street. i proposal • .1` is not satisfied because the p p w • Policy 1 assumes IN ERROR that the proposed Murray Extension from old Scholls to Scholls Ferry Will be built in the near future. • ► . Policy 12.2.1 is not satisfied as the proposal does not meet ;locational criteria ..for General Commercial areas because: a The proposal would be surrounded oy residential districtS on more than two sides. 0� � � � P�,oE 8` 003 tON 91� -0006 '- ALBERT S STAFF REPORT = C�'A9 � 0 ,�• � � ' . . The scale : of the , . , proposal would not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. Public transportation .would not, be available to the proposal or the general • area. CPO 4B's steering committee recommends denial of the proposal. Among the concerns raised by CPO members were the lack of a need for such a large supermarket in a residential area,, excessive traffic ` due to the presence ,. of such a large commercial center, damaile to the character of the existing neighborhood, and uncertainty as to what commercial uses would locate in the center if the parcel is zoned' C -Gr. The Tualatin', Valley Fire and. Rescue District has reviewed the proposal and has noted no objection to the, Plan and zone changes. The District notes that they would look for Murra through at � the time with of necessary g with inn rove�nents to be reviewed street cessary � p cxr to extend .=hrou h as a development of this site. . MAJOR ISSUES Size of the C -N Zoned Porioon of the S? te,Ad�equacy of Submiittal In communications with the Planning Division,( NPO #7 with applicants representing the Neighborhood Commercial designated, ` g , portion of tax i decis�.o lot 100 as 6.99 acres '' - 3-86 City Conn n for CPA cres whereas the Ci 86 /ZC 3 86 designated only 5 acres at this intersection for Neighborhood Commercial use. The Council's 'decision provided that the configuration, but not the size, of the 5 -acre parcel could be adjusted when the alignment of SW Murray extension was defined. An � Urban Planning annin g Area Agreement between Washington County, Beaverton, and Tigard was approved in November, 1988, ' • nlassunaed at�thestimh setting the alignment of Murray .� across this site from what had been time of the 1986 Plan and zone change. The 'Urban Planning Area A gr eement provides that Murray Boulevard:thr through the s ite will be a collector street. Appendix One contains communications between.NPO #7 and the staff with regard to the issue of the size of the Neighborhood Commercial /C -N designated portion of,taX lot 100. Exhibit B of Council Ordinance No. 86-=12 shows the 5-acre site approved for Nei � hbothood -Co .. ' g mmercial STAFF REPORT OPA9I 0003 /ZON s1 -0006 AL.'BERTSON''S PAGE designation in 1986, with the alignment of the SW Murray Boulevard extension as defined at that time That ordinance noted that the configuration of the 5 acre C -N designation could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard. Sta €f, is of the understanding that the reconfiguration referred to by the City Council in this ordinance .included only the possible relocation of the 5.0 acre C-N designation. Staff does not understand the Council's decision to provide for an increase in size of the C -N 'designated area,`' as the applicants in this current proposal have assumed in stating the area's ` 6..99 acres ,without the Council specifically approving.. such an expansion. Such,' a change would affect compliance with' many more Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals and rules than were referred to in the staff report referenced,as findings by Ordinance No. 86 -12. For example, such an increase ir/1 the C -N,1 area would necessarily result in a reduction of the R-25 zoned area of the site with a loss of 50 units of multi- family housing opportunity. This would have reduced the City's housing opportunity index for developable lands required byl the Metropolitan mousing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 7) as well' as affecting City Comprehensive Plan policies related to housing, transportation , and economic development in ways not '. :Ordinance No. Gontempl.ated by the Council s findings for Or 86 -12. Staff finds the he Neighborhood ent boundaries of Commercial C -N designated portion Of tax lot 100 to be exactly as illustrated on exhibit B of Ordinance No 86 12. This determination is notwithstanding Code Section 18.46.030.A which provides guidance on the exact location of zoning district boundaries. That section provides gu' a due to the scale , lack of idelnes to be used whet detail, illegibility of the zoning map,, or other' reason, there is uncertainty as to district boundary lines. Staff does not findlthatl, there is any uncertainty as to the location of the boundaries of the C -N site because Exhibit ... is legible, detailed, and to ' a Scale f r "om which .. 8 precise boundaries can be determined,. The guidelines provided in. Section 18.40.03.0 provide for ;boundaries, 1n ' lotted lot Zones �� Ci limi follow street centerlines', e y cases of uncertainty, to ' is , or drainage chardnels If ' there was uncertainty of the boundaries of the C -N'� designated site, staff still would have a difficult time applying any of these guidelines to move the southern boundary of the site southward as the applicants obviously have' presumed; due to the absence at this dime of any rec Y r' read r�.ghtdof -'day along the ordecl lot line a STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91 -0Q06 ATBBF SON' S, PAGE it future ` Murray . alignment. Without , these staff would have to hold with the 'dimensions provided by Exhibit B of .Ordinance No. 86-12. Staff therefore finds that the, applicants • 'statement is in error with regard to the size of the portion of the site that is already designated; for cotmercial use. Therefore, the appl icants ' '.statement and traffic . study contain many errors with regard to the potential impacts of the current proposal with regard to background traffic levels r and housing opportunities. AS 'such, staff is of the opinion that the applicants have failed to provide adequate findings, in support. of the proposed redesignations and therefore the application should be denied'. Staff does not find that sufficient reasons exist for the staff,. Commission, or Council to undertake to produce the necessary findings in response to any application that has not been adequately Supported by the applicants own findings. Nevertheless, the remainder of this report' endeavors to assess the merits of this application with regard to the applicable 'Plan amendment and zone' change!' approval criteria. In order to clarify the situation with regard to the C -N designated area, staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council a more appropriate location including no more than 5 acres for the Neighborhood Commercial /C -N designations at the Scholls/Murray intersection. Such a reconfiguration would be consistent with the Council's earlier decision to allow reconfiguration subsequent to the, determination ` Murray through the site, even of an alignment for SW Murr though the right-of-way present, the this area road designated at aetC � ' b Ordinance 86-3.2 does not 'act frontage , by recorded. At P r wally have frontage on the approved Murray alignment' but is separated from the road by a strip of R -25 designated land. ' A reconfiguration at this time should r have frontage on both .Scholls Ferry Road Staff does not find that the and the Murray alYgnment. specific of this '5 acre Neighborhood Commercial designation on the western portion of tax lot 100 affects location o P compliance with h Plan' policies, Co 1 e l- p na Co de recuirements � or Statewide Planning Goals s the location is' in either the northeast. or 'southeast . quadrants of this inter-section. It is noted that relocation of the C -N designation to the southeast quadrant of the intersection would have the effect of materially changing the planned development conceptual 'development plan for the area south of Murray' approved; by the Planning Commission fOr 'SUB '90- 04/PDR ;p0-4 04 and thus would invalidate the recently' extended CPA91 -000 ON 91 -0006 ALBERTSON'' S PAGE 11. STAFF REPORT approval for this subdivision /planned development. This has been communicated to the property's owners through conversations and a memorandum provided to Craig Petrie` the listing real estate broker for this property (See Appendix Two). However, we can agree with the Engineering Department that relocation of the Neighborhood Commercial designation to the South side %of this intersection may be beneficial with regard to access to the site. Access to the site from a local street from the yet to be constructed subdivision to the east would allow neighbors t4.9 access the site without travelling on collector streets, thereby reducing traffic impacts. Attached Map #2 illustrates the preliminary plat /planned development conceptual plan approved for 'this site. A p opriatenesr o The applicants' statement at pages 4 and 5 points out that the current 5 acre designation of this site with the Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy' 12.2.1 by designating a five acre site with this land use classification whereas the Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation, locational criteria is supposed to limited such designations to a maximum site size of two acres. The applicants also point out that the C -N zoning district's 4,000 square foot restriction on the maximum floor area of any use i in this zone (Community Development Code Section 18.60.0 40.x.2) will make it difficult to obtain full development of this relatively large site creating a hardship to ' trying to develop the site. NPO 17/s comments ent on this application po int out that this site is not consistent with Plan' Policy 12.2.1's locational criteria relative to availability of public transportation and adjacency o � residential zoning p �g districts on more' than two sides of the site. The site therefore cannot be found to be fully consistent with the locationai criteria for either of these commercial plan designations. Nevertheless, staff believes that there are plenty of for having some coamme� a .. reasons land �n vi l desi a ed a► ,ng s rcia gn t this area serve the commercial needs of at least the .u' � hood' and possibly the larger immediate nee g C. co . . . consisting of western Tigard. These residential area o reasons clearly include convenience for area residents and an attempt to provide commercial goods and 'services in a location that need not require. vehicular trips on collector or arterial streets to satisfy. huerous Cofltprehensive Plan policies as well as the Statewide Planning Goals support such objectives to provide for an �,:. _ ALBERTSON' S ST1�I'F REPLlt{T CPA91- 001�3/Z0N 91, X006 GE tb appropriate balance of land uses in a' suburban environment such as western Tigard. Because a portion of tai: lot 100 has been designated for commercial use prior to annexation, and because this parcel is abutted or traversed' by three collector streets, this parcel is clearly an appropriate location for some commercial usage. Staff believes the issue with regard to this site should be limited to scale of the commercial use. For these reasons, staff would not recommend that the City delete all rommercial designation . for the subject parcel at this time despite the finding that this parcel is not consistent with either the Neighborhood Commercial or General Commercial Plan designation locational criteria. Instead, staff recommends that ds tha the Commission the a and Council briefly consider applicants/ suggestion zoning designation t might > be ;a middle ` ground zone nee, zonin that e between these two existing zones. Such a zone could provide for a greater variety and size of neighborhood serving uses than the C-N zone,, yet such a zone need not provide for many of the uses permitted in the C -G zone that would not only serve a neighborhood or section of the city but instead would serve a larger trade area and have significant visual or traffic impacts (e.g., theaters, auto and truck dealers, hotels, spectator sports and entertainment facilities, large retail stores ) . Limits upon the size of ; permitted uses could attempt to control the scale of such uses. The applicants statement refers to the greater variety of permitted uses in Washington County's Neighborhood Commercial zone as an assertion that the City made ,a mistake when the City applied the City's more limited C -N zone to the property upon annexation. While we disagree with this assertion under the circumstances of the annexation, this does point to a zoning district in another jurisdiction that provides for greater variety and scale of community commercial uses than Tigard's C -N zone. Staff review Gresham and Portland's zonin g ordinances provide other examples zoning districts that provide for a greater variety of community uses at a limited scale, than Tigard 's C-N zone. Fi�1e fee lhcommercialnt zonin g district the need far a PP "coin mun ° y '° o g has a lot of Merit for the city of Tigard, perhaps ' „most notably, my this general area. Staff` recommends that the Commission or Council' direct the staff to work with the applicants, all t`47)0s, and other interested parties to develop a new ' "middle ground'” commercial zoning district, that w ould be intended to serve communit y rather than ne , ghborh ood; only needs and yet ,would not provide for , regional or even city -wide needs. STAFF REPORT . CPA91 000 /ION 91. 0006 ' :.. .. 13 3 ALSERTSON S PAGE 1 ■W It °.is important to-note that the",.locational criteria and permitted uses adopted 'for new Plan.: and zoning district designations may . not '':Meet''' needs of the current'applicants' intentions with regard tip the Grist ,property and creation .Of'. these ' designations should not , be viewed, as directed this. property or this applicants', desires Iowever, the City should be willing `to cornsider the potential for such a new land use designation with respect to this particular property as well as possibly the Gross and Cunningtiam' PrOPertiee further east on Scholls as well as Other appropriate locations in the city. These other. propertes' were also the subject of recent 'Plan and zone redesignation applications ,that were recommended for denial 'at least partially because the locational criteria for General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial could not be Satisfied ' �- not because there was no market need demonstrated for the intended uses of these Sites. . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicants have presented a report entitled A'ibertson's. • L__� S �� n7, ..b ►.�wwaw.ww A.. dr•wi ?wt�a. • . -.Y • 0.'• i1GlJli7YG' rSb.\a..,.L'iiBi— ...•ate-- ..•w•sv.. ....rv•i� Change ( Maw hancLes or Text an a Cha `ges". (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that addresses the Statewide Planning Goals and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the proposed Plan and zoning redesignation. The applicants have also submitted a traffic y PP prepared by ATEP, "Inc. in support of the study and su lenient application. Staff finds that the following are relevant Statewide Planning �.nds g Goals, • City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community Development Code sections applicable to the request: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9 10, 11, 12 and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, es 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.'1.1, 7.3:2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4,. 7 8.1.1, 8.1. 3 , ; 12.1.1, and 12.2.1 Community code Chapters 18-22, 18.32, 18.56 , 18.5 C , 18.62. .2.1 4.4.1, .S.2 7.6.1,' Development 18.60, and The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is ony partially in compliance with: the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the f of lowing findings: ndings Goal # (Citizen Involvement) and Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied because the city has adopted ro am including, 4tieff of all a citizen ' invalve�aent p gr re land use and development applications by City established neighborhood planning organizations (NPOS) and nearby SrA.FF REPORT CPA91 -0003 ZON 91 -0005 ALBERTSON's PAGE! f; H Washington County established community' organizations (CPOs) NPO #7 and. CPO #4B provided with, an opportunity to review the Their comments have been included in the ; staff the Planning Commission and City Council. In all public notice requirements related application have been satisfied,. planning . have been proposal report to addition, to this Goal #2''(Land Use Planning) Plan Policy 11.1, and the quasi-judicial plan and zone change, approval standards of Code Section 18.22.04 o are satisfied' because the City has applied all applicable f Statewide Planning Goals.,; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies', and 'Community Development Code requirements to the review of this proposal, as 'described in this report. The City of Tigard has' notified other affected units of : government including the City of Beaverton, Washington County, the Oregon `Department of Transportation,. and the Oregon Department of hand Conservation and Development of the proposal.. y,ip !� g ro Deal.. Service and util�.t rova.dn a envies, have also been notified of the proposal. Goal #9 (Economy of 'the State) and Plan policy 5..1.1 are partially satisfied because the proposed redesignation would increas e e C ty's inventory of developable lopable commerc ial land0 tticreby increasing employment t opportunities in the City., Because the proposed redesignation` would provide opportunities for primarily retail and service uses, the proposal: Would likely' not diversify the employment opportunities 'in the City. PP services in the western f erences to The need�" foragroceryasement snakes several re portion of Tigard. However, the City of Tigard's criteria for Plan and zone redesignations do not rely on need because need . . y subjective' j ions is extremely I and subject to the manipulations of statisticians., It is important to' remember that the proposed redesignation would not guarantee that a grocery store would be developed if the proposal is approved; the p ro p osed redesignation would provide an opportunity for aes trict including great variety of uses permitted in the C -G zoning district uses for which it would be difficult ' to prove there is a need; for in the area. The proposal would conflict With Plan 'policy 5.1.4 p t proposed commercially designated because the ro Deed increase in com�aerc�.a property w o, u encroach i nto an area designated for residentia l cevelopment: The ave not demonstrated any ` reasons why this area might be unsuitable for residential development: 0U�3 C / 1. . , . ALBFRTSON' S PAGE STAFF REPORT' �'A91. -- �aN 9� -0005 �- E Statewide Goal #10 (Housing) as well as Plan policy 6.1.1 would not be satisfied because the applicants proposal to increase . commercial, designations on tax slot . 100 could result in a decrease in ' multi - family i residental opportunities by 75 units, because of the elimination 'of 3 acres of Medium -High Density Plan designation : and R-25 zoning, if these housing opportunities are not replaced, • elsewhere. The proposal would be detrimental to the purposes of the Goal and policy even though the proposed place a would not lace the City of Tigard out of compliance with. the 10 unit per acre requirement of the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) . A reduction of developable residential land by 3 acres and a resultant decrease of housing opportmaities would result in 13,312 developable units on 1,292 acres for a'` housing opportunity index of 10.187 units per acre, thereby reducing the City's "cushion" above the minimum opportunity required by the Housing Rule. However, the applicants have proposed increasing residential opportunities through redesignation of other potions of tax lot. 100 to High Density Residential and R -40 (40 units per acre). While this could reduce the amount of ,housing opportunity that would be lost to increased area for commerci.ai designation, staff' finds problems with the proposal to increase density opportunities► elsewhere' on tax lot 100 or outside of the immediate area. The applicants' submittal has not addressed the locational criteria for the High - Density Residential Plan designation with respect to their suggestion that areas to'the north or south of the proposed General Commercial redesignation be increased in housing opportunity with R -40 zoning. Staff does not believe e , �p housing is appropriate in this that 40 unit g ,per acre location due to the nature of surrounding lower density development .and, the absence of public transit to the site. On the other hand, the City's obligation to provide a housing opportunity of 10 units per acre on developable 'residential land should 'be taken seriously. Therefore, the City should avoid dumping higher density housing opportunities on sites that are unlikely to develop as the applicant ' statement P s pears to suggest _on density, e P 9 14. The City's obligation to appears � �' �!9 he fit provide housing opportunities is more than just a paper exercise ' • statewide Planning Goal 11 (public Facilities .and Comprehensive • Services) and Compr e Plan Policies 7.1.2, 7.2 l , 7.4.4, and 7.6.1, are satisfied because adequate public, service capacities are available to serve future this , ' either the existiing Or under development of this s� e proposed Plan and zoning designations. Extension of STAFF REPORT' - CPA91 -0003 ZON 91 000+ A%BERTSON'' S SAGE' IBp necessary public'faccilities to serve the cite are the responsibility of . the developer, at the time of site development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable . public and private utility providers of ,pending development applications. No adverse comments were received from service providers with respect to the current application. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Comprehensive Plan policy 8.1.1 are satisfied because the proposed 'redesignation would expected unsuitable or unsafe uZd not be cted to result in levels of traffic . on Murray Boulevard or Scholls Ferry Road. Although commercial development of this site might be expected to result in some increase in total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared to what would be expected under the current designations, the impact on the city -wide or regional transportation systems should be beneficial through providing commercial opportunities closer to users° residences than is currently available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic anticipated. Such a reduction would be y affic is anticipated. pp objectives of Statewide Planning Goal supportive of � the object 13 (Energy Conservation) and Comprehensive Plan policies 9.1.1, 9.1'.2 , and 9.1.' 3 which encourage energy conservation through a balanced and efficient transportation system. �4 .' 2.1 will be satisfied through the Plan Policy ' development review and building permit processes' at which time a development proposal for this site must be shown to comply with p y th applicable Federal, State, and regional water quality requirements . including preparation and implementation, of a non-point source pollution control l plan in compliance with the Oregon Environm ental Q ualit y Commission's temporary rules for the Tualatin itiver Basin:. The proposed redesignation would not by itself affect compliance with this Plan Policy. reviPolicy 4.3.1 is im':. lemented. through the development ew process in which building placement and land8caping are reviewed with respect to mini/liming' noise imp acts of the developing use u p on neighboring land us es. 9. Plan Policy 8.1.3 would be satisfied of ed a�hascodition ;of approval of any future development site, under either the existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. gnati ens: Completion ion of g necessarY street improvements alon g the site 's f rontag es would be re quired to be installed b y the developer at the time of � ,. development. The Engineering Division and W ash ington. County would' review any future development proposals for REPORT - CPA9, -0003 Zi NI 5►1, O006 1 AbBERTSah S PAGB STAFF REP / ,, , ;• the site with regard .to necessary;. road. iaprovements both adjacent to the site and on other affected sections of roadways O. The locational criteria for General Commercial uses' specified in chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 12.2.1) are partially satisfied for the following reasons subject surrounded by residential Plan The sub act area is surrounds , and zoning designations on more than two sides, contrary to the locational criteria, although these future residential areas would be separated from the proposed commercial site by collector, streets on the north and :'west. _►s discussed above under Statewide Planning Goal #12 and Plan Policy 8.1.1, the ° Engineering Department and City. of Beaverton staff are persuaded that the proposed commercial redesignation would not substantially increase traffic on adjacent streets and intersections beyond acceptable levels. The site is located at the intersection of an arterial (Scholls Ferry Road) and a 'collector (Murray Road). (It is pointed 'out that a street pointed exists between Washington County's designation of Scholls Ferry as a major collector' and Tigard's designation of the 'same street as an arterial.! This discrepancy should be corrected by the City and County separate from the current application). Access' to the site for any future development will be determined in conjunction with Washington` County through the development review process. Public transportation is not currently available to the site, despite the applicants' statement otherwise pP ag . The close�tt us the northeast site is a (roximately 3.500 fee at the intersection of New Scholia Ferry Road, Old Scholls Ferry Road, and SW 135th Avenue. 'phis bus p ' s served by ° site T wlil �t bus sew #62. ~ by public stop i y Whether or. not sport • on in the future under either' er' the transportation , or proposed designations would be purely speculative at this time. The 8 aore,siteis an adequate side to accommodate a variety of USes perr' itted in the c -d oning ST F F REPORT CPA91 0003/ZON 91 -0006 ALBERTSO S .PACE ti district, including the applicants stated intended uses of a grocery store and drug store. . This site would be highly visible from' the adjoining streets. G. Compatibility of this site with adjacent uses ' is difficult to ascertain without an actual development proposal. However, the City of Tigard's Site Development Review iand Conditional Use review processes are intended to provide an opportunity for review of a potential development • s relationship with adjacent existing uses. 11. The application is deficient by not addressing' the locations,.... criteria for the High Density Residential Plan designation or by providing sufficient reasons for increasing residential opportunities on a portion' of the subject site (Plan policy 12.1.1) 1:. At present; the relatively large undeveloped site would be consistent with the dimensional and use standards of Community Development Code Chapters 18.56 (R -25 zone), 18.58 (R -40 zone), 18.60 (C -N zone), and 18.62 (C -G) zone. Any future development proposals for this site would e to be shown to comply with the standards of whatever zone(s) are applied to the site. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find' that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been a mistake or inconsistency with regard to' the original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1. 1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040(A)). . The applicant's statement asserts t hat there e has been a change s g ar�ne �tiona�acter of the ' area site once ea surrounding the sit development because of the substantial amount of residential as occurred to the north and west of the site, thereby establishing , p y that � ` hing an additional .need, for a grocery store in this area. The City is Well aware of the residential densities at which this area growth developed at is significantly icantl. le rowth in this area; however, the den densities P y less than the residential that the area was planned for and upon which the City County bas ` and their provide for commercial develo ment based opportunities: t , If anything, e this P growth pattern would seem to support a reduction in commercial opportunities in the are ... � g as area rather an an enlargement a Proposed. J r STA�'P REPORT `. CPA91 0 0 ►D 3 �l?N 91-0006 ' AI;BERTS hi S PAGE 1 • In addition, staff is wary of the applicants "need" argument as applied to the site because, while a need for a particular use may be demonstrated through the parameters established by an applicant, a • " community need not provide land use opportunities for every need that can be identified. Also, the proposed Plan and zone change would not Limit opportunities for establishment of uses to only the "needed" use, but instead would permit any of the uses allowed in the C-G zone. Staff finds it curious that the applicants focus only on the "need" for a grocery store in this area and are silent with regard to any need for a drug variety store the applicants stated other intended use for the site. Even if the City should be persuaded that a "need" exists for a grocery store in this area, there is no justification provided by the applicants with regard to the size of the area of General Commercial redesignation requested. If the City is persuaded that a "need" exists for a grocery store in this area, perhaps the City should provide for this need through amending the C -N zone to allow grocery stores thereby allowing development of :a grocery store on the 5 acre C -N site. Alternatively, the City could provide opportunities for grocery use through creation of new "community commercial" zoning designation that would allow a more limited number of uses than the C -G designation. Staff is not persuaded that g change circumstances affecting neighborhood enough of a chaff a in cite � the ,re requested Plan umst the n or site has occurred to justify an and zone change.'' The applicants, also allege that mistake was made regarding the ,e Ci ty'o inC -out that upon • site with th an of the s designation e . The applicants point the annexation of the sit previous N -C (Neighborhood Commercial) designation applied by Washington County to the • site allowed food markets of up to 50,000 square feet as ,a c nal us, whereas the City's ci _� q • conditional site permits w its oral food and C N zone currently applied to the erma y beverage store of up to 4,000 square feet. The, applicants allege that the City's application of the C -N zone therefore g property. pP idants constitutes a down -zoning of the The applicants state that this downgrading of the zoning is in direct, conflict with City policy as well as ORS 227.110. The pp past p 7..116 is state that � adopt city oin�.in for newly 2annexr�d applicants is as well as ORS the City match s the former zoning in the require County. that fairly m � � g � C property _ Staffrfa is '�to see how 025 227.110, o which relates to extra- territorial 11 all relevant to this pl pp.., terrtoria3: at approvals, City at policy on rezoning upon situation. With regard to y p y. annexation, the applicants apparently concede that the City's C -G zoning district would not have matched up any better with the County's N -C zone than the City's C-41,1 zone because the C -G broader listing than the County's zone has a much bro fisting of uses zone. The applicants teen argue that the City should have Po1z r CPA91 -0003 ZON 91� --00 6 .� ALBERTSCN'' S PAGE 20 STAFF N� i` I t� a adopted a new zone (such as the applicants "idea for a community commercial zone) at the time of ' annexation '(applicants statement, page 4). If this is the applicants' real argument, that is what the y should have applied for noW rather requesting rezoning with the too -broad C -G zone. applicants may be at least partially (minimally, from staff's viewpoint) correct about the C-N zone having some down -zonin g effect , they the certainly have, not demonstrated that the 'request to redesignate the C-N area as C -G is the best solution to correct an 'earlier mistake. On the other hand, more than eight years have passed since the site was designated with the City's C -N ;Lone and five Plan/zone change ;applications have occurred since annexation. The property;'s owners have had several chances to raise the issue of the alleged "down-zoning." Instead, the earlier Plan /zone change requests that the owners have been parties to have on moving the C-N zoned area around on tax lot 100 to a more advantageous to �a location' for the owners � and have also resulted in an increase in the size of this area. It is pretty late for the property owners (through the current claim ) applicants' ' �.a!► that an action eight years ago was a dawn- zoning that must now be corrected. In addition,' it would be reasonable for the City to take the position that the earlier approved relocations and expansion 0 of the C -N designation have already compensated the ' property s owners for � any possible diminution of the property's value becaus e the City's C -N zone does not permit grocery stores. The applicants also raise the issue of the 5.0 ;acre Neighborhood Commercial designated site exceeding the maximum size for ' 'gn provided by Comprehensive Plan °s locational criteria. Staff concurs the this site anon rovide exceeds this is es� statement ht However, a e5tht� do the m agree must the applicants s changed to C G or a new commercial zone (such as "community. commercial" that r would allow the Albertson's, Inc. proposed store complex." Other options exist. The City could reduce the size of the C. -N designated area to two acres' or less. The 50 acre area could be left* as is. The City could ` choose il to create new commercial Plan and zoning designations to designate this site with that would allow a five acre or larger site but that m would not permit the proposed Albertson 's store. colegit ° . p Or, the City could indeed create new designations like the community commercial, zone that the. app licants' have suggested that might include the Albertsongs complex. Therefore many p regard to correcting options exist with . g * alleged ; .. "mistake" g orrect�,n tree ust in size of the C-N designation redesignating the anon ; that Would fate gn d not necessitate e site General Coin ►ercial as the current. 9n g /`G G application requests . STAFF REPORT CPA_91- -0003 f ZON 91-0006 AlliERTSONIG PAGE The applicants also assert that,a mistake exists with regard to an alleged ,undersupply of commercially designated properties demands of the trade area propertes to satisfy y ea gent ered on the site. Exhibit C of the applicants statement purports to demonstrate that the currently designated commercial site is too small for the trade area. Exhibit,C tells us' next to nothing other than population projections for the area, surrounding the site. It does not demonstrate that the commercial "needs" of this population surrounding the site need to be provided for at the site or in any location anywhere near here. The applicants provide no analysis of whether or not these "needs" may already be satisfiable at other nearby locations. As previously stated, even if the applicants could demonstrate a need for additional commercial opportunities to serve a trade area, the City is, under no obligation to supply properly designated areas to accommodate opportunities for all identifiable needs The appli.cants have failed to convince the staff that sufficient reasons exist to redesignate 8 acres of the subject site to General Cominercial/C -G or to increase residential densities on 'other portions of this site. Staff therefore concludes that the current application should be denied. D. RECOMMENDATIONa 1. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of a Portion lot 100 to the General o �l Plan rtion of tax 1 gn C .. g pane designation and -N zoning y applicants' request u est for redesignation of any portion tion of Medium-High Density tax lot 100 with either the �Ied Residential or High Density ' gn tions . _ aLty Residential Plan designations ti�l Pl and R -25 or R 40 zoning districts 2 Designate a 5 . 0 acre portion of tax. lot 100 abutting both SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Boulevard alignment with Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation • with the Neighbor�ao _ . .. ,. - . > tion� and O N zoning district. In effect, reconfigure the earlier 5.0 acre portion of this site with respect to the currently accepted alignment of Murray Boulevard. FrOgl a transportation viewpoint, staff Would recommend that the Neighborhood Commercial designation be located in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection; however, since ..:h an action would invalidate the subdivision/planned suc development approval for SUB 90° -04� DR 90 -04, staff recommends that the Commission and Council respect the desires of the property's Wailers with regard to the location of the redesignation - 3 �- ASS STAFF REPORT �- CPA91 000 /ZON 91, .CN' S PAGE 22 000 ERTS y /t Direct staff to work with the current applicants, the applicants for recently denied or withdrawn applications to commercial designations, the NPOs,, and other parties on the development interested P pment of new Plan and zoning designations patterned loosely upon the applicants' discussion of a community commercial zone. PREPARE STAFF `REPd1 P CPA9i -0C O3/ZO�T ;;91 -0006 =- '.A BERTSo '` November 4, 1991 °cott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose, OR 97056 aloatatO F^1-4-101k CITY OP TIGARD OREGON Amended Decision - extension of Approval Period for PDR 90- 04 /S0B 90 -04 (Bull Mountain North Planned Development /Subdivision; locations between SW 135th Avenue and SW Scholia Ferry Road, WCTM 251 4B, Tax Lot 101). an exte approval P period for the Bull Mount in a rh planned for On Septn�on 23. of the � Your representative Crai Petrie submitted North planned development /subdivision. The extension was requested in order to allow e additipomnal time Thetoecisi and on the final , plat for the initial phase of this to ent is application was issued on May 11, 1990 and became a final decision on May 22, 1990. The original approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. On October 23, 1991, Y issued a decisions extending the approval time for this application for a one Year Period, condit revocation of the extension if the pending Plan Amendment /Zone Change affecting the subject parcel is a your attorney, Garry McMurry, raised concerns with the Planning Division's ability to condition the extension an automnatic revocation if the approved, with ni , sue anpon amended of mr' McMurry s November 1, 1991, Plan/Zone amaaendment is a d. U n review letter we have decided to is decision granting the approval for a one year period expiring on November 22, 1992 Without an automatic revocation issued . This amended decision is ssued in accordance with Community Development Code Section l8.32.275., AdcordinglY. we provide the following findings in support of this decision. Community Development Code Section 18.80.030 allows' the Planning Division to extend the approval period for a planned development application for one year subject to the Division determining that: 1) there have been.no changes made to the original 'conceptual plan approved by the Commission; 2) the 'applicant intends to submit a final plat during the extended approval period; and 3)' there have been no changes in the Plan policies or ordinance provisions on -which the original decision was based. Similarly, Code Section 18.160.040 allows the g extend a subdivision approva a period if the same extension approval standard to above can be ms pp ds listed ab if the extension of t will not preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning' Division finds that these conditions for approval of an extension have been made at this time; therefore, no appr � ed preliminary subdivision plat sons to the n made to the approved exist. No si nificant revisions chars es have been development plan as of the writing of this letter. However, a Comprehensive Plan' Tae m Amendment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. was � P pm .. �. this area that to be reserved for develo ent of up to fain North indicated, onceptual planned develo ent lan for Bull Moun• tha Plan y rtment units The e a licatio deal Hate t future multi famil�r resdental��s�n PP n s�rould re P � a a .. al use. i �:f this a lication i® approved, a substantial change. would exist t for General Commnerci site „ that would affect', the PP original conceptual planned development plan approved by the Planning Comrnise cnb Since this would create a significant conflict with the approved conceptual development plan that would still, be in effect, we will urge the City Council to fidedy' the propccsed Plan /Zane change based upon such ari approval creating a confiict between an approved development plan, and a change in the potential use' of,'the land t volved 13125 S N HaD B vd P.O+ Box 23397; Tigard, Oregon 97223 [ (503) 639 -417' in the development decision. As you undoubtedly know, this is just one of Our many concerns with the proposed Plan /Zone Change, but it potentially could be a g with regard to this other application. si nificant issue w Mr. Petrie's letter indicates that there is an intention to record, the P lat for the first phase of the planned development /subdivision' within the extended approval period,. We are unaware of any changes in the facts applicable to the. decision such as a substantial ` change in the ' ability of service providing agencies to provide necessary public services to the proposed development or ubstantial changes to the roads` which would provide, access to the. site. No substantive changes in the Plan or ordinances on which the decision was based have occurred sin ce the origina l approval, with the exce p tion of the adoption ion o,: solar access requirements that apply to the creation of new single - family lots (Code Section 18.88.040). However, Code Section 18.88.050 also provides solar access standards to be applied to home construction on individual lots, regardless whether the lots were created prior to or after the effective date of the solar, access standards. Although staff is unable, to find specific mention of whether the City Council 'intended for approved but as yet un- created lots to be required to be re-reviewed for solar accessibility of the subdivision layout, it is believed that the Council intended only for these lots to' be subject to the solar access standards that apply construction on these lots. s const�su to home Approval of an extension would not preclude development on an y abutting property. .roonrta. A twenty lot subdivision was recently approved for e © ?m en on ian approximately five par abutting the subject property on its boundary. That subdivision would of be dependant on the development of the Bull project 'utility although in time the Mountain North r o ect for access ,or extensions,. road and utility networks of the .two approved but yet ' unbuilt subdivisions will be joined. It was made clear at the hearing on thin twenty lot subdivision that a re swat for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North development ent was going to be made. The prospective developers of the smaller g needed extension. subdivision had. no comment with regard to nee The Planning Division therefore concludes that the request for extension of the requirements 1 for f oextene on tof n the approvals for 0 planned redevelopments and approval pp consistent with and phase is hereb extended to period ve be or recording the final plat for the initial subdivisions. The a rove r• o p y r 22, 1992. In ac decision. may ppe 1�? days of the i issuance o�ithie 0: D, this ma be a aled� within Y amended decision. The appeal period expires November 14, 1991. Appeals would be heard by the Planning Commission and would regarding confined to a review of the record in this matter. Further information ardin the subject of this amended decision and appeal g City q g part PPe Procedure may be obtained from the Cit of'Tig and Planning De ment. m Please contact me if you have further questions. sincerely, 0 r f fe le ss• ate niter • File Craig Petrie Cal Woolery, NPo #7 if Carol Boyle, CPO 4B Garry McMurry Jo: extension; • I- A • October 4, 1591 Attn: Dick Bewersdorff Tigard Planning PO Box 23397', Tigard. OR 9 ?ZZ3, E: :NPO #7 REQUEST FOR INTER 'RETATION RECEIVED PLANNIN OCT 0 7 1991 Gentlemen., ,. Alberteons Inc. CLAIMS that the C -N zone at Scholia Ferry and the proposed Murray extension ia'6.99 acres. HOWEVER, NPO *7 FINDS AND SHOULD BE. NO MORE THAN five acres. this' C -N' zone IS, THEREFORE, NPO #7 REQUESTS the Director to INTERPRET the FINAL DECISIONS in CPA 1 -86 / ZC 3 -86 and SUB 90 -0004, PURSUANT TO 18.12.010 A., to -Wit: e e ed Th 8 1) The FINAL ...DEC ZC 3 _ 6 declared, DECISION CPA 1 86 / ON of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION aay be Modified CONFIGURATION to conform with the final alignment of Murray Elva". - DESIGNATION. IT DID NOT create a C N This DECISION ONLY created a PARCEL. This DECISION declared that ONLY THE CONFIGURATION, NOT THE SIZE. of the five acre C N DESIGNATION may be modified. The INTENT of this DECISION was to; a) LIMIT the C-N DESIGNATION to FIVE acres.; BUT b) ALLOW its EXACT SHAPE AND LOCATION to canforh with the �a THEN UNKNOWN final al ignmc:nt of Murray Bv. This INTENT is f ound in the staff report , the applicant' s statenent' and Ordinance 96 -12. It Page Staff recommended that the C -N DESIGNATION 'be : NO MORE THAN four acres in order to be CONSISTENT with the County;Comprchensive Plan and to DEPART ND FURTHER from the locational Criteria in the City, Plan. IN FACT, staff reminded readers, that no use could exceed a gross floor area of 4, 000 square feet in this C -N zone., The P1fnning Commission recommended approval of the C -N DESIGNATION' WITH THE CONDITION that this zone NOT EXCEED four acres. HOWEVER, applicant argued that the GENERAL SHAPE of this C -N zone was unusual (an irregular triangle) which would cause development inefficiencies and require more. landscaping. IN ADDITION, applicant argued that five acres of C -N would allow ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING and visual variety which would be MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING and FIT INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. NPO *7 FINDS that the INTENT in this FINAL DECISION was to LIMIT this C -N zone to NO MORE THAN five acres. IN ADDITION, if the GENERAL SHAPE of this zone is to, become SQUARE or RECTANGULAR, its SIZE SHOULD BE REDUCED to four acres. Z) The FINAL DECISION in SUB 90 -0004 created a subdivision and four parcels along the, Murray Ea the three Parcels tension. HOWEVER, t arcels on the north side of Muray were ONLY IN to the subdivision. IN FACT, applicant's statemL entand exhibits DID NOT EVEN disclose the SIZE of these INCIDENTAL parcels. Five acres of C-N DESIGNATION from CPA 1 -86 / ZC 3 -66 was WITHIN the largest INCIDENTAL parcel. Staff ASSUMED the SIZE of this parcel was THE SAME AS the SIZE of the C -N CESIGNATION- The staff rePort stated, "..In addition, the proposed division would result in the creation of three additional parcels on'the north side of extension 5 undeveloped r 1 currently erasion -one 0 acre undevel_ the Murray , pace u rently toned C -N and two small R -2S zoned remnant Parcels...". The ACTUAL, SIZE of this parcel is 6.99 acres, °HQWEvER, this fact E DESIGNATION WITHIN this WOULD NOT INCREASE the SIZE of the C-N parcel to 6.99 acres. The FINAL DECISION in CPA 1 -8B / ZC 3 -8G - YGN REGARDLESS DESIGNATION to five acres REGARDLESS SIZE ATI 1i�ited the SIZE of the C of the ION, S.ZE nf..any parcel. It that THE CONFIGURATION. NOT THE SIZE, be modified. ZE, of the C - Pl DESIGNATI ON could b NPO #7 FINDS that the C -N zone at Scholls Ferry and Murray MORE THAN five acres WITHIN this parcel,. The OTHER 1.99 acres in this parcel SHOULD BE R -ZS zone: IN THE , EVENT the Director FINDS, Chet ;; he end' M .srrey i 6 " SS acres EYy.:CPEi ATTDN` ,i1F WOULD 'PETITION for REVOCATION 4OF `;APPROVAL of SUES 90 -00f� Pl9 UANT T® • 18.32.390 A.4. end'. 1�8. .,32.390 C 4 . tO JLt NPD e7 FINDS, a I ATERIAL MISTAKE iN FACT` in the ateff report 'for SU ®' 9p-,0 4 r erdth the SIZE' ..-•,•.;•• f 'the "undeveloped 'parcel current zoned C -N ". Pollan 1 (letobor 4 1991 Attn: Jam Offer Tigard Planning PO `Box 23397 9 Tigard, OR _ 72 23 R6s NPO 07 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INPORNATION Dent l Oren. IN ' ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 910093/2 the Director to require additional information on ATP 's transportation analysis for Alberteons' Proposal, PURSUANT TO 1 5.1'2.060 A. 3. b. t v) AND 18.32.050 A.1., to-t' . 1) SUPPORT for ATEP's 36% REDUCTION in the coniueroi al area's 5,373 site generated DAILY t Eli TRIPS duo to DROP -If TRIPS, (ATEP Table O3 In 1992, ATEP's site generated PM peak hour trip Volume' is 551 ( RT�. `able 8), WHILE lte background traffic PM peak hour volume T P is ONLY 356 (ATEP Figure 9): Would 'DROP IN TRIPS from this SMALL background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated Ph peak hour NEW TRIPS to 359? would DAILY DROP -IN TRIPS from 'this s bAekpround traffic voluota ACTUALLY reduce TRIPS IPS to 4, 143 in '1992? site generated DAILY ar t� In 2010 ATEP a background traffic PM peak our volume � grove to 2.045 (ATEP Figure 2). EVEN THOM background traffic would grow, would traffic at this CUT-OF-THE-WAY site ACTUALLY contribute DROP-IN TRIPS to reduce site generated TRIPS to 4,143 in lots? Would trips on 0 atoll 11At11C NEW INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be male by portions leaving nearby residential property or entering or xanv commercial end by persons whose primary destination it to other co.,eroial aroma? Old any of the studies pUbl fished ' in the ITS 3ournal evaluate any shopping centers next to COLLECTOR "streets p or did the studies lust evaluate centers next to arterials or freemays? 2) ANALYSIS of the infect of'' the 'high density residential generated trips. lEVISION cf fiTEP'.a i CO MONTIONS nAt ipste the :1 nPolot of the 'coPolorot Bress' site .penereted trips. p!` dsnsity. mg 'reside de L e►' ATEP's LOS, evaluation ASSUME$ ANa DEPEND O!. the proploled stre, oprovenente in the Nerthsast 'Bull l untain ron prorts ion Study (NE Bull I to TS .ndta £) ,++hIoh 'tn. iudso Snholle Fri. +rot�ld b• "'built. o "arm Murr+x'i East ns on i oui be built t® lanes ?. 1ls c`) `Murry. Eettens ian intersoet ion* would be mip»dl ize.d s►t i Scholia Ferry ii) 1 35th north l3Sth south err 14�1I L .ATE * s LOS evaluation I PENOS oN these, srd street s reveatnts. ATEP ASCUMES these proveirnts Mould bee deno by OT�lEi . Would.. doveiap.rs OUCH AS Aibsrfs ®ns Macke thise� -ire* inprover ierete Which rove nts� world Albertaons make? A T EP' a LOS evaluationis the arsons inokerhof f' e 4) RECONCILIATION OF 8P LOS avaiestien cif the Murry Extension n Western Bypass Study ( 20)1 Peak Hour Velure and LOS Forecast For t aj ar North-South' Roadways )4 Parsons Brinekerhof f f orece5te F level LOS on the Hurray Extension for several transportation iaprovenent strategies. Respectf u] y Army NPO WI by 'Bill dross Ertel RECEIVED RAANNING T1 7 1991 October 1S. 1991 Attn : Jerry Offer Tigard Planning P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gentlemen: IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-0003/EON 91-0006, NPO *7 REVISES ITS REQUEST, TO THE DIRECTOR,, DATED 'OCTOBER 4, 1991. " NPO #7 REQUESTS: REQUEST #1 RE: ATEP's 36% REDUCTION in the site's 6,373 ,SITE GENERATED DAILY.., NEW TRIPS due to DROP-IN TRIPS at this OUT -OF- TIE -WAY site on INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets. SUPPORT FOR ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the site's .16a73 BATE' GENERATED DAILY NEW TRIPS for the BENEFIT OF ALL REVIEW EODIES and NPO #7_ PURSUANT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ' 2.1.1. REQUEST #3 RE: REVISION of ATEP's RECOMMENDATIONS for REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS in to mitigate the impact of t he site's, '�i commercial and high density residential SITE GENERATED DAILY NEW TRIPS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REVISION of ATEP's Los evaluation TO ASSUME, AND ONLY DEPEND ON, MINIMUM street improvements which include a) Scholls Ferry would be built to 2 lanes, b) Murray Extension would be built to 2 lanes, and c) murrav Extension intersections would .. g uid NOT BE signalize Respectful 1` For . NPO #7 By Katy Dorsett, Secretary xc. Ed Murpt z NeWton, NPO #7 members CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON' NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION - BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18.32..380); Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 1-86 ZC 3 -86 • Name of Owner: Mar e Krue:er Name of Applicant: � Russ Krueger -- Address 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y -1 City Portland State ©R _Zips 1. Location of Property: a h Ave. 35 Between Scholls Ferr Rd. & 1tmile north Address _ y of Walnut St. Legal, Description IS' 33C lot 1000 _" move the rese orhood) nt C -N (Commercial �ie�.�hb _!, 5. Nature of Application: 10 m. ide • west side of ,135th Ave. to a location on the nosh side from the of the Murra west of 135th. ` Road extension. Ap.roximatel 500 feet we Action: The Tigard City Council on 2/24/86 heard the above noted request. Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the request and approved the commercial designation to be, located as shown in Exhibit " " The configuration •he five acre C-11 designation, xh�bit B attached. �.on 'of the be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. A copy of Ordinance No. 86 -12 is attached ' Cached fur our files. • Notice .1 Notice was published in the newspaper. posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant & owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization • Affected goVernlriQntal agencies . Final Decision: r THE : bECISION WASH SIGNED ON; � ,2/ 26/86 'NC BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON , 3/29/86 (! •b` " 'F w ,d . a @` -" i,V ^ The . ',ado 4c-- nd statement a p ted ' f znd be �n s f oonditzon can � decis'ori. g g w .y M ' ' sh, ofi fact obtained from the • Planna.ng Department Ti and Cxt Hall• 1.2755 SW A • P , O.'' Box 23397. Tigard . Oregon • 97223: , r `rL .� r f i m A review of this decision Y may be obtabrted= by :filing wa notioe �of,w intent Use Board of ; Appeal5,1'. (CUBA .. according to their.h, ye, with the `Oregon Land zµ � = .µ" ... W J procedures.. ., �a. If. 9 uestions••cry•� v .•y °u, °.havea�an� °Agues Recorder 'at +639 4171;x, "� 0257P: •..4i ions ea. 1 green ilson ecord r4 r TIGARD ;.OR'E' 'ORDINANCE` NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING r FINC)INGS AND CONCLUSIONS i"C.' 'APPROVE .A C0MPREI ENSI' AMENDMENT (CPA 1-86) AND . *.ZONE CHANGE '(ZC 3 -fi6)' PROPOSED 'BY.MARGE KRUEGER. A WHEREAS, the applicant.` has requested A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and 'Zone g shift the existing area zoned C-N (Commercial Ne2 Change o :ghborhOod) frail' the side of 135th Avenue to a location on 'the:. north 'side of the proposed Murray Blud. extension approximately 500 feet west f 135th Ave. (WCTM 1S1 33C, T,L: 1000); WHEREAS, the Planning commission reviewed the proposal on February 4, 1986and' recommended, approval with a condition that the C-I' designation not exceed four acres in size; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on February 24,.,1986. to ,. consider the Commission recommendation.', o,. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOW Section '1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the February 4, 1.986 Planning staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit "A "). Section 2: The City Counci1 upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment and the commercial designation ,will , be located as shown in Exhibit "B" The configuration of the five acre C-N' des ignatthn may be modified to conform with the.-final alignment of Murray Blvd. Section 3 • The area resentl zoned _ presently C-N shall be designated R 25 (Residential, 25 units /acre), Section 4 : That .this after its PASSED: APPROVED. (I(SL'! pm50) ORC)I;IVANCE NO Page, ordinance shall be effective on and, after the 31st day passage by the Council, and approVal by the Mayor. By Lho_n, rxlac� % vote of all Council members present after `tle only, this 2 day being read number. r and t1 at in, , 1986 Loreen Rz Wilson, Deputy Recorder This '' day of £_ r t: 1986, ri.- t uoMt, Mayon';; 1 • 1 S1 A1-1 ■1:1POR1 — t1,:B1u4'RY 4, . 1986 7; 30 P .M. 1' 1 CFlft[) WI.ANNINV COc4M1;•.-I ION IOwl1;.12 J'UN1i)R 11ti ,j17,ilt`K7i1 108,65 S.W. WALNU1' 'FIGARO OREGON 97223 FACTS 1. General Information r,i;t' Nt)A 1 1,'-M , . 7 CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 1 -86 and'Zone Chance ZC'3 -86 REQUEST. To mope the present area files icy nated C-N Commercial Neighborhood) from the west side of 135th Avenue to a location on 'the, north side of the Murray Road extension, approximately 500 feet west of 135th ''Avenue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,DESIGNATION: Medium High Oenaity Residential /Neighborhood Comnnercia1 ZONING DESIGNATION: R -25' (Residential, 25 units /acre) and C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) APPLICANT: ,Russ Krueger OWNER: Marge Krueger 3515 SW Barber Blvd Rt . 1, Box 792 Suite Y--1. Beaverton, 'OR 97007 Portland, OR 97201 LOCATION: Between Scholls Ferry Road,, and 135th Avenue, approximately one quarter, mile north Of,,,, Walnut Street (Wash: Co. 1'iak Map ' 1S1' 33C, Tax Lot' 1000) , Background The property was annexed to the City on June 12, 1983 and in August, 1983, the City approved a variety of Plan and Zone designations for the property iuhich included Medium High Density Residential (R -20), Medium Density Residential (R -12) and Neighborhood Commercial (C -N). In February, 1984, . the City approved the relocation of the C -N area from the . northwest corner of the proposed f the Murry Road extension and .Wort e 8= 83��C intersection o of 135th to the Avenue .....(CPA 1 d 135th AVerru 14 -83 In 1985. shift in the location of the ` zone to r 4 4lirray Road intersection was proposed ;�(CPA 4r 851 ROadl:�cholls Ferry Ro � ... �� )' Because this request was " determined to be premature, due to the unanswered questions related to Murray Road extension, the four acre C--N designation was reapplied at the original lot:ation on the west side ' of 135th (Benue It was also agreed that onife the alignment of t4ur•ray' Road Was deterndned, the applicant would entitled to prot,►ose' yet another 5 be Murray Road location a • CPA 1 - ' orld .7t :11-1ti P1CrC f'�IFiiat i tin k:xcept for.. several scattered 'hr t31es.i f,‘&s , ` th i,s • ��rr� •. k etwc eri .,135th Avenue �r,d `thou 1 1 s Ferry ,R�.::tc3 i s und'4e : 1 c�pc!d .a'rid ��r ��'t:.i l i .► d try 1 imt'ted!' • Ex t`c�:r�t fur agrit:u i turc. t,r` i s' wo dr:d the ��,�c >:��;1 s Lr1 th . nrir=thi are being; developed fair si'ngile family residences (Crotswa,l;d Subdivision'). The nand: surrounding the '.pres'ent and propos sites i s zioned 4. - ,Site Information .The existing and proposed commercial sites ,are undeveloped. The commercial site is intended to be located on the north side of`the 00e17.ay Road extension approximately. 500 f'e.et west of 135th Avenue A specific development plan has not been formulated. 5., Agency and NPt4Comments The Engineering Oivilsion has the fol,lowin comments: 9 Site Development Review approval will development of " the property, be required prior Sanitary sewerage and storm drainage provisions till be necessary in conjunction with development. c. Participation in the improvement of 135th Avenue and 'Murray+ Road, will be regui .red as a condition' of 'development. • The Building Ins P ect r On Office has no ` objection to the request: The City of Beaverton suggests the,i: the 'affect this proposal could, have upon the future development' pla"s for tax lot 100 to, the east be . carefully evaluated. No other cOmmentS1 haoe been received. FINDINGS AND .CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 8.1.1 and 'Chapter 12e Locational Criteria. g that the proposal is consistent with the The Planning staff concludes relevant portions of Comprehensive Plan based :upon the findings noted' below : i i s sat t'si~ red because th .. y .. � n nt� fanning Plan Polis 2:1 ` e Neighk►orhood 'P the heartn ar ty rJWners were give Lice of Organization and surrounding pr }per p ` �d on o ortunit to comment on the ap 1 icant s proposa.. Po l rcy 8.1.1 t s sak i s f,ied bec a si th ; pr'op�is ee! relocation of the done � 1 allow • f .4 or the Sprripria' a alignment of the, Murray Road eXtens fl aorat i t,,` r. i & proposed try, .off. Z•r� Isar y� rA , �� r ttiec• than the '2 airr`e g i d l t rya +t ft,r I h i t th +1 T I 411: A A ac.r•. , size obi , est, bl i sfird wP�c "r, L',h. ��r,�l,, r 4y w� ririt.�i i I:he City in; order to Washington County Plan which .applied prior ; to the ,' anrtiexJat; i on .' S i'nce this expansion represents a further "' de rar}ti re f''r'r�m 'adopted an : the staff recommends that "thy ' A acrd limit be retained Thera are no other commercial properties' within . on half: mile of the 'proposed ,site, The. commercial site will be limited to the north. side of Murray Road No significant traffic impacts ', are anticipated from this move. Specific traffic related issues will be addressed during the Site Development Review .process: The site will have direct access !to a collector street. The eventual development of the commercial center will be evaluated according to the applicable standards, in the Community Development Code: Since the entire area is undeveloped,' establishing a "compatible relationship between uses should not present a problem. Although, it is not necessary to consider' specific provisions of the C-N zone, it should be noted that Section 18.60. 045 of the code states that "no use shall exceed a gross floor area of 4,000 square feet." A variance must be approved in conjunction with the Site 'Development'; Review process in order for this standard to be exceeded RECOMMENDATION, Based :U pon on the findin s and noteabove, the, Planning staff o ' .. recommends approval of CPA 186 and' subject tO f�thowing conditions; 1. The new C-N zone designation shall be no more than 4 acres in size." PREPARED DY Keith Liden Senior Planner ( kst, t bs 8 S ) APPROVED f3Y "'L Wi l iam A f�onahan Director o.f Planning' Devalopme+it Arf` RCOl.}R'1" - (APIA 1—f #6 ►rid ZC, 3 PACE 1 to- rt October 25, 1991 Jerry Offer Development l Review Planner City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Jerry RECEIVED. PLANNING OCT 2 51991 The department has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan map and zone amendment. for property located on Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection with the "future" Murray Boulevard extension (local file ICPA 91- 0003 /ZOM 91-0006). The applicant proposes a comprehensive plan and, zone amendment for a parcel of land south of the Murray Boulevard extension from Medium High Density Residential to General Commercial. The a piicant also proposes a comprehen sive plan and zone change for a parcel of land north of the Murray Boulevard extension ` from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and Medium Density . � The department submits the following Residential. comments regarding the proposed plan and zone change. Metropoli an Housing OAR 660 -07 -035 requires the City of Tigard to provide for an overall housing density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. The proposed plan and zone amendments would result in elimination of 1.01 acres of Medium High Density Residential land resulting in a potential loss of 24 dwelling units in Tigard. p in dwelling units, the . e for the loss To iic compensate proposes changes increasing residential applicant p p g density on part of the 6,99-acre parcel north Of the Murray Boul ward extension or the remaining in ' maining 4.5 acres of the parcel south of the Murray Boulevard extension,. Alternatively. the applicant proposes that the city absorb the 24 -unit loss into its housing . density rurpaus . The city should consider that absorbing the 24 unit loss for this proposal may limit decision making 'flexibility on future plan amendments that would also result in the loss of potential housing units. Trans o°tati,on Planning OAR 660 -12 -060 requires that land uses permitted as a result of a plan amendment' be consistent with 'the function, capacity, and level of service of the DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Barbara Roberta Go�errior i 75 Court Street tIE Salenri, OR 97310 -0590 (503) 37 MX (503) 362- 6705 tw . erry O'f fer ;, c tube: I 1 i 8 ^'I r acility:. simply stated, the' planned' transportation facilitie st. be adequate to serve the planned, land, .use. 'Ib :The traf f ic report" subnl.itted with' 't ie. "application analyzes a 4 proposed change from' Neighborhood Commercial . to' General Commercial only. i,does not consider _ the other possible', changes included in the application. These' changes could .include irkcreasing the residential density on part of the 6.99 -acre parcel north of the Murray Boulevard extension or on the remaining 4.5 acres south of the 'Murray Boulevard extension. Q determine if'the transportation facilities are adequate to serve . the proposed land uses, the traffic analysis must consider . the raffic impacts of the possible changes in residential densities as the change in commercial. zoning. a� well as t If You have any questions Elaine Smith at 3/3-00E6. Sincerely, concerning our comments, . please contac Michael J Rupp Plan Review Manager MJR IBS bh <p a> cc: Jim'Sitzman, Field Service Manager Tigard Plan Amendment File 007 -91 k, H • ly October 23, 1991 I1YOFTIGRD OREGON Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose, OR 97056 RE: x ension of Approval Period for PDR 90 -04 /SUB 90 -04 (Bull Mountain North) f ' Craig Petrie has submitted a 'request for an extension of the approval period or The extension is the - Bull Mountain North planned d n t�� t ®ur�1ord� the final plat for the requested in order to allow additional l scat ion �t for the initial phase of this develo ent. The decision on this app Pm on May <11, 1990 and became a final decision on May 22, 1990. The original approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. Community development Code Section 18.80. 030 allows the Planning- .Divieion to p�+e for one year approval period foap that= development app . 1) there have tzeen no changes made to sub jnect to the Division determining eato roved by the commission; 2) the appli the original conceptual.. plan app intends `to submit a final plat during the extended approval period; and 3) there been no changes in the facts or ordinance provisions on which the original have 18.160.040 extension Planning ha ,, Similarly, Code Section 18 160 040 allows the P decision was based. royal Division to extend a subdivision tiefiedla period if the will not P the extension of`t standards listed above can be preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning Division finds that these conditions for approvalsubdivision fan XtensiOt exist. No significant revisions to the approved prelamb ry - approved have been ca this letter However, a Comprehensive Plan . changes have been made to the development made as of th2ewr writing therefore, e � no c ndment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. Pme plan 4 Ta P p Mountain North indicated that P BullMo The conce tual planned development- Plan for be reserved for development edp units. The the area. w 300 apartment Was to of up to plan /zone change application would redesignate this future multi - family residential site for General • If this application pproved, t Commercial wou►lcd affect he original conceptual is a a substantial change would exist the Planning Comesion. This would pme Planned develo nt plan app roved by t rni t necessarily make any extension of the app roval Period void. e is an intention l to record the pat for Mac. Petrie s letter indicates that then i evelo nt /subd vise facwithin the exten extended riod. of are unaware of any Changes in th of se the approval st Pha rv�.ce Providing the fir ' • as a substantial change in the ability o. decides such ry. P services to the proposed developmee or agencies to provide nec�sssa - Public `, ' g the site. eiubsta ` ntial cZian "ee to the roadie which would provide accee�t to' No substantive changes in the Plan or ordinances on whiccht the e isi dope a of red ®ince the original approval, to t4atill the of neW = family lots have occur ` s that apply w single, + ea solar solar access re 88.040) action 18.88.050 also roved standards to be. applied to home �. ., dici ua date s, (Code Section 18.88. of At rr Code S e nst�uct ion on indiy�.dual iats,� 040 HowevE r o or after. th regar regardle�►a whether the Vote +ere ciceate.� Prior'. . ind pecific entito lthoug�"r staf; Y s cific men the Solar esA standard. intended for approved but a to of whether the. City council or ar�lar s et undly , _, .. . acc requited to- be ire- rev�iesed f eesibilty of the sub a.Aion la out, it qu it is believed that the Council intended only s�ruct orn1cngthe� be l,oti� act to the Solar access standards that apply con t a l to rime 1312 8W Hail ,B `d.;P. X 2S397,11 vegan 97223 $04,,050.4111.:- tOloar of an �ubdiviaion subdivision abutting dependant on the property on LtB s�uthern e development. ilk time, the tweatt' int4irilve acre 1:77:Ot'bef yet unbuilt aubdiviaiona will Id arid utilitv 41111*rati going tni;t)c:iitht regard to t, for extea4on ini Division 'therefore concludee the }. ivis,i4)ae" The aPPe= tgeNo4entherde221.11 the CcilPfitioh are euhi:c:Itt of the • „ tdleaer!fore ,e6ii!anY preclude ' , NOrth rica.,0g.the. heariaitikkfe.!, ne eHaleat' the abutting n would e3gt 4 in' ion that ,; hat aor;° acCese 4.,.ed but letsumu-,T H. rote two apP--- twentle, Nett ed., It wase3ctulaceiliaion of td he aPI3The prot3pi!)G•tilfeed, dave had no =Farad e n ' ivieiOn' a that the rage- .‘ amistent and i n Pf)lt 90,44' SUB , planned ' de" -h initial The at period for , apoliocnatt;f0 ihti, , aoorov... _ ___,111,.1.4 gong, ft9oh0re-0,fl'irlti. L., plat for t ! '. ver of the approval in . for extents.. i period for ,ree,,,,..1.992. Thiti3ienezettlieenaipolneeilosr a'evetaa, i.ifie is ___,hereh_„,Te ai, char:196_4 „„,,her:i ig.ew of thie ParT, that POrti°e, 8 uer,wor--, c*ilditi°4121 upon to an' r'' ' or in other A X! any ch4nglu=t1.1:h:!:: des ...vs- t overlay zones a.. eefinectie 4 atniy consti. North planned pi-aaa ed.DbveloPment of the Walnut-Murray would cert , tairt North .p id, ed' aliglamea ._, mad-, OM. , approved ignittiOlIB 15 11 for, the IR_ u 1 A. 14°e1,1 approval period *ma in thneingor`des the conceptual. plan , Th.e _extended__ e?-tr:kan4e affecting the s1`,•r1'29 ' ,. iginal t i zone t; subiect Parcel- '' tbecomeaPPr°vvIdoLdbirupotte approval Orli' a p a., or z Please contact me if you have further questiOns. Lvj AA. lyilt. • 1, derry er/ / Associate Pl'apriet• co File Craig Petrie Cal Woolery, NPO #7 Carol Boyle, CPO 48 S_oteMbew Vii. 1991 r. Jerry ai er RECEIVED PLANNING Gee: elopmef t Review Planner 1 lei tv a r iga. 1 1991 SW Hall Blvd- S EP 2 31�2 S Hal.. 5 Tigard Oregon 97223 • != inal Order # 90-12 PC -Bull Mountain North PD (part os ax Lot 101. '' Map' 2S " 1W. -B Washington County Oregon) Dear Mr . 0± fer As owners of the real property that Final Order # 50 -12 PC Capproved May llth. 1990) applies to we are requestinga one year extension of the approval and the 26 conditions which,. were attached so that, we may complete negotiations with a company which will build the Bull Mountain North PD7 The upheaval in the flnancxal markets combined with the additional burden of tithe' financing and construction of Walnut Street through' our prop Y have made getting this protect under way difficult.` No; changes in the final order are being requested at this time. The final plat,, . , ' od. av �s�ll be submitted within this one year pert Would you please send a letter confirming that this extension has been granted as soon as possible. Please Address it to Scott Russell and send a copy to Craig Petrie. Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose Oregon 97056 Sincerely, OWNERS: Craig Petrie The Petrie Company 10920 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland Oregon 97219 Date: [22 Sept ember, 199..' Mar g , stee under the F F. Grist Living Margery F Crist Li q Trust dated July 1, 1988 /T Dat amt R. Crist, Trustee under the Margery F. Grist Living Trust dated July 1, 1988 z Oft ALregi illiata Scott Russell nd vldually Date : September,' 1991. Sept e er, 1991. Wi his ai Scott Russell, Trustee iilia n Scott Russe11 t Trustee, under Tres . agree nent dated Dece er 2 5 , 1918 `fob t. e benex it of Zachar y Lewi s Ruse l' • nd ru t e under Tr ytst; • ��are,e neat Decem�ier 27, 19`78 der tae • benefit ©s `Car]. wade R • age: ' Two 9/5/91'_l tier to Jerry Offer City of Tigag Planning Dept. Frederick Henr�C Indi.v idualiv Russell Date:._] September, 199' Frederick H - ' Russel 1, Trustee :Frederick Henry Russell, Trustee, under Trust Agreement dated May 1, 1985 for the benefit of Rebecca Leigh Russell and Trustee under Trust. Agreement dated May 2., 1985 for the benefit of Anna Marie Russell and Trustee under Trust Agreement dated' may 3, 1985 for the benefit of Stephanie Co Russell. Date: Pe R. Weems (71.7 er1y known as Peg R. Ayres) zdiv dually September, 1991. Pe 4 .. !i0 R. Weems; Trustee (formerly known as Peggy R. AYres) Peg ®- e, under Trust Agree2nent dated Pe R. Weems, Trustee December 20, 1978 for the `'benefit of Nancy Ayres and Trustee tee r Agreement dated December` 21, 1998 for the benefit ands.. ?.'rust A ee�tent cia Alan Scott Ayres, and Trustee under Trust agreement dated' December 22., 1978 for the benefit of Amy Ayres / o- Dated: �.., September, 1991. Pe, R. Weems as Co- Conservator for Gerald Vincent Russell (Peggy . Weems formerly known as Peggy R. Ayres) Lewis Russel Russell ate3: September, 1992.. as Co-Conservator f'or Gerald 'Vincent ,Date: R. Marel, ind�.v dual3y z Virgin Virgin' R. Marel, Trustee Virgin �a R. Marel, under Trust Agreement dated December 18, 1978` for the benefit of Rita Hawkins and Trustee under Agreement dated December 19, 1978 for the benefit of Kenneth Lee Hawkins. J September, 19914 Date: September, 1991. LEGIBILITY STRIP 40' R.O.W. SECTION 1kcd:13rivr (Staudt Sett kin) i 30 R am ROAD SECTION ITYP:) 37' R.O.W. ROAD SECTIONITYP.1 tiltuaraittcTkr4MKV SITE S 1 • 1 M` a ' ▪ ! W 'i r u ti i, ;.; � , � k. 2I-. s .i vr i !Tie ta t J'•• Cr tts 4 f. • t ■ Area -1' S.W. Hind en Sr. --�- S.W. - Murray. SW. met %%MAID 11 148:1 MITES; I. Ni a shown id 6' d aily easlr Ms an Aber sadrd at strolis. L ; Strut iwdm am p©S+nawy. 4. Parcels " •A 'ti' and '''C ma n4 wulQis ` - planned snit &Wapner. SaN:. MURRAY BLVD. • SECTION 1. a/X O e./ ATTORNEY AT LAW , 435 BEND. FRANKLIN PLAZA ONE S.W. COLUMBIA STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97268 TELEPHONE 4603) 228.6546 November 1, . 1991 VIA TELECOPIER l r. Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 NO 3 TELEOOPIER 16031 228.7468 e: p - Comprehensive Plan Amendment CP!! 91 0003 Zone Change ZON 91-0006 Scholls Ferry Road / Murrayy Blvd. Extension Intersection. Dear" Mr. Offer: The undersigned has been retained by the Owners of Tax Lot 101, bounded to the northwest byi Scholls Ferry Road and to the east by 135th Avenue. I am writing to you on behalf of the Owners to share with you and the Planning Commission the Owners' views on two points raised in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission' for the November 4th hearing on Albertson's petition. The first point concerns the size of the parcel of property at the northeast quadrant of Scholls /Murray Road intersection,' presently designated C -N. The second point concerns the staff' s' interpretation that a grant of Aiber,tson's petition will invalidate the one -year extension of Owners' submission of final 'devel o p m ent plans. Turning to the amount of acreage in the C -N designated parcel, at the northeast quadrant of Scholis /Murray intersection; it is the owners' position that the parcel of land northeast of the scho lls /Murray intersection approximates 6.99 � . 9 acres follolAring the realignment nment of the Murra Road, ex sa.on The ten entirety of that p final ' arcel, whatever its ' acreage, still retains the C.-'N zone designation. We note, in your report of November 4, 1991, at page 3 thereof, your apparent, concurrence with this view wherein you state: ''Three, parcels to ': it north of the Murray extension wou d. have created 'by this s division including r acre Parcel this the . an a " roxiinate 7 � ubdnorthe3st quadrant of hav P� p Scholis/MUrray intersection." Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Two We also note at pace 2 of your report that the City Council in 1986, by Ordinance No. 86 -12, " . . . approved, the applicants' [Kruegers'] proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of the five acres designated C -N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard. .1' In the Final Order, No. 90-'12 PC of the Tigard Planning Commission, dated May 11, 1990, conditions 2 a -d, 3, 4, and 5, describe the configuration of Murray Road extension with particularity, thereby defining the acreage of the parcel presently designated C -N. We believe that this position n is supported by the historical planning of this site, as well as the consistent treatment of the parcel as C -N in its entirety, whatever its ultimate boundaries may be. Ordinance No. 86 -12 explicitly provides that the "five acre C -N designation may be modified to conform with the ,final alignment of Murray Blvd." Thus, the actual acreage, dependant upon the Murray Boulevard realignment, could have een greater o r less. fact, it is now determined to be slightly larger than shown on the original., alignment, and the Council expressly contemplated a C -N desi.0?11.tli ton for that actual acreage. Further, Mr. :10o1ey' s letter to estate broker) confirms that the Fina`. Lot 101, and qualifies all parcels (copy enclosed). With the above history memorandum of actobpr wherein you sj Owners' real all of Tax `?- e credits fused by your Katy Dorsett, n - • C -N ;Lion covers only 5.0 acre 8 aci, of tax lot 101. No recoi lion f this area has been apprc °'s decision for CPA 1-86. The decis my allowed creation of a 6.99 acre -tie northeast quadrant of this pp . _�.r,- without P reel has a C--N designated Portion of this v Parcel. a This a anion has Chet to g p Y �° � this be created. In the Plannn Divsa.on s o anion parcel w:.u!d be a split zoned parcel upon its creation.. . The Council's decision for CPA 1 -86 only said that this 5,0 acre area could be reconfigured, not enlarg- • 14f ue C y 4 + 4 ado r v Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Two We also note at page 2 of your report that the City Council in 1986, . by Ordinance No. 86 -12, ". approved the applicants' [Krueger$ ] proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of the five acres designated C -N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard. . ." In the Final Order, No. 90 -12 PC of the Tigard Planning Commission, dated May 11,, 1990, conditions 2 a -d, 3, 4, and 5, describe the configuration of Murray Road extension with particularity, thereby defining the acreage of the parcel presently designated C -N. We believe that this position is supported by the historical lannin o p g consistent of this site, as well , as parcel its entirety, the its treatment ` of the, arcel as C -N Ordinance explicitly boundaries may be. ce No. 86 -12 explicitly provides that the "five acre C -N designation may be modified to conform with the finnal alignment of Murray Blvd." Thus, the actual acreage, dependant upon the Murray Boulevard realignment, could have been greater or less. In fact, it is now determined to be slightly larger than shown on the original alignment, and the Council expressly contemplated a C -N designation for that actual acreage. Further, Mr. :Alooley's letter to Craig Petrie (Owners' real estate broker), confirms that the Final Order related to all of Tax Lot 101, and qualifies all phrcels for Traffic Impact' Fee credits (copy enclosed). With the in , owners are confused by your With above history in mind memorandum of October 18, 1991 to NPO 7 Secretary, Katy Dorsett, wherein you state: '° .. staff agrees that the C -N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No, reconfiguration or expansion' of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1 -86. The y decision for SUB 90-0004 onl allowed creation of a 6.99 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without approval of an expansion ... " designated portion of this parcel. This parcel arc l has'yetCto g P to y Planning bivision'ps opinion, this be creat�.d. In the Pl ,.. parcel wt..0 parcel be a split zoned arcel u p an its creation.. The Council's decision for CPA 1-86 only said that this 5.0 acre area could'' be reconfigured, not dattul enlarge ; �' r Adm. A.24 AL tade Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Three We believe that a correct interpretation of Ordinance No 86- 12 is as set forth in your staff report on page 2 " The Ci y Coun 't pp the applicant's proposal and cil a roved t ' declaration that the configuration of the five included a declares acres designated C -N could be modified to conform with the final ali.nment of Murra. Boulevard. .°." present limitation of this C -N designation to five acres A resent lmita rmisreads Ordinance No. 86 -12, and the Final Order for this site, icitl states that the neighborhood commercial is which expl y ates tha approximately 5.0 acres. It was understood in 1986, that the southerly location of the Murray extension would increase the acreage of the C -N parcel, and that the C -N designation would apply to the totality of that parcel This is only logical due to the fact that the southerly location of the Murray extension would otherwise create a southerly strip of land abutting the Murray extension zoned as R-25. There has never been an implication that moving the Murray extension sr. -therly would create an anomalous split zone along t.:1g, s'O hern border of the parcel in question. Such an implication is illogical as it might render both portions of the site unusable because the C -N zone would not have access to the Murray extension and the. R -25 zone would be unbuildable. Clearly that was, and is, no one's intent. Logic, as well as the law, supports the Owners''` interpretation' Had the in xtensi, d, the P Murray y on been dedicated/ purpose the a grantor with an easement, for the purposeeoffthe would dedication, residing in the public. See: Portland g P P vacataon Club relocation or to Portland, 142 42 13, 18 P.2d 811 (1933). Upon intentional abandonment, the fee belonging to the abutting owners is free from the easement's servitude. ORS 271.060(2), 271.140; Fowler v Gehrke, 166 or. ,239, 111 P.2d 831 (1 941) . Consistent zoning should apply to incremental land added to the site as approximately 5.0 acres is not a description which controls over a road boundary. Section 18.40.030(5) of Tirard's Code so provides. By way `of further analogy, a conveyance following vacation of an a buttin g street, conveys the street Portion of the fee even..• P resumed' to though it is not included in the descr:� do n. It is P have been c onveyed, so as not to have title to a narrow strip of land in question. State ex rel Dept. of Transportation v Tolke, 36 Or. App. 751, 586 P.2d 791 (1978). The presumption against split zoning, or strip zoning, resulting from a street alignment being ! changed, should be the same as in real property conveyance law. • Ir. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Four Otherwise, a strip of land may preclude rational development, pending resolution of the zoning a result not favored by the law of real property, nor by Tigard's own Code. See 18.40.030(5). Turning to the second point: potential invalidation of the extension granted October 23, 1991, upon grant of Albertson's petition; it is owners' position that a subsequent ;amendment by the Commission to the Final Order, would not invalidate the earlier extension granted. The staff, in' its report to the Planning Commission, at '' pages 11-12, advised that the grant of the petition of Albertson's would invalidate the extension for submission of a final plat and detailed planned development, granted October 23, 1991. In addition, in the grant of extension issued to Scott Russell on October 23, 1991, you state: "This extension is however conditioned 'upon no changes s being made in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designations applied to any portion of this parcel which are subject to the Planned Development overlay zone, or in other words, that portion south, of the approved the Walnut- Murray connection. If any change to the Plan or z g zoning designations is made, such a change alp. nment, of th g would certainly constitute a change in the original the [sic] conceptazal plan for the Bull Mountain North planned development approved by the Commission. The, extended, approval period would therefore become void upon approval of parcel." a plan or zone change effecting the subject parcel (See copy of letter attached.) This position relies upon the Commu , it y Development Code Section 18.80.030 and 18.160.1.40. Section 18.80.030, as` pertinent, provides as follows: "The •Director shalt, upon written request by the' ',applicant and P a y m ent the 'required fee4 grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: Nc changes have been made oh the on final conceptual development plan as approved by the Conunission; 2. Ths� applicant can show intent of applying for detailed developh�entithiin the one year tension period; and Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Five 3 There have been no changes to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based." (Italics provided) Community Development Code Section 18.160°040, which applies to extensions for submitting subdivision final plats, as pertinent, Provides as follows, "B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one . extension of the approval period not to exceed six months provided that 1. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat as approved by the Hearings Officer. . . n (Italics provided) Both code sections require that the Director grant the extension for detailed planned development and subdivision plats for one year and six months, respectwei.y, unless there has been a change in the development concept or subdivision plat ror to the extension being granted. As stated above, the extension was granted on October 23, 1991, for one year, and no change has, as yet, been made to either planned the p development concept or the subdivision plat. The change may be effected during the exten period which has been granted, However, the Owners are unable to find any Tigard Code section which retroactively voids or invalidates an extension if the Commission or Council uncsl :.subsequently alters or amends a previously submitted plan or plat. Applying the above sections retroactively, so as to void an extension if changes are made to parcels which are subject to the conceptual r pP illogical. � very purpose 1 lean would a ear. illap ical . The � uture use of parcels under the -reliminar 1iz conceptual Plan is to allow de.vel s oval roc "es' p tua mod as and � s and to ,seek fications as developmental and efficiency of land use options become apparent. . l f that not the case, there would be no need ome a are t were , for conceptual approval, and the City of Tigard would resolve planning issues on final plats and subdivisions. The entire flexibility of + the o verlay zones is dest y changes' . ro ed �. f automat�:cally void extensions necessary to adequately develop the land. Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 199' 1 Page Six, The change proposed by the Albertson's application, at most, results in a , shift of one acre from multi - family utilization to neighborhood commercial use, and exchanges those uses through zone change, less than 100 feet, to the south, north across the Murray Road extension. It will, undoubtedly, reduce residential density and provide for enhanced area commercial use which the staff recommends. We would appreciate your review of the Owners' concerns regarding the above points, so that these matters will not be points of contention, diverting the staff and Commission from the real issues involved in the Albertson's application. I would be pleased to talk with you or the City Attorney's :office' about these matters prior to the Monday, November 4th hearing, in an effort to continue our cooperative efforts to develop the property in the best interests of the City, and the Owners. Very truly yours, trul GARRY P. MURRY & ASSOCIATES Garry ;P . McM GPM:cjc cc: Scott Russell (Via Telecopier) Craig Petrie (Via Telecopier) John ,'Shonkwiler, Esq. (Via Telecopier) • AN DC MORA 4AAI11I 061" • • �ai�a�rsu P.432 June 24, 1991 Craig Petrie "he Petrie Coft a1v 10920 SW_earbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 CITY QFTIGARD. OREGON Re: Case NO SVB 90 "0004 /PDR 90 "0004 /ZON DO -0004/V1R 90 -000.9 Dear Mr. Petrie: Following our discussion toda w y, we reviewed planning' Com,�issson �zna�. Order No 90-12P►C related to the referenced n�amct�.on a�'a�.l�d�.�g further review, We find that the Planning Ca on pp1i, to all Of Tax Lot 101 Of Tax map 2Si 4S. This finding is based on the fact that (1) the Planning Commission action included approval of a conceptual planned development p lan for all of the property south of the proposed H and (2) in Planning urr�y Blvd. extension its fine order, thy! Commission recognizes that the proposed action will result in the creation of new parcels comprising the remainder of the raroparty north of the pro osed Hurray Blvd. axterlsiotn. Thus, the Planning Commissiane review included all of Tax Lot 101. Final order N4, 90 -12PC requires the construction of Murray Blvd. extension (also known as Walnut Street connection) as a condition app= v l . Under the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) . ordinance (Washington 379) s the w�� county ordinance No nut .Connection is listed as an eligible faei li,tY and TIF credits mall be ,issued to the deve1evor who constructs the Walnut Connection. Therefore, vender pinal Ordor No. 90.4211C, PLAY TIF otedits issued for the the ro erg now � Crest ■ co�ss �Otio�a Qf Murray extensi.q�ul�yal �t �ean�ctiou 'irovetient may' be apportioned, to any part of t►irn ne Tax Dot 101. Ile4ae note that Dome of the 0004 o .. of Section � street improvemen%a; era n eligible for. TIF credits. ell ih � 3.17.0700 of the County ordinance desc�cibas which to s are trust that this Letter answers your questiotis regardi is TIP eredite. note please Call mci • etelYi RaArdall iR ' 1ooley' City Engineer n+lcaktLe u a October 23, 1991 Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappcaose, OR 97056 CITYQFTIGARD OREGON RS: Extension of Approval Period for PDR 9C -04 /SUB 90 -04 (Bull Mountain North) Craig Petrie has submitted _a request for an , extension of the approval. Period for the Bull Mountain North planned development /subdavi ®ion. The extension is Phase pm application P the: requested in order to allow additional decision s issued initial � time to record the final plat for itiY hase of this develo ent. ision on this wa original on, MAY 11, 1990 and became a final decision on Ma 22, 1990. The c approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. Community Development Code Section 18.80.030 allows the Planning,•,Division to extend the approval period for a planned development application for one year P P determining 1) have been no changes made to the jest g o the Dive tual plan 1appr ved byl the there 2) the applicant intends to submit a final Plat during the extended a +oval rod; and 3) there the original final F � g PP" Pe have been no changes in the facts or ordinance provisions on which the original decision was based. Similarly, Code Section 18.160.040 allows the Planning Division to extend a subdivision approval period if the same extension approval standards listed above can be satisfied and if the extension of time will not Preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning a that these conditi ons for approval of an extension exist. No significant revisions tot the approved preliminary subdivision plat have been made at this time; therefore, no changes have been made to the approved develop a nt plan as of the writing of this letter. However, a Comprehensive Plan P Amendment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. The conceptual planned development plan for Bull Mountain North ind;Lcated that this area was to be reserved for developmeL't of up to 340 apartment units- The Plan /zone change application would redosi nate this future rnctlti- family -.9' PP ': is approved, a site g PP commercial e1. If this conceptual a substantial change would eacist that would . ,� original p residential site for General Co al u affect the planned development plan approved by the Planning Commission. This would necessarily make any extension of the approval period void. Mr. Petrie's better indicates that there is an intention to record the plat for the first phase of the planned development/subdivisicsn within the extended approval period. We are unaware of any changes in the facts applicable to the agencies to provide necessary public servicese ep edrvice . wnent for such as a substantial chan a in the : y of panecit or decision. to Lhe ro sed develo ability substantial changer to the roads which would provide access to the site. changes p on of tse was based .Wj have occurred since the in approval, with the exce ti a the decision ' antes on which th adoption of • substantive c .; lots' a es �.n he an or or in L No solar access requirements that apply to the creation of new single family (Code Section 18.88.040). However, Code Section 18.88.050 also provides solar access standards to be applied to home construction on individual lots, regardless whether the lots were created prior to or after' the effective date of of whether the City Council intended for staff roved but as et nn-crey w mettito pp _ y . sued the solar access stand ands. Although City .. lots to be required to be re reviewed for solar accessibility of the subdivision' layout, . : F :. � � pti y tci home construction ts. fit roval of an extenaion voold:.40#Aiteo,x000::.40144.000004,,01:110,,'ObOtting,'„10#4,r, atoxLDat.Iy five acre parcel abutt&ng the subject property on ite noutbern bounday. Tha eubdivieion would not be dependant on the .,,•, developuent of the Bul] for road an4 utility nett4Or*s..00...:the:*tio approved but yet nbui1t nubdzvia.ona wUl be joined. It wae made clear at the hearing on thia twenty lot aubdiviaion that an ,.iiXtension of ,thet,,--apPrOVal!,:periOd. deire/OtiMent waa going to be Made.: „:, „,,The',-PrOSPeCtiVe„-',deitelepere ,,itio04.740:400 , had no comaiont with regard to the needed The Planning Division therefore concludes that the request for extension of the; approval period, for application PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 is consistent with the nt erasion of the approvals for planned ,developments and subdivision: fo ., Tt ezt The approval al iOd for recording the Tflinal plat for the initial phase is hereby extended to November 22, 1992. elision is however 'conditioned upon no changes being made in ,the Comprehensive Plan or zoning ,desigriatiOn's applied to any portion of this parcel which are subjedt to the Planned Development overlay zone,' or in other words, that portion south of the approved,ilignment of the Walnut-Murray connection. If any change, to the Plan , ' or zoning designations L0 made, Such a change would certainly constitUte a change in the original the conceptual plan for the Bull Mountain - North planned develppaant approved by the Commiesion. The extended approval period would therefore become void upon appr.ova.1 of a plan or zone change affecting the subject iiparcel.. •Please contact me if you have further questi.c:viis.. Sinderely, %.* Jerry Associate Planner c: File Craig Petrie Cal woolery, NPO I/7 Carol Boyle, CPO 4B 30: extension 41 Sep Hr . Jerry O ter' Ded eloo;nent: Review Planner City oi Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard Oregon 97223 RECEIVED PLANNIN( EP231991 RE: Final Order # 90 -12 PC-- -Bull Mountain North PD (part of Tax Lot 101. Map 25 1W. Washington County 'Oregon) Dear Nr s Ll fer, As owners oe the real property that Final Order # 90-12 PC pp 1990) applies to we are requesting a one Year owed May 19.th • approval and (approved -.r In ind 26 conditions which were, extension of, the the attached so that, ; we ` may complete' negotiations, with a company which will build the Bull Mountain North PD. The upheaval in the financial markets combined with the additional burden of the financing and construction of. Walnut Street through our property getting project der way difficult. No changea in tmade ettsra th.zs under • ' na have the final order are being requested at this time. The Li plat will be submitted within this one year period.. Woug ld you please send a letter confrmin g that this extension has been granted as soon as possible. Please Address it to Scott Russell and send a copy to Craig Petrie. Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose Oregon 97056 Sincerely, OWNERS: Craig Petrie The. Petrie Company 10920 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland Oregon 97219 . : trik--4D e: September, 1991. K frig . F. Crist, T- st ee under the Margery F. Grist Living Trust dated a my 1, 1988 J�2 pat : b n. R Crist, Trustee Under the Margery F. Cr st Living Trust dated 3'uly 1, 198 iiliam Scott' Russell Individually I Septer, 1991. Date: .-,. September 1991 William Scott : Russell, Trustee Wi11i Scott Russell? Trustee, under Trust agreement m � : rQ benefit Of` Zachary ' Lewis Russel ] dated December �� 1978 ��' ��ent Dec . and Trustae under Trust Ac ewe ember 2'7, 1978 for the benefit df Ware Ruse11: { ?use • 9/5/9 �e r ex idual.�.'• tier to Jerry Offer l re Russell 1.t1 of T d Planning Dept. epu.aramf2,- 1091 ZGGo ' •isst� P eder ic1: enr• Russell, Trustee Frederick: henry Russell, T us tee, wader Trust Agreement dated May 1, 1985 for the benefit of Rebecca Leigh Russell and Trustee under Trust agreement dated, May 2, 1985 for the benefit of ?s+.na Marie Russel? and Trustee under Trust Agreement datad may 3, 19as or ::hoc benefit of Stephanie ;Iv Russell. Date: Pe R. Weems (former 1y known as Peggy R. Ayres) T ndivid Llally September, 1991. 'i/ Pe- ="y R. Weems Peg R. Weems December- 20, 1978 for under Trust Agreement Alan Scott Ayres, and December 21, 1978 for ,il a,, , I /Y .-4 Dated: _ . Seute.mbe:: , 1991. P R. Weems as Co- Conservator for Gerald Vincent Russell (Peggy R. Weems was formerly 3known as Peggy R. Ayres) s,:.. . , Ttus tae (z ormerly known as Peggy R. Ayres) Trustee, under Trust Agreement dated the benefit of Nancy Ayres and Trustee dated December, 21, 1978 for the benefit cf Trustee under Trust agreeme• dated the benefit of Amy Ayres. ated: Sentembex , 1991. Lewis Russe as Co- Conservator for Gerald Vincent Russel.? Date: / September, 1991. Virgini" R. Individually Virgin -I R. Mares, Virgin a rt. Mares, >t8, 1978 ' for the benefit Agreement dated December Ha:gks Date: September, 1991. Trustee under Trust Agreement dated December of Rita Hawkins and Trustee under 19, 1978 or the benefit of Kenneth Lee Jorota 4O "R.OaW. SECTION. tkx d Mine- tStnAh SetIandr R.O.W : ROAD SECTION tTYP.T inn 37` R.O.W. ROAD SECTION.ITYP.) 50 ROW ROAD SECTION €TYI'.l Ci3MMIKVA PAICID , Pool SITE •■ - -1 S.W. Min„r: t IveL • futttiiL Mtltn- FAMILY SITE bars tt.wn -i /t awns- R.O.W. n• STD • — 1O1l:{-VACATEI) ♦ tai y, n srti / �4 I ? 4 tti M.i' f. •► 1 f 4 Mid' t I«, t ,t M •t d s. � ,..: '' lam {f�AIL� PkatAtlrw'Leap -'� .,.`.. .r ..r. ti 4-4t -IPIA ` it it1�0. £.- I* NOTES: 1. Pull shown- are i't/Iilt S•tstteM► sat IIh skin d ii lasso t% ]. Sated .Ilea.an iilelagnis . F �. Putrt• 'A'. S. and 'C` al tut nlihn .HOITH'. - • ai -sat pTxiud unSI drKin,irnenl. . COLUMBIA' Idik VVIL AIVIB'ITE D' ELOPMEN'I COMPANY August 30,E 1991 Mr. Jerry Offer Tigard City Planner 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: ALBERTSON'S ZONE CHANGE x6610CDnd 9NINNd`id 03AI333a Dear Mr. Offer: Columbia W' articles illamette has read with interest the articl re g ardin g a p ro p osed devel o p ment bY Albertson's on Scholls Ferry Road near Walnut Street. I write to alert you to our concerns for such a development in close proximity to Murrayhill As owners of the Murra.11 community and the Murrayhill are tel aware of the existing asupplyPofnande demand efor grocery and other retail services in the opinion as owners and investors thataddi.tional grocery and related retail outlets are not warranted by local demand and would cause substantial financial harm to existing shops in the area. Murrayhill Marketplace has been well over three Years in its initial leasing process and is only now reaching full y p . occupant To add additional retail s ace in close t. at this tine would be to invite the risk of g p .. y yh�.11 Marketplace , rox�.mit to Murra ` failure of existing subject businesses (especially smaller ones) and bj the new es ecially the small development to a protracted high life s. Both racbed period of hi in vacancies. results would be deleterious uityaof l f. the area and inconsistent with good planning P Columbia- Willamette encourages you to deny any zone change to commercial usage at the subject location. Bes iou. Nic o Vice = aldent. 121 SW 1VMOIP]SO d, SUITE 500 ! „ Pon'rLAND, OREGON 97204 -3135 PHONE: 503 464 4141 PAC; 223:4262 16665 S.W. , Sim &o , Saki 201 LA. Owe o, Oregon 57055 Phone ( ) 820-75/18 PU: (503) 4204485 'RECEIVED 01 4 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;,0„,91. -0002, ZOO 91 -006 1bertaone a tcholl Perry Road , , , +, .0 1.101i.o0ore't .` r ,' 4'; , 'tii; - • ,, wou3.6'i'1' ,kt to go on record in ttupport of the propoaed { {.r i Y bttr,ta'na, ,,',toz'e et Sc,holle `Ferry Road « The five phases of ti ' + ie, !.!t su��ainor Lek. Park total 212 new h�+ es for the , . ` ►# �od�� a �+rh h appt uximately 70 are yet to Se ee np1eted. 1 1 r lriseet te„ Homes , Inc Ii 44li t?y� Yp�4q,... i�al.r.+ew" ,b:t y p A. a l .- moo 3„ �!! a .1.6..-144; 10 0 oleq -.d g .6.: 7 !its _1 _SS' u £e.-&$;• . fal- S.4.c9 hr1 ,e.. .4V &m. . . ti • Ctpf3 qt -o 2,i A 1 996 P. . _ /get. lf .. CRA► P - €7 Jc /o ?aa sc) $fta4 Aw 8/14L 77A/7., OR, a l7 ?U3 /c /d 4 O 4� 411:3'/ z._ /to Lt)r'lt., i" skJ Fey, -` T . q 7�s.3 fu' 10; ' 31.E LJ , oc 7483 dz.c- -- ,0 il 12.3 c-c1 �(C'rt1 tip L 6 _ i f 7 y� 1,� " /d. fl t / i I - D r e ,q _/ '?0 / w ../�✓ai s 7 j;:otee id aN t 16Acc-s-c \nee, 4s-ss-. ,Theo....„ atio' ,Av."4-100-7 5 113 9 0 3 lAt/ .. ��r Lee st hvisst 9.13 LUAa.,ns /,fd 41(0 4- *to; r,t del -91 1 3 MEMOIANDIJK CITY OF TIGARD , OREGON TO: John , honkwiler tO' FROM: tier i 0 DATE October i011i Development Review Planner 1991 //Ito 41/19010\ C OFTGARD OREGON SUBJECT: Pos0ible Postponement of CPA 91 -03 Planning Commission Hearin.; 1 have discussed the request you made on Friday to postpone the g 91-03/ZON 9 08 ( n's ) Planning Commission's hearing on CPA. 9 A�.lbertso Community Development Director Murphy Planner with Cow � pm Dick Bewersdorff. Notice has alread. been mailed and ad ector �d � Senior Fla advertised for the Commission hearing to occur on November 4, 1991. It is our decision to not postpone the hearing late date. Other �.n at this la people have expectations with regard to this scheduled hearing time and may have rearranged their schedules with respect to this date or contracted with attorneys or others to represent their interests at the Nov meeting. not feel that it would be fair November 4th �teetin . 6�% do to upset their schedules at this late date. your copy staff report today. One of the We have mailed cur co of the sta® g re agreeing postpone is that we do not feel. that the error with regard to C Neasite size is that important to the staff, and other's, recommendations. We believe that the request is not supportable primarily because the '. application, does not deiuonstrate that there has been enough of a change in circumstances affecting the site or a mistake in the current designation that would justify the requested Flan/zone change. However, we also do point out that if the Commission and Council do support n request, the figures with regard to housing a nd tri od enetio which � ou p rovided will need to be revised to correspond with the correct acreage figures. We feel that this can be deferred until either a continuance in the Commission's hearing or between the Commission hearing and the Council hearing. You could request hearing that the Plaflning qu at the November 4th hear Commission continue the hearing on this item to allow you to correct materials of your continue the hearing without taking an ttestimmony on November 4th, or you could �yy� testimony Au b • • .. .. • -.. g testimony g � true the � hear. y request that the Coiax.ssxon con �.n after teston has been received and before the Conission takes action on this item. wouldn't expect the staff to support the .first option but think we � could support the Second. probably support Call me if you have further questions. 13125 a l B1Vd6 � O 8 x 233 t Tigt r 1, t regor� 97223 p00 639 =4171 Call to Order: 7 :45 pm Roll Call -- Present: Blanchard, Howden, Dorsett, Gross, McGlinchy, Cunningham' Absent: ' woolen Approved minutes from September 4, 1991 meeting. Motion to Blanchard; seconded by Cunningham. In favor 6;•against 0. �. CPA 91 n003/ZiV J1-4 06 A e �tson�, Inc. e s ion`ensued. Motion by: Ed Howden. Motion that the Albertsons,proposal be denied. Please note the facts and findings. Exhibit A attached. Seconded by: Larry McGlinchy. In favor: 6 Against: 0 Y �Y Y 9 3. Motion by Larry McGlinchy regarding Albertsons proposal: We feel that the imposition of R40 zoning adjacent to single family residential, existing neighborhood (Cotswold) is incompatible. R40 adjacent to R6 or R7 is also incompatible. We need to have the acreage reduced before this happens again. How can we challenge this oversized piece of land when it is zoned neighborhood. 1.5 miles to two shopping centerso We need a hearing? 0 EXHIBIT a'A ", CASE CPA 91 -0003 / ZON 91.•0006 FACTS 1. Scholls Ferry is under State Highway jurisdiction at present. HOWEVER, it will be under Washington County jurisdiction within the year. 2. The Functional Classification Map for the County Transportation Plan shows: i - major collector street from Old Scholls to Old a. Scholls Ferry will be a 2-lane aJ o r t� Scholls, and Murray xtension will be a 2 -lane, collector street. b. The proposed Y No TAIMET transit line serves Scholls Ferry from Old Scholls to Old'' Scholls. In CPA 1-86 and Ordinance 66 -12 the City Council approved five acres of C -N and only declared that the configuration and the five acres could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd, FINDINGS 1. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the rop P p osai assures IN ERROR that Sagas Ferry will be a 5 -lane arterial street. 2. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal assumes IN ERROR that the proposed Murray urra Extension from Old Scholls t o Scholls Ferry will be built in t he near future. Policy 12.2.1 is not satisfied as the proposal does not meet 'locational criteria for General Commercial areas because: The proposal Would be surrounded by residential districts on more than two � P p sides. .surrdurodin not be con't atiblr� with g p p p bi The scale of the ro Deal would residential uses, ti general ilab e t o the e yae l proposal or the cd Public transportation Would nOfi be area. ti:kidginloVvolmin.105 r�� 7 :40 meeting called 'to order. Present: Blomgren, Hein, Juve, Haglund, if 9 orb,: Chase 6th paragraph to be amended to state Franklin Comm �or7imons. „ rrs instead of Lirrcvin John states Dartmouth Street is 3n. Food Club to be built in that area. Alice moved minutes be accepted as corrected. Marge seconded. 91 -0 04 d Davis property. explained .Jahn et ®r Davis avrs wants Ji m moved we these restrictions be denied. Alice seconded. !. Property on Taylors Ferry Road, y rY ad, owner. Len F. Dalton. Request . , impacted. q variance that is smaller than City approves. Neighborhood 'would be pacted. Marge made motion: Access from side not adequate de difficulty for trucks, does not fit into rest of area and would quote - difficult fo fire ould be additional driveway onto Taylors Ferry Road. John seconded. SDR 91-0010 - Watson. Confusion ,on zone clarified. . Request for annex 7607 Sw Landau Street ovvned by Craig P. Jumey, San Francisco, CA. SDR 91 -0011. Develop a lot on Greenburg 15,000 square feet. Only concern was construction traffic using Locust by school. Cathy stated that the request by Legacy ec Health 9 Y Systems for a medical office designee for the City of Tigard and for the 20 festal .g. y 9 land in the Tigard City limits. . Marge made motion. at 9 :10 p.m. for meeting adjourn. a lice meeting 1 ce�econded Motion. Written b�. Cynthia Ilford. by y ord building at 9325 SW Hall Blvd. i o ice 9 has been approved by the Planning director s .5 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-86 K(ATZER PERMANENTE DENTAL CLINIC /MARTIN ,AR ®S. Request to construct a 21: sq.'1ft., per side, free standing sign., where 15 sq.' ft., is Permitted. LOCATED: 7195 SW Hampton St. (2S1 1AC, 1200 & 130O) Se or Planner Newton reviewed the staff' report and , made s' :ff's recd {rendation for approual with four conditions. • AP PLICANT'S "RESENTATION o Jim William 1241 Leo St. dE, Salem, 97303, concurr d with the staff report includl +g the condition requiring them to rnov the sign for visual clearance. NPO. COMMENT o Geraldine Ball, NPO # Chairperson, . ' ated she had called all of her ,:rid Lh(.iy idvur cad L'a i s iyn niou o one. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED u Discussion followed egarding how the size was eter•mined, location, what criteria had to b met, and how a sign code exce r ion could be requested at the time of S' e Development Review. Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commission Leverett sec•ided to approve SCE 4-85 ` ending condition number one to read "22 1/2 square . feet" and to direct aff to prepare the final order aod for President Moen o sign off on th- final order. Motion carried by , majority vote. Com 'ssioner But . ,. r and Newman voting no. S ANNE LVELOPMEN1 1-86, ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZC 1-86, SUBDIVISION PLANNED llk�VELdF M�n�7 PI) aLD /t3GLE � ' TN0 ENNES /SPEECE /81CSSETT /VANDEWATER NP° # 6 Located: East side of SW 108th south of Durham Road (Kehneth Waymire) THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN FRom THE AGENDA. 5 7 C0MPREHLNSIVE ' PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 1-86 ZCNf�` �NANGE ZC :3:,� -86 t{RIiEGER'' C�Pt� # 7 „wRequest to move the present area eszgnated C-N (Commercial lei.ghborlhood . from the west side of 135 of that 135th Ave, At►e � to �� lacat i:oh oh the north ,s id Murray Road extehsion, apprhxinmately 509 feet `west of ,135th Atrenue' Senior Planner Newton made Coreizwed the staff report and made staff's ,rocommehdaEioh for app roval with ohe condition ,,''that the area be limited t� four acres PLANNING CO M SSI() ! MT0.0T I" ARU t Y �' 1.18'fs Page Russell Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. V--1, Portland,` '97201; explained why' they needed the flexibility of : having 5 acres `'' available. Discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Frank Aszma n , 12085 814 135th, supported the Proposal and had no problem le m with the increased size. ,. d. 'the Proposed ..►t. Paul, Realtor., supported 3'im Thompson, Rd.. � change because 7traffic Champoeg �would not' be entering onto ,135th and the Commercial Neighborhood would not be abutting single faMily residential. PUBLIC' HEARING CLOSED Discussion followed, regarding moving the location, the number of times it had been moved, wh move it now, why the existing site has four acres, instead of 2 acres permitted in, the Commercial Neighborhood zone, and whether they'should or should not increase'thelsize to five acres. Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval) with the condition that the site not exceed four acres unless; the Murray Road alignment required then limit ` to five acres. Motion failed four to Commas, s inner Moen, Newman, and Peterson no. Butler, �e on v oting n Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval with the condition that the site be limited to four acres. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners Present.' Commissioner Butler and Newman voting no. • OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. • Meeting Adjourned ' ourned 1l52 PM i ATTEST Donald Moen, President PLANNING OMM SSION MXNUT F %l!�tUARY; 4; 1985 page October 4, 1991 Attn: Jerry Offer Tigard Planning PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NPO REQUEST FOR ADDI1rI0NAL INFORMATION Gentlemen. IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-44)3/20N 91-'x', r S, NPO #7 REQUESTS the Director to additional information on ATEP's transportation �. n_ artsons' aproposal PURSUANT TO 18.32.050 A. 3. b. C'v) AND analysis for Alh ®r�� Proposal. 18.32.080 A.1., to -wit 1) SUPPORT for ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the commercial area' s 6,373 at � (ATEP Table 9) . site geaner ad DAILY NEW TRIPS. due to DROP-IN TRIPS In 1992 ATEP's site generated PM peak hour trip volume is 551 volume (ATEP Table 8). WHILE its background traffic PM peak hour is ONLY 350 (ATEP Figure 9), Would DROP -IN TRIPS from this SMALL background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated PM peak hour NEW TRIPS to ` 3597 Would DAILY DROP -IN TRIPS from this background' traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated DAILY MEW' TRIPS ,163' in 1992? In 2010, ATEP's background traffic ON peak hour volume grows to 2,045 (ATEP Figure 2 ) EVEN THOUGH background traffic out a ould' traffic at this would gr' E ACTUALLY -IN 'TRIPS to reduce OUT-OF-THE-WAY site AC to �4 143 �nAZi�1 ®'� No�sld ,trips on site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS , INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be made by Pere ons entering or leaving nearby commercial 'and residential property or by Persons whose primary destination io ` to other commercial areas? lusts and Did any of the .studies published in the ITE,Journaltev luatstudies .just shopping centers next to COLLECTOR streets; evaluate centers next to arterials or freeways? 2) ANALYSIS o f the impact of the high density residential ar e& s Site generated tripe. REVISION ' of ATEP' s RECOP11ENOATI OAS' for REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT PROVEIMENTS t sa mitigate the iv pect of the commercial and high dene ty . reeidentia areas' sate 'generated' trips. ATEP'e LOS evaluation ASSU?IES,. AND DEPENDS ON, th proposed stre«° improvements in the ';Northeae t:Su11 Mountain Transportation ' Seedy" NE Bull Mtn TS Appendix E) 'which tnclua cea €) Scho1le Ferry would be built to 5 lanes,, b) Murray Extension would be built tp 5 lanes at Scholls Ferry,: c) Murry Extension 'ntertactions would be signalized aft; i) Scholia Ferry ii) 135th north iii) 135th south UHILE, ATEP's LOS evaluation DEPENDS ON these proposed street improvements. ATEP ASSUMES these iMpr°oveiente would be done by OTHERS. Would developers SUCH AS Albertsans peke those street improvements? Which improvements uodld 'A1berteQns flake? 4) .RECONCILIATION OF ATEP'5 LOS evaluation with Parsons Srinckerhoff'e LOS evaluation of the Murray Extension in the western Bypass Study (2010 Peck Hour Volume end LOS Forecast For Mater North - South Roadways). . parsons Brinckerhoff forecasts F level LOS en the i array+ Extension for several 'transportation improvement s trategiees. 2010 PEAK -HOUR VOLUME AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE FORECAST FOR MAJOR NORTH -SOUTH AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL. ROADWAYS WITHIN THE WESTERN BYPASS STUDY AREA (BY STRATEGY) ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY No -Build Common Im • rovements Arterial Expansion Transit LRT Transit (HOW Arterial :Bypass A Bypass B LOCATION Volume ". .x . -_.. ., , ..a- . - x -.wy }ri, LOS " -''' N- ..{ : . -Y - -.1--- - a. .. nn: } }r �J xt Volume .._.. : _ ._.r. ,....._ - _... / ��r•: ?'{ LOS r.r. .. . - -. . 1-, _ - `:$5�,� Volume i .J._ ....R f��. �. LOS .... .. - �y� „F.. � J.7 Volume '111401‘,11.r. LOS T. .0 W :n:: Volume h .Y .��♦7�.rr- f LOS ! - ..V- � >.._ Volume t�! t'v �e�:l�T. LOS t-�: Volume ,Jy .:�i -fir �} K fa��V_ :_ LOS -''y �-i.+�: .... .. -- . - . .- -,. _ ..._._.a.__... n ..............: ... , _. r{n. .... ... .__ -... ...n. -n.... }. }- .. ...rn >... .. Y. ..a. .:... .. ..... ,c 3dr ..a t{ ,:IX..a. +}n. , -r ... n....,{ .. .{ . .- v..-.. F:..,: r..., . __.: :_ _ - "'n.. . .....r.. -. > , r -r ...: .... ...r ........ - --.. :. .. r. -. :::.h:...a {_h -._. ...r.r.. -i _rrr{.wJ.ir:- Y - . {,.: r' . r.:.:^ Y: 3: y- { { :: ?;::r:n.:'r {-�: { :y. :_ :.., S:v J' t. � -'- :�!!.•:. >�.2r3d:;�,�nue' - vn- t. :Nbrt�l�iitlTl�: Ht - h ::� ^:x },.'. ,:r, }: f .Y .... a _. , -. rr. .. iv:r. ... -. .i .. . - A } -r :_ �.�ao.._ yr , .n »a: v- :.,:» X :r'i. .. ..X :: ...vr. 4. :.x: {r: � � .. n__ :.: - -rnr. ^ v r -, G:x _. {�,�:x� r ,... .s - __AD:. ' : vv{ - Y ..:. - _ ��.�" • �" r'Y r- .. : .. .__ „f _:.� -� r .!n - r. 7 � Y � - - "t'. �,. :.. fr _4 J LV .... .. �O f1 - :�.�'. .. -.. r b - -:.:A� !_- _ • 4 •:V�r. Y� = ......._.. -_ .. .. _.. -...._ : : ... .. ................ .. ..... +v ...r....r . ........ .......n" __.. n-. ...._n.. -.... _...... ....... ___ - ... _ :. r..._. /., .v .., .r .�..4 hN.....-._ ..-"--""-""-n... M1. - . .. -.. ..,....ti,...a..., - .nvv ..4 }4. ._ rc .... ............ .. . ... ... .. .n.- r.t v a.:. .- .......- ._..__•_. -• - - ".r{ ...:. ...rp.^H.4 n.r. `C} r ... . ... . ... ... .. ._.... - -_ _- n - .. - " "n.... -.{,.. .n. .n {... r. -. -. .. r2 �.:- ... .. .. ♦ - ,: -: •: .' ::: , � :._.:, »f. •:.: :r::. 4..nrr- n..:v.,- :r?{vi :�:' � , .� ;. }" - .:;�:� end } }: :<- { >- ';� <�: }_:::.:r: >: tx ::$�{ �,sauthbound N wa _ • - -2�. Y .A:Y Northbound Highwa 217 at Hall Boulevard 4,290 E 4,380 E 5,750 A -D 4,380 E 5;720 A -D 5,190 A -D -5,350 A -D Southbound -Highway 217 at Hall Boulevard 4,470 E 4,380 E 6,170 AD 4,370 E 6,070 A-D 5,440 A-D 5,640 A -D .. -.... -,. -. . . a,..- ._ -. .. .- ..:x.._. _ .. nrr ..._. ,. •f._.. n.v.: " "- ...... - -..F .. .n n. .- . r -_.. n - n ........_._r. nn ,... ..... v .'vn.. -va ._.___. v. - a... ..._..: .. .n .h.v a - N. ... -.r . .. ... ... ...... .{:. r. rr: : :: Xa ... .}} . ».n.r- -.{ r . . _. .. .. . ... . -f. .. {.r .. .. .. ... ... .nr. n...n ..S ... }: -re _ ... -v {x I . ,n...- F ...: n: a +,.... a -- ,,,....r,.: }.,r ..:., -. -: .:,.....{ .r.. . ....r ..:.,ax.:,: -- ..: : }r..,:.. Y , : :: .} {: . t .. i; Y$.` a"- xi'-=• r` .{tt:4yJ.•- i :r..gn}x!`- ':' -�F+u, ��r..�`�.�t�rCihbautt##..3�1 � h - .��;:�r'�tSsstns9i �`, >::: „ err. r 4::r jfS , .n _. , x .. . r. .. r .. .- .r> J,b,. iT.• },a`: {,l _ - -- -:.a. n .... .. c N .. •.} :^r5.5?:: r - v -a.r ... ...- .i , {rt rrn- {4 }M�� M- -S' .r.J'!:� •5 - =:, "a9't�0�: %. _ fi' - r_3'•1...,t:J _ - f�� . <: -_F A _ frf_c- r ' .,:.`t'I��. iJ.. - : :xi^��Y: `G._ ?t�.. _.- j� :- ./7!•: � �� j ��t/i� 4'L3�i/; -- ! _ �� - .. _ ....- i. :: r i v J. .: v .. ._<, :... r .., .r ?0 r r•: v /4. r. nY- s .. .�.- rr f{ - .,..,1i � . - -x4 �} r T {. i$r.< Yi:' >:.5�60 � v. .r' .. -... : r ;.0 :..#�:�? +:; �i ii ii; =::i7 � =._ �r �.. _.A.,D ... -. �: }� - -- �s4�i7 - ..�� -' �" p .._a7�a5� :1 n-�A �;: �..:: 5:560 ` .:YAD _ :- :�;7�`� Y �=�+�i ., v -_-.. r . .et . -. - ::. �.. - .- - --' ..m. vn•.. { a- .vn ......... ... .. .r ..... . } .. ,.v_ ...,. ..., -r � r _ _.. ., .r -..r. _ . , ,.ar.r.r .v.. }n - - . ,t -:: 5.,::.:J.}. -'t atsthbduntl��i.'� aau2'�7>�r;Sunset;�:;•1++�a �.:w � u, }f � �,,., Northbound Murra Boulevard Extension :"44 . NA NA „ 750 F 1,110 A -D 770 F 1,080 A -D ', 730 F 740 F Southbound Murra Boulevard Extension_ NA NA 380 A -D 400 A-D 370 A-D 400 A-D 360 A-D 360 A -D ..- .. -. . f........_.- -v 1 -. r..... - -. ... . ... ..... .. .. . -- .nv.. n:.: -: .... -.... .. - ._._ ... -. r.. .. : ::. r•J ... :. -.. .. .. - -.. • -.h .... ... t -' :ti . .. �. ., • :r: 4n.. .:: }.- ..n{n•4. , . - >S3cf�oiis;Fa ,R ©atS > " } {.J; �:$ >::. {::,�Y; s �.1•iorthi7oun$ {Aturra- {:<1�uleyars��It : v.- -.vr:. .} -. { {:c �Bi3 -::,= ... n.....» r.nn._. :.... :.- vr.... . -r. -n ::r4v'., �<:#z2...{ nn{. • .. c: •a� 1�'�.. ,.,•::: %' . .tYs< Xd:�{ ,. }: �:#SI� Y- cr � .. r_t�:- ��:... _ , t'A ?� \ Y,-e rq - - � 7:: -u` .4.fi�:� - 1 ■yy■�� -gyp■ - {r - -�" -�' - . _ _ ::.:: ....r ..... ........... .................... . ...... . r... .._ -..... .. -- n•... _ { ., . ... r:nn,... r.. ...... ...n- ... ...._ ... ........... .... ...,. . -n__.: ..... ,h :n.._.r ....v.rnrv. -. ... n ._ -n._r.,-..-""-"..,._. r.. r_-.-.... r._.-.. ,._ n...--..... v. _..-.. .._ :r_.. -.na - .....-_.n : ....:X . _r, .......a. x..r - :..} - .......nr_a.a .n .._.r,. ... ;... ._. v .. ,., .. ,D. + t��outtibound��u - ottlevaetiat��citnilg > ♦,es ; �s,atir }- $ - .. _. .. r :... rh .. +:. - >r�"A�3 : n.: . x...: : w.: _: `+ , ..■■yy}.n.... - 1fe_. .. e >.iA•: L! . J <. :. - ":n _ ..} :' yA'/�� r.- �.IIF.TYS`.. .:. . ...i �Ji..`w ;} Y�Ti Y : Nit :r yw��}� �ILY r- '' f ,: ;s .v Av�r' - .rte 9 / {��•a {�i; i %6VY.. -. yr� .�`Ti'_�.':..... _ ..�Oi# - riA .D - X3. "- M z= :f't..�3- Northbound Murray Boulevard, North of Allen Boulevard 1,080 A -D 1,200 A -D 1,320 A -D 1,200 . A -D 2,180 A -D 1,090 A-D ' 1,140 • A-D Southbound Murray Boulevard, North of Allen Boulevard 1,880 F 1,890 F 2,220= E 1,810 F 2,060 E 1,790 E 1,760 E 4.-. :..:: ~3:.J.. :..,ter __+- .- v:. -... ,,r.-." ""-.._ ..._.rn- -r... _. "-" "- .._ '''' . - ;;yy .. .. ... ...... ,. r. .. v........ n- - .,n..-•-"- ---. ...n---. .., ..... ...,.n._ Fx. ,.ri. v... ..r ....................... . ... ... - ... -._.. . -_ .... :rr .--r..... u - - :_ n. ... . »,..... .. r. .,:.,, r.. v . -. .. ->X.:. ... r. -... .: ..: :•_ i ... .... .. : ...:. r v ... :r;. qv: n.:.. , -:n V. Yn �. . . -:. � . :..- ,_,nn.. „.., : :.YX.: , »�lor�lti�nta<i �souievartt >�r hv�ta .. f ,::: � ,.:t ,. •r: n .. .. j. .. ..: N " -- -fi9 . > - -r- F.:. ,. r .. .. {a:. -4 n ,r n �- w�r7r -y- r { {:X _ -r n n.:.. .r ... :. r. .n v' � <•�-�'�:6Bt3� }ter x. } 1 :r: '=� � .---, _A.� a_�:,£'�4.. < .. r >t __r!. xr }S� . „�yy��iy��i■ i J��L90 _.. :! vT�y it t- ..'i�- f/.: -_- iya, ,��4, _ �yys ::. -L {��i' ..-��li i _d r °ice }vsfnset,..Has _ r :.r.:,_,._.- r n ... nr.n... -.n... .........4rx, . i;: : : : ::- ;; . .:-,. -. r..nr- n -:.:a .. .4..:f - -- .. 'J. .... _ ...-.-r . .. ... . .... ..:.a ... . -_... .- r : --. ._r_: ?:. ._3_::.,- + -.: - +...}..n.- .. - ..,. - r _. . »..-- -"--- : :..... {.. _.... -.f.- r :. :: _. - . ..,_,:_ { -.,nr .. -a..n . - S. rr ::o�sthbor3t'�L#`11fiu�f3 ?Bor�$srarx! >�rnSunsg�:;� �R�ray} :s - �.h .r:'..- -rr .... .,.. ....r ,.. � ::r.,. ,r r4x _'1';381'# -----a -. : - : :.. r r.. -.r.t :.._ , .. .•v. . r �: 1� ; -: -: i'-' •. [ - n -r .... r -n-0 .... «.r�330 -� ..r} , .. -4 vrr.A :":-v n_x1 =- :art: ,. .n :. .:.i >t30�v: ... -. -t - :iA�J :�•3. � � }�. -. - � 7 %��i7 :'- - > _r - �._.:;_r �i �:ti7� - x - �ri� -': .!} . _ �Y�-L© .. - -: �:...' . _-.3 ...�� . -�L ' - .._.r. Westbound Bypass A; West of 1 -5 and East of Hwy. 99W NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA '1,990 A -D NA NA Eastbound Bypass A, West of 1 -5 and East of Hwy. 99W NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,290 A-D NA �.. .. . .. . �... _. r _.- .: r.: .._ v : ..... . .. tv: fi :... :�-vr. '-- --r. .r ?wl S. .x ^..> ..x1 +nom` . :Aj.4 -- ...._3�A' -S ., Y ,p{ . . . . :. .?C n n2a. r.r�tEw.X '' -'n'f YlY '- a 4vY '+ �r -- :Yh.: ,.,.h. •r ._.nX '{n- �:<�$4- _.Fi, � :::: :. .. ..{v,.. Z 4f', S � -- : : .Sry ?5... y� .. % � ft{UV f..,: : -:i. i$}S% {:2- _ :Yr._, ;n,:. ..4•:• h `r : v4c.}. �[ - - ��lwe :: -r �. - _ S wA -�- i �4} - 7`- --wli�pli� - _. .irY./.. :A _-�y £ >_- �i'c�t!`� 7y ...�t!1 - .4 .. .- .an- . .. - _..- ,a r...,v, v.... n n .n.r .adm1•. .. .# _ ' _f._. _..._ _. ... -_ .. ._'HYE?7ir. Y{4 MlCttF ., ... rc . ::... + v: n�. -.4. .. ...i^: . -:n :. v.:. n ._<:_.,. r. v ... vx •, }. a x� yy►... .• n::: :r: vra - +:v:' i44{ .} r 2 _> :.,J < :oa4}. �:' {i�in• -}r: X.S >n: -?. [i�t�fll�I:t�.. d ;M AE rr-�. ...Nt�['3fn�i�4t3�tS::- ... ..- •- -• -- .. ....__.r " -- -.... _- ..0 ...:...r, "- ' " . . . ...... . .......a .. :n. ...:71: ... -. , .. -n. ». - :: - ... -.•r..._-. - ._ .. n._-.._..a.. .. ..- .-. . -' .. ... F -,.r ..a . .x _. .. _... - .:. .... -_.. _ \.. n... -. ...._.- r. " - 'v -•. .. {.}X {..n .. rrJ. ... n..•,r•. .. : ... .: .J3:. - .r. .v .:. :nn- /.`- -• •r- }. ,} �thbourtd� . j .ass >:A:1�tor#h<ate:holls..Fe 4ta�d .YF: �: a v.: _. v:hr ...- .W: -.vv : - }v....- ..� -_.�. 4 +<:1�i�k ?S: rr:: 4�n. rrN%• .v #A .xv nt.. ...:v.: }3n r.>Q Yr� ::r-.vr. r 4.i {n��i. � >,...... .:.'rte - vvs'f.i .::�} .. ' % +itA... i • °.:� r -: "i ..f. :_. .:�v, :J:�A :• { } aq�� ... -IYA .. 3 +- �` : n -' . . �A.� _ �A - � -� �,q♦w��y�j �'YYN c #; . -1"t L- - - _�A'.'. _�tp•�'� _ Northbound Bypass A, Sunset Highwa NA NA NA NA NA, , NA NA _ NA :NA NA 2,160 • E NA NA Southbound Bypass A, Sunset Highwa NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,180 A-D NA NA . ._.r. ... rf.- . ... ....... .. ....x. v. ..:yr. rr-_. -... .: ,r. ., ..,r.- -... tr.. . :. a.n_ _._.-. xe.. r.. . Y. . -. ...r._m::w- .•.... _. _. rr..n._... ....._r__...,. rn. ta. .. . -r -... r .v_._ -. 4v .. {:. ..... .. } - .x.- ... -.. -.- , . ...... . ...... {:. .. - . }.....i v - .....r- : }�a .n_ :. h.a- »a..... .. ...,.a... n fa ., an,.. .....- n._. ..>r.h n ._ . . J... -. _. - r .. ........ .....n - r-- n...r: -- ,Y.n.r...,.:a. v: a... ... _ {....�.r a. ».,,..- - -Y �....-- - - - -�r �•,�. :�j :. ,.: vJY.:+ }: vX - :. ..,:4: fi: :- ,v,:. {: }n +::: arv.,.{J. yam-• t - __.,�j,_- �tWr .r��,�.:v.�•4..,: ra- .,.„'..Y> : ?n.:.., -. _. 4 . -. {.. » f., -,.. }x ':a{ - :: .v.__Rn. -.... .,. r.. _. .... ]F'n n Arrx.,..v .� .. r :n. ..,..:, n ..r4n : :. :.:r }- ._.- r.AS}._ -; { ..... ... ....... _ -_. . -- - -- -S Yr� aaa,....v.v.. 4}$ '.:f. ":t .J,: : -.., . -v,.: C -...: _ rW.:: .,• -: 1,-,-Jo .. r \ - .. --, ,a .: ..� . :..Y. 'r- t:^:.'S - ,:{n �A� .�. v. e...- na:.n: ✓.. : ..n:: a ry ate .{. '''' <::!FJ?L� >Y {- }• ?_- : ?.- :_vr;. ^iJ-::v 'n:i�it+ r$'': ��- :+ Y - nr �x '. :3'�: } ,Yyv y�' - t: ;$: r.YilA ::W �t 3iEA �.j ,-... iVA _ A :- -=�A. � +tA _ - - .�.;�`3O zi�T:' -- :�=+�3?+ . >iTl:37:LFC:F.7aa4vtaT' . ....v...... r ". " .. . .. ... ... .. .. ... r. .. .. .... n... .... n ... - . : ., .. , .....nr rr. ».., .a.t.._.. -.... .. - - -. -... _ . ..zv...c .-- ,- .....- :., ._... ...,r.._,.. {. ..a..._.r - ......a,:. - ».,n ,... .. - _.i� .. 1- :......__.n,... ri ..a n .. -J. _ :_. __ -.. .. ,- ....•v.. -..: \4 ...., ., .... ... . . .... x ...n.nv. tv ... -n.: .. -va:•• .. :- .- .. -:. , {. •- •--- •.vr.vx.C;n.},rr.4Y4.n -: Jirn ✓: }.t :.�. �^i }�v ! �..}�f : {i* ./�� ? -:Q/��.,♦ nom`: } " "i({r: �xrr- }iix�Si:�jt {:r..�: :i -... 4v..:} Yi�JiL7�Yndr� a7- 1 �i tt .. .n""' - - - -.. .. . -e r. v n. • -+n_ r.{.V. ��y} }'- +r+' -,i S "E�iA'} ✓',. r { . ii4. }.�. .rr:.��}y v VMS _ : - ':ETA. a , r. _ - . ,•... .- ». .. {. .. -. -. vim \,v _.w: va.}.i :v. Na { -. :: __ �',• -. _ _ - . .�. ! \+!}y�f n: ii -1 `, A -r�r . rrr ?•- ' {`.i•Y "qi .: . {.n. �A i tr _ _ pp� YJ>'.. ! - :}•i� :i !Er v .{Y, � n _.S t♦ �l r. �! Yf :.s.�A - �Ay. - �I'3 _ _ _ _.. A-. " e= -a _ _ - : 3T� -.: {: ._�,:.WG♦7�+}.�_.i,�f.Gi..7t�t� -v. Northbound B pass B, North of Scholls Ferry Road NA NA NA NA NA- NA NA NA NA NA NA 'NA 590 A-D Southbound Bypass B, North of Scholls Ferry Road NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ' 460 A -D Parsons Brinckerhoff MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jerry Offer October 22, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley SUBJECT: CPA 91- 0003 /ZON 910006 (Albertson's Inc. Zone Chana'e The traffic study submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed changes to zoning would have negligible impacts on the future traffic volumes and levels of service of the adjoirn ±ng street. system. Following` receipt of additional information from the traffic is engineer, we now support the conclusions of the traffic study tecause, there would be little change in the total areas of commercial zoning and multi- family residential zoning, the proposed zone change would have no impact on the utilities needed for future development of the area. Therefore, we have no objection to the . ro posed com rehensive Th r ] � � p and zoning amendments. Location of Commercial Zo Location nine commercial zone ` The proposal to move the co mar from the north side of venif Murray to the south side has potential. benefits, e , the zoning signation and acreage are not changed. de The existing wedge - shaped commercial parcel has access only to the future Murray extension. All traffic will have to access the site sting development access from �ur�ay. . Exi prevents Z t from having from any other direction. The proposed new location would have frontage on two collector streets Murray and Scholls ferry. It also has potential direct access from the adjoining residential neighborhoods This wound allow traffic' to be dispersed to more access, locations. It potentially would allot nearby residents to access the site without travelling on the collector street system, The result would be reduced traffic impacts. Plan Therefore, we support the relocation of the commercia l. zoning as proposed. rw /albert I fl�lr � ,�' 1. • EMS VED • LANN11 21 October 1991 Bull Mountain King Cif - Tiger c/o Larrso Westeraian ; Secrete Treasurer 1365 SW Fern Street. Tigard OR 97223 Tigard Cif Planning Commission 1312) SW Hall Blvd. i ard OR 97223 To the Planning ion: rp) 1 am writing regarding Comprehensive Pl.sn Amendment CPA 91-0003 and Zone Change ZON 91 -0006 be ►n's Inc. Wolaetwith a repro = ntattve of Albor°tsoa's at our October steering commluee, and held a question answer session with hint regarding the application: sad the phaaed Q; �taon �.�d an am �* development.. A Motion ilas ,., , I. and accepted to express our disapproval of his plan amendment and zone change request,. Among the concern expre ssed by the members present wear lack of need for such a large supermarket in a residential ate; excessive : a traffic due to the presence of this co ercial center; damage to chancier of existing neighborhood; and uncertaintY but what commercial uses will be allowed if tho parcel in QUeStiton zoned for general commercial development. .., mooting. ` � .01 We ply to discuss � r hither at our October as �� fo my additional comments to you after that time. Tours tru Or 1141 LarrY Westerman Sec /Tre su `er : a viewing Agencies FROM: Jerry Offer, , Development Review Planner DATE: October 16 A 1991 SUBJECT: Addendum to Transportation Study Albertson" S CPA 91 03 The attached addendum to the transportation analysis for the proposed Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment was received yesterday afternoon. The addendum was ` completed in response to comments raised by the City's Engineering Department, W.;,shington y forwarded to ATEP . Please consider Count � and NPO� 7 that were goy ns this addendum in your comments with regard to this applicati for The Planning Commission ' hearing on this item is scheduled None r 2, 1991. I will need your revised or new comments later than October 23 in order that I may include them in my staff can fax one comments at 684-7297. If report to the .Co�m3.� i� ion . . you, cannot get comments to me by that time, the comments are Still e . All prior to the hearing will n received issio ei _ for their be submitted to the � at the .hearing wael�ta� written comments Later comments will be included for the City Council's consideration before they make the final decision on this application, probably in early December. Thanks for your participation in our review. c: Randy Wooley, City Engineer • Jam Hen Cit..... of Beaverton Planning Plann Manager Andy Back, c Washington County Senior Planner Ca] Woolery, NPO ? Lidwien Rahman, °DOT Planning Representative Region CPO 4B 3125 SW Hall Blvd. P. . Boo 23397,11 all C r oh' 97 23 (503) 9 -4171 Ed Murphy Tigard Planning Department Post Office Box 23397 13123 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97 223 Ed: k ou for the opportunity to review the above noted request. I concur with Thank '` ew t y several points that the aPPlic,nt has made in'their presentation about district size . and marketing changes for supermarkets. The only issue that -1 find is associated with need. The area is well served by retail sites on both Murray' ' should be limited Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Roads. If approved, the proposal opin area to the absolute minimum that is necessary to acco mmodate the proposed use. This would, be consistent with our joint efforts, to limit the expansion of commercial development in the Murray / Scholls corridors. I£ y ou have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 526- 2424., Sincerely, o 55,: Beane ton '9�CI i general rrrformailotll: (503 • ,4ii 'Egtial +C ppo 'ttJfl?ty t pIo t Responses correspond with Mr. Gross's request numbers. L I don't need the additional information. It 'nigh ask the applicant to respond to the NP0 request, ` 'thou than leaving it up ,t9 us to explain. " 2. I have already requested this additional Into from 3. it seems, to me that this relates to a future $DR; not to tli current question of whether the zoning should be changed. The question at this point is "How does the zone change impact future traffic capacities in the area?", "Who is going to pay for the various improvements?". 4. ATEP has based their work on the Northeast B.i113. ,mountain Transportation Study Report data, which is based on ',current adopted ..., , . plans and is specific to this planning area. ' ,This, l'seems - * , appropriate to me. The Western Bypass , Study, t4oric is looking' at some potential alternatives -- none of which have ,been -adopted --'' to address broad regional needs. It would be inappropriate to .1.110e the rough preliminary data from , Western Bypass , Study to evaluate the impacts of an 8-acre zone change on ,a .spedifi.c intersection. The western Bypass Study table was intended only to make very general comparisons of the various broad alternatives; I ,believe that Mr. Gross is 'Using it out of context: _•r October .d, . 1.991 Attn: Jerry Offer Tigard Planning PO Box 2339 7 ` t!vv Tigard, OR 97223 / Ac id RE: ',NPO #7 REQUEST FOR ADDITIdl 'AL INFORMATION Gentlemen. IN UAT -6 NPO #�'T REQUEST •. IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91 Ot+3 /ZQNI S�on f1TEP' a transportat3>> the Director to require additional information analysis for Albertson' Proposal. PURSUANT TO 18.32. 060 A.3.b.(y) ANO 18.32.080 A.1., to-wit: 1) SUPPORT for RTEP's 35% REDUCTION in the co,+nercial area' C ATEP 6a3l3 8) site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS due to (TROP IN '!s site generated PM peak hour trip volume is 551 TEP 3c PM pear hour volume In 1992. A olu (ATEP Table 8). WHILE its background traffic is ONLY 7150 (ATEP ' Figure 3). Would DROP-IN TRIPS fro m this SMALL backg round traf fic fi c v olume ACTUAL LY reduce site generated PM peak h our NEW TR IPS to 359? Would DAILY DROP -IN TRIPS from of f is ' oldme ted DRILY NEW 'TRIPS to 4'143 in'.199, this background traffic 1992? ACTUALLY era ,LY reduce site generated In 2010, ATEP's background traffic PM ;peak hour volume grows to 2.046 (ATEP Figure 2) . EVEN THOUGH background traffic would grow, Would traffic at this OUT -OF -THE -WAY site ACTUALLY contribute DROP -IN TRIPS to reduce Would trips on site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in 2010? Wows eon INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be ade�yrpe so' entering or leavi nearby commercial and residential property ng by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas? n. of the studies published in the 3 al evaluate any he ITE '�ourn Did any y . . p. centers nett to COLLECTOR streets; or dig! the studies just shopping � evaluate centers '''ne)#t to arterials or freeways? 2) ANALYSIS -of the imp act of the high density residential area's site generated trips. RECEIVED PLAI1II6 c) Murry Extension intersections 'would be signalized ,atu 1.): Schollt Ferry ii) 135th north ill.) 135th south ,• 'WHILE, ATM's LOS evaluation ,OEPENOS ON these proposed improvements. ATEP ASSUMES these impr.tavemetnts would be done `,,by • OTHERS. Would developers SUCH AS Albet-tsorts igeke these'strelit' improvements? Which improvements would Alberttsonts "alce? ,. 0 , , 4) RECONCILIATION OF ATEP's LOS evaluation with Parsons Brinckerhoff's LOS evaluation of the Murray Extension in the Western BYpassis'oStUdy (2010 Peek Hour VoliArte, and LOS Forecast For 'Major North-South Roadways). Partsbrts Brinckerhoff forecasts F level LOS On the Murray Extansion for several transportation J.ts!pr‘c)vit)tient strategies. , NPO It"/ by Bill Gross, 2010 PEAK -HOUR VOLUME AND LEVELS -OF- SERVICE FORECAST FOR MAJOR NORTH -SOUTH AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROADWAYS WITHIN THE WESTERN .BYPASS STUDY AREA (BY STRATEGY) ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY LOCATION fnd Avarua }$ i �.. hbo ind .H' hwa .217; orthbound Highway 217 at Hall Boulevard Southbound Highway 217 at Hall Boulevard' u io thbautsd 3�i'i8hway>ai_? t tilt * His�h V ` {:4 .is5otsthboutid <}ir�t1vvay.2Y7..at- Sunset�►•hrvalr Northbound Murray Boulevard Extension Volume Common Improvements Volume Arterial Expansion Volurne Transit LRT Transit (HOW Arterial Volume Volume 4,290 4,470 5,750 6,170 .5,720 5,190 5,350 Southbound Murray Boulevard Extension iortiind: �Ilun a�► eyatrlatYitls Fefry Road ;56v�.htiourid,MuTSa :,Bouleuard'at scfiolis >Fe Northbound Murray Boulevard, 'North of Allen Boulevard 750 380 Southbound Murray Boulevard, North of Allen Boulevard :t orthbourtid M : Boulevard at ?unset Hi h . S iuthbound,Murray.Boulevard at°Sbnset Hi • hwaV' = . w Westbound Bypass A West of 1-5 and East of Hwy. 99W Eastbound Bypass A, West of 1-5 and East -of Hwy. 99W _ t y hisistf++hoind. • ass A> North flf :Sobo�fs } rth of Scholls.fe : Road. _ <:,.: , k: :Sothbourid�8� � "ass s?�;� "[`to Northbound Bypass A, Sunset Highway Southbound Bypass A, Sunset Highway • Gi:}::, «;- .cair::;:;ir.- -. -a ;:uv::':: } °=i.`c :. �•;. �ti;.yk�-r�'-... :;;r: ,. .. «�tbavnd `• a&5 B,'Vyest Hof �r�ter53at8� .<.. �. r f vz: ; ;;:y. asr""'"-'7:'''"aagrItEASISIONSIB eastbound -B a s 13, >iAi'� Northbound Bypass B, North of Scholls Ferry Road Southbound Bypass B, North of Scholls Ferry Road 1,080 1,880 1,200 1,110 400 1,320 1,080 370 :360 I. 40. ` 1,200 1,080 2,220 1,990 } arm NA NA NA NA NA 4 { NA .<liivvi -v: ii SWAM NA Ark- 590 ,.,.,, f ■ 4, , A + aint . and preserve the file 'for' arch - lipation. •,; The tile 'shell, i.nclai as .-applicable, :' a ''' list ' of -.1.,1) a ieqUir 'ed,'' to'. be given i notice d a dopy of the n ven p ant to Sectiotice Ilon, 18.32 120 , ,. Or 18.32.130 ' and the 'accompanying "•affidavitio , * the application and 'ell. sUppOrti.'ng',infortation,,'the staff ieport,''.the«:final 'decision, , ,'' . '',.•'•''''' including, the findingi ' coliCltisions' ind',conditiciris if ,ani, all.'.' • "". , , , , correspondenCe, the minute of any meeting'•at'w,h.i.Ch the application , . ., . , , . was considered and any ,other,ekhibit,' information Or documentation , ,..,•• , . which, ' Wei ,'considered by the .heari.ng , body with ..reapeet , to the 'applidation; and * ''* ''• • ' ' ' ' ' r ' ' • - ' * ' * - , . , • . - , • . ' - ., , , , . Administer the appeals and review process purstiant to Sections 18.32.290 through,18.32.370. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. , 84-69; 4itor Ord. 83-52) . . 18.32:070,, .1ternative Recommendation b Director A. The Director shall make a recommiandati.on to the initial hearings' body on the application; however, in addition, the Director may recommend an alternative or alternatives. Such alterriatl.vo:8 shall be conal.dered only if: 1. Notice of such ailternativ•3(s),has been given as part Of the hearing notice in addition to the matters contained in SectiOn 18.32.140- The staff report prepared as provided bY Stibsection 18.32.060.A.3.b supports such an alternative( ) • ( Ord. 89.,06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.080 Additional informatigaiver of Re uirements and Report RetvireA The Director ay require information in addition to that required by a specific provision of this title, provided: 1. The information is needed to properly evaluate the ProPossd development Proposal; and The need can be justified on the basis of a aPacial or unforeseen circumstance. The Director may waive the submission of information for a specific requirement subject to the provisions of subsection (C) of this section, provided 1. The Director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application; or The Director finds that a specific pprovai standard is not applicable to the applicatiori. TO FROM :, Tigard Planning fl • : meat :.Aft REQUEST FOR COMMENTS r�- RECEIVED PUNNING OCT 08'1991 DATE: RE: HENSYY� PL.M A NDMENT CPA 91 -0003 NV CHANGE EON 91 -0006 Ate HRRTSON, S INC. (NPO i 7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medina, -High Density Residential and .Zone change from R -25. (PD) (Resid Ontial, 25 units /acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C -G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholia Ferry Road /Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to 11 -40 (Residential, 40 units /acre) at the northeast:` quadrant of the Scholia /Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R -40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned P, -25 to the south of ttla proposed General. Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholia Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, tax lot 101) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departmeata and agencies and from other will be prepared information available to by staff, , a report and recomanendaton wil p and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to cent on this application, ,we ',n pP need your comments by SeZOt.30, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable. to ree»ond by the above date. please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact" the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 -4171. STAFF CONTACT: PLUGS CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: i„ We have it- reviewed the proposal and have no oa��ectioa�s to Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments: J Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: bkm /CPA91 -03. BKH J T'ICE OF PROP Must be sent to DLCD 45 days ; prior to the final hearing' See ` OAR .660 -18 -020 Jurisdiction �- I OP. G.! I Date, Mailed 28,g47 f Local File Number ' Adoption / or Date Set for Final Hearin on Month Day Year Time and Plane for Hearing '7% 3c e AC Ot N io trAkh l.r�oc Pe or of Proposed Action Aetl oC Check all that apply') Comprehensive Land Use New Land Use Plan mnie ndtent Regulation unendment Regulation egu l a io, n Please Complete (A) for Text Amendments ' and (B) for Map Amendments .'` summary and Purpose of Proposed Acton (Write a brief z description of ,the 'proposed action. Avoid highly technical terms and stating "see attached".): a so E �.. • is Fill Out the Following. B. For Map headmen (Foie each area to ,1 .� be changed, provide a separate sheet if necessary. Do not use s_ • tax lot number alone.): --II., 4, � I r I I I oe °� Current at4e4 Plan Designation: .e.N a s -�+ ! U �. Z9 I i • �► , ads w et 2 lia 4 c . : ' Current Zone: ‘Xi 15 .9 h 2 I Location :, 4Z■C \ j4411,tre Acreage Involve' (toes this Change Include a['!! Exception? o31't ecify the Man g e: in .1. W proposed Plan Designation: yy� cY Proposed Zone: tAlteal PoinIeirr 14 a " For Residential Changes Please. -' Density in Units Per Net Acre: o 5. ``a Current Densi ty. 'roposed, b►enstyi' u -e a ,, e lflh i �"i! X11 01) List. Statewide Goals Which Mat ►, Apply to the Propos ;3; 0 List any State . or Federal Agencies, Local Government or Local Special Service Districts Mich may be interested '° in or I pacted' Proposal .�, .0 _ 1 6 ro Direct Questions and Cix�ents To J�R� :G�'�FE'R.. op nomto Phone) Please Attach ren-1-31 Copies of the Proposal to this Fork an }tail To Department t of Land ,Conservation and . Development 1175 Court Street, N.E Salem, Oregon 97310 -0590 NOTE: If more copies of this form are needed; please ' contact the . DL office at 373 -0050, or this .form may be duplicated on green paper. ° = Please be advised that statutes require the "itext" of a proposal to provided. A general description of the intended action is not sufficient. ,Proposed plan and land use regulation amendments must be; sent to DLCD at least' 451 days prior to the final. haring (See OAR 660-18-020). FOR DLCD' oFFICE OSE *_ DLCD Pile Number a Days .Noti.c y, a >proposed fly TO: 'I e REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE:, Sentember112, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91 -0003 ZONE CHANGR SON 91 -0006 ALBERTSON ° S INC. (NPO #7) , A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medium -High Density Re ®ident al and Zone change from R -25 (PD) (Residential, 25 unite /acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning fCr an eight acre parcel in the southeastion. In the Scholia; Ferry Road /Murray Blvd.. extension southeast quadrant of n additi on, the applicant requests Plan resignation from Neighborhood L'ommercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C--N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R -40 (Residential,, 40 units /acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholle /Murray intersection on a 6.99 'aces parcel; High Denoity Residential r 4.5 acre area presently zoned � R-25 to the of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholl• Fer ry Road at the proposed sad Mur ra y Extensi on WCTM 251 4B, t ax lot , /05 ) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant•a~ statement for your review. From information cupplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a1 report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be I rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sent.23, 1991. !tau may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your commenta. j t yoaru e un oab nd b � te above date pleace on s . _ t he _ staff contact 'noted blow with yo ur comments and confirm our comments inbieig as cons as paw regarding g - the PHONE possible. If have any X97 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 9722 • pas you y !questions ardin this matter, contact t Planning Tle ant, PO Box 23 P 639 -4171. STAFF FACT:, PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: of our office.; a ®. Lv 4 Name Of Person Commenting: Phone 'Nuaber : bkm /CPA91- 03.BKM .0 1 ri REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: d. � ,./ St Y C DATE: September 12, .:.1931 RECEIVED PLAN midi SEP201991 ' FROM: Tigard Planning ' Department RE: REHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91 -0003 ZONE OE Z0N 91 -0006 ALSERTSON' SS INC. (Tipp #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment g gee from R- (Pp) from Medium-High DeiAit�r Residential and Zone char 25 Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development Overlay} to the General quadrant designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast Plan of the Scholle Ferry Road /Hurray , / urray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the 'applicant .requests Plan n redesignation from Nei 9 hborhoad Commercial to Hi;,� Density Residential and a change from (Neighborhood to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) a t the q adrant of the Scholls/Murray intersect ion on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R -25 to the south of the proposed General_ Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholia perry Road at the proposed' Murray Extension -(WCTM 251 4H, tax lot 101) Attached ed is the Site Plan and applicant • e statement for your review. From information su PP lied by various departments and our staff a report agencies and from other r and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the ` in _th information available to ou proposal h pa provided y r a ynear future. If you yo wish to comment on this application, we need your coromenta� by Sept 23 1993 You may If ota are unable to respond P letter to return your comments. use the space rovided belora or attach a separate let pond by the above date le` phone the staff contact � with Your comments a please noted below y and "confirm�:your comments in writing as soon as Possible. If you have any regarding matter, contact the Tigard Possible- Planning Department, questions regardin this'ma nnin Die x 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE artment PO Ho 639 -4171. STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT ?APPLY: We have reviewed the ro have p pasal and ha no objections toit' Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: C1►-11 r `, 4- i r f LJ (404 JS C SS° iej Cts; 1 tic. rite& �e. If s. �. 4..42 A .1 L 11 Name of 'Person Commenting: Phone Number 0 - 3g I e� bkm /CPA91 --03 . BKEI 4 u j 3 199 WASHINGTON COUNIv DEPARTMENT OF ,LAND USE ANI 'RMNSPORTAT ION. 1, 4,..]:bertson's Zone Change Requst ATEP 'report . The report assumes that the existing CM zone and the proposed CG zone are equal in size'. In actuality, the e;,cisting zone' is approximately 7 acres while the proposed Zone is 8 'acres., The zone change appljt;Ca.triciti '‘propaSei, 'to increase „ .4 of R-40 •,,,..• . residential 'Zoning,. "'The,' potentia]. number of apartilent units%4±11,- increased by between 42 and 80 units, depenthng on the „.., alternative This 'i,nCre,ase neeCIS to be included in "- the traffia'anal.v8i6. ' „*. , • •. • . 3..„. 'The report • assumes that the existing is the, same,' • • ,location as the -proposed CG zone. , actualit.Y,' the rexigting..,„ one lies of proposed Murray „ BottleVard•'• in a taedge-shaped :,,H , . Pardel.. The existing ‘ Zone has no .opportUnit.7'fOr threct access to Scholls .Ferry Road. The assumptions of report be ame;Ided, to reflect' this access .,reStriction.' ' • . • • . There appears to be a calculation error in the is,N'et. New Trip Ends” figures in , Table 8. The total of site generated trips shown on Figure 74does not •agree v./1th the t(c)tal shown in Table 8. Also, ,in„Figur.e. 7,* the traffic volumes shown at the Schc)11.s/iviurrav intersection 'are not consistent with the volumes of traffic exiting the site driver4avS., rwi'dpa91-03 j PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: CPA 91 -0003 / ZON 91- 0006 FILE TITLE: ALBERTSONS INC APPLICANT: ALBERTSONS'INC. DON DUNCOI4BE 17001 N.E. SAN RAFAEL PORTLAND, OR 97230 OWNER:' MARGERY GRIST RT.1 BOX 792 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 BgDSB -T ZONE LOCATION• Applicant requests Comprehensive Plan Map R -25 PD (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned Development al designation C -G zoning Yi General Commercial Plan .deli nation eSc Scholia Ferry Overlay) to the. Gex�er for an 8 acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Road / Murray Blvd. extension intersection. 7T1 addition, the applicant • requests Plan • redesignation fr eighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a zone change from C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R -40 (Residential, 40 Per acre) at the Northeast quadrant Scholls / M y units a acre Parcel: or of to High intersection nsity Residential and9R -40 for a 4.5 acre area presently zoned R- 25 o the • south o 25 t y Commercial ..site. of the proposed General Comm LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension. amendment from Medium -High Density Residential and Zone change from • d D elo ant NPO NO: 7 NPO CHAIRPERSON: Cal Woolery PHONE NUMBER: 639 -4297 CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY: STAFF DECISION COQ S DUE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE HEARINGS OFFICER DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE BACK TO. STAFF ON OF HEARING: 10/21/91 OF HEARING: OP HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS: VICINITY MAP _... NARRATIVE SITE PLAN PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL: X ADVERTISEMENT TIGARD TIMES X .. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWN ERS TO BE MAILED LETTER OF ACC EPTANCE OF APPLICATION NOTICE TO DLCD - ATTACHMENTS: 1991. TIME :7:30 TIME:7:00, TIME:7:30 LANDSCAPING PLAN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN OTHER: OREGONIAN STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer APPLICABLE ;REVIEW CRITERIA: STATEWIDE PLANNING 'GOAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES x.5.2,. 8.1.3., 12.1 :.3,.12.2.1, 12.2.2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE a 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, .5 18.62 ALNERTE3ONS • r INC. 5 APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT' AND'` ZONE CHANGE MAP CHANGES OR 'TEXT MID MAP CHANGES) re w TABLE OF C(MillIE.NTS NATURE OF APPLICATION 1. ant ring and Planning Designations Proposed Changes in Zoning and Planning motions 3. Alternative dal of a New Comnserc al Zone and Planing., Designation COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 1'411 QUASI - JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS 1. Mistake or Inconsistency �• ` Change in the Neighborhood or Con n unuy LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE (Volume 2 chapter 12� 1. Spacing and Location Z, Access 3. Site Characteristics 4. Impad Assessment STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDFLINES 1. Goal No. 1- 'vixen Involvement 2. Goal ,No. 2 - Land Use Planning 3.: Goal No. 3 - Agr diural Lands 4. Goal No. 4 - Forest lands 5. Goal No. 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources 6 Goal No. 6 - Air, Water and Loynd Resourxes Quality 7. Goal No. 7 - .teas Subject to Natzsml Disasters and Hazrtruds 8. Goal No. 8 - Remational Needs 9. Goal No. 9 - Economy of the State 10. � , Goal No. 10 - Housing 11. Goal No. 11- Public Facilities and Services I2 Go,a11Vo.12 13. Goal No. 13 - Energy C'onse rvataort 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER 1®IP1ENENSlMPLAN GLCS L Section 3 Natural Features and Open Spaces Section 4 -'Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 3 Section 5 - Economy 4. Seen 6 -- Housing S. Section 7 1'ttb lac Facalitres and Servkes 6 Section 8 Transportation 7. ` Sections 9 and 10 - Erb and 'irbani a "IHEITS ALBERTBONB I , INC. APPLICATION POR COMPREHENSIVE PLANT. AMENDMENT ' AND ZONE CHANGE (MAP CHANGES OR TEXT MID MAP CHANGES ) NATURE Or APPLICATION . Current Zoning, and Planning Designatioas, The subject roP ertY . comprising approximately 19.49 acres, ie in the northwestern portion of a 54.7-acre parcel that was approved on May 11, 1990, by the city planning commjjssion ' for a planned development overlay zone and a preliminary plat- planned development conceptual plan. As a result of this aipproval, the subject property Was divided into two parcels by the future extension of Murray Blvd. The parcel to the south of approximately 12 .5 acres was designated multi - family with a maximum, density of 300 units. The parcel to the north of approximately 6.99 acres was designated Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) . Since annexation of the area into the city on June 12, 1983, "Neighborhood Commercial zone has locations within the planned p area. However, in 1986 the "Ne " planned development' ndowner proposed .. locating the C -N designation to a parcel of e approximately ap five acres at the northeast corner of the intersectio f Scholl Ferry ; proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of The city, Council approved this P P the Murray Blvapproved Ro Road an designated C-N parcel could modified to the des g - p uld be modifi conform in size with the final nal alignment of Murray Blvd. The approved Planned Development identifies the location of the Murray Blvd. extension e� - (shown on Exhibit "A1' Y The total as • the c m�aercial Parcel-Parcel C"). parcel � boundar locations ocatelopsa� for the C �1 arcel show actual.. acreage measured for this a pp roved G N parcel ol is 6.99 acres. 2. Proposed Changes in Zonin and . Plannin Desi na iofl g �.g t s The ' Ap p 1icant proposes e xchangan g zo nin g loco t� ins Upon the 19.49- acre property by: ( 1) movin g the commercial zoning and planning from the northeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension to the southeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension; ,> and (2 moving the multi -family zoning an. d p Tanning from the s outheast corn er of Scholls and Murray extension to the northeast corner Of y Applicant s to Scholls and Murray extension. A licant then propose ' zoning and planning designations to Ge• nera Neighborhood Com�merc�.al. �� and the 6. g9, acres ' "General Commercial" (CG) and expand to an 8-acre ( ) parcel. This f y e the multi-family' y g`designated units by acres or 24.24 un is See Exhibit or this calculation of housing density short fall. /1/1 APPLICATION (JWS0814.1ct) fl Finally,, the Applicant proposes increasing the residential a, density to "High" and R -40: (1) on part of the new multi- faiaily 6.99 -acre arcel' north Murray extension;, or (2) on the p of Murra Blvd. ext remaining 4.5 acres multi- family parcel south of Murray Blvd. extension. In the alternative, the city may approve' the Applicant's request without increasing the housing density at the subject property and: (1) absorb the loss of 24 `units into the surplus that the city possesses in its housing density ratio required by the Metropolitan' Service District; or (2) increase density at' another .more appropriate location within the city by legislative proceedings. Ultimately, the Applicant intends to construct on the 8 -acre site an Albertsons' standard- sized grocery store (approximately 40 - 604,000 square feet) and a drug- variety store(s) (approximately' 30' 35,000 square feet). These commercial uses service 'a market of approximately 8,500 people in a neighborhood within two miles of the subject property. See Exhibit C... 3. Alternative Proposal of a New Commercial Zone and Planning Designation In the alternative to designating � 8-acre n th the abnve described 8 ac parcel as "General Commercial and zoned CG, the Applicant is proposing that the city recognize that a new zoning designation be grocery ' neighborhood market established for location off, stores in nea �� established This new commercial zone could be called Communi areas. rh ty between "Neighborhood Commercial" commercial needs. falling midway Commercial" or CC ands ercia " "-enera]. Commercial". g 1 and G Historically, grocery have evolved from small stores (5,000 �•s� are feet or less) to the large a full- service stores of today (30 - 50,000 square )feet),. However, g qu he arket area for these modern grocery stores still remains wever neighborhood-area hborho oriented. A standard grocery store of today generally serves a market of about 8,000 people within a two-mile r ad iu... s ot f the st or e. This neighborhood ma rket concept addresses the frequent (sometimes daily and bi -weekl y) purchasing of g rocery cu tomers. Fur ther, helps to reduce cross -town o cross-area •Ig ... central location in these neighborhood markets 'or arterial roads. The reality ea traps on already congested stores have outgrown the cit 's "Neighborhood Commercial" grocery ma of today is that modern ro mmercaal zoning. Y g, In , contrast, "General Commercial's m "tbe cis located in a 'i feet ,large commercial areas or strips ity. 'AS 'is applicable to the between theserma. or ',General Commercial: are neighborhood areas • ones that are greater than two miles in size. With tie one exception of a parcel at 121 Street and Scholls Ferry Road (not available to site a grocery Store) there are al zones, in the entire r �, re no General CommercY northwevt one - third of the City to prowade for a mod ern grocery store APPLICATIOIrZ (311S'0814 .1t) In essence,' the city has a need for 'a commercial zone that allows for a modern grocery store complex to serve this northwestern one- third of the city. However, a "General Commercial" zone ma be too unlimited zone (.... Community Comme al that allows the neighborhood- oriented g- a new �� ' grocery store, but limits the impacts that might be felt by the residential character of the area. These potential impacts could be limited by setting the maximum site -size at ten acres, the maximum gross floor area for each use at 50,000 square feet, and the trade area at 81,000 - 15,000 ,people. B. COMPLIANCE WITH OTAI DARDS FOR QUASI- JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS The application satisfies the standards of CDC 18.22.040. The requirement that the application is consistent with the applicable plan policies' and code " " provisions is addressed in Section C of this Application. Compliance, with statewide planning goals is addressed in Section "D" of this Application. The last standard requires evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community, or a , Comprehensive Plan or zoning consistency in the g Y� mistake or in p ng map. 3.. Mistake or inconsistency o ac Y The primary justification for the Comprehensive plan and Zoning changes is a series of mistakes and inconsistencies with the present resent are inconsistencies • provisions the p o p • nt designations and rov ons oft Plan om reh..ns and zoning code. sa C ive Pla Via) Nistake fn originally an�ati_n_g Site as ""Neighborhood Commercial" When the on inal ,Property (approximately g e1 6 P 63 acres w s under Washington County jurisdiction,, it was zoned) a for residential with a "Neighborhood Commercial" Center. The property Was annexed xed on ;+Tune 12 1983 . with the 'city merely hdoptany its own "Nei hbar • � t mre designation Ito g hood Commercial g replace the Washington County, designation. However, the Washington County! "Neighborhood Commercial.'' is not the Same as'the City's ".Neighborhood Commercial" The intended for � a much smaller market or .trade are '� City s none is fat more restric y e a. In�essencenta� five -sac ( 9 aore site after r urra Blvd. extension) is far o arge y n t�ao ..large a . a _ " been :'considered under the, city's "C -N" `zone. p rcel to have b First, the Washin g ton Count y "Neighborhood, Co m taer zone, (NC) allows f ood markets with a g toss Ifloorarea of up tc 50,000 9001 quarefeet (See r Wash. Co. Code 311 -4.5 attached a Ezhibi� 3� This .s the same size proposed for the stba e+ Y ya ra... �s e� ns, , ]�nc. In contrast the Cit � P pert by �lbertso � APPLICATION' (4714S0814 .1a ) • "Neighborhood Commercial" zone (!c-�N) . allowed food and beverage retail sales [CDC 18.06.940301'2'y (E) ] , _in a:, building with a maximum gross floor' area of. only 4 000 square 'feet.. Essentially, when the ..'property. was',:: annexed, the city mistakenly down - zoned the use of the property for food market purposes by 92 %. This downgrading of the zoning .i0in direct contrast with the 'city 's policy and ®RS 2.27.110 of adopting city Zoning' zoning' for the newly annexed property that fairly, matches c former zoning in the county. Second, the Washington County, "Neighborhood. Commercial" district was intended to include "medium -sized shopping and service facilities" for the '°shopping and service needs of the iaamediatea�u b� (Wash. :Co. Code § 311 -1) . The urban neighborhood" � C County s NC zone fit the subs ect property as . the immediate 8,500- populace neighborhood heeded 'a modern grocery complex - seven-acre consistent for ' that and the five Ito, seven acre site was consisten purpose. Ira co ntr s t the city's C N zone limits a ,r Nei ghaorhaod Comniaercial ,' site to a trade area of only 5,000 people and a maxinum area of only two acres [City Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 2, Chapter 12.2. i.A (1) and (2) ] • It appears that the city mistakenly applied the city's "C -N" zone to the property : when a consistent carry -over of the Washington County zoning would have required the city's " general Co mmercial," designation for the prOperty. It .nay be argued that'the 'City's "General Commercial" was too broad a scope for the site back in 1983, in which case, the city mistakenly zoned the property "C -N" when it should have do p td a ne ( such as "Co mmunit y' Co m mercial ") to allow a e y between the too - restrictive "C -N" and the too broad 'oC -G" ' zones. (b) Mi.a _ take Because. of the Mistake1inlabeling this site as °C-N!' after annexation We now have' - � p .' fte , e a 6.99 acre. arcel = desa.gnated for Neighborhood Commercial. Unresolvably inconsistent with the "C -N" 'designation for 'this site, the City Comprehensive Plan provides that the makiinum site -size shall not exceed, two acres for a: "C -N" district. Prior to transferring the "C -N" site to 'its' present location, the five- acre, site was already 250% larger than the Comprehensive Plan allows. After the Murray Blvd. extension was established resulting in a 6499'4 acre "C -N" site, the subject' property was now 349.5 larger. than the Comprehensive Plan allows.` APPLICATION (3WS0814''. i r) ,f„4 Again, the proper conclusion is that the "C -N" ' zone for this site 'must be changed to "C -G" or a new commercial zone (such as "Community Commercial ") ; that would allow ` the Albertsons' Inc. proposed store complex. c stake n esi nata de r t D �i � � .��_..� bra A ea As previously identified, the city's "C-N" district assumes a, maximum site of two acres with a maximum gross floor area for a store of 4,000 square feet. This small- scale use would serve a neighborhood area of one-half mile radius or, a' maximum of 5,000 peoples' However, the subject property is 6.99 acres of "C-N", and this size of commercial subject P Y , a two s ' rcal parcel would support ' a trade, area of -mile radius and approximately 13,000 people ( See Exhibit Even assuming the rmf ' ve - acre" " Iodation, that site gg tfoer allowed eC N district size. Such a five-acre site would support a trade area of 12 500 PP , people (21 times the "C -N" district assumption of 5,000 people served by a two -acre The neighborhood surrounding ,the subject property (and trade area) consists of approximately 5,500' people and,is � rod ected to i n zonin for this t o mile radius area Exhibit P �� ' g See , c The city,... crease to 13,400 ea le b 19 5. i�eiudes only and' C. N the A l icant''s and tD a Cit the Compreh ns ve Plan's s tr er arth Pp Y P ads area calculations, a single two -acre "C -N" site for ' this entire trade area would be far too small, and clearly a "mistake. "11'' ,' with the arce needed o serve The Appl icant a proposed eight acre general co (� o u rk t area. See Exhibit C e des' nation is consi.� ent ° thisgS,.500 - 13,400 p p ,lace ma s' 11 Combined' with providing proper landscaping, access and parking . ' ' site needed ..for this modern grocery store arkin the minimum complex is eight acres. See the conceptual drawing for the site attached as Exhibit 11E" tl In 'summation, th and comprehensive lannin for zoning a p p g or the subject property needs to be changed'to correct mistakes and,: inconsistencies with the .plan and code. Thee developmental ry the . .. p tempts at history- of this is re �.ete with .failed ' at making the "mistake ". work under current zoning. These attempts have all failed because' you cannot Hitt the proverbial round peg of an over -sized general commercial need 'into the small s . ar' ", _ "! . qu �e hole of a C N district The mistake must .be rectified. The A licant s ro osed Chan es are realistic and PP P P, '�. consistent with the intent, policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Code. In contrast, the':city cannot p y e s3m 1 reduce the present C � zone to a two -acre site. First, there are not enough other "C -N" sites in this area 'to APPLICATION ( wso814.1 `) serve the neighborhood market. To be consistent with the Plan, the city would still need to re -zone another 4 -6 acres of, residential to commercial to serve this northeastern one- third of ' the city. Second, the 'downzoning of this property 'from approximately 7 acres to 2 acres of commercial would interfere with the development and investment- backed expectations of the propert ; and thereb y causing a "taking" under the Oregon anR U.S.' t. S . Constitutions . C ompensation for the "taken" property would have to ,be paid by the city to the landowners-investors. See, p'irst' English Evangel ical Lutheran 'Church' v. Los' Ancxeles County, 107 'S . Ct. 2378 (1987) •, Corrigan 'v. City of Scottsda1g, 720 P.2d 528 `Ariz. 1985) . 2. Chancre in the Neighborhood or 'Community Since annexation of the property into the city, sewers have been extended adjacent to the site on the east' and to nearby areas in the west ("football area" g IN F") . The neighborhood market or trade area has substantially on Exhibit F all.. area 'designated g antally filled -in to bst the west and north on previously vacant land. Exhi,bit ergo identifies housing densities projected for these areas, As a result, the existing trade areas at the time of annexation was limited to the eastern side of the subject property. In t very near , the subject property will be surrounded by a trade area covering the northwestern one -third of Tigard and a e ve ne aa. future g he part of soUtheasterz Beaverton. The projected trade areas will involve 13,400 people by 1995, thereby establishing a need for a modern sized grocery store complex to serve this substantially formed market. See Exhibit n031. C. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE (Volume 2, Chapter 12.2) 1 Spacing and Location The Albertsons' property is bordered by industrial uses (Norse Bros. Portland Metropolitan Division Quarry (Quarry), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power lines and a petroleum pipeline valve station ] to the e west Also b orderin g the west ern bound ary of the site is Scho l l s Ferry Road, a State, Highway and designated "arteriald Scholls Ferry separates property from vacant lands in Beaverton de sign ated hig h densx.t residential. The Greenfield Village Apartments and the Cotswold Subdivisions ions ( zone. d R-25) are within the city and located the north. The Mornin g Hill Subdivts ' on is within the city and is located t he east. . The ar ea to the south is a mostl y d uel o p ment un na rporated sin g le - faml y residential dist, rict of Washington County. The proposed n General comn'ercialt' des ignation is consistent with the intent of the locational criteria in that the site is separated from vacant lands outside` the city on two sides h y, Scholls Ferry Road (State Highway and arterial) and Murray Blvd:. APPLICATION' (S0814.1J); M extension ':(designated a "collector ") This area, to the southwest and west is characterized by existing industrial ,ruses (Quarry, BPA power lines and a petroleum pipeline valve station) . Prior to annexation to the city, Washington County recognized � Y 9i that a portion of the original 63 acres was potentially appropriate for the commercial use' of a 50,000 square foot market and related variety sales. These commercial uses would be "General commercial" under the 'city's ' zoning code. . Jlacesig � � �� ' , Designation for a P TcteS of the Sub oat Comm e v Located at the Southeast Road a r $vxtension Shall Not Create T affiaconestion c Tr f a Safety Problems Attached to and in support of this application is a Traffic Analysis prepared by Associated Transportation engineering and Planning, Inc. The report provides data and analysis which addresses street capacity, existing and pro7ected volumes, speed limitations, number of turning movements and site traffic generation. F purposes .analysis, " -p or traffic the report utilizes volumes and characteristics maximum For u ores o vehicles possible bas' on a "worst case" or p basis. 'The report concludes that with full development of the Albertsons' property as general commercial all existing and proposed intersections will operate well within city standards (Level of Service "D" or better) . Service Level "D" is generally • utilized as the 'standard g f f is operati.on,s and _ design , of urban for assessirr urban tra • roadways. It is also the ado��ted olic of the Metropolitan ( � P Y :service District MSD to maintain'r level of service "D" on its major roadways within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary during peak periods of operation. At Level "D ", there generally is at least 10% 'more capacity for traffic within the designed characteristics of the roadway. As previously stated, the Traffic Analysis was completed • er g mentapplication. of the Albertsons s s as using data for worse ca pp • i re is " se to assume that full. develop property roadwal commercial T will not the worse case" impact on generation fo, ch t '� Y y ons'property . r Alberts w` Traffic the existing vehicular trips , ill not add 100% new traffic to th along Scholls Ferry Roo d, 135th Street and Murray Blvd. customers to the Albertsons' property wailn)aeondro Many is of lre d P p Y such as commuting to and from s r on these roads for other reason g � work o pus shopping. Many of these vehicular trips vial also involve e2iieul . tamers changing their APPLICATION`' (JWS0814 -.1a) shopping habits and choosing Albertsons' grocery store or adjacent drug-variety over other such, businesses located 2 5 miles from this area. (b) h = S t - ha1 av , i - ogees : ram a a o Collector rterial jttrget The Albertsons' property abuts Scholls Ferry Road, State Highway and arterial. The property also abuts on the the future Murray Blvd. extension which ich is a major collector street. 135th Street, bordering the overall 54.7 acre planned development on the east is also a "collector" street. The attached Traffic Analysis sets forth possible access points on Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. See Exhibit E" lie ans or ation__Shal Be vaila•le to the Site or General Area Try. -let bus service to the area is alon g Scholls Ferr Road • 3. Site Characteristics' It (a) The Cite shall Be a e : e Which Cen Accommodate present and P,o tee rises The proposed general', designation and related site development plans will utilize the entire site. HThe Albertsons' property is 8 acres in size With easy accessibility to Scholls,,, Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. The property is roughly rectangular in shape and there jarte, no o physical characteristics of the site that would P rev en t development as general commercial . ro osed Conceptual site development plan, att as Buh F F P P � ached P accommodate the � 'site easily bi t B"' illustrates that the site can grocery: F and utilize 1 than 85t voce store cThe exr ess 5t of the site coverage. pojected uses include apprt xianately 47 48, 000 square. feet of grocery store and 31-1. r . g variety uses. Al least 15% Of the site will be landsca 32 00o s aw e feet of special attention to buffering the eastern boundary which borders "Northview Loop" road (a cntial .yj th the physical chaff .. f the 9 site and the proposed de elo vent plan clearl it lustrat resid rQadwa Bo actera.stics a y e that the site ca accommodate: projected general commercial uses. (b) The site Shall Save iiyt . ' ilit ' . The Albertsons property is located a t the southeastern corner of Scholls Ferry ''Road and Murray' Blvd. extension, APPLICATION' (011S0814.1J) 11 /1/" There is well over a thousand feet of visibility from this State Highway and intersecting collector street. The site also slopes down from the southeastern corner to the northwestern corner, provided enhanced visibility for the grocery store complex.' See the attached Traffic Analysis for existing and projected traffic volumes on these adjacent roadwaysl. impact Assessment Qa� he Scale f the Protect Shall Be Com•atible With the Surroundinc UseB,_ property cated near to four major The. is to Albertsons multi - family complexes that generally are of comparable size. in addition, ,the 'Planned Development for the original 54.,7 acre parcel will bracket the site' with morenul i- family (6.99 acres) to „the north and 4.'5 acres to the south. These multi- family developments will providea proper transition from' the, - residential, farther away from the site. See single family reside Exhibit 0" To the west and southwest is the large gravel quarry that encompasses an area over twice the size of the Albertsons ' pr o p ert y The Pl anned Development area for single- family residences' and the nearby development Morning Hill ,SubdivisionH to the east are all of a scale larger than the proposed grocery 'store complex. All these existing projects share the same general development scale with the proposed Albertsons' project (b) e Site rac eristics Shall pe SUah hat he Co %vaa o ®d c n _ Non oaeme c' a e . C n • $aintained The site slopes away from the residential districts to east The Albertsons' store complex will be oriented awa s the e and from �°� � � sand' toward Sciaolls an �.Ye��. ress.deni�ial area, property ed Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. The will be surround and separated on at least three sides by streets. The .Albertsons' site will provide a buffer strip along its eastern • bo privacy to those adjacent and southern undaries to provide residences. The 4.5 acres to the south and 6.99 acres to the :north Will •loped a�.so as multi - family , complexes . These Will 11 be developed developments 'will be required to provide orientation and •; l assure r u i- ur its •. buffering to ac Will be � rotec g hQ p p y � for those dwellin, Similarly, priv • y p � form . It . faanily proj eots bed p d i eav r o across I,SCholls Ferry Road to the northwest Th. n. to be elo ed irk Beaver -on ,.,,uses of the `Quarry, HPA. power, lines, etc. do not require privacy protection. APPL]ICATYoN (JWSO814.1 J ) (c) ;t Shall $e ossi .e to Incorporate the Un gue Site Leatures Into the bite Desian and Development _Plan The site has been entirely under cultivation in the past and possess no distinctive vegetation features. The site, however, slopes downward toward Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. extension. The site design will incorporate this slope feature to orient the building complex. The commercial complex will also be located with the back of the building to the east. This will help block noise and light from residential uses to that side. The southern area will have the parking lot sloping upward from the complex and a landscaped buffer area to separate the multi- family uses from the complex. Traffic to and from the site will be directed onto Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. , and away from the non- commercial uses to the south and east. No access to Northview Loop (to the east) is expected f or this project. (d) The Associated Lights, Noise and Act.vities Shall Not Interfere With the Ad'.oinin• Non -Resideatial Uses The uses to the west and north will be separated by Scholls Ferry Road, Murray Blvd. and landscaping areas. Lighting in the parking area will be directed so as to preve , y uses. The uses to the ediate west industrial 1 andersouthwest l are nearby in nature and zl l not be adversely effected by activities at the site. The residential uses to the east and south will be buffered by landscaping strips and building orientation. The placement of the building complex (downhill from the south boundary line and y ' with its back to the east) will assist in blocking noise, light and the effects of activities at the siteti. D STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES Plan Amendment The proposed Comprehensive e iv t nd zone change (and a map changes) are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. 1. Goal Noe l gi.tizen The proposed Comprehensive of ns l .. . � change amendments s will re � r a series public hearings before the Planning Commission and the ty Council required by the Tigard Community Development ment Code Section 18. 32.09 0 (c) and (d) In addition, the proposed amendments will not alter the citizen `involvement policy identified in the Comprehensive Plan policy 2.1.1 at 11-9. The existing P ublic hearing p rocess shall ensure that the citizens of Tigard will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases 10 -- APPLICATION (1 S0814.13 ) m w' CD J of the .planning process for these amendments. Finally, the City of Tigard has received compliance acknowledgment from LCDC as to these planning and ordinance provisions, thereby establishing that this review process will be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goal No. 1 • Goal Noe 2 - Land se Planm�� Goal No. 2 states that each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. As part of the public hearing process, the city notify shall notif for comments all affected governmental units. In all other respects, the proposed plan and zone change for the subject site complies with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal No. 2. An adequate factual basis for decision has been presented as identified in the data in the above sections and related facts pertaining to the various goal considerations hereinafter. The proposed changes, as identified hereinafter, are compatible with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 3. Goal No. 3 - Agricultural Lands The subject property is not and has not been designated as agricultural lands udder City of Tigard planning and zoning. The j and the entire surrounding area are within the subject site a ' Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary previously acknowledged by LCDC. There is no conflict between the proposed plan and zone, changes with Goal No. 3. 4. Joel 11o. 4 Forest Lands The subject site is not and has not been designated as forest lands by the City of Tigard. As stated in subsection 3 above, the _.. g is committed to urban use . land is designated urban and i s There is no conflict between the proposed amendments 4. p � p nts and. Goal No. 4 5. Goal No. 5 Area s, an Natural Resources There is no portion of the Albertsons' property that is within a designated open space, scenic,' historic or natural resources area. The Comprehensive Plan mapping for the City of Tigard designates the property entirel y for urban uses. These planning des nations and regulations have already received compliance acknowledgment for LCDC. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Goal No. 5. • Goal No. 6 - Air , Wager. and Land Resources ...,Ou,_i, The proposed planning and 'zonin amendments will not adversely pm with Goal No p P g.. g affect compliance wit 6. All waste and ;princess C 11 APPLICATION S0814.1J discharges from future development shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. The site shall be served by sewerage processing system through the City Of Tigard. Correspondingly, storm drainage and waste treatment will also be provided through city systems. A change to general commercial for this site will. also involve the same requirements related to iindirect sources of air ollutio site located within the nd p n for a si Portland urban area. 7. Goal No. 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Jlazards There are no areas within the subject site that are subject to natural disasters and hazards as defined under Goal No. 7. Also, there are no natural hazard characteristics identified for the site in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 8. Goal No.. 8 Recreational Needs Essentially, there will be no change in the requirements for recreational proposed amendments. site is not designated under the Comprehensive Plan for recreational needs. Indeed, the site does not lend itself to the purposes of developing recreational needs. Therefore, the proposed amendments would be consistent with Goal No. B. 9. Goal No 9 - Economy of the State The proPosed will amendments ;, 1 substantially aid the City of Tigard in satisfying the Statewide Planning Goal requirements for diversity and improvements of the economy of the state. Earlier, the city identifies in its Comprehensive Plan that it contemplated' commercial shopping development should occur in near Schol ls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. extension to provide for the commerci al n eeds of the surrounding area (g enerall y the northwestern one-third o f the city). As identified above, the locational criteria are all satisfied for this site. There is a substantial absence of vacant general commercial lands' of 8 - 10 acres or greater in size within i'the< City of 'Tigard Planning area are no other nei 'commercial sites in this entire northeas �ghkecity. tern quadrant of the city. 'ThiS, it also .reflected b� he Comprehens ive P a e ent " the su ppl y commeresal space is i .ow, that b it is expected that the s ppiy will catch up with needs before long.�� . � cre site will substantiall , aid' the city in meetin ition of this '� a . y The addg its own economic needs, as well as4 aid the state in providing a broader and. more d,v►ersified economic base. he'city of Tigard needs to designate this 8 acre site as general � commercial to .roved ;for q a more co ... y .. ' al P P get and services for this ' ararket area of the c1.t m le a v�are and se ectx.on of commercx 12 - APPLICATION (algso83.4.3z) n As previously stated, the area was annexed in June of 1983. The Washington County 'zoning designated the subject site as "Neighborhood Commercial" including uses more consistent with the city's "General'Commercial01 district - allowance of a food market having up to a 50,000 square foot floor area. The proposed Albertsons' store complex is clearly within these specifications and meets the market or trade area in this part of Tigard. The proposed uses in the Albertsons' development plan include a modern grocery facility and drug - variety services. There are no drug- variety stores within the surrounding districts. The nearest drug - variety store is approximately three miles east 'on Pacific are a variety of commer ` cxal uses economy Highwayssumeeand� incorporate a level of direct competition. in �a local. variety which assume p c service q ' om etition.' These services sometimes provide different levels of vice for the same products or a different style of the ,product. Each . level and style coinprises a portion of the total market share. In the west Tigard har ea, there is only existing general grocery i.. e. , Tra.ftwa Sup er Store off �urra y B • inBeaverton See Exhibit II C“. only other general grocery are located approximately three miles to the east and south of downtown Tigard. It is well established that the grocery shopping needs of any given community involve competition between a number of different general grocery stores. For a population market in excess of 8,500 13,400 people identified in the U.S. Census, there is a substantial absence of general grocery services for the market in this area. The Albertsons' proposed development will also provide a substantial temporary construction employment for the site. The development's s ec ' P general construction and p 'fic user alterations are expected to involve employment in excess of 100 people. After completion, the development is expected to provide, permanent employment on both a full -time and part -time basis of approximately 150 people. By the very nature of this onmunity commercial construction and services o p eration , it is e xx p p eot e d that a majority em ntrac , will come as this the employees, general contractors and subco t��rs wi form this sector of the metropolitan area. Fin��lly, is site , p ry is weld within the Portland Metropolitan Urban . Growth Boundary edged by LCDC, the proposed amendments would be consistent with and would enhance the econom y of the skate under Goal No. 9. 10. Goal .Nos 10 . !lousing The redesignating of the Albertsons' property, as general commercial will eliminate 1.01 acres of housing desa.gnat.zons or 24.24 units for the property. However, an analysis of changes in the city's housing, zoning > and redesignation of adjacent residential p ro p ert y gill en ab le the city y to allow general 10 l commercial on the site without causing a confl ict with Goal No. 10 APPLICATION (J1b0814.13) • H Exhibit g i ies that the net shortfall or loss of �� dentif eneral .. coanmercia district housing units by approval of an 8 acre g would only 'be 24.24 units. The subject site also includes 6.99 acres of medium -high density residential to the north' and 4.5 acres of medium -high density, residential to the south. Applicant,e as one approach, p p, one or a portion of these sites be :redesignated as "high" density residential with an R -40 zoning. is ro csin the rde g g As an example, the southern 4 5 acre parcel could be redesignated R -40 producing a net increase in density of 72 units: 4.5 acres x 40 units (R -40) 405 acres x 24 units (the approved P.D. units per acre) Increase in Units 72 units 'By subtracting the 24.24 units lost .as a will l provide 'an overall increase Of 47.76 dwelling units. Alternatively, the f'Zone bert lay' change to "high" (R -40;) can be located nor only 2 acres of change property l arcel to reach an exact effect of no on a smaller' p the in housing unit loss (for example a rezoning of o y 6.99 acres) • It should be noted that the Stat ewide Plannin g Go al No. 10 on Housing does not require the actual implementation of .residential P • Yards at the planned denst�.e The Goad. Merely, shies.. through, there be an "opportunity for those houSing Prom densities sea g e Various applied classifications. standpoint of cicl gp y . ,: • "opportunity". . g a LCDC only calculatin consstenc wa.th Statewide Planntn Go requires that the zone be analyzed for its After the city adopted the Comprehensive. Plan and the i per acre calculations, the city has aapproved buildable lands unit. er residential zone n Y .n pp , the residential - As a second a roach ncreases in densit ira,g, density City • could absorb these 24.24 units in the current hour, • surplus. 180 units 108 units As a result of these calculations, the city's reclassification of the Albertsons' property to general commercial would not adversely impact the City of Tigards' housing needs and vould be consistent with Goal No. 10. 11. Goal No. 1 Public Facilities and services ors The proposed plan and zoning amendments would be consistent, .. g Goal No. 11. The redesi nation property . l orderl and efficient with G g t Y e a r y commercial would result in a timely, y es . The Site is urban densities as and servic arrangement of public facilities a result of being within the d for urban.. ` designated City of Tigard p'y" Ci Portland Metro olitan Urban Growth Bounds . The 14 - APPLICATION (011S0814.147) has designated the site for intensive uses. Full urban services can be extended to the site and immediately utilized upon redesignation of the property as general commercial. The site can be adequately served with sewer, water and related utilites. Such public'facilites and services already adjoin the site and are providing services to the multi- family and single- faanily developments` to the north and 'east. The city already has a responsibility ion of '� p ility far the', Provision public facilities and services to this site. Therefore, the proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 11. 12. Goal No. 12 Transportation The proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 12 and would aid in providing and encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. As identified above, a Traffic Analysis has been completed for the area and specifically identifying traffic impacts generated by a s g Albertsons' Property as general commercial. redesignation of the Albertsons r The Traffic Analysis concludes that the proposed plan and zoning significantly amendments would not change the existing Level Service for roadway networks and intersections. The proposed plan and zoning amendments are also consistent with transportaion policies conerning ' mass transit. The site is already served by Tr-i -Met bus routes. The attached Traffic Analysis identifies that MSD projects that 4 to 6% of all home base person trips for purposes unrelated to work will be made by cis also i .p commercial !shopping a y transit. This pp g teas. is would include trips to commer p p sed development plan would provide for a drug Albertsons' rti� o and grocery store complex at this central location- It should also be noted that the site is adjoined by large tracts of existing and planned for medium to high density residential development. It is development usage of the general Alkaertsons to commercial property will�encourage pedestrian and bus ridership by neighboring households. This alteration in the traffic Pattern should also help to reduce traffic on arterials and collector streets in this neighborhood. o Goal No, 13 - Enercy Conservation The land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The same Tigard Cortmunit" Develo Provisions energy conservation, shall . y pment Code revisions r apply to the redesignation of the Property as General Commercial. It particular, the development proposal, as identified above in subsection 12 would aid in the conservation of energy through the sec io s enhancement of more efficient transportation modes and land -use patterns, reduction of travel distances between residential and APPLICATION (JWso814.1J) Y4 commercial areas, generally increasing densities of land use at the site and enhancing the prospect for mass transit ridership These functions of the development proposal support the .finding for energy conservation on under the City's Comprehensive Plan, Volume 11 at 62 Th ese P r ovisions have obtained com p liance acknowled gm en t from LCDC, and therefore the proposed plan and zone change is in conformance with Goal No. 13. 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization The subject site is within the urban ` growth boundaries of the City of Tigard and MSD. The urban growth boundaries of' Tigard and MSD have been given compliance acknowledgment by LCDC. The zone change that is proposed is merely a change , from one intensive urban use to another intensive urban use. The plan and zone -- change proposals `do not require any establishment or change in the existing urban boundaries. Therefore, the proposed plan and zone change are in conformance with Goal No. 14. E • CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES i ,. Section 3 Natural Features and Open Space The site is not subject to severe soil erosion potential, slumping, earth slides or movement, severe weak foundation soils; nor does it have slopes in excess of 25 %. See the attached - d ,r ; y e n. , site , , proposed devil'�eipment plan. Also, the sub." ect site is not within the 1O floodplain designated by the City of Tigard. There are no g p y al limitations on the site that would Preclude its ultimate development. existing hazards or h There are no rock mineral resources available at the site. Similarl, the subject site is not part of a significant wetland or potential location for parks, recreation and open space. 2. Section 4 - Air. Water and and Resources Quality The City's Comprehensive Plan policies regarding air, water es cjuality are based upon application of quality and land resources `� yr standards imposed by the DEQ and other a propriate agencies. As p iy Section D subject for statewide planning , goals, reviousl stated under development the site be the DE to and �� ompy. with air al i t standards regulated Y Q. Extension n of comply r an nt of and sewer services to th site wil. ensure water quality. 3. Section 5 - Economy changes are not only consistent with eco ndm c the goals, but A previously stated ( ) proposed signif icantl enhance them, In addition to the items supporting significantly pP c yc P ` g economic develo ment listed in that section, they it s pol�cies also support the proposal. The first economic policy fisted at II- 1 - APPLICATIOt ( WSO814.111) 30 identifies that "the city shall promote, activities aimed at the . diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on thel,growth•of the local job market." At II -24 the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the following finding regarding the make -up 'of employment opportunities: "Manufacturing, wholesale and retail activities provide the majority of the employment opportunities to area residents." As previously stated, 06he development of the Albertsons property as general ,commer cial will p rovide substantial part -time construction employment and substantial permanent retail- related' em ployment. It is forecasted th at' at tie m ad orit Y � of these e mp t Ym ant opportunities would'be loc all y- ased. The proposal is also consistent with the City's policy on expansion or creation of new commercial areas. First, the Albertsons'' property is part of a mixed -use area that combines commercial with medium- to high- density large 'block residential development. The land proposed for general commercial development has not been committed physically to residential development Secondly, a portion'of the subject property has been designated as commercial to serve the needs of the surrounding trade area or y °s trade area is encomassed b a two -mile circle icomrnunt Thi P Y that includes approximately one - third of the City of Tigard. Within this market or trade area this site comprises the only undeveloped commercial site. One other developed site exists in y in . the city east on these sites are Beaverton Ferry Road. Both of and one exists approximately one , mile awaol l.s T g ry Sch Y e sites. Provision of y and ailable as new roce stor g Y P dare unavailable , site at , the subject propoerty for a modern rocer. rater of this 8,500 - 13,400 populace area. Only one other comparable grocery store potentially services a part of this area,'and it is located in Beaverton approximately one mile away The designation of this Property Will continue and su ppo rt the existing development pattern Planning p p The proposed plan and zone and lann�n rinca. les in this area. satisfy c " finding at 113 O changes would also, thereby, "Residential develo merit in commercial P districts omplements comierc' us imize crime for the Comprehensive Plan . districts, Provides housing 'Within the commercial � P s_ o nln for senior citizens which is in close proximity; to shopping areas, and iminimizes vehicular traffic which would reduce; pollution; and s related to .this issue under consery e energy." See also he� direct 9Y , Section D(12) regarding t compatibility between the proposal and transportation goals. Finally, the proposed plan and zone amendments Would aid the city in carryi g ',,mpl strategies, particularly , � in at 11-31 � of the Coma rlon 1� ehensive Plana The roposal strata No. 10 a m,P would "aid in the creation and aintenance of new and continuous eaployment opportunities to afford City resideected to choice of lament . king wth y lso striv P wor .n the City. The Cit is also dir an economic development progran that would a � '! a to improve 1?' m APPLICATION ( TS0814.1J) ro diversity and, stabilize the economic base of the community thus reducing the tax burden of the residential property owner. " The provision of approximately 79,000 square feet of retail activity would provide a substantial employment base in the category that the City has designated as "the majority of the employment opportunities to area residents" and would provide a substantial economic base for reducing the tax burden on local residents. In addition, the proposed' plan and zone amendments would aid in effective utilization of land, energy and human resources by providing an appropriate buffer between the traffic arterial and residential zones and also insure that service levels in the traffic corridor would not be adversely impacted. Finally, the proposed changes carry out the finding that there should be a provision for timely development of all public facilities and services and their delivery systems. The subject property is immediately adjacent to existing City public facilities and services already being provided to intensive uses. The subject ' g boundaries of the City Property is located within the urban growth bou of Tigard and MSDO All jurisdictions designate the property for intensivw urban development. ensive urban uses already exist surround the site on three t and .Burr In saes. Redesignation of the property as general and provision of public facilities and services from the commercial of Tigard is consistent with the City's economic policies and would be a p. :ovision for timely development. 4. Section 6 Housing The proposed plan and zone amendments are consistent with the policies of the CitY's City's Com rehensi ve Plan on housing. The proposed changes, coupled with a redesignation of high density residential to an adjacent 2- to 4.5 -acre � arcel will provide necessary buffering as directed in the Comprehensive Plan policies and ' the number of ultimately result in either no significant change in t�� housing-unit opportunities . gr pp ' es or will result in 'a gain of up to 47.46 . y' housing also, information units for the city's hous�n stock. See. ale identifying that housing goals are supported by the proposal identified in Section D(10) above. Transition and buffer Planning techniques echniques are important .n the Comprehensive Plan amendments planning functions identified i Policies and in fact, would enhance f enhance would be consistent with these p and, , buffering, screening and transitional effectiveness for the area. Development of the subject property Would provide the location of a large single structure to function as a solid screen for the east and south residential areas. The approximately 4.5 acres to the immediate south of the subject property should be redesignated as This 're-zoning high - density residential or R.�s •in the City's hosln scenario Mould Provide a 47- to 48unit surpl y g . I p ' stock, In the alternative, the City could re- zone two acres to the north of p. p y c, � . across Murray BYvd..,. a Proper er lanninn �lbertsons property acres This would result no net loss of housing, stock and would provide P p P g I transition from general commercial to high - density residential to 18 - APPLICATION (JWSO814.10') et,1ium'. 2ve snob ens lty res den s n e n tae pcoposed plan and zone amendinentas, would be consist the City' a goals on public facilities and ser�rices discussion' Section (..3) Extension ser ces t properties ire contemplated by the conipre ensive ;plan for urban development ' and timely 'for' extension of'? rater,.' sewer', provision of fire and '' police ,protection.' All private such as' 'natural ,gas, ' :electric and telephone are already ad the site " to the i mediate . north and east. The provision o 4. commercial at '`the.' `,site l not adversely impact schools, facts" rill aid in providing the'; necessary economic base to' to alleviate residents' .burden for school budgeting ;the. is also , .consistent with all other; related urban service,, local governnnent " facilities, library serces o Wand sol disposal. and recycling. ent w, n action' .a . o Tra ►s oortatioa these ensive es scent to f general and, in the City :proposal, s such as id{ waste The proposed 'plan and zoning amendments are consistent with. • the City's policies for transportation. the attached Traffic Analysis and the information pertaining ,to , traffic identified ' in Section C(2) and D(12) above. The. proposed ��development ;'does ,abut two; publicly dedicated streets that have been or, ' will. be constructed in accordance with the City's 'standards .;; The appl icant , .: agrees to commit "to the construction 'of such street improvements, � y . curb�a and' sidewalks. as re �.rea� by -Cit s andarcis for the ,. development. The applicant also agrees'`. to provide intersection improvements and signalization as may be required for the intersection. In addition, the site and the proposed use are .. compatible and will enhance mass transit consideration identified, in the City's' Comprehensive plan under Section S. 6eotions 9 and 4'O - Enerc :and. Urban zation The proposed plan and zone amendment a re coneist��nt with the Cit reg. din gy , and Com reh ens Section D 1 oandei above. ene ' r P p g g ur ion. e ( ) ( ) banizat cast $ LW, HMIs oa vn •. ve 3 N u w le- FUTURE MULTI - FAMIL�Yp 6.99 4ACRES raid Iktilhogol Imp 18X, The May II, 1996 :city..,,aliprov44,•fiit the :,0 i'00 ,,:p,roPex'tY',, included a 12.6-acre parcel pa rce l ha iinl'a maximum. O f 300 : multi-family units This computes to 'a maximum of c24'.' units ," per ' acre. ' The .,'. • following . is ',a calCUlatiOn., of '' the lost multi-family ,:density . as a result '' f ' expanding the:,,coinmercial 1.,,;•arce3...fiCtin 6.99 ‘,aF.,,,',,„,=..,i',' ',,,;.:. acres:, 1. 'Commercial area ''expanded. , ' ,8.00' acres , • , , , , . ,. , , ,, , ,. „ , , , . - . ,, .,.. . • Less exchanged site north of , . : ,,, -(6.99, acres) Murray Blvd. extension' . . . :,- ,,'. '...' _____ .., , Yrade Ar a DeMO ra ies: 1991 Estimated Average Household income • . 926,60 1991 Average Household Size 2.67 1991 Average Per Cop • $34.90 Average 9 White • 92 Average S Spanish Origin' • 2% Average % Under 18 • 32% Average 8 0 ad Over • 7% 'P ,1 +AROI Mill 11111,61 04 ON MA AVOA AS HMI G T V N 311 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL • {NC 311 -1 J[Ditatingligran The purpose of the Neighborhood, Commercial District is to allow small to shopping . s medium sized sho in and service facilities and limited office use in Neighborhood Commercial Centers. This intended to provide for the shopping and service nee s ofrthe 'is immediate urban neighborhood. Neighborhood Commercial' locations should be easily accessible by car and foot from neighborhoods the area. Centers should have minimal negative im at on in surrounding residential properties. P 311 -2 p. _ hr ,u 311 -3 The following' uses are permitted subject to the applicable stan- dards as ,set forth.in this Section and in Article IV. 311-2.1 Accessory Use Section 430- 311•Z.2 Agricultural Uses and Structures - Section 430 =5 r 3114. Any Type I L or III �u expansion • of an existing use Y YP uses or change of use which sleets all of th e .foliowing. • A Is exempt fr o m application of Public .. �. the 501-2.1; t, ` '. • Standards under Section A. Is not in an Area of Special Concern" as designated on the applicable Community Plan•iap; C. Is on an existing lot; D. Does not amend any previous approval condition of approval; and approval or previous S. Is in compliance with all alis this Code. pp able standards of 311 - 2.4 Bus `Shelter Section 430 -23 311 -Z.5 Parks with a maximum total gross area . o en - ouu s (109000) square fe et Section 430-95 311 2.6 Recycle Drop Box - Section 430 -113 311 -2.7 Temporary Use • Section 430 -135.1 h The following ,uses ire permitted subject to the a 11ca5'1e ttan- dards as set forth In this section and in Articlap V EtI1113 PAGE 1/24) .I'I1 -4' 311 -3.1; Access to a .manufactured well ling , park - Section 430 -77.14 311 -3.2 Ambulance Service Section 430 -9.1 311 -3.3 Convenience groceries, with ,a maximum gross floor area of five - thousand (5000) square. feet ,- 'Section "430 -35'. Care Center Section 430 -53.2 pay C .311 3 . 4, Y 311 -3.5 Drive -In Establishment with gross floor area of five- thousand (5000) square feet - Section 430 -41 311 -3.6 Dwelling units provided: A. The ground floor is used for neighborhood cornerci al uses H. Height and yard requirements are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial district requirements; and C. Maximum density of fifteen (15) units per acre. 11 -3.1' Eating and Drinking Establishments with a maximum gross floor area of thirty -five- hundred (3500) .square feet 311-3.8 Financial instit utions such as branch banks, insurance' agents, real estate offices with a maximum gross floor area of, five-thousand (5000) square feet per Use" maximum' gross floor area of thirty 311 -3,! Food Market with a_ � m . mum' g Y� five thousand (35,000) square feet, limited to one (1) Per Neighborhood Commercial Center 311 -3.10 Personal Service Establishments such as l auwdrY, dry cleaners, barber and beauty shop, shoe repair, photo - graphic studios = wlth a MaXlmum gross floor area of five thousand (50001 square feet per use, 311 -3.11 Professional offices, including veterinary clinics or offices which do not include boarding facilities other than indoor boarding for immediate, critical care. There shall. be a maximum floor area` of thirty -five hundred (3,500) square feet per use. 311 -3.12 Radio Station 311 -3.13 Residential Facility - Section 430'53.7 311-3. 9• Retail Businesses . - Variety, hardware; , dru dry es such � as war 14 Roo ng photography, ' hobby and goods, clothi similar retail PAGEOF vlsed 11/`23/ • • N • A* • uses - with a , maaeiaium;. gross . f (10,000) square feet per use oor area df. ten- thousan 311-3.15 Service Station Section 430 -12 3114.16 A Type I 'or T e I I Nom. - ip Home Occupation in a nonconforming residence as an interim temporary use subject to the standards of Section 430 - 63,,1. Type I Home Occupation or Section 430- 63.2 • Type'' II Home Occupation. 311 -4 Uses This iLaS The following uses may be permitted subject to the standards as set forth in Article IV and as may be ditioned b y the Review Authority. I r applicable' further con- 311 4.1 Cwrches Section 430 -29 311 -4.2 Public Buildings - such as a post office, police and fire stations at a scale oriented to the surrounding neighborhood - Section 430 -103 311 -4..3 Public Utility - Section 430 -105 .pa 3111 4.4 Special Recreation Use - Section 430 -131 11 -4,,5 .Mood Market - with a maximum gross floor area of• f fty'' - thousand (50,000) square feet, limited to one (1) food market greater 'than five thousand (5,000) square feet er neighborhood commercial center 3114 frgikitialLit 311 a5.1 Structures' or uses of land not specifically authorized by this District unless the structure or use has ' substantially' similar use and impact characteristics to a use listed, as determined through the ,provisions of Section 202 -202. '31 1 -592 Adult Book Stores - Section 430 -3 311 -5.3 The ue of a manufactured dwelling, except: as . provided in Section 430- 135e1A - Temporary Uses and 430- 1.2.D. - gccessory Use 311 -5.4 New residential uses' except as provided in Section 311 -3.6 and 311 - 3.16, 311 -5.5 The location of service' facilities such as high schools, hbsp itals, nursing homes, public assembly +and high density residential development in airport approach zones. Location of these facilities shall avoided within any existing (June, 19b3) airport year e. 2000 LON` fifty -five (55) contour. EXHIBIT PAGE M. .» oF" „ evised 11/23 '90 ` LEGIBILITY STRIP • Flp BEAM- ,1i%tl--da-go Ectsitilites wog s 03111, 11;11 ot�'�� I. s�tr, `lll�s rvitregrigaiii, ♦ � k 4111V fudge %WI - *"..4 iir u/no *P! I4 111111111 r. keit mint Wia, 1125i _ our■ ! tIIIiijijji� WM OM �e��i��i�e�dl�i 4is■.ie��i��E.r�■ i0► Isbirj liE at FA, rrtr. �• 8il swim • SCHOLLS • ce JOHN W. SHONKWILER, RC'. ATJORNEYAT L4W 4040 Douglas Way P.O. Box 1568 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 fade 636 -6745 624 -0917 August 28, 1991 Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RECEIVED PLANNING AUG 2 9 1991 Re: Albertsons' Inc. - AnR____ation for _Zone Change and Plan Amendment Dear Jerry: As we discussed over the telephone, this letter is an explanation of the alternative suggestion new commercial zone raised in ernat�.ve su estop for a the application ication and the applicant's . ' statement. The Albertsons p� 's g multi -family zone with Application is for exchange of a exi.. in mult neighborhood commercial zone; and then enlarging the commercial zone to eight (8) acres and changing it to general commercial. These include both comprehensive plan and zoning map changes. In the event, the City feels that a general commercial zone is too broad for this area, but a grocery -drug store complex is acceptable; Albertsons' Application Statement identifiers that the City Council may consider another alternative. This alternative would be that the Ci t a C ouncil in` t legislative changer at its �anrequest, for new commercial zone Placed between "CM" and CG �� such as "community Commercial", As such a zoning and planning change would directly and broadly effect the entire city, Albertsons' Inc.; does not P P resume to draft a "Community Commercial" ordinance and plan text for Inc, believes that immediate adoption by the City. Albertsons" and t it i . t� the City Council will f' rst need to decide whether interested an alternative; and a if so, then the Council ion as to the new . such g Albertsons direct would give the Staff and A1.ber commercial zone's name, scope and limitations. e'f If the 'City' Council decides 4to 'initiate , "thus `legislat alternative, Albertsons 4 Inc. wi11l provide assistance', in °draftin and compiling Supporting, evidence- for' the new legislation. Again, `',this. a'lternative's for a new commercial ' zone.. :is,,. raised the ; event that the Planning , Commission and /.or' City ;; ;/:Council ,,f that the. "CG" 'zone too broad for this, , area ' Albertsons' Inc. believes that. City Staff time `and facilities .` should t be taken Up, � this ,alternative until the Cit i Council determines that such an ',approach is Vorth p , y t :, Howev�.r , Albe rts ons' Inc. (as an art ' may do Is' '.merel raisin alternative, suggestion with. thee City Co Inc �ll C` the , ide council' initiated hange'. As it g g M raticn .of -a le i�lati cons�.cr is an alternative and may, be mooted• *by an approval of ''the.; propoo;ed "CG "' zone change; the, appropriate time for the- Council. � R. ... lic n. a ... , , , e ,at t time it considers the Albertson tai consider the Albertsons :suggested - alternative . would b, s' Asp atio If you have any further question., please feel free rely, John W. Shonkwiler JWSwjif cc: Don Duncoambe 5"a .99 it-wo-- „r5 -1P-AD air ��08eip 4WNMi�Ay#a++'tigpt�:rrlrvxwcrrN HnrFR. seP. 5 r. w�«+ �++ gw�rru .•�+nww:+ +�Yw+wu+we.wa•cw+e. CCU5.67) werNLwu,NV'+• '1 AtYMy+ FMWWYNMWa »iMYrMaWrsYN.YYin4'SWquµ �t wgp`��F•/Ypi1 ri v NCY 04I{40 �r - �%I►�6Ve fl.rwrty.M aR'7MV 6 r'k /W%,414,.444.44L,14444,14144116 vx gateeNe ��`MrYa9FMMni.14MA. AMrW. w�. rrl t�# M4iNN4iF .tWf4�YgNi'.Lwf�ur�y>M�..n: dIM444lv�iy !ivuMb{tWW�1WIK',M�+IN0. - tv!ri<� raver rrt Y.'ra WHr ltrrinilr:Ayl:plS:YkN�li,`.a; Nrg1WW.}. MfMrY+ �fX. riWFMWW9MMVf' nMrAJLMMf�Wq +r�tYW'.'ShrvrW'.s..HW "!fxYrW Y� #:w:aulik'W1wf.�2rA^ Y Itr.M'wvXW' !le: N 41..r41{.'vxvIWWF.aFka.:. Yprv�MrM <K: :v .T,t;49'dr' taM+�YVMaM44uW'tY ,A"I�i. ..t . 4 4 114 11 t+: Y :krW'�,.hlYVm+riM1:'kAMVN'Y<..:• WYY•LY kr,krs Ax x.Ih,Wf ttWiWry J4aYAH.wYI.p. +Y,lyq�,xr I., 1ttwYSul pert., �rcplgW '«!r:Wavptlly,::t'dyRYlM M+�. `44 1a4bha 14 .4r•sfWik; u: >' t - W�.W c1 �r Wn:WOv <Irr rvW.'rlW:kx ;KVHk 401 a1 ,,,.1,r.., IN'iM.Gs' .4fy.+. rrlK.�., +a a4.x..V- ::cWY�. Yk MI�VU;.w*.tt4r YSY{tYlM'xNMxBixikL,uiVh +WNNMM n.k,.w•;iNVkl .xr,.w,ket.stWH'h%*+MI�Ni: rr.:e�hYiuuwbnrc,u ».cxttlws: rwr.rp+my?wwwF4m �wln.WfasuMx tt uaw+nwr+pW,wlmpiw , aua aura:sn.,rH::+ga.W�.r. 1wn•rra#!an` 114 ; i'<= t}i.IVYWryx:.Mi�rt +'.eliJll�: +: iu15h1:LJ' i• M•.XH+h',:xu :w,AA1 I Mr. J. ,. o-vny u1- smt 11 71.4 1114 '04441:4aw,w'Yr;+�m."�.m+ n:zaztti Slums 1111111111111,4' -.:-;',..=:-,-,.. '. • `• 1i� , ,.c -01e ad rim �� '` 4S *$ts$.. 41 .1: • s ■ ©ii■ \Ti 41■►`fit, ` ••% vi snow rilfllit : ■., .t , onsimitemt Meal lain& "c4, uJI��I ..."""•1111111111111111 r� : ■■ ; .: -® I ri . .4: '° ` 'a 4+ 1'...t ",77 'N9 11Yw !T74A "3-11"?,r. ALA CITY FICATIOW:LIST FOR ALL' APPLY NPO NO. . "(2 copies) DEP TMENTS Bui ing Inspector /Brad R. ty Recorder ineering /Gary A. Permits Coordinator viola G. SPECIAL STRIcTS Fire District pick -up box bldg.') Tigard Water District 8777 SW Burnham St. Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Water District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 CTED ..JURISDICTIONS Wash. Co. Land Use & Tranap. 150.N. First Ave. Eillab9 , OR 97124 / Brent Curtis Kevin Marti„ oann i e, Cott King Fred Eberle Mikes Borreson 1. Jim Hendr°yx City of Beaverton PO Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97075 $tats Highway Divi ®ion Lee Gunderson PO Box 565 Beaverton, OR 97075 5. SPECIAL AGENCIES General Telephone mike Lutz 12460 SW' Main 3t. Beerton, OR 97007 • NW Natural Gads Don' Thomas 220 NW Second Ave. Port and, +0R` 97209 TCI, Cablevis on of aregon, Inc v, 35ao', sW Bond Portland;, OR 91201 ks .&- Recreation' Beard Police. Other -. School Diet. No. 48 (Beavr Joy Pahl PO Box 200 Beaverton, OR 97075 school District 23= (Tig)a 23137 SW Pacific Hwy. Tiganti, OR 97223 Boundary Commission 320 SW Stark Room 530 Portland, 'OR 97204 METRO ,2000 SW let Ave. Portland, OR 97201 -5398 DLCD (CPA's only) 1175 Court St. NB Salem, OR 97310 -0590 Other • . e` .. e S • ..e .. •• • .... • .. • . . Portland General Electric Brian Moore 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Beaverton, OR 97007 metro _ Area Communications 'Harlan Cook Twin Oaks Technology Center 1815 NW 169th 'Place S -6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 -4085 Us 'Meat Pete Nelson 421 SW Oak St, Portland, OR 97204 Lite Hallock Southern Poffic Transportation Company Duane M. Forney, PLS - Project Rngineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, Rm. 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 The purpose of this section 'is to establish the relationship between the City �f Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and 1. Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised statutes and the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission; . The Regional Plan set forth by the Metropolitan Service District: • The Comprehensive Framework Plan and policies of Washington County; The requirement that plans be updated. The plan will be updated to ensure that the plan, as the land use policy for Tigard, reflects the changing needs and circumstances of the community FI'JDIi GS P adopted 0s Each plan ada ted under the Land Con�erva,taon and Devel® ent Cor�assaon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines mast meet .the, following: Goal #1 Develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to get involved in all aspects of the, planning process. 2'. Goal #2: Establish a land use Planning process and policy framework as the basis of all land use decisions and actions. and ensure an adequate factual data base to substantiate those decisions and actions; • Goal #3: Preserve and maintain agricultural: lands _beyond., the Urban Growth Boundary of the community, . Goal #4: Conserve forest lands, not committed for urban uses, for strictly forest uses. Goal #5: Conserve open space and protect natural and' service resources; • Goal #6: Maintain and improve the quality ►f air, water and land resources; • Goal #7: Protect the community's life and property from natural disaster and hazard areas; Goal #8: meet the recreational needs of residents of the comrmunity. State, and visitors; Goal #9 : ' ers i fy and improve the economy of the community and the State. 10. Goal ill D: Provide adequate housing for the needs *Of the community, region and state; 1. Goal #11: Plan and;! develop a " timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of Public facilities and services to serve as the framework for urban development. t ."7-Goal # .: . ' Provide and encourage a 'safe convenient and conomi c transportation system; 13. Goal #13: Conserve energy; aid 14. al #14k Provide for an orde r 1 and efficient transition from urbanizable to urban land uses. The metropol tan Service District established' a Regional Urban Growth Boundary which includes Onough laved to accommodate urban needs to the year' 2000, 'This boundary includes all of Tigard. The Cit of Ta aed's Comprehensive Plan. includes 'thefie rts: The first . des g P p e plan ; reports (Citizens pit �.nclu the a.cec�ividual comprehensive refiQegsiv Involvement; Natadral Features acid Open, Spice ;' Air, Water and, Land' Resources;. Economy; Housing; Public Facil4tios and Services Transportation; Energy and Urbanizatirn.); which constitute the findings; the second` part of the plan includes the summary and' policy document far` the findings, polices and implementation strategies; acnd the third part of the playa includes the Tigard Comtmaunity Development Code, which sets forth the development standards, and outlines the procedures for obtaining ' ho necessary development approvals. The . ongoing planning program will' include the preparation of a capita, improvement plan outlining the major capital investments needed to realize' full development of the planning area, fuding Sources and POLICIES'. 1.1.1 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT: THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS ADOPTED' DY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; THE REGIONAL IP CONSERVATION METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT • PLAN ADOTED; h. ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS A ND I m PLEM ENTAT30N MEASURES ADoP TED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD AFTER THE EFFECTIVEr DATE.OF';; THIS DESIGNED TO DE . THI �'�OPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE �► CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN; AND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE KEPT CURRENT WITH TIGARD TH THE NEEDS L+D�' 1 THE COMMUNITY., � . COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO 04 THIS,' 1. THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. 1.2' THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EACH OF ITS ELEMENTS SHALL BE OPENrie ['OR AMENDMENTS THAT. CONSIDER, COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS OF THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE 'DISTRICT (D OR ITS' SUCCESSOR 'emu Aid' ANNUAL BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ANNUAL AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGIONAL GOALS, . oa3EarivEp AND PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT wI •ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE- OPENING OF LOCAL PLANS APPROVED BY THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMISSION (.CDC,) THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY LEGAL RIGHTS . ITY OF A REGIONAL GOAL, WHICH THE C�'Y MAY HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE -LEGALITY OBJECTIVE, OR PLAN PROVISION. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES , The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map < and the Official Zoning District map will reflect the plan . policies and apply land use categories in the following manner: Low Density Residential 1 to 5 units to the net acre. The applicable zoning districts are all single family residential (R-11R-2,R-3.5 and R-4.5) Medium Density Residential - 6 to 12 units to the net acre. The y applicable zoning district are multiple family (R -7 and R- -1.�). c, Medium - High Density Residential - 13 to 20 units to the ne acre. The applicable zoning district is R-20. d. High Density Residential - 20 to 40+ units to the net acre. ; Th applicable zoning districts are R--20, and R-40. . Neighborhood Commercial a Areas commercial and personal ' service necessary , to satisfy the daily sh nearby residents. Tie applicable z Commercial (C-N). of concentration of small activities and related uses• hopping and related needs of onirg 'district ' is Neighborhood . General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto - oriented and related commercial uses located along major trafficways. The applicable zoning district is General) Commercial (C-C). • Commercial Professional -- Areas deemed appropriate for business and professional offices and related uses. The applicable zoning district is Commercial Professional (G -P). ' . Central intensity mixed a District deveapment allowing deemed commerc al, office, for hig1 . Y . ficei a well as higher density residential uses of a minimum of 40 units per acre. The applicable zoning districts are, the Central Business District. (COD) and the Special District which limits residential uses to 12 units cry. p�;ra a CP t'6 Cfl":464r. Light' Industrial Refers to areas deemed appropriate for industrial activities which include manufacturing, processing. assembling. packaging or treatment of products from prey neap ly prepared materials and which are devoid of nuisance factors that would adversely affect other properties. The eappropriato coning districts are Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial Park (I P) which also permit offices and related uses. Heavy Industrial - Those areas deemed appropriate for intensive manufacturing, processing, or assembly of •semi— finished or finished products, including fabrication, and whose operati characteristics are potentially incompatible with most other land uses. Public/Institutional Refers to school uses or other public uses, • Open Space - Areas designated for for development for recreational etc. areas deemed for municipal uses,' e.g., Durham Treatment Plant. retention in a natural state and uses, e.g., floodplain, parks, ▪ The Community eevolopment Code (C.O.0 -) shall provada quasi - judicial roved f the City changes to the CoMprehensir��e and a p initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis Council finds: ▪ The change is consistent with applicable plan Policies; • A char original Age ®f physical circumstances has occurred since the on designation; or • A mistake was made in the original land use designation. • Functional master p ans s a conformance to the Comprehensive Development Code. e prepared;. and implemented in Plan and the Tigard Community CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT' This chapter addresses Statewide Planning Goal Olt" "To dawelop a citizen �e y d involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Tigard is now well known for its active citizen participation program; prims►ri l+j with the Neighborhood Planning Organizations. Through ' the drafting and a joption of the Comprehensive Plan. these organizations contributed their time and energy developing Tigard's Plan' • Plan policies have been ,prepared to preserve the ,continuity.,' of Tigard's active citizen involvement program and .to ' ensure that 'citizens. will continue to have access to inforuation that enables them to identify,, understand, and ; have input in the planning issues related . to ` Implementsion of the Comprehensive Plan.' Additional information on this topic is available in the ' °°Corcrprehensive Plan Report: Citizens Involverent.0° "'TIMINGS IMINGS Throughout the development of the Tic,lard Comprehensive Plan, the City has actively sought the ...rticipatio'n 4f neighborhood Planning Organizations and other citizens groups. The Neig ho.rhood Planning Organizations and the Committee for Citizen Involvement met on a monthly basis ,throughot*t_' the Comprehensive Plan revision process. Continued citizen participation in all aspects of land use planning helps'. ensure that City government of Tigard's ciiizens. to en 't meets the needy In order to participate in land use planning decisions, citizens .need to have access to information which enables them .'to become aware of and informed about planning issues and City policies. Zt is essential that this information be made available' to all citizens ict, an understandable form.• o Land use planning education, it-'important to promote • and stimulate interest in the citizen p art� . c� tai pa i on process 'dur"inn all phases of planning. POLICY # 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING Ca ZEN INVOLVE 1ENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ; ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE . PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE XNVGl VED #Ni ALL PHASES OF THE 'PLANNING PROCESS. IMPLEMENTATION . STRATEGIES • The City shall periodically review notification requirements and methods to determine if they adequately provide notice to affected citizens!,' and, revise these requirements and methods as necessary,' • The City shall continue to inform, asr a timely manner, appreopriate', Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO) and other citizens groups On all land use planning matters The City shall continue to assist and support any' City uounci�l . r*ecoghtZ citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distributiore, .. materials, policy directi, on and sta ff involvement. fAt 4'. d WATER quALITY FINDINGS ® The quality of Tigard 0 s surface waters are are not used for drinking purposes. No major Point source water e Polluters threaten Some inf i l tration. problers exist in the sewage air, inasmuch as the waters local creeks. systems Reduction of 'open spaco, removal of vegetation cover, and development which increases the amount of impervious suewface all contribute significantly to increases in the peak flows of urban storm runoff entering store sewers, creeks and drainageways. Offsetting measures can reduce the negative effects of urban development on water quality ,and quaretity problems. Examples include on site ret ention9 detention tion of storm water, inclusion of landscape buffer ffer areas ad ja0,3ent to new development and conservation �at�on and 'im p rovement of streanside eg e"ata ®r along creeks a nd other water courses. POLICIES 4.4 GI .1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE 'TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL* STATE AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY 'STANDARDS. 4.2.2 THE CITY SHALL,RECOGNIIE AND ASSUME ITS SP NSIBILI 6"Y ` 'CR OPERATING, PLANNING, INC, ANA REGULATING. WASTEWATER AS DESIGNATED WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT AND 20 CRAG STUDY. , IMPLEMENTATION I. STRATEGIES 1. In order to im rove the water quality and and quantity i n the Tigard g and Area. the shall consider developing regulations in the Tigard, Community De�elo ent Code or instituting programs to: Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to helP correct water quialitY problams, Improve the management of industrial and commercial operbitions reduce negative water quality impacts; :0 Regulate Planning for hew►` development and ecarisr^�aetion through the tT" to S . �' pmeret Code t� be�ter��. coretrsal drainages and erosion Viand to manage g Tigard Community [�es�e g., torte runoff Increase storage and retention of storm runoff to `xow r and a el Peak storm flows: . Reduce street related wa er - 1u 1ity ant$ quantity peob tr`ts.; ��C it A need exists to "mete the .benefits of operating, a busine $ in Tigard The Central,• Business District demands attention and 'community ' support in order that improvement programs may be set an motion to make it a more diversified and economically viable core area. The existing ;railroad facilities in Tigard are an asset to industrial and ve lopment on property c acent to the rails. commercial de P P �' "' d � � Hi. hwa 21a serve as incentives Ease of access to 1-5 and 9 y' ' nc�r►t to ' economic development in Tigard. Tigard ° s Proximity to Portland ' Community College Provides opportunity for J � serve existing, the creation of specialized job training programs to , se ex tiding. and new industries in the City. Residential development in commercial districts compliments commercial uses, helps to nmififize crime within' the coerciai` districts, provides housing for senior citizens which, is in close proximity to shopping areas, and minimizes vehicular travel which;, would reduce pollution and conserve energy. A need exists for Public facility d ei o p e�t to mik e industrial al and commercial lands available for economic development purp .stas. I POLICIES 5.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT THE. DTVERSIV`YCATxO►�1 OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO TIGARD 'RESIDENTS WITH ',PARTICULAR PASS S P CED ON' INE GROWTH OF THE �,�� . ' � COCA oB MA e ,�.,. acs � 5.1.2 E CITY SHALL WORK WITH WASHII .;ice AND ADIAC T 3URISDICTIONS TO - DEVELOP AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.' PLAN, INCORPORATING A LOCAL, ECONQMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. p. b PORTION a OF THE CENTRAL STRS Cs i AND 'ENHANCE' TOE BUSINESS, DI AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY 5.1.3 TIE CITY SHALL _ .. _.. RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, CIVIC, I AND ' PROFESSIONAL' ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY ` VIABLE RE AREA . 5.1.4 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL ` AREAS , THAT HAVE NOT SEEN ' DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SE 5.1.5 THE CITY 'SHALL PROHIBIT RESIDE ' AL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL A PR AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL Be PERMITTED ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE CENTRAL 3USINESS DISTRICT, APJU ADOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COM`.. ERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS:, (THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT :.. SHALL 5 IIN ' ACCORDANCE ,R��GTN Ti♦E E DIET�ERMINED R--40 DISTRICTS . j ,_ 30 r POLICIES 7.1.L THE CITY SHALL: • PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A CAPITAL 'IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE APPLICABLE . `.SERVICE DISTRICTS: b . WORX WITH THE SERVICE DISTRICTS TO .PROVIDE A ' COORDXNATED' 'SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SERVICES, PROVIDE ' URBAN SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE . •COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE EXTENT OF E CITY'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES: • USE THE CAPITAL- IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AS .A MEANS FOR ,PROVIDING FOR ORDERLY GROWTH ! AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND: DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH ;CONSIDERATION BEING GIVE? TO THE LEVEL AND CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SERVICES: AND f ADOPT .LOCRTIONAL CRITERIA AS THE OASIS FOR MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT T01E PROPER LOCATION FOR PUBLIC I` ACIL.ITIES . THE CITY SHALL RE UIRE AS A PRE — CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT fiPPROVAL THAT: . DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY:- OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INQLUDING 4r1. PUBLIC WATER;. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY) : AND STORM DRAINAGE- . THE FACILITIES ARE: 2. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING. ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND.. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: AND DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. DE • ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO Be PLACED b I }ERCROU 9D. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ▪ As a part of the Ongoing Planning Program, the City Wi 11 prepare capital imPtoUements program: and The staging of facilities will be & ►sed On the a�ailabilit ' of a. g S financial resouFces L •�, • JI' wb © Most of the folio g> policies have been transform into City regulations. POLICIES 7.2.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: A SITE DEVELOPMENT, STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SURX CT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH SHOWS THAT' THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ' ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS . NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS ' Be , MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOT THAT ALTER - S � a INA' ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS ' SALVE • ON-SITE DRA PRDRL S D WILL ASSURE NO ADVERSE OFFS11'E IMPACrS4 c I G��1�\. (C(/I�__ HANDLED (O !S� E O■ THERE S , Le {fir /igNA yep ',. E V Q ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE • •AYWDLED �i�V�Mr! �. r/R � E �M AN �L.V I�Y��A tl W� SC1LUTIO1 WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE THE OFFSITE IMPACT; d .. THE 100- -YE'AR ' FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE '1981 FL( INSURANCE STUDY 'CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SE PROTECTED; AND e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES ' BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF WE SI DEVELOPMENIT PLAN. 7.2.2 THE CITY SHALL: a. INCLUDE IN • ITS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLANS FOR SOLVING ^. -- DRAINAGE P: ,. RO® THE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS; b. REGULATING' RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, PLANNING AND, WASTEWATER SYSTEMS A S QE SY�IA T~D I N THE MSD W A S9EWATE R TREATMENT MANAGEMENT "208" PLAN; AND c. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE , FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WASTEWATER. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES I. The City wa lY include measures in this plan and in its implementation ordinances to reduce soil erosion. 7.3 _WATER SERVICE FINDINGS o Both' Tigard and Metzger Water Districts have made, substantial caP ital improvements in recent years to prouide the highest gUallty° Water at the most Treasonable rues. o Reliable and adequate water supply. Storage; and delivery slrstems presently atvai labl+e or planned to provide 1 sufficient quantities of high quality water, to meet 'existing a ` future needs of the community, Fir LLI records. As the area develops, the : pi-oblitAl is bound to become more conspicuous. Local authorities (the City of Tigard, the Unified Sewerage, Agency, and the Washington County Health Department) may not have the legal discretion to avoid this solutian to the i'3sue' of failing septic systems. On the other hand, the potential hardsloip of enforcing these regulations on some, property owners cannot be ignored . The existing system by which septic tanks are monitored appears to have serious defects that need to be remedied. i ,Accordin+ to some soil scientists,' for instance, the dye ',Method' of ` tracing septic tank contamination is inadequate. Washington County's existing tired proposed I large-lot zoning 'designations in the Tigard Plan Area (and to the west on ,Tull Mountain) may Pewit septic syt terns that may fail. developments in these areas. should either be retiadred to have public sewer service or have larger lot sizes than now allowed Or envisioned ;POLICIES 7.4.1 THE CITY SHALL:. ▪ DEVELOP' A COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESENT AND FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS FOR A SEWAGE SYSTEM INI THE PLANNING AREA, AND PROBABLE ROUTES OF FUTURE TRUNKLYNES . a . REQUIRE THAT FUTURE EXTENSIONS OF` - LLECTOR SEWER" LINES SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND AGREEMENTS DEUdEEN THE CITY' OF TIGAR ®, WASHING'T'ON GCUNTY AND THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) • ADOPT A CLEAR AND CONCISE ,"AGREEMENT WITH USA, IMPLEMENTING Taiilt. Cite ° S POLICIES FOR EXTENDING 111E AVAILASILXTY OF SEWER SERVICES AND ENCOURAGING THE PHASING' OUT OF SEPTIC TANKS. 7 T E CITY SHALL. REQUIRE THAT AREAS DETERMINED BY THE WASHINGTON' COUNTY ,4 . � � ME HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO HAVE FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHALL BE CON1 ECTEGl TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SEWER SHALL: 7.4:3 IN-THE 'DE'VE E�dTiR - SYSTEMS, PRIORITY SH a. 'FIRST, ` BE GIVEN TO AREAS HAVING HAZARD G HEALTH' HAI WHICH WILL BE DETERMINED BY DEQ; AND PROT3LT+MS ka : SECOND, BE GIVEN TO AREAS WHERE THE COST-BENEFITS ARE lilt GREATEST IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS. 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BE, CONNECTED TO AN E.. APPROVED SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM. The nature and level H © police services ; wil`i . be subject to coordinated monitoring by the.,;Clty' police.` department for evaluation and long —range planning. The City will strive to reduce cit' .Zen fear; of and . susceptibi "ity to crime through `increasing awareness 6 crime Prevention anethodP: in A. development, and involving the entire co unity in, crime prevention programs . 7.6 FIRE PROTECTION FINDINGS' c► Currently, • the City of Tigard is serviced by the Tualatin Rural Eire District and 'Washington CcuntY Fire District HI.; • o Continued growth and urbanization places additional need for fire ' related services. .o Congestion on i some area streets slows, the response time to fires. Among locations where this has been noticed are: Vicinity of Greenburg Tiedeman Pacific Highway (lain Strreet Hi Hall t�oulward between P.omMer`caal a nd Pacific g hwa y Walnut Street Tiedeman a r crossings at Hall Boulevard and min Street Railroad During flooding, some bridges may be closed (e.g. at Grant Street and . ore Hlall *Boulevard) necessitating-the. use Of time consuming ycircuitous routes. Subdivision plats can create access problems when there are too. few through;' streets. 1 there are numerous examples of dead end streets throughout the City POLICY iiisursseesitel ? : 6 . Y THE tR'TY SHALL REQUIRE ; AS A PRE --CQN DITION ,TO DEVELOPMENT. THAI`: a THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED DY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR' FIRE PROTECTION PURPO► ES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE . . IN 11,1E AREA BELOW ' A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; ANO THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS en. Many of ' the streets in Tigard are dead- ended which adds to the congestion on .existing compieted streets . Therefore, number, of stret connections -need' to" be constructed . A major concern of the community regarding' transportation is the need "to maintain and improve the livability of, residential areas in the dace 'of ' increasing population and transportation requirements The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with +ate ri sector improvements to achieve the most P effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. The major residential growth during the planning ' period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard. Both > of these areas lack adequate improved traff icway s . A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and, Pacific Highway. The location of these connections, needs to be coordinated between the City, County, State and the Metropolitan .Service District. o A need exists to complete the collector street system within the Tigard Triangle area to make more of this area accessib le to p ° develo er°s, employers and employees. POLICIES 1.1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND E FFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND . ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. 8.1.2. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA THROUGH COOPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT .S .1.3 THE CITY SHALL APPROVAL THAT: a DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE " ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; � . STREET RIGHT -0F -WAY DE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET lS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH: THE DEVELOPER COMMIT '"'� O THE CONSTRUCTION , OF THE STREETS. CURDS AND SIDEWALKS TO CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS' PARTICIPATE IN THE ,IMPRO`VEMEN'T OF EDEITING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT' OF THE DEVELOPNiE IS IMPACTS; ST ROVEM OB SIGNALS SE PROVIDEo' IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTNSIF'T , O► TOO P� " AIRO'; TRANSIT O o Bus TURNOUT LANES Amp SHELT a BE PROVIDED WHEN TUE PROPOSED USE OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RE PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES SE LOCATES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED; PERSONS; AND �.�. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE D PLAN. Jr ° / ADOPT' IMPLEMENTATION STRA GIES 1. The City P shaA l deve�iop, adopt and implement a master street plan that anticipates ail needed trafficway improvements so as to Plan for are necessary available resourt.,;4 C to develop these streets when they -needed- The City shall develop, maintain and implement a capital improvements program.which: a. Is • consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan; b. Encourages a safe, convenient and economical transportation system; c. Furthers the policies and implementation strategies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; d. Considers a variety of transit modes within the rights --ofd e. Meets local needs for improved transportation services . Pursues and establishes other funding sources from the federa state, regional and/or local agencies; and Designates the timing of such projects to ensure their installation g. when those facilities are needed. City The Cit shall specify street design standards within the Tigard Community Development Code: 4, The City shall maintain the by reducing curb cuts and adequate right of --way and process. The Community requirements; for each street carrying' capacity of arterials and collectors other means of direct access, and requiring setback lines as part of the development Development Code shall state the access classification. The City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require' developers of land to dedicate necessary rights -'of- -Ways and install necessary street improvements to the City's standards when such improvements have not been he developer roposals. essar ded�icaticns ray .s P These nec y i. done prior to t � .... be required upon approval of any; development pi- oposal. » , esS oints �►nd Will it the number of acc. p y The shall contr"o1 and 1x er that, p � � �.oW 'o�F Th C� ty y Provides a cons signalize traffx:ct�ys in a Bann cul�cr �stent ides fo r traffic and therefore minima � woo s » � � yes or reduces veh� � �+tnas /I (7) Areas within one '; quarter mile from neighborhood and general • commercial, shopping centers or business and office 'centers. 1 (6) Areas , adjacent to either private or public permanent open space. The following factors will 1be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the medium- -high and high deOsa�ty planned, areas should the city adopt more than one high density zone. (1) The topography and natural features ures of the al' "5-'a and the degree of Po ssible buffering from established low densty residential areas. (2) The capacity of the services. The distance tance �ron p ublic trarsa t • ie relationship of the site to existing neighborhood and genera commercial centers and office and business centers. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Community Development Code shall:.' . Include a broad range of residential districts. Provide 'for schools, churches, parks and other, quasi public and 'public u ®.es as conditional development in the residential districts. • Require medium density, medium -high density, and hi ,9h density residential uses to be subject to the design, review development , un ess those developments have received detailed pla eor- cbnditional ,development approvals. • Re q uire medium density and l g h density rasad ential developments to provide a minimum of 20% of the gross area to be landscaped. The . landscaping requirement may b reduced during the review Process where it can be demonstrated that .exceptional design will achieve :. equally desirable An @ ual q y i rable deva loprnent . b • "t (2) An . uncluttered appearance and. openness intenied . y he landscaping requirement: Require the of land or monetary e der�.cation y ' contributtioa to the Public for parks or recreation facilities. 12.2 COMMERCIAL The Comprehensive Plan provides for four tipes of cotruraercial deielopment: neighborhood, general commercial areas, professional commercial and the central business district. It is the intent of plan that: 1: Commercial areas be planned at a,scale which relates its .ocatien1 site and type of S *reF to the trade area to� be served, !' Surrounding residential areas be protec ,ted from any possi'b] effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare..' z• Commercial centers and uses be aesthetically attractive and land -,ca I ngress and egress points' .not` create traffic congest'on or ha iArds adverse • Vehicle trips he reduced both in terms Of the length of vewcle trip,. and total number of trips. • The central business' district, is not include l in the locational criteria because there is only one designated area. POLICY awl 12.2.`1 THE CITY SHALL: PROVIDE FOR "C°MMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE TYPE .OF' USE, ITS • SIZE AND ;REQUIRED TRADE AREA. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES- APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LOCATIOMAL CRI;TERXA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. . Neighborhood Commercial goldsand services within a cluster Otnstorees -t Con enience goods are'. hood comet Dods and goods which' are bought . frequently,' at least weekly; and for which •e� people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center markets, beauty shops,; include convenience barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses, is limited; to those uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area. • Scale (1) Trade Area. Up to 5000 people. (2) Site Size. Two acre maximum. (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. • Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The service area radius fora neighborho shall be at least one half of a ;mile. ~`a b, Commercial develo ent snarl be 1'imited 'to one quaaQalrant 0f a !� ) stye Pm et interse�:tion or where there is no street intersects on ,': to one-side of the street: omrercial center 0 (2) Acess: ( (a), The proposed center or ekpansion of an existing center' shall not 'create `'traffic'', congestion, Or a ; traffic safety problem. Such a ''determination shall be based'' on the street`, capacity,` existing and Projected, traffic volumes, , the speed limit. I number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in. the. ,ions, (b) The site shall . have direct accost. from one of (i) An arrterial . • the' fellowii A collector street which.will not direct traffic thro local neighborhood streets. ) Site Characteristics. The site shall be of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses, but shall not exceed • two aotres . I (4) Impact' Assessment al of the Project shall be compatible with the � a) The ,: scale L h P ] Pa surrounding uses. (b) The • site configuration and characteristi " 'onship ics and relit' to the street system shall bQ such that privacy of adjacen t non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be *possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and development ,plan (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall no interfere with adjoining non - residential uses. 2. General Commercial General Coms>iercial areas" are intended to provide for major retail goods and services The uses, classified as' general conaercial may involve drive -yin services, large space users, "a °comb oat on 4f retail, service, wholesale and repair Services or provide services to the 'traveling publit. 11'110:- use :'range from automobile repair ".and;, services, supply and equipment steres, vehicle st*iec that aurants to laundr establishments. It -is .intended. y these uses vbe adjacent to an arterial or `major collector street. • Scale • iI (1) 'ride A ^ea. Varies (2) Site Size: Depends Ion development (3 Gra s Leasable Area,. Varies. o> Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location commercial no � surrounded � by residentia (a) The area �zs districts on more than two sides (2) Access (3) area' shall not (a) The' proposed area or expansion :of an , ex1 i s fee*1g ..' robleat. such cres►te ral fic tong stion or a traffic sa y P determirlti�0I sha11 be based : : `on the . street capacit r a the: spQed . existing and projectaad` traffic volumes. nub r of " turning movements , and the . traffic generating . " chOr'*cteristics of the various types of uses.. Q sitQ shall have directs access 'from a major collector arterial street. ' c tranaportation shall be available to •tire , site or (c) Publx general area. Site Characteristics (a) The s a'sse Shall be of a site which can • accommodate:presen projected uses. I (b) Thel kite shall fta ve high' vb la y O Impact' Assessment , 1 I ro sect' shall .be compatible with the (a) The scale of the P ' � surrounding uses.` (b) The.. site c onf 9 urtion i hall be such that a oe no n be maintained. the ,privacy adjacent c�- coaaseresal uses ca (c) s� . all be possible'to incorporate the unique site features It into` the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights, noise . and activities shall not O interfere with adjoin` se .. adjoining non-residential uses. ercial Professional 3. ➢. Profes I , : e - of office '��es Commercial f are intended for diverse rang 2.0f essional area smote use convenient hroughaa't the City: and supportive .. es; and to p ti�ae • • Scale (1) Trade area. V'ar (2) Site size, varies (3) Gross .leasable area. Varie's zs 10 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION NG Pd�RTA►TI�Q�! EI�G�NE�Ri & Pi,ANNING;,' 4040 DOUGLAS WAY TAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 October 15, 19911 Mr. Jerry Offer Land Use Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Mbertson's Zone Change SOCIA TED 'ANSPORTATION GINEERING & A NNING (ATEP) (503) 6313; -8232 (303) 743 -4491 Dear Jerry: This letter is in response to our discussions and your letter of September 26, 1991 regarding the additional information eq Albertson's Zone Change nge Traffic Analysis report prepared by Associated Transportation Engineering & Plannin g TEP I will address the your request and the request of Wa shington County in the order provided and as follows: wow 1. report square space .. that could be developed dT in the existing zone. On 4 page of the ATOP report, s �h last sentence should read Pe g P g paragraph Gres of Ind covered by the existing zone. In reviewing the calculation `sheets the found that the 144,000 w calculated on seven acres not ,(� square feet was eight acres reported in the orginal report. the e� ht rte a acre 2. The Albertson's proposal would potentially eliminate 1.01 acres of multi- family residential or 24.24 units. Mbertson's primarily proposes replacing these "lost" 24.24 units on "one for one" basis. T his primary approach would involve changing a minimum portion of the remaining R -25 multi-family t•40. The net effect of the proposal will be to increase commercial from 6.99 acres to acres; commercial 8 end the total number af�e�e�s adental units at the site will remain the same (no net gain or loss). In the event that the City council desires an increase in housing stock Albertson's has an l in the remaining . alternative approach of rezoning g fining,' 4 5 acres south �of Extension to R-40. This alternative would create 72 units with a net increase t the Mu proposed PP t ncrease at the site . addendum to the original report reflects only an nits Therefore the attache of:re 48 u of 48 units. >: attached attached addend,, ase o 8 is See attar ed Figures 7 and 8. 3. The addendum addresses the change in location and access for the existing CN zone. Please note that this has no overall affect on the operation of the surrounding street system. LAS WAY LAME O. ..... 404Q �� SWEGC.1� QR �J7035 P.O. BOX 13165 SALEM OR 97309 (503) 636.9232 (503) 743.4491; . v�na �rech w: compiled. for Table '8, rig Cad ton error error found is the_ s ;umn head�n ,.ali nment .The "t etPNew{ Tr Hda , eck e'ca u a#�o ou Ties one► WO table, is a 35% reduction in trips due to the s g p . App n ix ATEP re rt contains the actual trip generatie calculations showing total trips,:: and new trips. 'The attached ' Table ,8 reflects the addition of the 48 f Aauiti= fatally be.:added by the Albertson's - second a temative The traffic volumes shown at the 'Sae olls /,Murray intersection' are not intended to show pass by traffic only new trips at the intersection. Thee pass by trips have been ;removed since they are- accounted for ire the total traffic' volumes' an Figure 8. By r�emaanng the pass by trips' from the site 'generated trips . shows those new trips that, are actually; generated by the site, not those . trips that are already an the roadway. 6. The addendum includes the analysis of the Nc th $ hoIIstMurray interser ion requested by Washington County. The analysis indicates that 'in the year 2010 tl intersection will operate at level of service "E" with or without this development. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) ■■••■■111P 1111% ASSN � Richard 1. Woelk P.E.,T.E Principal Iv" * MErJAL • """ • '• • ••• • " ••■•••"" •""': ::•:•:••••• , This proposal Will 'change, approximately eight (8) acres of land from Neighborhood ommercial to General Commercial designation..., The proposed development consists of 047,510 square fdot grocery store and a 31,456 square foot general iretail store.' The development proposes to have three driveways, two (2) onto SW:. Sch011s Ferry Road approximately 400 feet and 700 feet respectively from the 'center line of the proposed, Murray Extension. The third driveway would be located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of S.W. SCholls Ferry Road. TRIP GENERATION r Procedure one As listed on pages 11 and ‘12 thiS, report Was used Of, this . report. The figures shown in Table 8 below, represent the expected number Ofitellide, trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m. peak: hour L' basis based on the mathematical regression equations found on page 1150 Section :82(1 of the :Trip Generation .. Manilla! (4th Edition). Table 8 - Trip :Generation For Proposed General commercial land Use. „ rENEW TRIP ENE E our fe els of service were calculated ,[usin�',the ,�ohmes Table 10 which is a comparison of the level of service impact between Table 8 (Neighborhood Commercial) and Table 9 General Commercial). Table 10 indicates that, the street system as proposed by"the Northeast Bull Mountain`. Transportation Study is sufficient to lhandle the change in land use zoning. �l Table 10 Level of , Service comparison between Neighborhood �ornmerc a La d. Use and the proposed General Commercial Land Use. ORT l' TRIP 'GENERATION BY' EQUATIONS'LI STED' IN 4TH EDITION APARTMENTS PROJECT: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER DATE: 14- Oct -91 LAND USE ; " 221 TYPE OF LAID USE APARTMENTS TINE PERIOD: WEEKDAY VALUE OF I: 45 VALUE OF A S".113, VALUE OF B ": 1 PASSBY 1 = 1.111 11N 51.111 X OUT 51.111 EQUATION. ;2 IT) = A (I) IT) = 292.944 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 293 1 293 VEHICLE IN = y 146 1 146 VEHICLES OUT : 146 1 146 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP=8ENERATION PROGRAM'` PROJECT: TISANE) RETAIL CENTER • DATE: 14-0c t7.91 LAND USE 221 TYPE OF '.LAND USE APARTN'ENTS TIME 'PERIOD:, AN PEAK` VALUE OF X'', -: 48 VALUE OF A =' 1:532 'VALUE, OF 8 . : PASSOY ;x _ 11:1111% %IN 8'.1111X, Z' OUT 82.`110X EQUATION 2 (T) = A (X) (T) = 25.536 PASS BY, HEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 26 1 26 •ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: TIGARD. RETAIL CENTER DATE: 14-Oct-91 LAND USE ! 221 d `Y TYPE OF LAID USE APARTMENTS TINE PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF >I = 49 VALUE OF A = L673 VALUE OF.9.= 1 PASSBY X 1.11 %IN 69.111% X OUT 32.114 EQUATION 2 (T) =.A (I) (T) 32.314 PASS BY NEW' TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 32 1 32 VEHICLE IN = 22' 1 22 li VEHICLES OUT = f© 1 fN • ti 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SWMMARY RE$ORT # ## # # # # #ff * #****fffff *;###*#### #i** * **** *## ### ##if if ** **.***o * **** * *ff INTERSECTION..SCHOLLS FERRY RD /MURRAY EXTENSION AREA'TYPE.....OTHER TIME..........PMPEAK COMMENT....... 1992 1 /EXISTING LAND VOLUMES ' s GEOMETRY EB 118 NN 511 EB WB 118 58 LT 214 181 456 25 L 12.1 1 12.1 L' 12.1 L 12.1 TV - 37 211 226 514 T 12.1 T 12.0 T 12.1 T 12.1 RT "261 1 2B ;51 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 RR 150 1 11 111: 12.1 ' 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.e 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.8 12.1' 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE Hy ADJ PK6 BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (2) (13 Y/N No Nb Y/N yin T EB 1.18 2.11 N 1' 1 1.91 5 ' N 25.9 3 WD 0.10 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 5 'N 25.8 3 NB 1.11 2.11 N 1 1 0.91 5 N 25.8 3 S8 1.11 2.81 N 1 1 8.91 5 N 25.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH 92.1 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 ;PH -2 PH-3 PH -4 EB LT X ` NS LT X Arr; TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB , LT X S8 LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PA` GREEN 13.1 14.1 1.1 1.8 GREEN 27.1 5.1' 21.1 1.1: YELLOW 3.0 3.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.1 1.1,, LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 6RP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1.948 1.141 61.6 F 44.9 E TR 1.355 1.152 22.8 C qe L 1.836 1.141 44.2 E 32.9 D TR . 6.431 1.152 23.2 C NB L 1.879 1.348 31.5 D 26.2 D TR 1.286 1.293 16.7, C L 1.156 1.293 17.7 C 25. 88 25.1 C TR 1.816 1.228 25.3 INTERSECTION: Del'Ay 31.3.1$ec /vek) VIC = 1.792 LOS '1S95 RCN: #916NALIZED ` INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT *** * * # * *** * *i * *1**** * *ifi * **i it************ * * **ffelffffffi *fi *** ****ii * *** INTERSECTION..010 SCHOLLS FERRY RD /MURRAY BLVD EXTENSION AREA TYPE.....OTIIER ANALYST.'...DN DATE..........16 /11/9 1 TIME.........PM PEAK COMMENT.......2112 TRAFFIC 11/0 DEVELOPMENT r�wwwr��rw�r�rwrrrrr�wrsw�rrr�rrwrrowrrrrrrrsrrswrrrrwwrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrr. VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB NB NB : SB EB NB NB SB LT 213 243 41 583 L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 L %' 12.1 TH 216 568 212 267 T 12.0 7 12.1 F 12.1 IT 1218 RT 48 896 114 184 T 12.1 T 12.8 TR 12.8 T :12.8 RR 11 611 51 158:': R 12.1 R 12.1 12.8 R ' 12.8 12.1 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.1'' 12.1' 12.8 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PK6 BUSES PHF PEDS PED. DOT. ARR. TYPE (Z) (X) Y/N No Nb YIN inn T EB: 1.88 2.11 N 1 I 8.91 1 Y 28.8 3 NB 1.81 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 / Y 28.8 3 NB 1.11 2.11 N N 1 1.91 1 Y 31.8 3 SB 1.81 2.11 N 1 1 198 1 Y' 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 128.1 PH -1 P16 -7 PN -3 PH -4 PH -1 P11-2 PH -3; P11-4 EB LT X NB LT X TN x TN Z RT Z RT PD PD 10 LT X SB L x x TN X TN I RT X' RT X PD PD GREEN 15.3 52.1 1.1 8.1 GREEN 12.2 12.4 12.1 1,1 YELLOW 4.0 4.8' 1.1 1.8 YELLOW 4.1 1.1 4.1 1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.981 1.136 79.7 F 41.9 E T 1161 1.443 13.! B R 1134 1656 4.7 A NB L 1.174 1136 161.9 F 46.6 E T 8.428 1.443 14.9' B R !1491, 1443 15.8 C NB L 8.239' 1.111 37.2 D 41.9 TR` 1.832` 1118 42.5 E SB L 1.972 1.213 55.9 E 48.6 T 1.787 1.212 35.1 D R 1 111 1.212 24.7 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 46.8 (set/veil) VIC = 1749 LOS =. 4 V • 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMHARY REPORT ffff f,fff fffff fH *fisstiBf *f #ffi *ft*.fu *fifHHi H** *I*i*if#ffiff *$f #' ffflfif'H* INTERSECTIOL.OLD'SCHOLLS FERRY RD /OURRAY'BLVD EXTENSION AREA TYPE.....OTHER PATE....... �..1ei;li91 PEAK CONMENT.......2818 TRAFFIC W /DEVELOPMENT',' wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrrwwwww- wwrwrwrwwwww .o-rw-wwswww- w-wwi[I VOLUMES : 6EOP1ETRr EB 19 NB 98 : EB 118 NB SB LT 283 243 11, 53 583 L 12.8 1 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.1 TH 216 568 222 311 : T 12.8 T 12.1 r i2.11 LT ;12.1 RT, 61 896 114 184 : T 12.1 T 12.8 Tit 12.8 T' '12.1 RR 11 611 58 151 : R 12.8 R 12.0 12.1 R 12.8 • 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 • 12.1 12.1 12.8 12.1 ADJUSTNENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PK8 BUSES' PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE I(%) (X) YIN Ns Y/N sin T EB 0.81. 2.11' N ® 8 8.981 1 Y 28.8 3 118 1.08; 2.88 11 8 1 1.98 1 Y 28.8 3 111 1.81 2.18 11 1 1, 8.98 0 Y 31.8 3 08 1.11 2.11 18 8 8.91 0 Y 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 121.8 PH -1 PH-2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X N8 LT X TH K TH K RT X RT 1 PD PD MB IT X S8 LT X 1 TH X TH X RT X RT 1 1 PD PD GREEN' 15.3 52.1 1.1 1.1 GREEN 12.2 12.4 12.8 1.1 YELLOW 4.1 4.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOW 4.1 1.1 .4.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C GfC DELAY L09 APP. DELAY APP. L119 EB L 1.981 1.136 79.7 F 40.3 E. T 1.168 11.443 13.1 B R 8.1156 8.656` 4.0 A 118 L 1.174 1.136 161.9 F 46.6 E T 8.428 1.443' 14.9 8'' R 1.491 1.443 15.8 C �Wj NB L e.I316 0.110 37.8 D 46.2 E TR ' 1.893 0.118 47.7 E 58 L 8.972 0.213 55.9 E 51.5 E T 1.887 0.212 42.5 E ;` R 0.117 8.212` 24.7 w ViV 1. 4rwwwr INTERSECTIDN Delay = 46.81 (set %;@li1 IVIC = 1.756 LOS = E 1965 HCM: UNSIONALIUED INTERSECTIONS ;` PAge -1 f*f%if* i***i it,****##f ie*fff*fi*i,f',f * *fff *i**Aftffii*!liMfilfjit#ffff t IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. r�irrrrrrrr��r- .r�urrrr�� wrr�r-ra-r •arra AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED MAJOR STREET........ -.. PEAKHOUR FACTOR..... re..r........a oe..trp'.• AREA POPU L ATIOKr.: ..,.. ...r......:.a ...r....ea... I51111! y, w , MANE `OF THE EAST /WEST STREET..................... SW HURRAY EX TENSION WANE OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET...... ........... . SITE DRIVEWAY NAME ; OF THE AiALYST. ii........ a ...... r .'. o ..... .. r. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (ug /dd /yy).. TIME PERIOD ANALYZED...........o.... OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING ZONE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN LEFT 3N 1 — 91 13 — 134 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB. RADIUS (ft ACCELERATION LANE • GRADE ANGLE' , FOR RIGHT ,TURNS, .FOR RIGHT TURNS' r :- ra�wr�w rrw�rw�� -w rw1: w�wr�rrrw rr,rrFrrrrrrusli + w r EASTBOUND 1.11 9N WESTBOUND '` NORTHBOUND - =r SOUTHBOUND 10 �% 2 VEHICLE COMPOSITION r rw wwo+ rrwrrwrrrw/wwrrrrrrwr 1 SU TRUCKS x' COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES 1 MOTORCYCLES u.rar�rwrwrr� wwrrwr��rwww . EASTBOUND WESTBOUND MORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP EB 5.11 5.11 l.1 5.11 MINOR LEFTS GB 6.81 6.81 1.891 S. CAPACITY' AND LEVEL -OF= SERVICE Pave 3'; POTEN- ACTUAL FLON TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(ptph) c (pcph) c'(pcp )' t (pcph) t = 7 V p M SH R SN rosisrrr=I =MOM r- r me MINOR STREET SB LEFT t10 75 72 RIGHT 164 511 517 517 353, MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 37 587 587 587 551 PREPARED BY SOC1ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PLANNING, PI 4040 DOUGLAS WAY LACE 'OSWEGOi OR 97035 91 -452 AI GUST 1991 - TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY r •..,•. :.. :.•....••..• • •. ....•••••••••••. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT • •• ••.•• • •'•.e•••• • •••• •••••a INTRODUCTION BASE YEAtt TRAFFCONDITIONS ▪ • .•• e • .... .. .. ••.0.0.0.,•.:. IC CONTROL • • ▪ . • , • • . ........ ... • • • , . ▪ • TRAFFIC VOLUMse 00 ES • .•. • •••••.. :.• .. :.. ..•.. • 3 BASE YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING LANG) USE • . • e . • r EXISTING LAND USE " NEIGHBO RHOOD CdMM ER TRIP GENERATION • ••..•••. •.`.•. . . . • • . • •• ••..•.......• 12 TRIP. DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT .. • o • • • • . • • • • • ... e . • o • 13 F GLAND USE •.• •• .• •• ••• 14 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXI�TIN , PROPOSED LAND USE GENERAL COMMERCIAi.. • . • . ..:. e • • • • • • 17 TRIPGENERATION .. .•••• .... .•• •••e • •... • 17 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT • • • • : • t • : 18 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITEI PROPOSED lAN[a USE • .. . 1992 CONDITIONS . • • • • • • • • •. • •' •' • • .`.. • • ♦ • .• • • • s.•e • • i,. 0 `23 FUTURE STACKING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS • e • • • • • .. • • . • 25 '26 CONCLUSIONS • • • i . • • • • ti • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • • • o • . . i • • • • • • • • .•• 0,, t i •' • • • • t • • APPENDIX, • o e • r s • • • e • • . S • • . a • .. e . o • APPENDIX A Base year Levels Of Service Calculations APPENDIX B Existing Land Use Data •p • u n For Trs Generao o� Land Use Levels of Service Calculations APPENDIX C Proposed Land Use Data Trip Generation For Proposed Land Use ILU Levels Of Service Calculations With Tigard Retail Center APPENDIX D 1992 Levels Of Service CalculaUons • • . s • • ?r. ;LY• This report covers the construction of a 78,966 square foot commercial retail development located on the southeast comer of S.W ;Scholls Ferry Road and the future extension of S.W. Murray Blvd. e; analysis done in this report compares the results of, a. co m p r e h ens . v e land use change from • e Neighborhood Commercial `t® General Comm,,, g real and the drfferenc2s in impact, at bull out Of the Bull Mountain area. The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study was used for the base traffic volume l information. Linder existing zoning, numerous types of, development "could be constructed on the site. It was determined after field review,, office s p aoe was lacl n i n the surroun i g areas Since the eeed for additional retail development wag Iow, the site was developed to accommodate approximately 144,000 square feet of oces. This was done, even though other allowed uses Would generate' a higher number of trips than office. The 144,000 square feet of offices under the existing zoning would be limited to approximately 4,000 square feet of floor area per business. wUsitm h g this assumption, the, land use � o generato app � tely 1,800, trips per day 266 trips during the p.m. peak hr `43 . n and 224 o,ut) This impact documented b y the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. The proposed use consists of 47,510 square feet grocery store and a 31,456 square feet 'genera ry q proposal g app i ly trips per day with ' 358 new retail store. This r6 I would generate ro�umat� 4,143 new trips during p pe out). t is estirn 3596 of the trips - Coming ated that to � Bunn the p.m. ak hour (176 in , . Coming to the site will be trips that are already on the roadway or what is' called by-pass or drop-in trips. This reduction accounts for trips that: would thervse be double counted because they are alrea dy Onthe erca syste n These. trips, include ude sop sm ado by persons entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property, and by persons' whose primacy destination • is to other commercial areas. While a majority of the roadways described in Northeast Bull porta y � the fl�ort Mountain Transportation Study ndicates that impact proposed land use a at the cm ct of the ro. are currently not constructed„, analysis i lan .. the change is not significant, TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 1 ;., :;'j%.,; }`LJ•: %r, y �:% }f. }: }'• :'L• :•:•f:V:ti' :I, }%'l,•:•1 • }.;}:•'J: :'' %� • %: >''r'r >: %:% / %}; {';: >•{,{ r'f ,' ;'' {$,'.��;:,,;:�1�� j Fll;1 offs r ' {•:;•; :.:•.} }.fir { {: {..; y..,.; r'.'•W.•:•7Gy f4.....�. The traffic generated ". by the development will not have a substantiate impact on the ro street improver :ants outlined in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. "In order `to mitigate the impact of the development between now and build out of the area the. following Improvements need to be made. 1) The proposed development be constructed with two `2) full access driveways onto Scholls Ferry Road at approximately 400 feet and 700 feet west of the Murray Blvd extension and one full access driveway onto Murray Blvd at approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. 2) The proposed driveways be constructed with two exit' lanes and one entrance This would provide left and right turn lanes for exiting tragic. � S.W. Scholls Ferry Road be � oov. de turn � t �r t rn ration lanes for both of the site driveways. . TIC F RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE A• l This report describes the results of a transportation analysis for r the construction of a .............. .............r..r .............. r+eta� °I center development located on the southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Feny Road and the new south leg of the S.W. Murray extension currently under construction. (See Figure 1, page 5). The traffic im act analysis outlined in this report identifies the impact of the development on the surrounding street network and is based on three different periods of time: • First, the build out of therlarea less the current land use. • Second, the build out of the area with the current zoning - Neighborhood Commercial • Third, build out of the area with the proposed zoning - General Commercial • is r •'t '• •. •, r :tiV I YYM S.W. Scholls Ferry Road between the proposed Murray The 'stu area consists of s�o S.W. S:1A�. urra Extension and New S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to the north. Currently the area to the south and east of the site is being developed as residential and the area to the north is vacant. Ferry proposed to be a five lane arterial street through this area S.1�V oils Fe Road at build out is and carrying approximately 16,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on this section of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road is 35 miles per hour. TRAFFIC CONTROL Currently the side street intersections along S.W. Scholls'Ferry Road are oontrollerd by stop signs:' As proposed, the development will take access from S.W. Schofis Ferry Road at two locations and from the .. Murray pp ly to the south of S.W. Scha�ls :Ferry S.W. Muria extension at a roximate 300 feet t Road. TRAFFIC VOLUMES The traffic volumes used rn this analysis were derived from the Northeast . � ° � A►'iuuntain pa dy ` be ilia iic va�lumes at build out which are considered . ich wily emir Trans lG+�n Stu and de � to day diagramed in Figure ,2 on page 5� '` Adjustments some da on the future. These volumes are', T) ' RE'T L G ER TRAFFIC INIPACt` ANALYSIS PAGE ,3 Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that Was: developed to measure:. `h0W. the driver :perceivesrcthe :' a conditions surrounding' ;there as they travel .through an interse ion,:or roadway segment. `This degree of perception includes such elements ' as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused 'by other vehieles. As ,originally defined y tl*e 1 5 Highway ' Ca city Manual sic grades are ` used to denote the ,.;ovaeus LOS; 'these; grades are' ..shown'in Table' 1. `Using this definition, it isigenera!'y� agreed that for signalized intersections .LOS is the minimum, acceptable 'for an Hurban .area 'anl 'for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is the minimum acceptable level of service for urban areas: Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat a p p determine the ca pacity of the intersection. The i 9RS Highway Capacity Manual offers concept "Reserve Capacity" as the guideline for Measuring the capacity. Reserve Capacity is defined as " that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used". It should be noted that the concept of Reserve Capacity only applies to the individual movements of traffic on an approach to an intersection, 'either in an individual lane or a shared lane, not to the overall operation of the intersection. This determination, is made after all approaches are analyzed and the LOS determined' is usually that approach that typifies the "Worst condition or worst Level of Si4v ce. A description of the levels of service, relating ''to the R Capacity Concept, is shown in Tables 3 & 4. LOS analyses presented in this rcpt ' performed in accordance with the procedures described NORTH 01.0 5GN01.1.5 361 -o 4 5015 0 e'183 Table 1 - Level Of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections ctrerl)e les;de seccx�ds per ven�c�e. t vehicles arrive, during the green p Short° cycle lengths nab 'also corn in the range of 5. to '! 5.� seconds ression and f or short cle' • lengths, • Sher' levels 'of avers a elay. i e �'dela� in .the mange of t5.�1 to 25.0' seconds:4 g , s may result from fair pprogression and f or longs failures may begin fo' apear in this level. 'The n nificant at this level,' although may still pass th u ernge delay in `thee ;range of 25. i fo X0.0 secun` lueryce of ongesti n bec ornes` mire noticeable. roe combination of ,unfavorable pression, lore rt ons. Mary, vehicles' stop, and the proportion re h iiceab ual cycle fail res � Q rc es Ie.F J � r verage delay in the, ran a "be' the 'limit of 'accepts rogression; longrele '1 equent occurrences ro �Ie lengths. lndividu4 er; of ehieles stoppin e intersection w thoL 1e t Lt�S D4 ;i Sys nay result fn ngths, t =►r high ehicles nut °stripping lin cent, signal cycle failures end as ' U Forced :flow, with average delay' in excess of # considered to' be unacceptable to mast drivers. • • l flo i�vs rates exa +pversatu ration, i.e., wren 'arnva it may also occur at ;high "v /c ratios �b►elow 1 *00 oor .progression lengths may al ' and' long #.y+dE' such delay 'levels Q.0 tec' ds ;per vehicle. Tiers is :Phis condition mien occurs with ed the capacity the inter. with 'rvi ay. individual cycle failures. so ` trtaijor + ntributing causes Criterca For Signalize ►verage aeiay .per ie u wens to +exeess hand .�. . .�..•:a !4 •��' ..:,may -"� �. _...u.��.i��_.. M� jib j]�g�_1 ::•:•:•:.x.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::f4:,:,:*,.::::. ,. . :,•:•:,..:•:•:•Ve:,..:•:•:,..:•:,•:,:•:.:•:.:•::,......:„:-.....„:„. • When..................„.....„,..:.,..„....•••• e.oitifit.,., volume on any . ...' .:..::*:::M-::::1::*:::::,:,M;;:iw.:ge::7,.M:::1:::• :.:,::i*,..*...::..:'".:."..*.:,-'.; -..i;''..i:"0"--'*V.."-i'l- ' i''':.i.i.§.:,,"--0,...-......., 0movement :*.,:m.i•::::,,•:i.........,.....,,..,:. .;•14.:.:,%:/::. :*{ . :: .......i.,•:-$:::::::::::,:.,,z,:*,1:3:••,::..:1,:.:::,.;::::.:,•0...: ,*:.:;::.1..:!:::t:..*.,....:.,„„:,,3•,..:;:::i::::,:•:•c:•:•:•::•::::•::i:t•i::K::.„:y:..::..:...- .:, of e: extreme delays wall be encounteatd . with queuing . . congestion : affection other traffic movements . condition Usually : improvement the ■"glEiSi ' '.....:ilii....:...... :V. ' Table 5- • Year Level of Service for build out without the existing . land use. � r OUSE r •. r • r4 r . A Under the current Neighborhood development code, any number of business types could be placed on the site. For example, a small retail development such as the one at 120th Street and S.W. Scholls Ferry Road' could be developed. These types of retail centers could house a 11 convenience store, a gas station, small shops etc. All of which; generate large, volumes of trips per day. A review of the area indicated that several of these types of neighborhood retail deniers exist in the surrounding area, and very little if any office space p ' ce eras nwded. Based on this review,, this site was not considered for 'additional neighborhood retail development., i office space has been Provided in the area, the site was chosen to ' Since little or no o8'i p p prove e office development under the existing and use. required m - n lot cover a for this of As uired by the of Tigard code, the maximum coverage this Neighborhood Commercial development is 85%. Using the developme nt computer software "Development Lot Coverage a computer program provides developer tool ro�des the' develo r with a toI t4 detetn�' nea base building size and required parking for any size parcel of land, that based on one parking space for each 350 square feet of office, a two story 144,724 square foot building could be built on the eight eight acres of land covered by this proposal. y onto both S. the proposed office complex � would have driveways SAN,. INurry assumed that It was a�su and on S.W. Scholls Fe rrjr Road. RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC I• hPACT ANALYSIS PAGE GE 11 TRIP GENERATION • that' will" be generated by the proposed eo►pmen Estimatin -.the number of vehicle trip ends • g � Tigard and ODOT is of prime 'importance to engineers' estimating the number �IriVewa Two basic :procedures are 'available to traffic er g • sed but :hot- yet - existing. ‘ development: vehicle trips generated by a proposed field studies conducted at other similar facili ties IocatE � Apply averages obs+s�ved through ' throughout the United States. A number of sources are available for this . information including r u : I , � 1987, p by Institute of Transportation which �s ubbshed b 'the rt+nnent Engineers (ITE), and summary trip generation reports prepared by the Califon)ia Depa • � De �rtment , of Transportation, and other, public transportation Trans tton, the Ant pa sources provide excellent guidance in estimating the trip generation rates . agencies. All of these p viou do not take into account the effects oaf local conditions and for various land uses, but obviously unique characteristics of the "proposed land use. 2. erve through field studies the actual trip generation characteristics of other similar and existing developments within the local area. above was used in the development of this report. The figures shown in Table Procedure one a 6 below,represent the expected number of vehicle trip :kends to be generated by the : lopment on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based q*heemaltherrial regression equations development found on page 885 Section 710 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). � For Existing Neighborhood • Carnmercial Land Use Table 6 -Trip Generation $ � NOTES: A. LtSF = gross leasable square feet B Total traps generated bar the site All: CENTER TRAFFIC IMPAG"1 A - TICrIr►RD RET Currently Tel et does not have a ularly sctieduled transit lime' in tl available to this site Therefore, this ossumptron tends. to cause wit -case condition, and over estimate' a traffic impacts associated TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Y, The distribution of tri ps determined . by the Northeast Bull, 'Mountain Transportation Study was used `for this report and are shown in Figure 3 page 14.' This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated `traffic for the spec driveway and street distributions as shown on 'Figure 4 page 15: • The site ;,generated trips from Figure 4 were then added to the Rase year traffic volumes shown in Figure ,2 to armive at the .total traffic volumes for the existing land use fog the p.m. peak periods. shown in Figure 5 pages 16. The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 5 and are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Level of Service for Existing Neighborhood Commercial Land Use. '•�� • � #.. �� : PTA.': - _! ��.�:�.. °T�. _ _ - i:{••� • �I.} !•1,f. JfJ. is {•7� ..!.'.r�• X■1.1• �:1.• iii. i.i': {iY.• :•i1 • ::1!:x:1 �':: . •.• •'iii'.• •...• ..• .. •♦ •.. 1. ...� .•._ .................A... �.iliii�'•,i�ii: .•............ �:��.�i��.�.LYi. �.��:. ir'r•�'�:•. `!':•_•:•:•J:•:::1":A•: ":�.. NB�f A comparison of Table 5 and Table 7 indicates that the improvements listed for the build condition will handle the traffic generated by the ecist%ng land use. 'NORTH :NORTH LEGIBILITY STRIP NORTH:, mwslo Olga r'a r;f1} ':tiff• 5{ OfYaf..P Ei iC This proposal will change approximately eight , (8) ` acres of land from Neighborhood Commerdal' �neral Commercial designation. The proposed development consists of a 47,510 square foot ro ery store and a 31,456 square foot general retail ` store. the development proposes to have three driveways, two (2) onto S.W. Scholls Ferry Road approximately 400 feet and 700 feet respectively from the center line of the proposed Murray Extension. The third driveway would be located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. TRIP GENERATION Procedure ure ne as I e listed o n pages 11 and 12 of this report development Maras u rn the report. The figures shown in Table 8 below, represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated . by the proposed development on ,a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression* equations ` found on page 1150 Section 820 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 8 Trip Generation For Proposed General Commercial Land Use. NOTES: A. F = gross leasable square feet B. Total trips generated by the site ww C. Assumes that 35 percent of the trips attracted . to the Comm ercoat ret iI deve1o�rn �nt represent drop -in trips or by-pass trips by vehicles that are already on the adjacent road system. This assumption is based on studies published, in the "ITE Joumal"'. This reduction accounts for trips that would otherwise be double counted because they are already on the road system. These trips include stops made by persons entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property, by persons and b rsons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas. ly regularly it line in Therefore, this this Currently TriMet does not have a ula scheduled trans" area. Th assumption tends to cause the analysis to reflect a worst -case condition, and over estimate the traffic impacts associated with this development. TPJP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips generated by this development was determined by reviewing the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. The, trip assignment 'percentages are shown in Figure 6 page 19. Thistrip " tiuti©n was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and This trip Y� „�,_ street distributions as shown on Figure 7, pages 20. The site generated trips from Figure 6 were then added t® the Base y ear traffic volumes shown in Figure to a rrive at the total traffic volumes for the Tigard Retail Center for the p.m. peak periods shown Foumi n F ig D reg , page 21. r al • Lawton T k "Ev uatian � ShOppi. Center Trip Types” ITE tonal volume 5Z Number 20 February � 1987,�p .35: 8 nid Gro�Are, Fredrick E., "Reduction k Estimates of Traffic irnpacfis of Slade,. �.oui� ): �n Regional 5fopping Centers" Il'E toumal j 'Volume 51, Number 1, JanUary 19131, Pg 16, Steven A. , " A Methodailo or tOOskiktirig Pats by Tdps Gin Traffic Imp►aet Anaty for Shopping Centers" 1°�'E, Ducal , Volume 54 Nurser 8, Pb.o7. TIGARD RETAIL CEI TRAFFIC IMPACT / .YSIs PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP LEGIBILMf STRIP 'ommer eJ Table 10 which is a comparison of the level of service impact between Table 8 ;(Neighborh D Commercial) and Table 9 (General Commercial). Table 10 indicates that the street system as spe by Mountain Transportation Study is sufficient to handle the sung r !°' Bull RA change b the `Northeast Bu rice comparison between Neighborhood pa hborhoo►d om C'r�nerciai Table 10 - Level of �e B Use and the proposed General Commercial Land Use. w J' - P and the analysis Thee. development is scheduled to be constructed in the spring of 1992 , P p at full build out of the Bull Mountain P presented above considers the impact of the development anent Area any p required development, an In order to determine what if an improvements would be wired oaf' the develo enen analysis must be completed for the existing or 1992 conditions. The Murray Blvd extension to the south has yet to be constructed but is an improvement requirement of the residential subdivision to the south and east of the subject property. This subdivision is required to construct Murray Blvd to a thiree lane section, which will provide two through lanes and a Ieft turn pocket for northbound traffic and provide for a Ieft tum lane from westbound S.W. Scrolls ferny Road to the new Murray Blvd. By reviewing traffic counts in the surrounding area and growth factors provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation Systems Planning Unit, the build out volumes listed in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study were extrapolated to 1992 traffic volumes. Using these �� U ing ese numbers and the improvements required by the residential subdivision, the surrounding intersections were evaluated for impact by the development and are shown in Figure 9. Table 11 indicates the level of service imp ad of the development on the proposed improvements in the area Table 11 - Level of Service for Required Improvements w �ti., ` , air •..L. : •1 • ... � I . . , : .� cri'. i TIC [l RFTML CENTER TRAFFIC' IMPACT Are ALYSIS PAGE 3 pr f •': •:4 } }`•`$�}: rrr.•} � } {x'�.. }�$ }i i}:•$:v: }n: � >$N:: {•'::y }i�;::w;•:w: {'.•ri :�}. ;r• h•..: {Fr,•::;:.y.{?:fi::: .,.,y. :;;:. fr,•r.•. .fi: : {:$:•' •.•::•}fX:.}L,Y .Jn: y,.} . }.f{r'v }:{$:�'ti % {•}$; } :Y • ..Y: v •$ . r.{i$. ti $ •+r:•i } }$: .{ -} :% ,{• { :' } };:v: { :v.ih %•$:•$: :v: �: i. {?• }.•. f {ti �$$:Y•:.{ : {{ {. �'s;.; . :•: {• }; {:{ { �$$: r� <$:;: :� •::{• }:: $; }r. •;r.. r; {.h, ;.. • rN }:';.•.. ; {'r,•; • �r�y$'%$$:Y•r+Y;!{' YY {:i�r:.•'•.+♦•:{•${ L•:: }• {/;; `..},?} .„ „r,r,.tir;:;: }ti �:: {' %•. r •:: {n•.:v: : +• :�:•: nr: r { ri} v {: ti'• : . {n:v.• i, v}.:'rJ, }}; rr v y;•: $.v.Y {.Y: i "` }.,+;;{{•,r rr rI •: ir....•. },•: r:: r:' :� f.; • • ,..::. { {:::: { {i :�.q: }•:•n {;: {::•:•i;G} r.Y}:{•:• }'•:•:•}fi }:•$ }$: {: {{{ Y"i•y %r:4:� {•:ti {$•,<, {Y {:: {• } {• fi:'•.w''Zw: •.n{4:•:•<:•: L::• }y{:,•:• }:' •Y. {6:• }$:S•hy� ri� {{v: }%$:r{•}} } }' } $'r}: {v {�Lr }:• }:•:•}f•: •::::Y•: }.- {.{r,, }'•' r:•'•::{ {r•:•iX•:v }: {•:: •'• } }:•: }:•t•: +•:•:L:,L"'•}:: • }:• }:v'�v$:{ � }.} }b: �.h .'f,{,'• }:•: {.} �: r +.}:•:•: %:4:v: . }♦',P,G'•}':{,} } }'':•N :•:{•;••YL {• :.,'• {y,+.� { {•y $:• .:�.. 'f :rh {:• {; {{: !. '"• }- :'{' :•}N$'A:' ... ;.3',::ti:'. }};N•: .:' ✓.•: . • { Yr$t'f•;•r.,: } :: ?.f:..,.....,.. r,}.:._ii..r�.�.,�1.��:3�. �.� :3::. ,,%•. e... .,., YY •r> ..... ... .. is .portion t .,e analysis compares a ture tra v times as in till R untain Trans lation Study end the stacking' distance required lair k tersections. This review prudes guidance in the placement of pro 'posed nvew tit f the site and identifies passible conflicts that mig ht apse' between vehicles s final and vehicles es turni n n g from the dniiewa ys . Table 12 Stacking Distance, `Requirements for Build O t -_ l •44 h 4 r "h Y �r r: 1 Y .y i r t t. ti L ti c Y Y h' C ! YV ; �., ✓ •. '` ; �, r .. L ., : Y t : Y Y L Ln : :,,. r i4LJi V'• , '' Jt J r ♦ ♦ : ; J r, L Y ti h L { h '' {,r, ''� Y Y .•.�• r : J�,,iy��' ■• peak hourY � 9 r L �b ;nth f ion Y • Y -t t �ti Yt Lit J J r:: ?,• :i: h r:wa Y Y ♦�.ti�✓ :• }. : y \rY .J' ? ., ••: ) ". '.. `. ...V... } ♦Yr..,• .♦.. t y. •: }:�' ♦ ' { }4 ': }:•: •• {• 1 :: Yh.,ti Y J. }Ay: }J }: r Y, ,`y4 �: L .. •. { \. :;:{$: : {Pub,J4h; .,y. :YL•: .•. }:•: J�'. S1V:r •:• }''::•:�Is�a t+t r4Y- �.''J ;: ;: : •:•:;:� }�4 ., ''LY 'L, tA:.� L Y Yt h 1 aY.. (r' :% }'•;v •:;:{y'n,•{t ?:;:;:; rY L e . t . y t d'f' ,' y h is Fen L�1 B V:urray Blvd Jat S hollV, �urrav blvd rat.�cholls : enra►' Tab* 12 indicates that the driveway onto Murray' Blvd ,located at approximat of S.W. Schells Ferry Road may be blocked during certaiP' periods of the p.m. additional lanes or signal configuration can be provided in the uture. r. ��rC,Jr, ''r •L•• JI :: • �:.'•': : :.' ••::Ylt':'•. A:•,�J1.; }l i::l•:':�,:•l •,:' + f .J.. !f,.,I,..: ,:�,• },;,f, ,fJ :;:}:•}::{;: F,.:. ;.., ; {:: %:''�' %: . •� v is • r {r•�:f //ii r ,'•r :'i,:i•,'ti:r v::.: {Ti : ;:i:: ?:v:f �? }':S >:Yi:::::• rr {i '7:ti;•'ti;; •} M1.} •:• } } }i. :•� •:::.J::' i<},{: :r:;:• { {:; {::::::::.;.•.y.;:::: •i:: {.r ::;:;Y ::.::: r. ii : ;: }:• � �•� ••Y,L:!::r. r'•:i:� 1:; f }i t�:•':; •, ¢ . � {.} : n; f;' ::i':•: i : ?r ; :. r,• . r:. :rrr r;.; }. }• {.. : Y �•i ;fir,.;. }' +.2 { :: {} � i �:•' i:::::•' /.•::{rl.: J :.� :: The proposed davelnprnant can '. are constructed should not sign on� review,and the ab►owe` anal tusrons •'.' �uih an if' the improvements listed , in this re fitly impact the surrounding street system • The differences in traflc' impact' t Veen the adding' Neigh mendal and the proposed General Commercial Iavd use is negligible The ontersection improvements required for the residential development to the southeast of the , site will handle the developmentt trafi�ic without additional improvements. The site driveways will operate at level of service area occurs. or better until build out of the Based on the results of the traffic Taccets anal gibed In this report,, it is corduded that property as ,pro d can be constructed d minirrurl impact to the surrounding street syst To ensure the safe and efficient Movement', cif trafl'ac and pedestrians +within following traffic operational improvements are necomr vended., 7) The, proposed development be constwctedw^ith two (2) full access diiveWays onto S.W. Scholls Ferry Road at approximately 400 feet and 760 feet west of the Murray ion and " driveway onto Murray Blvd at rodinat) 300 Blvd extens done fold access drn►� app ely feet south of S.W. Schoils Feny Road. 2) The proposed dnvevays be constructed with two fie dt lanes and one entrance lane. would p rovide left and right ating trefi This d ri ht turn lanes for e 3) S.V1t: Scholls' Ferry Road be wide ned le ; rortni rry p � . turrt deceleration lanes for _ both of the site drivew ays amt TICIARD RETAIL CENTER 'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAtYSiS fines an right turn ti 1985 ITCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUNNARY REPORT fffettimotff *fitiliti rfiottiiff # ffififffffiffffffftefef tiimiffN##ffof INTERSECTION.. KNOLLS FERRY RD/811 NUNRAY AREA TYPE.....OTNER ANALYST.......MN PEAK COIIE NT.:.....I ASE WAR (BUILD OiT RIMS 'EXISTING LAND USE VILIMES a GEOMETRY EB 118 NI 81 a 0 11B NB LT 189 173 386 ' 25 a L 12.1 L 12.9 L 12.1 L 12.1 TH 29 197 181 491 a T 12.1 T 12.1 ' 7 12.1 T 12.1 RT 215 1 21 151 : 1R 12.1 11 12.1 1R 12.1 11 12.1 RR 151 8 11 111 : 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.91 12.1 12.1 12.8. 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 .- N.O1N- .M- M- NID.YN..NNS -... rIM- 1.- ..•l-- .NNPrI.-.YCf.1s... AO ,1USTNENT FACTORS 6RAdE NV A0,1 PEB MOSES RIF P95 PED. OUT. M. TYPE 11) ti) YON 11. N b YIN sin 0 8.88 2.11 N I 1 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 NB 1.11 2.91 N 1 8 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 NB 1.11 2.11 11 1 1 8.91 5 01 25.8 3 08 8.11 211 N 1 1 8.9 �. 5_ NM 25.8 3 . aM..- M-....M..N!1.!..MN...N...+iM,. OI6NAL IIETT INGS CYCLE LENGTIM = 12.1' PN-1 PN -2 P11-3 P11-4 PH-1 1P11-2 P11-3 P11-4 EI LT 1 1M LT I 1 TH 1 TN I R 17 I RT 1 1 PD PD MB LT 1 SB L1 I 1N i 13 RT 1 RT PD PAD GREEN 13.1 14.1 11 8.3 BEN 37.1 5.0 211 I.1 .' YE11011 3.8 3.8 1.1 8.8 YETI ON 3.8 8.8 3.1 I.8 -... ,. - - -- N LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE,6RP. VIC S1C DELAY LOS APP. KLAY APP. 1.85 E1 L 1:878' 1 1.141 49.3 E 41.7 E TR 8.218 1.152 22.1 C YB L 8.814 8.141 41.1 E 31.3 1 TR 1.424 1.152 23.1 C IIB 1 1.728' 1.348 23.1 C 28.8 TR 1.222 1.283 16.3 C GB L 8.156 1.293 17.7 C 24.4 C 1R 8.787 1.228 24.7 C M- - .- -- - -•'-- . --- .-- -- -- --- ---. -L am' - -- --- .- - -- -4--- 1iTEREECTION: belay £ 27.1 (sec /veil) VIC' * 1.715 LOS ' 1 • Ink 11CII. S.101ALIZEDINTERSECTIOIOS,'.'',„ stiIfillitiNI!ef0i;if!iiiiii;!iii4littiftfiiiltigifiatiattlii.,*iiiititifillitiiiitiiii, INTERSECTION'.14Ea, SCHOLLS.'/OLO',SCOOLLS • '; ., . ' ' - .. ' . - - , H, ', ," 'r( '. ; . '.: ' :.' ': . t ' ,.' :!.,i ''', r :. :: AREVTYPEO4 aa 10tirtkr ANALTST.:....'....lilf '" ' ''' '; 1 ' ; . ,'. • ' L. ' ).-1:' '1.'' .• ,: L ' . I '' '' ' ' ''', ': ' ''-; , '''. ' ','''' ',,' :: ''' ''' .' ' ' '.,,,' 'L: , ,:'::',' ',::::::,::.:!',T,' , RATE...... '1 ' .. 113113/ 91 ' ' -• ,. - ' '; - -- ; ..., , . . , ; - ; T1g....,.....11';'PEAK , . . ' . , "- . .,' . .. , .., . ' ; - - :-.'-,..- -,..", ..,,,-;•.'.'',;;;''...--',„."'';-,.;;',--,-1'. ,, ,..,--„,':. '',.- ."- ," .. ,i;.,-: t!:0111ENT........1ASE,YEAR 1!3‘(!li3 ', : . . ' 'S r , ' : ' ' '' . 1 , ' ' ' 6E011E110T- - -.;;-. :', ., :,r ' L'''' 11: '''':. ' ,:''' 'i 1 ': ",' ,'''' '',''' ', ' ' r , : ;:r■r'';:' 'L . L': rr ': ' ' ' : ' : '',' : 'r L : Ellr-, 111-i:111- SI ':lt r (IL ,: ' .me: ' , - ;,. 'H: 16 ,..r ji'l,''''''' I, , ,L ■ , '' , .`, ' ',. ' '' , , ,'' ,, ,., r, l',.. r,.. ., L' .-'• t 1r „, I , . L r , r ,, , ,'''r , ,'.., . ' 'r •,,, r '. .", I,,' r! , ,, , • l• , , •, ll ,,,, r rr', , , , tl, , ■ ,,,, LT , ' 1 ' '103 '.',......• 11' ' ''' ;II TR r ' 12.1 i, L ,- 12.1 L. '' '-12.11. . - •-•* :',12.11 ,'' ' '"! ..',' ''',-°''.' :,- '' ' • ',- -. -'.;.-,' -, •• . . . . . , .... . . .. TN '-, ' 367 .:5161. '...'11' ' '1-3 '" ' 12.0!- "sir '12.1 R, . 12.11,,, -,'''.. ,:.11.1, LPT '',.'- '11r, i.:-.:',': 1 145 0.. I : . , 12:1- ' - - 11.1r ' ' . .1211 -:12.1•,', ! ' . ,., ': 'r : r 'r. : :' ' L' '',. L. , 1,:, PR I -''' ''.,41 - ' ;11,' ,',1111 - ' 1 ,t . 12.1 . ' • 12.1 ,.- ' • j2.11 11 ..H.12 ...- , ,, - ,' , , , '',-. - ;., -,,,.-..-;,- • swe......m......... m ................e.sio.....ese■raaa■onwimiosa.eioweelimalamsatesamil'im.......dfoaicemcb mmmmm wirsiimrisce ,, , .,' ' ' . , , . - . , , 2 ' ' '', , 12.1" . ' 12.1' . '' 22.12. r .' !.-. ,. , 17.3,. ''',': :ri. ' ' •L' ' ' : L ' '' . L L ', , :, ' ., :L,' ' ', :;,■., : ' ': ' , , ' . ' , „ . '' 1 12.i ' '' ' ' .12.1 '. ' 12.1 ,,' - 'Hi2;5', , , . • . ' , ' 1 r ' , ' , ■ ., , '. ' 1 ' . , , '■ " /a3USTIIEPIT FACTORS ' . • . ,. - - • ' -`,-.;,-; MADE '. • NO , ADS, P1t0 'RUSES. . ,' 111F ' PEOS, 1 - Pp, ,ILITi . MR. TvpE. , (2) ' ' (2) , YIN .0,„ ,r , ', 11 , ' ' YIN : ilin I EI, III . ,2.11 ', 11 ' - ' I' 1 T .'' 11.11 ,. 5 . IT ' ; 11.3 '' '3 11B- ' ,... 11.t1, ' 2,.,' , II .- 5 - I . '1.91, :: , • 5 : 'N., 11.3 .3 H NB ,',1' 1.91 2.111 , '.11 ' ,11 1 1.91 5 II ' ''. : 16.3 , ,'' 5, !II - . 11.1111 2.111 . N ' 1 ..:' , r 1 '. 1.91 ,'' '5 'I; ., SISPIA1. EETTINSI ' ''' '' .' ' ' , 'CYCLE LI;Ita T4 'E 107e1 '.'' . ;.•.;; 'Pll..1 ''',112 1111 P3-4 . - - ' ; ; , ?get PN-2 '' P3'3; , . P11,1 LT '' '. . ; . ' ..'' , ' ",. , NB' LT ' , ', , . 2 . . • , „, .. .„, ., . .• TN RT I RT I PD PO 111 LT SILT TF1 IT PT PD PO KEEN 21.1 24.1 11.1 9.1 GREEN 53.1 1.1 1.1 Oil YEI.L011 3.3 3.1 1.1 1.1 TEL1.111 3.1 1.1 11,11 1.1 IBM ININI.D10110.4.0•00..1.0411.111•■■••■••■■•■•■■110 1114041.•11MINNOMIMMOONNO11.91.1•01104.111.61// wAmmiseremmeass ....coroamoorowemearewmo LE'VEL'OF S VICE LANE &P. lit RELAY LOS' IP. RELAY , SIP. LOS Es, '..TR 1.323 1.224 1 , .11.1 .111) 1.196h 32:2 21.3 1 0.733 11:449 1141:: C NP L r 110 r: I 25.5 5.161 5.495 LI 1 . ' INTERSECTION: Delay la 33.9 (seciveh) ViC 1.411 LOS [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]