CPA1996-00006 • i 1'. �I[.�l�t �C� ,�F
, � CITY OF TIGARD
,
' Washington County, Oregon ;
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL
Concerning Case fdumber(s): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEPIDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE
CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 �
FILE TITLE: DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis OWNER: Same
10875 SW 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1 S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW
95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2),
2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family
detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family
attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (ProfessionaVAdministrative Office) allows
for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services,
convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments
Action: ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions ,�j Denial
Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: �
� The applicant and owner(s) � Owners of record within the required distance
� The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator � Affected governmental agencies
Final Decision: THE DECI ION WAS SIGNED ON �� 1� , 1996, AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON I �� , 1996.
The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of
Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
A. review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures.
QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171.
a
� ,
, � . ' � � CITY OF TIGARD
RESOLUTION NO. 96-�U
A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT(CPA 96-0006) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZON 96-0001) REQUESTED BY DR.
DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION.
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan map amendment from
Low-Density Residential to Commercial Professional and zone change from R �1.5 to CP of a 4.54
acre parcel located on the south side of S.W. Oak Street, between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W.
Hall Boulevard.
WHEREAS, the Tigazd Planning Division evaluated the application and recommends denial;
WHEREAS, the Tigazd Planning Commission considered the applicarion at its public hearing on
October 7, 1996 and recommends denial; and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council considered the applicarion at its public hearing on October 22,
1996.
NOW,T�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Secrion 1: The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the
attached final order(Exhibit A).
Section 2: The City Council upholds the staffrecommendation for denial of the comprehensive
plan map amendment and zone map change as set forth in Exhibits A and B.
Section 3: The City Council, therefore, orders that application request CPA 96-0006/ZON 96- _
0001 be DEriIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final
order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case.
la�
PASSED Thi^day of , 1996.
M -City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Ci.-���� (,v�ax.2c�.,.
ity Recorder- City of igard
RESOLUTION NO.96-�
Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY DR.
GENE DAVIS.
A. FACTS
1. Cenerallnformation
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA
96-000620N 96-0001
REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and change the zoning
from Low-Density Residential (R 4.5) to Commercial-
Professional (C-P).
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis
Foreign Mission
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Seigal
W&H Pacific
8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97008
LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of
Highway 217 (Map 1 S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
2. Vi ini
The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the
applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial-
� Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single
family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street. 3800, and 3900)
1
3. Backg.round Information
The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South
Metrger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density
Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential
(R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning.
This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway
project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan
for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties,
were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When
the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city.
council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990.
Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and
citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it
was previous to the President's Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently
changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the
zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990.
4. Site Information and Proposal Descri tp ion
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density
Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C-
P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been
submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved,
the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will
allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel.
A written narrative and transportation analysis was submitted by the applicant and
is included as part of th'is staff report.
5. Aaency Comments
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented
on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed
plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change
will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25
1996). `
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO� has reviewed the applicant's
traffic study and has concems regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and
2
zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the
intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their
comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of
the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the
plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the
impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system.
Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City
Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25,
1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change be denied. Aside from the tra�sp�rtation issue, Engineering finds the
proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage
and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review
application.
Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan
amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the
proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density
targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional
Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also
states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring
comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation
measures.
Widmar Pacific, owner and developer of Washington Square, submitted a letter on
October 7, 1996 (Exhibit E) supporting stafPs recommendation of denial. The
letter states that: "[wjhile Winmar continues to be a strong supporter of
development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Hwy 217 interchange, and
we fully expect to continue our commitment to development of our Washington
Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be
undertaken in a planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing
public facilities and services. The letter also expresses concem that the allowed
uses under the Commercial-Professional zone could not be supported by the
planned transportation system.
The applicanYs representative, Dave Seigal of W&H Pacific, submitted a letter on
Oetober 7, 1996 (Exhibit F) including language for a conditional plan amendment.
He said that if a condition was placed on the plan amendment limiting the land
use, then Washington County's concems would be addressed and also that the
applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on his property that would limit the
land uses allowed on the property.
3
Scott King submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit G) to clarify his previous
letter. The letter outlines conditions that would need to be placed on the plan
amendment so that the County could support the plan amendment. His letter
states that the plan amendment would have to be conditioned to a specific number
of trips.
Pat Whiting of CPO #4 submitted a letter on October 7,1996 (Exhibit I) supporting
stafPs recommendation of denial because of potential traffic impacts and
environmental impacts.
Tri-Met, T�alatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no
objections to this land use application.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4,
6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32
and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12.
1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-
judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city councif must find: a) The
change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical
circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was
made in the original land use designation.
The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As
discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule
(660-12-060) are not satisfied.
The applicant c/aims b) and c) of this criterion are sa6sfled in two ways: the
increasing levels of traffic conges6on, being located in close proximity to intensive
commer�ia! land uses, and noise r+epresent a change of physica! cir�umstances;
and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan
designation and, in addition, this properiy was zoned from residential to GP for the
presidenfial parkway projecf and fhe zoning was changed back to residential when
funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthermore, the applicant questions
the suifability of fhis area for single family residential development.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic
and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical
circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the
4
properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned
zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area
conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area.
Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of
traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many
parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic
and noise.
What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the
existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Prnfessional. It may not have
been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built
adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of
the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a
change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of
Policy 1.1.2.
Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway
project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development
Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the
course of action regarding land use within the area...in order to re-evaluate
the...Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the
area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods
supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved
changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part
of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's
Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional
Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the
Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to
have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has
occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive
plan policy.
2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is. satisfied because the
surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the
proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously
mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24,
1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property
owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and
5
advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and
conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a
250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties.
3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of
the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis
placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because
development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local
residents.
4. Policy 5.4 states thu± the city shall ensure that new commercial and industriat
development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been
designated for commercial or industrial uses.
The applicanf states fhaf the site should nof be considered an area for Low-
Density Residenfia/housing for fhe following r�asons: fhe property was pr�evious/y
approved for redesignation as Commercia/ Professional; this neighborhood has
already been sever�ly impacted by adjacent commer�ial development and neanby
roadways; and the r�edesignation of the subjecf area may assist r�developmenf of
undercJeve/oped parce/s in the ar�ea. According to the applicant, the rezoned par�el
will make the /and use compatib/e wifh the adjacent par�el to the west and the
land use change would be in conformance with fhe Region 2040 land use concept
which designates this area as a Regional Center.
Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the
Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040
Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact
development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local
compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has
been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of
commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the
applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4.
5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This
criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR
660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to
provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or
multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre.
The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of
the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked
6
data regarding the requirement for housmg opportunities and found that the
proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family
detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this
policy requi�ement.
6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
The findings from the applicant's tra�c sfudy are as follows:
a. 1999 maximum projecf sife build out with existing zoning is ex���ted to
generate approximafe/y 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596'NM peak
hour trips. The 1999 maximum projecr site build out wifh the proposed
changed zoning is expected to generafe approximate/y 6,900 daily, 896 AM
peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour frips. The acfual deve/opment proposal
is estimated to generafe 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak
hour trips.
b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would
operate at/evel- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999.
c. The/evels of service at all fhe unsignalized study area infersections are
LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for bofh zoning altemafives. In the
PM peak hour, the/evels of service are LOS F for all fhe unsignalized
infersections under both zoning altematives with the exception of the S.W.
Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operates ar LOS 8
under both zoning altematives.
d. A/though all of the study anea intersections on S.W. Greenbu►�g Road ar�
projected fo operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing
field observations, made by fhe applicant, indicate that the S.W. Greenburg
trat�ic experiences prr�gression prob/ems fhrough the corridor. These
existing prob/ems may be partially alleviafed by fhe S.W. Greenburg Road
widening project from rhe Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Washingfon
Square Road. However, signa!coordination improvemenfs should still be
considered in 1999 wifh or wifhout fhe project to further enhance tra�c flow.
e. All of the study area intersections are projected fo operafe at LOS D or
befter in 1999 with the acfua/development, excepf for fhe unsignalized
intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street. In the PM peak
hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate at
LOS F. This deficiency is due primarily to the easfbound and westbound
left tum movements contlicting with heavy northbound and southbound
traffrc volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As the delays become sign�cant,
traffrc will divert to the signalized intersection at S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust
Street.
7
- \ .
f. The pr�posed project access is the southem leg of the new intersection
thaf would be created wifh the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak
Streef. The applicant says fhat the most e�cient design for the project
access is two outbound/anes and one inbound lane.
At the City Council hearing on October 22, 1996, testimony confirmed and the
applicant did not dispute that an off-site street connection as described in point (fl
from their traffic study would be required. Testimony also confirmed that there is
no way to assure this street connection will occur. A condition of the hotel
development on the property adjacent to the site in consideration is the extension
of Lincoln Street, as indicated on the City's Transportation Plan map.
The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they
have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington
County Senior Planner, Scott King:
"This traffic analysis should be based on the year 2005, which is the
planning horizon for County Transportation Plan...The 1999 analysis
[submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the P.M. peak hour link
volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the
Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link
under both the existing and proposed land use scenarios with the
proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips
over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix
Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis
suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this
link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic
Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service...[B]ased on the
evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
"significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-
of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that
the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels
identfied for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the
region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard
which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or
reject this request."
S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented
on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard
and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-tuming
movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through
traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W.
8
Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She
agreed that the diversian of traffic to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is
an acceptable approach to allow left tums through this intersection. However, the
letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change
could not be suppo�ted because the land use change, without conditions attached,
would degrade key intersections in the area.
City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both
Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for
solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington
Square Road.
Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant
cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and
zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development.
Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to
enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to
ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips
conditioned on the plan amendment.
Staff also notes Washington County's comment that their transportation planning
horizon is 2005 and that the applicant's transportation analysis did not project
traffic volumes out to 2005, but only to 1999.
Public testimony at the October 22, 1996 City Council hearing confirmed and the
applicant did not dispute that an off-site street connection as described in point (fl
from their traffic study would be required. Testimony also confirmed that there is
no way to assure this street connection will occur. A condition of the hotel
development on the property adjacent to the site in consideration is the extension
of Lincoln Street, as indicated on the City's Transportation Plan map.
7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating
land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied
because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public
transit in the Washington Square area.
8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional
commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible
manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the
public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of
proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact
on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows:
9
(1) Spacing and Location
(b) Th� comme�cial area is not surrounded by�sidential districts on more than
two sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has
residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side
is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the
north and east are zoned residential.
(2) Access
(a) The �roposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a tra�c safetv Qroblem. Such a determination shall be based
on street ca aci . existing and �rojected traffic volumes. the speed limit.
number of tuming movements and the traffic generatina characteristics of
the various types of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant
cannot meet this criterion.
(3) Site Characteristics `
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected
needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54
acres, to accommodate the applicant's proposed 6,000 square foot
restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved
motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of
the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site
plan.
(b) The site shall have high visibili . This criterion is satisfied because the
southem portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The configuration and characteristics shall be such that the np 'vacy of
adj�cent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site
design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during
review of a specific development proposal.
(b) It shall be possible to incomorate the unique site features into the site
design and develoAment plan. The site does have signficant wetlands that
10
are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review,
the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands.
(c) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adioining
non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and
activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the
site development review process.
9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural
requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has
been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and
18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and
City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for
notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140.
10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and
procedures for quasi judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as
follows:
A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following standards:
1. The aRRlicable comprehensive I�policies and ma�signation: and the
change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the
communitv. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are
reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions).
2. The statewide lap nning, aoals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and
ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,
therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable.
Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least
45 days prior to the final decision date.
3. The apalicable standards of any orovision of this code or other a� lip cable
im�lementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional
District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could
meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional
requirements" for a development. Specific future site development
improvements would be reviewed through the site development review
11
and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in
section 18.62.
4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the
�ro e�y which is the subject of the devel�oment aR lication. See above
under B.1.
11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be
consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected
transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the ;���isdiction of
Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of
ODOT.
Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does
significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W.
Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably
high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road.
According to ODOTs letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and
level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak
will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and
westbound left tums. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied
by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street,
which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this
approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on
the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips
diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut
through traffic created in the neighborhood.
Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg
Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule
(660-12-060).
12. Conclusion
The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning
maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category.
Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular
commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant
review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to
support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been
12
satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060
are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2),
2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a
6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all
allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning.
Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is
conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a
conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use
change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060),
additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review
which may be difficuit to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no
method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place
traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed
zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism
to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit.
As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the
applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use
criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use.
C. DECISION
The City Council DENIES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006/ZON
96-0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions.
13
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON }
County of Washington }
City of Tigard )
�
I, �n��-I�� u��a�"«`'� , hereby certify:
Please Print
That I am a / -� �� for the City of Tigard, Oregon.
That I served notice of the Tigard City Council ����� � F�'2.�
G���2,2 � l.�-r, �-ef'L�' �.0�s��cJ7"��Gi'7 y�(S�r L��'L
�SoC��v-�-� � �tG��i,
of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named
persons on the ���� day of C� V 19 �, by mailing to each of
them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto
C�1
attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the �day of ,
19�, postage prepaid.
�,�� _ ,ti��n�e ��! �.
Prepared Notice
� �
Subscribed and sworn to before me this o.0 day of � �l�` , 19�.
OFFICIAL SEAL y
DIANE M JELDERKS NO ry Pub ic of Or �Il
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO.Oa6�a2
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commission � e$.
h:\login\cathy\afofmail �
: � . �c� �.�� t�
DR. GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS CLIFF EPLER
10875 SW 89TH 8845 SW SPRUCE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LAURA JACKSON HANN LEE �
D A V I D S I E G E L 7020 NE HOLMAN, STE B-6
W&H P AC I F I C PORTLAND OR 97218
8405 SW NIMBUS
BEAVERTON� OR 97008
JOEL ADAMSON
4485 NW WALLOWA
• FORTLAND OR 97219
ED DUNDON JACQUELYN SMITH .
5319 SW WESTGATE DR �253 8935 SW OAK STREET
PORTLAND� OR 97221 TIGARD OR 97223
PAT WHITING
8122 SW SPRUCE
TIGARD OR 97223
MARK BARNES LORI/CURTIS PICKERING
8 815 S W S P R U C E S T 1444� SW 7•'EWKESBURY DRI VE
TIGARD� OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224
TODD KINSLEY J�E N t�1�( �T�fSL�`f `�� J���
8840 SW SPRUCE 1600 SW CEDAR HILLS BLVD.� STE 100
TIGARD� OR 97223 �ORTLAI�ID OR 97225
JOHN BLOMGREN
9460 SW OAK ST
TIGARD� OR 97223
I i
� t' ' '�
� � � , / �f 7'� lJ�-�V
� ` I � �
� � � � G�G - QU� �p v_,�.,
ti � . . - � ?
�� - 1 Agenda Item No. --'_
Meeting of �=�—
TIGARD CITY COIINCIL
MEETING MINU'tES - OCTOBER 22, 1996
• STIIDY SSSSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6 :30 p.m. by Council President Paul
Hunt
> Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian
Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Associate Planner
Dick Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst.
to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Development Review Engineer
Brian Rager; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City Recorder
Catherine wheatley.
> Agenda Review
Armor : Bill Monahan, City Adminiatrator, reported on the status of
the discussions with the Asmory. Ms. Newton and Chief Goodpaster
have met with them. The Armory has scheduled a .meeting for T�esday,
October 29, to discuss their rental policy and new rental process.
Tri-Countv Center Application: In response to a question from
Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Monahan said that the Maxor and Mr. Bewersdorff
have been talking with Mr. Christensen regarding the Tri-County
Center application. The applicant did not request an extension
within one-and-one-half years of the original application;
therefore, the application was void. The City Attorney's office has
provided a written opinion on this matter. Mr. Monahan commented
that alterations to the application would be needed regardless.
In response to a concern from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said
that Council could pull this matter up to review the staff
interpretation. He explained that he thought that staff could work
with the applicant to package their application to go through both,
levels of review simultaneously. -
Councilor Moore indicated support of the staff's decision. He asked
if the applicant would continue to be willing to incorporate some of
the design elements of the original Tigard Triangle plan. Mr.
Monahan said that staff was attempting to work through issues with
the applicant.
Farmer's Insurance Office Buildinct: Councilor Rohlf asked if
Council needed to pull up the Farmers Insurance office building for
review. Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, explained that the
applicant was meeting the requirements. The de�relopment was high
quality. He noted that a large number of trees would be removed and
the fees that would be assessed. Councilor Rohlf commented that if
' staff felt that the developer would put in a development consistent
with the design overlay, then there wasn't a need to call it up for
review.
- Councilor Moore commented that he visited the site and thought that
. they could build the development witn minimal tree removal since
many of the trees ran down a gully. The Council reviewed a map to
determine where the trees were located.
Mr. Bewersdorff commented that there wasn't much the City could do,
the applicant was meeting code requirements.
> 2040 Functional Plan: Mr. Monahan referred to the most recent
,!' changes in the 2040 Functional Plan, mentioning in particular the
increase of maximum retail square footage from 50,000 square feet to
60, 000 square feet.
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTTTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 1
i� ���
�-
, Councilor Rohlf questioned from where a 60,000 square foot store
would draw its market. Nadine Smith, 3enior Planner, commented that
Metro wanted stores to draw from a small market area. Councilor
Rohlf stated that he disagreed with Metro's intent.
Ms. Smith explained that another change was the criteria a local
jurisdiction had to use to a�prove something larger than 60,000
square feet. This criteria included a demonstration in the record
that adequate transportation facilities would be available by the
time the retail operation began and that adequate transportation
facilities for the planned uses in the employment areas were
included in the applicable Comprehensive Plan provision.
Ms. Smith pointed out that this was unclear: what did "adequate"
mean? Did the requirement mean funded or simply planned?
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Smith said
that she thought Metro wanted them to have a plan for transportation
facilities in the Comprehensive Plan by which they could judge a
request for something over 60,000 square feet. Councilor Scheckla
commented on the necessity of knowing where the funding was coming
from when planning transportation.
Ms. Smith reviewed the public hearing schedule on the Functional .
Plan and the adoption process; October 24 might be the last time to
give input on the document. Mr. Monahan stated that a staff inember
would attend the meeting on October 24.
The Council discussed the issue of large stores. Councilor Rohlf
commented that grocery stores needed a minimum of 65,000 to 70,000
square feet to operate these days. Ms. Smith commented that
Councilor Kvistad proposed dropping this title because Metro didn't
know how to locate retail property and shouldn't be telling the
local jurisdictions how to do it.
Mr. Monahan said that another area of concern was the accessory
units on all residential units. He reviewed Councilor Morrisette's
proposal to allow each individual lot one accessory unit; the
proposal was still under discussion at Metro.
Mr. Monahan said that this issue would be discussed at the joint
meeting of Washington County managers as well as at MPAC. He
commented that MPAC had worked hard to attain a com�romise and that
they would probably object to these changes. He said that staff
would express Councilor Scheckla's concern at the lack of
responsiveness to local� jurisdiction concerns.
Councilor Rohlf expressed dissatisfaction with Metro's proposal on
the ��big box�� issue. He said that Metro should dro� this issue
since this was a responsibility of the local jurisdiction.
After discussion, Mr. Monahan asked for Council direction to write a
letter to Metro on the accessory structures and the big box issues.
Ms. Smith stated that she has not noted any additional new issues;
the issues discussed in the past were still issues in this document.
The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to write a letter on
the additional issues.
• > Interfaith Outreach and the Severe Weather Shelter: Mr. Monahan
reviewed the history of the severe weather policy established by the
Council in 1994 that was implemented by Interfaith Outreach Services
(IOS) For two years, IOS managed a severe weather shelter in the
water Building to provide temporary accommodations for the homeless.
He noted management problems that resulted in Interfaith Outreach' s
decision to reexamine its role as the provider of this service. •
Mr. Monahan said that he suggested to Interfaith that in November
and January they use the water building for the shelter, and in
December and February they use the building the City was letting
them use for offices. He reported that he received a letter from
Kim Brown stating that IOS was concentrating its efforts on the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 2
,�.
� - -
! capital campaign and land use and funding problems for the RITE
Center. The Board decided that they will be unable to operate the
severe weather shelter this year.
Mr. Monahan stated that the City still had a policy of having a
shelter; however, he did not know of any other agency interested in
operating the shelter, particularly on such short notice. He noted
that the water building and the senior center were potential shelter
- sites.
Councilor Hunt stated that he thought there was room for a shelter
at the City-owned building where I05 had offices. Mr. Monahan
concurred but said that it wasn' t an issue of space or security, but
rather IOS' concentration on getting the RITE Center up and running.
Councilor Scheckla asked if Znterfaith's operations overlapped with
Neighborshare. Mr. Monahan explained Interfaith's program included �� � �
job counseling, crisis management and temporary shelter. He said
that Ms. Brown said that Interfaith may be able to operate a severe
weather shelter on a case-by-case basis at the Methodist Church as
they did last year.
Councilor Rohlf noted that the Citx funded both Interfaith and
Neighborshare. He commented that if both were available, they
served a larger public.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that Interfaith and Neighborshare had two
different goals. Interfaith's goal was to train people and help
them to take care of themselves. Neighborshare might simply take
care of immediate needs.
Mr. Monahan commented that the severe weather shelter didn't really
fit into Interfaith's philosophy of providing a full range of
services to families and homeless people in need. He said that last
year Interfaith found that the clientele at the severe weather
shel'ter had changed; it was no longer families but the day laborers
who preferred to live in the woods.
Councilor Hunt commented that he had suggested moving Interfaith
into the city office building because he thought there was an
understanding during budget discussions that it could also be used
for the severe weather shelter. Mr. Monahan said that he thought
Interfaith said they would consider doing so, but they had not yet
decided on whether or not they would run the shelter this year.
Councilor Scheckla co�nented that he thought the amount of money and
effort going into the RITE Center was a high price to pay for only
30 beds. He noted the need of the homeless for more immediate help
than was available.
Councilor Hunt referenced the failed attempt two years ago to build
a homeless facility for southeastern Washington County.
In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Monahan stated
that none of the surrounding communities had temporary shelters. He
said Ms. Brown indicated that Beaverton had discussed with IOS the
possibility of providing land, but IOS wanted to remain at their
base in Tigard. Councilor Moore commented that Tigard could not
' support the whole region's homeless; something had to be done
outside of Tigard also. Councilor Hunt concurred.
Mr. Monahan said that the question before the Council was whether or
not they wanted a severe weather shelter, and if so, how would they
do it. He said that he did not think using volunteers was a good
idea; it was better to use professional trained staff to deal with
this situation and clientele. He said that he did not promote using
the Senior Center facility for a temporary shelter.
Councilor Hunt asked if they could take back part of the building
they leased to Interfaith and renovate it for a shelter. Mr.
Monahan said that he didn't think they could do that since the City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 3
leased the entire building to them without an understanding that the
severe weather shelter would be located there.
Councilor Rohlf suggested dropping the program this year. In
response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan reviewed
the Council's discussions on this issue -over the last several
months. He noted an additional concern raised by the City's Risk
Manager of an airborne pathogen (such as tuberculosis) in a confined
space.
Councilor Hunt said that he attended an Interfaith meeting 6 to 8
months ago at which Interfaith stated that if they had enough money
to operate both the severe weather shelter and their own programs,
they would do so; however, their first priority was the homeless
center.
Councilor Rohlf commented that he has seen this program as the
City's support of Interfaith's program. Mr. Monahan said that they
wrote the policy for a severe weather shelter primarily because was
an operator willing to step forward. without an operator, the
policy fell apart. Councilor Hunt did not agree, referring to the
Task Force that initially addressed this issue on an area-wide
basis.
Councilor Rohlf commented that his concern that children were being
locked out was alleviated by knowing that the severe-weather
clientele did not consist of children.
The Council agreed bx consensus to drop the severe weather shelter
program until such time as Interfaith would support it again. _
Harry Bodine asked if the City would consider a request to operate
the shelter from another responsible organization. The Council
indicated yes, although they expressed concerns at using the Water
Building. Anx organization operating such a shelter would also need
to cover liability coverage.
> Mr. Monahan announced an invitation from Jack Reardon to attend a
meeting at the Summit Conference Room at Washington Square tomorrow
to discuss Washington Square's donation of property for the
Greenburg/Maple Leaf improvements. He said that he, the Mayor, and
Gus Duenas were planning to attend.
> Councilor Rohlf noted typographical errors on Page 26 of the Final
Order for Hillshire Hollow.
> Council President Hunt adjourned the study session at 6:27 p.m.
1. BIISINBSS MSSTING �
• Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Council President Paul Hunt called the business meeting to order at
7:35 p.m.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
� Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Public Works Director Bd Wegner presented to Jeff Munroe, Senior
Utility Worker, Grounds Division, an award to the City from the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Association in recognition of
outstanding maintenance and operations for flood damage repair work
at Cook Park. He congratulated Mr. Munroe on a job well done.
Mr. Munroe expressed his thanks to Mr. wegner and to the City
departments and citizen volunteers who participated in the clean up
effort.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 4
2. VISITOR'S AGfiNDA
Nancy Downa, PO Box 525, Wilsonville, a member of the Wilsonville
Development Review Board, thanked City staff for their response to her
requests for information. She presented photographs of illegal signs
posted in the city, county and state ri�hts of way, and pointed out that
citizens had the right to take down unsightly signs. She advised that one
business posting these types of signs was a Tigard-based business. She
asked that the Tigard City Council act on this issue and that volunteers
were ready and willing to help clean up the city.
Legal Counsel Pam Beery and Mayor Jim Nicoli arrived at 7:94 p.m.
Councilor Hunt asked Pam Beery, Legal Counael, if citizens could take down
signs posted in the public right of way. Ms. Beery said such signs could
be removed In addition, she noted that the City had regulations
prohibiting obstructions and visual clutter in the rights of way.
Mr. Monahan commented that staff has scheduled a meeting for November 21
to continue a discussion on this topic. He expressed appreciation for Ms.
Downs' comments.
Council President Hunt turned the meeting over to Mayor Nicoli who had arrived
at 7:44 p.m.
3. CONSBNT AGffidDA
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the
Consent Agenda.
Motion was ap�roved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted ��yes. ")
3 .1 Approve City Council Minutes: September 17 and 24, 1996
3 .2 Approve Resolution Amending the FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for
Management and Professional Group to add Youth Services Specialist
at Range SOA - Resolution No. 96-66
3 .3 Approve Resolution Amending Labor Agreement with the Oregon Public
EmploXees Union, Local 199, to Provide for Bonus Pay to Certain
Classifications for Possession of Manufactured Home Installation
Inspector Certification - Resolution NO. 96-67
3 .4 Approve Formation of Reimbursement District 8 without Modification
to the Engineer's Report -
3 .5 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Approve Contract with Bookin Group-SRI/Shapiro to update the
Development Code
b. Award GIS Utility Survey Contract to G.E. Raleigh Associates
4. PIIBLIC HEARING - (QIIASI-JIIDICIAL) HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SIIBDIVISION - COUNCIL
CALL-IIP FOR RBVIEW: (SIIBDIVISION (SIIB) 96-004; PLANNED DAVELOPMfiNT REVISW
(PDR) 96-0005; VARIANCL (VAR) 96-0006 SBNSITIVS LANDS REVIBW (SLR) 96-002
- A request to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. Planned
Develo�ment Review to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet
to minimize site development impacts. Variances to the maximum permitted
street length, a reduction of setbacks, and to the number of dwellings
that would access a cul-de-sac street. Sensitive Lands Review to develop
�portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent and to perform
• land form alterations to wetlands.
Location: 13001 SW Ascension. The site is located on the west side of Sw
Ascension Drive, approximately 650 feet south of SW Fern Street.
Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code chapters 18.52,
18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18, 92, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and
18 .164.
Zoae: R-7 (PD> . (Single family residential, 5,000 square feet attached
per unit) . The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites
for attached and detached single family residences.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 5
: � . , " .
a. Mayor Nicoli. read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
c. Staff Report
Dick Beweradorff, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He
reviewed the location of the development and the staff
recommendation to allow private streets. Public streets would
require a redesign of at least 10 of the units because of the
difference in street setback requirements between public (20 feet)
and private (8 feet) streets. He stated that the Planning
Commission approved the private streets because of the redesign
issues and because a street extension in this location would not be
feasible. He noted several typographical errors on Page 26 which
would be corrected.
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli explained the hearing procedures and criteria.
Mr. Monahan noted that the Council was scheduled to go into
Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. , which might cause a recess of this
hearing.
W.C. Cox, attorney for the applicant, requested clarification on
this call up for review. Based on the meeting minutes, he
understood that the only concern the Council had with this
application was the private streets, not with the project itself.
He said that they were prepared to answer questions on that issue
and to help the Council deal with it however they could.
Councilor Rohlf stated he was also concerned that the staff concern
on the drainage of Lots 16 through 22 (page 32) be addressed also.
Mark Ferris, Alpha Sngineering, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, noted that Ed
Freeman and Steve Oswald were available to answer questions. He
reviewed the history and context of. the project, noting the location
, of the development on a map. He said that the parcel was long and
narrow with steep hillsides on the south and east sides of the
property. Other constraints included an easement and a significant
drainage course along the west side of the property. He stated that
there was no potential for through streets and that the topography
made this an ideal site for infill development.
Mr. Ferris described the development: 12 duplexes on 24 lots (out
of the 31 lots allowed) . They tried to minimize the sensitive land
impacts of the development by siting most of the units on the '
flatter portions of the site. He quoted from the Tigard Code to
support their efforts "to create a more efficient economically
viable development that preserved natural features while
implementing the density ran�es in the Comprehensive Plan. " He
noted the two issues under discussion tonight: public vs. private
streets, and the City's concern for street maintenance and upkeep.
Mr. Ferris reviewed the history of their work with staff to reach
the present point of a private street built to public street
standards.
Mr. Cox reiterated that he had understood that the sco�e of this
hearing was the private vs. public streets issue, despite the notice
including the variance as part of the discussion.
Mayor Nicoli concurred with Mr. Cox that concerns with the Benchview
Estates development (private street issues) was why the Council was
concerned about private streets. He said that property owners in
Benchview Estates felt that they had not been adequately advised,
when they bought their homes, that they were responsible for the
maintenance of the private street. Benchview residents wanted to
give the street to the City even though the street was not built to
city standards.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 6
Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a clear statement in the recording.
documentation for each individual home that it was on a private
street. He asked if the applicant intended to have all the property
owners in the subdivision responsible for the maintenance of the
street that was in front of just 10 homes.
Mr. Cox said that the street was designed and planned as a separate
tract which would be deeded over to the Homeowners Association. He
reviewed similar arrangements he has made in the �ast regarding
private streets; homeowners paid a fee that went into a maintenance
fund and a reserve fund (designed to build up over the lifespan of
the road) . A street built to city standards should last 20 years.
Mr. Cox noted Tigard's requirement in TMC 18.165.030 for a one- to
two-year maintenance bond on private streets. He described what Mr.
Freeman would do when the deed was turned over to the Homeowners
Associatioz. In effect, there would be an insurance policy providing .
a bond for the City's benefit should the Association not be able to
pay for the improvements.
Mr. Cox explained the difference between the Benchview development
and this development. He said that in other cities, the City
Attorney would review homeowner association documents to protect the
City. He commented that if Tigard did away with private streets, it
would make it very difficult to develop infill areas because infill
land tended to have physical problems. Private streets allow
manipulation of setback requirements to achieve a higher density
while maintaining the sense of a single family community.
Mayor Nicoli noted Mr. Cox's point that Benchview might have been
set up improperly. He asked how long did Mr. Cox think it was
reasonable for a builder to be required to stand behind his work and
make repairs as necessary.
Mr. Cox said that he understood that the utilities would remain in
public ownership with easements in the private street. Fees would
be paid by taxpayers for maintenance of those utilities. He
referred to the two-year maintenance bond required by the City to
cover defects in design or construction. He said that most cities,
when they fixed water or sewer lines in private streets, only filled
in the hole, leaving resurfacing of the street to the Homeowners
Association.
Mayor Nicoli explained that the City turned responsibility for the
building of a private street to city standards over to the
applicant. If the contractor forgot to compact the rock and the
street started to break up after several years, at what point was it
fair for the homeowners to return to the engineer of record and the
contractor.for performance failure. He asked who would be
responsible if something went wrong. He spoke for guaranteeing the
road for a period of time to give the homeowners some protection.
Mr. Cox said that the warranty bond normally given to the owners by
a contractor could be assigned to the Homeowners Association or
directly to a local government (to avoid having two bonds covering
the same risk) . He commented that the life of the bonded
maintenance agreement provided for in the City's code was the life
of the street until it was resurfaced (usually 15 to 20 years) ,
' though this was an issue best dealt with by the City Engineer.
Mr. Cox said that most problems with a street would probably occur
within the first two years and would be covered by the other bond.
He stated that whatever vehicle the City chose needed a reality
check to determine whether a bonding company would write a bond for
that long.
Mayor Nicoli asked if it was possible to get a bond for four to five
years. He mentioned that another problem the City has is its
inability to enforce CC&Rs.
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 7
Mr. Cox commented that most local jurisdictions did not want to have
any responsibility to enforce CC&Rs, citing the City of Portland as
an example.
Mayor Nicoli cited an example to illustrate the purpose of his
question. When homeowners failed to maintain a storm drainage
sxstem, the problems spread beyond the area, resulting in damage and
liability for the City as well as for the Association. He expressed �
concern over a situation in which there was damage caused to other
people and the City's hands were tied.
Mr. Cox stated that he thought there was a legitimate government
purpose in that situation. He said that the City could require
access in a situation when there was a private system connected to
the public system.
Bd Freeman, Sierra Pacific, explained in detail the question of
maintenance assurance continued beyond the developer�s assurance of
one to two years.
Mr. Freeman said that they estimated a cost of $6,000 to resurface
the road. He said that they were willing to forward the Homeowners
Association $10,000 to set up the fund with the money paid back as
the fund built up.
Mr. Freeman stated that he thought there was a distinction between a
single family detached residence subdivision like Benchview with a
private street and the Hillshire Hollow type of project with a
�rivate street. He said that this discussion would not be occurring
if they didn't have individual lots in this subdivision. He said
that the original concept had been a private community with a
security gate.
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the hearing at 8:32 p.m. The Tigard City Council
went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) ,
(e) , & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current
and pending litigation issues.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the hearing at 9:24 p.m.
Councilor Hunt commented that in this situation it appeared that
some homeowners bought on a private street while others bought on a
public street, yet all the homeowners (as part of the Homeowners
Association) would be responsible for maintenance of the private
street. He said that a lot of people would buy without awareness of
liability for the private street, a situation that needed to be
remedied.
Councilor Hunt reviewed the process described by Mr. Cox for setting
up the Homeowners Association, noting that the Council would not see
this application again to confirm that their concerns were
specifically addressed in writing in the document. He pointed out
that physical problems with terrain were the cause .of the problem in
the other case. He questioned whether the same thing would happen
here.
_ Councilor Hunt asked if the private street would meet all the public
street design standards except for the street setback. Mr. Ferris
� � reviewed the public street requirements that this street would meet,
confirming that the only variance was in the street setback of 8
feet instead of 20 feet.
Councilor Hunt noted discrepancies on page 27 pointed out by
Councilor Rohlf in which there would be a sidewalk on only one side,
and a 20 foot street width instead of a 24 foot width. Mr. Ferris
clarified that there were in fact two private streets in this
development; the main private street would be built to city public
street standards and the small private street in Tract D serving 8
units would be built to city private street standards. He reviewed
the location of the two streets on the map.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 8
Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen if the Homeowners
Association were dissolved. Ms. Beery said that the applicant could
most appropriately answer that question, since the answer depended
on how they structured the document. She said that she did not
advocate the City getting into the regular business of enforcing
CC&Rs; the cost and policy issues required more discussion.
Ms. Beery suggested conditioning the development in a limited
situation like this bX requiring a review of the CC&Rs by the City
Attorney's office to insure that Council's concerns were addressed.
If the CC&Rs weren' t acceptable, then the development would not move
forward. She said that she wanted more direction from Council on
the issues of concern to them.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that staff and the applicant work together on
appropriate documents and return to Council. Ms. Beery stated that
the applicant would have to waive the 120 day rule which was up for
this application on November 5.
Mr. Cox stated for the record that the Tigard Code already allowed
private streets and that the applicant had the right to rely on the
Code. He said that while they were willing to help the Council work
through this issue, he did not want to waive the right to rely on
the Code as written.
Mr. Cox commented that the way some of the Council questions were
formulated, it sounded as if they were making a legislative decision
that would affect subdivisions in the future. He questioned making
large legislative changes within the context of a quasijudicial
hearing. He said that his client came in a good faith effort to
answer questions about private streets -- not to throw his
application into a debate about approving it with private streets.
Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Beery for her opinion on Mr. Cox's comments.
Ms. Beery said that Mr. Cox was correct to a point. She noted the
discussion on Page 26 of the staff report which indicated a
limitation on the number of lots allowed on a private street,
suggesting that Council ask staff about that.
Mr. Bewersdorff said that the City allowed private street
development with six units; the applicant was using the planned
development process to allow them the flexibility to add more than
six units. He said that it was up to the judgment of the Council
whether or not to allow more than six units on this private street.
Mayor Nicoli noted that this was a request for 24 units on private
streets.
Ms. Beery said that the factor that weighed in the Council's
consideration was whether or not it was an ap�ropriate situation to
use a private street. She said that the applicant had a right to
build six units on a private street.
Ms. Beery said that another factor in considering this request was
the fact that they were building the street to city standards. She
said that while she concurred with Mr. Cox's concern about setting
�olicy in the context of a single hearing, she didn't hear that
happening here. She said that this was simplx a review of the
project, pointing out that any discussion of issues relating to the
CC&Rs had nothing to do with this application.
Ms. Beery noted for the record that other members of her law firm
have represented this developer in the past, although she has never
done so nor did she have knowledge about any of the other projects.
However she said there was no problem if the City wanted a different
firm to review the CC&Rs.
Councilor Rohlf referenced Page 32 in the staff report in which
staff indicated that they were uncertain about the drainage of Lots
15 through 22. He asked if there was a drainage plan for those
areas. Mr. Ferris said that from an engineering standpoint, they
had a couple of options on drainage; the preliminary plans indicated
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 9
that they could serve and drain those lots by a deeper stormline
within the street itself.
Councilor Rohlf expressed his surprise that staff recommended
approval, given the four pages relating concerns about streets. Mr.
Bewersdorff said that they had recognized the problems the
topography caused in this situation, and had wanted to point out all
the problems of private streets. He stated that this was a dead-end
street with minimal traffic. He said that the Planning Commission
found it acceptable to use private streets in this particular
circumstance, and that staff did not disagree with that, given the
topography, other conditions, and compliance with public street
standards.
In response to questions from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Bewersdorff said
that there were a considerable number of private streets in the City
serving six units, with a few private streets serving a higher
number of units.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the police patrolled private streets.
Mr. Monahan said they did not patrol the streets but would come in
if called. Ms. Beery confirmed Councilor Scheckla's comment that a
private street meant no public access, not even pedestrian.
Maxor Nicoli suggested that Councilors make a position statement
prior to closing the public hearing. Ms. Beery cautioned that if
new evidence was mentioned, the applicant would have the right of
rebuttal.
Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with the proposal
as long as the issues of concern to the Council were addressed
properly. He said that he thought they could have private streets
here if additional documentation were attached.
Councilor Hunt asked if they could deny the project because the
applicant was putting more than six homes on a private street. Ms.
Beery said yes.
Councilor Rohlf concurred with the Mayor, stating that he was more
concerned with a situation like Benchview surprising homeowners.
Councilor Rohlf stated that he was fundamentally opposed to the
concept of private streets. He said that he was not sure that it
would be a problem for the community to restrict private streets.
He questioned whether there was community support for infill
development. He suggested wording the CC&Rs in such a way that
people would not miss that they were responsible for the maintenance
of the road.
Councilor Moore commented that they would have private streets until
such time as the Code was changed. He said that he thought this was
an appropriate situation for private streets. He said that he would
uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Councilor Moore said the City should recommend that the developer do
the best job �ossible to make sure homeowners were aware of what
they were buying into. While he did not object to a City review of
the CC&R' s, he said he did not think that was the City's role.
• Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the liability that might
come back to the City if something happened on a private street,
such as erosion, flooding, etc. She stated that she did not think
this subdivision was any more liable to produce problems for the
City than any other subdivision.
Mayor Nicoli suggested (prior to selling any lots) �utting up a sign
at the entrance to the private street stating that it was a private
street beyond this point. Councilor Hunt commented that they would
not be able to enforce such a sign.
Councilor Rohlf suggested a Council workshop with staff to discuss .
the issue of private streets and to review the Code. Eventually,
CITY COUIJCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 10
the Council could decide the question legislatively at a public
hearing.
Mr. Cox pointed out that the staff report on Page 27 stated that
private streets serving more than six lots were allowed in planned
developments. He said that he was hearing the suggestion that
anything over six lots was something new when in fact they were
allowed. He said that he did not think a sign at the entrance would
be a positive selling point from a realtor's point of view.
Mr. Cox said that his client would do what was necessary to inform
people. He noted that some mandated consumer laws worked while
others did not. He said that they were willing to coo�erate with
staff and submit a set of �roposed Homeowners Association documents
for review prior to the building permit approval.
Councilor Hunt commented that the Homeowners Association documents . .
didn't really mean anything because the homeowners could change them -�
with a majority vote. Mr. Cox said that the state statutes did
allow that; although he did not know if the Association could do
away with a street fund. The Association's membership could adjust
the amount paid monthly to the fund by each homeowner.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the agreement could say that the fund could
not fall below a certain dollar amount over the life of the property
in order to maintain certain items. Mr. Cox said that the
Association standards he wrote stated clearly that the Association
could not dissolve or do away with the street maintenance fund
unless approved by the City.
Councilor Hunt noted ac�reement with Councilor Moore's position to
avoid City responsibility to enforce CC&Rs.
Mayor Nicoli commented that other subdivisions promised to take care
of the City's concerns through their CC&Rs, but then wrote the CC&Rs
so poorly that the Association had no way to enforce its own CC&Rs,
leaving the City to take them to circuit court to resolve problems.
He said that if they were going to allow developers to use CC&Rs,
then they needed to make sure they were written so that the City
would have some ability to enforce areas of concern.
Councilor Rohlf said that he did not favor that as he thought it led
to accountability of the City for those private streets.
Councilor Rohlf asked staff if they stood by their recommendation to
accept the Planning Commission's recommendation without any changes
to the CC&Rs. Mr. Bewersdorff� said that they could change Condition
�#5 if the Council wanted to put "more teeth" into the CC&Rs.
e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
f. Council Consideration
Motion by Councilor Moore to adopt Exhibit A. There was no second.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would be willing to adjust
the CC&Rs about notice to the purchasing public both now and in the
future. He mentioned Mr. Cox' s suggestion to put a notification in
• the CC&R document in bold, extra-large print.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, secoaded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Resolution No. 96-68, with the modification to give notice in the
CC&Rs to buyera with no obligation oa the City's part.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-68
RESOLUTION NO. 96-68, A RESOLUTZON OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
e3PPROVING THE HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (SUB 96-04) PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-02, VARIANCE 96-06 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
96-02.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 11
Ms. Beery asked if the Council wanted a modification to Condition
No. 5 adding language that the property owners be clearly notified
in bold print in the CC&Rs of the ownership and maintenance
responsibility of the private street. Mr. Monahan noted the
language in Section 5 that addressed that issue already including
submitting copies to the City Engineering Department and the City
Attorney. The Council indicated that they wanted the City Attorney
excluded.
Motion was approved by 4-1 voice vote of Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes" ; Councilor
Hunt voted "no. ")
5. PIIBLIC SBARING - (QIIA3I-JUDICIAL) - PIIBLIC RIGHT OF WAY STRS$T VACATION --
Sw TORLAND COIIRT - Request for a vacation of approximately 4,431 square
feet of public right-of-way located on SW Torland Court, also together
with an 8-foot wide utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and
the north boundary of'Lot 4, reserving an e-foot wide easement along the
east boundary of the area being vacated.
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
c_ Staff Report
Mr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He reviewed the
specifics of this rec�uest to vacate a public right-of-way utility
easement that was originally dedicated to allow the extension and
connection of future streets . He said that Mr. Kinnon partitioned
his .property prior to the platting of Torland Estates; he now wanted
to repartition Lot 6200 to allow development.
Mr. Bewersdorff said that developing the lot required the street
vacation. He said that because of surrounding development and
street connections, staff did not think it necessary to keep Torland
Court. He said that Mr. Kinnon would provide easements along the
western edge of the right of way to handle the utilities.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval.
f. Council Questions
Councilor Moore asked if Tract 1 would become part of Lot 3 and
Tract 2 part of Lot 4. Mr. Bewersdorff said yes.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the City paid for the property when it was
acquired. Mr. Bewersdorff said that it was dedicated as part of the
subdivision.
g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration
� Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt
Ordinance No. 96-27.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-37.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-37, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 4, 431 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON SW
TORLAND COURT ALSO TOGETHER WITH AN 8 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 4 IN
THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
Motion was a�proved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 12
��Yes. ")
7. PIIBLIC H�ARING - (QIIA3I-JIIDICIAL) - CObIPRSHSNSI�IE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96- •
0006/ZONE CHANGS (ZON) 96-001 DR. GSN$ DAVIS/FORBIGN MISSION
RSQIISST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Ta:c Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
3800, 3900, Map 1S1 36AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW
95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone
Change from R 4 .5 to CP.
Location: Southeast of SW Oak Street, north of Highway 217.
Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan polices 1.12 (2) , 2.1.1,
6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18 .22 and
18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12.
Zone: R-4 .5 (Single family residential) allows single-family detached
units, manufactured homes, farminc�, _family day care and conditional uses
such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and
schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business
support services, communication services, medical and dental services,
personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and .
drinking establishments. �
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
c. Staff Report
Laurie Nicholson, Aseociate Planner, presented the staff report.
She reviewed the specifics of the request for a plan amendment to
rezone the property under consideration from R-4.5 to CP in order to
construct a 6, 000 square-foot restaurant. In addition, the applicant
requested a plan amendment to reorient the hotel already approved on
the adjacent property. She reviewed the location of the parcel on a
map.
Ms. Nicholson noted that both ODOT and Washington County recommended
denial of the request due to traffic impacts, although they both
would support the request if the plan amendment were conditioned to
limit the number of trips allowed for the land use. She said that
Metro supported the request because it was compatible with this
area's designation in the 2040 plan as a regional transportation
center.
Ms. Nicholson mentioned that the Washington Square developer,
windmar Pacific, recommended denial based on negative traffic
impacts. Pat Whiting submitted two letters recommending denial on
the traffic and wetlands issues.
Ms. Nicholson said that staff did not believe that the land use was
appropriate for the site. The City has supported the 2040
designation of this area as a regional center with the recommended
mix of office, high density residential, and commercial uses. She
commented that the City was not required to comply with the Metro
plan at this time.
Ms. Nicholson explained that staff believed that transportation was
• the main concern for this application. She noted that t?�e primary
facility that would be impacted was Greenburg Road which was under
County jurisdiction. The County recommended denial if the land use
was not limited. She stated that traditionally the City has not
conditioned a plan amendment, pointing out that it added another
layer of enforcement which currently the staff did not do. The City
Attorney' s office recommended against such a condition because of
the enforcement issues.
Ms. Nicholson said that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to
provide guidelines for land use, not to address specific design
issues, which were txpically addressed during the site design review
application. She said that staff did not think it was good policy
CITY COUNCIL I�ETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 13
to place trip conditions on a plan amendment. She stated that staff
and the Planning Commission both recommended denial.
d. Public Testimony
APPLICANT
Dave Seagall, W & H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, repreaenting
the applicant Dr. Gene Davis, gave an overview of.their
presentation. He said the roadway and parking for the proposed
hotel would be provided for on the adjacent property.
Mr. Seagall stated that when a proposed land use action met all the
' specific criteria for approval, then approval should be granted. He
said that staff indicated that the proposal met all the criteria for
a proposed land zone change except for the transportation impact.
He said that they intended to present evidence demonstrating that
the proposal met the transportation test and should be approved. He
stated that they would also provide a demonstration of good will to
address the concerns regarding development with high intensity uses.
Laura Jenaen, W & H Pacific, 8405 Sw Nimbus, Beaverton, reviewed on
overhead graphics the location of the 4.5 acre parcel. She said
that they were requesting rotation of the already approved hotel for
aesthetic reasons and development of the adjacent parcel as a
restaurant with possible other commercial uses to support the hotel
(such as dry cleaners, coffee outlet) . She stated that the site had
no wetlands on it. She described the access road to the hotel.
Ms. Jensen stated that the current zoning of low density residential
was not an appropriate use of the land. The commercial band along
the freeway made the residential area into an island. She said that
the commercial property adjacent to the highway would probably not
develop without the proposed road through this parcel, which
provided the primary access. Without rezone approval, the road
would not be built and the� properties would not develop. She said
that residential use did not make economic sense and that neither
hotel owners nor the neighbors wanted hotel patrons traveling
through a single-family residential neighborhood.
Ms. Jensen reiterated that the City of Tigard allowed zone changes
if the criteria were met and that staff acknowledged in their report
and testimony before the Planning Commission that this proposal met
all the applicable criteria with the exception of the traffic
criteria.
Ms. Jensen reviewed the history of the property. She said that the
property was zoned residential upon annexation to the Citx to match
the County's zoning, similar to the properties on which Lincoln
Center and the Unisys building were located (these were rezoned to
allow commercial development) . She mentioned the City's attempt, in
1990 to designate this area for redevelopment as the "President's
Parkway, " a ballot issue which failed, causing the rezoning to
commercial to revert to the original zoning of residential.
Ms. Jensen said that there have been neighborhood meetings over the
past couple of years to discuss several proposals for the larger
� area (including other properties owned by the applicant and by
. others) . All the proposals except one fell through; last year Dr.
Davis got approval to build a hotel on the site. However, in order
to provide an aesthetically pleasing hotel and to meet the
requirements, they wanted to rotate the hotel. This would cause a
small amount of the entry area to fall on the subject parcel. She
said that as part of this proposal, Dr. Davis was committed to
extending Lincoln Street as the access road on the subject property.
Ms. Jensen explained that while the parc=:1 was 4.5 acres, ��rhen they
took out the land for roadway, parking, vzd right of way, they were
left with only 2 to 2.5 acres. She said that the scenario on which
the traffic study was based was the worst-case scenario for the
entire 4.5 acres. The intensity of development and amount of traff�c
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 14
generated would be significantly less when the acreage was reduced
by the road and parking.
Ms. Jensen stated that there was a commitment to develop the
adjacent CP site as a hotel. One of the conditions of approval for
that development was the extension of Lincoln Street into the site
for access. This commitment restricted the amount of developable
land in the 4.5 acre parcel and would eliminate any sort of large
office type development.
Ms. Jensen stated that the request met the siting criteria for the
CP zone as defined in the City' s Code and the changes in land use
�roposed under Metro's 2040 framework. She said that it did not
impact the City's housing balance. She stated that the only issue
that could be considered as a basis for denial was transportation,
specifically on Greenburg Road.
Ms. Jensen said that because Greenburg Road was a Washington County
road, the comments from the Washington County staff were treated
with relevance, as were ODOT's because Hall Blvd was an ODOT
facility. She said that traffic would reroute to Locust and Hall
because of the traffic signal at that intersection; ODOT staff found
this acceptable. She noted that ODOT also su�gested approval of a
condition to limit traffic generated by the site, though they did
not mention whether to condition the land use or to condition the
traffic generation.
Hahn Lee, Parametrics, 7820 S$ Holman, Suite B6, Portland, the
applicant's traffic consultant, addressed traffic analysis
methodology and the results of the traffic analysis. He reviewed _
the two types of traffic analysis methodology used by Washington
County, a general planning level analysis and an operational level
analysis. He explained that the County used the general planning
level analysis because a rezone request went to the long-range
planning staff, not to the transportation staff.
Mr. Lee said that the general planning level analysis resulted only
in preliminary and general conclusions and was not applicable in
this case because it did not address the complex traffic issues on
Greenburg Road. He said that the County transportation staff would
have used the same operational analysis that Parametrics used at the
request of the City of Tigard staff.
Mr. Lee reviewed the conclusions of the operational analysis. The
proposal met the Washington County level of service D requirement
along Greenburg Road. A comparison between the level of service
between the existing and proposed zonir.g alternatives showed only a
1-2 second difference in the average intersection delay (which was
considered insignificant) . Traffic added by the rezone alternatives
aould equal less than one car per minute per lane (also considered
insi�nificant) . The proposed extension of Lincoln Street would
significantly improve local traffic circulation but would not occur
without a rezone. The results of the traffic analysis were
consistent with the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Ferry Traffic Needs Study
conducted for the City of Tigard by Parametrics in 1993. .
Mr. Lee stated that Parametrics used the appropriate analysis
approach to determine the impact. He reiterated that they met the
• level of service standard test, that there were no significant
differences between existing and proposed zoning alternatives and
that the study results were consistent with the regional study
conducted in 1993 (which resulted in the Greenburg Road improvement
project expected to accommodate traffic at level of service D to the
year 2010) .
Ms. Jensen stated that the request deserved approval, pointing out
that they used the traffic analysis method requested by the City and
they have demonstrated that they met the level of service standard.
Mr. Seagall discussed the conditioning of the zone change with a
limitation on either the type of development or on the trips
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 15
generated by future development. He said that this was a common
practice with most communities of any size in Oregon. He said that
they were not talking about conditioning a plan amendment but
conditioning the zone change that would occur concurrently with the
plan amendment if approved.
Mr. Seagall cited Section 18.32.250 of the Tigard Development Code
which allowed the City to attach conditions to a zone change if it
wished to do so. He noted that initially staff had been favorable
towards their proposal but grew concerned for the potential traffic
impact because of the Washington County letter. He said that they
met with staff to try to find a way to deal with the situation,
possibly placing a limitation on use.
Mr. Seagall stated that staff indicated concerns with tracking
conditions of approval and, therefore, declined to recommend
approval. He noted that many communities routinely conditioned the
zone change accompanying a plan amendment change, citing his
experience as the Development Services Manager for the City of
Salem. �e said that tracking such conditions could be done in a
manner that was not onerous.
Mr. Seagall noted the Planning Commission's discussion of approving
the request with a condition on the future development of the 4.5
acres. The Planning Commission attempted to develop appropriate
language that at the hearing. When their attempt failed, they
denied the request.
Mr. Seagall reiterated that the property would serve as the access
road and parking for an adjacent development already approved by the
City. He said that according to the staff report, they met the
criteria for a plan and zone change and that they have demonstrated
that they meet the City's standards for traffic impact. He noted
their willingness to work with staff to alleviate concerns regarding
the intensity of uses on the property (which was only 2.5 acres
after taking away for parking, roadway and right of way) .
Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a good map showing exactly where the
parcel was located. Ms. Nicholson reviewed the map.
Councilor Scheckla stated that he looked at the property and noticed
wetlands and wildlife. He asked why that wasn't acknowledged. Ms.
Jensen explained that about a year ago a wetlands scientist, DSL,
and the Army Corps of Engineers identified all the wetlands in that
vicinity; this �arcel was not in the area below the old railroad
right of way which was where all the wetlands were located.
Councilor Scheckla asked if putting in pavement wouldn't affect the
wetlands runoff. Ms. Jensen said that all conditions with respect
to wetlands would be dealt with during the site design approval.
Mr. Seagall stated that there were no wetlands identified on the 4 .5
acres under consideration tonight. He said that, should this be
approved, they would have to go through a rigorous development
review process during which any wetlands issues would be resolved
before the development could be approved.
Councilor Scheckla said that he realized that but thought that there
would be an impact and problems. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns
' about the findings of the traffic study. He asked who should the
Council believe: ODOT and the County or the aoplicant' s hired
consultant?
Mr. Seagall asked staff to explain the development review process
the applicant would have to go through. Mr. Bewersdorff said that
Mr. Seagall was correct in stating that there were no wetlands on
the property. He noted that there was a creek running at the very
southern portion of the area but that he didn' t know if this
property was part of the creek. He stated that those issues would
be dealt with during development review.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 16
Mr. Seagall reiterated that the wetlands issue would be dealt with
to the City's satisfaction during development review_ or the
development would not proceed.
PROPONENTS:
Ed Dunden, commercial real estate broker specializing in the hotel
industrx, stated that Dr. Davis has had a long term goal of
attracting an upscale hotel to his property; he has been working
with him recently to accomplish this goal. He said that he has been
asked to comment on the suitability of the site for a hotel .
Mr. Dunden said that the developer currently interested in
developing a hotel on this property intended to build a hotel of the
quality of a Suites hotel or Residence Inn. He said that without
the zone change, it would be impossible to site the hotel
appropriately on the land currently zoned for the hotel. He said
that the current site plan proposed by the developer included land
over to the proposed Lincoln Street extension. He commented that
the extension would encourage better traffic flow in the area.
Joel Adamson, 4485 NW Wallowa, Portland, stated that he owned
property on Oak Street that was part of this proposal. He referred
to the Trammel Crow proposal for the President's Parkway development
which was had been opposed by many at the time. He said that those
same people now admitted that the area would inevitably be
developed. He cited as an example one man who moved out of the area
because he could see that the residential quality of life would
continue to decline. He said that he would like to see the area
developed.
OPPONBN'PS
Jacqueline Smith, 8935 SW Oak Street, a 27-year resident, stated
that she thought that the citizens needed to look at this area as a
resource. A plan for the area should be developed based on what has
already transpired, rather than changing the zoning one parcel at a
time. The plan should include consideration of wetlands, traffic
and schools. The school in the area would be isolated by this
proposal.
Cliff Bpler, 8845 SW Spruce Street, said that he opposed the
proposal because the land use was not appropriate for the site. He
said that, based on ODOT and Washington County's comments, the City
should look at this area in the overall spectrum. He mentioned the
President's Parkway urban renewal attempt and noted that 82� of the
people voted against the President's Parkway because of the
projected 12,000 cars a day. He contended that the road extension
was a small street, not like Hall or Greenburg, and that vehicles
servicing the hotel would go down the street next to the school and
turn around.
Mr. Epler said that if there were no wetlands in that area, then
someone has filled them in because Ash Creek ran right through the
middle. He stated that there was a flood plain there also. A plan
for the area was needed to deal with the water and traffic problems.
He said part of the area was unbuildable because it was a wetland.
� Mr. Epler said that there was no access from the street except to
i�all or Greenburg which was a serious problem that the City needed
to consider. He stated that an offramp from 217 in this project
would alleviate a lot o problems but that Mr. Davis would not give
up the land for an exit at the new street because it would not be
economically viable for him.
Councilor Hunt asked if the floodplain had flooded last winter. Mr.
�.pler noted the improvements to Hall and Greenburg with new culverts
to take the water, and the fast moving water runnin� down to Ash
Creek, which was a channel through the land. He said that the land
should have flooded last winter but it did not. The 100- year flood
plain did not have a chance to do its job.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 17
Pat whiting, 8122 SW Spruce Street, CPO #4N representative, referred
to the written testimony submitted by the CPO. She noted the
importance of the wetland and floodplain area in this vicinity. She
reported that the Tigard City Hearings Officer in the early 1990s
said that a study of the area was needed.
Ms. whiting pointed out a map that was attached to their written
testimony (produced by Carl Hasche, Tigard architect working in
cooperation with USA) looking at the area as a �otential site for
bioswales and storm water containment to deal with the water which
- was a major issue. She contended that USA's interest precluded a
zone change at this time and suggested talking to USA.
Ms. whiting expressed the CPO's concerns about the elementary school
located within a block of this property with children walking and
biking. She contended that the traffic impacts would not be limited
to Greenburg Road but would affect the entire Metzger and east
Tigard community. She commented on the increased commercial traffic
spilling onto commercial streets because of the nearby washington
Square and Lincoln Center developments.
Ms. Whiting concurred with ODOT's recommendation for a major
trans�ortation analysis of this area. She also noted concern with
flooding in the area.
Ms. Whiting said that she did not agree with Metro's interpretation,
as she did not think that they even looked at the area.
She pointed out that this property was at the bottom of the Fanno
Creek watershed. She objected to "piecmeal" commercial development.
She said she agreed with the Planning Department, the Planning
Commission that this amendment be denied. She said that the CPO
requested that it be refused.
Mayor Nicoli asked if Ms. whiting truly thought that someone would
put residential on this R-4.5 parcel adjacent to the existing uses.
Ms. Whiting said that she could not answer that question, commenting
that the parcel was adjacent to a wetland with wildlife, and that
there was a need to use the area for water retention.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the water issue was irrelevant to the
discussion this evening. He said that the question was "what is the
best use of the land?" He said that the development review process
would stop the application if there were wetland or water problems.
Ms. Whiting said that, from an economic perspective on the issue of
the best and highest use of the land, a commercial designation might
be the way to go, but not from a neighborhood perspective. She said
that, given the area, the road situation, the traffic needs, the
close proximity of the school and the existing residents in the
area, she would not want to see the parcel converted to commercial
at this time. She commented that it would not be financially
feasible to put in R-4.5 housing. She mentioned that in the past
the applicant supported the land reverting back to residential from
the commercial designation it had for the President's Parkway.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council had to look at what was best
• for the community. He reiterated that he would not want to see
residential built there because they would have even more problems.
He stated that he was not saying that the proposed development was
right, but that he did not think that the current zoning was
appropriate.
Ms. Whiting commented that the people on the perimeter of the area
wanted to live here and that others were interested in living close
to a natural setting; perhaps, someone might be interested in this
as a residential area.
Todd Ringsley, 8840 SW Spruce, stated that he lived in the home to
the east of the property. He said that the proposal for the traffic
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 18
• loading has been changed since the Planning Commission meeting two
weeks ago from a level F to a level D. He commented that there has
been no discussion for improvements to Oak Street or a method to
force traffic to stay in the main traffic zone. He contended that
hotel patrons would take Oak when the other roadways were busy but
that nothing has been proposed to improve Oak to a level where it
could support that traffic.
Mr. Kingsley noted the present plan allowed motorists to drive by
either side of the Metzger school if Greenburg was busy. He spoke
for acce�ting the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the
application until the City had an understanding of what would happen
on the roadways once the area was fully developed.
Jane Ringsley, 8840 SW Spruce, referred to a letter she signed in
opposition to this proposal. She commented on the amount of traffic
already on Hall; the hotel would further impact Hall Blvd. She
commented on the inadequate parking at Metzger School; parents were -
parking in the street to pick up their children. This applicant has
not addressed this issue. She concurred with her husband that the
applicant had not addressed the impact to Oak Street.
Mrs. Kingsley said the hotel would add to the water runoff problem
and impact the floodplain. She stated that Mr. Davis has dumped
debris and garbage into the wetlands on a daily basis.
Mrs. Kingsley noted that the Planning Commission denied this zone
change two weeks ago and asked if another notice was sent out on
this hearin� tonight. She said that no one knew of this hearing
until notification by Ms. Pat Whiting yesterday. She asked why
those who lived so close to the proposed development were not
notified and asked to be notified in order to participate in
development close to their neighborhood.
Mr. Monahan noted for the record the five identical letters signed
by five different people was received by staff while the Council was
in Executive Session. These letters will be entered into the
record.
Laurie Pickering, 14447 Tewkesbury, commented that the biggest issue
at the Planning Commission meeting was the inability to enforce a
deed restriction on a zone change. She stated that she was opposed
, to a zone change with a. deed restriction because of the applicant' s
past performance and the traffic impacts on the surroundin� area.
She said that site development plans should be submitted first; a
zone change was simply a stepp in� stone for development. She noted
the features of the area, including a pond, homes, a school, and the
Washington Square shopping center.
Andrew Jordan, attorney for the applicant, objected to Mr.
Pickering' s standing in the case.
Ms. Beery stated that Tigard had no code limitations that provided
that a person living a certain distance from a particular
application was not allowed to speak. She said that while Mr.
Jordan's objection was noted, there was no basis for disallowing Mr.
Pickering's testimony.
. Curtis Pickering, 1447 Tewkesbury, stated that Mr. Davis was asking
for a zone change on 4.5 acres because he couldn' t fit a hotel on
tze acreage that he had available to him with access off 98th
Street. He said that he did not think it was appropriate to use
that reason to expand the zoning. He said the whole picture should
be looked at and concurred with the Mayor that this parcel would be
developed into commercial. A commercial development would impact a
much larger area than a 250-foot radius especially when considered
as part of the 2040 plan. He commented that this was the first
scage of multiple development.
Mr. Pickering noted the recommendation in Mr. Lee's traffic study
that there would be little impact because of the street being opened
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINiTTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 19
up. He stated that Mr. Davis did not own the pro�erty where that
street was located and could not insure that opening up the street
would be part of the development.
Mr. Pickering pointed out that the subject property was surrounded
on three sides by residential. He referred to past City policy to
not approve a commercial rezone request when the property is
surrounded on three sides by residential. He cautioned about
precedent-setting if this request was approved. He also commented
that a traffic study' s conclusions should be based on site-specific
plans.
Mr. Pickering stated that there were wetlands on the property and
referred to a map and pointed out the location of these wetlands.
He said that increasing the zoning to a higher density would
automat'ically impact the wetlands.
Mr. Pickering stated that Mr. Davis had a history of not honoring
deed restrictions, citing a deed restriction on the property to not
allow cattle to graze. He commented that there was no means to
enforce the deed restriction.
Mr. Pickering stated that Mr. Davis could develop the hotel where it
was. He said that Mr. Davis elected not to buy the other piece of
property.
Mayor Nicoli commented that, in looking at the whole area of
washington Square, Lincoln Center, and the neighborhood, he saw that
there was a problem. He noted the Metro designation of the area as
a "regional transportation center (which meant first priority in
funding) . He noted the features of the area and asked what was the
best solution to transition between a commercial area and an
established single family neighborhood.
Mr. Pickering commented that there has been a lot of work in trying
to find a solution. He noted that the traffic study showed Level F-
on both Hall and Greenburg on almost any day, and with the Christmas
shopping season just around the corner, they would have hours of
Level F. He said that any impact right now was a negative impact.
He stated that he did not think that ODOT or Washington County
clearly understood that when they were asked the question because
part of the assumption was that the applicant would open up Lincoln
Street and create a larger traffic circulation.
Mr. Pickering spoke to looking at the area as a whole for
development. If developed piecemeal, a tremendous hazard would be
created on Hall Boulevard. He said that all of Oak Street from Hall
to Greenburg needed to be reviewed. He suggested that either the
applicant get together with the neighbors to find a plan or the City
take a stance for a plan. He said that doing this piecemeal did
not provide adequate infrastructure to support such development and
would set a precedent.
Mr. Pickering said that another precedent would be set in approving
a commercial zone on property surrounded on three sides by
residential. He cited the denial of a zone change on Scholls Ferry
because the parcel was surrounded on two sides by residential.
John Blomgren stated that he was on the original Planning Committee
� for Metzger which laid out a plan for the area showing commercial,
residential, parking, etc. ; this plan was approved by the County.
He said that plan showed commercial only to 93rd Street out of a
concern to protect the school children and the wetlands. He said
that the area was a wetlands and that it flocded, referring to
pictures he has taken over the past 25 years as proof. He noted the
100 year flood plain that flooded every year. Ae asked where all
the water would go if development came in. He said that Mr. Davis
filled in a pond, which was an illegal action no one has done
anything about.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 20
Mr. Blomgren reiterated that commercial development should not go
east of 93rd because of the children. He cited his observations
from his house on the corner of increasing traffic in the area since
Washington Square was built. He said that adding traffic would
create congestion at Oak and 87th, a few feet from Hall Blvd where a
light was supposed to go in.
Mr. Blomgren commented that he fed the birds daily in the wetland
and that parents brought their children to participate. He said
that development should occur on the drylands and that the wetlands
should be left as they were. He sLggested that the City buy the
land and make it a park.
RSBIITTAL
Andrew Jordan. 1600 SW Cedar Hilla Blvd, Portland, representing the
applicant, stated that the applicant could not provide a master plan
for the entire area. He said that some master planning for the area
has already been done and cited the. Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Ferry
Traffic Needs Study done for the City of Tigard by Parametrics. He
said that this study concluded that there would be no impact on Hall
from this development. He noted that the traffic study done by the
applicant demonstrated that the traffic impact was toward Greenburg
Road, not toward residential development.
Mr. Jordan contended that this was not piecemeal planning, even
though they were focusing on only four acres tonight. He said that
this •.uas the only piece of property owned by Dr. Davis that was not
zoned commercial. Pending approval of the commercial zoning, this
property would be included in the planning for the large commercial
area.
Mr. Jordan stated that both the applicant and his consultant
believed that this parcel could not be developed as residential. He
noted the trend in the area of buying up houses .by developers for
commercial development. He said that developing a street to serve
this area as residential was economically unfeasible. He stated
that the best use of this area was commercial.
Mr. Jordan stated that the property did not flood last year
according to Dr. Davis. No wetlands were identified on the parcel.
He stated that these matters were development review issues that
would be dealt with at a later time. He said that other development
review issues included whether or not Oak Street should be improved
and the traffic issues.
Mr. Jordan noted that Dr. Davis donated 6-e acres of land for
wetland mitigation several years ago when he developed the southerly
portion of the land. The wetlands were developed in accordance with
state guidelines and were found satisfactory over the five year
period of review. He noted the complaints about cattle in the area
and the way the wetlands were treated, commenting that if the land
were developed, those issues would go away.
Mr. Jordan stated that Mr. Pickering was associated wi�h developers
who owned the neighboring property and who were interested in
keeping the value of Dr. Davis' property as low as possible in order
_ to force him to sell. He said that those developers owned the
. property which prevented the street from going through.
Dave Seagall reiterated that the question was "what is the best use
of the property?" He noted that staff has indicated in their staff
report that the current zoning was inappropriate and that the
proposed zoning made a good deal of sense. He reviewed the two
methods of addressing traffic impact: a planning level (as used by
Washington County in considering long range planning) and a more
rigorous test (which the City required the applicant to perform) .
He said that if washington County had used the more rigorous test,
as they commonly did, �hey would have reached the conclusion that
the proposal did meet the traffic criteria for a plan amendment
(level of service D) .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 21
Mr. Seagall noted that there .were higher intensity uses allowed
within the CP zone than the applicant was proposing to develop. He
said that they were willing to work with staff to condition the
amendment to restrict the uses allowed in the zone to the less
intensive ones. He held that they have met all the applicable
criteria and should be granted outright approval but they would work
with staff on a conditioned zoned change.
e. Council Questions
Councilor Hunt noted his confusion regarding the road location
because of the poor maps. Ms. Nicholson reviewed where the
extension would be located. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that the
development approval for the hotel required the connection through
to Lincoln Street.
Councilor Hunt commented that he understood from Mr. Jordan that
someone else owned the land where the road extension was to go. He
noted that there was a problem if the other people bou�ht the land
in order to prevent the road extension that was a condition of
development.
Mr. Jordan noted the two parcels of land that would have to be
obtained to allow development of the hotel. One parcel was owned by
the School District. He reiterated that development of the street to
serve the parcel was already a condition of approval for the .
development of the hotel.
In response to a c�uestion from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Jordan said
that the School District was willing to sell the property, and that
he has not heard of a concern- regarding safety from the school
district.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Jordan said
that he was not suggesting that the pro�erty owner of the other
parcel was wrong, but that they had an interest in the testimony
they were giving.
Mr. Pickering stated for the record that he was not representing the
interests of the other property owners. He noted that Dr. Davis has
had many opportunities to buy that parcel and refused to do so.
Councilor Moore asked what was the number of potential units that
could be built on the 4:5 acre parcel if it was developed under the
current zoning. Ms. Nicholson said that there could be five houses
per acre for a total of 20 units.
Councilor Scheckla asked why this land wasn't included for one of
the areas considered for purchase by the City for a park. Mr.
Monahan said that in the Greenspaces program, the City had accepted
recommendations through the CIT process, and that apparently no one
recommended this parcel for purchase.
Mayor Nicoli asked Councilor Scheckla to clarify for the record
whether or not he made a site visit. Councilor Scheckla stated that
he did visit the site.
Mayor Nicoli noted that Metro money could only be used to purchase
property from a willing seller; the City could not condemn property
with Metro money. Councilor Scheckla said that he had not been
suggesting that.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the focus of the hearing was on the zone
change issue. He stated that he has not yet heard anyone explain
the relevance of the wetlands issue. Councilor Scheckla said that
he also had concerns about the transportation element based on
Washington County and ODCT's comments.
Councilor Moore asked how the amount of traffic to the site could be
controlled through a condition. Ms. Nicholson reported Scott King
of Washington County suggested to control the number of trips by the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 22
.. . . .
, square footage allowed for the development. She said that they
looked at land use and the ITE manual to see how many trips the land
use generated and then based the amount of square footage allowed on
that formula. She s'aid that the traffic study showed that the
proposed development would have fewer trips than development under
the existing zoning.
f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
g. Council Consideration.
Mayor Nicoli said that the relevant testimony from both sides was
correct. He said that he could see why the Planning Commission went
through the exercise they went through. He commented that they have
identified a problem which must be dealt with: specifically the
conflicts between a commercial development next to an established
single family neighborhood. He said that he could go either way,
although he did not like the options that came with either a ��yes"
vote or a "no" vote.
Councilor Moore emphasized that regardless of the zoning of this
parcel, there would be problems. He said that any kind of
development would have to go a traffic analysis and design review.
He said that he didn't have much faith in traffic reports because
different people reached different conclusions. He commented that
, he drove in the area and was aware that traffic was an issue.
- Councilor Hunt said that he had mixed emotions on this also. He
stated that while he saw the need to take care of the safety issues,
he didn' t see how this would develop as anything but commercial. He
_ said that he was still debating which way to go, commenting that if
they denied it now, it might just come back later.
Councilor Rohlf expressed concern at the piecemeal nature of the
planning efforts, noting the structure of the Comprehensive Plan
which encouraged that. He said that he faulted the City for not
looking at the big picture, particularly in reference to traffic.
He commented that this area was already bad and that doing anything
would simply make things worse, especially without stepping back for
a good overview.
Councilor Rohlf noted that staff clearly was not convinced that the
application addressed the traffic situation. The applicant has
indicated that there was a piece of property that would probably
hold up the road from coming through; therefore, the applicant could
not alleviate the traffic problems that way. He said he sympathized
with the neighborhoods having to contend with cut-through traffic
and potentially heavy vehicles servicing the hotel. He said that he
was strongly leaning towards denial.
Councilor Scheckla stated that he would vote against the application
due to transportation and safety concerns.
In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. Nicholson stated
that she did not think comprehensive plan amendment requests were
subject to the 120 day rule.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to direct
staff to return November 12, 1996 with a fiaal order (Resolution &
' Final Order for denial of Applicant's request) .
Motion was approved by 3-0-2 voice vote of Council present.
(Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Mayor Nicoli and
Councilor Hunt abstained. )
8. COIINCIL CONSIDBRATION: GOAL 5 WETLANDS - AMSND WORR PROGR�,M BY REPLACING
TFiS BCONOMIC, SOCIAL. �]VIRONMSN'TAL (SSBB) APPROACH WITH THE "SAFfi HARBOR"
PLANNING ALT$RNATIV$ AVAILABLS DNDBR THB NSW GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVS RIILES.
This item was postponed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 23
�,
:a��
� �
9. NON AGBNDA ITffiKS: None
10. EXBCIITIVS SSSSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
12 :18 a.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) , (3) , & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues.
15. ADJOURNI�NT: 12:34 a.m.
/� ���� �-�z .-P�-?�.��'.t��1'-c.-�
Attes • �.' Cat i�ine w i�eatley, City Record�
/ � �'
� �
' �"G�'�'C,
M or, City o Tigar
Date: /2�3�CL/
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIN[TTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 24
;� .
Oral Report to Council
I. What
A. Description of proposal-The applicant, Dr. Davis, is requesting a
comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from Low-Density Residential
to Commercial Professional on a 4.5 acre parcel.
B. Reason for proposal- The applicant's development plan is to construct a
6,000 square foot restaurant and to allow the developer to re-orient the hotel that
is already approved on the adjacent parcel.
C. Location- The property is located on the south side of Oak Street, between
SW Greenburg Road and SW Hall Boulevard. Highway 217 borders the
southern part of the property. The affected site is generally vacant except for
some single family houses.
Go to Transparancy
Properties to the northwest and east are zoned Low-Density Residential. The
southwestern corner of the affected site is zoned Commercial Professional.Th°
appiican �wns-#�e-pr�ertY-adjacefl#-to-tf�af.fecte�sit�.
D. Review Comments
• We recieved letters from ODOT and Washington County recommending that
the application be denied, if the plan amendment is not limited to a specific
use or limited to a certain number of trips. City engineering supported
ODOT's and Washington County's position and also stated that no method of
enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place traffic
volume limits on development.
• Metro sent a letter stating support for the plan amendment because it is
compatible with the 2040 plan for this area.
• Staff also received a letter signed the "Concerned Neighbors," requesting that
the proposed plan amendment be denied. They cite many concerns with the
proposed plan amendment. Many of the issues discussed would be
addressed through site development review. Issues they mention that are
relevant to the plan amendment application include: traffic, lack of bus
service, and economic impacts to Washington Square and Lincoln Center.
• Today we received� additional letters. One from Washington County
stating they could support the plan amendment, if a condition were placed on
��,�.�� '-�i�i#tt�-th�e-atl we num er o rips. Widmar Pacific, which is the owner and
� �1q.s-� developer of Washington Square, submitted a letter supporting denial of the
, ��
`-�� P-- �� a e'� `-°
J �"'- �
� �r
� plan amendment if it negatively impacts traffic in the area. We recieved a
letter from Pat Whiting of Citizen Planning Organization #4, recommending
denial of the plan amendment. We also received a letter from the applicant's
attorney saying that the letter from the "Concerned Citizens" should be taken
out of the record because the letter is anonymous. T ��C� ��, 9� ���
r be ke ' e�eco�d. °'���� ���`'�"-
�
E. Staff Recommendation The first issue to consider is if the plan designation is
appropriate for the site. From a land use perspective, staff says no. The 2040
plan for this area is a mix of office and commercial uses. So far, the City has
supported the Regional Center designation for this area. However, the City is
currently not required to comply with Metro's 2040 plan.
The other issue to consider is can the facilities support the land use. According
to Washington County, who has jurisdiction over Greenburg Road, the answer is
no unless the plan amendment is limited to a certain number of trips. Metro,
ODOT, and Washington County are in the process of revising standards for the
roads, so that the transportation system can support the Region 2040 land use
plan. Staff believes now is not the right time for this proposed plan amendment,
until standards are revised for the Metro 2040 plan or when the Regional
Transportation Plan is updated.
The issue for planning commission to address tonight in making their
recommendation is does the City want to be involved in conditioning plan
amendmeni� Traditionally, the City has not conditioned plan amendments.
Placing a condition on plan amendments requires another layer of enforcement
,; cs( for City staff that currently does not exist. The City attorney's office does not
� _ �k� �,� �' , support conditioning plan amendments because of the problem with
, ; �en orcemen : If the use changes on the property or owners change, it will be
� � F� difficult to enforce the plan amendment. Conditional plan amendments may work
q ��J�owners and uses stay the same, otherwise it is difficult to enforce.
- ,c
For the reasons I have mentioned here and outlined in the staff report, staff
recommends denial.
i ,
� ,��;.�
�°"� .�—� Ge�����b
� ,�-�"�v ��,� S �S
� ,�
�� C-�",�,"�� �
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of October 22. 1996 ���
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON �jp-3� �
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ,.��'
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-001 ; Davis/Foreign Mission
PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK�CITY ADMIN OK U'�`�
________________________________________�___________________________________
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change on 4.54
acres from Low-Density Residential to Commercial-Professional?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal at its hearing of October, 7 1996. Staff
finds that the proposal does not satisfy all relevant comprehensive plan criteria and recommends that
the City Council deny CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-01.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed plan map amendment and zone change concerns a parcel located on S.W. Oak Street,
befinreen S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard. The applicant is requesting the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to construct a 6,000 square foot restaurant and
re-orient an already approved hotel on the adjacent parcel. Washington County recommended denial of
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, if the plan amendment is not
conditioned limiting the number of vehicle trips allowed. Staff does not recommend that the City
become involved in conditioning plan amendments. Enforcement of conditional plan amendments is ��
difficult; conditional plan amendments add another layer of regulation that the City is currently not �
prepared to track or enforce. From the legal liability standpoint, a comprehensive plan amendment with �
conditions can put the City in the position of giving inaccurate information regarding allowed land uses. �
The applicanYs submittal includes a narrative and transportation impact analysis. These are included in �
the council packet. The staff report and minutes from the Planning Commission's finro hearings on the `�
proposal are attached. �
______________________________________________________________________________ �
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED �
lf� �� �
1. Approve the proposal and direct staff to return on Nov. 12 with the ordinance and final order for �
adoption by the council. -- ' �
\ ( , � l
2. Deny the proposal and direct staff to return on Nov. 12,with the resolution and final order for , �7
adoption by the counciL _ c.�� �r��� ,,---�--- ��r �-�^ ��- � � S �-.��9 � - °�_ ��
�v� �- a�....,�I-L v�s f.kti rs- C�.._,� �-,�,,_ ��--�-' 1- /'
` 7`� � .. e i{-..�L_. �f` c��7. �d�.-.J_�. c�,.�y, �,/cs. .L._,�,_�J ,�_ �-i., ��-ti.l-c/ )
v.�h�_ �-�.�..,,�. ,—, ,�S; �-�,J- ���-._,�-- ���-�.�-�� `'-.� �-r�1,c�...-�I
� �.� �-ri ,��f a���-•:_._.l- /���/ _
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL NOTES
No direct fiscal impact to the city.
1�
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY DR.
GENE DAVIS.
A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA
96-0006/ZON 96-0001
REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and change the zoning
from Low-Density Residential (R 4.5) to Commercial-
Professional (C-P).
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis
Foreign Mission
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Siegal
W&H Pacific
8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97008
LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of
Highway 217 (Map 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
2. V' ini
The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the
applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial-
Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single
family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street. 3800, and 3900)
1
3. Background Information
The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South
Metzger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density
Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential
(R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning.
This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway
project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan
for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties,
were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When
the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city
council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990.
Since the general consensus' of the neighborhood planning organizations and
citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it
was previous to the PresidenYs Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently
changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the
zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990.
Site Information and Proposal Description
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density
Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C-
P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been
submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved,
the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will
allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel.
A written narrative and transportation analysis was submitted by the applicant and
is included as part of this staff report.
5. Aaency Comments
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented
on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed
plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the.land use change
will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25
1996).
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO� has reviewed the applicant's
traffic study and has concerns regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and
2
. ` 1 ��Y,`-�5 ��o� �,,P
.f'�� ��.�,� �,°� r.,���'
�' �g
� c , �����f',y .
C,°
zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the
intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their
comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of
the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the
plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the
impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system.
Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City
Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25,
1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change be denied. Aside from the transportation issue, Engineering finds the
proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage
and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review
application.
Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan
amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the
proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density
targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional
Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also
states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring
comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation
measures.
Widmar Pacific; owner and developer of Washington Square, submitted a letter on
October 7, 1996 (Exhibit E) supporting staff's recommendation of denial. The
letter states that: "[w]hile Winmar continues to be a strong supporter of
development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Hwy 217 interchange, and
we fully expect to continue our committment to development of our Washington
Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be
undertaken in a planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing
public facilities and services. The letter also expresses concern that the allowed
uses under the Commercial-Professional zone could not be supported by the
planned transportation system.
The applicant's representative, Dave Siegal of W&H Pacific, submitted a letter on
October 7, 1996 (Exhibit F) including language for a conditional plan amendment.
He said that if a condition was placed on the plan amendment limiting the land
use, then Washington County'concerns would be addressed and also that the
applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on his property that would limit the
land uses allowed on the property.
3
Scott King submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit G) to clarify his previous
letter. The letter outlines conditions that would need to be placed on the plan
amendment so that the County could support the plan amendment. His letter
states that the plan amendment would have to be conditioned to a specific number
of trips.
Pat Whiting of CPO #4 submitted a letter on October 7,1996 (Exhibit I) supporting
stafPs recommendation of denial because of potential traffic impacts and
environmental impacts.
Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no
objections to this land use application.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4,
6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32
and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12.
1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-
judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The
change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical
circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was
made in the original land use designation.
The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As
discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule
(660-12-060) are not satisfied.
The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: the
increasing levels of traffic congestion, being located in close proximity to intensive
commercial land uses, and noise represent a change of physical circumstances;
and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan
designation and, in addition, this property was zoned from residential to C-P for the
presidenfial parkway project and the zoning was changed back to residential when
funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthe►more, the applicant quesfions
the suifability of this area for single family residential development.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic
and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical
circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the
4
properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned
zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area
conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area.
Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of
traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many
parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic
and noise.
What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the
existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Professional. It may not have
been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built
adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of �� ��
the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a �,..���,,c,=�'
change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of ��,.r�
Policy 1.1.2. �
Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway
project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development
Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the
course of action regarding land use within the area...in order to re-evaluate
the...Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the
area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods ��,���5
supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved
changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part �,5 ��
of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's
Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional
Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the
Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to
have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has
occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive
plan policy.
2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the
surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the
proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously
mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24,
1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property
owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and
5
advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and
conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a
250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties.
3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of
the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis
placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because
development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local
residents.
4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial
development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been
designated for commercial or industrial uses.
The applicant states that the site should not be considered an area for Low-
Density Residential housing for the following reasons: the property was previously
approved for redesignation as Commercial Professional; this neighborhood has
already been severely impacfed by adjacent commercial development and nearby
roadways; and the redesignation of the subject area may assist redevelopment of
underdeveloped parcels in the area. According fo the applicant, the rezoned parcel
will make the land use compatible with the adjacent parcel to the west and the
land use change would be in conformance with the Region 2040 land use concepf
which designates this area as a Regional Center. 7 ,�
�s �
��' �
Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the ��.�I��
Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040 �' �
Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact
development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local
compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has
been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of
commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the
applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4.
5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This
criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR
660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to
provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or
multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre.
The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of
the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked
6
data regarding the requirement for housing opportunities and found that the
proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family
detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this
policy requirement.
6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
The findings from the applicant's traffic study are as fol/ows:
a. 1999 maximum project sife build out with existing zoning is expected to
generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak
hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed
changed zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM
peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips. The acfual developmenf proposal
is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak
hour frips.
b. A/l of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would
operate at level- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999.
c. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are
LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for both zoning altematives. In the
PM peak hour, fhe levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized
intersections under both zoning altematives with the exception of the S.W.
Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operafes at LOS 8
under both zoning altematives.
d. Although al!of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are
projected to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing
field observations, made by the applicant, indicate that the S.W. Greenburg
traffic experiences progression prob/ems fhrough the corridor. These
existing problems may be partially a/leviated by fhe S.W. Greenburg Road
widening project from the Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Washington
Square Road. However, signal coordinafion improvements should sfill be
considered in 1999 with or without the project to furfher enhance traffic flow.
e. All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or
better in 1999 with the actual development, except for the unsignalized
intersection of S.W. Hal!Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street. In the PM peak
hour the eastbound and westbound fraffic at this intersection will operafe at
LOS F. This deficiency is due primarily to the easfbound and westbound
left tum movements conflicting wifh heavy northbound and southbound
traffic volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As fhe delays become significant, �1�,, 5
traffic will divert to the signalized intersection at S.W. Hall and S.W. Locusf
Street. ��`�
���
��,
7 ' �f�
f. The proposed project access is the southem leg of the new intersection
that would be created with the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak
Street. The applicant says that the mosf efficient design for the project
access is two outbound lanes and one inbound lane.
The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they
have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington
County Senior Planner, Scott King:
"...The 1999 analysis [submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the
P.M. peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington
Square Road and the Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned
capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use
scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m.
peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix
Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis
suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this
link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic
Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service...[B]ased on the
evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
"significantly affecY' the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-
of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that
the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels
identified for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the
region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard
which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or
reject this request."
S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented
on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard
and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-turning
movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through
traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W.
Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She
agreed that the diversion of tra�c to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is
an acceptable approach to allow left turns through this intersection. However, the
letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change ��
could not be supported because the land use change, without conditions attached,
would degrade key intersections in the area. �
City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both
Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for
8
solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington
Square Road.
Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant
cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and
zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development.
Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to
enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to
ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips
conditioned on the plan amendment.
7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating
land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied
because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public
transit in the Washington Square area.
8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional
commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible
manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the
public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of
proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact
�_ on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows:
(1) Spacing and Location
(b) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than
finro sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has
residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side
is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the
north and east are zoned residential.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
cor�qestion or a traffic safetv problem. Such a determination shall be based
on street ca aci . existing and �rojected traffic volumes. the speed limit.
number of turning movements and the tra�c generating characteristics of
the various txpes of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant
cannot meet this criterion.
(3) Site Characteristics
9
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and �rojected
nee . This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54
acres, to accommodate the applicanYs proposed 6,000 square foot
restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved
motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of
the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site
plan.
(b) The site shall have high visibilitv_. This criterion is satisfied because the
southern portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of
adiacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site
design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during
review of a specific development proposal.
(b) It shall be �ossible to incorporate the unique site features into the site
design and development plan. The site does have significant wetlands that
are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review,
the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands.
(c) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining
non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and
activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the
site development review process.
9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural
requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has
been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and
18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and
City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for
notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140.
10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and
procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as
follows:
10
A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following standards:
1. The a�plicable com�rehensive plan policies and map designation: and the
change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the
communitv. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are
reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions).
2. The statewide lap nnina aoals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comqrehensive plan and
ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,
therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable.
Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least
45 days prior to the final decision date.
3. The a�plicable standards of any orovision of this code or other applicable
im�lementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional
District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could
meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional
requirements" for a development. Specific future site development
improvements would be reviewed through the site development review
and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in
section 18.62.
4. Evidence of change in the neiQhborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zonina map as it relates to the
proRerty which is the subject of the development application. See above
under 6.1.
11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be
consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected
transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of
Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of
ODOT. _
Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does
significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W.
Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably
high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road.
11
According to ODOT's letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and
level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak
will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and
westbound left turns. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied
by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street,
which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this
approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on
the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips �
diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut
through traffic created in the neighborhood.
Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg
Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule
(660-12-060).
12. Conclusion
The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning
maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category.
Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular
commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant
review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to
support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been
satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060
are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2),
2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a
6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all
allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning.
Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is
conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a
conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use
change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060),
additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review
which may be difficult to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no
method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place
traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed
zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism
to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit.
As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the
applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use
criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use.
12
C. DECISION
The City Council DENIES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006/ZON
96-0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions.
13
STAFF REPORT
September 30, 1996
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006
Zone Change ZON 96-0001
REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density
Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change
from R 4.5 to CP.
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis
Foreign Mission Foundation
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE
LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of
Highway 217 (Map 1 S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
3800, and 3900).
2. Vii '
The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the
applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial-
Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single
family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street.
On the northwest and east side of the parcel, the adjacent parcels are zoned Low-
Density Residential. The southwestern corner of the affected site is zoned
Commercial Professional and is part of the applicant's property.
1
Washington Square is located west of the site, across S.W. Greenburg Road.
Highway 217 is located to the south; S.W. Oak is Street to the north; and S.W.
89th is to the east. Highway 217 is a four-lane, limited access state
highway/freeway, classified as an arterial in Tigard's comprehensive plan. S.W.
Oak Street is designated as a minor collector street between S.W. Greenburg
Road and S.W. Lincoln Street, and as a local access street east of S.W. Lincoln
Street. S.W .89th is a local access street. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the
jurisdiction of Washington county and is designated as a major collector in
Tigard's comprehensive plan.
3. Background Information
The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South
Metzger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density
Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential
(R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning.
This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway
project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan
for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties,
were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When
the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city
council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990.
Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and
citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it
was previous to the President's Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently
changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the
zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990. .
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density
Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R�L.5 to C-
P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been
submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved,
the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will
allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel.
2
5. Aaency Comments
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented
on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed
plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change
will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25
1996).
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO� has reviewed the applicant's
traffic study and has concerns regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and
zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the
intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their
comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of
the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the
plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the
impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system.
Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City
Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25,
1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change be denied. Aside from the transportation issue, Engineering finds the
proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage
and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review
application.
Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan
amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the
proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density
targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional
Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also
states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring
comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation
measures.
Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no
objections to this land use application.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4,
6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32
and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12.
3
1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-
judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The
change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical
circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was
made in the original land use designation.
The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As
discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule
(660-12-060) are not satisfied.
The applicant c/aims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: the
increasing levels of traffic congestion, being /ocated in close proximity to intensive
commercial land uses, and noise represent a change of physical circumstances;
and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan
designation and, in addition, this property was zoned from residential to C-P for the
presidential parkway project and the zoning was changed back to residential when
funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthermore, the applicanf questions
the suitability of this area for single family residential development.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic
and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical
circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the
properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned
zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area
conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area.
Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of
traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many
parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic
and noise.
What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the
existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Professional. It may not have
been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built
adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of
the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a
change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of
Policy 1.1.2.
4
Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway
project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development
Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the
course of action regarding land use within the area...in order to re-evaluate
the...Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the
area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods
supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved
changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part
of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's
Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional
Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the
Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to
have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has
occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive
plan policy.
2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the _
surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the
proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously
mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24,
1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property
owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and
advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and
conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a
250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties.
3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of
the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis
placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because
development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local
residents.
4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial
development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been
designated for commercial or industrial uses.
The applicant states that the site should not be considered an area for Low-
Density Residential housing for the following reasons: fhe property was previously
approved for redesignation as Commercia/ Professional; this neighborhood has
5
already been severely impacted by adjacent commercial development and nearby
roadways; and the redesignation of the subject area may assist redevelopmenf of
underdeveloped parcels in the area. According to the applicant, the rezoned parcel
will make the land use compatible with fhe adjacent parcel to the west and the
land use change would be in conformance wifh fhe Region 2040 land use concept
which designates this area as a Regional Center.
Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the
Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040
Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact
development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local
compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has
been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of
commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the
applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4.
5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This
criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR
660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to
provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or
multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre.
The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of
the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked
data regarding the requirement for housing opportunities and found that the
proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family
detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this
policy requirement.
6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
The findings from the applicant's traffic study are as follows:
a. 1999 maximum project site build out with existing zoning is expected fo
generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak
, hour frips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed
changed zoning is expected to generafe approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM
peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour frips. The actual development proposal
is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak
hour trips.
6
b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would
operate at level- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999.
c. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are
LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for bofh zoning altematives. In the
PM peak hour, the levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized
intersecfions under both zoning altemafives with the excepfion of the S.W.
Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operates at LOS 8
under both zoning altematives.
d. Alfhough all of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are
projecfed to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing
field observations, made by the applicant, indicate that the S.W. Greenburg
tra�c experiences progression problems through the corridor. These
existing problems may be partially alleviated by the S.W. Greenburg Road
widening project from the Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Washington
Square Road. However, signal coordinafion improvements should still be
considered in 1999 with or withouf the project to further enhance traffic flow.
e. All of the study area intersections are projecfed to operate at LOS D or
better in 1999 with the actual development, except for the unsignalized
intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street. In the PM peak
hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate at
LOS F. This deficiency is due primari/y to the eastbound and westbound
left fum movements conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound
traffic volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As the delays become significant,
tra�c will divert to fhe signalized intersection at S.W. Hall and S.W. Locusf
Street
f. The proposed project access is the southem leg of fhe new intersection
thaf would be created with the extension of S.W. Linco/n Street fo S.W. Oak
Street. The applicant says fhat the most efficient design for fhe project
access is two outbound lanes and one inbound lane.
The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they
have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington
County Senior Planner, Scott King:
"...The 1999 analysis [submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the
P.M. peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington
Square Road and the Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned
capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use
scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m.
peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix
Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis
suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this
7
link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic
Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service...[B]ased on the
evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
"significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-
of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that
the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels
identified for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the
region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard
which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or
reject this request."
S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented
on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard
and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-turning
movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through
traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W.
Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She
agreed that the diversion of traffic to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is
an acceptable approach to allow left turns through this intersection. However, the
letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change
could not be supported because the land use change, without conditions attached,
would degrade key intersections in the area.
City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both
Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for
solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington
Square Road.
Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant
cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and
zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development.
Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to
enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to
ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips
conditioned on the plan amendment.
7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating
land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied
because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public
transit in the Washington Square area.
8
8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional
commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible
manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the
public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of
proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact
on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows:
(1) Spacing and Location
(b) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than
two sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has
residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side
is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the
north and east are zoned residential.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or ex�ansion of an existing area shall not create trafFc
congestion or a trafFc safetv nroblem. Such a determination shall be based
on street capacity. existing and pro�ected traffic volumes. the speed limit.
number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of
the various tvqes of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant
cannot meet this criterion.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and proiected
needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54
acres, to accommodate the applicanYs proposed 6,000 square foot
restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved
motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of
the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site
plan.
(b) The site shall have high visibilitx. This criterion is satisfied because the
southern portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privac� of
adiacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site
9
design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during
review of a specific development proposal.
(b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unic�ue site features into the site
design and development plan. The site does have significant wetlands that
are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review,
the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands.
(c) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining
non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and
activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the
site development review process.
9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural
requirements for review of quasi judicial plan amendments. The application has
been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and
18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and
City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for
notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140.
10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and
procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as
follows:
A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following standards:
1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map desianation: and the
change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the
communitv. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are
reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions).
2. The statewide planning aoals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197. until acknowledament of the comprehensive plan and
ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,
therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable.
Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least
45 days prior to the final decision date.
10
3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other a� lip cable
implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional
District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could
meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional
requirements" for a development. Specific future site development
improvements would be reviewed through the site development review
and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in
section 18.62.
4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the com�rehensive plan or zonina map as it relates to the
, prop� which is the subject of the development application. See above
under 6.1.
11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be
consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected
transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of
Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of
ODOT.
Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does
significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W.
Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably
high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road.
According to ODOT's letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and
level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak
will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and
westbound left turns. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied
by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street,
which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this
approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on
the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips
diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut
through traffic created in the neighborhood.
Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg
Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule
(660-12-060).
12. Conclusion
11
The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning
maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category.
Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular
commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant
review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to
support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been
satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060
are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2),
2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a
6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all
allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning.
Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is
conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a
conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use
change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060),
additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review
which may be difficult to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no
method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place
traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed
zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism
to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit.
As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the
applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use
criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 96-0001 and Zone Change ZON 96-0001.
At the October 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-1
to DENY the application.
Section 18.32.280 of the Community Development Code states that an application
that has been denied may resubmit for the same or similar proposal, without a time
limitation, if there is a substantial change in facts or a change in City policy which
would change the outcome. Staff believes this section of the code applies to the
applicant because the revision of Metro's level-of-service could change the
evaluation of the traffic impacts of the applicant's proposal. When this revision
occurs or when Metro's Regional Transportation Plan is updated, staff
12
recommends that the applicant consider re-submittal of the plan amendment and
zone change.
13
� � Exxrerr�
� WASHINGTOIV COUNTY
�'��� OREGON
.�, t;�. .
September 25, 1996
Lori Nicholson
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: CPA 96-006/ZON 96-0001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this pian amendment request. As you are aware, County
staff has only had a couple of days to review the materials in this request. The request seeks to change
a 4.54 acre site currently designated R-4.5 (Low Density Residential) to Commercial Professional (CP).
When reviewing the potential impacts to the Counry road system from plan amendment requests under
OAR 660-12-060, Washington County requires a comparative reasonable worst case traffic analysis for
both the existing plan designation and the proposed plan designation. This traffic analysis should be
based on the year 2005, which is the planning horizon for the County Transportation Plan. In this case,
SW Greenburg Road is a County minor arterial which is also included as part of the countywide road
system.
The reasonable worst case land use assumptions for this analysis appear to be acceptable for this
analysis, however the year 1999 planning year does not fully address the potential impacts to the
County's planned transportation system. Nevertheless, the 1999 analysis does indicate that in the P.M.
peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the Hwy 217 ramps
will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use
scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips over the
existing Zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix Traffic Impact Study). In addition, the intersection level
of service analysis suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this link of
Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic Impact Study) will not operate at
acceptable levels of service. Finally, Section VII of the plan amendment application (Discussion of
Transportation and TPR Issues) from Wilsey & Ham has no analysis or discussion about impacts to
Greenburg Road.
We understand that this proposal mav be consistent with the 2040 "Regional Center" designation for this
area regarding land use density, however, the region has yet to define what the acceptable
transportation system is to support these densities. While the County supports the idea of increased
densities in the region to offset the need to add additional lands within the UGB, we also believe that the
region and local governments need to know what the impacts of the increased density will be as it
relates to a functional transportation system. Until the future transportation issues are settled, local
governments are legally bound by their acknowledged comprehensive plans and current state laws. The
current regional level of service standard from the Regional Transportation Plan, which plan amendments
must be measured against, continues to be at the "D/E" boundary. Based on requirements of OAR 660- .
12-060 and the findings above, this proposal would "significantly affect" the planned transportation
system, especially the planned capacity SW Greenburg Road. Metro, is currently in a planning process
which will seek to define a new regional level of service standard by which plan amendments to
implement the 2040 Growth Concept may be measured. Based on the ongoing regional transportation
planning efforts, we believe it would be in the best interests of all affected parties to delay final action on
Department of Land Use &Transportation • Plaaaing Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14. Hillsboro,OR 97124-3072
phone: (503)640-3519 • fax: (503) 693-4412
any plan amendments where transportation is "sign'rficantly affected° until the long range planning efforts
are complete. At that time, plan amendments can be evaluated against the future vision for the area.
In conclusion, based on the evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
°significantly affect° the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-of-senrice of SW Greenburg
Road. Washington County recommends the Ciry either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak�trip
levels ident'rfied for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the region to develop a
transportation system and new level-of-senrice standard which would allow higher densities under the
Region 2040 Concept, or reject this request.
If you have any questions, please call me at 681-3961.
L;`%l�/ '
Scott King �
Senior Pianner
c: Mark Brown
.. EXHIBTT�
n
September 27, 1996
City of Tigard
DEPARTMENT OF
Planning Division TRANSPORTATION
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223 Region 1
Att: Nels Mickaelson PLA9-2A-TIG
Re: CPA96-006/ZC96-0001: Davis/Foreign Mission FILECODE:
Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in the
review of this proposed zone change. Our comments are as follows:
• The subject property is located in close proximity to the OR 217-
Greenburg Road interchange. According to the Oregon Highway Plan
(1591j , OR 217 is classified as a highway of Statewide significance.
The management objective for OR 217 is to "provide for safe and
efficient high to moderate-speed operations with limited
interruptions of flow in urban and urbanizing areas." The Hall .
Boulevard section of the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway (Hall Boulevard)
is also a state facility in this vicinity.
• Our staff traffic analyst has reviewed the traffic report submitted
by Parametrix. As the attached memo by Kristy Hitchen summarizes,
projected levels of service at several key intersections in the area
would be at or above LOS D under the Background and Existing Zoning
scenarios. The Re-zoning scenario, however, shows that the most
intensive uses allowed under Tigard's CP zoning would further degrade
the level of service at several key intersections in the study area.
• Therefore, ODOT cannot support a comprehensive plan amendment/zone
change for Parcel B at this time. However, we would support the plan
amendment if a condition were to be placed upon this land use change
limiting its application to the land use proposed in the current
application.
Please call me at 731-8282 if you have further questions regarding the
above.
onya en, P1 er
Development Review
cc: Kristy Hitchen, Trans. Analyst, ODOT Region 1
Robert Schmidt, Engr. Coord. , ODOT District 2A
Laurie Nicholson, Planner, ODOT Region 1
encl: 1
123 NW Flanders
Portland,OR 97209-4037
(503) 731-5200
�s¢isso(ii-9�) FAX (503) 731-8259
. �
�h.0 •
� n
August 26, 1996
� : C/°F! 96 - D�v�/z C 96 -boo �
INTEROFFICE
To: Evelyn Rayfield MEMO
From: Christy Hitchen
Subject: Davis Property Zone Change
I have reviewed the Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation Rezone Traffic Impact Study prepared by
Parametrix, Inc.,July 1996. The analysis accessed the transportation impacts related to a comprehensive
plan and zone designation for a 4.54-acre piece of property north of Highway 217 and east of Greenburg
Road. The project site consists of two adjacent parcels, Pazcel A and Parcel B. The southern Parcel A is
9.71 acres and zoned commercial. The northern Parcel B is 4.54 acres with a residential zoning. The
current project site plan calls for the rezone of Parcel B from residential to commercial.
The traffic analysis performed by Parametrix used HCM methodologies to evaluate intersection level of
service. While this is an acceptable methodology to analyze operating conditions,ODOT generally
requests that volume to capacity ratios be reported in addition to average delay. Using the Signalized
Intersection Analysis Program(Sigcap)and the 1999 traffic volumes for the Background,Existing Zoning,
and Rezoning scenarios I performed additional analysis on all of the signalized intersections within the
study area and determined that they will operate at or above a LOS D under the Background and Existing
Zoning scenarios. However, under the Rezoning scenario,the Greenburg/Washington Square intersection
will operate al a LOS E(.93)during the p.m.peak period. The unsignalized intersection analysis revealed
that the Hall Boulevard/Oak Street intersection's stop controlled movements will operate at LOS F under
the Background scenario. The report concluded that the left and throuah movements from Oak Street
would divert to the less congested signal at Locust StreedHall Boulevard. Under this assumption the
Locust StreebHall Boulevard intersection will continue to operate at acceptable level of service in year
1999.
The 1999 future traffic conditions without the project(Background scenario)were estimated by
determining the trip aeneration and distribution characteristics related to the development of 80 to 90
percent buildout of the vacant property in the study area. These volumes were consistent with the
projected traffic volumes used in the Highway 217/Greenburg Interchange analysis recently performed by
ODOT.
The 1999 maximum project site buildout with existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 4,694
daily,636 AM peak hour,and 596 PM peak hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the
proposed changed zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily,896 AM peak hour,and 823
PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak
hour,and 384 PM peak hour trips.
If the site is developed to its maximum allowable under the commercial zoning it appears that mitigation
, may be needed at the Greenburg/Washington Square intersection to maintain an acceptable 1999 LOS.
However, if the site is developed as proposed under the commercial zoning(300 room hotel, 125 room all
suites hotel,and a 6,000 gsf restaurant)then the traffic impacts to Greenburg Road and the Highway 217
interchange are expected to be less than those under the existing allowed zoning.
If you have any question, please feel free to contact me at 731-8220.
731-0281 (9-91)
� EX�IIB�'T G
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: September 25, 1996
TO: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division
FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer
RE: CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001, DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN
MISSION
Description:
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600,
3700, 3800 and 3900, WCTM 1S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east
of SW 95th Avenue, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional
and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP.
Findings:
1. Streets:
This site is south of and adjacent to SW Oak Street and northeast of and
adjacent to Highway 217. The entrance to this site will likely come from a
southern extension of SW Lincoln Avenue to Oak Street. A southern
extension of Lincoln Avenue is depicted on the City's Transportation Map.
SW Oak Street is classified as a minor collector street between SW
Greenburg Road and SW Lincoln Avenue. East of Lincoln Avenue, SW
Oak is classified as a local residential street.
SW Lincoln Avenue is classified as a minor collector street connecting
Oak and Locust Streets.
A traffic impact study was prepared by Parametrix, Inc., dated July 1996.
The report analyzed local intersections that may be impacted by this zone
change. The study considered the following intersections:
* SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street (signalized)
* SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road (signalized)
" SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 NB ramps (signalized)
'` SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 SB ramps (signalized)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 1
" SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street (signalized)
* SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street (unsignalized)
* SW Greenburg/SW Oak Street (unsignalized)
" SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street (unsignalized).
The traffic impact study has been reviewed by ODOT and Washington
County staff.
Under build out conditions with the existing zoninq, 1999 traffic predictions
indicate most intersections in the area will operate at level of service
(LOS) of D or better, which is typically acceptable. One exception to this
is the intersection of SW Oak and SW Hall Boulevard, which is an
unsignalized intersection and will experience LOS of F during the PM
peak. However, the study indicates that vehicles could divert to the SW
Locust Street/Hall Boulevard intersection where there is a signal and the
level of service would remain acceptable (D or better). Comments
received from ODOT staff indicate this would be acceptable. Another
intersection that will experience problems in at SW Lincoln Street and SW
Locust Street. During the PM peak, this intersection will have a LOS F for
the northbound approach.
Considering the maximum allowable site build out under the proposed
zone chanae (most intense allowable uses), the report indicates no
change in LOS befinreen existing zoning and proposed. However, ODOT
staff disagreed with the methodology of the traffic study because
Parametrix only considered vehicle delay in determining level of service.
ODOT typically analyses volume-to-capacity ratios. ODOT performed an
additional analysis on the intersections and found that with the zone
change, the intersection of Greenburg and Washington Square Road will
operate at LOS E during the PM peak. ODOT is concerned about this
impact and stated that if the site were developed as per the applicant's
intentions, the traffic impact is expected to be less than under maximum
allowable conditions. ODOT would support the zone change if the City
can place a condition of approval on the zone change to guarantee that
the site is developed per the applicant's proposal.
A Washington County review resulted in similar conclusions by finding
that the proposed zoning would add 113 P.M. peak hour trips over the
traffic volume expected from the existing zoning that already exceeds the
planned capacity of Greenburg Road befinreen Washington Square Road
and Highway 217. The County recommended that the application not be
currently approved unless P.M. peak trip levels are limited to those
expected from the existing zoning.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 2
No method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that
would place traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted
by the proposed zoning. Moreover, no improvements to mitigate the
effects of the increased traffic have been proposed.
2. Water:
There are existing public water lines in this area that will adequately serve
this development.
3. Sanitary Sewer:
The existing sanitary sewer system in this area is expected to adequately
serve this development. Sewer demands for commercial development is
expected to be less than demands from residential development.
4. Storm Drainage:
Upon development, the applicant will be required to provide a drainage
basin study and storm plan for the development. A downstream analysis
will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts from the
development. Staff does not expect the storm drainage impact to be
significantly different because of the zone change.
5. Storm Water Quality:
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM)
regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
(Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which
require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. Upon
development, the applicant will be required to provide on-site water quality
facilities as required by R&O 91-47.
Recommendation: �
Based on the traffic concerns expressed in the comments received from ODOT
and Washington County staff, it is recommended the CPA and zone change be
denied.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 3
APPROVED:
Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer
I:1ENG�BRIANR\COMMENTS\CPA96-06.BDR
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 4
. +rn111�11 L�
6 D 0 N c. n E A 5 T G R A N D A V E N U E I P O R T L A N D. O R E G O . 7 3 7 2 7 3 6
T E L 5 0 3 7 9 7 I 7 0 0 F A X 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 9 7
''I1III :''�:�y
...,:���.r
r„ /,//�i
= �:i
M ETRO
August 27, 1996
Mr. Nels Mickaelson
City of T;gard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard .
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Nels:
Re: Proposed Comprehensive P/an Amendment CPA 96-0006/Zone Change ZON 96-
0001 (Da vis/Foreign Mission)
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment and zone change on the Dr. Davis property. The subject property is
located in the Washington Square area. The 2040 Growth Concept identifies this area as
a Regional Center. As such, the area would become a focus of compact development,
redevelopment and high-quality transit service serving the southwest metropolitan region.
While Metro does not, at present, require compliance of local comprehensive plans to
regional policies, implementation measures for regional goals and objectives, including
the Regional Center design type, are currently being considered by the Metro Council.
Tne Urban Growih Uianagement Functional Plan, which contains these measures, will
recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and ordinances
to accommodate the design concepts. The Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the Metro
Council in October of this year.
According to the August 6 draft of the Functional Plan, local comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances shall permit a target density of 60 persons per acre for housing
and employment in the Regional Centers. The Davis proposal to rezone 4.5 acres from
Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional would support the Regional Center
designation, helping the City to meet the target density for this area. Metro supports
efforts to allow land uses that provide a variety of goods and services while increasing
employment opportunities in compact centers. In addition, design elements that better
serve pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel are key factors for the implementation of the
2040 Growth Concept.
Recyrlyd P�pe.
Mr. Nels Mickaelson
City of Tigard
August 27, 1996
Page 2
The conclusions in this review of CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 are preliminary to adoption
of the Functional Plan requirements. The 2040 Growth Concept states regional policies
that only become directty applicable to comprehensive plans upon adoption of Functional
Plan provisions. Tigard remains responsible for the compliance of its adopted plans and
zoning with applicable functional requirements.
If you have any c�uestions regarding this letter, please contact me at 797-1808.
Sincerely,
�����
Ray Valone
Associate Regional Planner
Growth Management Services
RV/erb
I:\GM\V ALON E\TIGDRESP.LTR
cc: Larry Shaw
Mary Weber
REC'D 0 C T 0 9 1995
WINMAR PACIFIC, INC.
700 FIFTH AVENUE Telephone:(206)223-4500
2600 GATEWAY TOWER Repiy to: P.O.Box 21545
SEATTLE,WA 98104-5026 Seattle,WA 981 11-3545
October 7, 1996
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - CPA 96-0006
Zone Change ZON 96-001
Davis/Foreign Mission Foundation
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of Winmar Pacific, Inc. ("Winmar"), I oi�'er these comments in opposition to the above- �
referenced application. As you may know, Winmar is the owner and developer of Washington
Square and, accordingly, has extensive economic and real property interests which would be
substantially affected by this proposal. I would request that these written comments be made a
part of the Commissions record in this proceeding.
We have come to learn of this proposed map amendment application only recently and we have
yet to review the entire file in detail. Nonetheless, our preliminary review of the proposal,
together with the staff report, lead us to urge the Commission to support the staff
recommendation of denial of the application in its present form. While Winmar continues to be a
strong supporter of development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Highway 217
interchange, and we fully expect to continue our commitment to development of our Washington
Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be undertaken in a
planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing availability of public facilities and
services.
As the staffs for the City of Tigard, Washington County and the Oregon Department of
Transportation have indicated, the existing transportation system servicing this site and
surrounding properties such as Washington Square cannot accommodate additional development
of the magnitude to be allowed under this designation. While the applicant insists that the
purpose of the proposal is to develop a restaurant and allow re-orientation of an otherwise
approved motel on the adjacent parcel, it is apparent that the full intensity of allowed uses,
coupled with the extraordinary number of associated new vehicular trips onto the system, which
would be allowed under this proposal, must serve as the basis for any determination of
compliance with applicable comprehensive plan and ordinance criteria. As, once again, the staff
report confirms, such infrastructure capacity is not available at the present time and there are no
Tigard Planning Commission ,
October 7, 1996
Page 2
solutions offered to resolve these deficiencies. As a result, we believe that the Commission has no
choice but to reject the application based on the information made available at this time.
It is apparent to all involved that the subject site and sunounding properties owned or formerly
owned by the applicant are ideally situated for redevelopment. It is also apparent, however, that
any approach toward such development should follow a master plan model which serves to link
projected development with needed infrastructure improvements. Regardless of whether this is
accomplished on a phasing or other basis, we strongly believe that any decision to move forward
with piecemeal applications of this nature will lead to unforeseen cumulative impacts which can
only serve to diminish the current level of service available to existing properties and otherwise
discourage development of this designated regional center.
Given the tenuous level of service available today and the ability to coordinate the type and
location of development on this large single tract of vacant land, we believe that the City and the
region as a whole should demand master planning as the only viable approach. To this end, we
respectfully request that the Commission reject the current application under review.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and please do not hesitate to have your
staff contact me if you have any questions regarding our position. Otherwise, I would appreciate
it if we could continue to be apprised of subsequent hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council pertaining to this proposal.
Very truly yours,
V�JINMAR P IC, C.
,:
i'
J. Ra y K e
TRK/gpk
cc: Ms. Laurie Nickleson
Mr. William Monahan
Mr. Steven L. Pfeiffer
NIr. Jack Reardon
Y'
: I PACIFI�.
R405 S.�V. Nimbus Avenuc
Bcavcrton.OR 97005-7120
,
October 7, 199G
City of Tigard Planning Commissioners
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevazd
Tigard,Oregon 97223
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006
Zone Change ZON 96-0001
The purpose of this letter is twofold:
1. To"bring you up to speed"on recent activities concerning the request of Dr. Davis to change the plan and
zoning designation of approximately 4.5 acres from"residential"to"commercial professional"; and
2. To request the Commission to recommend approval of the proposal,with a condition limiting the future use of
the property.
On Friday, September 27th,I learned that my client's (Dr. Davis)request for a zone and plan change had received a
sta$'recommendation for denial. According to the report(and subsequent visits and conversarions with sta�,sta$'s
concerns center around 1)the potenrial impact of the plan/zone change upon the transportation system;and 2)the
granting of a plan/zone change with conditions. I believe there is a way to sarisfy both the needs o£Dr. Davis and of
the city staff.
By way of background regarding recent acrions taken to address staff's concerns,staff has received a new letter from
Washington County(October 7, 1996,copy attached)clarifying their earlier review of the proposal,and indicating no
concern with the proposed change,if conditioned to limit the future uses to those less intensive as proposed by the
applicant(uses related to the operation of a hotel and restaurant,see Option A,county's letter) . This is similar to the
comment offered by the Oregon Department of Transportation in their review of the proposal. In addition,I met with �
city staff on Thursday,October 3,to explore the potential for granting a plan/zone change wlth conditions limiting
future use, a course of action used by many communities. Staff was very helpful,but indicated their concerns over the
tracl:ing of such condirions. Staff asked if Dr. Davis might be willing to consider recording a deed restriction against
the properry,so that the responsibility for enforcing the future use of the property would fall upon him. Dr. Davis has
considered this suggestion, and is willing to record a deed restriction go��erning future use of the property, as
suggested by staff.
Given that the two areas of concern to City stai�'ha��e been addressed,it appears that the reasons for a recommendation
of denial have been resolved, and that approval is appropriate. Accordingly,it is requested that the Commission
recommend granting of the requested plan/zone change,under t6e condition that subsequent future development
of the property be limited to a hotel, restaurant,associated access,parking and landscapiog,and commercial
uses in support of hotel, restaurant and nearby office uscs.
I'll look fonvard to discussing tlus issue with you at the public hearing. Thanl:you for your consideration.
S erely,
W&�PACIFIC TN��—,
� -__� � �`
David�1. Siegel,AICP
�—S�Project Manager
Attachment
(503)626-0455 Fax(503)526-0775 Plannin�•Engineering•Survevin�•Landscape Architecture•Environmental Services �
I
, UL.I !7r 7G 171��:�r'i'� wn`,.� �.ni7u �J.=+L• �nnl l�r •- -
� WAShtNGTON COUN�Y
� OREGON
�
October 7, 1996
YIA FAX
Lorf Nichdson
Ctry of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Bivd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: CPA 96-006/ZON 96-0001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION
I am sending this letter as a supplemerrt to my letter of September 25, 1996, regarding the above noted
lar�d use action, The recommendation in that letter is based on our analysls of the traffic impacts
associated with the reasonable worst case land use assumptions for both the existing and proposed
la�d use districts on the 4.54 acre Davis site. Our recommendation was not based on the applicant's
stated proposal for actual development of the total site If the plan amendment ls successful.
Based on the land use and trip generation data fncluded on pages 25 through 27 of the Parametrix
Traffic Analysis where potential trip generation (s compared to the appllcant's development plans, the
County would suppoR this plan amendment if the City is willing to Iimlt the plan amendment as folfows:
a) Limit development of the total project site (Parcel A - 9.7t ac. and Parcel B - 4.54 ac.) to 596 PM
peak hour trlps.
Th/s vip rate ref/eccs the worst case deveJopment of rhe endre 14.25 acre site under the
pxisting land use des/pnabons and is subsiantially higher rhan the rrlps associared wiih
the 8pp/icant's specific deve/opment proposa/desc�/bed on pages 25 and 27 of the
Psrametrix Tiatfic Analysis (300 room hotel, 125 ioom all suifes hotel, and 6,oUU gsl
testauranr, or 38�4 PM peak hour fiips).
OR
b) Limit development of Parcel B (4.5a ac) to 38 PM peak hour trips.
Thls trip rafe reflects ihe worst case developmeni of Parce!B (4.54 ac) under ii►e
existing land use designation.
Either of these scenarios will ensure that trafiic impacts associated with this plan amendment request wll
not `signiFicantly affect` SW Greenburg Road. If you have any questions please catl me at 68�-3961.
�-��
Scott King �
Senior Planner
c: Mark Brown
Dave Siegel
Departmeat of Land Uae 8t TYaneportation � Plaaning Divieioa
155 N Flrst Avenue, Sutte 950-14.Hillsboro.OR 9�124-3072
phone: (5031 640-3519 • fax: (503)693-4412
I
CF_ �-M Steerin9 Comm,
- c/o Pat Whiting , Chair
Ward Rader, Vice-Chair
7617 SW Cedarcrest
Portland. Ore, 97223
October 7, 1996
Tigard Planning Commission
c/o CitY of Tigard
Tigard CitY HaLL
13125 SW Hall Blvd,
Tigard. Oregon 97223
RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) 96-0006/zone
change(ZON) 96-0001
Dear Planning Commission;
CP04-M (Citizen Participation Organization 4-M)
Steering Committee has received the public Hearing notice
for the proposed Comp,rehensive Plan Amendment located
southeast of Oak Street, east of S ,W, 95th from Low
DensitY Residential to Commerical Professional with a
zone change from R4, 5 to CP,
This area is part of an important sYStem of water
channeling, wet lantl and a flood plain, Attached is a
proposed map showing the Fanno Creek and Ash Creek sYstem
and the Ash Creek Wetland,
To the north and west of this land is an elementarY
school , resident homes, a� office commerical area and
Washington Square Shopping Center. CurrentlY, traffic
in this and surrounding residential areas has developed
into a major problem with commuters attempting to avoid
Hwy 217 and Hall Blvd to travel to and from Barber and
Hwy I-5,
The proposal before You does not take into consideration
the importance of retainin9 this area in a low density and
use for the necessary wetland , Downhill properties in
Tigard such as ToYs Are Us and other businesses not to
mention other surrounding properties in the Metzger Area
now have major water flooding problems ,
Therefore, we are opposed to this zone change and
request that USA which is conducting a maJor Fanno Creek
Watershed and Ash Creek StudY and the governmental
agencies responsible for traffic mana9ement review this
area before anY zone change is considered,
We respectfullY request that this letter be entered
into the record the evening of October 7, 1996 at the
Planning Commission Meeting , Thank You. �i��%��J�
Pat Whiting
c/o Steering Comm.
, ,
.
.._._..W 1 - ---- ___. _ ..__ _ - _- - _�.._.
�'" _ �
� i _ ,. -
. _ , _ -
; . � �
. . , . , . a„� �
!) Na�
rj rnmo. � , , _ �i .
3 � � � � , - ' � � �r �
i � f- �e �� _.._
:
�E -._. .. — — — .._... _— — .. _
�
:- — ...._. ....... _ — •
, � i_ . , .._.._:. -'-.'- -. .. - II
+� _. _ ' :
_... :
� . ] �
� - _ - � C
� _. � � �
� __._ -_,_ � ` ,e.
� ._� _ '� -. -�. 6M�
�� t I
� .....�. .I..«�_ - . .
_ , �J � �� �:
� o ,�za ----- �;.-.-
� i � �:e� � � �
�,� �' .�
� ..
� �
�
.-�-- - -� -,� , . . ra+w or ' � iu iev I
� i �--`.' � I �1�� �V"
. ; . �
_- .�... �— . ....°'---'--` �
---°-..._� ' —
�r� — — --- — — -r. I._. —
� � � ` ,6a � � I
: ; 1
�� e ew.. ] � � �rm��e ! I r�
fl� � � /
] s :�
�� � f / r — � ( �
$ � '' r '�
l � >�` — � � I
� r � ,,
;
_� � % .��
""'" """"' _ ts9 �rf I "__..
. � � �
°a_ �' 1 �r.' I
� �„ti.� ir� �' � I�
��� Iun GM —�
,�� '/Prep.n � 1 r` I �
BEAVER ''�o- f �ev � 1
.. �
� � '� ere�e� +�' �
�..._ �\ ; i —
'-'_----"- ........
�\\ ,� ,r--- 'La,w �. �u ��eo
� �1 �i � ° y� . ..�.. J K I
{�, _
� ncaao �"'
; ���e�. 'p r �
� � �` q �91 96 -.�-� /�� I
� - . 93 �r �\� I
� E�n Uw �~
..... �' ./�J' """"...' ,• —
� "' �I.._.__.'__'._......".".."_'_._......._.. ...._1......_. �i
�,. wtzq. °--
ul .�'°` I
ti� a� �
f' � 4� .
MIKn�eM °
-^n ciz � ai r � �i
... _ - - ,� ` �� , I
..-� .�.. \ ;
;
�i" \ � I'e � �c� ,� i �-C`.
�\ �, „� ' -�—i°t �
�-+9 _ � � x
� J'/ ' ,ci; �e: / ~ I
-— - — �'�. ¢}�9,.--�__ � _--� .
�� ---- �— - e, I
�,, �a -` ,�
� �� i
�' - ��v.a vea a..k I I
1 � i I
� �=s -,�.�.� � ! �--�-�
� ,s� ...�� �2 Js {' :�-�.
Faano Creek Watershed �t2ad• � �
�
,:?� �iddle Saaao Cseek 4ad Ash Cseek !�" , ;
V f��- _`__;..>-;� , ���..,�.
f . w�p �:• wr .p wr oe�w�a Aopc�ao�eir ��ilKrlll►7HI I
�� �:�r'�uv:�,` +.sem. c.d�--s-�.e. co.� aw I �rwnM1m. ve.++. .or+ r...ns �.w�oa i
� � 0 1.—: � � L..—r , � ' � � 1 �t � �.��SZg. QIC.
p ''m,w�re u.��r°.�
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
An Ordinance Adopting Findings and Conclusions to Approve A Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change by Dr. Gene Davis (CPA
96-0006/ZON 96-01) .
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a comprehensive plan map
amendment and zone change from Low-Density Residential to Commercial-
Professional on a 4 . 54 acre parcel, located on S.W. Oak Street between
S.W. Greenburg Road and S .W. Hall Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division recommends denial of CPA 96-0006/ZON
, 96-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public, hearing for the
proposed plan amendment at its meeting of October 7, 1996 and voted 5-
1 to deny the proposal .
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 : The proposed comprehensive plan map amendment is
consistent with all relevant criteria based upon
findings of fact and conclusions of law as noted in the
attached final order (Attachement A) ;
SECTION 2 : The City Council approves the request to �designate the
parcels as illustrated on the attached map (Attachment
A, Exhibit A) .
SECTION 3 : This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its
passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and
posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present
after being read by number and title only, this
day of , 1996 .
Catherine Wheat/ey, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,
1996 .
ORDINANCE No. 96-
Page 1
�
, �.,
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
�
ORDINANCE No. 96-
Page 2
. � �� / ���./ YJ
\1.•
1 .Y .
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
October 7, 1996
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Wison called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners DeFrang, Griffith,
Holland, Neff, and Padgett
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Anderson, Collson, and Scolar
Staff Present: .Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, Laurie Nicholson,
Associate Planner, Brian Rager, Development Review
Engineer, Liz Newton, Assistant City Administrator, Jerree
Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNtNG COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff asked if any of the Commissioners had
boROwed tapes on the Oregon land use process and quasi judicial system. He
said he would like to get them back. He referred to a memo about the historic
designation of the Tigard Feed Store, saying he would answer any questions
about the case. BewersdorfF then introduced Laurie Nicho(son to the Commission.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0OO6RONE CHANGE (ZON)
96-0001 DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600,
3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW
95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone
Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Sautheast of SW Oak Street, east of SW
95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive
Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development
Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660
Divisio� 12. ZONE: R=4.5 (Single-Family Residentia� allows single-family
detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional
uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and
schools. C-P (ProfessionaVAdministrative Office) allows for business support
services, communication services, medical and dental seniices, personal services,
convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments
PL,3.WNG COhL�IISSION�tEETNG L1NL�'TES- October 7, 1996-Page l
,�
STAFF REPORT
Laurie Nicholson presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She reported that
the property was currently zoned low density residential and that the applicant
proposes to rezone it to commercial-professional. The plan amendment would
allow construction of a 6,000 square foot restaurant and would allow the developer
on an adjacent piece of property to reorient a hotel that has already been
approved. Using a transparency to show the site, she indicated that property to
west was zoned commercial-professional, and property to the east was zoned low
density residential. .
Nicholson said she received letters from ODOT & Washington County
recommending denial if the plan amendment is not limited to a specific use or the
allowed trips are not limited. She stated that the Engineering department
supported the proposal and that she had received a letter from Metro also in
support. She referred� to an anonymous letter from concemed neighbors
requesting denial. She said that many of the concems listed in the letter were
relevant to site development review - traffic, lack of bus service, and economic
impacts to Washington Square and Lincoln Center. �
Nicholson advised that 5 additional letters .received today, including one from
-Washington .County stating they would support the application if a condition was
placed..on.it limiting the allowed.number of trips from the site. She said a letter was
also received from the applicant saying that, if this plan amendment could be
conditioned on a.certain land use, the Planning Commission cou(d recommend
approval to City Council. �
Nicholson stated she had received a letter from Winmar Pacific, owner and
developer of Washington Square, requesting denial because of traffic impacts to
this area. She said they would like to see some type of master plan developed for
the area. Nicholson also referred to a letter received from Pat Whiting, on behalf
of CP04M, opposing the application because of the impact to wetland areas: She
also stated she had received a letter from the applicanYs attomey, demanding that
the anonymous letter from neighbors be taken out of the record. She said the
Commissioners would need to decide if the letter should be taken out of the
record.
Nicholson said staff believes that, from. a land use perspective, the current
designation is not appropriate. She advised that property across the street is
already zoned commercial professional. She said that the Metro 2040 plan for the
area calls for a regional center which is a mix of office and commercial uses. She
said the City supports the regional center designation, but is currently not required
.to support Metro's plan.
PL,��WING COht1�IISSION`�ETING�tINLTES- Octuber 7, 1996-Pa�e 3
c" �
Nicholson said another question to consider is if current facilities can support the
proposed land use. She said Washington County does not believe so, unless the
plan amendment is limited to a certain number of trips. She reported that Metro,
ODOT, and Washington County are currently working on revised standards for
roads so the transportation system can support the 2040 plan. She said that staff
believes this is not the right time for the proposed plan amendment and that the
city should wait until road standards are revised. .
Nicholson questioned if the City wants to be involved in conditioning plan
amendments. She said this would add another layer of enforcement for city staff
and that the City Attomey did not support this because of the enforcement issue.
She brought up a concem of what would happen if the use changes on the
property or if the owners change. She said it would be difFcult to enforce the
condition.
Plicholson advised that staff recommends denial of the application.
Commissioner Griffith asked how trips could be restricted. Nicholson answered
that the square footage could be limited for those uses which are allowed. She
said the City may not be able to allow a use if it wouid generate too many Vips. .
. � : She said conditions would be placed at the site design review phase and would
.�-•�--< not be easy to enforce. She also reported that the numbers may change over time.
���� Commissioner Padgett asked if the City had a policy about anonymous letters.
� `� �� Dick Bewersdorff answered that there was no official policy, but the City Attomey
� had advised that if a letter was pertinent to the case it could be allowed.
President Wilson asked if the potential widening of Greenburg Road was a real
project Nicholson answered yes and that the applicanYs traffic study accounts for
the wider road. Wilson asked if the zone change allowed during the President's
Parkway Urban Renewal project met the same criteria as this application.
Nicholson answered that a condition was placed on the PresidenYs Parkway
project. which required City Council to consider changing the zoning b'ack to
original zones if the project did not pass. Nicholson noted that what has changed
in the area was the level of traffic and more growth, and that we also now have the
Transportation Planning Rule to consider. � �
Commissioner Griffith asked where the wetland and floodplain areas were on the
parcel. Nicholson said it was in the southem portion of the parcel, around Hwy.
217. She said this was� more of an issue for site development review than for the
plan amendmen�
Commissioner Neff asked staff if they could estimate when the transportation
infrastructure would be able to support this proposed project Nicholson said traffic
PL��1NING COI�Il�IISSION�ETIIvG MINLTES= Occoba 7, 1996-Page 3
'r
studies consider transportation projects that may be put in place, such as the
widening of Greenburg Road. She said Metro is now in the process of updating
the regional transportation plan so it can accommodate growth over the next 20
years. Nicholson advised that when Metro looks at projects, they look at the land
use designation for the area and then put a priority on the roads. Neff asked when
the applicant can come back and realistically expect amending the comprehensive
plan. He repeated what Nicholson said earlier that this kind of amendment might
make sense, but we have a traffic issue. Nicholson said Scott King from
Washington County reported that they may have the new level of service
standards by next spring, however the regional transpo�tation plan has a definite
timeline with the latest possibly being December of next year.
Nicholson said the County believes that, if this comp plan amendment was not
conditioned, the area could be over capacity on Greenburg Road by 113 trips
during peak hours.
President Wilson asked about the Phil Lewis School comp plan amendment He
said he believed traffic was the primary issue in that case. Dick BewersdorfF
answered that, in the Phil Lewis case, the property was already zoned, but there
was an inconsistency between the zoning and the comp plan.
- Commissioner Padgett asked if, at time this property was annexed, were the
Lincoln Center and the Unisys building already a part of the City. Nicholson
answered that they were already a part of the city. Commissioner Padgett said he
would like to know, at time the subject property was annexed, if suROUnding
properties were zoned as they are currently. He noted this would be a key
component of change in circumstances. He said that, even if the surrounding
properties were not built, but were already zoned commercial at that time, then the
argument fails.
APPLICANTS PRESENTATION�
Laurie Jackson, W � H Pacfic, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008, spoke
on behalf of the applicant. She said the applicant does not want to wait until the
road standards change, because the change may not happen. She said the traffic
study shows, that with the Greenburg improvements in place, this project could
meet the test with no problem. She said the staff recommended denial is based
entirely on transportation. She reported that Oak and Hall are nat a problem and
; that Locust and Hall are not an issue. She said the big issue is Greenburg Road,
particularly at Washington Square. '
a Jackson said this particular area does not have any wetlands on it and that this
would be a design review issue anyway, not a zone change issue.
PL��INiIvG CO�L�IISSION�tEETI�iG�tIMTi'ES- October 7, 1996-Page 4
j
f�
Jackson advised that the applicant would like to reorient the hotel already
approved for aesthetic and access reasons, bringing it over i�to the property that is
zoned single family. She said an access road would have to be built. She said
that, by the time the hote! paricing is dedicated and the roads and right-of-way are
dedicated, they are only dealing with 2 -21/2 acres of buiidable land.
Jackson addressed the change in circumstance, saying that the changing
urbanization and creation of office structures have made the neighborhood less
desirable for single family homes. She said they believe a mistake was made
when the parcel was originally zoned single family.
Wth regard to cut-through neighborhood traffic, Jackson advised that Oak Street,
Lincoln Street and the Lincoln extension, and Locust Street are all classified� as
collectors. _
Jackson said that the Uaffic study is based an worse case scenarios and did not
take into account some of cross-trips that would be made - pedestrians that would
be walking to more than one site. Jackson went over other aspects of the traffic
, study and service level standards.
� Commissioner Padgett noted that the staff report does not agree with the
�.:;,:,� contention that the increased level of traffic is a change in physical circumstance.
�;� �; Jackson answered that the argument they were using far change in circumstance
`,.,;; was the fact that the surrounding areas were originally zoned R�.S area and that
the iones were changed as various land use requests came in. She said the area
,: has been moving more toward an urban, commercial use rather than residential.
President Wilson asked Jackson to differentiate between signalized and
unsignalized intersections for levels of service. She answered that signalized
intersections are computer controlled and are, therefore, programmable. She said
different methods are used to calculate service level standards. �
David Siegel, W 8 H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR 97008, said
he would like to resolve concems of the staff report. He referred to the new letter
from Washington County supporting the land use action if the City would condition
the zone change, limiting the uses. He said the applicant would agree to record a
deed restriction goveming future use.of the property. He said that if the property
ownership ever changed, a deed research and title report would reveal restrictions.
� He referenced a letter presented to the Commission suggesting possible language
for a condition of approval.._
Siegel referred to page 10 of the. staff report allowing for approval of a zone
change with conditions.
P[..��lNING COhLWSSION�E1"I:vG�tIN[TTES- October 7,-�1996-Page 5
,
Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89th, Tigard, OR 97223, gave a history of the
property, stating he has lived there since 1966. He stated there are no wetlands in
the area being discussed. He noted that the residential aspect of the
neighborhood was declining, saying several houses were vacant and scheduled to
be removed.
Davis said that in 1980 he applied for the property to be annexed. He said he was
the first person to annex in the area, giving an oppo�tunity for others to annex. He
talked about other times when he approached the city to develop his property, but
was discouraged from doing sv because of the traffic impacts.
Davis advised that the hotel was approved by the city last year, but some of
surrounding area was zoned improperly so he couldn't put the parking lot where he
wanted. He said he needed to move the lot line over to have it automatically
included in the correct zoning and was told by staff that, in order to do this, he
would have to do a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change.
Commissioner DeFrang asked if the zone changes for President's Paricway also
included Lincoln Center and Unisys. Davis answered no, saying the buildings .
were already there. He said that no actual zone changes were made that were not ,
changed back when the PresidenYs Parkway election failed.
Commission Holland asked why the zoning was changed back .after the failed
election. Davis reported that he did not request to have his property change back
to the original zoning. Laurie Nicholson advised that the City Council minutes
revealed that Council considered zoning as a condfion of the urban renewal
process, and they had to look at the zoning again after the election faifed. She
said that, at the time, the NPOs wanted to change it back. She said Council had to
consider the whole project, not individual lots.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY- IN FAVOR
Ed Dundon, 5319 SW Westgate Dr. #253, Po�tland, OR 97221, said he was a
broker and had been involved in the Marriott Courtyard project in Tigard. He said
the proposed hotel would be a high quality suites hotel that would be constructed
on a 3.2 acre parcel. He advised that a hotel generates less traffic than other
allowed uses for the zone, such as offices or a restaurant. He said that eventually
a small restaurant or offices may be added to the site.
Dundon said there may be beneficial results that the hotel could bring, e.g., it may
stimulate a LID for Lincoln Street that could direct the flow traffic away from the
higher density area (Greenburg Rd). -
PL.A,�l�IING COhtI�IISSION�tEET[`'G MINUTES- October 7, 1996-Page 6
\,
�L �
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION
Mark Bames, 8815 SW Spn�ce St., Tigard, OR 97223, said he didn't believe a
deed restriction would mean anything to Dr. Davis. He referred to dumping in an
adjacent wetland area. He suggested the Commission look at the past record to
see what goes on.
Todd Kinsley, 8840 SW Spruce, Tigard, OR 97223, said he believed this would be
the first step of a larger development. He expressed concerns with how increased
traffic would be handled. He urged the Commission not to look at it in piece meal
fashion - to make sure proper traffic support was in place first.
John Blomgren, 9460 SW Oak St., Tigard, OR 97223, complained about existing
traffic and said he thought this project was the beginning of more commercial
development He said motorists take short cuts through neighborhood sVeets to
the Metzger area and that the streets are not set up for that kind of traffic. He said
he does not want the wetlands developed.
Jenny Kinsley, 8840 SW Spruce, Tigard, OR 97223, expressed concem for the
. neighborhood with increased traffic and possible flooding. She questioned who .
i:.�' would keep tabs on the development and who would enforce restrictions.
,�,
Cliff Epler, 8845 SW Spruce, Tigard, OR 97223, talked about the President's
�� ,��- Parkway Urban Renewal project and how 82% of the voters declined it. He said
. . he has seen the impact to the neighborhood through other developments and
`v �. believes Davis only wants access to his property to south. He remarked that Davis
�` has already brought in fill and is putting in a roadbed. He wanted it put it in the
record that this will happen. � � �
APPLICANTS REBUTTAL �
David Siegel summarized the applicanYs request and remariced that staff agrees
the current zoning doesn't make sense. He said s;aff is generally supportive, but it
is a matter of timing. He said policy changes may or may not occur and
Washington County can support the change if it could be conditioned to limit uses
on property. � '
Siegel said the proposed use for the property would be a lower intensity use
allowed for the zone. He said these lower intensity uses would be acceptable. He
also noted that the applicant is agreeable to a deed restriction recorded against
the property. -
President Wilson asked if the Planning Commission went with the deed restriction,
what would the wording be. Siegel answered that he gave an example in his letter
that he thought would be acceptable.
PL..�,�'�1IIVG COI�L�tISSION�tEETi,�'G h(I�fUTES- October 7, 1996-Page�7
, ,
. �
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Planning Commission reconvened after a 5 minute break.
Commissioner Ho�land remarked that he has seen what's been happening in the
Metzger area and �elieves that an R-4.5 zone is not applicable. He knows that the
City changed the zoning in the area and then changed it back, but he believes
some areas still should be commercial. He said that since this property is adjacent
to a commercial area, it's hard to deny the request except for the transportation
issue. He said he could approve the request if the applicant agrees to deed
restrictions and zone conditions.
Commissioner Padgett said he thinks the applicant has met the criteria for a
change in circumstances, based on unanticipated development. He said he
believes that at the time property in the area was annexed, the zoning changed
from residential to commercial. He was concemed about.the traffic issue, stating
that the only way they can meet the traffic criteria is to condition the site to a
specific use. He said that, as a policy matter, he is opposed to doing this for comp
plan amendments. He also said, that with regards to the anonymous letter, he
thought it should be a part of record, but he gives all anonymous material zero
weight �
Commissioner DeFrang asked Commissioner Padgett why he was against deed
, restric�tions. He answered that to be use specific, gets us into the mind set of
�looking at comp. plan.amendments based on proposed uses, as opposed to what
, could possibly happen under that zoning.
President Wilson said he recognized the fact that there were broad use zones and
that different uses had different impacts. He agrees that enforcement would be
difficult
Commissioner Griffith said the City has no authority to enforce deed restrictions.
He asked, if the City accepts conditions, what would happen 10 years from now if
the Metro plan worics. He asked what would happen any time the owners want to
amend the use - would they have to come back to the City every time for
� approval? He said the City can only enforce the zoning requirements. He asked
staff what the fiming was for improvements on Greenburg Rd. Laurie Nicholson
said this is a County issue, but the project may start in 1997 or 1998. She advised
that it is a funded project. She also said the traffic study incfuded that project.
Commissioner Holland asked about the proposed hotel that was already approved.
Nicholson acknowledged that the hotel was approved for an adjacent parcel, but
the parcel was already zoned commercial.
PL..��lNII�G COhLWSSION�tEETI�iG�fIVLTES• Occober 7, 1996.-Page 3
a.
,
• . .
Commissioner DeFrang said she wondered about deed restrictions. She thought
the land was suitable for commercial use, not residential. She said she wasn't
sure that deed restrictions was the way to go. She said she was in favor of
denying the application.
Commissioner Wlson agreed, but said it was hard to deny except for the traffic
, issues. He said he doesn't like conditioning the comp plan amendment because of
enforcement problems. He thought deed restrictions might be cleaner and self
enforcing, but he would prefer putting a time limit on the deed restrictions.
The Commissioners discussed the request for removing the anonymous letter from
the record. Commissioner Padgett said he believed that the Commission should
see anything submitted as a part of the record and then they could decide what
measure to put on it.
After further discussion, Commissioner Neff moved to reject the anonymous letter
as a part of the record. Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote
was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0 (5 for and none against).
Commissioner GrifFth abstained.
Commissioner Padgett moved to forvvard a recommendation of denial of the
_ , application based upon findings in the staff report and deliberations.
, Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the
�" :., motion failed by a vote of 2-3 (2 for and 3 against). Commissioners Padgett and
` � DeFrang voted for the motion; Commissioners Wilson, Holland, and Griffith voted
`� against the motion. Commissioner Neff abstained.
Commissioner Holland then moved to. approve the proposal with zone change
conditions and the deed restriction. The Commissioners discussed the wording
suggested by the applicant for the conditions. Commissioner Neff said he did not
think the language was specfic enough and he would want to see the actual
language for the deed before voting on the proposal.
The Commissioners talked about whose responsibility it would be to draft the
actual language. �ommissioner DeFrang asked if it was within the scope .of the
Planning Commission to do this. Commissioner Griffrth asked if the applicant
would like to request a continuance to come back with actual language. The
applicant did not want to do so.
Commissioner Padgett said he did not believe the Planning Department should be
involved with deed restrictions, that the applicant should come back with specific
language.
PLA,�I�1NG COtiLtitiSSION V�ETING LiMJT'ES- Oc�ober 7, 1996-Page 9
.
Commissioner Holland changed his motion, moving to approve the application with
a comment to City Council to consider conditions and the deed restriction.
There was no second to Holland's motion.
Commissioner Padgett again moved to forvvard a recommendation of denial based
on the findings in the staff report and testimony and deliberations heard.
Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-1 (5 for and �1 against). Commissioners Wilson, DeFrang,
Padgett, Griffith, and Neff voted for the motion; Commissioner Holland voted
against the motion. _ . �
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Assistant City Administrator Liz Newton spoke to the Commission about the
Visioning Process and what to expect over the next 16 months. She introduced
John Williams who is an intem and is helping with the project.
She explained that�sioning is putting together a road map with the community as
to how we want the community to be in the future. She said this could encompass
anything the community is interested in, focusing on over the next 20 years.
Newton said there would be an end product�that will be usable. She showed a
pamphlet from Sherwood that they have done for their Vsioning process. She
also explained that the School District is a partner in this.process and that students
will be surveyed. .
She said the plan is to come up with issues that people are concemed about and
come up with goals and objectives to address these concems. She said there
would also be recommended action strategies. She advised there would be a
report to the citizens every year telling them how we are doing in accomplishing
the goals.
She went over the timeline for the project and noted there are 37� presentations
scheduled to different groups.
Newton went through an exercise with the Commissioners, having them describe
Tigard to someone from another part of the world who is p(anning to relocate here.
The Commissioners gave the following descriptive words/phrases: -
• attractive tax rate
• heavy traffic
• community involvement
• great shopping
• convenient
PLA�'ITtG COtiL�IISS[O�!�,fEETI�IG�[INLTES- October 7, 1996-Page (0
�-
• centrally located
• c�utstanding Planning Commission
• f;iendiy
• lack of identity
e losing our historical buildings
• Old Town not so old
• centralized city services
• good schools
• lOUSy high SCh001 �
Newton then asked the Commissioners the same question,.only 20 years from
now. They gave these responses:
• won't be here
o horrendous traffic
o worse air pollution
e higher density - more neighbors
• crowded schools
�� o lack of identity
� o infill
• suburb of Portland
��' ' • want to get rid of crime; probably worse crime
''` � • tele-commuting
;
� 6. ADJOURNMEIdT
The meeting adjoumed at 10:15 p.m.
,
;; ,: :._.���...,. �
Jerr� Gaynor, Planning"Commission Secretary
ATyEST: President Nick Wlson . �
/
PL.��I�1I�IG CO�L�iISSiON�tEETI�iG�tIVT.TES- October 7, 1996-Page 11 ,
�, � '� �. ,�� G��Y`�"�.���� `/�l
STAFF REPORT
September 30, 1996
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGOfd 97223
A. FACTS .
1. Generallnformation
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006
Zone Change ZON 96-0001
REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density
Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change
from R 4.5 to CP.
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis
Foreign Mission Foundation
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE
LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of
Highway 217 (Map 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
3800, and 3900).
2. Vi 'n'
The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the
applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial-
Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single
family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street.
On the northwest and east side of the parcel, the adjacent parcels are zoned Low-
Density Residential. The southwestem comer of the affected site is zoned
Commercial Professional and is part of the applicant's property.
1
Washington Square is located west of the site, across S.W. Greenburg Road.
Highway 217 is located to the south; S.W. Oak is Street to the north; and S.W.
89th is to the east. Highway 217 is a four-lane, limited access state
_ highway/freeway, classified as an a�terial in Tigard's comprehensive plan. S.W.
Oak Street is designated as a minor collector street between S.W. Greenburg
Road and S.W. Lincoln Street, and as a local access street east of S.W. Lincoln
Street. S.W .89th is a local access street. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the
- - jurisdiction-of Washington county and is designated as a major collector in
Tigard's comprehensive plan.
3. Background Information
The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South
Metzger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density
Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential
(R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning.
This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway
project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan
for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties,
were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When
the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city
council repealed the PresidenYs Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990.
Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and
citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it
was previous to the PresidenYs Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently
changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the
zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990.
4. Site Information and Proposal Descri tp ion
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density
Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C-
P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been
submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved,
the.applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will
allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel.
, 2
5. BQency Comments
Washington Counry Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented
on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed
plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change
will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25
1996).
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO� has reviewed the applicant's
traffic study and has concerns regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and
zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the
intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their
comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of
the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the
plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the
impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system.
Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City
Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25, �
1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
- , change be denied. Aside from the transportation issue, Engineering finds the
;;:_,,,; proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage
� and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review
application.
� Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan
amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the
proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density
targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional
Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also
states that Metro currently , does not require local jurisdictions to bring
comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation
measures.
Staff received an unsigned letter, dated September 24, 1996, (Exhibit E) from a
group called, "The concemed neighbors,° stating their opposition to the application.
Many of the issues raised in the letter would be addressed during the site design
review application process. The letter also states that the Davis comprehensive
plan map amendment and rezone could generate over 30,000 trips per day. This
statement is incorrect. The proposed plan amendment and rezone, assuming
worst case scenario, could generate approximately 6,900 trips per day.
3
Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no
objections to this land use application.
B. FINDINGS AP1D CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4,
6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32
and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12.
1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-
judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The
change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical
circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was
made in the original land use designation. ,
The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As
discussed, below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule
(660-12-060) are not satisfied.
The applicanf claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in finro ways: the
increasing /evels of fra�c congesfion, being located in c/ose proximity to intensive
commercial land uses, and noise represent a change of physical circumstances;
and that these physical conditions reflecf a mistake in the existing plan
designafion and, in addition, this property was zoned fiz�m residential to C-P for fhe
presidential parkway project and the zoning was changed back fo residential when
funding for the project could nof be obtained. Furthermore, the applicant questions
the suitability of fhis area for single family residenfial development
Staff does not agree with the applicanYs argument that increasing levels of traffic
and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical
circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the
properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned
zoning of Low Density Residential (R�.S) to the area so that the annexed area
conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area.
Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of
traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many
parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic
and noise. .
4
What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the
existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Professional. It may not have
been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built
adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of
the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a
change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of
Policy 1.1.2.
Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway
project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development
Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the
course of action regarding land use within the area...in order to re-evaluate
the...Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the
area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods
supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved
changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part
of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's
Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional
Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the
Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to
' � .��. have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has
�..°: . occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive
�-�.:� plan policy.
,. :; 2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the
surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the
proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously
mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24,
1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property
owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and
advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and
conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a
250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties.
3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of
the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis �
placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because
development of the site as a commercial professional use may-employ local
residents.
5
4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial
development shall not encroach into residential areas tF�at have not been
designated for commercial or industrial uses.
The applicant states thaf the site should not be considered an area for Low-
Density Residential housing for the fo/lowing reasons: the property was previously
approved for redesignation as Commercial Professional; this neighborhood has
already been severely impacted by adjacenf commer�ial development and near6y
roadways; and the r�designation of the subject area may assist redevelopment of
undercJeveloped par�els in fhe ar�a. According to the applicant, the rezoned parce!
� will make the land use compati6le with the adjacent parcel to the west and the
land use change would be in conformance with fhe Region 2040 land use concept
which designates this area as a Regiona/Center.
Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the
Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040
Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact
development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local
compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has
been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of
� commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the
. applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4.
5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This
criterion is primarily implemented th�ough the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR
660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to
provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or
multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre.
The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of
the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked
data regarding the requirement for housing opportunities and found that the
proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family
detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this
policy requirement.
6. Policy 8:1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development. .
6
The findings from fhe applicant's tra�c study are as fo/lows:
a. 1999 maximum project sife build out wifh existing zoning is expected to
generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak
hour trips. The 1999 maximum project sife build out wifh the proposed
changed zoning is expecfed to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM
peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal
is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak
hour trips.
b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would
operate at level- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999.
c. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are
LOS D or befter in the AM peak hour for both zoning altematives. In the
PM peak hour, fhe/evels of service are LOS F for al!the unsignalized
intersections under both zoning altemafives with fhe exception of the S.W.
Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Streef intersection which operates at LOS B
under both zoning altemafives.
d. Although all of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are
projected to operafe at LOS D or betfer in the two build conditions, existing
fie/d observafions, made by the applicant, indicate fhat the S.W. Greenburg
tra�c experiences progression problems through the corridor. These
- . existing prob/ems may be partially alleviated by the S.W. Greenburg Road
�:�:�', widening project from the Highway 217 Soufhbound ramps to Washington
�� Square Road. However, signal coordinafion improvements should stil!be
considersd in 1999 with or withouf the project to further enhance traffic flow.
� e. All of the sfudy area intersections are projected to operafe at LOS D or
''..� better in 1999 with the actua!development, except for fhe unsignalized
intersection of.S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street. !n the PM peak
hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate af
LOS F. This defrciency is due primarily fo the eastbound and westbound
left tum movements conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound
traffrc volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As fhe delays become significant,
fraffic will divert to the signalized intersection at S.W. Hall and S.W. Locusf
Street .
f. The proposed project access is the soufhem leg of the new intersection
that would be created with the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak
Street. The applicant says that the mosf efficient design for the project
access is two outbound/anes and one inbound lane.
The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they
have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington
County Senior Planner, Scott King:
7
"...The 1999 analysis [submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the
P.M. peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington
Square Road and the Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned
capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use
scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m.
peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix
Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis
suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this
link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic
Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service...[B]ased on the
evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
"significantly affecY'the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-
of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that
the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels
identified for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the
region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard
which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or
. reject this request."
S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented
. on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard
and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-tuming
movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through
traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W.
Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. -She
agreed that the diversion of trafFc to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is
an acceptable approach to allow left tums through this intersection. However, the
letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change
could not be supported because the land use change, without conditions attached,
would degrade key intersections in the area.
City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both
Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for
solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road'and Washington
Square Road.
Based on the concems raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant
cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and
zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development.
Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to
enforce. If the applicant sells the prope►ty, there would be no mechanism to
8
ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips
conditioned on the plan amendment.
7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating
land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied
because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public
transit in the Washington Square area.
8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional
commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible
manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the
public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of
proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact
on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows:
(1) Spacing and Location
(b) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than
tv�ro sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has
�: residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side
-� - is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the
;.,;.,:
,:,,: ..:. north and east are zoned residential.
,. .,..
� +� (2) Access
H�,. ,;µ� (a) The �roposed area or exQansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
�� congestion or a traffic safetv problem Such a determination shall b based
an street ca�ty existina and �rojgcted traffic volumes the speed limit
number of turning movements and the traffic gener ' g characteristics of
the various �pes of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant
cannot meet this criterion.
(3) Site Characteristics �
(a) Th�site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and .�ro�ected
needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site� is large enough, 4.54
acres, to accommodate the applicant's proposed 6,000 square foot
restaurant and also to atlow the applicant to re-orient the already approved
motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of
the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site
plan.
9
(b) The site shall have high visibili . This criterion is satisfied because the
southern portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The confiauration and characteristics shall be such that the rivacy of
�jacent non-commercial uses can be maintained The ability of the site
design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during
review of a specific development proposal.
(b) It shall be �ossible to incoroorate the uniaue site features into the site
desian and develo�t I�an. The site does have significant wetlands that
are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review,
the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands.
(c) The associated lights. nnicP and activities shall not inter�PrP with adioining
non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and
activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the
site development review process.
9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural
requirements for review of quasi judicial plan amendments. The application has
been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and
18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and
City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for
notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140.
10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and
procedures for quasi judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as
follows:
A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following standards: -
1. The a�plicable comprehensive lan policies and ma�designation• and the
change will not adversely affect the health safetv and welfare of the
communitv. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are
reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions).
10
2. The statewide lannina goals ador�ted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive olan and
� ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,
therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable.
Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least
45 days prior to the final decision date.
3. The aoplicable standards of any provision of this code or other aR licable
implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional
District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could
meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional
requirements" for a development. Specific future site development
improvements would be reviewed through the site development review
and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in
section 18.62.
4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or communitv or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zonina map as it relates to the
. �R�#y which is the subiect of the develo ment aR lication. See above
under B.1.
..:.`,.;.
,r, ;� 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be
.: �� . consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected
, transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of
�. Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of
ODOT. .
Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does
significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W.
Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably
high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road.
According to ODOTs letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and
level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak
will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and
westbound left tums. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied
by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street,
which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy _Hitchens about this
approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on
the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips
11
diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut
through traffic created in the neighborhood.
Because the projected volumes for 1�99 are�unacceptably high for Greenburg
Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule
(660-12-060).
12. Conclusion
The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning
maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category.
Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular
commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant
review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to
support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been
satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060
are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2),
2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a
6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all
allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning.
Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is
conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a
conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use
change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060),
additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review
which may be difficult to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no
method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place
traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed
zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism
to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit.
As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the
applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use
criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 96-0001 and Zone Change ZON 96-0001.
12
Section 18.32.280 of the Community Development Code states that an application
that has been denied may resubmit for the same or similar proposal, without a time
� limitation, if there is a substantial change in facts or a change in City policy which
would change the outcome. Staff believes this section of the code applies to the
applicant because the revision of Metro's level-of-service could change the
� evaluation of the traffic impacts of the applicant's proposal. When this revision
occurs or when Metro's Regional Transportation Plan is updated, staff
recommends that the applicant consider re-submittal of the plan amendment and
zone change.
, .
,,;;.:-...
�13
.... � - -
� .. .
�
- � ' �
I
�� � GIQ ► ,
� EF �
�� � � ►
� Q � �
�� � �
��-- f
� � _ ' _,, .
�� � - _
� � � ;
� ,
-- � �
O C� '- � - :
. ti � '
� � - �
� �
cn O . �
,
ZD� --� r' - :
_ _.__ __ _
z
_ ,
,
� � — _ ._ ,
� � _
� lJ\ - I
O j
� I
�
� � - � I
� �-L_ - I
� - I
� �
0
z �
(� -
--- ------ .--------.---- - -- _-; r--r--��--,-_ . .
Cit of Ti ar ____ . _ ________ __ _ _ _ _
d Planne n
______._ _ ___Y__ _ De artr�en
--_�_______ t �
�_p
.____ _ _ _ _ �
I '
� . � L/\111L��
;�Y�s� � ����1�.,��Pi�`�,�'�'��,'�"� �';�9 I���
,'"".r��
� �-�� �� OREGON
,iA�t'�
..rri
September 25, 1996
Lori Nicholson
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: ; CPA 96-006/ZON 96-0001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan amendment request. As you are aware, Caunry
staff has onty had a couple of days to review the materials in this request. The request seeks to change
a.4.54 acre site cunently designated R-4.5 (Low Density Residential) to Commercial Professional (CP).
When reviewing the potential impacts to the County road system from plan amendment requests under
OAR 660•12-060, Washington Counry requires a comparative reasonable worst case traffic analysis for
both the existing plan designation and the proposed plan designation. This traffic analysis should be
based on the year 2005, which is the planning horizon for the County Transportation Plan. In this case,
SW Greenburg Road is a Counry minor arterial which is also included as part of the countywide road
system.
The reasonable worst case land use assumptions for this analysis appear to be acceptable for this
� analysis, however the year 1999 ptanning year does not fully address the potential impacts to the
, Counry's planned transportation system. Nevertheless, the 1999 analysis does indicate that in the P.M.
peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the Hwy 217 ramps
will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use
scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips over the
existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix Traffic Impact Study). In addition, the intersection level
of service analysis suggests to the Counry that individual movements at intersections of this link of
Greenburg Road (see page t0 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic Impact Study) will not operate at
acceptable levels of service. Finally, Section VII of the plan amendment application (Discussion of
Transportation and TPR Issues) ftom Wilsey 8� Ham has no analysis or discussion about impacts to
Greenburg Road.
We understand that this proposal mav be consistent with the 2040 'Regional Center designation for this
area regarding land use density, however, the region has yet to define what the acceptable
transportation system is to support these densities. While the County supports the idea of increased
densities in the region to offset the need to add additional lands within the UGB, we also believe that the
region and local governments need to know what the impacts of the increased densiry will be as it
relates to a funciional transportation system. Until the future transportation issues are settled, local
govemments are legally bound by their acknowledged comprehensive plans and current state laws. The
current regional level of service standard from the Regional Transportation Plan, which plan amendments
must be measured against, continues to be at the 'D/E' boundary. Based on requirements of OAR 660-
12-060 and the findings above, this proposal would 'significantly affecY the planned transportation
system, especially the planned capaciry SW Greenburg Road. Metro, is currently in a planning process
which will seek to define a new regional level of service standard by which plan amendments to
implement the 2040 Growth Concept may be measured. Based on the ongoing regional transportation
planning efforts, we believe it would be in the best interests of all affected parties to delay final action on
Department of Laad Use &Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro. OR 97124-3072
phone: (503) 640-3519_• fax: (503)693-4412 . � •-
any plan amendments where transportation is 'sign'rficantly affected' until the long range planning efforts
are complete. At that time, plan amendments can be evaluated against the future visfon for the area.
In conclusion, based on the evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
'significantly affecY the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-of-service of SW Greenburg
Road. Washington Counry recommends the Ciry either Ilmit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip
levels identified for the subject site under the R�.S land use scenario, wait for the region to develop a
transportatton system and new level-of-service standarcl which would allow higher densities under the
Region 2040 Concept, or reject this request.
If you have any questions, please call me at 681-3961. �
�
L^� `
Scott King �
Senior Planner
c: Mark Brown
,. • �H�� �
--�..
--- ^—��
'�.�� i �
i' � �
September 27, 1996
City of Tigard
DEPART�IENT OF
Planning Division TRANSPORTATIO[V
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223 Rebion 1
Att: Nels Mickaelson PLA9-2A-TIG
Re: CPA96-006/ZC96-0001: Davis/Foreign Mission FiLECODE:
Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in the
review of this proposed zone change. Our comments are as follows:
• The subject property is located in close proximity to the OR 217- �
Greenburg Road interchange. According to the Oregon Highway Plan
(1991) , OR 217 is classified as a highway of Stafewide significance. .
The management objective for OR 217 is to "provide for safe and
efficient high to moderate-speed operations with limited
interruptions of flow in urban and urbanizing areas." The Hall
Boulevard section of the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway (Hall Boulevard)
is also a state facility in this vicinity.
• Our staff traffic analyst has reviewed the traffic report submitted
by Parametrix. As the attached memo by Kristy Hitchen summarizes,
projected levels of service at several key intersections in the area
would be at or above LOS D under the Background and Existing Zoning
scenarios. The Re-zoning scenario, however, shows that the most
intensive uses allowed under Tigard's CP zoning would further degrade
the level of service at several key intersections in the study area.
• Therefore, ODOT cannot support a comprehensive plan amendment/zone
change for Parcel B at this time. However, we would support the plan
amendment if a condition were to be placed upon this land use change
limiting its application to the land use proposed in the current
application.
Please call me at 731-8282 if you have further questions regarding the
above.
onya en, P1 er
Development Review
cc: Kristy Hitchen, Trans. Analyst, ODOT Region 1
Robert Schmidt, Engr. Coord. , ODOT District 2A
Laurie Nicholson, Planner, ODOT Region 1
encl: 1
1�3 �'4V Flanders
' Pordand,OR 97209-�037
(503) 731-8200
"�1'=��lt-9�� Fr1?C (503) 731-8259
`,�.1�-( • "
:r..: \, y�
��
`r� 'L..>�Jl..%'L i.
August 26, 1996
lCz � CFhJ 96 - ���6/z c_. 96 -oW i
'� [N1"EROFFICE
To: Evelyn Rayfield MEMO
From: Christy Hitchen
Subject: Davis Properry Zone Chan�e
I have reviewed the Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation Rezone Traffic Impact Study prepared by
Parametrix, Inc.,July 1996. The analysis accessed the transportation impacts related to a comprehensive
plan and zone desi�nation for a 4.54-acre piece of property north of Highway 2l7 and east of Greenbur�
Road. The project site consists of two adjacent parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. The southern Parcel A is
9.71 acres and zoned commercial. The northern Parcel B is�3.54 acres with a residential zoning. The
current project site plan calls for the rezone of Parcel B from residential to commercial.
The traffic analysis perfortned by Parametrix used HCM methodologies to evaluate intersection level of
service. While this is an acceptable methodology to analyze operating conditions,ODOT generally
requesu that volume to capaciry ratios be reported in addition to average delay. Using the Signa(ized
[ntersection Analysis Program(Sigcap)and the 1999 uaffic volumes for the Background, Existing Zoning,
and Rezonin�scenarios I performed additional analysis on all of the signalized intersections within the
study area and determined that they will operate at or above a LOS D under the Background and Existing
Zoning scenarios. However,under the Rezoning scenario,the Greenbura.,,/Washington Square intersection
will operate ai a LOS E(.93)durina the p.m.peak period. The unsignalized intersection analysis revealed
that the Hall Boulevard/Oal:Street intersection's stop controlled movements will operate at LOS F under
the Back�round scenario. The report concluded that the left and throu�h movements from Oak Street
would divert to the less congested si�nal at Locust StreedHall Boulevard. Under this assumption the
Locust StreedHall Boulevard intersection will continue to operate at acceptable level of service in year
1999.
The 1999 future traffic conditions without the project(Back�ound scenario)were estimated by
determinin�the trip�eneration and distribution characteristics related to the development of 80 to 90
percent buildout of the vacant properry in the study area. These volumes were consistent with the
projected traffic volumes used in the Highway 217/Greenbur�Interchange analysis recently performed by
ODOT.
The 1999 maximum project site buildout with existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 4,694
daily,636 AM peak hour,and 596 PM peak hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the
proposed chan�ed zoning is erpected to�enerate approximately 6,900 daily,896 AM peak hour,and 823
PNt peak hour�ips. The actual development proposal is estimated to generate 3,450 daily,365 AM peak
hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips.
If the site is deve(oped to its marimum allowable under the commercial zonin�it appears that miti�ation
may be needed at the Greenburg/Washington Squaze intersection to maintain an acceptable 1999 LOS.
However, if the site is developed as proposed under the commercial zoning(300 room hotel, 12� room all
suites hotel,and a 6,000 gsf restaurant)then the traffic impacu to Greenburg Road and the Highway 217
interchange aze erpected to be less than those under the existing allowed zoning.
If you have any question,please feel free to contact me at 731-8220.
� . -
i31-0281(9-91)
� � -EXHIBIT G
�
NfEflflORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: Septemb.er 25, 1996
TO: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division
FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer
RE: CPA 96-00061ZON 96-0001, DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN
MISSION
Descri tp ion:
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600,
3700, 3800 and 3900, WCTM 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east
of SW 95th Avenue, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional
and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP.
Fi in
1. Streets:
This site is south of and adjacent to SW Oak Street and northeast of and
adjacent to Highway 217. The entrance to this site will likely come from a
southern extension of SW Lincoln Avenue to Oak Street. A southern
extension of Lincoln Avenue is depicted on the City's Transportation Map.
SW Oak Street is classified as a minor collector street between SW
Greenburg Road and SW Lincoln Avenue. East of Lincoln Avenue, SW
Oak is classified as a local residential street.
SW Lincoln Avenue is classified as a minor collector street connecting
Oak and Locust Streets.
A traffic impact study was prepared by.Parametrix, Inc., dated July 1996.
The report analyzed local intersections that may be impacted by this zone
change. The study considered the following intersections:
" SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street (signalized)
' SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road (signalized)
" SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 NB ramps (signalized)
` SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 SB ramps (signalized)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-000620N 96-0001 Davis PAGE 1
� SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street (signalized)
* SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street (unsignalized)
' SW Greenburg/SW Oak Street (unsignalized) ��
' SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street (unsignalized).
The traffic impact study has been reviewed by ODOT and Washington
County staff.
Unde� build out conditions with the existing zoning, 1999 traffic predictions
indicate most intersections in the area will operate at level of service
(LOS) of D or better, which is typically acceptable. One exception to this
is the intersection of SW Oak and SW Hall Boulevard, which is an
unsignalized intersection and will experience LOS of F during the PM
peak. However, the study indicates that vehicles could divert to the SW
Locust StreeUHall Boulevard intersection where there is a signal and the
level of service would remain acceptable (D or better). Comments
received from ODOT staff indicate this would be acceptable. Another
intersection that will experience problems in at SW Lincoln Street and SW
Locust Street. During the PM peak, this intersection will have a LOS F for
the northbound approach.
Considering the maximum allowable site build out under the ro ose
zone char�ge (most intense allowable uses), the report indicates no
change in LOS between existing zoning and proposed. However, ODOT
staff disagreed with the methodology of the traffic study because
Parametrix only considered vehicle delay in determining level of service.
ODOT typically analyses volume-to-capacity ratios. ODOT performed an
additional analysis on the intersections and found that with the zone
change, the intersection of Greenburg and Washington Square Road will
operate at LOS E during the PM peak. ODOT is concerned about this
impact and stated that if the site were developed as per the applicant's
intentions, the traffic impact is expected to be less than under maximum
allowable conditions. ODOT would support the zone change if the City
can place a condition of approval on the zone change to guarantee that
the site is developed per the applicant's proposal.
A Washington County review resulted in similar conclusions by finding
that the proposed zoning would add 113 P.M. peak hour trips over the
traffic volume expected from the existing zoning that already exceeds the
planned capacity of Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road
and Highway 217. The County recommended that the application not be
currently approved unless P.M. peak trip levels are limited to those
expected from the existing zoning. �
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 2
No method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that
would place traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted
�� by the proposed zoning. Moreover, no improvements to mitigate the
effects of the increased traffic have been proposed.
2. Water:
There are existing public water lines in this area that will adequately serve
this development.
3. Sanitary Sewer:
The existing sanitary sewer system in this area is expected to adequately
serve this development. Sewer demands for commercial development is
expected to be less than demands from residential development.
�.; 4. Storm Drainage:
Upon development, the applicant will be required to provide a drainage
=..-��:},.:, basin study and storm plan for the development. A downstream analysis
;�r,_ will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts from the
,°:-:..;;� development. Staff does not expect the storm drainage impact to be
,�:;:�;:,:�;.,. significantly different because of the zone change.
:..�:,.. ::.
°�� 5. Storm Water Quality:
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM)
regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
(Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R8�0 91-75) which
require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. Upon
development, the applicant will be required to provide on-site water quality
facilities as required by R8�0 91-47.
Recommendation:
Based on the traffic concerns expressed in the comments received from ODOT
and Washington County staff, it is recommended the CPA and zone change be
denied.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-000620N 96-0001 Davis� ' PAGE 3
APPROVED:
Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer
1:1ENG�BRIANRICOMMENTS�CPA96-O6.BDR
�
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 4
lf �
:�:
:;k - ExHIB$'�' D
:�5 600 N� E AST GRAryD AV E NUE POR T�ANO. OqEGON 9]172 j 7]6 �o�
T E L S 0 1 /9 7 I 7 0 0 I c A% 5 0) 7 9 7 1 )9)
i-'{�
'\`� . 4,1I I'i�,:i I�` .::�"' .
� I
:�:;
,. �;;.,i�'�
_ ,��,
r�
..,�,.
•.;;
�'� M ETRO
August 27, 1996
Mr. Nels Mickaelson
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Nels:
Re: Proposed Comprehensive P/an Amendment CPA 96 0006/Zone Change ZON 96-
0001 (Davis/Foreign MissionJ
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed comprehensive �
plan amendment and zone change on the Dr. Davis property. The subject property is
located in the Washington Square area. The 2040 Growth Concept identifies this area as
a Regional Center. As such, the a�ea would become a focus of compact development,
redevelopment and high-quality transit service serving the southwest metropolitan region.
While Metro does not, at present, require compliance of local comprehensive plans to
regional policies, implementation measures for regional goals and objectives, including
the Regional Center design type, are currently being considered by the Metro Council.
Tne Urban Growih 1�anagement Functional Plan, which contains these measures, will
recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and ordinances
to accommodate the design concepts. The Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the Metro
Council in October of this year.
According to the August 6 draft of the Functional Plan, local comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances shall permit a target density of 60 persons per acre for housing
and employment in the Regional Centers. The Davis proposal to rezone 4.5 acres from
Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional would support the Regional Center
designation, helping the City to meet the target density for this area. Metro supports
efforts to allow land uses that provide a variety of goods and services while increasing
employment opportunities in compact centers. In addition, design elements that better
serve pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel are key factors for the implementation of the
2040 Growth Concept.
R.�r�i�e r,y..
Mr. Nels Mickaelson
City of Tigard
August 27, 1996 '�
Page 2
The conclusions in this review of CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 are preliminary to adoption
of the Functional Plan requirements. The 2040 Growth Concept states regional policies
that only become directly applicable to comprehensive plans upon adoption of Functional
Plan provisions. Tigard remains responsible for the compliance of its adopted plans and
zoning with applicable functional requirements.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 797-1808.
Sincerely,
��,.....���..�.�-
Ray Valone
Associate Regional Planner �
Growth Management Services
RV/erb
1:1GM\V ALON E1TIG DRESP.LTR
cc: Larry Shaw
Mary Weber
� � , EXHIBIT �
�
Seat Via Faz and Certified Mail.
Scptembcz 24, 1996
Ms. Nadiae Ssaitb�Associate Planner .
City o f Tigard .
Dept. of Communitq Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard .
T'igard,Oregon 97228
� RE: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE,CPA 96-0006,
DAVIS/FOItEIGN MISSION FOUNDATION/DUNFORD PROPERTTES
Dear Ms. Snsith,
�It is�ith eztzeiue concera that we, tb�e neighbazs of the proposed zoae and co�oaprehensiPe
plan c}aange aze�itiag this letter to strongly oppose anp zoae change. ?he City of Tigard
cortectty rezoned the propercy back to the origiaal zone of R 4.5 aftes the fa�ed
atterapt of Liacola Properties/Pzesident Pazka�ap to fo=ce the surrounding property oavners
iato an uuwa�ted Commetcial/Prokssional zone. It�is clearlp because o£the impact to the
siu=ovadi.ng azeas that a zone chamge would be most damagiag to the quaJitp aad safetp of
the suaouading aeigbborhoods. �
The approQal of the All-Suites hotd was approved fo=a diffe=eat developez wi�th a totalh►
different dePelopment plaa. The conditioaal approval had saany unmet coaditioas. Foz
Davis to state tb�at he "has aI=eady beea appzoved for a portiom of the site" is misleadiag.
Davis has a long k:istory of tnalQag false or p9ttlq coaect statemeats. He also has a long
history of total dissegard £or commitmeats k�e kas made as pazt of land use coaditions. To
be specific,Davis.under a land use action a►as allocved to fill�etlands,ia return he avas
req�red to dedicate a portion of his p=operty to habitat,�ith deed restricuons placed on
the property and thi.s propertp�ould only be used for habitat Siace the time tb�e City has
allo�ed the)and use action,Davis has coasistandp had total d"tsregard for his past �
agree�aents and consistandq made adverse impacts to the deed restricted habita� Davis has
committed the follow direct violations:
� Davis has cut docan the h�bitat grass,bsush aad crees so he could"get a bettet 4iew o£
the lake". �
o Davi,s has kmo�vingly allowed his cows to graze in the habitat azea.
• Davis has coasttucted,v�i�thout a pezmit, eatensioms of a 12 foot culvert in�ordes to
prepare foz a road he would like place through the habirat area.
Page 1
� Davis has been dumping hundreds if not oPer a thousand yards of�vood chip waste in
aa attempt to fill the site. Thae is strong concern that this illegal dumping/fiIl may be
ca�ssiag to$ic kachiag iato the habitat sad to the adjacent ueek
• Davia has consistently beea buryiag dead aaimala from his Veterina�an Practice oa the
propercy_ Tb.ere is strong concezn that these carcasses may be contaminating�shueek
with vanous dtseases.
To restate,DaQis does not have am approved site pla�a £or the aIl-suites hoteL. As one of
the many conditioas aaother developer aras to meet,cwds to address the uaffic that this, and
the future developme.nt of tke 28 acres he owas�ould impact.. Anp zone change mould
aot be for the 4.S4 aaes,but woutd only be a stepping stone for Davis to forcc the Ciry to
approve bds loag range deoelopment plans. The ttaffic impact zeport supplied i� clearly
misleadiag. Ia prcvious deodopment plans submitted by Davis the traffic gene=ated v�ould
� briag ova 15,000 cars per day. Under Davis's rezoae applicadon he aow states tbe site
Would geaerate "oaly 6,900" cass per daq. The fact is if the City allo�vs this zezone Davis
could butld 633,766 sq. ft. office space (about the size of Lincoln Centet) and 20% of the
usage could be for high-turnovez restauzants os appro�rnately 120,000 sq. fL which�vould
� genaate o�er 24,640 cars per day. The total care Davis's rezone could generate are over
30,Q00 caus pet day. .
Davis has clest�p fa�led to meet aap of the needed steps ia order meet any of the traffic
demamds that anp development of kus site would geaerate. To be specific
� • Davis has mot shown hod he plans to provide access to Liacola Street.
� Davis has not sho�-n how he plaas to remove the damgerous obsuuction of site ia the
wap Oak St. dips at the proposed access road.
�. Davis has aot showm ho�v he pL�as to mstigate the loss o£one of if not the biggest Piae
trees ir� the entire.regioa.
� DaQis has aot showa how he plaas to znitigate miuus level F se:vice on Greeaburg
Road that the proposed zone change a�ould ueate.
• Davis has aot provided a plan that would iasure the bu�d out of Oak Street &om
Greensburg Road to Hall Blvd.
• Da.ris has not psovided any plan for a four way uaffic light at the Hall and Oak
imtersecaam.
• Da�is has nat provided a�o�p plaa for a fou=�vay traffic light a Lincoln and Oak
iatersection.
� Davis has not provided aap plan of how he plaas to keep the ttaffic out of Lincoln
Ceater aad thus addiag to the tiaffic problezns of G=eeaburg Road and Washington
Squate Road. ,
. Page 2
� Dacis has not shown ho�v bds 30,000 cars a day would not aeate a queuing problem
comi.ng off of Highway 217 onto Gzeemburg Road. Cutrendy Craffic backs omto Ha+p.
217 tzping to get outo Greenburg Road.
• Davis has not showa how a rezoae would not aeate more gxid lock(iainus F traffic)
condirions duang the pealt Cb�zistanas season on Greenburg Road.
• Davis has not sho�n how even with cutxc�at zoning how he would mitigate the traffic
inipacts that would worsea traffic that backv fcom Hury. 99 to past Hall.
• Da�is has not showa hoc�Oak Street,East of Hall aouid aot be ivaipacted mith up to
30,000 more cars p«day.
The growth of the surroundiag area has placed a ttemeadous stzain on the ecosystem o£the
remaiaing low density areas. Because of the fact that the area is not hip,h densitp make it
absolutelp imperative that it rer.naiu�vith the curreat xoaiag. The�rea is b�igh�alue habitat
area that provides foz habirat access and through snigration of manp divrzse species of
a�dlife. T'he Ashaeek comdor that goes tbtough the site is an vmpottaat part of the
Tualadn Valley Water shcd. The site 1s no�cuntentlq being used a zesting/migration atea
. £or Blue Heron,Bald Ea�gles,Caaadian Geese,Ducks,a lazge and diverse frog population,
Ha�vks,Falcons and manp other psotected species. Any deQelopmemt plans that do not
address the diverse habitat would be in direct violadoa of the purpose of the
� Corapreheusave Plan Polides. 'Tbe chang�ng of the density would be in d'itect conflict euith
; . .
the Comprehensitve Plan Polides.
F.� :,
- ' No plan has been provided to sho�a►how Davis plans to aad w�l honor Poliry 3.S.1.. Thc
comments shoav his lack of iateat to preserce the valuable open space aad preserve aatvral
and sce�nic azea by preserning and enhaaciag wetlands aad the Ashcreek corsidor.
No proaisions foi mass traaslt have been provided. Davis's plaa ueates a trem.eadous
amount of traffic to be grnerated,v�ith no contact with Metro.Tri-Met,or amy future plans
for alternative modes of uaasportation. The Citp's suategy#6 has not been met.
A noise study has not been pro�ided by Davis. The rezone of the property would deatly
aIIow for a significa�o�t increase ia noise. No midgation plaas haQC been offered. The Plan
Policq 4.3.1 has aot beea naet
No �aaendon of the lightiag itmpacts that w�71 be czeated from the rezoning. Clea�tlp over
600,000 sq. ft. of office,hotels aad restauraats would have serious impacts to swrzouadiag
� azeas. The sur=oundiag residential mould be bighlq impacted and the safety of aight time
usezs of Hwy. 217 a►ould be voapacted
. Page 3
, - _.
Washington Square and Liacoln Centez ue rcgional centers. Czeatung adother regional
center�ould have adverse impacts on the curteat re�onal ce�aters and therefore be in
conflict with Plan Poliry 5.1.1 aad 5.1.4. Davis'plan does encroach iaco resideatial � �
aeighborhoods, sumply by t�ie rezone and the impacts to the surrouridiag neighborhoods.
Per Da�is' oarn statement, Plan poliry 6.1.1 is not met"These the subject parcels aze
significantly imgaaed bp noise aad cot�gesrion",bp adding more impacts the likely hood of
iacteased housing is reduced.
Traasportadon 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2 h�Qe not been met. .
No master plaaniag of the area has been provided by D�vis. Tn fact,Davits das part of the
master plaa"Ashbrook Crossing",aad amy developmeat plans oa this site should be fuIly
planned out puor to aap zone chaage by the City. Ia the 1�faster plan all the i�m�pacts should
be addressed,a pLvn to i:aplement the mitigation,az�.d hoa�Davis would pay for all the
improvements must be addressed prior to ac�p zome change.
• DaQis bas coasistaatly refused to cooperate with the sursounding neighbors aad Special
� Areas o£Coacern 11.8 ha�aot been met.
No action shoul.d be takea unt�a comprehensive mastez plan is p=ovided that will an�swer all .
of the above impacts. - .
Recemdy, the City of Tigazd has denied other properiy owaen zone changes that aze less
dramadc than this request becausc the propertics abut sesideatial zoned p=operties osi 2
sides. This propertp abuts 3 sidcs of resideritial�properties and dear]y would be i�a Qiolation
of past poliaes of the Citp.
It is�ith great hope and coacem thae we ask che City to deny Davis's zone change aad�
CompreheasiQe Plaa Change. Thank you.
Sincerelp, ,
The conceraed neighbors
cr. � 1000 Friteuds of Oregoa
Fans of Fammo Creek
Dept. of State Lands
I�fetro � .
� ?ri-Met .
Wa.shington Sqnare �
Liacolti Ceatez
Oregoa DOT
Pat Whiting
Uaified Sewage Agenry
Page 4
.�I:. ���� �
October 7, 1996
To: Planning Commission
From: Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner
Subject: Update on CPA 96-0006, Dr. Davis/Foreign Mission
Since issuing the staff report, planning staff has received additional information
regarding the proposed plan amendment. Furthermore, staff wishes to outline
the primary issues the Planning Commission needs to consider in making its
recommendation.
Y
• We have.received additional information today, in support of the application.
As per Oregon Revised Statute 197.763, anyone can request a continuance
if additional evidence is placed in the record the day of the planning
commission hearing.
• Washington County has sent an additional letter, clarifying their position on
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone�change. The letter
says that the County would support the plan amendment, if a condition is
placed on the plan amendment limiting the allowed number of trips from the
development.
• Staff also received a letter today from Wnmar Pacific, owner and developer
of Washington Square, supporting staff's recommendation of denial. Both
letters are included with this memorandum.
• Planning staff does not support the conditioning of plan amendments, on a
policy basis. From the standpoint of legal liability, a conditioned plan�
amendment can put the city in the position of giving inaccurate information
regarding allowed land uses. The liability issue will require the Community
Development Department to add another level of tracking for staff that
currently does not exist. The City historically has not supported conditioning
plan amendments. Tracking trips of users lends itself to difficulties in
monitoring problems with use changes and business growth. The applicant
owns undeveloped adjacent property that is already properly designated.
Adding more commercial without an overall solution will compound the traffic
� problems.
• The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to designate general land uses. A
conditional plan amendment will require that site development issues be
included in comprehensive plan amendment applications. The Community
. . •��
Commercial District is the only plan designation specifically requiring site '
plans for zone changes.
• Staff did find that the applicant met all the applicable criteria, except for the
criteria relating to transportation issues, especially the Transportation
Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-060). Conditioning the plan amendment to a
specific number of trips would allow the applicant to go forward with his plans.
OCT 07 '96 e1�5�PM WACO LAND USEiTRANSP p,2i2
. r •�Y
��������� V����
���C��
October 7, t996
V!A FAX
Lori Nichdson
Chy of Tigard
13125 SW Nall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: CPA 9�006/ZON 960001 �AVIS FOREIGN IIAISSION
I am sending this lecte�as a suppfement to my letter of September 25� 1996, regarding the above noted
land use action. The recommendatton in that lette�is based on our analysis of the traffic impacts
associated with the r�sonabfe wo�st case land use assumptions for both the existing and propcsed
land use districts on the a,54 acre Davis srte. Ou�recommendatton waB not based o�the applicant's
stated proposal for actual development of the total site ff the plan amendment is successful.
Based on the land use and vip generation data fncluded on pages 25 through 27 ef the Parametrot
Traffic Analysls whers potential trip generation (s compared to the appllcant's development plans, the
County woutd support this plan amendmsnt if the City is wtlling to fimh the plan amendment as fol(ows:
a) Limit development of the total project site (Parcel A-9.71 atc. and Parcel B - 4.Sa ac.) to 596 PM
peak hour trfps.
Thls rrip rate re!lects the worsr case development ol t�e endre 14.25 acre site under afie
�risting Isnd.rue des/gna6ons ar►d is substar►tially hlgher rhan the rrlps associared with
the applicanYs speci�c deve/opment proposa!desu/bed on pages 25 and 27 of the
Parametrix Traif'ic Ana/ysis (300 room hotel, �25 ioom all suifes hote% and 6,000 gsf
nestau�ni, or 384 PM peak hout bips),
OR
b) Limh developmeni of Parce) B (4.54 ac) to 38 PM peek hour trips.
Th/s trip rate reflects the worst case development of Paice/B (4.54 ac) under the
exisdng land use designarion.
Edher of these scenarios will ensure that traff'�c impacts associated with this plan amendment request w11
- not 'sign�cantly affecY SW Gresnburg Road. If you have any questio�s please call me at s81�961.
�-J��+ �
Scott King ,,
Senior Planner
c: Mark Brown
Dave Siegel
Departmeat of I�ad Vae At'lTaasporsgtion � plaaaing D�v�a�oa �
155 N Flrat Avenue,Su�te 950-14.HiUsbom,OR 9�124-3072
phone: (503)640-3519 • Fax: (5031693-4412
io�o7;as �oN 12:ss Fa.Y 2os 22J 3565 saF'ECO PROPERTIESiwI�I.�R f�oo�
. , � • .
WINMAR PAClFIC, lNC.
700 FIFTF�qVENUE Telephons:(206)223-d600
1�GATEWAY TOWER Reply co: P.O.B�215e6
SEATTLE,WA 981db-5028
Seettle,WA 98711-3586
Octaber 7, 1996
Tigard Planaing Comsnission
Tigard Towrl H�11
I312S SW Hai1 Boule�,ard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Comprehensive p]an Map�endment - CPA 96-4006
Zone Change ZON 96-00�
Da�orei8n M'ission Foandation
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of Winmar pacific, Inc. ("�����. I offer these comments in opposition to the above-
referenced application. As you may know, Wirtmar is the owner a.nd developer of Washin on
Sqvare and, accordingly, has extensive economic and real property interests which would be
substantially a$ected by this proposal. I would request that these writteri comments be made a
Fart of the Commissions rec,ocd in this proceeding.
We have come to Iearn of this proposed map amendment appl�cation only recently and we have
yet to review the entire fi!e in detail. Nonetheless, our pre�i
together with the sta$ report, lead us to urge the Commi 's�onr to yvpporte P�Pstaff
recommendation of denial of the application in its present form, Whi1e W-�nm�r�ntinues to be a
stroag supporter of development within the vicitity of the Greenburg Road/H'ighway 217
interchange, and we fully expect to continue our commitment to development of our Was ' on
Square properties, we a�so recognize that any such development should be undertake� a
pl�� m��r a.nd with extraordinazy regard to the ongoing availabil�ty of pubiic facilities and
senrices.
As the sta$'s for the City of Tigard, Washiagton County and thc Oregon DeF��t of
Transportation have indicated, the exining transportation system servicing this site and
surrounding properties such as Was},ington Square cannot accommodate additional development
of the magnitude to be �ilowed cu�der this designatioa While the appl1cant insists that the
purpose of the proposal is to develop a resta�rant and allow re-orieatarion of an otheiwise
approved motel on the adjacent parcel, it is apparent that the full intensity of allowed uses,
coupled with the eactraordinary nvmber of associated new vehicular trips onto the system, which
would be allowed under this proposal, must serve as the basis for any deternunation of
compliance with applicable comprehensive plan and ordinance criteria. As, once agairt, the staff
report confirms� such ir�frastsucture capacity is not avaiIable at the present time and there are no
]LOY 12:Sd F.�.L 206 22� �565 - S:�FECO PROPERTIES/wI��R I�J 003
, _ _.�.
Tigard Planning Cornr�,;,__�a �
� October 7, I996
Page 2
solutions offered to resolve these deficiencies. As a result, we believe that the Commission has
choice but to reject the application based on the information made available at this time. n�
It is apparent to sl! involved that the subject site and surrounding properties owned or formerly
owned by the applicant are ideally situated fot redevelopment. It is also apparcnt, however, that
any approach toward such development should foIlow a master plan modeJ which serves to link
projected development with needed infrastructure �mprovements. Regardless of whether this is
accomplished on a phasing or other basis, we strongly believe that any decision to move forward
with piecemeal applications of this nature will lead to unforeseen cumulative impacts which can
only serve to diminish the current ieve! of service available to existing properties and otherwise
discourage development of this designated regional center.
Given the teauoets level of service available today and the ability to coordinate the type and
location of development on this ]arge single tract of vacant land, we believe that the City and the
region as a whole should demand master planning as the only viable approach. To this erid, we
�P��y request that the Commission reject the current application under review,
Thank you for the opportvnity to provide these comments and please do not hesitate to have your
staffcontact me ifyou have any questions regarding our position: Otherwise, I would appreciate
it if we could continue to be apprised of subsequent hearings before ihe Planning Commission and
the City Council pertaining to this proposal.
Very truly yours.
��7�MAR P C, C.
J. y K e
,
JRKlgpk
cc: Ms. Laurie Nickleson
�, Mr. William Monahan
Mr. Steven L. Pfei�er
Mr. Jack Reardon
. 3� �,e�p��"
- 1 � --�- `� `P. C� �� � 2 � �,�,_,;�,,�
...
�.� ,� ; ���_ _ _ _
�� n � 1Q��i� yC,_�,�t.c� �/�J '
. ..--- i - -- -�-- J—�.. _ ._ .�� ---- - -.
�r� V _�
__ — �.�- �- � � ,. .
. � .
— � � �
� n
- - "'�- n --� . _ Q- � :;_
- - - _ _ �
' ���y���-Q��$� �Q�-�- -�� 4�.�:�.�. �
-_ __ _ _ n,� ���
, . . .
��-- � � °
------ ���
�o^��.e � — -
��' �
- . .. �l�
--- Q �� � ��-�-X .
�
--- -- ----,,.._ `_ �� � �'� ��,�,� c� ��, .
�
'�� �—G�'� "� _ _
` _ _—� _"^�
—.�,�. ��.u� r��- �c,���.Q,a��c9-�J ,
_��-�' ,n�� �.,�,'�-4-��...�.�--4. �A,� ;^� �,,
- ��j,
- ,t L�- �.��,'�9.. ,Llr" � ���`�`�C' ,�`1..�-�"-�--
` �.L:�, ���� f�J`--Y�-���—t. l._� � !�'� ,`.,,j` �.1v`..��
��---�� ��..,�
��a — `� �� � , �� - ��C�-�- ��"l.�
3� r�����.
- ��. c.. - �.�A Q.�. � .
- �- ����.� � . � ,
_ �-�-? c . ���.�.�-. .
�- �.�.p�.c.� c� ��- ,u�,�..,�� �-
� , �
� ��� ���:�,..�.�v�;�� — �— -���-�—
--�'t'a-�
< � �,�. �-�.ti�..�- - �
.
,
- ti�s�,�J 0�- --r�,��-"`C�-� CLd�.s'��-d-,D �
' � - --- - -
_ : � '`� � — ' �.� '�,�hR., ;�.�_ ��-�-tP��--�-�
_ ,�.�,��.-�,,.�-� ;L�., ��
� �
Q.,
-- C�-��P�.�C,o-�� C,�,�.�.�"" c� c� ���d,.� j��^n-'
��s , - -��`�-� �,`.�.� - –
- -� --
. ,
; —
� - �; - ,
ry�,
_ . ; . . �
i��: � _ .. _ �} .� . � . �� �
�� l.. �-'1� �� 1 �- L� � �_� � �/�� . , ,.
�� Sq, _
� � �`��1 � 1�
�
� � r �
� � � ?
�
�.: �5 �_������.
� ,
� ,
� � ,
�
��,�
i i '� i
i � i
- --4� � j � � �2
; � � �� s� °�s
� ,� � `�
- -- ---- ., � , �j. � �'
�
-
, �- --.- - �
� - _ - - - -
.
, . -
--_----- *�-------_ . _-- - , -- - --,--- --
_- .t: -, - -------- -- - - - - - - :.
. . �� .
. . ,� .
..- _ -'_ . }4._ . ....... ."""-""'_ __' " _ . � ..� ... . _'_'_. ._...._. .
_-__- .. . _'-'__"_' ._��.
.,... l f . _.__- 4 ;- --- •- -- - •�
��
. -
_ .. ._. .. � . �
- -
. .
�
�3 V/Q"jr [c� sv(P f(i�4=, �-�� i�1 ��'C=e��l L 5 �1�. -_(,�. ` �c 1—= i iv C� L� L_7_S'
" U S E►7 �t-} C dvl A-�t�T��tv�a�c�6-`� "T�' �aF�L �:�� ;
` Z�(l'.1�'-'� t.t/1 17��� r? � ! s=_` ;-> �-�_- �'> - - � ~ ' �
C�C. (...0�>
" Q�'�r4Y i3r45�D, u ���',��L «:r,����"r�a�:
` Q�'C'�'!�:'T�.�{ l; I�D/}�'$D i�-��'Tl`-I oy c'G-t'C: 7 t ('�j ��
"° D'T�iE+� d�F6t��c-� �(ti�l.�(S�5 k��,�,��r,y�-c� <;
� L��<< C�{� �i V t�L i��¢—t's c>
'" ✓��2-f 6�',��� k'3c�r.1 �V t a-'G �k�i'� ;t.�--�,c��
�
P TI'tt5 ��'T!`� � � �, � I�C�F f tv..�SK�'� '�t./ � �j"4 I��
�#c d�r � � <�.s t sr��-'� c�-c Tr j
" P���S ��T C�vst��'az /F�'�s c;� �� � �+
`-�- '�'2�;�'�' { lZ P�-o�t��-r��.�-rS
� d �D( — S( ! C"/��/ S" �c�(�.� '� '' �< �'
'TE�r S t�-��Tft c��7. D�l��. i tJ ��-t �u �,
5 i►�'�� ���F' cJ t�o�C'�r -& t � P,Q-�•�,Z� '�',,,�c�� �
$�ts� t M i��rcT av �v� vu '(�� p�-�,�( Pi t=. �
' ;�, ti. i < � - `��
•-I f t-f�4'i;; +'�,'"t ���t� , S`�r;__ r � ;, u ; ,, i
�
�
I
✓�� � � FlT1� -- �' I
1.�-�-t�--' �-� -'�, �.�--�-�r—�—� .-c-��.y-L:1—, t',� _t'_- ( >
--6—� "��t.? ��.-6� v�-F— C:'+`s:� ?
� W � �� .�-, .-�-�=
C t�:r � ��
`_' ..�,.�-�.� � s .�.P��^�--� ��--� `"t"�
{ cS.a .,.r.�� �--7 L o �a-�-�.f-� ���'--. �
��a� c�t I "�v a-�a �
--�-� i LSa �
.'�'w `� v� /"�'L�v—�.tik)--�--•� ' �'r' l.l ��er,. cl s,.s ; C E�j ,
�;.�.�-- � -
1�l a..v 7 a��1.�u..�{- 'S �v�� rt ss v,..,tioS'
w� "s d,-�'�� �_ ��'�s. �-�v f�.�.�� �.-� o�
w I-�� �'�-�a..� rL .� �P �� �`,,,��t ,�
�. c�:� _� ��� �,_,_Y, n
/ � a c.�•,.-t� r c./,3C.o.�
1�-�- ��� ,�.�.L..� �--�., � �_a �� S f �4�+ � -��-?
� ���
c� �J�- �y:.�-f- cmc�, ��-�c� `�� �-�z.� s��c.r�
p 1
( '
✓'e -z-o� .
� �
C r� '� �'7 O'�—� f v�.�P"r'd�j Qw�.��} � .n��1Ee.g dt�.
�.cw k,w. ��..-� a q P���a..,.--� ���,....� 1�1� �, ��- P2�,-�
_ Q M Q,•L 4�� ,�
(�Gtv / c.L � �'a�T� �`!4�[ --t oc..��� � �.i(
Q ✓
.. �' �Q-w Q�� e
. �.-. � s--�.�-� � ds
lY l L�a :�--
O G't 'G l f'l.�• L_L
Lvci�7 � C t�2r'._�i. y. r�c'— , C> � �_.�/ 1�-' �; �ti��. ta'�
!
G t'��r',,.:�G.�h s�,.;
� ! �
. �
�
� I
' ���
�
� � \� -��''^'Ylf .',� � �'�-�"� �lj�'J - �:
' �=`���° �' �- �� -��� _
' -��� � Q =
. . --� a`Y�� , _
�-�- - -� - ►� .�ic� -�� -
- �,,� -�,YV ` — _ _
. . i�s� —
�
� � d
. ���°
�t} �
,�rn�` y"�o'd� l��J ��`"�r� -� a�� - �
- - - - � .�1.� r�► �.#� . � ' -7-p-r� �Y.�,..,,rao ,�_
. �� � �-�g '��-
� �
:aC7�— .
�1 �°��
�`4�- �- � `�� .'��� - -',`�C
'� ' � �� �,�- ,���
c�r.,� , n,n,.,�
�aY�
�? � .V�
-�'�� �
,
N �
�
. . . � �-`i`''t/
_ � �
- ---- ��- �v/�.��-�� � t�9'� �ou�.
`" 8 C�.�'� �- - �. �.
9� - �.a.��, � � -�.�.Q,-� -��n
?�� - �`� _
. . - - - b � -� � � u� �- � P
- _ ��� ,� 9-a J—
--- � --R-�-�- --��� -
__- �.� - .--�-�„�- �-�, � e� �
- -- --- `� 'Qo�- - 0-e� -�-�� .
_- -y�� � � .� o� � �
�r- �� �e.a-�- �
�- ��ere-I�- �C �-e� --�t � e6 L� �
� � �
, . d�rv�
r f� ���l���Jlr�'�.,�,��/�/
-- -- _. - --- X
. _ . �� V J •-'�!�WV` . �
�
_ �.� � ,���,�-
- . . �� �. �� �� -�-�a
- __- - - - - - , z a. 1 c3�� �
�
__ �_ _- - - --- - -- - - _- - - - �� ���.�-
�� ,� - — -- -- - - a. �, � , s. i � 5. � � �. � . �
- - - -- - _ - �. � . �� ia� a. � �3�c����)
.��� _ ; _ _ - ---- _�� � ,
`f �". - � .� �`�-�' � �' -'�.`�>
�-� �
� .�` �` . . :c'�,�� y?��. - , ., .. - • .
�. .�
^��...!�. , �, . � - ^� . . - , .. .
��:.- '�- -_ . _ _ .. _ . -- � � � -
� 5035260775 W&H PACIFIC INC. F-098 T—B66 P-901 SEP 39 '96 11:22
�
Note�frorn Neighbo�rhood Meeting:Fore�gn�ssiori Fnundatzon/D_r.D�ais.�»�Charng�
haly 1�, 1996, 7:00 P�ri
?igard Watex Diistrict Meeting Roorm
In Atteadance:Applicm,t-Gene and V'nrian Davis;Cons�rltcrrrt-Laiva Iackson aad Julia Haylan
(W�Ii Pacific);Neighborhood Represer�tatives-1Viatthew and A�Iarsha Plourd,Piete�and
Elizabeth Brsa�Itoget, J'acquelyn and Melissa Smitl�Lorraine Catahaa-Buriak, Johrr Blomgreq
3 peaple who neglected to sign in..
Property wae posted and property owrters within 250 feet(list provided by Chicago Title)were
notified of ineeting, CIT representative was also notified.
?he mecting began wixb�i�roducti�io�s of the applic,aot aad bae co;nsultant. 'The applicant discussed
the desire for a zane change in ordet to develop an al�-suites hote�tbat wen.t througl�tlae
development review process in 1995. ?he discussaon focused on what other types o£use�mig�t
occur on the Davis/F1Vff property if the zone change w�re allowed. �'he appticant mentioned tbat
a restawrattt a�ad a second hotei�ad e�pressed interest. The reaction form the community was
that a restaurant would be ok, if it weare not a�ast-£ood drive-im type. Questions were raised as to
the approximate size of the prospe�tive�ite tetaat�ts{�.25-130 unit alI-suites hotel, 300 unit hotel
with meeting facilities, and a 6-10,000 square foat restaurant).
Much of the discussion centered on what is going on with property th�at Xs not un.der control of
Dr. DavisJFlv�. Some in attendance had been involved during the Presidentia]Parkway proposal,
. where the entire srea was proposed for rezoning, There was concern over piecemeal changes,
which were echoed by the applicant. He has tried ta joiin with the adjacent properry oamers,
however the timing of their propos�ls does not meet the timing needs of�tenants for the
Dsvis/FMF pro�erty. The commwtity had a large scale development presented to it in 1994-95
and wondered of it's status.
A question was raised mgarding wetland im�acts ar�d mitigation on the entire subazea. 7f�e
wetSand issues are not re�evant to a zone changeJplan amendmerrt procedure.l?r. Davis also
carnmented that he had already done stream rehabilitation and wetland enhancements on�arts of •
b�is pmperty, and that his proposed development�vould not affect wetlands. Any development-
related wedand disturbances wou�d occu�re�ated to deveaop;r�nent on praperties no4 unde�r hia
cot►trol.
T'E�ere was some concem over the irxcrease in t�c on Oak Street. Other res�dent�asked whez�
Lincaln would be eont�ected. 'Ihey viewed this es a way to get so�ne of the txa�ic off Osk Stareet.
One owner of rental property was concerned about the ability to rerit her houses if the area was
going to be under const�uction and transitioning to eommercial usos. There is a strip of
residential,backing up to the schoo�, which is aaot deep enough for commercial uses, however, if
the area uansxtions to commercisl use,these residents will become an island.
Post-it°Fax Note 7671 oa� 30 vages�
To� Q(1 �C �C`l .SO � - From�YrR .SOe!
co.�. � , � c°- WWK �u f�`c..
Phorle Phone IkL 7/ 1i//t'!�
,, �� ��`�� .
� /
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MEMORANDUM �
T0: Bill Monahan December 18, 1986
Community Development Director
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
SUBJECT: SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION INFORMATION
The South Metzger and Washington Square Annexation is a
Council proposal initiated at the request of Metzger
residents. The proposal includes Washington Square and
properties along Greenburg and generallq South of Locust,
Hall and Spruce. The City Council will hold a Public Hearing
at 6:30 p.m., Monday, December 29, 1986 at the Tigard Civic
Center. If passed by the Council, the proposal will be
forwarded to the Boundary Co�ission for consideration at its
. February meeting.
Please have your department respond to any inquiries from
property owners as to whether they are in or out of the
proposal. Other questions can be forwarded to my office.
BJ:mh
cc: Jill Monley�
Pat Robertson
Attachment: Map and Tax Lots
� .
�=��� � �� `- V �� a�:: ��� ■ ::1��1 ■ � =
� �
�-.;-� � , . . ' _■ ■■ �/�� ��� �!.�!�u!� �I 1 �
•4..i;^:�
�v:�;-;- y � ��(i �� � ���� �■
-:���. �.��� . �1 r 7e� � � :I11■ :,.��: :11111 11�: '�
_�;�i . � ■■ � ��, � � � ■ �
- �..�...� i'1►i. �� �■� o• - � ■■!!�-�� �Il� ■111�1
��:�-- � ����. •� �r ■ � r'�■� �
.� � S1� � , ■1_ ■11� �I����r���►� .
�: � �■� ' . !�I<<■� I�■■ ■�■. ��!�.�.�r R �
� . ::�:. �,.�_ � ����_ :��iii.. e� : �i��s •���� �e�a� �'
.. .� � .. ��� r: :d!��: ���i�� � � � ■� .� _ �
_ i:. ���� �� ��� �����t�r �� ����� ;;1:: :
J /— .
., Q_ ���� !B ■�!�■■ ■�11�l�� � � �,� .��� � ■ ��.
� ..a �. . ����� �: 11!"� �IIIII/ ■�: ��..■■■ �. . ■
������� 1- :■�i� -��� � I�11� :II�L. i711� � . ■1�
� . t �_ . � - �� 1l�I. IIi111. .1�� ■I,� �
. �
• ... � � ��� ��� � :� 1�11. ■L■
� �, � ..�_._ �. ��� � ■: :t1:■ :IJI! o ' ■ ■11��
�� � � � � � �■'■ illll�: i�111i1 ��: 1���11�:
� ��
, ` �� �����Y� ������ �11� ��111� 11�� �I1�1� �111111�111:
= ���■��� ��� . ��� _. ■�■ .�1■111�11■■ ..�1. ■1�1� ■11 1�
� � � � - � � :•• ��1 ■ .. ..
����a ,,� � ��� � � 1. �11� �I11■ 1111�11111
� 0 � . � C1.. S��III :II�IT■ :!1�IG: 1���11�l��
� !�� �■ . ■ ■■ ■ �
��� � , � .I. ■t��l ■ 1�� .�I�J: :��": IIL'�
— — l�'� �'�� �� � . ■� �i���- r��� �: -:.-�: � � .
��'�� , _ '���� �� ��������� � - ���� �����
• ` � � � � � ����������,�; `� � �
� �� � �� � � ��� � � � �
- � � �1,� � ��� �� ���--, �� �������� �� � � �
- �i[.� • • • :
, , �' ��.�� � �� ������� �� � � �■ ��
v� = �r � � ` � � � �� � �
� � �� 1■ �t 1...8��• �s �� �� �� �� �
I ��� �■ ■ �rae �:: �� �� d73.9�� �� .� a�ml
■ �sr i�� ��1. r■� �`► •� �,�-, �� �� �� �� � �
� � �� � � � ��i . ' � '
���,�� ��� ��� �p ■■ �, � � � �a� �"� �� � ■
- �� �� = ■L � �� �� � �� �� �� � � �,� � � �
� � � � ��� � � ����� �� ��'�°: �'�. ���� � � ■�
� 1'� � �■ �� ���� ���� '� / 1 ,�
I ' ; 1 �� ■■ � �/��■ �t ��� �� , ,, • .
� . . ■� I ■� w a � � ��� �
. , � . ♦�
,,..
Lee & Associates
Traffic Engineering,Transportation Planning,Intelligent Transportation Systems
October 31, 1996
Ms. Laurie Nicholson
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Subject: Davis Rezone Traffic Impact Study
Dear Laurie:
The responsibilities of the above referenced project has been transferred from Parametrix, Inc. to Lee &
Associates. From this day forward, please address any comments to Lee & Associates rather than
Parametrix, Inc.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 226-7920 or 313-0720 (mobile).
Sincerely,
�� �
J. Hann Lee
Principal
CC: Scott King, Washington County
Brian Rager, City of Tigard
Sonya Kazen, ODOT
Mel Sears, Parametrix, Inc.
�
P.O. Box 56267 Ponland, Oregon 97238-6267 (503) 226-7920 Fax (503) 226-8598
ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 31 �96 14 �45 No .012 P .01
i� ,
� - - ,..—...�...,,
` O'DONNgLT. RAMIB CR13aD
� CC�RRIC�AN � BACHRACH
AT�'URNI3YS A7'LAW
l727 N.W.�loyt Stn:�:t
Poriland,Uro�a�t 97Z09
7'RL131'liONS: (S03)222r44UZ
I'AX:(!US)?A3•2944
DLWBO AfiPiX 70?OA71r►ND pTiqCM
_ I I A
THIe COMMUNICATION MAY CON816T OF ATTORN6Y PRIVILEQED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIOM INTENDED ONLY FOR
THE U8E OF 7FiE INDIVIDUAL Op ENTITY NAMEO BELOW, IF TNE READ�p OP TNIS ME88AAE IS NOT TNE INTENDEO
FiECIP16NT,OR THE EMPLOYEE DR AQEfYT AE6PON918LE TO pEINEq IT Tp TNE IN'fENDED ABOIPIENT,YOIJ AqE FIEREBr
NOTIFIED TI1AT ANY pI88EMINATION,p18YRIBUTION OR COPYINO OF TNIB COMMUNICATION 18 8ti'RICTLI'pqOHIBRED. IF
YOU HAVE AECpIVED THIB COMMUNICATION IN EfiROR,PLFJ�BE IMMEDWTELY NOTIFI►US BYTELEPHONE AND RfiTURN TME
ORiGINAI MC•88AOE TO U8 AT TNE A80VE qpDRE88 VIA 7HE U.B,P08TAL BBqVICE� TNqNK YOU.
DATR: October 31� 1996 CLIBNT NO.: 90024-04
T�: �� I.$urie Nlcholson--J
City of Tlgard
FAX �: 684-7297
Phone #: 639-4]�1
FROM; Pamela J. Bcery
FAX a (503) 243-2944
� DBSCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TliqrTSMI'ITgp; Memorendum rcgarding find�nge for Mr.
Dav;a' a�plication.
. COMMBN7'S:
PAOB(S) TO FOI.LOW� BXCLUDINa COVBR SHSBT,
IF YOU DO NOT RECSIV�qI,I,pg 1'H1g pAGBS, PLEASB CALL TH$UWDgRSIONBD
AT (S03) 222-4402 IMMSDIATgLY, THAI�IIC YOV.
SIGNED: Anja Mundy
AN ORICJNAI,iS 881NO MAILRD: �. _ AN ORIOINAT,isnvarr.Al�ll,�uroxx�QuAST;�,
ODONNELL RAMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Oct 31 �96 14 :46 No .012 P .02
. �� �
' O'DONN�LL RAMI6 CRAW
� CORRICxAN � BACHRACH '
ATTORNtt1'8 AT LqW
1'177 N,W.Hop�SQeet
PoNand,O�egon 97209
TBLBPHOIV& (�03)��d4os
FAX(S03J 943•3044
DATB: October 3l, 1996
�� Laurie N�choleon, City of Tigard
FROM; Pamola J. Beery� City Attorney's Office
�� CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-000]� Dr. Da�ie
ThankR for forward9ng your drat� order for dcnlal of the Dr. Davie plan amandmcnt a�d zone
changc� 51ncs we are bas9ng dcn�al on trafFe, I think threc minor changee would lmpruvc the
final ordvr:
1. Page 7��± t�t ex ns o „Testlmoey oonfinnod end tho applica did not dlspula that
an off-eite dt�recl connecdon a�d c s c r i b e d i n i n t
� � .� p o (��o m t 6 e i r t t�c e t u d y��v o u l d b c
�r�quired. i'estlmon y also conflrmed l�t h c re�8 n�a y t o a a s u r��t h i s s t r o e l c o n n o c t i o n
w l l l o�e,cur; I f I am�rcca�lling the evldence cori tly, thts�ioint ehould bc�addod. �
��
2. lage 8. The applicant's trat'lic analya4s ecema Iimitod to a atudy of 1999 �mpacts. Thc
County relies on year 2005 �mpacte. This ehould be roconcilod. If wa have duppori
from 2005 in our p]an�then we could cita to it. It not, than thc Council atating thet Z005
ia thc appropriatc horizon will be ooma he1p. - �� , � ��, � -! . � _
. ��
3. Pagc ]3. I would omit the last eentenca ea I think it�is not an appmprlate baeia far dsnial� ��'' I-����
and doe� not reflccl well on thc City.
Onc other thought: on page 10, finding 10(A)(1), thcre wae a lot of tes�imony on f�ooding/storm
dminage. Hae tho 100 year floodplain becn dalincatod on thia property? I know we typically
addrase wctlands and dra9nago during e9te dcvelopmcnl revlcw� but am concerned that thcre waa
a lot of cvidence (not controveried by thc applicent as far as I can roe.atl) east�ng doubt on thc '
apprc�prl$tencsa of thls site fot commerc�al (as oppoaed to residcnlial) development, You m9ght
cenxider lhia pa�n� as well though I undcrsland your wsnf,ing to baec danial on truffic et this
po�nt. •
] hopn thls i� hclpful; ploaao fccl frec to call w9th any queetiana, �Q ����'`E�
�li�eaur000�a►n��twuo.mel �1 ,1�. , \ � ��,..
T CiVw
�. ���„ ¢j _ `., ve 1 c� �P��..�'
� �1����� �
� �
� �� � ��
•D L � » " ."�
�C� � �, �
rl ��:4^ ��,,
. '{:. � :t �uF�" L.
z_..
. .�ri/ � ' ry:
.�
-
-
r,�
.� -
. i. �, `I�_ 1 Tn
��.`1{ R�C'D O�T 09 1�95
`� i{ `, :..
�
- ���:
`.�- I f� .:
�'a:
' �� n. VIA FACSIMILE: 684-7297
��'ir.,�. ��'; October 7, 1996 AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
�• � � Planning Commission �
� � � ' � City of Tigard
� ' � � 13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard OR 97223
.,.,,�� L
�'`=y� �� ' `�"�'`` Re: Application for Comprehensive Plan Change
•4�i:':
�-�:�������, ; f'�` Dr. Eugene Davis
,�,,, . `�r- ,� �� �`
� � � Our File No. 40117/26276
. - �''��, s.�i:;.
;p,L ' , 4 -r`
. � ^�}'�,, '�'
;�";: ��'i;; Dear Planning Commission:
. :`: .,;�.•
';,i::n c .;��;�;�
, `>.�'zo= �, 6 ; ' •t;�; This office represents Dr. Eugene Davis and Foreign Mission Foundation.
_.s;`� � ,;4:;.;
.�.,y,,��; �,�.
�.:�:�� - ��` It is our understanding that an anonymous letter has been included in the
, :;;Y r,` ,�y.
'�;,;;�;. �' .�.�4`;'� record for tonight's hearing on the above-referenced matter. Because there is
:�-_���{-,• ' ' r5:�t:. no way to determine whether the individual or group submitting the
` �` R' ' anonymous letter has standing to appear, the letter is inadmissible and must be
, .�_. �«�
' _ '=° � �2 �� removed from the record.
lr��.i �K14�,i
' , :. 3. .�;��_�`,.
_ :�`.��`r , . � ' . ^, -�_,:�-�:: If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me.
� �-,,.:,i.q; '�' ���s�,��� ,
��c�s�J � ��+'.''```''.��
"� ' Ve y yours,
��;��;;� �:+ ,1��=�-,
�.it.i� �:.� ' • .
. .,s��-, a. ..
� - �;���'- ' T , RDAN & HRADER
- ;,,�� � ,�..:�'.
,��,;„� �a,
� ' ��C'�4d�
�.���y , �,�:.;,-.::�.�"`�;
' ~�r` ��•��':�.'S-�;Y'y'�-.t-
,�x � �.��Ft�..
, �f 7�i�.. i::,.'C�:��P
• �.j����_'� ,�,.�',
�"�`;,�.'�T''`C' � '
�.x;��;r:-���;Y`'�'�`� E. ANDREW J
' •, ,.� ., ,1� ,,:'.;;'� �,
'�,1';I i':r.i`+�.1 .��';y'•S`K
:i � , '.!^" , . �'�c.•�.
; .:. ,� ,-F„�.- � .
�' < _'�-• t'1"`',�'l`� �"
- ti�F i;��i��;'.��`i�
�>� ' 4�"'-�=`' '''•;='''�'��: cc: Dr. Eugene Davis
='.x� �1��' ' .�"� .!,v�;r .r�.
��`�. �"�.:�`� ���,;:� Dave Seigel, W&H Pacific (Via Facsimile - 526-0775)
. _ :`1. U �.q','�'.�r ,.'l,ti�j�
�'�:��_�, f.V.�
. ,_ '�y°1� '�:'��5�'`�.'7�".'�^�'f���:/
.•L�_� �- ,�... ,},.�t``.
_ '+' ;`, : .:,,�j.-.•�� ^:1_:.1':�.�
h 1' . f
- -� '-d..- „sMr,���`r,.,�"'✓';r,, �;�p.:ti.
. _.���_ }'',,•'�.,:i,5`..i C'.;�.
. . ^A., '`,-v'.G j','S.�i�'fn,°f.`�' �,<:.
: :.�'���'(�:�it'/ p4���9`• 4�p��"�
�_•`y+�'� "'4�t.�H��t'�...
;i',� _ t a �.,�.:F��.,F.
. ., y+..>�:�, .�n y�-,.`��('r�=.u,
; Y'��.I/�l�-1y tj"��ai',_yZA:� J' ,
','w�� L'.=:`.'.��F:-�'\'�.1.�� �4
� �,u^.��,��, ��:
1:i.=
'�: .' ^ < � �� � '�,'`r��.' .
�'ii��:..;_w�y����-l�ti�r '2'�'�?�'' '1..f`��.Y����
, .;$2 •�.',�,�p,. i x.t�'-�5-'.
. , %x�a:,f:�X'`'S �''i�t"�.,�..�, �
;...�r.., ' � �.c�:�:w,,..
3��,�t�.�:v�4�?�tt'"
, '?�;.f•'�;�.?.� �r,t . '. �i'��r:;��•-``.
'" �`'"s��'?�y � ;.k��'l�
,��i�'��Z�.:!,;s� �'%d:�, ''i:�%:�'k�,
,r,.,._ -;%r�`�:iF,7,.: � �� .�,'.
,,,,�.; .. .w,��,. � .,.�Ry•
-_ I r,, , GL.S�3805jal.lv/10/�/962
- y t�ia . �,t�.'''M";�., vf
I, MS�Vi1 1 � �� }•�
,��:_, k ,, c �a�k' A Tota[ Quality Managemerst Organizadon
l,.,ti„J'17`��'�= ,.z� �,�:F�r��'.
.i. • -s.F i.��-�.��i,:
� c,: �`���ki.-�
',` .�7,� +' y, �,r �i":
z .��,�ii��".-� �•'+.�
. , .._._ .. ....�'i?;.Ct�,Ji�.��;�
OCT 07 '96 16�15 FR � T J & S 503 641 2991 TO 6B47297 P.01i02
:.(
� � , FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SI� � ET
s � �
Number of pages
Date: October 7. 1996 inciuding cover sheet: 2
�--------
1600 SW CEDAR HL.L5 BLYD To: l Jim Hendrvz nPlanning birector FTOm: E. Andrew Jordan
surrE �oo
PORTLAND OR 71225
FAX(503)641-2991
�sa3y sai.�»� Fax No: 684-7297 lte• Dr. �ueene L. Davis
�-soo-s3s-z99t �
Ph No: File No: 2b276
Description of dowment(s) being transmitted:
Letter dated October 7, ]996.
For your files
For your information
For your use
Yn accordance with your requ�st
' Plea.se r�view dnd comment
Please telephone me
Please advise tt� how to reply
Please handle
Addidonal Comments/Instructions:
Original Documents X will follow will not follow. Please contact: Joeli
at (503) 641-7171 or 1-800-338-2491 if there is any problem with this transmission.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A CONFIDEIVT7AL TRANSMISSION. T►ie dvcu�eerus accoinpunying this
fac ararts�tission ntay contain confidential, legally privileged informarion belonging ta the sender. The
inf�rmarion is inteiuled oRly for the r�.�e of the indivrduals ot entities lrstet!�ibuve. !f yau are not tke
intended�ecipient,you are berchy notifted that any disclosure, copying, distribr�tion or taking of action in
reliance o»the eo�:tents ojthis irrfonnation is striclly prohibited !f yuu receive this traresmission tn erior,
please nutify us immediately sn that we nray arrange for!he return of the docr�nenu. Thank yore.
OCT'07 '96 16�15 FR � T J & S 503 641 2991 TO 6B47297 P.02i02
October �, 1996 VIA FACSIl�III.E: 684-729'1
AP� FIRST CLASS IViAIL
Planning Comrnission �
' City of Tigard
13125 Sw Hau Bivd
Tigard OR 97223
Re: Application for Comprehensive Plan Change
Dr. Eugene Davis
Our File No. 40117/26276
�
' Y?ear Planning Commission:
Thi.s office represents Dr. F.�gene Davis and Foreign Mission Foundation.
Yt is our un� that an anonymous letter has been included in the
record for tonight's hearing on the above-referenced matter. Because there is
no way to deterrnine whether the individual or group submitting the
anonymous letter has standing to appear, the Ietter is inadmissible and must be
removed from the record.
- If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me.
Ve y yours.
�
T , RDAN &c HRADER
:����w�
;.-�+'� � �
E. ANDRE'W 7
, �r' :
I��I I I I . ,
cc: Dr. Eu ene Davis
:��` � I, g
��;,�^"� �� • Dave Seigel, W&H Pac�c (Via Facsimile - 52C�0775)
� �
r�
.
.r li
�r �.�;�'�x
y �''I I
:��M
- �" Y- .
v
r,:
4
=�:A 4,
:�:`.�.�;�a:ii..�,,:�� ,? I�
s�;i::,•`11��:%��i3�',, �"�
.r.:_<,
;��,�,�w.,;,y:-,. G1s138(15J�I.lerl]Af7/96.f
�""��
A Tnral Qualiry Managente►t1 O�ani�tion
.�'�.�^�.'s-,sti��• ,�... y�. x
,. _
WASHINGTON COUNTY
�."`\;�; OREGON
�_J�
October 7, 1996
VIA FAX
Lori Nicholson
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: CPA 96-006/ZON 9fr0001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION
I am sending this letter as a supplement to my letter of September 25, 1996, regarding the above noted
land use action. The recommendation in that letter is based on our analysis of the traffic impacts
associated with the reasonable worst case land use assumptions for both the existing and proposed
land use districts on the 4.54 acre Davis site. Our recommendation was not based on the applicanYs
stated proposal for actual development of the total site if the plan amendment is successful.
Based on the land use and trip generation data included on pages 25 through 27 of the Parametrix
Traffic Analysis where potential trip generation is compared to the applicanYs development plans, the
County would support this plan amendment ff the City is willing to limit the plan amendment as follows:
a) Limit development of the total project site (Parcel A -9.71 ac. and Parcel B - 4.54 ac.) to 596 PM
peak hour trips.
This trip rate ref/ects the worsf case developmeni of the entire 14.25 acre sife under the
existing land use designations and is substantially higher than the irips associated with
the applicant's specific deve/opmeni proposal described on pages 25 and 27 of the
Parameirix Traffic Analysis (300 room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel, and 6,000 gsf
restaurant, or 384 PM peak hour trips).
OR
b) Limit development of Parcel B (4.54 ac) to 38 PM peak hour trips.
This trip rate reflects the worst case deve/opment of Parce/B (4.54 ac) under the
existing land use designation.
Either of these scenarios will ensure that traffic impacts associated with this plan amendment request will
not "significantly affect" SW Greenburg Road. If you have any questions please call me at 681-3961.
L'%O�'-__��,� .
Scott King �
Senior Planner
c: Mark Brown
Dave Siegel
Department of Land Use&Traasportatioa • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hlllsboro,OR 97124-3072
phone: (503)640-3519 • fax: (503)693-4412
From: "Brian Rager" <FINANCE/BRIAN>
To: FINANCE/LAURIE
Date sent: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:01:58 +0000
Subject: Davis CPA/ZON
Copies to: Greg, JimH
I received a call from Hahn Lee with Parametrix, the traffic engineer
for Davis. He is interested in getting a meeting together before the �
hearing Monday night. He said that he has talked to both ODOT and
Washington County with regard to their concerns and believes that he
can adequately address them. He spoke with me on the phone for about
20 minutes and I think he has a decent argument. It really boils
down to whether or not we consider ODOT's and Wash. Co's arguments
appropriate. For instance, ODOT argued that the Parametrix report
did not look at level of service (LOS) based upon volume-to=capacity
ratios (vc). Parametrix looked at LOS based upon average delay,
which is really the acceptable methodology according to the 1994 Highway �
Capacity Manual. ODOT's viewpoint is considered to be outdated and differs from
the consultant traffic engineering community. Lee indicated that the vc approach is fine
for planning purposes but does not get specific enough for looking at
individual intersections under specific proposals.
Wash. Co. indicates that the rezone will add traffic as opposed to
the existing zoning. Although that is true if we assume a maximum
�q� build situation, Lee argues that the real analysis should be to look
Q�� at the DIFFERENCE in LOS between the existing zoning and proposed.
His report indicates the only real difference in LOS is at Locust and
@ Q�� Greenburg (an intersection neither ODOT or the County mentioned), and
,�1��• the only difference is that it would go from LOS B to LOS D, and a
very low D at that (LOS D is when delay is greater than 25 seconds;
the delay at this intersection is estimated to be 26.4 sec during
PM). LOS D is acceptable. The only differences are simply in
seconds of delay. The maximum difference in delay is 5.7 seconds at
the westbound approach of Hall and Oak. The resultant LOS is still
going to be F no matter what.
Therefore, Lee is suggesting that we not focus on the fact that there
will be lots of traffic, because under our existing zoning we know
that will be true. But rather we should look at what the real �
differences are befinreen the existing and the rezone. As I look at
our Engineering comments, we acknowledged that there really is no
difference in the LOS based on their report, but we considered ODOT
and Wash. Co. arguments and went with that. I think we should
discuss this one a little more, as I am uncomfortable at this point
with.the thought of defending our position at the hearing. I am not
a traffic engineer nor want to pretend to be one, so I'd appreciate
any input. Hahn and I agreed that the review on this proposal was
somewhat hurried, especially since the County did not get to look at
it until a couple of days before comments were due. If we were to
consider a change of opinion, Hahn indicated they may push for
postponing the hearing for a month.
s
�
���
� .
' � - i',� �
Sent Via Fax and Certified Mail
September 24, 1996
Ms. Nadine Sxnith,Associate Planner�
Ciry of Tigard
Dept. of Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97228
RE: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONF CHANGE, CPA 96-0006,,
DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION/DUNFORD PROPERTIES .
llear Ms. Smith,
It is with extreme concern that we, the neighbors of the proposed zone and comprehensive
� plan change are writing this letter to strongly oppose any zone change. The City of Tigard
correctly rezoned the properly back to the original zone of R 4.5 after the failed
attempt of Lincoln Properties/.President Parkway to force the surrounding property owners
into an unwanted Commercial/Professional zone. It is clearly because of the impact to the
surrounding areas that a zone change would be most damaging to the quality and safety of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
The approval of the All-Suites hotel was_approved for a different developer with a totally
different development plan. The conditional approval had many unmet conditions. For
Davis to state that he "has already been approved for a portion of the site" is misleading.
Davis has a long history of making false or partly correct statements. He also has a long
history of total disregard for commitments he has made as part of land use conditions. To
be specific, Davis under a land use action was allowed to fill wedands,in return he was
required to dedicate a portion of his property to habitat,with deed restrictions placed on
the pro,perty and this property could only be used for habitat. Since the time the City has '
allowed the land use action,Davis has consistandy had total disregard for his past
agreements and consistandy made adverse impacts to the deed restricted habitat. Davis has
committed the follow direct violations:
o Davis has cut down the habitat grass, brush and trees so he could"get a better view of
the lake".
• Davis has knowingly allowed his cows to graze in the habitat area.
• Davis has constructed,without a permit, extensions of a 12 foot culvert in order to
prepare for a road he would like place through the habitat area.
� Page 1
• Davis has been dumping hundreds if not over a thousand yazds of wood chip waste in
an attempt to fill the site. There is strong concern that this illegal dumping/fill may be
causing toxic leaching into the habitat and to the adjacent creek.
• Davis has consistently been burying dead animals from his Veterinarian Practice on the
property. There is strong concern that thesc carcasses may be contaminating Ashcreek
with various diseases. '
To restate,Davis does not have an approved site plan for the all-suites hotel.. As one of
the many conditions another developer was to meet,was to address the traffic that this, and
the future development of the 28 acres he owns would impact.. Any zone change would
� not be for the 4.54 acres,but would only be a stepping stone for Davis to force the City to
approvc his long range development plans. The traffic impact report supplied is clearly
misleading. In previous development plans submitted by Davis the traffic generated would
bring over 15,000 cars per day. Under Davis's rezone application he now states the site
would generate "only 6,900" cars per day. The fact is if the City allows this rezone Davis
could build 633,766 sq. ft. office space (about the size of Lincoln Center) and 20% of the
usage could be for high-turnover restaurants or approximately 120,000 sq. ft. which would
generate over 24,640 cars per day. The total cars Davis's rezone could generate are over
30,000 cars per day.
Davis has clearly failed to meet any of the needed steps in order meet any of the traffic
demands that any development of his site would generate. To be specific:
• Davis has not shown how he plans to provide access to Lincoln Street.
• Davis has not shown how he plans to remove the dangerous obstruction of site in the
way Oak St. dips at the proposed access road.
• Davis has not shown how he plans to mitigate the loss of one of if not the biggest Pine
trees in the entire region. �
• Davis has not shown.how he plans to mitigate minus level F service on Greenburg
Road that the proposed zone change would create.
e Davis has not provided a plan that would insure the build out of Oak Street from
Greensburg Road to Hall Blvd.
• � Davis has not provided any plan for a four way traffic light at the Hall and Oak
intersection.
• Davis has not provided any plan for a four way traffic light a Lincoln and Oak
intersection.
• Davis has not provided any plan of how he plans to keep the traffic out of Lincoln
Center and thus adding to the traffic problems of Greenburg Road and Washington
. Square Road.
Page 2
• Davis has not shown how his 30,000 cars a day would not create a queuing problem
coming off of Highway 217 onto Greenburg Road. Currendy traffic backs onto Hwy.
217 trying to get onto Greenburg Road.
• Davis has not shown how a rezone would not create more grid lock (minus F traffic)
conditions during the peak Christmas season on Greenburg Road.
• Davis has not shown how even with current zoning how he would mitigate the traffic
impacts that would worsen traffic that backs from Hwy. 99 to past Hall.
• Davis has not shown how Oak Street, East�of Hall would not be impacted with up to
30,000 more cars per day.
The growth of the surrounding area has placed a tremendous strain on the ecosystem of the
remaining low density areas. Because of the fact that the area is not high density make it
absolutely imperative that it remain with the current zoning. The area is high value habitat
area that provides for habitat access and through migration of many diverse species of
wildlife. The Ashcreek corridor that goes through the site is an important part of the
Tualatin Valley Water shed. The site is now currently being used a resting/migration area
for Blue Heron,Bald Eagles, Canadian Geese,Ducks,�a large and diverse frog population,
Hawks, Falcons and many other protected species. Anp development plans that do not
address the diverse habitat would be in direct violation of the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan Policies. The changing of the dcnsity would be in direct conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan Policies.
No plan has been provided to show how Davis plans to and will honor Policy 3.5.1. The
comments show his lack of intent to preserve the valuable open space and preserve natural
and scenic area by preserving and enhancing wedands and the Ashcreek corridor.
No provisions for mass transit have been provided. Davis's plan cxeates a tremendous
amount of traffic to be generated,with no contact with Metro,Tri-Met, or any future plans
for alternative modes of transportation. The City's strategy#6 has not been met.
A noise study has not been provided by Davis. The rezone of the property would clearly
allow for a significant increase in noise. No mitigation plans have been offered. The Plan
Policy 4.3.1 has not been met.
No mention of the lighting impacts that will be created from the rezoning: Clearly over
600,000 sq.�ft. of office, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding
areas. The surrounding residential would be highly impacted and the safety of night time
users of Hwy. 217 would be impacted.
Page 3
� �'• �
Washington Square and Lincoln Center are regional centers. Creating another regional
center would have adverse impacts on the current regional centers and therefore be in
conflict with Plan Policy 5.1.1 and 5.1.4. Davis' plan does encroach into residential
neighborhoods, simply by the rezone and the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Per Davis' own statement, Plan policy 6.1.1 is not met "These the subject parcels are
. significandy impacted by noise and congestion", by adding more impacts the likely hood of
increased housing is reduced.
Transportation 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2 have not been met. .
No master planning of the area has been provided by Davis. In fact,Davis was part of the
master plan "Ashbrook Crossing", and any development plans on this site should be fiilly
planned out prior to any zone change by the City. In the Master plan all the impacts should
be addressed, a plan to implement the mitigation, and how Davis would pay for all the
improvements must be addressed prior to any zone change.
Davis has consistantly refused to cooperate with the surrounding neighbors and Special
Areas of Concern 11.8 have not been met.
No action should be taken until a comprehensive master plan is provided that will answer all
of the above impacts. •
Recendy, the City of Tigard has denied othcr property owners zone changes that are less
� dramatic than this request because the properties abut residential zoned properties on 2
sides. This property abuts 3 sides of residential�properties and clearly would be in violation
of past policies of the City.
It is with great hope and concern that we ask the City to deny Davis's zone change and
Comprehensive Plan Change. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The concerned neighbors
cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon
Fans of Fanno Creek
Dept. of State Lands
Metro
Tri-Met
Washington Square
Lincoln Center
Oregon DOT
Pat Whiting
Unified Sewage Agency
. Page 4
t�11iF �iliti��
, a-�• � � CPO 4-K .eering Comm.
��; ilE9 ;7 c/o Pat Whiting, Chair
Ward Rader, Vice Chair/Sec .
--- - 7617 SW Cedarcrest
October 22 , 1996
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) 96-0006/Zone
Change (ZON) 96-0�01
Dear Council Members :
CPO 4-M (Citizen Participation Organization) Steering
Comriittee has received the Public Hearing Notice for the
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0006 & Requested Zone
Change 96-0001. The proposal before the Council is a request
to change low density residential to commercial professional
from R 4 . 5 to CP.
This area is part of an important system of water channel-
ing, wet land and flood plain. In the early 1990 ' s A Tigard City
Hearings Officer, in her deliberation and investigation, found
this area to be in need of wetland interaction and imposed
�onditions . Attached is a recently proposed map showing the
Fanno Creek and Ash Creek system and the Ash Creek Wetland.
It is the down-hill area of the Fanno Creek Watershed area.
USA is looking at this area in response to the need to manage
flooding problems in the surrounding area including down-hill
businesses in the City. We received this information at the
US�, open house meeting. It is a study being reviewed by Kurahasi
& Associates , Inc. in Tigard, Oregon.
Also, to the North one block of this site is the Tigard
School District 23J Metzger Elementary. Many children walk
tzroughout this area which is surrounded on three sides by
residential housing. To the west is an office commercial area
and Washington Square Shopping Center. With the configuration
of I-5 , Hwy 217 , Barbur & F3cific Hwy heavy traffic problems
are no longer grid-lock at rush hour. The traffic problem
is major throughout the day and, consequently, commerical
trarfic is cutting through residential areas in Tigard and
i:� the Metzger Community.
Given the need for a major traffic study of the area, the
need to better manage water flooding problems affecting
surrounding residential and business properties, the need for
mitigation entorcement and control of commercial traffic
through residential neighborhoods and the need to accommodate
the safety of children in relation to the Elementary School
site regarding walking and bicycling, CPO 4-M respectfully
opposes the proposed zone change before you. Please enter our
letter into your records . Thank you.
Pat Whiting
c/o Steering Comm.
. � _ . _ __ — __ � �_
, �'
. ' r I . M f r
�
� ,... i
.� �.� .�.. �
. .
� � � �
. �� � ��
� ' I
� . ; ....._ -- . - -
-----�--- ��-� -� -- ' -- ...... - — .... — —
I � . � �
,� � �;. � ,
� �
� ��.
� _�J ,y.._ a
� -•�� � J ....., � .
I �� �i ,:
1----
� � `� `
� � .� .� �I
lZ � S
� � !
� r....o.� 'f n �er . �I
I ��' � i �ti� ��
_ ;... t _ �_ ) � �
I � — ' — — ... _ r -- —
- ......_ ...._ -�-� .,� — � — r
f
� � � \ JJ«� cr� f / 1 I
! � e..s. � \ 'm^• I � .
: .• 71 � �
i� �� � ; ;o _ 1 �
a r I r � r, �_ � �
1 p' )� � `�� ', �
i
1`! �y / I
O I ��^ I
1 / � e ..__..
..... ...... — 'N �/ � rr �
\��
!I I
,� � �� �
� . �,G_ _ �.
::, . � �-
i1��r � � o,oy„ /� `
1 3EAVER I `"o � 1 e'r 1�
� // e.ew. �: c� 1
,
—• -.. . . .. � .
,� ��-... f� _. . ��1.., —_s'w. �`` /�� � —
. /� , ; � , fl'
` \ � \,.
. ~-�V i/ � � �w �\M� ����
� ; ,c-Po `-:e�, a ,
�, ��. �'�_ � �;: �
��� . ' 'j= .,•`� �-- ., ,- ;
�, l �....,_ �._ -
y � . -.�l^��
� �'' . �
_ — ........._.._. .. ........ ............... .... - -
� - ""'°� ' I
•��1 .;��1,
. — � �\ h i i r _ _
._ ��_ � ,
,
— -- b �, �
_ � �. � � , ,� ��:�: �
`°'=---�' � ' —
1 �'e ;�w �rtr �j � r
,, , ., r '_�� _� _
���,�,` ;sj a � J � I '--_� �i
- — , i\` �- -- ---yi '`/
� - �:
� ��
�� � _ ' ?f:
��a�eo G�
�
I � ' GY /� - � I�'
4� ' - ..v ' � �--'�'�
/ � �,A� � � `:� J' � J
t
�'anno Cre�k �Patershed ' �°"=d` �
�
�iddls Fs►aao Creel� and �sh C:eel� ��`� I — � ;
V f�� `. .._s__ , _ � �o�.,.�� u _ .
„�.. 4 .:, _ # , �...,.�..�,�,_ I{Z.TRAHASHI *� �
�-..::_.. ,� � �._ ;:..,... ; '
.,"�_ :-'.. �.: � ,'-""'- °�--'� � ..=.�• . .�oa.as. ac. I '
� �i -i�+ �... �s+ � �.=r � -� �..: .'-�„'� a-��:aa�-�•� - _
�
` FANNO CREEK WA � cRSHED PLANNING
Options - Middle Fanno and Ash Creek Map
Project Number/Stream Reach Comments
Middle Fanno Creek
F-13 Greenway Paric, Koll Center Wetland, Fanno Creek Park
Plant native vegetation in riparian comdor and
pond edge
Stabilize stream banks that threaten structures/
trails
Increase floodplain storage at Koll Center and in
wetland pockets Alter maintenance practices
Protect forested wetland tract east of Hwy 217 Monitor Koll center wetland for siltation
Install compost drop-in un�ts or other treatment at
commercial drainages mid-Fanno Creek Park and
off Nimbus
Pretreat stormwater from outfalls along the reach
with bioswales draining commercial/parking lot
areas, where possible Reduces stormwater pollutants entering stream
SP-5,6,7 Pretreat Bel Aire drainage with biofiltration
F-14 Fanno Creek Park to Hwy 217 .
Increase floodplain storage by removing berm or Improves water quality by shading, reducing
reconfiguring berm (south of Denny) erosion
Enhance/create wetlands on disturbed floodplain Benefits Temperature. DO. algae, bactena levels.
Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor Total Phosphorous 8 other nutrient removal
sh Creek
-1 Confluence to Hwy 217
Install bioswales along commercial lots to pretreat
stormwater
Install compost filter or other treatment with high
flow bypass between Toys-R-Us & LP Gas, and a
SP-3 U-Store or near highway to pretreat stormwater Reduces stormwater pollutants entering stream
A-2 Hwy. 217 to Hall Blvd.
Increase floodplain storage/wetland function Improves water qualiry by shading, reducing
A Create regional detention to reduce upstream erosion
Detention flooding problems Decreases flooding impacts
1 Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor Check Tigard and DSL requirements
!ncrease conveyance capacity of HWY 217
culverts to reduce upstream flooding of existing
B structurss Decreases flooding imoac:s
A-5 Middle Fork-Park Place to Cedarcrest Rd.
Remove concrete spillway at the pond
Restore natural stream cross section and
wetlands Improves water quality by shading, reducing
A Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor erosion
Enhance pond edge with native vegetation; create
or B a wetland Improves water qualitv bv shading, biofiltration
- FAX TRANSMITTAL-
PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD L �
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
DATE:October 4. 1996
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on October 22, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the
Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written
testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of
Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to
raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to
respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land
Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning
Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1 S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th,
north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1,
8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units,
manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex
units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support
services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and
services and limited eating and drinking establishments
, � , . ,, . �I
� ��
O ` �
� U i�
�� �
I �-
� �
� � ��
� � ; �
� � c`� S'r �•�
I I ! � �
;�
:�
ti ! �
: - l'�- � t=
` � �� �
, ; o
� � �
� �j ��.0
�� �! I �
� ;
Tf PUBLISH_October 10, 1996 � �
�—���� �CPA9fr000
I ���70 Q : DAVLSIPOREIGY WSSION
��ow�Ao+ N
- FAX TRANSMITTAL-
PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD L )
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
DATE:September 20. 1996
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on October 7, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the
Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written
testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of
Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission.
Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request
or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond
to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125
SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th,
north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1,
8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units,
manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex
units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support
services, communication services, medical and�-dental services, personal services, convenience sales and
services and limited eating and drinking establishments
�
----- -- - � � � � �� �
� � �I
O �� � i � �
C i�
�
� ���
� O ST i-�
1 �
ca
I�
�
ti � �
� �- ��
; �� �
� o
' � �
' �U
� '
,
TT PUBLISH September 26, 1996 � �
�-� ��� j CPA9fr000
' �o�oroiO Q ' DAVIS/FORElGN 1VIISSION
I• w�+srocaawc��+ N _.
-o I ' �. �'"..�„9��11f
1S135AC-02800 ��/�,�Od�,�
FOREIGFI MISSION FOUNC�I�
do ROBERT SAIZ,CPA
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
TIGARD,OR 97224
FQRE753 972232028 ifV 09lSA/96
RETURN TO SENDER
NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
RETURN TO SENDER
���ni��ini���n�������n��i����u����ini�����n���i�i���u�
,v,g 'f �`y%
f` �c �.*- lt�'
7S135AC-03900 '9����
DAVIS,GENE 8 VIVIAN O"
Go ROBERT SAIZ,CPA
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
TIGARD,OR 97224
DAVI753 RETUR1V3T025ENDER 09�18/9b
NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
� RETURN 70 SENDER�
�
`�'"7 tt�:.t�a=SG �����i��ii�����n������n��������n���i�nn����u����i�������
i
f
.._,c,:'_�._,�_�. .._...__.-."__'_.._ —"""_.._
�_�..�.'"'.�_ _____"_._,
I ' — _- -_"".—'_' _"' _'_ _ , -,^� ' �.
, �
, ' '.' 'F—.-.
�� ��' _._ ���� �: .
i
�� �` � ' __._-`:
�� � I , --
. � 0�
��:� � . .
���� . ,�
���" ��.,
d �:�` -
� O . � � �
=.�_
, �,
, - � . C�n �—
�:� ,, �. _ � � Z
� � �� . - -
r
�� • __ _ -..\ .
. � . � . . _ ' , ,
� .._ l
� •
�T '
V<
��
`-1 '
�
n �
. _ _ ___:_ __, __ , _ _ .
C� of T - ar� �'I ar�n rn� : �D� artnr�nt .
_ _.:�._�.____ ___ _ __ �.. � _ _ _ ___
._ _ _ _ ______-_ ____ _ __ _. _.._.._.;_ _ . __.. , _ - _---_ . . .
�- -,� ._-._ -
��. _._ :,.,�.._ -- - - -
.__ . _:_,..., .. � �-c�-�-.-,-.,..:,z.c-. - ,�e � ._........� --- - .�
•�-_... ,.:.:.,..,,,: ..
_ _. . . . _ . . �.-._... _ . . ,-.,�s
. . _. , •__.-... . ,_ ....,v...,_.,� _._�_.n_._e
� ���n..-a I i
i
— .� vcc�--_ • I I
{1 � i
���a_1��� " �' � � I
�� �� �� �
a� � �,j �
� � ►
�� � � �. _ �
o,qp ,
� ��-,�.
� _ __ - _�.� ,
� . � . - � _,
�� __ ;
� _1
_ r— _ �
a c, _
- . __.. .
v
� o ----
--! � _-.
ZD• z .
�..
d __ — -
� -
� � : � -
� . , ,
- � _
� ---..
�T � �� � I , � ---
� - �
' t-_.
� _ -
� �
� � - ' -
� 1'—►-'trr -r .
--- -...- --- . ... . .._ .. .-----. __._. _ .---__�.. �.. . ...�_ _.__........_... ------ ---------._.
Cit�r ��f � :��c��.rd PI�n n i na. Deaartri�i�nt a
.. — - - _ r ��` �
. � � �1 v�� = � ���
J
0����� � Q V ..�i
��ll r � 't �
!(t� . �f t� , !1, � '� � 1
a `. c� �;
� ... .... .w►. . . ...... . � S� '�1� �' 't�1 `� • il�:
�� .��•.. .•. ... •• � . .. ••.•..��....•' �� _� � �� ',f' I� �
Z� �' F�e� '� _ �� N �.
f � ...: ... .�: ..�:�•.•......:...�� ' � •� J % r�
�.�j::::' ::: :: ..::..:':':::::'::�' • . � 1: : :` , �i;
. . .... . ... .. ....... . ....
E •�:....: ... :;'.. . .. . . ... . . � �
� �IV rI�.IV r�L�'�. �T:'Z�T T.T.�`{7 � `�
.. . . . . •I�. .. �
' i.. .:�..••••�•� ....... .. . � .. ..� �1 . ••
� :�i:.:..::.. . :K..: . � .:..• Y_ " �� 1
��;•:..::'::�::::::�:,,: .. ::��:: . a . � �:
�i��`��.....��;:.. . :,:�D:::. _ .r... ` ...
► ..�::y,:':::... . . '.��.::: � _ - — __ — _ _ - i� ♦,�,1
':�i�:• �::�.• : : •. :�A:':: _ - =_-_ -"_ _ - _ -- _- `��. � ,
' ,.:::'::��::',.�i':.':':: ....�: .' — _ _ _ * ____.--_
� .:::::::::�X���:,�::.: ::':�'. = � � . � `r
' � .::::::::::::�i'::�::'. �� :7::' � �l �'� s • .
� .::::::.:: :"����;�;; ' •�:�:: _ �:° ��°� �� • L �
o� .;3:. :�:.:.:. .:'S.`.�4� '�- - _- " - 7� .��� + �� . . �• .
} •�' .'• .:' • ..`,=`��::�� = - � � �� -r. ... ' .
:�i: �.. .:.. � ...:.�:a,� -_ _ _ -- _ � � I �) • • .
lr . ... .......:Z�; 1 �I .
I ,:�;:::. : �� .: ���ri: - - _ R� �L� 1�1`) Q C�
t �: �r. .i._- * j f I - w� .
M1T •�� __ _ _ _ � ��� � r�• � � �
'� , �� _ _ '
( ����Y.�.�w��. r.r
� ��� v_ _ "'_" �~ �� � ''_' •
1 �
� +�'� w _ ' '' _"' _ ' , � ��
■ �� �R - - _ - - _- _ '!!.� ` � Z . t '�n{�� '� �!� �. �f`
t '' � � � �4. i _.� J
� �n�r --, � t �; �� .•��' PP�� ' � •
��►r' —�--t � i..,.•.•� '`
vics . ..! M•� �i. �
'r �r � �
� , . � \ � [� �
i t� ' � \� �� ` `
� �. • a. � �
:= c: O '` :
� � `J � ,
� �
— - - - - - _ _ __ _ _ . _ _..._ _ — - � � �, '
c� ,� '��
�
� « �� �
. ,
:: ; �
. .. �
. �
. �_
�. ..�, i � / � i . � • � �� � � �'�It � + 1
, . .___.__ .. . . . . � , .
• ' �.�.. ;. . I .I � 1 I !
' �u11�a75 (A,1� S:r..M ' 1"I 1) I � �•�' /� �• , � _ � l '' � �,� I . ' �
-- •-- I - -1 �.;.._'_..." '»___ ..:.:;:�;'_.,"_::; .-'L•„'..,� . ..' • � � ' �+ -
\\ � . . I'�• �� . . ��� • �...-� - '" � I , I_. � _ Y I . � � � I
/� � /, � . ' . /
i I .
.�_ , , _. � , , . � . , �. � � , I �. �
\ i� .iT' , .i��', i . �
� " � - �- - � � ,\-r.+�' /� . .. I , y. �' �
' � " � � , i�' i , I ' �/" ' �r- ' .
\ " �,.,,� , � , . ; , _ , I / -,
: .� �. . - _1_ � L :,,:
. ,_ . __ r �� __- .___ -�-.._ �... ___ _ . _,. ` ,
. ��J- . _ - ....�...�. J -- O+�K t� -• •.-- - -
���_Y.� . �� I 1 � "� ` ��I. J_� [
` • 'ti_' ' ��' /P•t� T �. � , • • /� �
; - � � " , . �y . . ._ F ture �h e / Ir 1
J,\ / . 1 r I � c� _ r � . . � � . ,Ji" ��-,.-- �- ._ ,%' - � --'--ll '.
� � . � � • ' J � / ✓'{-ftlT'�:RC Ld AEYGIP✓ �_��, rV�e��� `� .� /�.
� _/: ¢ F�nii� �
� `,. ^�". " / . .war--l.r. 1 - . . .�w-wrar.. �/./ /
- . � � � / " �•� � � I
� `���`� hase I � �l �� � .' . . _ rrs�►�nr // - '
� __� l_
� �� ,� - - f - _ � �Nol�Authoriied llndcrJ h(s Peraiit _____
. � � �-- �
/ �°/� T. (
-� -�-:....- *-�-�-•�- '� � �� '/
'r �.` . -� ��1 , �1 `� -r.r—r*--r'_r"��". -- / :` t. ( I_
, . \ / � � .uot•1 ( i.,GC.r ---- -_--^_�-- � r . . j� ••-•.� �-
• „' - r.r..e � � �! I '�
_ ' - � ' � 4ETIaNl1� .� rro•%i7 I � _ ,�(�,.p _
- - ., � � i..�..r� '_' "-_ �
_ " � h G�i•• _�� I nt:�.�..,..� � ` i
`1 . , ^� �/� `�� -- �� �TS � _ ...�../ •.. �• i
- .u�i. �_,� . ._ I
aA � i1er� � � - ~� ...,��«.,.<,_s i
... . , • _ ~y �f �/_ ��'
-----=———— � _ . , ...,_, .r...�_� _ . .__ �
�ao. �� �(�,� -�-i--�•--
s..o��..., � - Vi �"! t 10�-ttis'r.1 � �...�r� ca a�: .
i f
[vt:aart0 � .._. .. � .... . . - ' l ---- ' \.�
�.�� :� 'S' � • ' � ��.��
, .i. `yr .........'� -�" , � w..sr���r--r, I -I_
�- � � r
. •_ �.:.R..�.� �«,.;1Y, ...
� �/ • ?� � o�ay.0 � f� {-�5�. " �..--- - ��-- - � • ._.__� V�
. /. ,r , r'" I ,� , � `� i ;Phase I. f� �- -- .. �.
� / .' . ,. �,n...,�o . � - -
,,. ,r--- � , . � 1 � � . � .� ..__
. . ( ` � , �u��oc — �_,. • i ""'l r.--
. /�� � . � rnn: .i I • � l
. / ( . . l� � P h�s e �I 1 . � � � I� - 'r�a�� _ 7 •.'1.1►�bw�f.• I �-.��.-_ ' ' �:
• I � . �L ��'� � e • p��• .•! I I
/ I �v r '��� `.\ C J � � _�� 1 ' � I-•- -
/ _ -t, � _ l � , 1
,� � � � �`'' � . � �- q � � 1 � � �I
� . . 1 � � - f� _� _.__.- _;_._� __ _ _ �; ---;-----.�-
� T'/�L�L �Mr yNC Bu11er Planiinps '��„�.u,.r,.,f/4.✓rri��4wy���
� , �.,:wc+•�o�-��vc _ -
� vr vt.vr.�wl�l �
-�
� Nt:1I.ANU '-� Fence
r...-�c I - ��VO"tr`EO K(/:tl.'PACL�I.AiNFR' �_h� p
- „�,.�,t•�, ���.�,.o,�.�. �ti c,�.��rec� • i•uui���seu YF:TI�INU 1 11.1. I�E V�S E�
Ir,V INaa.M •1YI�4C7'
- In e�.�� Cn•.•w
� s oi. �r7 V OrM�EX 11ti�t+•1'�'C�M/�n.�P"' I��'. �r�
Al riilc � �1 • w w
l�v%�E�. '�'�'OVr.vED�r-coF GOMP�E7(-Pc`_�M/•s�I�a;' P..�.: Counly ol 4.i�liln�luu S�O�C .Ur.•�•�.❑
�Ynu�. �rr1,A�rL+.I:, .•
�/I.N. �rbNV/+LLD �PPiicot�on Gy��,"•.�•",• • v��.,,,_L.�,,�.
C,,:,� .-�itnr+uFr,�v"�•�•�ria•snr,o4.u�oaG �' I GOIC 1'.•Ln�.�rY 19NI Sn� L�ti. 0� �t_
Ca GYi 7•�rOYT 0%f .�a 1 rY Y�Yrt�.r.4�)./h1�Vf/ �;. .
� �
� �.. . , ��� � �
1 S135AB-03300, � � � �
� � �� � � �1 135A&032
1S1 2 �1S . �
. , <,�1 .1 �
�� 15
� ��"1S135AC=03800 ;
fi
i �� - � � v � �
i x O r_� i--;
x I x Q/ � � L--J
� x .
*�• sa. s rR. M J�
� o� �� --- �
� x �� �� —
. � Q � ' x // / \ �/
a. ers ►/ l I \� s� \� _/ ii �
, � z �I� � � /1 I i�
~ I o '-r'I � ��� `` sR _'_'• _. - // X ' /' �
., �0��� � �i
� ��----- �-' '� ��
� I = s�
� � � x— � .
: o ►, �C� o ,,....,. ��,r ��, x_
� � x x �.� ��
i � �� Q //� �� -
'�� X
/
z � i�� �/� �!' �
, � � c. �s,� � °� .�. i� � ; I� �
� MK O S � 1� O��f ft OM�. ST
� OMMr RT3-%�
� T�
t r � '� ; ' � � `
�
�c - �I �� � � � i ,
�� � � �
� � �so
x � �
x
0 p rp
� — 1
I � X Q � 4K I �
� + ��
� �T� r
I �R I
s
I ' _ � a.�. x �/ .
' x q eR. eR ._ -
x E
IE � �J 60
l �
� .R. .---.
� x
eR. %—� —� x J/
. � � ,6o I
�— *��� y� ..� / x
Y77 p YM ! 16Q• 7f %16L0 1
` OMM. ��. !
�.—^" yi6 O yrl I
�\ .�� /" /\��..��'•• �_•..`�� � I+�Y _—�. OMM.
^ ! t� `./ '_�• �`� �Q"7���..
� �\ BR.O 7R. J� •J(� �4�, �� .'• �L •..�GNF�A"• O MM.
�'� � ( ` ' ' � ' Y , • .
I. r39.S
� �60.9
\` \ � .Y� �4. ru� �:� yi� JL� x�
� SA. �QO I � I
\���3 ` ` �. � s�. �� � \ �
�7 YY 1/Y IV C !/Y JG\i 1 1 V IY JJ 1 1 J f\ 1 9s r�.eYl. � •
SEE MAP WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGOt SEE MAP
IS I 35AB I IS 1 35AA
SCALE I°- 100` 1
o �. ; g,W -�— ,- T O A K T T S T R�E'T .o-- T -ir -r T
y c.a. Na eaa
�T=.21 M�9°tt[ f910 CM. 100 7A0 CK � A.2 t��dOCM 110
"__ WO r/L �.�7N. bt T!.]! M ' I �D �I` � 07
�o 0 3y� $ � ,,�300 � 3400 3500 3T00 = 3800 ` 3900 � �4000 '°� 4100 �00 4� w ��
R .1SAe .38 4c 2B6 Ac. �4.25.Ce. 0 30 Iln 296 AC
R�.29Ae '-.35Ae. .3/AC .2Bde 3.58ar. �a
4� I
Y
. ■ ' .+ � t ye
i 3100 ^ " - � « °z '
� ./B AC °w e ° � / b a°
a ^ fo �6 /� � �►y�b ' I
��x
*�z �sszes+ Tess
e `;�O �f.�s Ma�•xs•� �osJr / '
� .TC.Oa O � �" u
W , a 3soo ��/ �a` �
� _ aq•asY iat�o � � �./2Ac. y�~� � w�
Z �
".,. % �. o !4
W = �g. .
�� � ��. �7 R � ��/ e + i
SEE MAP * • Iw
I 5 1 3 5 8 D a ,n.o o /Q,OPO ' I
v I
, b// �P�
2800 '�'
B.o4ae •� ■ es•tz'e ���.�o .,�
/ ~I/ �
`� ��S�� p
./9Ae � � � �I
. ;:.d.:" ':w:%%/.Y
�O y��
, Q,OPe, � a � ,y � � � _ � � �
.
" � i
� � I i.lf CM. R.7N CM. 11
� I �� �ao.a� ri.sea
7J2 CM. M •9��y'� I
`�.� i I sos.a ¢zts Q
1� / I 26l./7
I �\� ' 4800 � � I �=.+i cK. �.00a ew.
� � �� �'�/ i �
i �� i
� � � .���°�� � F' .A j � ��i1
� _
��� � I8 `� I .
e �
�� �� ,� . I ¢
_
Y
� I �
•
�/ �/ n �� �� �'q�, u�e I
, i �, ° ..,6.�. qV� F �,: �
� �r TD °� 20 � . 21
� � ��26� , /`/` a SEE MAP
� .43�Ot. T� o I o IS I 35AD
/� 7'� I O
QV n_ j
fiR9 i7.�,2 •T/� ~ �1' I
1'1
., 'y yt"9F, ,, y ,r� .
. '�Mrin ,,3 ". are• .
,,may •,r., �. a:`::. yy,,
., e )
»" ' 'l• 4 ,,.wy xrc
,r. ....it •
, it . r.„r7 so
:, ..,'' ' )
111411051r...: r i'' ',;..;,,„. ' a '.4:
, It.°' ,
, t
, or . ,., .-.,, '.‘, : .., ,
t , 4
, .
, "
„ „,
,, so_
, .... .,
. „,
, ,
jilt 41k.,41-
wir ,
Of
.. •_
444
'14 44,144 , . , .., . : : ' fC� �
, 1,1,1 ,,,!
„,
. ,. 4
til µ'Fr ';r xW sra �
F •
" `.7 .,ni* 4; 44,r 4 r
ag
, ) .,,', Wi. „� tr. � .
: .,„ ' 4. , nor ;:' .. ; •-,
ir •
'''!:'•?4' ' .1:040iir4"..''•'"1:• • — IV•. ••' 44.' ov,.xerr,-
•
3hi"r'f ' av /'4�t2 x T. '� • kr' ' z.•
•
-rYE V. � i� S
�" ' yi o• r " •', • , £„.'S
.y;F, a ► .7, . • ',..1
.
s.
” a.µ, i •mo :F x :, "{,
•
' *3
•
*le, m ix,' 1 ;S' R
•,.'N
j`Yi ^ '` i 6 .. ...Lf:'.;fin. ,'::
REQUEST
FOR
COMMENTS
I
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Mike Miller. Water Dept. DATE: August 19. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900,
Map 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to
Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak
Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive
Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22
and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family
Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and
conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools.
C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication
services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited
eating and drinking establishments
Attached is the vicinity map 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 and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 29, 1996. You may use the
space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If vou are unable to
respond by the above date, please phone�the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard
Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
"_ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
��L�T OF U�L/L JE�U�/(� fd1G.�l�", / L�l�� F/l�.//d-/LD T /uR LATiill V/,ZL��'I
Ii.�AT'E�'L_ L�(gT/L�T. ^
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: �/li/C� Mi���
Phone Number: X �J°�S
. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Kelley Jennings. PD DATE: August 19. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division � STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 .
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900,
Map 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to
Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak
Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive
Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22
and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family
Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and
conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools.
C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication
services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited
eating and drinking establishments
Attached is the vicinity map 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 and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 29, 1996. You may use the
space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to
respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard
Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
� We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
_ Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number: (� ��
69/27/1996 16:46 5036492733 TVWD PAGE 01
uti�rriao tu:us ��u� oe� ,ss� ",
Post-It°FaX No1 7671 °��PJ�7 ag°�es�
Te_ ____---- - — '� From '�
- JDept Co.
�avES�FoR c� �� 9- �i' ��,8�� �_ .
�a�« Z F�a
- -
TO: Tua�l�1N�ter Dist DATE: , Auausi 19. 1996
FROM: Ti�and Plennin� Ol�on STAFF CQNTACT: Nels Mickaelson
Phone: (S03) 839�9 T'I Fax: (603) 6g4-T�97
, RE: COAAPI�HEN8IVE PLAN ANtENDMENT(GPA)96-000620NE C1�IANOL(LOI�96-OOO�
DR.GHN� CAVI8lF�f�1�N MI�SION .
R�atJE87': To arrnend tl�e Comprohens�ve Plan map on Ta�c l.ots 3500. 3800. 3700, 3800. 3�00,
� Map 1S1 35AC, loc�ted southesst of Oak Strsat, east of SW 95th, from Lvw Density Resident'ral to
Con�rTwrei�l Pt�o�feasional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southesst of SW Oak
Street, esst ot SW 95th. norttt of Hi�hway 217. APPLICABLE REVIENY CRITERIA: Comprehen$ive
Plan polkfes 1.12(�. 7.1.1. 6.1.1� 8.1.1 and 12.2.3: CommUn'dy pevelopment Code chapt�rs 18.22
�nd 9 8.32; and Orogon Ad�t�tivo Ruies Chapber 680 Oivision 12. ZONE: R�.5 (Single-Famiy
Residsntteq albwa stngle-famityy d�tetched uhds, manufectu�d homes, farmi�Q, tsmiiy day care and
car�dfdonal uses such as �npts-�amily sttached units, duplex unRs, r�aligious assembty and schoots.
Gp (P�ba�vAdn�tr�s Oi�ice) aAows for business �uppoR services, cammunication
sewloa�, mad�CSt artd dental�urvia�s,pe�sonal sewices, oonvenience e��es and servic�s and Nrni�ed
Qatinp and drinldng estsbl�hmer+fis
Att�ched is the vidn�y map 1br your review. From informa�ti�on supplkd by various d�partrnents and
agencles end from oth�r+nformation avallable to our staff, a r�part and rec�mmendation vv�ll be
prepared and �decision vnll be rendered on the ptOposal in the nee�f�ture. If you wish to comment on
�is applicAdon, WE NEED Y�t�R CONiM,ENTS BACK BY: S�dbe►mbar 27►. �98fi, You may use the
space provided bolvW or s�d10�sparafe le�ter to retum you�commerrts. �vbu aro u �bl�to.
please phone the staff contad noted above with you�comments end
oor+�mn arour�in wridng a��n as posaibla. 1f you have sny question�, contact the Ti�ard
Ple�ning Dlv�ion, 13125 SW H�II eoulev�rd,�'ipard, OR 97223.
P�EASE CH�CK THE FOILOWiNQ REAAS THAT APPLY:
� We hav� n�wed q��propose!and have no objec�ians to it
� Please oontact of ou�affice.
_ PleAS�r�fsr to 1he sndo�ed le�ter_
_ Writrsn ownrnents p�ovided bslow:
(Please pnovide�►s followin� inficrma n)
�
Nams vt Peraon CommaMi��:
Phone Nulnber: r„�¢2 "' �s�f—
�. . 11
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Kim Knox. Tri-Met DATE: Auqust 19. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900,
Map 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th; from Low Density Residential to
Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak
Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive
Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22
and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family
Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and
conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools.
C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication
services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited
eating and drinking establishments
Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will 6e �
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 29. 1996. You may use the '
space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to
respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard
Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
V We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. �
_ Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting: i���10D�
,r
Phone Number: Z� - �o1��b �.
�6�0 1996 -
. . � - : �.
�
:
� r �R
�� g ��
�� � �
��- � Q
� �
��
�� �� �
��� � �S
�� c� r �
, O
. .
ti
� O
, � � r
ZD z
d �
� �
o °� =
� �
0
� �
� .
�
�
�
z
n
� i of T� ard Plannin De �rtment
C t �_ ___
Y_ ._._ ._ .. _ � _________ ____ g _
�
�* ,
._ -
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Per Attached DATE: August 19. 1996
FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 360 , 700, 380 , 3900,
Map 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Densi � esidential to
Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak
Street, ea of SW 5th, no h of H�ighway 217. AP_P_LICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensfve
Plan pplicies .12(2), .,1.1�.1.1,�8.1.1 and 12 2�3��ommunity Development Code chapters 18�.22
) and 'T'8.32; and Oregon �dministrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family
Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and
conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools.
C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication
services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited
eating and drinking establishments �
1
Attached is the vicinity map 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 and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on
this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 29, 1996. You may use the
space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If kou are unable to
respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. 'If you have any questions, contact the Tigard
Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
_ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
. Please refer to the enclosed letter.
�-
_ Written comments provided below:
(Please provide the following information)
Name of Person Commenting:
Phone Number:
� � ` r 'QUEST FOR COMMEN'-�
N� ATION LIST FOR LAND USE 8.DEVELOPMENT APPLi �NS
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS
{circle one}
CIT Area: W S E C � Placed for review in Libra CIT Book �
CITY DEPABTMENTS
_BLDG.DEPT./David Scott,s����a��eo�����a� �POLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,aimer�a�aoro�onice� _OPERATIONS/JOhfl ACke�,nnamt.sP�:�.
CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,c�HRa�o�da� ENG.DEPT./Bflafl Rag@f,oe�a�oPmen�ea�ie.�ene��e� _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'$
ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, PWnningSUpervisoi WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,oPa�a��o�,Ma�.�oPe�e�,o��Ma,ea.
SPECIAL DISTBICTS
FIRE MARSHALL UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY �TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST.
Gene Birchell SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745
Wo.County Fire District 155 N.First Sireet Beoverton,OR 97075
ick-u box Hillsboro,OR 97124
APPECTED IUBISDICTION3
WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE 8 TRANSP. METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION �CMETRO-GREENSPACES
150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#1 b,Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/ZOA's)
Hillsboro,OR 97124 Por�land,OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue
' Porfland,OR 97232-2736
_Brent Curtis(CPA's) STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION
_Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi �METRO
Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Mary Weber
�Scott King(CPA's) Portland,OR 97225-0412 600 NE Grand Avenue
_Tom Harry�Current Planning App's) Portland,OR 97232-2736
�1�( N�,gGC,urrent Planning App's) �OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's)
�/ 1 175 Court Streei,N.E. �ODOT/REGION 1
�CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem,OR 97310-0590 Laurie Nicholson/Trans.Planning
Larry Conrad,Senior Planner 123 N.W.Flanders
PO Box 4755 CITY OF PORTLAND Porfland,OR 97209-4037
1120 SW 5th
CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland,OR 97204 �ODOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A
Mike Matteucci,Neighborhood Coordinator Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord.
PO Box 4755 CITY OF DURHAM 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412
Beaverfon,OR 97076 Planning Director Portland,OR 97225
Beaverton,OR 97076 City Manager
PO Box 23483 _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
_CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard,OR 97281-3483 City Manager
• PO Box 369 PO Box 369
Tualatin,OR 97062 _�OTHER� Lake Oswego,OR 97034
CITY OF KING CITY �
City Manager
15300 SW 116th
Kin Cit ,OR 97224
SPECIAL A(iENCIES
GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COLUMBIA CABLE CO.
Elaine Self,Engineering , Brion Moore Craig Eyestone
PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brigadoon Courf
Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton,OR 97005
NW NATURAL GAS CO. rno�a:csa»>:i.�«, METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS �TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
Scott Palmer Fo�:�sa�»:,.zso: Jason Hewitt Kim Knox,Project Planner
220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street
Porfland,OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 Portland,OR 97232
Beaverton,OR 97006-4886
TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.
Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Clifford C.Cabe,Const.Engineer
3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 5424 SE Mcloughlin
Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204 Portland,OR 97202
STATE:AQENCIES, PEDEBAL A4ENCIES
AERONAUTiCS DIVISION(ODOT) DIVISION OF STATE LANDS US POSTAL SERVICE
COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK FISH 8 WILDLIFE Randy Hammock,Growth Cord.
PUC DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station
DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY U.S.ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS Porfland,OR 97229-9998
_OTH ER n:�ioa��aa�y�ma:ia�:�n��ou�.m:i
MAILING
RECORDS
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON }
County of Washington }
City of Tigard )
�
I, �n��-I�� u��a�"«`'� , hereby certify:
Please Print
That I am a / -� �� for the City of Tigard, Oregon.
That I served notice of the Tigard City Council ����� � F�'2.�
G���2,2 � l.�-r, �-ef'L�' �.0�s��cJ7"��Gi'7 y�(S�r L��'L
�SoC��v-�-� � �tG��i,
of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named
persons on the ���� day of C� V 19 �, by mailing to each of
them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto
C�1
attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the �day of ,
19�, postage prepaid.
�,�� _ ,ti��n�e ��! �.
Prepared Notice
� �
Subscribed and sworn to before me this o.0 day of � �l�` , 19�.
OFFICIAL SEAL y
DIANE M JELDERKS NO ry Pub ic of Or �Il
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO.Oa6�a2
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commission � e$.
h:\login\cathy\afofmail �
• i 1'. �I[.�l�t �C� ,�F
, � CITY OF TIGARD
,
' Washington County, Oregon ;
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL
Concerning Case fdumber(s): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEPIDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE
CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 �
FILE TITLE: DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis OWNER: Same
10875 SW 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1 S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW
95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2),
2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family
detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family
attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (ProfessionaVAdministrative Office) allows
for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services,
convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments
Action: ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions ,�j Denial
Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: �
� The applicant and owner(s) � Owners of record within the required distance
� The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator � Affected governmental agencies
Final Decision: THE DECI ION WAS SIGNED ON �� 1� , 1996, AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON I �� , 1996.
The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of
Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
A. review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures.
QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171.
a
� ,
, � . ' � � CITY OF TIGARD
RESOLUTION NO. 96-�U
A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT(CPA 96-0006) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZON 96-0001) REQUESTED BY DR.
DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION.
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan map amendment from
Low-Density Residential to Commercial Professional and zone change from R �1.5 to CP of a 4.54
acre parcel located on the south side of S.W. Oak Street, between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W.
Hall Boulevard.
WHEREAS, the Tigazd Planning Division evaluated the application and recommends denial;
WHEREAS, the Tigazd Planning Commission considered the applicarion at its public hearing on
October 7, 1996 and recommends denial; and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council considered the applicarion at its public hearing on October 22,
1996.
NOW,T�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Secrion 1: The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the
attached final order(Exhibit A).
Section 2: The City Council upholds the staffrecommendation for denial of the comprehensive
plan map amendment and zone map change as set forth in Exhibits A and B.
Section 3: The City Council, therefore, orders that application request CPA 96-0006/ZON 96- _
0001 be DEriIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final
order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case.
la�
PASSED Thi^day of , 1996.
M -City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Ci.-���� (,v�ax.2c�.,.
ity Recorder- City of igard
RESOLUTION NO.96-�
Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY DR.
GENE DAVIS.
A. FACTS
1. Cenerallnformation
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA
96-000620N 96-0001
REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and change the zoning
from Low-Density Residential (R 4.5) to Commercial-
Professional (C-P).
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis
Foreign Mission
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Seigal
W&H Pacific
8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97008
LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of
Highway 217 (Map 1 S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
2. Vi ini
The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the
applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial-
� Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single
family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street. 3800, and 3900)
1
3. Backg.round Information
The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South
Metrger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density
Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential
(R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning.
This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway
project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan
for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties,
were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When
the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city.
council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990.
Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and
citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it
was previous to the President's Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently
changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the
zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990.
4. Site Information and Proposal Descri tp ion
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density
Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C-
P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been
submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved,
the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will
allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel.
A written narrative and transportation analysis was submitted by the applicant and
is included as part of th'is staff report.
5. Aaency Comments
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented
on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed
plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change
will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25
1996). `
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO� has reviewed the applicant's
traffic study and has concems regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and
2
zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the
intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their
comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of
the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the
plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the
impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system.
Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City
Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25,
1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change be denied. Aside from the tra�sp�rtation issue, Engineering finds the
proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage
and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review
application.
Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan
amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the
proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density
targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional
Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also
states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring
comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation
measures.
Widmar Pacific, owner and developer of Washington Square, submitted a letter on
October 7, 1996 (Exhibit E) supporting stafPs recommendation of denial. The
letter states that: "[wjhile Winmar continues to be a strong supporter of
development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Hwy 217 interchange, and
we fully expect to continue our commitment to development of our Washington
Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be
undertaken in a planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing
public facilities and services. The letter also expresses concem that the allowed
uses under the Commercial-Professional zone could not be supported by the
planned transportation system.
The applicanYs representative, Dave Seigal of W&H Pacific, submitted a letter on
Oetober 7, 1996 (Exhibit F) including language for a conditional plan amendment.
He said that if a condition was placed on the plan amendment limiting the land
use, then Washington County's concems would be addressed and also that the
applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on his property that would limit the
land uses allowed on the property.
3
Scott King submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit G) to clarify his previous
letter. The letter outlines conditions that would need to be placed on the plan
amendment so that the County could support the plan amendment. His letter
states that the plan amendment would have to be conditioned to a specific number
of trips.
Pat Whiting of CPO #4 submitted a letter on October 7,1996 (Exhibit I) supporting
stafPs recommendation of denial because of potential traffic impacts and
environmental impacts.
Tri-Met, T�alatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no
objections to this land use application.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4,
6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32
and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12.
1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-
judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city councif must find: a) The
change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical
circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was
made in the original land use designation.
The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As
discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule
(660-12-060) are not satisfied.
The applicant c/aims b) and c) of this criterion are sa6sfled in two ways: the
increasing levels of traffic conges6on, being located in close proximity to intensive
commer�ia! land uses, and noise r+epresent a change of physica! cir�umstances;
and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan
designation and, in addition, this properiy was zoned from residential to GP for the
presidenfial parkway projecf and fhe zoning was changed back to residential when
funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthermore, the applicant questions
the suifability of fhis area for single family residential development.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic
and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical
circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the
4
properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned
zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area
conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area.
Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of
traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many
parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic
and noise.
What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the
existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Prnfessional. It may not have
been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built
adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of
the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a
change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of
Policy 1.1.2.
Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway
project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development
Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the
course of action regarding land use within the area...in order to re-evaluate
the...Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the
area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods
supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved
changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part
of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's
Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional
Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the
Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to
have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has
occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive
plan policy.
2. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is. satisfied because the
surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the
proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously
mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24,
1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property
owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and
5
advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and
conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a
250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties.
3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of
the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis
placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because
development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local
residents.
4. Policy 5.4 states thu± the city shall ensure that new commercial and industriat
development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been
designated for commercial or industrial uses.
The applicanf states fhaf the site should nof be considered an area for Low-
Density Residenfia/housing for fhe following r�asons: fhe property was pr�evious/y
approved for redesignation as Commercia/ Professional; this neighborhood has
already been sever�ly impacted by adjacent commer�ial development and neanby
roadways; and the r�edesignation of the subjecf area may assist r�developmenf of
undercJeve/oped parce/s in the ar�ea. According to the applicant, the rezoned par�el
will make the /and use compatib/e wifh the adjacent par�el to the west and the
land use change would be in conformance with fhe Region 2040 land use concept
which designates this area as a Regional Center.
Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the
Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040
Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact
development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local
compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has
been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of
commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the
applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4.
5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This
criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR
660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to
provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or
multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre.
The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of
the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked
6
data regarding the requirement for housmg opportunities and found that the
proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family
detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this
policy requi�ement.
6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
The findings from the applicant's tra�c sfudy are as follows:
a. 1999 maximum projecf sife build out with existing zoning is ex���ted to
generate approximafe/y 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596'NM peak
hour trips. The 1999 maximum projecr site build out wifh the proposed
changed zoning is expected to generafe approximate/y 6,900 daily, 896 AM
peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour frips. The acfual deve/opment proposal
is estimated to generafe 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak
hour trips.
b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would
operate at/evel- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999.
c. The/evels of service at all fhe unsignalized study area infersections are
LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for bofh zoning altemafives. In the
PM peak hour, the/evels of service are LOS F for all fhe unsignalized
infersections under both zoning altematives with the exception of the S.W.
Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operates ar LOS 8
under both zoning altematives.
d. A/though all of the study anea intersections on S.W. Greenbu►�g Road ar�
projected fo operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing
field observations, made by fhe applicant, indicate that the S.W. Greenburg
trat�ic experiences prr�gression prob/ems fhrough the corridor. These
existing prob/ems may be partially alleviafed by fhe S.W. Greenburg Road
widening project from rhe Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Washingfon
Square Road. However, signa!coordination improvemenfs should still be
considered in 1999 wifh or wifhout fhe project to further enhance tra�c flow.
e. All of the study area intersections are projected fo operafe at LOS D or
befter in 1999 with the acfua/development, excepf for fhe unsignalized
intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street. In the PM peak
hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate at
LOS F. This deficiency is due primarily to the easfbound and westbound
left tum movements contlicting with heavy northbound and southbound
traffrc volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As the delays become sign�cant,
traffrc will divert to the signalized intersection at S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust
Street.
7
- \ .
f. The pr�posed project access is the southem leg of the new intersection
thaf would be created wifh the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak
Streef. The applicant says fhat the most e�cient design for the project
access is two outbound/anes and one inbound lane.
At the City Council hearing on October 22, 1996, testimony confirmed and the
applicant did not dispute that an off-site street connection as described in point (fl
from their traffic study would be required. Testimony also confirmed that there is
no way to assure this street connection will occur. A condition of the hotel
development on the property adjacent to the site in consideration is the extension
of Lincoln Street, as indicated on the City's Transportation Plan map.
The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they
have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington
County Senior Planner, Scott King:
"This traffic analysis should be based on the year 2005, which is the
planning horizon for County Transportation Plan...The 1999 analysis
[submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the P.M. peak hour link
volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the
Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link
under both the existing and proposed land use scenarios with the
proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips
over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix
Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis
suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this
link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic
Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service...[B]ased on the
evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would
"significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-
of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that
the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels
identfied for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the
region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard
which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or
reject this request."
S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented
on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard
and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-tuming
movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through
traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W.
8
Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She
agreed that the diversian of traffic to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is
an acceptable approach to allow left tums through this intersection. However, the
letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change
could not be suppo�ted because the land use change, without conditions attached,
would degrade key intersections in the area.
City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both
Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for
solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington
Square Road.
Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant
cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and
zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development.
Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to
enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to
ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips
conditioned on the plan amendment.
Staff also notes Washington County's comment that their transportation planning
horizon is 2005 and that the applicant's transportation analysis did not project
traffic volumes out to 2005, but only to 1999.
Public testimony at the October 22, 1996 City Council hearing confirmed and the
applicant did not dispute that an off-site street connection as described in point (fl
from their traffic study would be required. Testimony also confirmed that there is
no way to assure this street connection will occur. A condition of the hotel
development on the property adjacent to the site in consideration is the extension
of Lincoln Street, as indicated on the City's Transportation Plan map.
7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating
land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied
because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public
transit in the Washington Square area.
8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional
commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible
manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the
public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of
proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact
on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows:
9
(1) Spacing and Location
(b) Th� comme�cial area is not surrounded by�sidential districts on more than
two sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has
residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side
is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the
north and east are zoned residential.
(2) Access
(a) The �roposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a tra�c safetv Qroblem. Such a determination shall be based
on street ca aci . existing and �rojected traffic volumes. the speed limit.
number of tuming movements and the traffic generatina characteristics of
the various types of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant
cannot meet this criterion.
(3) Site Characteristics `
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected
needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54
acres, to accommodate the applicant's proposed 6,000 square foot
restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved
motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of
the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site
plan.
(b) The site shall have high visibili . This criterion is satisfied because the
southem portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The configuration and characteristics shall be such that the np 'vacy of
adj�cent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site
design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during
review of a specific development proposal.
(b) It shall be possible to incomorate the unique site features into the site
design and develoAment plan. The site does have signficant wetlands that
10
are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review,
the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands.
(c) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adioining
non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and
activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the
site development review process.
9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural
requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has
been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and
18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and
City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for
notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140.
10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and
procedures for quasi judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as
follows:
A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to
deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of
the following standards:
1. The aRRlicable comprehensive I�policies and ma�signation: and the
change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the
communitv. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are
reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions).
2. The statewide lap nning, aoals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and
ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,
therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable.
Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least
45 days prior to the final decision date.
3. The apalicable standards of any orovision of this code or other a� lip cable
im�lementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional
District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could
meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional
requirements" for a development. Specific future site development
improvements would be reviewed through the site development review
11
and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in
section 18.62.
4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the
�ro e�y which is the subject of the devel�oment aR lication. See above
under B.1.
11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be
consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected
transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the ;���isdiction of
Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of
ODOT.
Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does
significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W.
Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably
high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road.
According to ODOTs letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and
level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak
will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and
westbound left tums. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied
by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street,
which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this
approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on
the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips
diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut
through traffic created in the neighborhood.
Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg
Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule
(660-12-060).
12. Conclusion
The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning
maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category.
Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular
commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant
review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to
support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been
12
satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060
are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2),
2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a
6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all
allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning.
Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is
conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a
conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use
change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060),
additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review
which may be difficuit to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no
method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place
traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed
zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism
to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit.
As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the
applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use
criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use.
C. DECISION
The City Council DENIES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006/ZON
96-0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions.
13
: � . �c� �.�� t�
DR. GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS CLIFF EPLER
10875 SW 89TH 8845 SW SPRUCE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
LAURA JACKSON HANN LEE �
D A V I D S I E G E L 7020 NE HOLMAN, STE B-6
W&H P AC I F I C PORTLAND OR 97218
8405 SW NIMBUS
BEAVERTON� OR 97008
JOEL ADAMSON
4485 NW WALLOWA
• FORTLAND OR 97219
ED DUNDON JACQUELYN SMITH .
5319 SW WESTGATE DR �253 8935 SW OAK STREET
PORTLAND� OR 97221 TIGARD OR 97223
PAT WHITING
8122 SW SPRUCE
TIGARD OR 97223
MARK BARNES LORI/CURTIS PICKERING
8 815 S W S P R U C E S T 1444� SW 7•'EWKESBURY DRI VE
TIGARD� OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224
TODD KINSLEY J�E N t�1�( �T�fSL�`f `�� J���
8840 SW SPRUCE 1600 SW CEDAR HILLS BLVD.� STE 100
TIGARD� OR 97223 �ORTLAI�ID OR 97225
JOHN BLOMGREN
9460 SW OAK ST
TIGARD� OR 97223
� ' i
► �
�CiTY OF TIGARD
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I OREGON
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon.
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARlNG FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DEClSION FOR:
_ City of Tigard Planning Director
_ Tigard Planning Commission
_ Tigard Hearings Officer
X Tigard City Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was
mailed to each named pers�on(s) at t address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked
Exhibit "B", on the 3�� �—day of :� ���'�� , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE as hereto attached, w pos ed on an ap�;ropriate bulletin boa on the n/a day
of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the 3��-day of °- � :.� ,
1996, postage prepaid.
.�,�
� L
�
Prep ed Notice �
...
��,� �
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of � , 19
^
,
j ,,, i �
OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC RE N 1�
DIANE M JELDERKS
��� NOTARV PUBLIC•OREGON My Commission Ex � es: 7
, COMMISSION NO.Oa6t42
k+AMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMF3ER 07,1999
OF�!Cir+L 3�a,
DIANE M JELDEr�K�
NoTar�v Puc3�iC•OREGpr,
COMMISSION NO,Oa6+a�
MY COMMISSION EXPIFiES SEPTEMBE'� �
• ' UBLIC HEARING EXHI�3TI'�
� NOTICE
; ,,,.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,
AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, October 22, 1996�AT 7:30 PM,
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER,
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1 S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW
95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2),
2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family
detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family
attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows
for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services,
convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED
BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH
IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY
WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND
QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN
ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF
REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH
ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE 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 IN SUPPORT
TO THE APPLICATION AFTER September 30. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A
CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY
PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST
SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLU,DED IN THIS NOTICE IS A ' ��T OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLI�'"gLE TO THE REQUEST FROM
"THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DE .OPMENT CODE AND THE TIG� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE
CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS
RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF
APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR
THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. 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 TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT
RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson. AT (503) 639-
4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
� ',� I I I I � r
!--- f
� �; i
- --. --_ � �
� � � � ' � I � � � �I.� - �--i �I
, ' � �i
I�
o� I �
LI OLN � �
' � C�� '�
; ,
� � Q-'
� � ;�
��� I '
� � O ST ' �
�•� i
�
; ca ;
� I� �
� �
' ;-� �
ti i c�;
� �'�' � �,
�� ;�
, o
�
r �.�
[; -
. i � 'V
� ;
, ,
� � �� � cPa96-oo0 �
�av oeysm aESOexrva ro
wx�«.w�oFacEa,�o Q DAVIS/FOREIGNMISSION
�����
r�s roca. N ,
_— �
.. . � EXHIgTT�
1S135AC-03200 1S135AC-03100
BLOMGREN,JOHN S PEARL M BRAXMEYER,JAMES A
9460 SW OAK Go KLEPPER,PAULEI'TE R 8 JAME
METZGER,OR 97223 10560 SW 95TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135A8-03201 1S135AA-04100
BROWN,JACK C 8 MARY E CALLAHAN,LORRAINE ANN
' 10445 S1N 90TH AVE 19165 SW LISA DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 ALOHA.OR 97006
1S735AC-03300 1S735A6-03303
' CULBERTSON,CHARMIE DALTON,MICHAEL L
8750 SW PINEBROOK 2535 NE LINDSEY DR -
TIGARD,OR 97224 HILLSBORO,OR 97124
' 1S135AC-03600
DAVIS,EUGENE L
PO BOX 6446
PORTLAND,OR 97228
1S735AC-03900
DAVIS,GENE 8 VMAN
Go ROBERT SAIZ,CPA
12753 SW 687H PKWY S7'E 220
71GARD,OR 97224
1S135AC-03800 1S135AG04000
� DUNFORD,OARRELL A 8 BERTHA M ENDICOTT,JOHN A
� c%JATA CORP 9000 SW OAK ST
4485 NW WALLOWA CT TIGARO,OR 97223
� PORTLAND,OR 97229
: 7S135AG02800 1S735AC-03700
FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDA710N INC
cJo ROBERT SAIZ,CPA 13095 SW HENRY
12753 SW 88TH PKYVY STE 220 BEAVERTON,OR 97005
TIGARD,OR 97224
1S735AA-03902
HAZARD,SANDRA
8914 SW OAKWAY
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AB-03304 1S135A6-03200
KEEGAN,THOMAS E&JEAN D 8 MCKINLEY,DUANE VAN TRUSTEE
KEEGAN,JAMES C 5135 SW NEBRASKA
13728 S WARRICK ROAD PORTLAND,OR 97221
MOLALLAOR 97038
1S135AB-03205 1S135A6-03403
PERONE,STEPHEN M PLOURD,MATTHEW P AND
10435 SW 90TH AVE MARSHA M
TIGARD,OR 97223 9055 S W OAK STREET
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AB-03302 1S135A8-03300
REYNOLDS,ROBERT EUGENE SCHOOL DISTRICT#23J
13737 SW PACIFIC HWY
BETTY L
8380 SW SPRUCE TIGARD,OR 97223
TiGARD,OR 97223
1S135AB-03400 1S135AC-04800
SF OREGON CO.LTD STATE OF OREGON-FILE 32679
BY MEWIN MARK BROKERAGE CO DEPARTMENT OP TRANS
� 10220 SW GREENBURG ROAD do DAVIS,GENE L AND VMAN
5U��� 411 TRANSPORTATION BLDG
PORTLAND,OR 97223 SALEM,OR 97310
1S135ACr04100 1S135AA-04200
STEWART,JOHN W SUMMIT.DORSEY WAYNE
PHYLLIS T 8995 SW OAK
8980 SW OAK TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
�
� 1S135AC-03400 1S135AB-03401
THOMS,CLARENCE E LOIS M WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL
9400 SW OAK DISTRICT NO.106
71GARD,OR 97223 , 00000
t
i
�
� 1S135AC-04200 1S135A8-03202
jWILSON.JOHN H WRIGHT,WINONA J 8 STEPHEN A
� 8960 SW OAK ST BRACANOVICH,HELEN
TIGARD,OR 97224 11575 SW TERRACE TRAILS DR
� TIGARD,OR 97223
� DR. GENE DAVIS
-' 10875 SW 89TH .
� TIGARD, OR 97223
�
i
i
,1
''� .
. � � �
ICSTY OF TIGARD
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I OREGON
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly swornlaffirm, on oath depose and say:
That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon.
X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
_ City of Tigard Planning Director
. X Tigard Planning Commission
_ Tigard Hearings Officer
_ Tigard City Council
A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was
mailed to each named person(s) at th address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked
Exhibit "B", on the G��� day of ��L��� , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE as hereto attached, wa post d on an appropri e�ulletin bo d on the n/a day
of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the� day of ' ,
1996, postage prepaid.
' � � �
`f�re,p'�red Notice
i /
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the ay of �'� , 1 gLo
� �
�
`�� Y
NOTARY PUBLI pF OREG �`
OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission pires: �
DIANE M JELDERKS
NOTAFiY PUBLIC•OREGON
COMMISSION NO.046142
tY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,t999
.,t��
_:'[i
� UBLIC HEARING �(�$�j' /�
. � ' NOTICE
-
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION,
AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, October 7, 1996�AT 7:30 PM,
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER,
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001
DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1 S1
35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW
95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2),
2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family
detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family
attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows
for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services,
convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED
BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH
IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY
WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND
QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN
ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING., ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF
REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH
ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE 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 IN SUPPORT
TO THE APPLICATION AFTER September 16. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A
CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY
PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST
SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A ' 'T OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLI("�LE TO THE REQUEST FROM
THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DE. .JPMENT CODE AND THE TIGf. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
i4PPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE
CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS
RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF
APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR
THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. 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 TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT
RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson. AT (503) 639-
4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
----_—_– -- --- -- ------ ---- ,—
; , ;
; i
� • ;
� ��
I � I
I l i i �
� i
II }/ I
� � � I
i l O �I'll
, LI PdCOLN
c�" �
� C�� i� ; .
. � i �-
I � I� ;
� � ��
� � O� ST •� !
; � �
; � �
I � �
� .
� � ;
; ti
' �i
; �'Lj- i - .
�i� ��-
. I, i o ,
�
� ��
► _ �
� ;V
�
,
� .
�� � �
, :
� ,
� � �
; � �� ! cP��-000
, �ow�o�c�°�"""`,ow'O Q '. DAVIS/FOREIGN NIISSION '
aorar,c rowaaarrf�n N i
��i ' R4.5TOGP. __ _-. . - -
�XHIBTT �
. ,. _
1 S135AF03200 1 S135AG03100
BLOMGREN,JOHN S PEARL M BRAXMEYER,JAMES A
9460 SW OAK Go KLEPPER,PAULETTE R 8 JAME
METZGER,OR 97223 ' 10560 SW 95TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135A8-03201 1S135AA-04100
BROWN,JACK C 8 MARY E CALLAHAN,LORRAINE ANN
10445 SW 90TH AVE . 19165 SW LISA DR
� TIGARD,OR 97?23 ALOHA,OR 97006
i
1S135AG03300 1S135A8-03303
� CULBERT50N,CHARMIE DALTON,MICHAEL L
i 8750 SW PINEBROOK 2535 NE LINDSEY DR
� 71GARD,OR 97224 HIILSBORO,OR 97124
�
!
1S135AG03600
DAVIS,EUGENE L
PO BOX 6446
: PORTLAND,OR 97228
C
1S135AG03900
; DAVIS,GENE 8 VNIAN
rlo ROBERT SA¢,CPA
� 12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220
� TIGARD,OR 97224
� 1S735AC-03800 1S735AG04000
! DUNFORD,DARRELL A 8 BERTHA M ENDICOTT,JOHN A
� cJo JATA CORP 9000 SW OAK ST
4485 NW WALLOWA CT TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97229
1S135AG02800 1S735AG03700
! FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDA710N FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION INC
f do ROBERT SAIZ,CPA 13095 SW HENRY
12753 SW 68TH PKWY STE 220 BEAVERTON,OR 97005
TIGARD,OR 97224
' 7 S135AA-03902
' HAZARD,SANDRFI
8974 SW OAKWAY
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135A6-03304 1 S135AB-03200
KEEGAN,THOMAS E 8 JEAN D 8 MCKINLEY.OUANE VAN TRUSTEE
KEEGAN,JAMES C 5135 SW NEBRASKA
13728 S WARRICK ROAD PORTLAND,OR 97221
MOLALLA,OR 97038
1S135A6-03205 1 S135A6-03403
� PERONE,STEPHEN M PLOURD,MATTHEW P AND
� 10435 SW 90TH AVE MARSHA M
TIGARD,OR 97223 9055 S W OAK STREET
, TIGARD,OR 97223
1
�
f
1 uo
�S��SAB-03302 1S735A8-03300
REYNOLDS,ROBERT EUGENE SCHOOL DISTRICTlt23J
BEm� 13137 SW PACIFIC HWY
8380 SW SPRUCE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
�S�35AB-03400 1S735AG04800
SF OREGON CO,LTD STATE OF OREGON-FILE 32679
BY MEWIN MARK BROKERAGE CO DEPARTMENT OF TRANS
10220 SW GREENBURG ROAD do DAVIS,GENE L AND VIVIAN
SURE 150 411 TRANSPORTATION BLDG
POR7LAND,OR 97223 SALEM,OR 97370
1S135AG04100 1S135AA-04200
STEWART,JOHN W SUMMIT,DORSEY WAYNE
PHYLUS T 8995 SW OAK
8980 SW OAK TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135AG03400 7 S135AB-03401
THOMS,CLARENCE E LOIS M WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL
9400 SW OAK DISTRICT NO.106
71GARD,OR 97223 , 00000
I 1S135AC-04200 1S135A8-03202
WILSON,JOHN H WRIGHT,WINONA J 8 STEPHEN A
' 8960 SW OAK ST BRACANOVICH,HELEN
' TiGARD,OR 97224 11575 SW 7ERRACE 7RAILS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223
DR. GENE DAVIS
' 10875 SW 89TH
TIGARD, OR 97223
;
I
� ( u1� Su �n� l�f�� �y
. . . �r, D cw�s `��, � � �
, , � i . � �i�i7!�,�� , �
� y, � . � .���.__-.... . . � � ;r��. �. . � 1� � .
�, nur�a7i (n,b Crevk - FIl l) � �� �1 l'T � . i .. . _. � � � l.l I � 1 �
. � _ --'1"--'-' - --...__. __. .-`-._��..__:�. r.!�..��� .r ... '� . I 1 • . .��
,\ ___ ...._ _. _ ; -.,.._ .. ._� �;• , , _ N' I � I_. I r,I ' I'I t. I _
� �.
.�J' � , .• � ..w� .�
\ / � / � .. , , : � � � � I �/
►�- � � _. . � � I i j�' '� � ' I I ' S / J �.
\ \ �. � 'i1- '' � � ' ' `� �, ' '/, I , � .I y -r.� - // .1 (.
' i ♦ I , _
, I , .� ; � I ,/ " ,% '_'�
\ ,.�' . . .. • , %� � _ 1,. � — -�`
i � � .� � , • .�
: , , , _J._ �-.� .,-:
r .. � , . .._��__. ___ _. _ _
•i \�-•.�—.-._.�-f- . - ��- - "_ sw.J.x��. f ---• _ _._.-c:..- --- , ' I _J�
T���� I C
-�—-•_ - - - ' '� � . ., ' " _i._..___ , �� I� 1 lJ
�� _ - ,w__ _ ��� , ,� � �� ^ r _ 'a � ;�y . � . F tur� �h e j/ ,�
\ / � �•' IO.'Ci T�1. �� ." .' _ , __
. , � r- % � -`_'�I �
j.\ % 1 r wni v-� • .•� j �' ��_�v-_ , . . :" {•
� . . - _ � - � , . ~--- _ ,- ' '-
� - --�-�� � _ ` ,_ ' ., - �� YTENtV^l-FUfU�[ ��IAEMGIAL-�.,...�� ��cM��,�� �/,� � ' t.
' • r��ei.t�rc r..
���\�,. „�.. .. 1 . wbI�.L.L i._, �/ .. � ��•. �
_ ,♦ . � • _ f � Yt"l.uNlh��- // � �.� -�.
�-' �`. has e i . - — i , .• � - ..
� � ��' ` � ' `� - - � �. �Nol�Auihorized Undcr li(s Pcrmil /�� , ��
, .., . . o
� .�� �.�-- �._,_ �� . � , ��-' T __ I
�, , . �� �, �, � _,.�--r-,---*-^--,- --- -----_ -" % : �� -- ;l �
`\ / I � ,uot.t � 1,��,r _ _ -�_ - _ _- I i-�/ ' . . __r , . .�-•--- f I `�� �.
, . , � _ f �. _ _ __ ..�.� r S , �.
_ . .
- .'-:' - • ' .• i LCF.TI.ANK' . ,,... �;:�' ! -----•-----L 1---•
, • _ __��t_ � . � /_ aa � I r�::�..na9 : � ���
- '�1.� ' P°1� C�i ~' - —` - -•��- �� . �i i
. I „'�,_ ��a - ' ier � � ` � � `J�` __ ___.J�` �--
-'-'------- �.�� A � r � rr.�._t�_�..c.1.l�.___l_� . 1
... . . ,.o. ...
uida. � i-- �.
•M�Dt 4M, � ' - � TO/.�N✓'M � •�M.7MM G[��:- . ' .' .-__ .
-��-1'• ../J EW:LUPrO� �-� -v�o�ovc�� - ,�- \•.1
, ,y �•� (� �
/ :1 ly � f` wv�.cx u�'rr-cr� � -�—..
� .� }� Ih/�nY '/ `�r, � E/:7(rYi rE �0�L'l�ul
� l - /� V
_ i��/ ?�� � OIdp.G ` ys i Y I•---- - I�-- - -- I � -----I - �- --� `" /'
� /. - �� � � �- ;Phase I f J ��
r� (` i�o,,r�o-..co � Q � � 1 -{
� ` ` � — - l �
•�", � / 1��,� =� �� � , � �� � �•���oe � ^ `__... . � � �{i r--�
\. � r.��� i (� � �' l 1
%� . . ;� � Ph�se �II _ I ,. , o - ��.��Y l _ � ._w_,.�..,t.�--- -I------ j ( �
. _ �� � �'� _ _�l'-' _ " _t„}- . , �
. ,� -� � r _� �
. � _ - I
� ( --� �, �� —� - � ! . I .,� � �_ , ,1 �
/ ; - �J� 1' ,, '� ' I ; i • � �1
�' � . I/� � � ------ ----—• --- - i� , � �I
r,.�� ,,..,. �H� Suf(e lanlinps '•-�R.�.w,.�..,��-r �.,,.�,.--
��•.wwP,:n n-��v� �
���� ' v� vr.vr.�NC�"1 [e�Cp
uF:1'I.ANU �� r y
- V✓O"WEO N.wtL'I'RCL�I�I.�IF+� p_Hti �
YtihJL z �• �•�;,����,��:�� Wf:,��aH�► f��.�. RE�rsE� .
... •' u���v�e•7, i��i K:.ouvi. i4 Ew�uTEE�
itV vrv.a.r.a vYicL-:• �n Ar.h 1:1'�•rk
- .�ri. .n0 r. o�r_ex utina-i�v.c��w��ir� r_r•. At if1.1L.Q r'�."�'1
�' O a w w
I•v�e� -rvnrr.aEO Orc�e Go.�V�EX-Pe.E�uJ.ni�a! P...�'. Counly ut 11a,1i1n�;tnu �j1o1�+ Ur.�y .
'. ,y..o.. ino,ow,vu.�-, :.ppl�cat�on by�:��,t�•���• .b.�lxl.,u.1!,�,i..
I�.H. �l�J�lV�[.L'J
c,,:.w ,.-�..mr-•uFr,i�rv+�r�ra.nv,o6.u�onr. =' COt� ���•I�r��.�ry 19H7 Shl �� 0� ..z�
C.6Y ►�•a liJ�7���f.Ih J�YY IV`/f/.1-!i.1�7.fJCYI bJ '� .
.. ....., ,�.-� ,.c. �..�nwr r,�M�.���i.9V.U0I�zf/."i _._ _._
�`� W F� � a7-�6- (> / / ,�
� . � � �-- ,
ffi� �C�� 2• C C'�z , C��e ;
0 �
. �
� OF Ti��R�, ORE�Ol� ''�
. . -�- �S- 9 Cv
�
� g� p Z CAANGE ZO OBD
CITY OF TIGaRD, 13125 S�T Hall, PO Boz 23397 p01t STAFF IIS ONLY
Tigasd, Oregon 97223 - (5U3) 639-4171
����IVE� :� CdSE NO. Z� `�(�GY�D
N pS�B CASE NO'S: C�A -OOO�
��;� 2 51996 � sEC��r xo. � ��i 3 v
COMM���n �EVELOPMENT AppI,,IC�ION ACCEPIED HY:
.�
DAZE: - 7i'� ' `��v
1. G�AL �FORPiAIION Appllcation eZemeats submitted:
P�OPrRTY ADDRESS/LOCATION �� Fr OC�� -51��� ��) Applicatioa £orm (1)
� -c -l�-� �(B) Owner's 9lgaature/�rritten
� �� �' �.5
TgX I�gp aND TAX �LOT N0. ,L.ofS 3-sdO 36Do 3700 3ted authorization
�90� /Yla ' IS / 3S AL (C) Applicant's statement
SITE SIZ£ . S �� /QG/'L5 �pre'app check list)
P3oPERTY OWN'Eit/DEED HOLDER� �r. �jtac vl` � i' n ,'ss' (D) Filiag fee (�_ �'�
pgp� rA T�4 �O'�P Additional informstian for Conpre-
ADDR.ESS
CI"Y ZIP 81ve plan Kap Amendmeats/Zone Chaages �
dPPLIGgNT'� �r Gen� Lt di`5 �l�E) Mape iadicating property '�
ADDRE55 1O� 7S S GtJ �9� pg�� �K6 s�G � location (pre-app check list)
Cl2Y �Gti : ZIP �'f�Z Z ' (F) List of propertp ov�aers and
�When the owaer aad che applicaat are different addresses jrithia 250 feet {1)
people, the applicant must be the purchaser of reeord �g� Titlestransfer instrument C1)
or a leasee in possession vith vritten authoritation
F:om the oeaer or aa ageat of the o�raer with written ,
authorizatioa. The oWae=�s) must siga this
aoolication ia the space grovided oa page two or DASE DET�.'�ZNED TO BE COI�LES�'= �
submit a ur-�tten authori2stion �ith this applicatioa.
a �
2. PROPO5�I. SIIl`L*�ARY
Ihe o*�ers of recerd of tbe subject propertp FINAL DECISION DF�DIS►YE: _
request a Compreheasive Pl.an Amendmeat (if CO�. YI�AN�ZONE DESIGN�SION: ;
. ��,. i`(
applics�?e) from Lo�<If�Cns��,/Il�K to Com eru j
and a Zone Chaage from u,S to
�P N.P.0. Number: f
OR
The ��ti:icaat requests aa ameadment to the Planning Co�ission Approval Date: ;
followi^_g sections of the Comprehensive Plaa _ '
or Co�sunity Development Code
City Council Approval DaLe:
�
0737P �� �
3ev' d: 5/d7 '
v� ►�� y� �.....� u.,.,,, ��ti _o, ,--. �. . ......., — -
�. List any variance, "r�anned Development, Sensitive . ��s, or other land uee
actions to be considered as part of [his applicacion: r//Q
4. Applicants: To have a complete application you vill ueed to submit actac�ments
described in the attached iafotmation sheet at the time you aubmit this
application.
5. TEiE APPLICANT(S) SBALL CEBTIFY IHAT:
A. The above re uest does noc violate an deed restrictions that ma be .
attached to or im osed u on the sub ecc property.
B. If the application is granted, che applicant vill exercise the tighcs
granted ia accordanee vith the tezms and subjeet to all the couditions and
limications of the approval.
C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,
attaehments, and eahibics traasmicted herewith, are true; and the
applicants so acknovledge that aAy permit issued, b�sed on [his
application� may be revoked if it is foand that any such statements are
false.
D. The applicant bas read the entire contents of the applicatioa, including
the policies aud criteria, and understaads the requiremests for approving
or denping the application.
DATED this � day of �l�� 19,_9�
SIGNATURES of each ovner (eg• husband aad vif e) of the subjecc property.
�
�
,I
i
(KSL:pm/052�P)
i
� � ���
��. I. � � I . ' ,
, r� I
y
`� PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION � I
CiTY OF TIGARD ,�
FILE NO: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE �REGON �
CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 �
FILE TITLE: DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis OWNER: Same
10875 SW 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800,
3900, Map 1 S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from
Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from
R4.5toCP.
LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217
APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3;
Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon
,
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12.
ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes,
farming, family day. care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex
units, religious assembly and schools.
C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication
services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and
limited eating and drinking establishments
CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request ,
PHONE NUMBER: (503) jl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� �
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION MAKING BODY
STAFF DECISION �
�
X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 10/7/96 TIME: 7:30
HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00
X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 10/22/96 TIME: 7:30
---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION � �
VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X
r
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER_ �
. 1'
STAFF CONTACT: Nels Mickaelson (503) 639-4171 x321 �,
� /
�� �
��� �
�19F�"C'.b � �c�9-� �.
_
' .t.�.l'o�� .�
_��t�" � . .
o�.�-- �'- c� , Q�- .�-�5�.
I
, C�. ��/?
, � .
_ .� � - , .-�,
�z� Q.
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AB-03200
Property Address: 9025 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
MCKINLEY, DUANE VAN TRUSTEE
5135 SW NEBRASKA
PORTLAND
97221 •
Assessor Parcel Size: 33491.70 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 780 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $73910
Assessed Building Value: $38410
Total Assessed Value: $112320
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AB-03300
Property Address: 10400 SW 93RD AV
Mailing Information:
SCHOOL DISTRICT #23J
13137 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD
97223
Assessor Parcel Size: 34845 .44 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 0 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $0
Assessed Building Value: $0
Total Assessed Value: $0
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AB-03302
Property Address: 9235 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
REYNOLDS, ROBERT EUGENE
BETTY L
TIGARD
97223
r
f
1
Assessor Parcel Size: 9663 .39 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 1064 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $38900
Assessed Building Value: $53670
Total Assessed Value: $92570
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 15135AB-03303
Property Address: 9225 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
DALTON, MICHAEL L
2535 NE LINDSEY DR
HILLSBORO
97124
Assessor Parcel Size: 9692 .25 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 1064 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $38900
Assessed Building Value: $57890
Total Assessed Value: $96790
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AB-03304
Property Address: 9105 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
KEEGAN, THOMAS E & JEAN D &
KEEGAN, JAMES C
MOLALLA
97038
Assessor Parcel Size: 9739. 11 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 1036 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $38900
Assessed Building Value: $57660
Total Assessed Value: $96560
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
i
1
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AB-03401
Property Address :
Mailing Information:
WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 106
00000
Assessor Parcel Size: 17373 .22 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 0 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $0
Assessed Building Value: $0
Total Assessed Value: $0
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: iS135AB-03403
Property Address: 9055 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
PLOURD, MATTHEW P AND
MARSHA M
TIGARD
97223
Assessor Parcel Size: 13872 .16 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 1568 (Square Feet)
Assessed Land Value: $38900
Assessed Building Value: $71310
Total Assessed Value: $110210
Assessor Information
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Tax Lot Number: 1S135AC-03800
Property Address: 9200 SW OAK ST
Mailing Information:
DUNFORD, DARRELL A & BERTHA M
c/o JATA CORP .
PORTLAND
97229
Assessor Parcel Size: 141609 .23 (Square Feet)
Building Square Footage: 3609 (Square Feet)
I
Assessed Land Value: $48800
Assessed Building Value: $133350
Total Assessed Value: $183950
�
• ,1, ' �'t
t. j,j'�
i -
\
ASHBROOK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for:
MR. CURTIS PICKERING
P.O. Box 6446
Portland, Oregon 97228 � `i
')
Prepared by:
PARAMETRIX, INC.
7820 N.E. Holman Street, Suite B-6 -
Portland, Oregon 97218
(503) 256-5444 �
March 1995
�• �1 �
�l 1.
I�arametrix, �nC. Consultanfs in Engineeringand Environmental�Sciences
7820 N.E.Holman Suite B-6 Portland,OR 97218-2859
503-256-5444•206-694-5020•Fax:503-256-4221
�
' August 4, 1995
Subject: March 1995 Draft Ashbrook Crossing Traffic Impact Study
To Whom It May Concern:
The March 1995 draft Ashbrook Crossing traffic impact study was based on the most current
land development and project access information available at that time. However, since the�dme
the March 1995 draft Ashbrook Crossing traffic impact study was completed, it appears that �
some of the assumptions regarding the proposed development have changed. These changes may
affect the conclusions of the March 1995 study.
,Sincerely,
PARAMETRIX, INC. �
J. Hann Lee
Printed on Recycled Paper /
(
r 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SCOPE OF THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SECTIONII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 7
SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ACCIDENT HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE 16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . �. 17
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
gECTIONIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT
PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DEVELOPMENT PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1999.TOTAL TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT . . . . . 28
1999 WITH PROJECT AND SR 217/SW OAK STREET OFF RAMP . . . . . . . 38
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
� f �
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3. Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4. Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 5. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6. Vacant Land in Study Area - 80-90% Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 7. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 8. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure�9. Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 10. Weekday AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 11. Weekday PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 12. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 13. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 14. Proposed SR 217/Oak Street Off-Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 15. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Traffic Volumes with Project and SR 217/Oak
StreetRamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 16. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Traffic Volumes with Project and SR 217/Oak Street
Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Infersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3. LOS Criteria for All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 4. Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 5. Summary of Traffic Accident History in Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6. Characteristics of Existing Transit Service in Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 7. 1999 Background Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Levels of Service . . . . . . 24
Table 8. Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 9. 1999 AM Peak Hour Total Traffic with Site Build Out LOS Summary . . . . . 35
Table 10. 1999 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic with Site Build Out L�S Summary . . . . . . 36
Table 11. SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street Signal Warrant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 12. SW Oak St/SW Lincoln StJMission Way Signal Wanant Analysis . . . . . . . . 38
Table 13. 1999 AM Peak Hour Total Traffic with SW Oak St Off Ramp LOS
� Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 14. 1999 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic with SW Oak St Off Ramp LOS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
. , , �.
� SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to assess transportation impacts related to the
Ashbrook mixed use development in Tigard, Oregon. The proposed project consists of offices,
hotel, an all suites hotel, racquet/health club, four restaurants, a theater, and retail space
(bookstore). The project site is triangular and bounded by SR 217 to the south, SW Oak Street
to the north, and SW 89th Avenue to the east. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity.
The following traffic issues are discussed in this report:
• Existing traffic, conditions in the project study area.
• Trip generation estimates for the proposed development with a discussion on trip
characteristics of project-generated trips.
• The traffic impacts of the proposed development on future peak hour operations
at the key intersections in the site vicinity and at the proposed site driveways at
the assumed build-out year of the project (1999).
• Feasibility and impact of constructing an Oak Street off-ramp from the existing
SR 217/Greenburg Road northbound ramp.
• Site access and circulation characteristics.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current project site plan calls for the construction of the following:
• 200,000 gross square feet (gs� office space in four buildings
• 300 room hotel
• 125 room all suites hotel
• 105,000 gsf racquet/health club
• four 6,000 gsf restaurants
• 10 screen theater
• 30,000 gsf bookstore
Initial site construction is expected to begin in 1995 with completion in 1999. Figure 2 shows
the proposed project site plan.
Draft
S�
yq
<
�e��O
WASHINGTON SQUARE
, SHOPPING CENTER
SW LOCUST ST
� �
��
2
�
SW OAK ST
':::?:.??<`��:��:`:::::s?::::`:•;:>>`>:<:».
::;::z:�SET�:::<::<:;;:::::`::::�:::::''s::;::::;::
2�� ?:�:
99W
S�
c9
�Fti
eG
9�,
9a
. �� o
� Q P��F��N m
a
, _ .
3
�
� Figure 1.
NoTTOSCA�E Site ViCirlity Map
/ °�° � I�..�°�° � °�°
� � .� � U I�
:��-�.::_.�-...... ,�-.x,:-r:__ "�= „"' :='�-=.:_�,�.. ...=�r�
.._...... - --:, - � /
� I _ !j o ; �--
°� j -- i� o ��.e...._ �I �._..._I�� �.�
� ; ,�
I .�.�- o
� �
� .�
�..�..�. ,M� ' I
�4 il
��r
0�� �'M1,I�'' I'� � I ��i.�r�'��w1 r.�
� /
; �� ��� ;� � � I�
��,�== _ -.-- ', � �°�` �
� �- / i
�1..�.���_�.• \ �Mis's1oa�7Mil`f�.paa��---� _J
, :.�""1.:r�1.w 4.••r• �O Pedwtrhn H0� ` r+x���t
D!V!l O�Y!N T T!A Y '
A.IbwL 0.'i�r LL�O��
n..�...._. s ...�,_
Tq �� O (� �
�° .,m F y Yi i�'Pil p °"'CT
�.a.....,i,d�.n rc �..._�.. ` IS.�O ����wy y
wn.�wad a�....,k �yh, �. O Q a..noma
ou�, q y f
�.e..r K r..��r... €
Wl Wi i/u.a � �
�ti.��..,..,� ;r,s},r'`•: \
GL..i�wq __"___"__J�
taslrh k I
� �
,C \\ \ � I
orr�,�,,,a.,,,,�„«,� PROPOSED DEVE � OPMEN�T � psrfeROOK cRO55iNc
_ ���- � � . � � .� fIGA10 �OIfGON ��..�.�..�-�.
.\
��� '� �\
\
� \\.
Figure 2.
Conceptual Site Plan
, ,
SUNIlVIARY OF FIlVDINGS
The following paragraphs summarize the major findings of the traffic impact analysis. The
findings are broken down into two parts: a) summary of the traffic impact analysis methodology;
' b) the general impact analysis conclusions and recommended on-site and off-site improvements.
Traffic Analysis Methodolo�v
1. Existing traffic conditions within the project vicinity were documented to define
the attributes of the area that would be impacted by the proposed project.
2. 1999 future traffic conditions without the project was established to define a
baseline by which project impacts could be determined. These traffic volumes
were estimated by determining the trip generation and distribution characteristics
related to vacant property in the study area expected to develop by the project
build-out year.
3. Project-generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips were estimated from rates
published in "Trip Generation, Sth Edition" (Institute of Transportation
Engineers). Predicted site-generated trips were then assigned to the roadway
network and added to the 1999 baseline traffic volumes to develop the 1999 "with
project" traffic volumes.
4. 1999 future traffic condition with the project was established and compared to the .
1999 traffic condition without the project to determine the project's traffic impact
in the project vicinity.
5. The 1999 future.traffic condition with the project condition was also analyzed
with the addition of an Oak Street off-ramp from the existing SR 217/Greenburg
Road northbound ramp.
Findings and Recommendations
� 1. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 15,010 daily,
1,215 a.m. peak hour, and 1,490 p.m. peak hour trips. Of those trips, 12,870
daily, 1,035 a.m. peak hour, and 1,310 p.m. peak hour trips will be new.
2. Based on the project traffic volumes at the main project driveway, the driveway
lane geometry should include three outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The
outbound lanes should be configured as exclusive right, through, and left lanes.
A queuing analysis indicates that the right turn pocket should be a minimum of
160 feet in length to avoid blocking conditions by the outbound through/left
4 Draft
, .
movement. The opposing SW Lincoln Street southbound approach should be
configured as an exclusive left turn lane and a through/right lane.
3. The proposed project's main access on SW Oak Street will be aligned with the
SW Lincoln Street extension. It is assumed that the SW Lincoln Street extension
will be constructed concurrently with the proposed project and will provide the
project site its main access to and from the arterial street network. The developer
has plans to install a traffic signal at the main project access at the SW Oak
Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection although signal warrants are not likely be
met in the 1999 with project condition. The developer's motivation for installing
the signal is to provide good access to the project site and to enhance traffic
operations along SW Oak Street.
4. The SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road intersection will need an
additional northbound left turn lane to operate at LOS D or better in the 1999
p.m. peak hour with project condition. ,
5. The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection level of service can be
mitigated from LOS F to LOS D in the 1999 p.m. peak hour condition with the
project by signalizing the intersection. Signal warrants 1, 2, and 11 (p.m. peak
hour only) are projected to be met in the 1999 with project condition. Although
the signalization of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection will
adequately mitigate the future level of service condition, the signalization of this
intersection will not be entirely beneficial. The eastbound approach would
continue to experience significant delay (LOS F) even though the average
intersection level of service is projected at LOS D. The LOS F condition at the
eastbound approach would be primarily caused by inadequate green time and the
one lane approach. The inadequate green time allocated to the eastbound
movement would be due to the green time demand of the heavy traffic volumes
on SW Hall Boulevard. The eastbound left turn traffic would most likely divert
to the signalized intersection at SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street via SW
Lincoln Street,� SW 90th Avenue, or SW 87th Avenue if the delay to make the
eastbound left turn movement becomes excessive.
6. Although all of the study area intersections on SW Greenburg Road are projected
to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the Washington Square Road
intersection in the 1999 with project condition, existing field observations indicate
that the SW Greenburg Road traffic experience progression problems through the
corridor. Signal coordination improvements should be considered in 1999 with
and without the project condition to further enhance traffic flow through the SW
Greenburg Road corridor. The City of Tigard and ODOT are responsible for the
traffic signal operations along the SW Greenburg Road conidor and should
consider a signal coordination project to improve the corridor's traffic
5 Draft
� � ,. �
_ progression. The signal coordination project would benefit all of the current and
future users of the SW Greenburg Road corridor.
7. The SW Oak Street off ramp from the SR 217/SW Greenburg Road off ramp
should be considered. Further discussion with ODOT need to occur to resolve
the geometric constraints of this proposed improvement. .
( Draft
- SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USE
The proposed site is currently mostly vacant. There are several houses located at the northern
portion of the project site. Office and commercial buildings exist northwest and west of the site.
The site is bounded by SR 217 to the south. Single family homes exist northeast and east of the
project site.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The following provides a description of the existing street and highway system in the study area
including a description of street classifications and characteristics.
State Route 217: The major transportation facility in the study area is State Route 217, a north-
south freeway connecting SR 26 (the Sunset Highway) on the north with Interstate 5 on the
south. SR 217 is a four-lane, 55 MPH limited access facility with auxiliary lanes at several
locations within and near the study area. SR 217 is connected to the study area by the SW Hall
Boulevard, SW Scholls Ferry Road, and SW Greenburg Road interchanges.
Hall Boulevard: Hall Boulevard is designated as an arterial street in the Tigard Comprehensive
Transportation Plan and is also known as the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway in the Oregon State
Highway System. Within the study area, Hall Boulevard is generally a two-lane road with left
turn pockets at major intersections. '
As properties adjacent to Hall Boulevard and east of Greenburg Road develop, frontage
improvements will require widening of this street to a three-lane cross-section in accordance with
ODOT development concept for the street. Hall Boulevard has a designated speed limit of 40
MPH and no on-street parking is provided. .
Greenburg Road: Greenburg Road is designated as a major collector street in the Tigard
Transportation Plan. This roadway has a four-lane cross-section with left turn pockets at major
access points south of Locust Street. North of Locust Street, Greenburg Road narrows to a
single through lane in each direction with left turn channelization. To the north of Hall
Boulevard, Greenburg Road is known as Oleson Road and has a single travel lane in each
direction with left turn pockets at intersections. Within the study area, Greenburg Road is
signed for 40 MPH speeds and has no on-street parking.
Locust Street: Locust Street is identified as a collector street serving the residential
� neighborhood directly east of Greenburg Road and north of SR 217. This street has a single
� Draft
travel lane in each direction with traffic signal controls at Greenburg Road and Hall Boulevard.
Locust Street also serves the major office development at Lincoln Center and the Metzger
School.
SW Oak Street: SW Oak Street is a minor collector between SW Greenburg Road and SW
Lincoln Street. East of SW Lincoln Street, SW Oak Street is a local access street. SW Oak
Street is a two lane roadway with a 25 mph speed limit. It provides access to both commercial �
and single family residential properties.
The following signalized intersections were analyzed as part of this study:
• SW Greenburg Road at:
- SW Locust Street
- Washington Square Road (Mapleleaf Road)
- SR 217 northbound on- and off-ramps
- SR 217 southbound on- and off-ramps
• SW Hall Boulevard at SW Locust Street
The SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak Street and SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersections
are the only unsignalized intersections that were.analyzed as part of this study.
Figure 3 shows the existing roadway system in the study area including number of lanes at all
major intersections and traffic control features.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were obtained at all the study area intersections.
Morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the following study
area intersections in November 1994:
SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street
• SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road
• SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street
• SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street
Traffic counts at the remaining study area intersections were taken from the
"Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study" (Parametrix) dated January 1994. The
traffic counts in this study were conducted in January 1993 and include counts at the locations
surveyed in November 1994. The January 1993 traffic volumes were compared to the recent
November 1994 counts to identify the extent of traffic volume growth since the earlier study was
completed.
g Draft
Q°
�l�► � �Q � �
T�' = 11 � �d� �—
� �� T�' � T�
��
�
�
WASHINGTON SQVq SW LOCUST ST
- RF RD
w �.^�°°�^�..
¢
� w
II � ¢ o
!' ♦� � �1� � ��Ov� � F' J
�� \� � � m
�� �/ � � J
J
(� _
� �,� �
�
�� �
SW OAK ST "w`M"'"__....___.-°°o
������,..��.�..x�.�.�.,.�..:�«.,�.�.,.� . r.
�� �
� � ,
� �S� 2,� .,�,,,
-��1'T�' ��y�
� �
--� Lane Usage
Figure 3.
�i T�ff��s�e�a� Existing Lane Configurations
NOTTOSCALE �. Stop Sign and Traffic Control
There is a significant difference in traffic volumes between the November 1994 and January
1993 counts. The difference in counts can be attributed in part to seasonal traffic fluctuations.
The study area is especially sensitive to seasonal fluctuations due to the large amount of retail
in the area. November is typically a high..traffic month since it is the beginning of the
Christmas shopping season and January is typically a low traffic month. The November 1994
counts were averaged with the January 1993 counts and balanced to develop an average weekday
count adjusted for seasonal variations. Some increase in traffic volumes in the larger study area
could also be attributed to recent land development. However, this development is not expected
to significantly impact the key intersections studied in this report.
Existing morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts in the study area are
presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
Baserl on the volumes presented in Figures 4 and 5, peak hourly traffic operations were analyzed
at the intersections identified above using the methodologies outlined in the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) and Circular 373.
According to the HCM, there are six levels of service (LOS) by which the operational
performance of an intersection may be described. These levels of service range between LOS
"A" which indicates a relatively free-flowing condition and LOS "F" which indicates operational
breakdown. LOS "D" is usually considered as a minimum acceptable standard in urban areas.
With this level of service, some delays are expected for certain traffic movements.
The HCM methodology for analysis of signalized intersections was used at those locations which
are currently traffic signal controlled. At these intersections, level of service is related to the
average delay experienced by all vehicles as they approach the intersection. Table 1 summarizes
the relationship between level of service and average delay.
The HCM methodology for 2-way stop-controlled intersections was used to analyze the
intersections of SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak Street and.SW Hall Road/SW Oak Street. At
these unsignalized intersections, level of service is related to reserve, or unused, roadway
capacity (measured in passenger cars per hour). Reserve capacity is evaluated for all vehicles
entering or crossing the major roadway traffic flow from side streets, as well as those making
left turns on the major roadway. The relationship between various levels of service and reserve
capacity is shown in Table 2.
Circular 373 defines all-way stop controlled intersection level of service based on average
intersection delay. The relationship between various levels of service and delay is defined in
Table 3. �
10 . Draft
� �35
°�+u�i �5 � °"� F-BO
� �5 °`^ � W �110
� ``45 j� �m �--30
10 m � '�ss 5
15—� o�� ��_ � � 40� ���
50� �ao Q. N
� ��
� N�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
���"Q�,F RD
w
a� �330 Q W,
� � �145 c�n ��� o = � '
T y � '�,o v�°� � � m
N J
N^ � � � ivwovvavwwows�ivwow�'ww�aw75 (n Q
O N =
�� 65 —� �
y ,F�_ (/�
fi
F�
�
SW OAK ST �
�n a°v �35 �
'�.. � � �3s V �
�, �za
� M� � <--��s � 5� �(� �
�. ,�.���.,..a,x�,,,,�.
�"'��;�• es —> zo—>
o� �,.�,� ao�, �^° �
� �
1 �S 2,�
335� � � �'�, E—175
5-->
305�, e N � 65—►
Figure 4.
�t Traffic Signal Existing Weekday AM ,
NOTTOSCALE ..s.. Stop Sign Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
�
,_ � ,
;
N Z
vv�aiN �2S �O Nv�°n �7S
F 35 0 �
� � �300 JQ v°m '�200 �, �80
� � �160 20
'� 120—s
420� ��� Q��= �' � 155� �N�
�.1� �n
�
WASHINGTON SQU SW LOCUST ST
ARF RD
,,, w
N o �530 ,n Q w; •
� � �315 �� � v� o a'' �
� � 1 g O rn = >
�S �SOmm �V � � m
O�n � � �� � J
��
E— 60 � Q
�n ro =
in o
��o .M.,.,,.v..M,w...,.,M..,.�r... 240-� 5
� �
�F �
SW OAK ST �`� p, ^�^�
N�� i35
F 10 �
�s� � �� �5
5 ,��, �
240—> 60—s
rn°n �, � 175� v�r°> �
^� 217 f..
� � .:4��
320,' �� �' � '��k� � so
s—>� . ...
505�, �$ 240—>
. Figure 5.
�8( Traffic Signal Existing Weekday PM
NOTTOSCALE �. Stop Sign Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Average Delay
Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle)
A < 5.0
B 5.1 - 15.0 �
C 15.1 - 25.0
D 25.1 - 40.0
E 40.1 - 60.0
F > 60.0
Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Reserve Capacity Expected Delay to Minor Street
Level of Service (pcph') Traffic �
A > 400 Litde or no delay
B 300-399 Short traffic delays
C 200-299 Average traffic delays
D 100-199 Long traffic delays
E 0-99 Very long traffic delays
F 0 < Extreme delays, usually warrants
intersection improvements
' pcph means passenger cars per hour
Existing morning and evening levels of service are summarized in Table 4 for all study area
intersections.
As indicated in Table 4, all signalized intersections are cunently operating at acceptable levels
of service (LOS D or better) during the morning and evening peak hours. All the unsignalized
intersections are also operating at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the SW Hall
Road/SW Oak Street intersection. During the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound movement at the
SW Hall Road/SW Oak Street intersection operates at LOS E with a reserve capacity of 3. All
other movements at this intersection are operating at LOS D or better.
13 Draft
Table 3. LOS Criteria for All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
Average Delay
. Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle)
A < 5.0
B 5.1 - 10.0 .
C 10.1 - 20.0
D 20.1 -�30.0
E 30.1 - 45.0
F > 45.0
When assessed on an individual basis, all signalized intersections in the study area are currently
operating at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak hour.
However, intersections in close proximity to each other do not operate in isolation. Delays at
one intersection which cause traffic to back up, will affect traffic operations at upstream
intersections. This is not reflected in the intersection capacity analysis for an individual
intersection but becomes more apparent when an analysis is conducted of traffic progression
along an entire length of arterial street.
For example, while the individual intersection capacity calculations for Greenburg Road in the
vicinity of SR 217 indicate level of service "D" operations during the evening peak hour, actual
traffic operations were observed to be significantly congested. Southbound traffic queues were
observed to back up from the northbound ramps to Washington Square Road, a distance of
approximately 500 feet. A major reason for this queue is the lack of adequate green time for
southbound vehicles to progress along Greenburg Road through the interchange area. This is
in part the result of heavy turning movements from both the east and west at Washington Square
Road which continually add to the platoon of through-moving vehicles. It is also, in part, the
result of the existing lane configurations on the Greenburg Road bridge which forces all vehicles
heading to destinations south of the interchange into a single travel lane.
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Accident data on major roadways in the study area was obtained from the City of Tigard and
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Data was provided by the City of Tigard
for the period between April, 1989 and October, 1993 and includes total accidents and accidents
by type (i.e, fatal, injury or property damage only). Data from ODOT included the period from
January, 1991 through August, 1994. Accident data is summarized in Table 5.
14 Draft
Table 4. Existing LeveLs of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Signalized Intersection Average Average
LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 10.3 B 11:2
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Square Rd B 11.4 C 24.1
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 NB Ramps G 17.3 D 34.7
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 SB Ramps C 15.7 C 24.1
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 10.3 C 17.3
Reserve Reserve
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Capacity LOS Capacity
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Southbound Left Turn B 342 B 317
Westbound Right Turn A 502 A 447
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St
Northbound Left Turn A 602 A 584
Southbound Left Turn A 773 A 484
Eastbound Approach C 268 E 3
Westbound Approach D 175 D 116
Review of Table 5 indicates that the highest number of accidents occuned at the SR 217
interchange with Greenburg Road (includes both ramp terminal intersections) with an average
of over 9.5 accidents per year. This equates to an accident rate of 0.65 per million vehicles
entering these intersections. All other intersections within the study area for which data was
available had significantly fewer accidents.
15 Draft
Table 5. Summary of Traf�c Accident History in Study Area
Average
Annual Accidents/Million
Intersection ADT Accidents Entering Vehicles
SW Greenburg Rd at:
SW Locust St 14,700 1.6 0.30
Washington Sq Rd 25,250 5.4 0.59
SW Oak St 25,150 1.1 0.12
SR 217 Interchange 40,250 9.5 0.65
SW Hall Blvd
SW Locust St 17,650 2.2 0.34
SW Oak St 17,000 2.2 0.36
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE '
Public transit service in the study area is provided by the Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District (Tri-Met). Service within the study area is focused on the existing transit
center located on the west side of Washington Square and includes five routes; three providing
service between the Tigard/Washington Square area and downtown Portland and two providing
service to the Beaverton Transit Center (one of these also serves the Lake Oswego Transit
Center). These routes include #43 (Taylors Ferry Road), #45 (Garden Home), #56 (Scholls
Ferry Road), #62 (Murray Boulevard), and �78 (Beaverton/Lake Oswego). Table 6 includes
a summary of the transit routes' key service characteristics.
The major transit destination in the study area is the Washington Square Transit Center with
over 1,100 daily boardings according to the 1990 Passenger Census. Other major transit
destinations within the study area include bus stops along the access roads into the Mall.
A new park & ride at SR 217/Scholls Ferry Road has been added in the study area. This park
& ride is known as Progress Park and is served by express route 92X-South Beaverton Express.
This service is only available from the park & ride to downtown Portland in the mornings and
from downtown Portland to the park & ride in the evenings. Service is available every 15 to
30 minutes.
16 � Draft
. d
�
Table 6. Characteristics of Existing Transit Service in Study Area
Trip Frequency
Line Description Peak Hour Off-Peak Sat Sun
43 "Taylors Ferry Rd" 30 min. 60 min 60 min 60 min �
Washington Sq. to
Downtown Portland
45 "Garden Home" 20 min AM 60 min 60 min 60 min
Tigard T.C. to Downtown 30 min PM
Portland
56 "Scholls Ferry Rd" 15 min AM 30 min 60 min 60 min
Washington Sq. to 20 min PM
Downtown Portland
62 "Murray Boulevard" 20 min 30 min 60 min None
Washington Sq. to
Beaverton T.C.
78 "Beaverton/Lake Oswego" 20 min 30 min 30 min 60 min
- Lake Oswego T.C. to 60 min
Beaverton T.C.' after 6:00
PM
' Via Washington Square and Tigard Transit Center
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The non-motorized transportation system in the study area includes both bikeways and pedestrian
facilities. Some street space has been set aside and delineated for bike travel along SW Hall
Boulevard, but the system is not continuous. There are no bike facilities along SW Greenburg
Road in the study area.
The majority of the study area, with the exception of SW Hall Boulevard, has sidewalks on at
least one side of the roadway. However, these pedestrian facilities do not provide continuous
connection between the neighborhood/employment areas and the shopping areas. For example,
pedestrian facilities are lacking between the Metzger neighborhood east of SW Greenburg Road
and Washington Square. This is also the case from Lincoln Center and Washington Square.
17 Draft
�
{
�
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IlVIPROVEMENTS
There are cunently no transportation improvement projects planned by the City of Tigard in the
project vicinity. However, the SW Lincoln Street extension connecting SW Oak Street and SW
Locust Street together was assumed to be in place. It is likely that the project proponent will
construct this roadway concurrently with his project since the SW Lincoln Street extension will
serve as the project's major access to the arterial street network. �
Washington County has an MS TIP improvement project for the Greenburg Road bridge over
SR 217. Plans call for the bridge to be widened from five lanes to six lanes with bicycle lanes.
Widening of the northbound ramp for an exclusive right turn lane is also included in this
improvement project. Construction is tentatively scheduled for the summer of 1997.
The Greenburg Road bridge widening project was assumed to be in place during the 1999
condition with and without the project since the tentative construction schedule for the
improvement project occurs two year prior to the estimated build-out of the Ashbrook mixed-use
development. ,
1 g Draft
�
� }1
SECTION III
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The impact of traffic generated by the proposed Ashbrook mixed-use project during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours were analyzed as follows:
• Based on the proposed size of development, the total number of future a.m. and
p.m. peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development, were
estimated for complete build-out of the site..
• Trip distribution of site-generated traffic was developed from information in the
"Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study"' January 1994 (Parametrix).
. Full build out (1999) background traffic conditions were estimated based on
potential development of vacant land in the project vicinity.
• Predicted site-generated traffic for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
assigned to the roadway network and added to the 1999 background traffic
volumes to develop the 1999 traffic volumes with the proposed project.
� • Future traffic demands on each of the study area intersections in the project
vicinity were analyzed to identify any capacity or roadway deficiencies with the
build-out of the site.
• Site access and circulation issues were analyzed.
• The future traffic demand with the build out of the proposed study was also
� analyzed with an Oak Street off-ramp from the existing SR 217/Greenburg Road
northbound ramp in place.
A detailed discussion of the methodology summarized above, and the analysis results, are
contained in the remainder of this section.
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT
The year 1999 was chosen as the analysis year since it is likely to be the build-out year of the
proposed project. The 1999 background traffic volumes were derived by assuming an 80 to 90
percent build out of vacant developable land in the surrounding area that would have an impact .
in the study area. This scenario is consistent with one of the alternatives studied in the
19 Draft
I,
, !
I
"Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study," January 1994 (Parametrix). Figure 6
shows the location, zoning, and density of these parcels. The 80 to 90 percent build-out
scenario includes a total of 158 new dwelling units, 285 reta.il employees, and 1,245 office and
industrial employees. A total of 740 a.m. peak hour trips (630 inbound, 110 outbound) and
1,480 p.m. peak hour trips (550 inbound, 930 outbound) were added to the study area roadway
network. Figures 7 and 8 show the 1999 background traffic volumes for the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours, respectively.
Field investigation has identified several small retail developments under construction in the
study area that are not included in the analysis above. These developments should not have any
significant affect to the analysis since the traffic volumes generated by these developments are
nominal and are heavily dependent on existing pass-by trips.
Level of service analyses were conducted for all the study area intersections. It was assumed
that the Greenburg Road bridge widening project would be in place during this analysis
condition. The results of the analysis for the 1999 background traffic volumes without the
project aze shown in Table 7.
As shown in Table 7, all of the study area intersections are operating at an acceptable level of
service (LOS D or better) in the 1999 background a.m. peak hour condition. In the 1999
background p.m. peak hour condition, the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection is
projected to operate below LOS D. The eastbound approach at this intersection is estimated to
operate at LOS F. All other study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better
in the p.m, peak hour.
The LOS F condition at the eastbound approach of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street
intersection is primarily due to the left turn movement. If the delay is significant, it is likely
that these left turning vehicles will divert to the signalized intersection of SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Locust Street to make the left turn onto SW Hall Boulevard. Traffic on SW Oak
Street can access Locust Street and the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street intersection via
SW 90th Avenue and SW 87th Avenue. Since the eastbound left turn traffic can divert to a less
congested route, no mitigation is being proposed.
Although all of the study area intersections on SW Greenburg Road aze projected to operate at
LOS D or better in the 1999 background condition, existing field observations indicate that the
SW Greenburg Road traffic experience progression problems through the comdor. Signal
coordination improvements should be considered in 1999 without the project condition to further
enhance traffic flow through the SW Greenburg Road corridor. The City of Tigard and ODOT
are responsible for the traffic signal operations along the SW, Greenburg Road corridor and
should consider a signal coordination project to improve the corridor's traffic progression. The
signal coordination project would benefit all of the current and future users of the SW Greenburg
Road corridor.
Zp Draft
N
I
I
N I
�• , � �
� o i
� � �
�W D
�
Hq� &�. No 3y D ,
� y o �
� � �
z �
v
� I
. -c I
i
4.0
OFFlCE
� A2
� � L °
OFFlCE �c,d�� R9
� 23 �
u�i OFFlCE
; D 1.5 2.4
N �' RETAIL B R5
�
� � � � 0 1 2.5
• � WASHINGTON � 3.1 � R75
°� SQUARE � R9
m ;
. J w D +
72.8KSF � �
LEHMAN ST.
2.0 RETAIL �'6 j
HVY. IND. OFFICE
5�� �CORAL ST. �
0.8 R9 = i
�,ov' OFFlC£ �
SG �OCUST ST. � I
-p Wq�� 100KSF � I
n SQUqRE RON �OFFlCE 1.5 ' I
H R9 �
o ,.o ,
� 2.0 �1� � RETAIL� i
LT. IND. D oAK S7. - '
r°� �
LEGEND � � �
� !
� PARCEL DEVELOPED
UNDER THIS � `�4?�
ALTERNAl1VE �
Figure 6.
Vacant Land in Study Area
, (Acres and Comp Plan Land Use)
80-90% Development
� �-35
�°or�in �10 QO �P,^ e-80
F 45 0 0 �
� �, '`BU J� `�'r' �---35 ,� j'110
15
� � ��� 10
15—s o�� �U2 20—s pN�
�� NV� Q� � � 45� ONe�
� �N
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
.�MM„„„�RE Ro
w ,„�
$q L 390 Q • w
� �, j-145 v�n � v� o = �
� . W `S �--10 �V� � °D J
N m � � F 175 � Q
' O N =
y m tm�l 6rJ� �
7 �
�
SW OAK ST r
u`�i o �35
`��� �35
� �� j-20
� 775 ��
`'� 5
65 —> 20� �N o
u�0 40 �r�
�� � �
� I 217
l�
365� � � ,� E—175
5—�
305�, °o� 65�
m N
Figure 7.
�t T�ff��s�9�a� 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour �
NOTTOSCALE ,s, Stop Sign Traffic Volumes Without Project
� L
��� �as ¢,o ae� �so
F s5 ° �
� � �390 JU' u`ni� '�225 �, �80
� � �175 30
70 2 120—s ��
420� u°v��� ��[�/ � I 160� $�n�
� o�o
�
m
�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
°�O(/q�.._RE a
aq��
W
�� �560 Q w
� � �315 � � �50 �G�v� w ~ 0
�°n� � � v � F60 � Q
�n�o o� � >r,�,MKk_�.,�.V,�.,�. Y =
o� ������ 240—► 2�
y �
��.
SW OAK ST `� �
�_..��._..��-� � r
��m �35
�
1 <--10
� �y �5
E— 60 ��
5
240—► 60—► N N o
�� 175� v�c�
� I 217 �
l�
335� � � ��'�
5_� �"'�a F— 60
505�, �$ 240�
Figure 8.
�SE Traffic Signal 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour
NOTTOSCALE t StopSign Traffic Volumes Without Project
Table 7. 1999 Background Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Signalized Intersection Average Average
LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 10.3 B 11.6
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Square Rd B 13.4 D 36.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 NB Ramps B 13.3 C 22.6
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 SB Ramps C 16.4 C 23.2
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 10.5 C 20.5
Reserve Reserve
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Capacity LOS Capacity
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Southbound Left Turn C 280 C 283
Westbound Right Turn A 451 A 420
SW Hall Blvd/SW�Oak St
Northbound Left Turn A 597 A 580
� Southbound Left Turn A 769 A 474
Eastbound Approach C 265 F -3
Westbound Approach D 172 D 109
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
As stated in the previous section, the current project site plan calls for the construction of the
following:
• 200,000 gross square feet (gsfl office space in four buildings
• 300 room hotel
• 125 room all suites hotel
• 105,000 gsf racquet/health club
• four 6,000 gsf restaurants
24 Draft
• 10 screen theater
• 30,000 gsf bookstore
Initial site construction is expected to begin in 1995 with completion in 1999.
Frontage improvements to SW Oak Street and the SW Lincoln Street extension are part of the
project development plan and will occur concunent with the site construction.
SW Oak Street along the project frontage will be improved from a two lane road to a three lane
road as part of the development proposal. The developer has volunteered to vertically realign .
SW Oak Street during the construction of the frontage improvements. Sidewalks and a bus pull
out will also be provided by the developer along the project frontage.
The SW Lincoln Street extension from the southern terminus to SW Oak Street will provide the
project site additional access to the sunounding arterial system. Project generated traffic will
be able to directly access to SW Locust Street via the SW Lincoln Street extension.
TRIP GENERATION
The proposed project is a mixed-use development with office, hotel, all suites hotel,
racquet/health club, restaurant, theater, and retail (bookstore) uses. Estimates of morning and
evening peak hour vehicle trips for the proposed project were developed from rates published
in "Trip Generation, Sth Edition" (Institute of Transportation Engineers). There are four basic
types of trips generated by a mixed-use development with commercial uses.
1. Pass-by Trips - These trips already exist on the roadways that provide primary
access to the center and are being made for some purpose other than visiting the
facility (for example, work-to-home).� Pass-by trips do not result in any increase
in background traffic volumes in the study area. In fact, the only impact of those
pass-by trips occurs at the site driveways, where they become turning movements.
Therefore, pass-by trips have no additional effect on the road system beyond the
development's driveways. Pass-by trips were not considered in this analysis.
2. Diverted Trips - This category refers to trips that are currently being made to
other commercial locations that compete with the proposed facility, but then are
redirected to the new facility when it opens. This redirection usually occurs
because of an improvement in convenience and proximity for the affected drivers.
Diverted trips result in an increase in traffic volumes on the roads within the
immediate vicinity of the site, but also result in a decrease in traffic volumes at
other locations within the overall road system serving the area (i.e. in the vicinity
of businesses previously patronaged). Therefore, this component of the total
generated demand causes no change in the total number of vehicle trips within the
overall road system of the area, even though it may add to the number of trips
25 Draft
within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. This shift in traffic
patterns through diversion often causes a net reduction in total vehicle miles
traveled on the area-wide transportation system. Common sense supports this
observation, as it is rare for drivers to divert to new retail centers in order to
travel greater distances than they did previously. Diverted trips were not
considered in this analysis.
3. Internal Trips - These trips are generated within the development. For example,
the hotel component of the development may generate trips to the restaurant
portion of the proposed project. These trips are internal to the development and
should not increase traffic volumes in the study area.
4. New Trips - These trips are those trips that would not have been made without
the-existence of the proposed development. Therefore, this is the only trip type
that results in an increase in the total number of trips made within the study area.
These are also the only trips that represent additional vehicle miles of travel on
the transportation system. ,
The proposed Ashbrook mixed-use development was assumed to have substantial internal trip
component. The racquet/health club use was assumed to have a ten percent internal trip _
component. The internal trips to the health club would be generated primarily from the office
use. The ten percent internal trip component for the racquet/health club equates to
approximately six percent of the office trips. It is reasonable to expect that one in 15 office
employees would use the racquet/health club.
As for the four restaurant uses, an internal trip component of 40 percent was assumed. Since
the four restaurants are somewhat isolated from the major arterial in the area (SW Greenburg
Road), most of the restaurant trips would be generated within the immediate site vicinity. The
four restaurants would generate internal trips from all the other uses of the proposed project or
from the immediately adjacent Lincoln Center office complex. The restaurant internal trips
accounts for approximately 11 to 13 percent of the gross trips generated by the entire
development.
Based on the information described..above, the trip generation analysis shown in Table 8 was
estimated for the full build-out of the site. The weekday daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak
hour trip generation estimates are shown in Table 8.
As shown in Table 8, the proposed project is estimated to generate 15,010 daily trips, 1,215
a.m. peak hour trips, and 1,490 p.m. peak hour trips. Of those trips, 12,870 daily, 1,035 a.m.
peak hour, and 1,310 p.m. peak hour trips will be new.
2C Draft
Table 8. Trip Generation Summary -
New Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Trips
Land Use � Size In Out Total In Out Total
Office 200,000 gsf 2,370 290 35 325 55 255 310
Racquet Cl�b 105,000 gsf '
Internal-]0% 180 10 l0 20 10 ]0 20
New 1,620 100 65 165 ]00 70 170
Total 1,800 110 75 185 110 80 190
Theater 10 screens 1,530 0 0 0 130 60 190
Specialry Retail' 30,000 gsf 1,220 20 ]0 30 55 55 110
All Suites Hotel' 125 rooms � 950 65 35 100 35 60 95
Hotel2 300 rooms 2,220 105 70 175 105 90 195
High Turnover Restaurant 6,000 gsf
Internal-40% 490 20 20 40 20 20 40
New . 740 30 30 60 30 30 60
Total 1,230 50 50 100 50 50 (00
High Turnover Restaurant 6,000 gsf
Internal-40% 490 20 20 40 20 20 40
New 740 30 30 60 30 30 60
Total 1,230 50 50 l00 50 50 100
High Turnover Restaurant 6,000 gsf
Internal-40% 490 20 20 40 20 20 40
New 740 30 30 60 30 30 60
Total 1,230 50 50 I00 50 50 100
High Turnover Restaurant 6,000 gsf
Internal-40% 490 20 20 40 20 20 40
New 740 30 30 60 30 30 60
Total 1,230 50 50 100 50 50 100
Total Proposed Development
Total New 12,870 700 335 1,035 600 7I0 1,310
TotalInternal 2,140 90 90 180 90 90, 180
Grand Total 15,010 790 425 1,215 690 800 1,490
' AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates were not available. Therefore,the AM and PM peak hour trip generation
were estimated based on the daily trip generatian.
=Assumed 85% occupancy
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution of site-generated traffic was based on the trip origin/destination information
documented in the "Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study," January 1994
(Parametrix). The trip distribution pattern used in assigning the project-generated weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hour trips is shown in Figure 9.
Based on the trip distribution pattern, Figures 10 and 11 were prepared which represents the
assignment of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic generated by the proposed project at build out.
Inbound project generated trips from the south predominantly use SW Oak Street to access the
project site. The inbound trips from the north will use SW Locust Street and SW Lincoln Street
to access the site instead of SW Oak Street since it is very difficult to turn left into SW Oak
Street from SW Greenburg Road. The traffic signal at SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street
facilitates access for left turning traffic from SW Greenburg Road to SW Locust Street. The
inbound travel paths for project trips generated from other directions are direct.
The outbound travel path for project generated trips is SW Oak Street for trips traveling north
on SW Greenburg Road. For project generated trips traveling south on SW Greenburg Road,
the travel path is SW Lincoln Street to SW Locust Street to SW Greenburg Road. Project
generated trips must take this travel path to access SW Greenburg Road southbound because it
is very difficult to turn left at the SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak Street intersection from heavy
opposing traffic and close intersection spacing with the SR 217 northbound ramp intersection.
The signal at the SW Greenburg Road/SW.Locust Street intersection facilities the access for left
turning traffic from SW Locust Street to SW Greenburg Road.
The outbound travel path for project generated trips traveling south on SW Hall Boulevard is �
direct. The outbound travel path for project generated trips traveling north on SW Hall
Boulevard is dependent on the congestion level of the direct travel path. A direct travel path
to northbound SW Hall Boulevard exists via SW Oak Street. However, as congestion is
experienced at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection, drivers typically divert to
either SW Lincoln Street, SW 90th Avenue, or SW 87th Avenue to access the SW Hall �
Boulevard/SW Locust Street traffic signal. The traffic signal at SW Hall Road/SW Locust Street
facilitates access for left turning traffic from SW Locust Street to SW Hall Boulevard.
1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT
The traffic volumes shown in Figures 7 and 10 were combined to arrive at the 1999 total a.m.
peak hour traffic volumes with full project build-out. The 1999 total a.m. peak hour traffic
volumes with the project are shown in Figure 12. The 1999 total p.m. peak hour traffic
volumes with full project build out were derived by combining the traffic volumes shown in
Figures 8 and 11. The 1999 total p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with the project are shown in
Figure 13.
,
28 Draft
�
7% 10%
e°
c�
J�
2
��
��
�
�
WASHINGTON SQUqR� SW LOCUST ST
30�����, Ro
w �,�„�,�,
>
Q w
z � Q
���v � � m
25% " "' � �
cn =
:.:..::..�:.�,.t,..r.,,.,�.,�,,,�...,�,,. �
f°, �
c
�
f�Fy,•
SW OAK ST ,,�t" �j%
�
::<;<::><>:::l:R..>.J�. :T:»:«:<::::;><::::::::::>:::>;<:<:::<:«:::>:>::>:<;:;
�
�<: <�:::;:>;:::::>:::<:>:::::>:>::::<:::::::>::>:<:»:::<�<:::<:»>::<.......
fl: .....�:::>:;:.:::::::::::.>:;::..<:.;::::.::.:::::::.::.:,:
�,�<;;::<:>::::::>::>::»:;::«::::::>:>�:�<:><:::<::::;::>:<:>;::»>:<:>::::::>::::;::>:.;;.:::.::::;:::::>:::>:::<::::>::>:::<:>::::;::»::»:>:::::>:::>::::>::::>::::><>::>: �
.,�...:>::::::»>::»>::>:<:::<:::::�:>::»::;;:<:::>::»::::::>:«::::>::>:<::<::.
� ... �
::::.::_:..S�. : .<:>::::::>:;::<>:::::<::<::<:>::>:::::<:<::::<::<:»:::<:::::>::::»::>
� �
.;;.:::::��:::.::.::.;;:.:>:;<.:;:.;:::::;;:.;;;:<.;:.:.:;;:.;:.::.;:.:<.;:.; �
��;Y;:;>:�":;;22':�:':;':'f:%;rs>::%�`Si':`�:;?c>ii:'::i::�:�i:`�:�:>:�::�>:.::;�:.:�:�;:a::;;:.>:•>::c:;:;�>:�;:�>:�>:c:�::s:�;;:�;:�:::�::a::;�;::�s:�s: n
'.Fo-:•?>�';<iii::;:`:;�:::�:::::�r:�i:�:i<:�i::i:>:i::i:;�`:�i:�i::i:�i:::5:::;::::::f:c:i2:i::i::>:�:>::�i;�':�::::::i:iir:::;�i>:;t:�i:�i:�i:;:::�:�:�i:
�
�
2 � ::
�^����``:�s:<�>:�i:<�>::�::���:��:�:>�>:�>:i�;.�#:<.?s:zz::<'::���::�»:�>�ii:;��>?:<�::�::�::�;:::;:::;;:�:zi:.:i:<;4:�;;:<:::»:�:�:<`��:<':':!:
� �`vp�Y•�:::>:::•:::::::::•::::::::::::::.:::::::::•::::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::.�:::::::::::::::::::.
�'ay � •:•:::::;:r:ii:%�:i:;�:�::�i:�::::i:�iii:�ii::::�ii;'�ii:;?<:i:i:;:;<:�i:�i:�i:�i:�i:�::�i:s:�i:�i:�i:�i:�i:�i:�i::i:�i:�i:�i:�::
A+$��^C��.::i::::::i:�::�:�:::::i:�:i:::i:�i:ii::�::�::::�:::::�:i:::;:::`vi}i:{:i:i:�i}}i}}ii}i:�:�i?i:!�k�}i:t:s:::[:s::}i:ii:�:
'4� 'C.:�
� '
�.Ca �
•.� V'`'�i>'�i'>ii;>':i'�>iii:Y:•;;:F:f"i`:�i':�ii`.:':;+:;::;:::i�::`�:::..::::f<i�<r�}'L":'i?v:;::;:>::;!::i:;;:;',
� '�:"i:�i:�i5ii`ii::;�:i;::fisiiii::iii:i:fi::�iiiiiii:�iiSi:�::�i;iiii;i::�:::ii";:::�ii;i:�
�'Y 'S2T'�;::i::ii:::<:i::ii<:;:iii::i;:;:;:>:iii:::<:i::;::i::i::::::::::>:::i::i;::i:;:::>::i:>::i::i;:>:i::;:i:::
O �'fa.::::i::i::i::i::::i;:::�::';::;:.s2:.;:.>:.::�;::>;2;::::;:.:;;�;::;:.;::;:�:::::;::i::;::;:;:::2::::;;: O
�rJ�o �0%
���<::>:<:<:<::�>::>'�:�>::z`;;:<>`;:>;::>:::::;z<'<`:;:>;>;>::<�>:::>:�:�:<:;�:;::;::::;::
xy ••::>::>:>:<:::>:.::>:<>>:>::>::>::°:<::«:::::>:::>:::::::::>'::::>:«":<'.::::>`:<<::<'.:::.>:::.>
�'�,•:.:::::.::.::.::.::::•;:.::;:;.>::.;:.>:<.;;:>;:>:>�:>•;;:.;:.;:.;:.;::.;:.;:.;:.;:.:
��•:�p;:;?;:::;::}Y!�:�ii:::>:':i::ii:•?:'i:}:::C:i:Cii:::�i::i:li:i'::ti:::�::�:
.... ............ .. . ...... ..
�Ci]._'�
�tc;��n
�������
����
��
25%
Figure 9.
NOTTOSCALE Trip Distribution Pattern
�� L Q ^ L
� � ,` J� ° '�. � i �
20 ��► _ ,� �225 20
_� ��
—' �N � � � � o
� �� O
� N
�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
aUqRFRO �,�,..�.�,�.,�,�, H,�,
w �,,,,,,,K,.���
m� �175 Q w
� � F=- Q
� � ,` `'' �1�0.,�' $, _ >
� � � �30 vV � F165 � m
� � r 10 � �
N � _N
N �
a N
r --� o
� � ^ �
SW OAK ST � y~°
�.��a� �-�.r`� M
:�:�:%�:��:::f'»:�::>�;;::><;;:i:z:!::>:::;''�;��;!`���!;';;;;;;;;;;;��;':;>;:i;!::>;;`:':::<`:!�::>:�:iF:;:���:::<>'i:i;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;�:;�':;:;;:;:
.{
,::;;=<fi;;<;;::::.
�:;::':::::>;:<Rf�QJ EG......
0
t >`
:;::;:;:;>''o
L
>:' o
:<.::.;:<.;:.:<. ;<;<;.;:.;:.;;:.;:<.;;:.::
90 >:.."' �
�!7 N
r
E—
S
�— `E 3
10 >�:': I
$5[»i`i'.``!���?:�[`;[!;:it
I � �/ I
���J '.:i:::::::
y :;:;:;:j;:;:��� r y
..i`i::i::::: � �
�: •
♦ �
r
��
:�::::::::: �
��;:'�:::::::�:::�::�::::�:�::::::::::�:::::::::::::.
s
..... ,o
T� T�
130—s 15—>
0
o �n
�
:: 325 n
N
N�
35
�0.���:�;:;;;;;;;::�;ci:�?3i:%::::<�:�>:�s>:�::::�
N
O �
�m
:>. �
�
�
2�� 'r:;
i:>«<z>:::>:::;;::. <�»>:>:;:;>:::
........,;.:i:�»:�:.�;;:.
f':22'<�::�3::`::�:::��::::'�::i::�i:r>.�::.:::::�5i:•`.;i�:�:i:''�
1
�
�
„5 �
�•��";;>::EiE.i�;i`?i;ii;iii;iE53i�`:'i22ii:i�:
1751' '�,:'<::>::::>::»>::::>::>::::>::::?::::::: so
� �
_� (;v`^Gry'' �
� � cev.�v�ue. +�..aa�..�r..�ene
0 `���a...'�:`;f::>:k':��::;
�' 25—s„ �►
�,,'
i 150
v �.<;;`:;;:<t. �, o�n
, ::;; o�
��.�� " ,�N�.�«,
�
`���
��
����
Figure 10.
1sE r�rr��s�9�ai� Weekday AM Peak Hour
NOTTOSCALE �. StopSign SiteGeneratedTrips
� t o t
c°.�� �o �o �
� � r �Q � L � l �
ts ��► _ �, �aes so
� ��
�, � �� � (' �' "
� o�
� ��
�
WASHINGTON gQUq SW LOCUST ST
��,.�,..� RF q0
w
m N i 155 Q w
� � j y �S �50 �V�v� � � 0
'� � � v � �135 � m.
10 �
w � � _ .
� � 115� � �
� �
�
...................SW OAK ST
.;;>:� �R...�..... F•
.<:�:'::':�:«:>i;`'i:::s::>;:::;;i;<:.::>:`�'�:>::'!:::>?Ez:!:::::»:<:::::::E:E:E::�::::::::>E�::[::::E:E<:::::::>:::�:�:�E;Ez;::::E:>::E;r<;;:::E;;:::;<i:[i:::i::
�} !!�!' �
?i.:�'.i.�?`i���7l::`£ii'i:i:�.��'''i%:l%:.;';°ii<::
�:i:::::::::;i:::;:
...:,.:�'k:[i[;tiii:i[iii[t[ti{iii:i[2itiiiikii>;ii[;i;iYi[[;:i::: ..>::;::
>..:::.....��...:�...::
�
�
O O
}�.� 110 ''':
O
Q N
t—
e
E—
EEE;EiEE:<`iiii::;:�3�'1'��E?iE>ii;'�� �p �';i:i;i;;�
2$
J 8$ S;ii: l
E;;�i"!�!;'� I
;iiE:�;ii'. !�
e
J
Y
;:i:>i:f:>EE>:E:>EE>E:»E::............ . . .......
�iii:?i':iiiiiii2i:ii:i'i::iiii:�ii::ii:ii:i�ii:?i:iiiii'itii:i 'ii;i>°i��i`i
: 1� r : 1 r
..;,,: .�......
�
:::::': zo
�
T�
�: 135
�
T� �
O tA N
3
5
—s
0
M O �: ZGU !D
v
N P
7�
O W
�;�i•?:'r:::.. O :::`�'t•�"•::::::i.'::`:::::r:;�`<`:::>.
�
�
� �
I 2�� :'''
�T
��::>:::>::»::;:z:::.:s�:;:»>::s:�:;:::::�>:::�::>::;::;;:;:>�:�;':::?:::::::::..�
y
�
�
BS
150
50
�
�
�
�
� "�::�':;:;:::<:i:<:>:<>:: �,e.o.
� ..,vi�`<>::i;::';::;;. 75—> ( 1
��i:! 155� c°�°v
;ti.:�, ^
��
����r �
�l���E�.
. : y�
�R
Figure 11.
38( Traffic Signal Weekday PM Peak Hour
NOTTO SCALE Z Stop Sign Site Generated Trips
o �
�u1Oin �10 QO ��� e-80
F-45 �
� � ,`6U � �N '�35 � ,`110
� �, �295 3�
35 ��
15--► ,n �� �= 20�
50� N�"a� Q'� � � 45� °oN�
� �n
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
Q�F R� ,.,�,
w
r� �565 ¢ w
� � �145 c�n S1 Z � 2
� yI g O" � >
y �40 v V �s E--340 aro m
N� � I �10 � Q
0 0 °�°°° _
m m 65� � �
y ��, oo �
�
SW OAK ST r
:'.>::::>s�g:. ":
[} ���}�+* :`:;i3::i:`::;:<:;::i'`:``':::<:::�_`:`'?`:;:�;?:�:�:�;?i:;:�";::i::;::.''>.''<i'�;i:;i�?5>::;:?:::::<i`::::`>.`::::;:;:..;::::::::::::::y'.:
;i[i[ii;;i:%i.f�'"�#✓Y�G'����t[[:ti[ii".:.
<i"'.���. tA
� '.
� ':
O O
�/f Vf O
90 ' 35
v
�.�:�>:;'�:�?�'`�i:?<?i?:;'�:.
�n N r v
'tk't�S.�.. �..... F
t—
�0 : I
5 6iiii:iii:>..`<c.:;:::::::;::^ 7U
y 115 �' �J y 20
[it[[[[[i�� �
�iiiiii>:�� !'
�
�Sff:iii?::ii:::::.::::;:i:c:;::>:�::;::.>:<'.>:: I I
�
�: ♦
♦ �
�
y ..rm.. ...... .....w
�
�
�5
� �''�:
�� ::
��
� :�:
�
195 —►
O N
�,y, 35
N �!1 O
N N 'o'i�������
N
S N .-
�;. 32 �n i.�
�2i�'��:�;?�::�#ii:�:.i:�?:�:�:���:�;:�:�:�;:� o
�::a:�;:�:s:;�>:�;:a:�s:�s
10 10
G��:::::::::::::::::::::::::. . 7S
N�
"i::i::i::i::i::i::i::i::>::i;. � '.' ::;::i::;;`:ii::::':::::i:'>;::::::;;:;::::::.
..... .:::::::::.�.::.:::::. ::::::.:::::... ...:::::.:>::.�:. � �
f�N
� I 2�� '::
���::::>::::::>::::>:::>:::::<:::><»::>:>:::::»:>:::>:::»:>::;::#:::;;>
y
���<:�»#:�:�>:�>`>:<:'o>:�»:�>:�>s:�:>�:�»3:>::.
�
� :
F 290 �'?
540
50
� �:;:
-�
� �
5 �
305 `^1D
�'t� a,,.,y,.�. ,,,,,,n,,,,..
�sna .�.
�
orn
Of N
� �
�.. �''�:�:>:::�:�: 90 �
�,,, �...;:;:: 150
.�,.:>: �, � o�,
o�
����'�%y�A9%�
•,g�4��'��
$�����
w���n�
Figure 12.
3� T�aff�°s�9�a� 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour
NOTTOSCALE .!. Stop Sign Traffic Volumes with Project
H �
o�
�45 O ��N 50
�i� E—55 Q I t'—BO
� � r-390 Q �`r' �225 t� �, �BO
� � �660 80 ��
85
20—s o o� �= 120-->
420� uai u"�i"' 2� � � 160� °u`�i�
� Nrn
�
WASHINGTON SDVq SW LOCUST ST
�m RF�q0
,,, w
e� �715 ¢ w
F $ _ >
� �, r 315 �� ��Ov� � a O
� y y �100 V � �
�� � F 195 m m
� � v `�1 U � Q
�O' o0 2
� o N "w""�"'""" 355� �
�� o�, `l �' �n
�� � �
� ..................SW OAK ST � �
r
_::::::;>>::::::>�::::::>::����`' '>:<:::;::<:>>:::>:::::<::::::::::<::::::::::«:>::::::::::::::::::>:::::::;:;:::::::<::>:>::::<�::::::::>::::::<::<:�<:::<::::
�
<:'�<;;;:<::R'':`;;;:::::;.<;:>�:::::::: ,�:::<;;:;::.
>:.>::>::>::»::>
� <::»::>::>::>::>:: •::<::::<>:::>::<:>:�::<:::;:::>::::<:>::::>::::;:::>>
..::.;::.;;�iJ J��<.:;:.>
:»:::::»::>::>::
.:.<:<;:>.
............. ::::.::::::::::::::::::::::: �
:>::>:<:<;»::>::;::::...
:::.:::.::::::::::::.......:.:....;..........:....... ,� «<;::>::»»::»>::;;>::::>::»::> � ,�
00 110 : �nrno 3s
ovw
�n�n m
�
::>;;:i«:'s':::�I���::;::';>::
F :�:
f—
70 .::::i; I 35
85 �:::
5
?>�:3�Ei � >:f::`? �
y
:::i::>::>::>::>::>::»>i::>.>�:.:;::::.:..:.::.:,.. .......
"tti[tt[[ii[:[[[[i;t:iit:ii:titii?i[t:.'•s::::3f?it:>'''ii<i::::: !..:::::::;:titt .
�� � :> � �
0
� *
>: s
�
�� ::
:>; 2
I �
7 —s
3 5
�
95
O N O
O N
N N
>. 260 R 1�
N f�l
N r-
:>. 245
or
>. �
O
�
�tD
Ol m
�'..2::::y:;,:?S.:i�-'.i':':':"<':':':':'zi:':::..
I 2�� ::::
�
y
.+k»:�:<.`>:«:<::�::`:;:�:�:<�:�:�>:�:�:�>:�»:z�;::>:::�:;:::>::::
E—
145 ':
4
85
,'
� � .
a• �•
50
� •
�
<
� �
�.;
5 ``
0 0 ,.,,w,,.. <.,n..,.w..
..,v4.��'���`if�ii:•�::•�ii:�:
$�$� m p �
r cr '°,:'�a:>:;�::>:�<�:::<�:
u�. . 315� �
�s `"y'":":'>_ 155 �°v°c
`"k;':: � �
�
��`�
��''�''�.,, ,
������ f
�,�u��
Figure 13.
j8E Traffic Signal 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour
NOTTOSCALE !. StopSign Traffic Volumes with Project
Based on the traffic volumes shown in Figure 12 and 13, level of service analyses were
conducted for the 1999 total traffic volume conditions. The improvements identified in the
"Planned Transportation Improvements" section of the report were assumed to be in place in the
1999 with project build out conditions. These improvements include the following additions:
1) northbound right turn lane at the SW Greenburg Road/SR 217 Northbound Ramps intersection
and 2) an additional lane on the SW Greenburg Road bridge across SR 217. The results for the
a.m. and p.m. peak hour are shown in Tables 9 and 10 respectively.
As shown in Table 9, all the study area intersections in the a.m. peak hour are operating at LOS
D or better in the 1999 with project build out condition with the exception of the SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection. The eastbound and westbound approach of the SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection are projected to operate at LOS E.
Signalizing the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection will improve the 1999 with
project a.m. peak hour level of service from LOS E to LOS B. The signal warrant analysis
below will show that Warrants 1, 2 and 11 (p.m. peak hour only) are projected to be met in the
1999 with project condition.
Table 10 shows that the following two study area intersections are projected to operate at below
LOS D in the 1999 p.m. peak hour condition with project build out: SW Greenburg
Road/Washington Square Road and SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street.
The SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road intersection level of service can be mitigated
in the p.m. peak hour from LOS F to LOS D by adding a second northbound left turn lane.
The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection level of service can be mitigated from LOS
F to LOS D in the 1999 p.m. peak hour condition with the project by signalizing the
intersection. As shown in Table 11, signal warrants 1, 2, and 11 (p.m. peak hour only) are
projected to be met in the 1999 with project condition. Although the signalization of the SW
Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection will adequately mitigate the future level of service
condition, the signalization of this intersection will not be entirely beneficial. The eastbound
approach would continue to experience signiFicant delay (LOS F) even though the average
intersection level of service is projected at LOS D. The LOS F condition at the eastbound
approach would be primarily caused by inadequate green time and the one lane approach. The
inadequate green time allocated to the eastbound movement would be due to the green time
demand of the heavy traffic volumes on SW Hall Boulevard. The eastbound left turn traffic
would most likely divert to the signalized intersection at SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street
via SW Lincoln Street, SW 90th Avenue, or SW 87th Avenue if the delay to make the eastbound
left turn movement becomes excessive.
Although all of the study area intersections on SW Greenburg Road are projected to operate at ,
LOS D or better with the exception of the Washington Square Road intersection, existing field
observations indicate that the SW Greenburg Road traffic experience progression problems
through the corridor. Signal coordination improvements should be considered in 1999 with the
34 Draft
project condition to further enhance traffic flow through the SW Greenburg Road corridor. The
City of Tigard and ODOT are responsible for the traffic signal operations along the SW
Greenburg Road corridor and should consider a signal coordination project to improve the
corridor's traffic progression. The signal coordination project would benefit all of the cunent
and future users of the SW Greenburg Road corridor.
Table 9. 1999 AM Peak Hour Total TrafCc with Site Build Out LOS Summary
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Average Delay Average Delay
LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St C 16.8 - -
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sqr Rd C 15.2 B' 14.8
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 NB Ramps B 14.3 - -
SW .Greenburg Rd/SR 217 SB Ramps D 33.2 - -
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 13.7 - -
Reserve Reserve
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Capacity LOS Capacity
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Southbound Left Turn D 159 - -
Westbound Right Turn C 291 - -
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St BZ 14.93
Northbound Left Turn A 460 - -
Southbound Left Turn A 769 - -
Eastbound Approach E 99 - -
Westbound Approach E 32 - -
' Assumes the addition of a second northbound left turn lane.
Z Assumes signalization.
3 Average intersection delay in seconds.
35 Draft �
. ,.
Table 10. 1999 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic with Site Build Out LOS Summary
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Average Delay Average Delay
LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St C 21.2 - -
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sqr Rd F 71.6 D' 37.3
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 NB Ramps C 24.0 - -
SW Greenburg Rd/SR 217 SB Ramps D 36.4 - -
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St D 29.6 - -
Reserve Reserve
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Capacity LOS Capacity
SW Greenburg.Rd/SW Oak St
'Southbound Left Turn D 166 - -
Westbound Right Turn C 248 - -
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St DZ 38.43
Northbound Left Turn A 475 - -
' Southbound Left Turn A 474 - -
Eastbound Approach F -216 - -
Westbound Approach F -29. - -
' Assumes the addition of a second northbound left turn lane.
Z Assumes signalization.
3 Average intersection delay in seconds.
36 Draft '
' }
. ;
, ',,� , '
Table 11. SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street Signal Warrant Analysis
Required Volumes Actual Volumes
Warrant
Wan-�t Major Minor Major Minor Met ?
Approaches Approach Approaches Approach
1` 600 150 1085 170 Yes
2' 900 75 1085 170 Yes
112 1550 130 1550 242 Yes
' 8th highest hour traffic volumes were used.
2 PM peak hour traffic volumes were used.
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The proposed project's main access on SW Oak Street will be aligned with the SW Lincoln
Street extension. It is assumed that the SW Lincoln Street extension will be constructed
concurrently with the proposed project and will provide the project site its main access to and
from the arterial street network. The developer has plans to.install a traffic signal at the main �
project access at the SW Oak Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection although signal warrants are
not likely be met in the 1999 with project condition as shown in Table 12. The developer's
motivation for installing the signal is to provide good access to the project site and to enhance
traffic operations along SW Oak Street.
Based on the project traffic volumes at the main project access at SW Oak Street/SW Lincoln
Street/Mission Way, the project access approach lane geometry should include two outbound
lanes and one inbound lane. The outbound lanes should be configured as a shared through/left
lane and an exclusive right turn pocket. A queuing analysis indicates that the right turn pocket
should be a minimum of 160 feet in length to avoid blocking conditions by the outbound
through/left movement. The level of service at the main project access intersection (SW Oak
Street/SW Lincoln Street/Mission Way) assuming signalization is LOS B.
The proposed project will have two other access points onto SW Oak Street. The racquet/health
club and hotel component of the proposed project will have its own separate driveway on SW
Oak Street approximately 200 feet east of the project's main driveway. The project site's third
access point onto SW Oak Street will be from the east terminus of the project site loop road.
This third access point onto SW Oak Street is approximately 200 feet west of SW 87th Avenue.
This intersection will be stop controlled on Mission Way. ;
f
The racquet/health club and hotel driveway is projected to operate at LOS B. The SW Oak •
Street/Mission Way (eastern terminus) intersection is projected to operate at LOS A. I
�i
37 Draft '�
�'I
' •,11 1' .
Site circulation will be provided by an internal loop road, Mission Way. Mission Way will form
a loop with SW Oak Street. The western terminus of Mission Way will be aligned with SW
Lincoln Street and provide the project site its main access. The eastern terminus of Mission
Way, the loop road, will connect with SW Oak Street approximately 150 to 200 feet west of SW
87th Avenue. The proposed internal circulation plan, shown on Figure 2, should provide the
project adequate vehicular circulation and access to the various parcels.
Table 12. SW Oak St/SW Lincoln St/Mission Way Signal Warrant Analysis
Required Volumes Actual Volumes
Warrant
Wanant Major Minor Major Minor Met ?
Approaches Approach Approaches Approach
1` 600 200 500 352 No
2' 900 100 500 352 No
112 715 540 715 503 No
' 8th highest hour traffic volumes were used.
2 PM peak hour traffic volumes were used. �
1999 WITH PROJECT AND SR 217/SW OAK STREET OFF RAMP
The 1999 with project condition was analyzed with addition of an Oak Street off-ramp from the
existing SR 217/Greenburg Road northbound ramp. This alternative was studied to determine
,.. ,_. whether or not the SW Oak Street off ramp improvement would improve traffic circulation in
the project study area. Figure 14 shows a conceptual sketch of the SR 217/SW Oak Street off
ramp.
SW Oak Street Off Ramp Description
The SR 217/SW Oak Street off ramp would be aligned with the existing right turn lane of the
SW Greenburg Road off ramp. This lane would transition into an 80 foot radius curve
connecting the off ramp with SW Oak Street. The 80 foot radius curve would allow free
flowing traffic to travel at 25 mph. Due to geometric constraints, this curve would transition
into SW Oak Street from the north side of the street instead of the south side of the street and
conflict with westbound traffic. To eliminate this conflict, the westbound traffic would be
channelized into the west most Lincoln Center driveway by a raised island and a transition of
the eastbound travel lane would then be necessary from the north side of the street to the south
side of the street. Also included in this improvement proposal is the closure of the SW Oak
38 Draft
� .>::..:::::.::.;:.>.:::<.:.::..::.
� -_: ' :: y/ fJ.�.,,? r.,y .,y 4
� � . � .:� �h"%� 4 .
;.:,..
,. �{
�_. H�
�',� ,�.. .:..:. •,•..... . k`a���'.,'s
_ : :. ,,:..:.. . :_.::;:.;:.;:.;.,;:..:
�
.... :. :. .,.::..:. ;;,..:
, ............ .
.;;>°
«. . .,;,,.,-n..., _::.::l,.;:., : .•9i/�,;••;
_- � . . >
;.:4 ;:.k,,:'�:.;;,::.:<.�,,,> •t;y.�:,...:.,: �
:.::;:.:: ���
;. �� ., i 3 fi pJ -
. , _.', . �� r { }� ��. ���
;��.hi f _: . : ....:.. '� � ff��� /
lF-.
. '. . � .., ...:. . ::� i f
} f �J,
, r :.....�.:;:.:: ;�� ,
, , �/
:,... >
::J', . . ' '' , �/ 1 ��
,. '.. . :,, , � ry ,��yf hs»{'s���`
, ' . : ;':
�
.. .. .. : ..,;.,;;.. .. ; <<i� '�r�,!��;;:.;
i
:�: : . � ..
a
:. ; • :., ... : ::�v;'°w.�,.. .. ..:�:� �- /,��,��•,;�s:;.,
� ; ::.:::: y,�r p;
:�i {: � .� .{ � •• .' (,�'9' �~/Mf'4
l y:. , .:y...
.. ..�.�.�:.-. � /
::. � � � . / f .?.'•.,i' �..� ' !f��lr � �/d
.,.•:
•:.. r
.>o-. . - ;' r�:r /�
.>;: ��. .: �
. �::•.�}�� ,. `.....: :
: .::;: �.:•.>.•.., .,� , _ : '� ��.�(�
,
;..
, :,/....:.�::;;.. ... � ..i. ';�:
::. ..... ....,>, �.:..:::_..:,..:.. ..., .y :.>r.;::..:.;::. ,}��
i :;;>'�?86:�;:�»r::9�:�s;iSi;o::.�::��:.,h•,✓. ';:•::. ••:�:5::.� ::::::!?' . �':� ��/l9.�;r�
. ............:....... ...... ..... ........ : ':'
. ;.:: n ..�::�:. ?�.:.::::::.�::,:.�.�....::.:::: .::::�:�: '-'r::.;�:::.�:
..<:. :.�:+::<�>s:�>:o:.�:::::.... :h.;.
:; J>: .:::::�>.�i:::::s:::�:io>:�.-.
;.:�..:.. ::: ... .........::.:....... .::.:..�/.�>:»:�1 - ' -
... :.;...,. .:::•:s•:::::..:..L �.��: :;..:.:c:.� �:;.r:::::::::::.: .. ,•..::c•:+/.. .:_. ,, ';'.
..,::.::.� ... � .:::;. '::.. .............. ..7... ...f.....i/.
.. ..:•:•.r �..,:.:::::.::: � 'fG . �::::::.: ...........:::� .::. ..... .,
.... .... .. ...,... ..............,.. ..._.. . ......_ . :��........,., ..• •+
.u� .,:::.:�?::::`.>1.';;;:;;:�s;:�:..
............./. ....... :. ........ . .;:....;.; i ._: ..:::.:.::'�::::::::
�:.:::::v. ::: ::: v. ..............�. ....._....:....
?
..ffi .
......... ... ... . ., w r�.::::::: '.v.�.�:.�:::::: •v!'�
....... .. ��:
...:...:::.
. ........... ....... .v}rhv'.4'�'�i:�}'.'� .:.......... :.
..... .. ... ... ... ....... ..��: .::::::::::.. .. .,............... ' ......i..A....� �i::Y:::�':�:
_.....d.. ... .. ... ...... ., .......... �... ...:. .......... _,...,..,...... ::.c:.:fUk' �<:.::..�� �
......... ... ... ... ..... ..r ..:.....:..: . . .... ..... .,.::....:::,.._......,......... ... . ........:
......... ... ...... ...... :. r ....,....... ,. ::. ..:......... , n ..
... ... .... : ..� .... .� .....::::.. ........:......v./i.i:>:�f .::.::.::. . ....,:;:i`:i:$i�i":3i�;i;�:;':.
...... ... . :.. ::::::?`�� ::::. '�y . _.... ... ..�..
. .. ......._.::: ::::::.,
... .. ......... ......::::::.�:._....:. . : .��:::::::::::,.r:.,::<.». ........::.r�/•�•ar -.._._. .:.;�.;;;..:::,:�::.;y,::.:.:.
�;:., ::� • <�:��:o-:;�l� .:.:..:::�>�. :.:.:<;y%"'•. � .�yr r•
. .:. ::� .. .> :i'..
. ':' ::: : .:: :::+: +� � .. .
,� .;� .; .. .;,:,.: I
� .:..;
' :::::� ' . � .
� :: .;;:, . �''%' ` -
....:
.....
�•::..
:. :. �:: :�,.:y �� . . ao- �t♦
' •........ ..:... ��
..-. .
. ......::vv :.
::.: :. • �
.:.::- -: -. yr.; ..�, . . ,A. :�
' � / .
::.<.,i :.::..:�..�
•>:�r. n, w� + :�i:�i:?:;R>:;?��`fb:}i:; :
:;._�y
... . :.,
i,
::•>'� ;;•: � r'�A�i:�i •..::.-:::>:. .
•...... �::::. �:.
:::�>i� ���d::�.:�:��, ' ::'N,•?:di�i:;�>r:�:�� +
:• ::.: ::. ...�.;..::.,.
' �::, '�::>"::�r.:._.
...�.
�>:. :;: ...:::<.�:v:;.:.•. ' '','',��, l ..
. 'r.::i:o:::
:;; ::•>::n:�: -::::::::.�:::»:s:::::?:a�. ��'� � p.;r....".3a.. ::.h..
�:•�i «o:�•�:.;i:,:::i<:::::'
�i�.r... �:�:�•:.
: :,: �::�. ...... .:::::::::�:::.>::•:••:�>:::•.
°%� ': .
- ;.� ...,,u,.;,s::<i•:.:?::<;:i:l;:,`.'?;1..::.;:�:
..>
, . . .. ::.::. .:..-:::,. .....:... �,� ::�5�:i;�;... y ..r......
...... . �.:: :.� ........
.:F:->?x'�::�:�i>::...:::::::w::::�.
�:w.�.:i i.. �i ::v. v:.�..:.. .•.:i::-::i:..:. / ��'�::.�:.�:.:.. ..F.......
(, .. ��
.. -..n.:�.;::.
, � ::.�::..:::::::...'
�i:::�::�::.n
.;.�..:n.......... ... ' .''.""'::.i:.::ry:::'�i::�::._:J ' �!'v::.::�::: .....
v:. '::.:�:�i:�:�;'�'Ap:
.............
...::•:v.y:..�-.� :. .}}} ., ..;.... .:. � :::i:v..-":.'::...
.r..in..... f. ....:.:....v,........;r ''''A'.�:-
.:'�'L�.?4�'..i: �'Y)4:a`:�' �
.. ...,-.+.v::. :::. ' •:::..:..:::..�.:�.:�::.::y ?<?::�::�:.,:. _
.::..: :.�. �
. :�:! ..... �. �:.:::::::::.�:.�:::..... .�.�:�:::}::::'::.;.,.... .::.�......::.:�
...... .. .... ... "Y i
:.:i:ivi".�:i . .:: ..........
i:L:: . . . .::.:��. .
. i.;;:: ::� .:.:..-.
..:.,fi,::,y ..:: i:i`> `,.:::,?:�::'�'i['%y:i:;i:;i:;:? [?';y4';.
� � ! ��• . 9 r f � ,1�°'T' �
.� R,� � '� � .
-, .+�fF+�'�y . _ •, ,� �� �,
.
.,
.. • •-
. �:.::::.. � :
'�i:. :iii}j'�'� � �'
....:. . ... ��:: - � , �
;.::.. ' ::iiii:�i.�, � � �.�•' tC
' . . : , � . . � _ .
:':�i ' i�'�:ii::'� �,i. �,.".i}� " 4 � 'y
�
:.:: ..:.:...� . .::
.......:.:'.: . v.:iii.':�
i::.: ::......... i �
�.... :..::::..:y. �
.�::.
..,y. ............. � ! �.
:.:,.. ��......,$
� .;
- ' -;.r ::•:�;`•::. ..r-..:•.£� .9
..... .
..: �..r. .
- .y :.y;:;:;:.s<�':: ° „ ' +c>:4`:
..: :.f . . ' . �'::y�.:;:��'�;:
ar ' y_
' �'�•.... .�....r>: ' � �
.....: .:.�: . �
� x r
� �� '';':a;.':�?'rdo �i .i.
- .:. . :...;�.
''-���'�.'>�,. •
....::.. ..,,:::
rr`�t { } � •y'' �
: �':.;:..�. :.:�y. -
:��
•. .:::.,. .., . .
k�: �.'� � �� �
w:.. . .
v!
�:%SU'i`�,' q ��p S
.::!;f+. '4 ��ti:'r'i.:y%•::i �}
;::::i:::: :.
:v.i•:.�::i:
.. . ..:.. ;::.. ��� � .
!:.�.
::\:..;":.;�:.
:::.•r.
'n:4:�:?.::-�:4:._..... i::�:�::::?:%�'::��::::i.;;:;i::;:i{.;:
i:tir:::_.�::::::i.
�:f�'�'
�:�:"::'.::.?i:{.j:::`:;�`':i�'•
.•��ti..� :�:5•:`i:i:i:.::..:...:::.:�:{:.;�..:_.;�.�;.
:;(.;i.;;•. , : ;..
; ..:..,...,;n
�:i:.n. . ... v,. .::..
: :.:�':.
.... .: :i:: �: .:::..::�::n,�'•
.y.... :�.�'.
'i•i:I.},••.:
;!i!y'.i.
..
. ... • '• ':sy:r
.,.
:....: .�:, :
. ... . .:.:., n:e:'. ... ♦.i.inC�i::L.v....F.:r.. ., , :.; � �:
......:i rn.:::�.n..:......:.: �.-. .::},�:.,... .::t�i:'::., :.
:.�:-.:.. .�:..:.�::n:�::::-
. .............. .... -: .: �.':.
ii::i:::. i.::tivi:.:�::::::�.;�.-::.: '::... .. ... �:.'-i:`�:�i:�:�iii:=-�'�i::��:'.:'.,
. ;; i:y
:c:::.:.; ...............!:,.�::�::� ....... . ..`�.�. .�:�i':.,::<':�`i.:.. •:.F'�>s.,�.. ...�a:::::�:�:a:::•:-::. ::t,y:.�;..t{::.
::..u•:::•:H.•::>::::5::::..'t.:::;:•:3•:
�:;>`:::. :��:::::::::............ ::.,.
...--..... ......_ • ....�.:.:.. .. .....r.;.......:..,;:.
�::::.�:.�:::::::....... ................ ..... .:.:.:::..
:.'A'•..
::::::.. ..........:::::.:;;..;_,,::...:,�:::::.:.:.......... ..."' :.r::•.y
. ........ .....:..:.......... ....�:::::::.:::.:'�:::::... ...•::.
�a..:.
•::.;;��>�'
. •:>:.;:;.�'::. �.� �����
I
� - ....�.:;.:. .. ��
.;>i:
_::.�._: ....�.............:..............,::::::.,..,............:::::::.:::::::.� �,�:.:..•.., ��I� �,:::. �
. .....................................>:::.::..::.................... ........ � �::.....�.,. �::d•'r�a�s:..
......... �>.-._:.t.... -
�::�:
.�.yf .
.e,:.
.:�^. �'d':::.
:::�`:
,.<..
,<:.�:: :::::::..::.:..::.::::::.:�::::,::::,:.:.::::;:::::,::::::::.....
,:.�:: ...::: ....
. . ..
.. . ';:;:,:; .::;:�,•;
. ........:.;:;:.<�<�:::>:�::. :::::,.: , :,..:�..
....... ::�.»>�:.:�::..»:a:a::;;:;�;;::.;:�::.:,::<�.>:..;:c:.::r:.:�::.�,::::..:::�;:�.
... . :. .::::,:.. . :.......... ;. '' I ,.�:<:: i, , ;:;;. .:�;;::�.,
'�>::::o:� �:»:. �:.:�...::.:::::::..v::>:::..:. .:•.;c:�.:::�:.�:::::......., ' .,.w,'_:;.. . .....::•::�:.;s;;'.:>::::::::.;..;��.
...y•;:, � :•-
,::.. .::. ,
;,i,.;:: ...:.. ...:.:::::::,o�.�.+;;-.-..:�.•rj.�::::.;�:c�:::':<2::<:;•r:;:;::��::f.v,. -
f ...�...�;�..
, ..
. ..i_ �.. ::. . ,,.
-.;� , .:..:. .. .
..: .. .. .:::::��:.s:.-.:��. ,i. � .?';r.
:..
o•�x"'ii:
; � . ... . � . � •.::
..:�.
.
..,,.:
.::_...........:.. +>:.�....::::..:. .. �.,�;.. .. . ,,..
... . .. : ...-. .;:;.., :.,'.
.
� ��•�I
� ., ... .
i'i:
,. ..�. :.:. , ...:�:::: ....:::.:::::...
..
.... :.:.. �.. + •�:':::,.�. '
.. .. .::�r:.": ;s.'�.::�:i:r :.. ....,:;.o-•..::.... ,, ' ; .
� ;r.::::. .:.',..�.
•r�,�••''�'' ,�,�
•:;f3:v: 4 y
- ::....•:.::.:::��. .
�: .: .:.:;:.; • �
' :.; :.:.;, :�:' .
� � y� tiM1`.:M r i_ ��+` t.. t .�� � . ..� � �
•.;�.��::: _
�. <:
: ;• ., :. ::;. •
�: .: 3 .r. '.... .{
i
�y� �+. 3
„
�4t+ Y ) � •:S:�b:i:i''�
i�.:•.
�: ::: �2'�:i�:i:.�..':. ,H' /Ji94, ��} Aiv.
�:�...�
. ;r��.....v:� ::v.. ..:.. .
. ._ , ..i:;.:
„ ,. . i<v:�:::v:v... :i.:!�:i::� � � � 1
:.�{ 0\ti
..:..' :: ,:::::;;;:i,v:i ��qe� i
I �4�,
y :, .
�:;..: .� _ . , s
_ . !�'� �? - t t
" � .rr:a::.. � - �`A"
' �::i:..:.::. . ��v.:'..::.:.:..::o-......::.-:-.:�. �}
.., ..;...t..�::.-.;:�:..:..�.:::.:i::::.. �..: :±�...::'�:.�....:.'::��:'�>.:.::.;- �a. �-.
', i .. +.:\v:.....:. ....:::::. � .v:.�v.:��v:-: ��i'r%�S 'r',��•
.{,.� �
- .. ::. . . .:.y ..::. .. ::?:i:.. '.;.:,-...-. ::ryi
�.... ...: . .- .:::...R.:...�:.::..��•:.: .....
.- .::.::.... ..:::...::::....
, ...;.::.�.:: .... �.+..+ ,
.,_ :..%:�.'.,, �
'� . .:�:o-•:..':�r:�:��:.�:.�:.:t::..y, .,��•�. ..::.;;'.'..::'>s>:''�' ;;Jd;; .��
;: ::+:...::" y.,.............. ...... . •
"'xcy
' rSr f
�G
.f
.
':: .:.'�a::.:.;.,;::.��;,?<w?v::C::;�::.: -.,.::.. ;;2;i,•:'.,'.F.`K:
:..•. ....
�. .; ..;.::i:��...;:<`.:.u'::C'`:�::::C>; ��..,, �1.
. . . .,., .x•..
: : �.. . .;,..... , _ ....:.:,;.
,- .. i:}:X::'. 4T
' �ii.. :...i:i
.�?.
...���,.:;.;
}Y {
� :' ..w:�'� :.. � ...
A i
'. �'.�,::v::: :;. :; y.. ..' ..K.1
. . .: �.:�.. } .......,- ?��'$L
��i::l
v. . '...::..:::.::....�i::. :•.i::�w?:..;v
9v '{'f+'+.
� i
.:... .
, .. .. .. ., ...........n... ......::i:
vs..
..;, . � ..�.v...:..i�.:::::.�:::.:::.:.:: ' :::.;+;?v
�... .v............ l.:i::{::�i:..... .. .... _ .
...?�..� .i:i'-Y�":. . .:i\
..... :.��:�.:.::::::.::. ,�:::::?'•?'v�.>:t;::::,.::::'�:::•.. .�,?:a»5::::::::::�::::::::...:•:::�::.,.;�::;!�:..:•yi%'
,.
. ..:..............:.... ... ............:... .......:. .....: � . : .. ;..., _y., , ..:
...::J.., �a... . ..,.:: . ..:, _ . :
:::.. ................ �:::......... .... .-....................................,. ..>: :.... .
. . ...........:::..�::::::::. . , ,. .r.. . ............ '0+ -....:.......................................... .....:.. ...'�.3....�b::::`,:J::;':;:iiii:;:?i:s2�i5::;�i::2:::�;`:�fi�:ri::;�ii:
::.. .:.....::•............._. .::::•..:::...:.,::.,.:::.>::.:::..�::::,..,-,:.,....::�:�:,::: .;......................_.,:.,�k..�.,-:,•.:::.:::�.�::t �f»:.::: +...
>.......... ... ..:.. ........ ::..��.
�::���..... .
..�
:;,.�,...::::: :.:.�.
..,. .. .................... ;..,....,.,-,.:.,::.....�::::...:......::..:'.. .... -:::.�.�::..;..:..::.�:..
:::. :..:,:>:::::t::::::::::::::: ... .. . . ......_......
;-rx::i:i:::`:w::::Si::;:i:=` +J,::� ...i.....
:... ......�::::.:..:,... . +:•':.c:.;:.;':::.;�.;.?;.;.::::::...........v. ...
,.:: :.. .., ..: . � ...,...,w.: ^5a .. ::.�';;;:;:�''�
�:.:. .. :..,;� ::::::.:�::... . .::: -
;.:._ .
?+ti...
.... .. . ... :� ...............:: .. . ... :.::.........r:......:'.,->'.>'.>;:�•..,..., '..,-..:.:::•r:'::::.:�:.::::::.. .. . ::l:;•y,`.:..y, s
,::: :. .:> :,_o-:�:�x�::�>::�:..,_...... ,.,,-:. , n. :.:.;:.. :.°.�:.. n �'tii%:::�'•,.'�b.p
.,-., � ,:v.v•...:
:s`
.,. ...::: , . ,
:�..
..c . .c.:•,.....::.::....::....Ax�
-'-...... '...�..:. ...,
.::: . .s .. ..::�:� � .:.:�.. . ,
.......�
..........:,::::::;:>:' i'•`��'�: >:�.f.. ':�::.:.,::>.::::::.
.... . :;. ..:.:::_......... ....... ..:r:>::.�::.�.:�.c::::::::. ...... :..::....... ....;::::::,.s.;,::;>::........:.;•;x<r':
•;•;. �- - � . .' ' :
. .:........ti•:::::::::. . .:',: ...y .";:r':>:'%�:>ti: '
x :.<
:.:: .� ................::::�::.._.. ; . ..:::::. ::::.......::::.. ......�:::::..
. . ::.�::::.:::::............... . :. .�:;o::+:, ••:.•::::::::::::..•.��:::::::.�::::.�::::::.... :�::.�:. .................:..�:.��:::::::....ir�:• ...� ... :f.:::.:.'S.•:�.�
;:;.::i+:>:;::::.:�:::::::1;:;�::::>:�>
�.. ..k
::: .. � :�::.:.:::.�:.�:,.:::.:_.�: . . _.. . ...... r ........................:?F.+�:::::. :to.�.
.... ..:: ..... .......... ......... .,: �t.::. .:r:• . ::.::....:::.>:;�>:o:'a�::::::::........... �i>i::�i:�:�:�;ii;::;>:`�:s`.a.; :.�.v
.. .. .. . ... .................. . . ..:.:.. .N.. ..s....:..." . ." ".....:.:.:::::......�:-::... {.:h.
.. • ..:.:�_'...... n.... .. • .. ..�.. •
\
: .� .........: ............:: .::::. . ..._. .... .r:.�..:.....:: . ....r..�.n._;.... - _
............ ...
..;........ y .r .
.. { ... ._.,-�t n..:::.-.:.. . J.!i�•ii
.:::.'�:
:... ...r . r...............:.:..:.^A� ....... .,..v..::.:'ii.•�'::i:r:�'i'J�.Siw.{.:n. ::. �
:.a �;::''�';.:; :
. . ................ ..._. . ... ... . .... • ........ ...._.r<:>s::::;;:::::.:;::�. ..
... .. ..... ... .. .. ..i ... :...::w:::::.::v:.:��L�.�::..:_::::::!' �::::?�5:h._..._. -
.... : ..•� :::.::_:�:�::.�.::.:..... �/�. �
.rv:::::::............... r �'J:i::v:::r:i�'�'ti•.'�<:v:?;;�,��_.�:;,";i:�.;.?:;:;;`:�
.::: � w:: v�..... ...........}. -...................:..
<.!��'H :::.'+%:�::::::�:....: a..
::: :�. .: � ..:..................... .. ..,..�. ...:.�'iL::::v.:::::�?":.:".''""':... :.K�. .S'!v..
.�.�
�::::y:::::::............�
... : ............... :... g .. v::::::� n.13 n�::.i:?i:::v,;n�:::i:�::�:-:?ii}:ii'r'...�.�. w .........
... �� : . �v i::::.:.......::..... ......... ... ,�.�.': n .....�........ 'v::::.v�.. ...
.�. .......... .. ........ . .._...'�....._.�'L . . �c�::::.:::::.,.:;<�;:<.<:;�:::.,,;,:._,:�;<::.;:::�.- ...::—::,::._::..•:::::. „ .�z:z��>::>:>s:<;:s:=�:i:»::::
.:{.��... -,.u. ..:r ..... �::t�A::�><.o.
�:: .:,,::.�:::.:.:::::::>::: .h::., ....:::::::..+� -•:.. .::�:<.::>::o-:....
. , .:;::::�
..�. .... . .. . .....................:•:i:v:a......v.:>^:i>:a::;�::;�:'<�::.i::�:;>:�::�>:�:�::�:a::•>...
::. . ................... � ::::.::�.,;::c�>:;...,......:s::.
::.?^�n•::::;:-::.::;:;.:;o>'......�t.:.;;:�.... -
. .::: ................ ::....>::s ... , ............ _ ...._.......�.... .......:::::-:::
::.N�'��]>:iii}:�i:�ii?iY•� ��'<`i:�?:>iii::->ii:.:
..: ... :.:�.:�::::::.:�; :;;:<.>:;;: �::,::..........:............. :.�:::::::::....:..�.�•::.::::::•:,::::::>f:::�.«•::::<a» .t ...3,,
....... ...........::...: ,:::::::.:..•:.
::: . �::.�Y... ...... ...:.�:........, .
..s.. ..;�cc•:.
.. . ., ..:......:::.;,, .. . ,.,......:,.::y.»s;:..... ,.:Gr::�>::c::�:�:<.'.:.;:.:....
...;,;
.. '+�::::::.::�-::::::.
' �.::::.::::.-::..
.. ..�:.:.::::....... �:........ .:::: ............_.... , .... . ...:..::......_�..'�::;�s:�;::,>:»:<.;:n:�»:.?tK::.»:;�>:'<:::;:i'-i'�.:�:�»::�.�:::.:�>:�i:::Y:;'>:`..:�::�:.:`<.:. '-`':'::'i[;;:y:::j:`.?:..::��:::.�::::.:
. , . ,. ..::•.:�:::�::.:::: ,���k:::.�::.::::::.::.:�:::.......�:. .....:�.o•.�...........r..:•.:�:,:::::.�::::�:�..:�.,..��::::•,:�:�
.i. ......./•:>:�:::a:_::.:::;c•:>:.>;:o;>::o:>:�;:... : .:........ .
... .,:. �.::�:::::..::.::.: ....
,: . :::::.:.:::�::::.� ....�::::::.�:::�::.:::.;. .., to-:�::......¢.:.::::.;:�:o-::�»:.+.:............. . ....... s..F...................... ........
.. r .....................i..................... .. :�,;:::.::�:.::::. ............ .... .... ....
. . .................. .......................,.t. ..::::::.:.::::.. v;::::::,,,:..:�. ;.._..........3�...:::::::::. ::::!:.''4Hu-:.n.,•:.:�.�:::.:�......_...,.::::::::.:::•;'�..: "°:".'3:�:::
:�.�••:
............._ .......... ..........:.:. ........... av-:::::::... ....._.. .::.::.:::::::::::>;;;:;;:�>:;�:r:<.;:�>�:.;;:�::�
::.�::::::.:. -
;. .yy • :::.�.�:.. _. :.::.:.:.::::�:�. .............. ...
: .. ::...�::.:::::.:...:.::::::.�::: ............. ��:::;::.. �:::::::::.... .... •.:
.. . .. .. ........ ........ .. .. . ....... .....::.:...... . ... _........-:.-:::::�:;;x::.::...".?x�....,.::.. .,i: .
. ...... ..,�',J........:........... :..:..... .... ....... . .,...:.::..::.::. :...._......
.�',6. . . .:::`��:�i:.";;:a:<.:.-:.;;':�;:
. .... ... ,........ .:.�::..... .::...........
::c.>:�;
. .. .. ......... ....: ... .:::::::��:�:::;>::..........:.. ,.. ............ �•:.:............::.::.::�::::::<.::..:•.::.,�..;:-::'�:>r::::::::;cm>;.......::::.;:e:::�::�.h:
. ..r- ............. ...::::v ::• .:v:......•:•.. .... ..... _........ �.;: ..5. .hr
• : • • : • �• • . • •
• • •' • �•
��
� � I
� � � � �
1 � 11 � �- • - • • � . � •
. :�
?
%- r--
Street access to SW Greenburg Road. A raised median or jersey barrier would be used to
provide separation between SW Greenburg Road and SW Oak Street. ,
Since the SW Oak Street off ramp would take one of the SW Greenburg Road off ramp lanes,
the SW Greenburg Road northbound ramp would have to be widened from the south side to
maintain the existing turning lanes. As shown in Figure 14, there appears to be sufficient room
to widen the off ramp from the south side. The ramp would need to be widened approximately
12 to 15 feet to maintain the existing turn lanes.
_ Traffic Circulation Chan�
By providing the SW Oak Street off ramp from SR 217/SW Greenburg Road off ramp and
closing the SW Greenburg Road/Oak Street intersection, the circulation pattern in the project
area would change slightly.
The SW Greenburg Road northbound traffic using SW Oak Street primarily consists of Lincoln
Center and project generated traffic. With the closure of the SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak
Street intersecdon, the Lincoln Center traffic would have to use the SW Greenburg
Road/Washington Square Road intersection to access Lincoln Center. The project generated
traffic would use SW Greenburg Road to SW Locust Street to SW Lincoln Street to access the
project site. Significantly more traffic would be forced to use SW Greenburg Road under this
improvement scenario.
Traffic traveling south on SW Greenburg Road to SW Oak Street would no longer have the
opportunity to turn left to SW Oak Street with the closure of the SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak
Street intersection. This traffic would now turn left from SW Greenburg Road at SW Locust
Street. From SW Locust Street, traffic would access SW Lincoln Street to SW Oak Street or
the project site. Since very few vehicles currently use the southbound left turn access from SW
Greenburg Road to SW Oak Street, very little diversion is expected from southbound SW
Greenburg Road traffic.
The SR 217/SW Greenburg Road northbound off ramp traffic destined to Lincoln Center, the
project site, and residential uses in the project vicinity would use the SW Oak Street off ramp
if it existed. As shown in Figures 15 and 16, 325 a.m. peak hour trips and 220 p.m. peak hour
trips would use this ramp.
Figures 15 and 16 show the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with the SW Oak Street
off ramp in the 1999 with project condition, respectively. All of the changes in traffic
circulation caused by the SW Oak Street off ramp are reflected in Figures 15 and 16.
40 Draft �
. � � .
o �
�°^ '��o Qo ��r �eo
E—45 'J
� � ,�6� J� "`� �75 ` � �110
35 �'� � ,� '�295 3� �1
15� �noo [U� � � 45� °o��
SO� N�c�i �� �"
� �v
WASHINGTON SQU SW LOCUST ST
�..,M„,�,„� qRERD
w
r Q �240 ¢
W
� � �145 ��Ov� o = �
� V � � J
v � <--340 � m
10 ?J �
N� � � � _
65�� � � �
� � o0
�a .�
�,�? SW OAK ST •
h ��
s
�
_�::�>;:<�:P`RDJE`�T:::>; >'» ::>::;:.;:.
N
::::::::<::::::>:::::::>:>:;:::>::<:: �� ,�
N N
� NllfO
�
35
�
� ln N -/
�
100 :
;::i::;:.`'�Y::i:::�'i::::i::::;::::i:'�� n
vv
y::��i:�?::•>�?���:��}� �
!:::::::•1i:::::::::C::L::•�:i::::Y:�:::::i::''::,�;'. .. .::::: ::.i:.iii:.i' t- �
•i'.::i���...::: t-�75 :: /�
.f ::::::i::::::�i::::'•:::::::::::i::i::::::.:::::::iL:::i:��:::i::'i:ii:`:'..� J ' J 2
l �
�:. '"i:�ia:'>i:':':':i:::::::i::i::i::i:::;:i::i:i:i:<Y:<::C:i::ii !� 115 '::::i:�':i:::::�,�i::::i::i:�i:�: E� Y
� � � 1 �
�,.,
,;: ».k�
w::
� ,w...
,o
>;<::::<°:::'::€::::::::::�::: s
. 1
�(' ;:
��
i2o
� �
�. :::;;:�:..'<�;`;;;s;',.�;;::;!;>:!`;:;>
35
�n�n 0 0�n�n o n o
:;. 12 n� 75
fC�O N fD
!�7 N
::?. � �::. �
I 2�� .:
�
y
F
290 '
�
540 50
�
�
� �h4'::
�
`5 y..�eoe�ed.
.�D.r7 lA ln
O OI
�
OI
N
�
.�,�r,�,n++�+�.
90�
0
�
�
•..,;yti; . 150� � o M
.���,.
'�,�
.`^� 'K^,
K`�s;��'y„••
h�.AV��k;
^bf�����
ix�
� �`
Figure 15.
1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour
�8E Traffic Signal Traffic Volumes with Project
NOTTOSCALE t stoPSign with SR217/Oak Street Ramp
` ' � � .
° �, '�
'�as o �N N so
��' Fss � � �ao
� � j-390 Q u�i r '�340 �, �80
� � �675 8� ���
es
so—> oo� �u �zo�
aso� ��� 2�" '� � �so�, ���
� ��
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST
,�..�^"^^°°°°°°°°�„QUAi�F R0 ,w,,..�..�,..�,,,�.,��...�.�,....�,,. ..............,,.w. ,.,,�,,.,..........,V,...,�,,
N W
a r �495 Q w i
F
� � �315 � v� o a, �
� Gj V� O1 F=- �
v � F 195 m m
��U ?' ¢
�� � 2
�rn
0 350—� � � �
� �„ o 0
��� �
� SW OAK ST ��°°°-�
��o ;;:.;:.z ::. M
:::;:::::�::::::::;'<`:�>:;;;:;;;:;;::::���'�';:;.:':'::;::i:::;�`'`;;'::;;::�:;`:::;:;:;:::::>:;:'::.;::;';.;<'%';`�:'i.%%:;:'i:�:`;:;;:;;;:t:;:?::;y::
:>:';:�::<>::R�iO��� T>:<���
::::::�>:,:::
.:.:::.:::::: ;;
.;:.::.;::.:.:�:.: .
::::::.:.::.:. ;
N N �
+:' N N
� tn 01 O
O
150�':
�
35
. iiE:EE`�:`� m ao
iS:::ttt:::j:::���:: ::..:i:j::•:i
�NOI
?:i::i:i:::(::iiiii:i:::i: ............... .
:.`:::i::i::i::i::i::iy::i:�i '
.......���...... F F-
35
� 30
I 1 �
85 ::>
5
�s
• '<:�zi;' e�
:;E?;E;I �
�
�::::i;::;i•;;;;;;;;;;;;;';;;;;;;;;;;;r;:;;;:: ....
:i:i:i:;i:;i;;%i y
�
�� ♦
�
�
�
�
��t'e..�„�.�. .�
h .�
'� �'���..,.ii:ii:ii:iiiiiiii:iii:iii:ii::iiiiiii:iii:'.i:i%ii�iiii'i�E�E�
� �i
$0
ii;?ii�: 2$
�
—s
�I t
��
300 --►
�
95
o�n
95
o�n �n�n o
an n : �n
��
v
� 245
on
'::.. �
�io
rnm
� �
..17.:<:
I 2
�
y
�
�
F
145 ''•
485
����.��y�,'':?'``>:1:i'i"?:;;i::i;;;::;;;i:.
50 �
� � � 'M `i:::i}:}:�5:?::Y::?:::
5 ``
505 �o°
� 1�N /�
Jj�ry^�.�'�`ii??'r'�S: I
: 315--->�
�x.``''`: :;. 155� � o 0
��.::..;.
�Q
��'��`.�.
'��,;.�-�.:
,,��y,��.
��..��
�.��
.,� F
Figure 16.
1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour
18E Traffic Signal Traffic Volumes with Project
NOTTOSCALE � StopSign with SR217/Oak Street Ramp
l ' _,
'� • , � ,
�
Level of Service Chan� '
The level of service at the following four study area intersections change due the changes in
traffic circulation patterns caused by the SW Oak Street off ramp improvement:
• SW Greenburg Road/SR 217 northbound ramps
• SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road
• SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street
• SW Oak Street/SW Lincoln Street/Mission Way
The level of service analysis for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are summarized in Tables 13 and
14, respectively.
When comparing Table 9 with Table 13, it can be seen that the levels of service between the
1999 with project level of service with and without the SW Oak Street off ramp are very similar
in the a.m. peak hour.
When comparing Table 10 with Table 14, it can be seen that the levels of service between the
1999 with project level of service with and without the SW Oak Street off ramp are very similar
in the p.m. peak hour. The levels of service for the 1999 with SW Oak Street off ramp are one
LOS worse for the SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street and SW Greenburg Road/SR 217
northbound ramp intersections. However, with the previously defined mitigation measures, all
levels of service are within an acceptable level, LOS D or better.
Evaluation of SW Oak Street Off Ramp
The SW Oak Street off ramp has the following advantages: t
• The SW Oak Street ramp improves access from the SR 217/SW Greenburg Road
northbound ramp to SW Oak Street. Traffic from Lincoln Center, the proposed
Ashbrook mixed-used project, and project vicinity residents are the primary
benefactors of this improvement.
• Closure of SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak Street intersection improves traffic
operations on SW Greenburg Road by reducing the number of conflicts between _ !
traffic movements. �
• Access management goals are met by eliminating two closely spaced intersections.
By limiting access onto SW Greenburg Road, the capacity of roadway is
increased from eliminating friction from side street traffic.
43 Draft
�i__
Proposed Cor�preh�nsive
Plan Ame�dment �nd Zone
. Change
- Davis Property �
A Request, Submitted '�o The City o# .
_�= Tigard
. -�`� �
:�
,_ ����
; July 25, 1996 �-�'
. 2,, `��'
�� �
: . �(- / � - ��'
� Prepared For:
- � Dr. �ene Davis
� Foreign Mission Foundation
10875 S.W. 89th
Tigard, Oregon 97223
� . , Prepared By:
� _ W&H Pacific, Inc.
-� 8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton, Oregon 97008
�-� . . -
.-, ..
� -
__� �xn
' - - _ _ . , . .z�.:{�a � ,� •
� I �����1 v
$405 S.W.Nimbus Avenuc
Bca��crton,OR 97005-7120
July 25, 1996
Mr. Ray Valone, Associate Planner
City of Tigard, Dept. of Community Development .
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard; Oregon 97223 •
RE: PROPOSED COMPREHENSiVE PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE
DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION/DUNFORD PROPERTIES
W&H PACIFIC PROJECT N�: 1575-0101
Dear Ray,
Enclosed please find an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan and zoning
designation for a 4.54-acre piece of property north of Highway 217 and east of Greenburg Road.
As.we have discussed previously, this property is intended to be the site of a proposed hotel and
related restaurant development.. I am submitting this application on behalf ofthe property owners,
Dr. Gene Davis, the Foreign ivfission Foundation(which Dr. Davis heads), and the Dunfords. A letter
authorizing Dr. Davis to represent these property owners is included in the application package.
You will :,ote within the application narrative that we are of the opinion that a mistake was made
when the City went through the Presidential Parkway project and associated zone changes, returning
the site to low density single family residential. We also believe that physical changes in the vicinity
have made low density single family housing in the area an unreasonable land use.
.
I believe I have included all the required pieces of information and correct fee to comprise a complete
�application. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at
626-0455. Thank you for your assistance to-date.
Sincerely,
W&H PACIFIC, INC.
` ' �
David . Siegel, AIC
roject Manager
Enclosures(3):Plan2one Amcndment Applicution(30 copics),Application Form
Application Fee
(503)626-0455 Fax(503)526-0775 Planning•En�ineering•SurveyinR•Landscape Architecture•Em�ironmeht�l Ser�ices �}
TABLE OF COt�BTEB�ITS .
I. Requested Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III. - Conformance with Applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV. Consistency with Professional/Admin►strative Office Commercial (CP)
District and Overlay Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
V. Evidence of Change in Circumstances, Inconsistency or Mistake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]4
VI. Conformance with Applicable Locational Criteria for Commercial Professional Use . . . 16
VII. Discussion of Transportation and TPR lssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ATTAC�-IlvIENTS:
A. Assessor's Map
B. Meeting Notice
C. Owner's Authorization
D. Traffic Study
1. Requested Action '
The property owner is proposi o stiuct a I�otel and related restaurant development on a 4.54 -
acre site in Tigard bounded y SR 21 to the south and S.VV. Oak Street to the north. Figure 1
shows the locational vicinity of t ect._ (Need to e� t co�y of thomas brothers �ge or assessors
1/4 section manl
. �
A 125 unit all-suites hotei has already been approved for a portion of the site. The request is to
expand the limits ofthe CP zon'e'to allow the hotel to be oriented differently on the site and to allow
for the development of a restaurant to support the hotel.
Current zoning on that portion of the property with development approva] is Commercial Professional
(CP). The area subject to the request for a zone change and plan amendment is designated Low
Density Residential (R-4.5). Tl�e acreage of land subject to the request is 4.54 acres. Given the mix
of office and commercial uses in the site vicinity and the existing CP zoning on a portion of the site,
the most appropriate zone for this proposed development is Commercial Professiona] (CP).
Accordin�ly, this application seeks a change in plan and zoning designation to CP for that portion of
the property currently planned/zoned for low-density residential (R-4.5).
Davis Property
June 25, 199G � I.�PROJECTI57SI5750101�DRDAVIS.APP
n —� -_V _ o t , �,;�_ , t � �" y-
.-r�r� _' __' '_ ' J.. -�_-` • _ �'_ '. "._T _ _ i - - S
r:�-����.
, �!, ,. - - - - -�r''; H-- '� � ,�, , �J., � 9
i a`�,� r - y � `1 ' .--�'--- -- � y��i�'p 5 y(d q sv diani si/�'�� elrx 7f `j R���� �vt[vi�^ s��: : • > n �vu x� n
��,-� +1 i�l � r. VASHING N SOWRC $ � .ea .' ��J�1 J � � d' viw� = ti r e t .
V , i r SMPOI C(NICR (� �w_I �•��� k� SM �.r_. 51 a �� .7 s i � :5�...t
�1'q t�l y �� Y�I p a j "1 � ' � C[OANCRES I� � � � � � < . �
`Cu�n A9 O ti Y BG00�'—_ $q�u1M ASr��iwny �
7� �n >Q w ,La, � �y in��u �8i g c� SV FUBEF�ST �
5j�� a P 4 I (jr CI� \ ',� � D J ����j'• �s 8200 � OI TpU�D' $7'�1 P� �� 6600 s�,uRllft st T. d ,n � ti a¢ .�
�� " � 28 .�,�. � ����-. i , � a �" p�� ? , � �,�o � Z � v� ;R;,•�" �o�0 5, �°
P \\ 7, 1 N lOt� : O 5 Oe� �.
hen�s � 'n G ' I 8000 S4 �AIfA(0
4'4 a I °i�O C`LSO�' �5�vll�l 5 ' l. Ii � �V ��S4�e, IIOQUERS U B� S4 E11400U S� 1 SV iy�p� 5 iJ�:•�fir Slp1 A
l d pl��l� x 2 4 k� , �z `' 1)00 � & BARE : s ia.u�li�. ° ' �
f a � � 1-ur.uA°�.wa n ��n�y�rn. .GP(fAVAY' � CR[X(NI �, 9100� 8�00 ST i� '< � � 71� lM �V��NRt � Q �mw
N 6-5r cy� ���` � 1 SJ Q GFOVC SW °�LEW1hN�� ST o x[Mt0[ r- ^� l� Q�r� o A � N_�
i .-.. 11 x°Lu� �Q /�4t/ � �a � 92, dP O n Sv 5! > 1 a' N�� ey�Op� 4 v xy,�a ...�
�S d 0 STOW°[i'm ! �' m SY N CORMI I J Uc[N 5�� I Cr� � t f. �• 3� Q�
_ _ m SM �w� a . � 'e� I` � 57--�� ,S4 UNOAU 1 �_ S� SM YENTU ri�.+u �o,. � r' ` j
.o.n8�.� a�g -noiau— 9y_' ' . �„0.� �—____� J�9iIxGi � SW lOC ST _.ST�. : . _ �� .._. —'. ST - DR._ -�C._ y m m�t : '_:.�e _ __ ' �
,7:V � 8, d� d� �N � �`. 1� -0. �9f� � 9000 s� �,�,_"SM' L T - " ST�-� vr tdv�y i� : �S �m aE�•1 a - �.
�sr i[�� B[xo � ''� '� � v wiwr u E g.. �f` - i St i: A � R �
� , � t a .i.Q �� ,�, oy�IL � � .°o°.._I\� f�� �� _ l��z. ���'J�
,;,,s�� , ,� , �u�. SSQ.r�n � �uoo R v' � � � sv'� -�s IUPLELGf o sr�� -
' ' su I�� a � o '��i:�%'m- J 1
�• � r ,.,
�� n ° e$�HOL�- � � ' ., ,� � r ' f � N .u,- ° 1 r �v i�r, s� ::,:' 9
, � � a•��,�n � • �,.. ,�.1 �a - . _. _-_ SI • `� �1!� _ _. • ' r'..
`•� , ' �. a � r J - • -- --�- Fi- i d .'. Jf ..:o
��. �
� Sf � OAY �
�y t°� -a�� �:sm aw�r�w�r R`'��` �� \�e!t '„�°T.,.,,,e--.: � ^' ^ � -y-- LU -� N _. '„�� � a.Fra' t� ��, ..,. '�--i�,:.
.1 � .. � �ow � a� n.uwro v��. ��" � -- ---3. ,. - �
r�3r� a�� sr rw� � �-0' r �. �� 6 1 ���� �Il.l' /_ -� - -' ' PINf 57 �f'S 1•Y •IIiRMIK�ON 5� E
�_ ` � «nre . � � ,f�. ���'!� 9 `' s4 G � _ . �', �sro inoo � , ��A'i 9 _
C[ � '� ❑�a:C a , IY, SV SP C ?"f o� S�°' �` �'� �� �.r.cwov �
, �'�mp _ �`'1�_( 1�,,,,,,, siuoriN T --- ,,m._ i- ' •�
7 ' �ary f � [ C y 'n 1�A ! y � � [t _ ' /t/ ;V f19T� -- IIOW/ iY�j�ry+ `` e � r r .Su_1 Iwa S� I
�le. __
f �r •/'.�1�• ' �•� r '
4�s�a tT ; A p�L 'uid 7. ii t r"i"r.i�.E+a Z:�� {:JI 8 I� SN 5r � i i� i i � ♦ ._ � - -'
?'.'_� q� r �+'' --� ---'�-�=-�'e_.I��--r i - �r�csurr ' Tf� ; ._sw r ---��- - -� �—��� -� �� R���
'1 't �G[It1�n d.-QYf-_ 4���1 : d OAROtF Sf° S4 A a�'__-'1� J � �. f �/ ` i � o�'< ST � ... P ..��-'I I'_.' r -_� '
jb �p a 6V H74111�� 115 � 7o70b HI ��,.q�.�7K�U ��� T "/�O .�. � m � �m � /-�
^ t,ui� '°""n N•iurn .x4 -�:I' Y � 6s ioSooP �-11\1_Y-��SH�� a c, dS " �yo� 8 � � � I � IJ 1
• o,rtlf .0 � f��t,Q �dF,� A: f � , � d?� . ,;i I
-1'1���l.¢ ' �• e�, '1� Y �l��•` ,ti�_ d-J• ! �51 r �� � �, P d J� N � "� �IJ �L SV A � �e�e pryrr
��' d Y Mif! ,A � RVS _I MV� �' - ,D •f a:i I / I �� �� � y SW iFA�iIE Ba00� .Sf ��< F�il.�r �� N e �R �[ �n
• n � � iitao �j� d SYae1_11IrdR0O St � 1,,,7 Ef��g � � 3 F,�'� ^ ^ ���!rt� �Sl� �54_ IUINFS_A�,, c ru
% , ti ��an�. ,�� :����, ��5 , � U PGti - , �A
� u e ' m a 2 '� sv uvis C �: r�raao e .��I �
� ` � C L�_� ��II \� ? si y vul� �'n 6o0U �r
��� ' sv��m. S( n s y�q. � 1 r 1 rt34+� ` ffi lx� �ura n, Sy� .. � Q 54�� Sl7 BAY R $T� � w rvl o �,- A
a ✓� .d_�1 3 �0 �; t' ll r
'�'��.+i -� _ _ � 4,� Sy \ .,Y a o.r:i�• a I '� �i' 1000 � '< ,.� �1. C i n. �,:�� � � �io`
rq41. ���c AC aV- U�Mqq sr '� �I � T n ��1 T.t
`- � .Y.l1HERIH • �� ���'6 Q � I� C 11 MFAIXN SI \� (� a��-�- d :•.� 4 �r ,� � currt s � a� �`i,Iw� '�r:'�t'-•���
.� — - sT-- -R -�<'_=�-_-- J--- c�ou.nn ,t� � , qr, 9� 0 � q � 'f _ ���.Qlq > _ Z 1 � s.,t:N r�oT�,
t �� ;�:wo �c^ a _-1 �. s,::`��p � o � �� 1'I� IP 4
`ql - -N ` ,ti�..._.-_�.J._' r�.. � 'L �Y �1►] g �.�Q�v - s` �-��. ... �
• `�` ue� vG i siu C � yy ' ° �D \ S� °� S � R—� ...... ST-" � sv.''o � ' n� �
'ri r� p ..a 7�.� Ln�. fr ` \ Nf0 N t�rasmi[ � OK a 8 � `' �� m �.� 54 �° � a. $ _`�o�i �
..�� ' �� �9ruw.il ' �p � I �I ? ri {�� . � r Tti. :� -0 .1� r- sv ELHNRSI 51' � R 1 a�: • :; ,"^,�.�
t�L�� 'Q P�! k � 1 T � ."5' /i II \� (' i,. T'��$y KN �W4�51 I �1� l,°,' : t: i
�, � eq :., c�A�s 1� l S �•a.�•y, � ,�� ` . r �"� 0 'f' SW H t000 � �`� �� �, "� � n'
.wn y tr ��1� 'I SW ���, z io'wo t. yo�'t, � ti �` $� FS t�, �R; �{- E�xO yy � � < n pl cn�� -
t ��[r � j d�M1l; d � V. �a a `� �� �,;C �+a SW F IH� ST - �A- 4 ' N 5{
c.S PMIr 5 m Sv [nmI 51 J4 �V � �T fl .�,� A .;, P, r 51 5M EVCLANU 1 ^ 9�•ps v�y. tltr �
sl�u��- qr _ � rvn 57 � IC' 9i}�� -
s a a y� c A A rc -n t . 9��f� ' �''" r� ,ry < <. �� ,SP �eoo �i ri sour` � z � v'
Sw HALH�T �t' � a (=r �. ,�`�� o� 5� �r i'��+' e�' s. , �wx o �: bn o ,,,1� „na„ 6� ~ ,�,t , °'
�_su I ✓ i , r `� o� ` irF �� r Z swcoxzeca ~sr ��_ _ , � --c� .�
� i71 i I�'vW u .c (fil{[M f �� � Ji�i f6 • � 5[C'.�'iq 9 I I N � S�^ W u � e�`.
� 3 w _ - Otr r ^ � W� n y� l.� e �° �, ���.-�_a :� e
� CI � i A cV f � � ' 1 9ilO�xcl� �n HAMD $j N �.�m 3'wm � � �
� 1 SM'<ALBEAfA Sf_ .3 `_.�y{,f y� � W7[1r5 r� I 1 v- � 7 sv svix ti� � 7 I �, 1D p
p {tp r �A � °"°.� s+ �'. S�n � � � .�7 -
o � J h 17500 S fCV�f9 SI Q . "� �� Iub _
� `� •1��� P al��,91/�� ♦ `�2i yT 9 CM.. � yy d� IRVI P C_ 'i.y�cq ' F �i�
.UMf$.RD "v t C�. tl1V� . I E T ' �'---' �' '___„_ ' ' _ . 0� �
=—_ -- 54r__ . �'r- _� f�p `� -t `'� �i- �_-__ p!V - o�FR[SIVIN ST . __ Q$
I7100 8 . � `r/�s�' C a \� � a 'j} ,�,�+� lie. � � s j �•i ia��5• 1�or�t�C/w ri �
N ��i+SV lURION Sf ' 1 5 :� C •�S �' r 61(� ri'< YANxS } ,,t t ew'r.�n`u � p�.� .
s�� �@;; - rn� s� e .� ,3� � �s'�.�'�ANNO CCK 3 1 �� d� t • ,� nir
N �� y,` � � / ; , Y',� y� ,� y� Io�Oa : ci �i ~� �� ,��/�.� t � �t v�MS 5 , � ;\'�R�S�,.;r`dt�,�.A,�,-'�,, �!, ti� rV d��.C
1 a �2 4 ��• °rax i� '�.�.� i�' I a 54 F I H q \ '�\}
1. � � 7 C 9� U A u r J f� 1� \y\► g lI: i n 1 : ryJ��
,4 f`"�_' �? ' 1 � '`JiC � �19u 1:� ! r�lA vA 1r � p�, �e h� S � J �• ST Z 1 J i 5 ` a aa�A Sr�a 5Y r/ � ' I�� �'�:4`����a�- V_ �
� I � v` tt�� ,�i1� a�.I__�ur�.; G' +��K;��r1 �•J 9500 � 54 CHERRY OR $ANDBURG � a 11 � �. �i `t � �
�' o� �t ti q � * W � � SH E�EWOOD ST a � � � " i en��•
� ^�� � bs[ `6 , • DI A f.� � ,� 4 T i � �o..
d��_c`��a �� a �4 d� _ ; ,:., . rAarv vr u
u�a.nu r S� xlUVrt st s v 9 0 0 0 Si `` F _D �
— �° —� it tu a v m r iw+rt � Q�� l a r- Y ry rf xlUVl[v e s� +� I SV TECN C[NTEN� I �•� (�
r
i� 'I Q '$ d � S� �� LD t� v atuw D0. � K �`i
r �� uns • A . _ > ��. - -- R� -
W NA $E•�iti
'� Su ��'^t GAA.DE ST I aoo . y, � ��nu�q � „�� ` Y.
—�— — '-- � ; - - _._ _ ' . � (
-S -� ;: � � ��� w bin w .at,� I f U ios[si ` SM ELROSE Q �a sv` oian-C -- " �I'UNdURI( -�;
� a �^_� ..i �r Af;fr f� ,D'--- s� v Cu.n r �. tN � ��1 '�I �niNHS __,7A I • �
� M r■ ,�__ a �J IR � __"
e .,o�L qu i�� • .. a y a MUN41N vlrv Lq '.� i a- � ''—'' ���- - AO
r•:� -- a3 .,�id6 " d, ,pC(y'1t, , VI[4Y iCRG ^ `�v��y sa�r��,{} i�. Z{ '!�' J "„ a `� .' r.. r,,i�. �"s� \��1 �
li c'� r _rran �nl � .q, A ' A�` 1 y (. r �", Y
- ..�I.L� R ��7d �i _�'• d' � a�l��,C' ` 9 �j � I .'� � '� �ii
g ° �a.��1 �i 0.D w'm� qi � S. INf. A ST
ini „sr /��� I� i �
-ay)" BONITA pp (�.
r s, Ul'lf=z=A� �NTA1N i�i ivucir"� �i g. I _ sv� P[w�a�rsg �NID� y� po��naut � m �- �� �000Q _ � - sw-�IwxliA -�� oro c �
°„Q" yppp _._. Vl1shrlliu' S— ,f
3 - r li�r.�111 CfM - 8 $I w 4A' AE Ae.a ISn'° I \ , x '� ���'4 UNf QRU'�1_LM b 'P"�
_ i - -� � s� ruaoocr s A- 11 -j=�� 5T . � 2� �;� - z -
r�M�is���1� � 0900 � 10')D7 I• A 4 I� K :��?� •�.T 6 /: � (n ' � ,.nirc;7 .iy 00.
i w ' � d a� sti (ri c�i a t4� '"�9 � �1 � t 'i • "'' �'-.. ��J,� \ p��
•��. �`.� 4: a'� �n+NtrH •r �aio [r` d '�a O z Q Sy j RU ��� 1'����r
�l /� _¢.� 'Y m i �o+ � PI us�i�[.*�sv dt ' �v.i!K�✓, � ��/ ^ � DINAL+ SHAKCSPEARf RD y i �� � �(
�/_�� T/ �//� \y ta�. 9ia lM� G'o(wlola[ 51��UuM[l[t SY `fl
_" ��� k4fd"De lM - _ ___- C�+iiw r t"_ , . .w •— �_ ' __y�.-. _fi�t � -U
I 177N0—�— •C - ,��M1.: -- . a � S4 RO55 � • l� ' `-
S4 54 SATTLER � e °d ,f ,�P �`:.v.�(tG1+ :
�� � .:�.J.f ,{;, � [ NDODVII4 R i7�00 d � 'p q v»eoiiun S —�TBIW � g �y Pl�"� s S Q . �•.
��j I/ � � % 'f� * �l �$ St Sk RABLE' Si �a"iJr[siot "�J ci �8500$� O 4b �� �:�' \ C� �c .cA��p�4tR.� �
I! ' Po � �fY i la:ao $ � N�{�I n�rm. ''� aEOw °' � �< w i�d�.��!
p �° \ r a su.aa: o a "�a• �.�F � 12 sv 5� a��� c� � W 'l,ri,.
F� 0 a �o- ! tr i � rar yda� € tP uxr d KABIE � el 6 �o�1 a ! IJ�� °
9 i.*0E'� �ti • s� a ` S� e.:.w'm "°n �� �3 \ElD w�`.rDR � � < -e� , LN � Q� E 'IURAl1�1�N �� � �
�' •i ;� - W � y'14Af gvLA °'�. Iw � w.r a . r
� a" ` a' p gl °''�s Jd��P 5�iwrt[ ��'i� �vr^�'�7A � ��„�, � S ' TAV� � � � MApRDHA ST �
.:' i�� �.. ;�iMC�t/n�S= , nu.o s`` F�s� " "°�e a ��w�BBR'fl'' a'�9 ss s'` �+�Z`! 9 i "� •'a i e�' �i � pQ' ! � . g �f y'/ _smo
y g�x.uu�§e�� �f � ^: '/
gEEF Z'h��L� � ""'- a � �� �� �rru^ aa �Fv4�p a '` 9�P�sv w�x "si a � su a � .� m- c «
r �_ r-a- ` �, `' a �' �' a�.. aF� ITI =�. F, a a31d51 a�v'al:��� �ao i'St v ,'p
�� r_-a " 'a �--- SN = DURHAM , RD I � SW d�*� � ''^ '�Of Q �
�� -°�-d.�R �m n �a.��nl i u -.----=4-Ja��„u-- 1 '� . ,.--- -- UWIAM—' ��� ` - � — -- - _ _- �- ,�.--
� � _tcb�, ' ---- _ -- �J�-r t —� �r=��1\.f' �.
�
11. Site Description
The site subject to the rezone request comprises 4.54 acres out of a total of 14.2 acres which the
applicant ultimately wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Comm rcial-Professional
(CP) and has received development approval for a hotel. The site is bounded by8�217 to the south,
S.W. Oak Street to the noi�th, and S.W. 89th Avenue to the east. Hi�hway 217 is a four-lane, limited
access state highway/freeway. Greenburg Road is a county street, designated as a major collector
street by the Tigard Transportation Plan. S.W. Oak Street is designated as a minor collector street
between Greenburg Road and Lincoln Street, and as a local access street east of Lincoln Street. Hall
Boulevard, a desi�nated arterial street, is located east of, but not adjacent to, the subject property.
The proposed development site is generally vacant, as is the area proposed for the zone change/plan
amendment. Some single.fa�nily homes exist on the property. The property is currently planned and
zoned for Commercial Professional (CP) use (9.71 acres) and Low Density Residential use (R-4.5)
(4.54 acres). Of�'ice and commercial buildings exist on properties which are zoned CP to the
northwest and west of the site. Single family homes exist on properties northeast and east of the site,
in the area zoned R-4.5.
Figure 2 shows the parcel and existing zonin� and comprehensive plan designations. Fiaure 3 shows
the proposed zonin;.
Davis Pro�cny
�11I7f:25, 199G 3 I:\PROIECTIS�S15750101�DRDAVIS.APP
. , .� , � � � .
�,1
< �!}'I ` c� u
� t�l r t ` a
'" firtl � � ��b� * ^ � �,
— �- - .,,�.......... . ....... d � !;A3 •;; �
� �� ::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" � � � • '� ,:T �- — �
� I .i�....................................� ��e� � r� � �� sn
r . ..... ......�....................:1�. � 1 1i, ' � :C�''
y� �:�j:'::: :::::':::::::':":'::::'::'::F ' , ` � .
I� � ��.....:.... . .w�.�........ ......... , .
� �":�.....".�lici_7L't�_�.1Tr.—.r.—r '
.....................................
f . ...................... ......... I .
�........�!........�..�...��........•.�. 1 . � � •
� �:�.��..�.....��..:•!i.'•.......�...:�.• � +/ �k
�'+j f��............�..'...' ...'��..' a .� .�. r � �
� '��'' \`�{:5�::::::::::::::::::: :�D:.::� � ,.
�' \� �:"`' : �:`� '::::::::::::::: ..� :..:: ,l
� t:�i��'' ..,��'::::::::::::::� :�Q:::.� �� pti\ .
.�;_: ........ �,� : ,�
y p� F .'�.::1: �'.::::::::::: ::::�:::�`.
1 ° $ �:::::::::\5,:::�::::::::: :::.::': * Ir ——————--- -
� � - y ::::::::::\�::��:•::::: :: :Q: I �y � . .
V V � '::.:::::::::}���'�',�'�'. ...:�'':• .�,Q� \o�'� '!� • tTi �
� � o :;�:::.:`.':.:::::::��,�."� :::'c�}: -���� '� < < �� .
� � :�t�:'::: ::::::::::::�:.*E.:��•:.:::: �' � n �� ' •
„ ,.
W .....................:��.'°. .... � ( ?�I .
� r ' e'::: :'::::':::::�r',��'�.;K: � � W� • � � ' .
�` ,��.: '� I
� ':�.;:,;:.. .............::� b ) �1
� F . �+ ::::: ' g :::::.��;'�. .� �Q � i� 3�
� i:"';:��....1 :t�: ...... ..\�: ��,� `.a! �'`� � C�
� .. ..__... �4 ,� � I:�• � �:
-� . � � �
y` � /$��_� �o� ' �� E �l .
vf�i"
, � . � ,..� _ ..... .
' a + I��— --L
�_ t �� 3 � �� � Ei . i„� ----
� I'�=1
�IY� ///�� 1 jl
1
r •p ��y
,\ fi�' �� 'f/�� '� r i i �"`�"?'�.� �c� �' �i f
� -� \
�. t�,- _ \� �� �; �� •�i� Pf��� _' • � .
3n,Y3hr ----- —�--� � �"
__.T_ \ V496 t.�e��.•�•o` �,5, �� �
r __ux�.. ,�_,_.,_ _~ �
i ±' \�\, ` � �
:r , � \ � 3 � �'"� �
. a� �
�_ �= 0 �
� � � �J �
� � �.
— — - — — — — — — -.- _ _ . _ _..._ _ _ _ � � �
c� �
� « <r
,, ::
, ::
. � ._ � .
j�� �
a '�'�� Q i �
�
"�' !�i'� � r�a� � 'S p� a r�n t
Uf � .::::::::::::::::.nn• .. .::::. '::: , .� �D -'RI. '� •�rl � � ,
r " �.� :.....•.. ' � ••:. .•�: .. ��8� ��• : �� ��`� (n
' ........ . i:...,..�`... ... s� :� � �
. � � : ,.
: '::: ��::.... :1�: �::. l: . �a .
�� ��:}:::: ' :.. .... :`.�.ti•4:�:::� . ` .
�_ F :' + :::::::. '".�:��: '�',�' ..:`�'.�:' ';
� '.�$'.��....:.., '':..f'ii� � :..�::'�: .
:::: .�......:;... ....
r . :..• .:::::: .�:�":...::'::�. :::::'t � q .
::::::.�:.... `�.;...�,�::::::::'.. '1 i A • . .
� :� �':::::::• ��'��:::::::::•:: � - ��
:.��.:�.......:. :��:: ...::.:.....:.:
� �: �::::::::::::: :..::;�:�:::x:::: � - � �'
��i.$.�;..::::::::':' :�:y ,� .�::::.:: . .�, r ` ,.
�n(��9i:� ':::::::' .. . ��� :��6•::: i�� ��
S :. • :::: ....:_`- • ::'�• � '
.`�:'
_ .:t� ... ::•���:<� :... a�• .
N } ��• • ,���4;.`�`�:��...F t _.-��...�.___�.� �r ,
v Q � ;')'+. ' �' . '�
;S t y � :4�2 :::\�:l p � . '
� � .'('�".. .::?':'~ 3�p �0�� 'SI �r. , � . ;
� � � �' ,'ti;:'�:: ,=�br �� ; 4 F v� ' '
� � ':�:: � ,�.��
� I ��I
. r �' � � I W) ' _ .,
• � r
Q r
Y � � ��� 3�
�, \v� it.t, R C^ ..
� �,� ,� � 1 . ��
' t
`. � , $t... � ,�°�" � ��' � ��I
� af � .., �� 8� � �L_
�_ ? �� � �p � Ft , 'ii=� --V--�-- �.. . . .
s
- .,�� �
R�VI �1 �
p �� �� !1�
1� Z� /f� �/ \ \ ^�r •� F,• � �
�. ' f'' � � �� �t $� �'��- �s }► i . �J
_ \ .: e �' '"� �
3�N3�1b ---- —�c--t . , �
--�-r— 4 f 96 Z.�o�,.•.�,� ,M,s
:r — r– -- �
��. .�_, � �
, �� �
:� � `� .� 1 'q`
:. ' � \� . � � �
� , . � p ,J
. � � d
- - - - - - - - - _._ � _ _ .-- _ _..._ _ - - � �
�
�
� t� t►
� �:
..� .;� . .
,
� � 111. Conforrnance with Applicabie City of Tigard Comprehenseve P9an
Poi�cees
' The applicable criteria in this case are City of Tigard Comprehe�v�P�n Policies I--1�1, �_l, 3. 1.1,
�
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.?.3,�3-4.,1, �'4:2�3�5,1_,4�1�1, 4��1., 4�3,.1, 5.1..1�, 5. 1.4, 6.1.I, 6.�3,�6.6�.�1�Public
� �.�^.J�—_,� �--'
Facilities and Sen�ice Policies,�.1.1, S�l..`, 8.�2.r2� and 12 l�� (locational cr�teria for Commercial
' Professional Plan desi�nation).
, The City of Tigard co►nprehensive plan l�as been acknowledged as bein� in compliance with the
Statewide Plannin� Goals. Accordin�ly, a demonstration of compliance with the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan ensures compliance �vith the State��+ide Planning Goals.
' A. Consistrncy V1'ith Comprehensive Pl�n ]�olicies: 1.1.1
� The proposal is consistent witl� applicable poirtions of th� Comprehensive Plan based upon
the findings noted below:
� 1. Tl�e proposed action and conceptual development is consistent with applicable
r!an policies as demonstrated in the text included with this application and is
consistent with the growth patterns and physical changes in the fabric of the
' City.
2. Because of continued increases in tra�ic and noise impacts upon the subject
, neighborhood frosn nearby roadways and non-residential uses, the
neighborl�ood I�as experienced a change of physical circumstances affecting
- i;s lon;-tern� suitability for continued low and medium density residentia] use.
' One of the primary reasons for choosing to live in a single-family residence or
a medium-densit}� multi-family residential development is that such
developments provide yard areas in ti�hich residents may relax, garden, and let
rti�eir children play. Present noise and other traffic impacts upon the subject
nei�l�borhood undoubtedly have reduced the.desirability of these properties
� for such pursuits.
Tl�e poor condition of residential streets, lack of sidewalks, parks and other
' rec►-eational facilities, poor drainage conditions, and an overall increase in
noise, con�estion and high levels ofactiviry in the single family residential area
caused by the proximity of commercial and o�'ice uses have contributed to a
� decline in livabilit}�.
A de�ree of mistake can therefore be'seen with regard to the existin� Plan
' designations. It is assumed that the residential designations were intended by
Wasl�ington County prior to annexation by the City of Tigard to reflect
existing levels and types of development and protect existing uses from
' I)avis Pro�icrt�'
, JUI]l'2J, I����C) 6 I�\PRUIECTI175\I5�501011DRDAVIS.APP
�
'
dissimilar, incompatible uses. The area was zoned from residential to C-P
once before as a part of the presidential parkway project; however, with the
demise of that project, the zone changes were reversed. However, because
the area is bounded by two arterials and two major collector streets and abuts
intensive commercial uses to the west, 7'igard's plans for this area should.
reco�nize that increasing noise and traf�ic would af�'ect the suitability of the
area for sin�le-family use and plan accordingly for conversion of the area to
more suitable uses. The present proposal attempts to accomplish that
conversion.
B. Ciiizen lnvolvement Policies: 2.1.1
In compliance with tl�is policy, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 18, ]996,
at the Tigard Water District headc�uaners to discuss the project with surrounding property
owners. ]n addition, City of Tigard requirements for public notice are being met. Owners
of record of property within 250 feet of the subject property were notified of the `
neighborhood meeting and are being notified of the public hearing concerning the proposed
action, the property is bein� posted, and an advertisement of the hearing is being placed in the
local ne��vspaper, all in a timely manner.
C. Natural Resources �nd O��en Sp�ce Policies: 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.1
The proposed rezoning of the site does not change the requirement for proven engineering
and mitigation tecl�nic�ues. As part of the development plan, engineering standards for
construction in wet areas will be used on a site specific basis. Mitigation of impacts to
wetlands will be committed to in accordance with local, state and federal policy on wetland
mitigation.
Plan Policies 3.2.I, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 will be considered through the review of any
future development proposals for the subject area that may have impacts on the desionated
]00-year floodplain of Ash Creek and associated wetlands. Any subsequent development
proposals af�ectin� these resources will be reviewed through the City of Tigard's Sensitive
Lands review process and ref'eRal of wetland notification requests to the Oregon Division of
State Lands, Ore�on Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
otl�er interested a�eiicies for their review, comment, and applicable permitting processes. The
proposed redesi�nation of this area to Professional Commercial presents no direct conflict
with these Plan policies.
Policy 3.5. I encoura�es private enterprise to provide open space and preserve natural and
scenic areas. Tlie site plan beinb developed for the property will provide valuable open space
and preserve natural and scenic areas by preserving and enhancing wetlands and the Ash
Creek corridor.
Davis Pro��crt��
� �Ulll`2�, I9���) / 1:\PRUIECnIS7S15750101\DRDAVIS.APP
,
' D. Air, �'1'ater :�nd L�nd Resources: 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1 �
The rezonin� to CP would allow a mixed use development or transient lodging on the subject
� parcel. The City's implemeniation strategy #6 supports an energy-ef�'icient urban form to
reduce vehicle miles o;travel and encoura�e afternate modes. Mixed use developments are
supportive of transit use and ridesl�arin�. Tl�e proposed rezoning is adjacent to a freeway,
' collector and arterial streets, which ��ould allow for a reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
, Rezonin� the site to CP would not negate the requirements for the development to comply
with water quality re�ulations including storm ���ater detention and retention, runoff and
treatment, and waste water discharbe.
, Plan Policy 4.3.1 will be considered fully through tl�e review of noise impacts of development
proposals in the subject area with re�ard to the location of roadways, parking areas, and
, mechanical equipment in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed redesi�nation does not
by itself a$ect noise levels in the area. Review of the development application will allow for
consideration of noise mitijation for the actual development proposal.
� E. Economic Development: 5:1.1, 5.1.4-- _ .
� The rezonin� of' tl�e subject property to CP would make the zoning consistent with an
adjacent parcel. It �vould also be in conformance with the Regional 2040 land use concept
whicl� designates the are� a Re�ional Center. These centers are to become the focus of high
' density, compact mixed ►-esidential and commercial development, redevelopment and transit
and hibhway improvements. They are intended to serve as a magnet for new employment and
household �rowtl�. CP zonin� allo�vs for residential use on or above the second floor of a
1 mixed use facility. Hotel/motel uses are also allowed in the CP zone.
Plan Policy 5.1. 1 is satisfied because redesignation of the'subject area would increase the
� opportunities for commercial development with attendant growth of the local job market. �
The City's inventory of available developable commercial property would increase upon later
, rezoning of these properties in association with the provision of appropriate levels of public
facilities and services as required by the proposed amendments to Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan. (See also the response to Statewide Planning Goal 9).
' Plan Policy 5. l.4 states that commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into
residential neighborl�oods. The proposed map redesignation is proposing a change that has
' already been proposed and approved once before. While it does change the designation in an
established residential nei�hborhood, this neighborhood has already been severely impacted
by adjacent c�mmercial development and nearby roadways. Commercial redesignation of
, the subject area would be anticipated to increase values for neighboring properties and may
help spur redevelopment of some underdeveloped parcels in this area.
' Da��is I'rorcrt��
June 2�, 19')(� O I:�PRU1F.("I11t75i�5750101\DRDAVIS,APP
'
'
1
, F. Housing: G.1.1, G.3.3, 6.6.1
Plan Policy 6. 1.1 discusses iiousing density and residential diversity. The proposed
� redesignation would remove the opportunity for appraximately 26 single family dwelling units
based on �ross acrea�e and current Plan designations. These�er subject parcels are
' significantly impacted by noise and congestion, and are not anticipated to develop in
accordance with current opportunities.
, Due to existin� su►-rouhding land uses and the area's transportation system, the applicant
believes the site �s more appropriate for commercial use. This change will slightly lower the
total density of sin�;le family residential zoned property within the City. The City currently
, offers an overall general density of 10.30 units per acre. The City is required to maintain a
minimum density of I 0.0 units per acre. The proposed change in plan/zone designation will
slightly raise tl�e ratio by reducing both the total residential base and the single family
' component. The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements
of the housin� rule.
� Pla�� Policy 6.3.3 is satisfied because the proposed map designation would provide for more
logical boundaries between residential and commercial developments than currently exist.
The proposed redesignation and future review process of any deveiopment plan for the
� ���
��, subject property will assure that adequate levels of public facilities are provided and that
� detailed site plans are developed with the intent of mitigating or eliminating impacts of future
development of tl�e ���ea upon otl�er adjacent neighborhoods so as to preserve and enhance
� the character of those nei�l�borl�oods.
Plan Policy 6.G. 1 will be satisfied at the time of development application because the
, Community Development Code requires buffering between different types of land uses and
screening of service areas, storage areas, and parking lots. These requirements will be
� imposed upon any subsequent development proposal 'within the area proposed for
redesignat�on tl�►-ougl� tl�e Site Development Review processes.
, G. Yublic F,icilities and Services �
Tl�e rezone of t}�e property irom R-4.5 to CP would not change the requirement for pub!ic
' facilities and services to be provided to the required standards. It is the applicant's
understandin� that water, sewer and storm water facilities are available to meet the needs of
the site.
' The proposed rezonin� would not cl�ange the need for a site development study to be
prepared and that best mana�ement practices be used for on-site drainage. The proposal to
' develop the site as a lar�er scale use allows the drainage from multiple structures to be
managed as a s�n�le user. Residential developments tend to manage water resources on a
site-by-site basis.
� I)avis I'ru�,�rt�
Junc 25, I�)�)C� 9 I�PRW6(TI575�I5750101�DRDAVIS.APP
�
�.
�
� - _
' The proposed rezoning does not chan�e the requirement to meet applicable water pressure
and fire protection standards. It is the applicant's understanding that suf�icient water pressure
exists to meet the demand of tl�e proposed land uses and fulfill the fire pressure requirements.
1 The proposed action will be reviewed by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department as
part of the approval process.
' Details regardin� public services and utility networks will be addressed through the Site
Development Review prior to any commercial development in the area proposed for ��
� redesi�nation. •
H. Transport�tion: 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 5.2.2
1 -� � Plan Policy 8. l.1 is satisfied because tl�e proposed redesignation is supported by its location,
acijacent to 1-li�l�way 217 and near Hall Boulevard. Two collector streets (Greenberg and
� Oak) also serve the site. Therefore, it is a logical location for a more intensive land use, such
as commercizl.
1 Policy 8.1.3 is relevant to development approval, however the applicant is aware of these
policy requirements.
� Plan Policy 8.2.2 will be satisfied at development because Tri-met offers bus service to the
entire Washin��ton Square area. Therefore, the proposed development would locate a more
intensive rype of development in close proximity to existing public transit, creating a greater
' source area for Tri-Met.
The proposed action-does not cl�an�e the need for the applicant to meet the requirements of
� policy 8.2.2. The proposed use of the site would be a generator of transit users, and
appropriate street improvements would be provided to encourage transit use. A traffic impact
study has been developed reflectin�conceptual uses of the site, and will be refined to reflect
� a specific use during the development application process. This study includes
recommendations for mitigating travel demand impacts of the proposed land uses, as well as
� identifying shortcoit�ings of the system (for example, frontage improvements) that the
applicant would provide. Public facilities such as sidewalks and parking areas would be
desi�ned in accordance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards.
' The concept-level trat��c stud_y is attached to this application (Attachment E).
' 1. Speci.il Areas of Concern: 11.8 _
� This discussion acknowledges that Comprehensive Plan designation changes may be
' appropriate in conjunction with approval of a conceptual development plan. The findings for
Nei�hborhood Plannin� Organization #8 sup��ort the implementation of commercial
development througl� a master planned development and other improvements on the site. The
, Davis Pro��crt��
June25, ��)�C) IO I:\PROlECT15'75�IS7gpI01�DRDAVIS.APP
1
'
i
1
, findings also support zone c:hanges/plan amendments as properties are proposed for
development t� delay the commercial zone tax levels from burdening remainin� homeowners.
The overall area described by this area of concern narrative was pro.posed for a zone
1 change/plan amendment in 1995 under the n�me Ashbrook Crossing. Due to a number of
si�nificant issues, tl�at proposal was withdrawn. The applicant is working with the adjacent
� property owners to ensure that the proposed uses on the subject site are integrated into the
overall area covered by the discussion in section 11.8.
, J. Loc�iional Criieria: 12.1.2
The discussion of policy 12.1.2 is provided in Section VI of this application.
1
'
�
�
i
� �
1
1
1
�
1 �
' llavi,Pro��ci1�� -
�L111C 2�, 199C, 1 1 I�PHUJECTIS7A15750101�DRDAVIS.APP
1
1
�
' IV. Consistency with Professional/Administrative Office Commercia0
(CP) Distr�ct and Overlay Distrects
, A. Commercial Profession��l (CY) Uistrict
' 1. Consistency with the purpose of the CP zone
As indicated earlier in tl�is application, the proposed use for the subject property for
t which tl�e cl�ari�e in plan/zonin� designation is sought is a hotel and .associated
restaurant. The hotel has already received City approval. Future commercial
development of� this area is expected to generate substantial employment
1 opportunities, both temporary construction employment opportunities as well as
permanent jobs. In addition, the assessed value of the subject (and surrounding)
property can be expected to increase. Finally, the location of offices in the vicinity of
, the proposed development will help support the use planned for the property, as well
as those commercial uses in the immediate vicinity and in Washington Square.
' 2. Permitted Uses
Hotel uses, including a restaurant on the same parcel are permitted outright within the
' CP zone. .
3. Dimensional Requirements
' The site lan which will be submitted for review u on satisfacto com letion of the
P P rY P
' requested cl�ange in plan and zone designation will meet the dimensional requirements �
of the CP zone.
4. Additional Requirements '
,
Section 18.64.060 lists additional requirements which may be applicable to
, developments within the CP zoning districts. These issues will be reviewed in detail
at the time of future site plan approval.
' B. Overt�y DisU•icts
I. Applicable: Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts (Chap. 18.84)
' Requirements related to wetlands and draina�e will be addressed as part of the
development application. Miti�ation rec�uirements for any wetlands and drainages will
� be desi�ned into tlie site plan. A Sensitive Lands permit and/or appropriate state or
federal env�ronmental permits will be sought in conjunction with the development site
review process.
' [)a��is Pro��ci�tr
,ILIAC 2�, I�)�)C� 1? I�,�PNUlECT1575\137y0101\DRDAVIS.APP
,
t
1
� 2. Not A� licable: Chapters 18.82 Historic Overlay and 18.80 Planned
Development.
' C. Supplemental Pruvisions
1. A lic I : Cl�a��ter 18.108 Access, Egress and Circulation
1
Issues re�ardin� access, e�ress and circulation are discussed in the attached •
' Transportation�`lmpact Study. A more detailed examination of access, egress and -
circul�tion will be provided in conjunction with the site plan review process.
' 2. To be addressed with site nlan review: Chapters 18.96 Additional Yard � _
Setback, 18.98 Building Hei�ht Limitations, 18.90 Environmental
Performance Standards, 18. 100 Landscaping and Screening, ]8.]02 Visual
' Clearance Areas, ]S.I O6 O�Street Parkin� and Loading and 1 18.1 14 Signs.
3, Not ap��licable: Chapters 18.92 Density Computations, 18.104 Fuel Tank
' lnstallations, and 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. `
D. Uevelopment :�nd Adn�ii�istr:�tion
, To be addressed with site plan review.
� E. L�nd Divisiou and Development St�ndards
To be addressed as needed with sife plan review.
�
,
'
,
1 �
'
' Davis Pro��crty
�llfll'.2J, 1996 13 I\PRUJECTI575�15750101�DRDAVIS.APP
1
'
_
�
�
' -
' V. Evidence of Change in Circumstances, Inconsestency or Niistake
' The City of Ti�ard's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989, establishing the plan and zone
designation for the area in wl�ich the subject property is located. Since that time, changes in
' circumstance have occurred witl� re�ard to future plannin� for the area and the larger region.
The Metro 2040 Growth Concept was established by Metro through the adoption of Resolution 94- �
, 2040C. This Growth Concept is being implemented through a Regional Framework Plan and the
comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Among a host of other things, this adopted Growth
Concept calls for the establishment ofa Central City (basically downtown Portland and environs) and
, a number of Regional Centers.
Washington Square and the surrounding area has been designated as a Regional Center through the ,
' Metro 2040 Growth Concept. These Regional Centers are to become the focus of high density,
compact mixed residenti�l and commercial development, redevelopment and transit and highway
improvements, serving as the magnet for new employment and household growth. While it is ,
uncertain what the status of the subject parcel is with respect to 2040 designation, it is apparent from
I . existing development trends and tl�e 2040 Concept map, that low density residential use is not
consistent �aith tl�e 204U Concept for the area northeast of Highwa�� 217.
� A future iteration of the state-mandated Periodic Review of Tigard's comprehensive plan will likely
result in the development of more detailed studies leading to the development of more intensive,
' mixed use-oriented zoning for this Regional Center area.
With the development of commercial centers such as Lincoln Center in the site vicinity, the a magnet �
'. is being developed for business. The extension of the CP zone to the subject site will allow these
types of businesses to continue to �row and prosper in Tigard while reducing vehicle milea�e by
' providin� quality lod�in� near Hi�hway ?17 and the developin� business centers.
The requested rezanin� of tl�e subject property to CP and the conceptual development plan is entirely
t consisteni with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept for this area, and reflects the changing
circumstances of' regional and local planning af�'ecting this area, as well as the balance of the
metropolitan re�ion.
, Other major chan�;es are as follows:
' I. Tl�e subject propei�ty �{�as annexed to the city after the adoption of the comprehensive plan,
resultin� in tliis area not having been taken into account in the development of the plan and
its policies re�arding comil�ercial development.
,
' n�,�„P��,r���„�
Junc 25, I����G I 4 I:\PROJEC'i11575\IS750101�DRDAVIS.APP
,
'
�
�
�
_ � — --
t
' 2. In 1990, in conju»ction with the Presidential Parkway urban renewal project, the subject
property was rezoned (City-initiated) to Commercial Professional (CP). The project failed
' to come to fruition, and the propert�� was subsequently rezoned to a residential designation
(R-4.5).
' 7'he above inforniation illustrates tlie cl��nging nature of the planned uses (and designations) for the
area; the area I�as not had a long-standin� historical commitment to future residential use. This
finding of cl�angin�conditions is furtl�er supported by the development of high-density of�ice uses on .:
, CP-zoned property immediatel}� adjacent to the site.
A de�ree of mistake can be seen with regard to the existing Plan designations. It is assumed that the
' residential designations were intended by Washington County prior to annexation by the City of
�Ti�ard to reflect existin� levels and types of development and protect existing uses from dissimilar,
incompatible uses. However, because the area is bounded by two arterials and two major collector
' streets and abuts intensive commercial uses to the west, Tigard's plans for this area should have
• recognized that increasin� noise and traffic would affect the suitability of the area for single-family
use and plan accordin�;ly for conversion of the area to more suitable uses. The present proposal
� attempts to accomplish that conversion.
,
1
�
.
'
�
'
'
'
' 1)a��i,I'ropert��
.�llll�ZS, I�)�)C� I S I�PROIF.CT157c�1575pI01�DRDAVIS.APP
,
1
I
'
' V1. Conformance with Applicable Locational Creteria for Commercial
Professional Use
'
CP areas "are intended for a divei•se ran�;e of'of�ice uses and supportive uses; and to promote user
' convenience throughout the city".
Scale:
' The subject site for which rezonin� is sou�ht covers 4.54 acres. The overall site that the applicant will
be proposing for development includes approximately 9.7 additional acres. Proposed land uses for ,
' the rezone site include a I�otel (already approved for the adjacent parcel) and associated restaurant. `
The proposed hotel would have a nat�onal market base. The restaurant would draw customers from
the hotel and the surrounding area. Gross leasable area has not been determined.
' Locational Criteria: �
' The locational criteria require that a Commercial Professional area not be surrounded by residential
districts on more than two sides. The subject site is a trianole. The northern side is bounded by Oak ;
Street and uses associated with Lincoln Center. The west edge is bounded by commercial zoning. The
' hypotenuse(south ed�e) is adjacent to an R-4.5 zone. The proposed Plan map amendment meets this
criteria. No portion of the subject property is surrounded by residential districts on more than two
sides.
' Pro ert ad�acent to the sub'ect site is zoned as Commercial Professional. At one time the sub'ect
P Y J J , J
' site was zoned CP, but was rezoned residential when the Presidential Parkway proposal was not �
pursued.
A. Access �
, � .
A conceptual level transportation analysis has been prepared which identifies transportation
' improvements wliicl� are needed in order for the existing street system to operate at
acceptable levels o(�service. Additional transportation improvements which are needed to
accommodate trai�ic�enerated by the conceptual development assumed for the property with
, and without tl�e requested zone change/plan amendment are also identified. The conceptual
plan is preliminary and subject to chan�e, and the proposed transportation improvements are
also preliminary anci subject to change. The site plan review process for any future specific �
' development proposal will ensure that specific access and transportation needs can be
identified, projects defined, and implementation programs established in order to meet the
access criteria. Tl�e proposed rezonin� would increase traffic volumes generated on the
' subject parcel; however, it is believed that miti�ation measures are available which will correct
these deficiencies.
' I�a��is I'ro�ci-��,
.IUI]l'Z�, 199C� �G I�\PROJE(TI57SI5750101�DRDAVIS.APP
'
'
,
� Developrnent of the subject site as zoned �vould produce approximately 3� daily, Z$ a.m.
peak hour and 3b ��.m. peak i�our trips. VVith the zone chan�e and conceptual development,
the site could��enerate 22b4 daily, 194 a.m. peak, and 190 p.m. peak trips.
� .
B. Site Ch�r:�cteristics
' Ti�e site characteristics criteria require that the affected site be of a size which can
accommodate present and projected needs and that the site have high visibility. The overall � r.
, site to be proposed for development contains approximately 14.25 acres (of this total,
approximately 4.54 acres are proposed for redesi�nation to CP). The subject site, together
with lands already designated Commercial Professional, has visibility from Highway 2]7, SW
, Greenbur� Road, SW Oak Street and SW Hall Boulevard. The proposed action meets the
site characteristics c��iteria.
� The site is large enou�h to plan a significant hotel development which can increase the supply
of lod�ing services of the area.
' C. lmp.ict Assessment
VVitl�out an actual det�iled cievelopment proposal being available at this time, it is dif�cult to
' assess whetl�er tl�e scale of development will be compatible with adjacent uses. However, the
conceptual plan for the property is compatible with the adjacent uses.
, Ti�e conceptual site development plan configuration will show screening, fencing and other
features designed to maintain the_privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses. Portions of the
' existing wetland area and otl�er natural features are proposed to be incorporated into the site
plan. The activity associated with tl�e proposed land uses is considered to be supporting,
rather than �nterfenn� with ad�oinin� non-residential uses.
.
! Area of Special Concern 8 includes the area of wetlands and floodplain adjacent to Ash Creek
as well as other adjacent properties. The Plan calls for development within this area to
1 ►naintain lloociwate,- stora�e capacity and wildlife habitat throu�h minimizing the area to be
disturbed. Tlie 1'lan also calls for access to this area to be provided only from SW 89th
Avenue and for development to be bufFered from the traffic noise from Highway 217. The
' proposed Plan map i-edesi�nation does not conflict with the special concerns e�+pressed for
these areas.
' Implementation StrateeJ�ies: (appticable strategies)
After tl�e subject property I�as been rezoned, a site plan consistent with the City of'figard's
� requirements for site desi�n review will be submitted to the City.
' D�vis Pro�,cr�y
Jun�2�, 199C� 1� I�PRUJLCI\1575�15750101\DRDAVIS.APD
i
1
�
i
�
' A landscaping pl�n consistent witl� the requirements of the City of Tigard's developmer�t code
will be provideci at tf�e time of�site desi�n review. The proponent will meet or exceed the
' I S% landscape area standard.
The concept-level � ransportat�on lmpact Study �vill be prepared for the proposed level of
' development. Su�eet in�provernents required as conditions of approval for the actual site plan
will be completed or secured prior to development, consistent with the requirements of the
City of Tigard cievelopment code. -
� A preliminary review of transportation issues identified several projects within the vicinity of
the site, some of which may partially be the responsibility of the applicant:
, ► Extension of SW Lincoln Street to connect SW Oak and SW Locust streets
, ► Fronta�e improvements on SVV Oak and SW Lincoln extension, including widening
SW Oak to a 3-lane section
� ► Northbound ri�ht turn lane at the SW Greenburg Road/Highway 2]7 northbound ..
ramps
, ► Si�nalize SW I-�all Boulevard and SW Oak Street
► Add anotl�er nortl�bound left turn lane at SW Greenburg Road and SW Washington
, Square ftoad
� ► 1�9STIA project to widen Greenburg bridge over Hi�hway 217 from 5-6 lanes and
included bicycle lanes
..
,
,
'
�
,
,
l.)a�•is Pro��crt�
�UIIL'2J, I�)�)C) I O I.�PRUJEC.T157A157SOIOI�DRDAVIS.APP
'
'
�
VI1. Discussion of Transportation and TPR Issues
Compliauce i��ith the 'l�r;in�purt:�tiun Yl:�nning Rule (OAR GGO-12-060(1))
"Amendments to functional plans, �cknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use
regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of
the facility."
Response:
]. The worst case land use scenario under the CP designation would generate greater traffic than _
would full develo��ment under the existin5 R-4.5 designation. A preliminary traffic study
commissioned by tlie applicant (Attachment C) identified some level of service changes with -
and without implement�ition of the conceptual site plan. The �;eneral conclusion of the draft
traf�ic impact study is that LOS D could be maintained if selected mitigation actions are taken.
Peak hour intersection levels of service in 1999 without the project are anticipated to be
acceptable at the key intersections, except for SW Hall/SW Oak. The level of service at this •
intersection is estimated to be poor because of the left turns from the west leg of Oak to :
nortlibound Hall. A si�nal at tl�is location would alleviate this problem; however, other
problems would be encountered, including tl�e widening of Oak, straightening the curve and
replacement of�tl�e brid�e. It is likely that traffic from existing commercial uses would divert
to Lincoln and use the si�nalized intersection at Locust to make this movement. Use of
various signing and traf�ic management techniques could be used to reinforce the direction
of traffic to Locust.
2. Hi��hway 217 currently carries about 95,000 ADT (both directions) on the link between the
Hi�hway 99 ramps and Greenb�irg Road. ODOT l�as accepted the forecasts for Highway 2]7
that were p�-epared for tl�e I->/Hi�hway 217 Interchange Study. While these forecasts were
made for 2015, they provide an idea of capacity on Highway 217. The following table
presents these fo��ecasts, assuming that an interchange occurs and that existing transportation
plans and policies of tl�e local jurisdictions are implemented. The traffic analysis for the
proposal assuined tl�at 25% of the traffic from tl�e project would go to the north and south
segments of}�i3i�way 217. Tl�is translates to an additional 571 daily trips (48 am peak /47
pm peal:) added to eacf� of the northbound and southbound legs of Highway 217.
Level of Se�vice D cat� be maintained v,�ith appropriate miti�ation, as demonstrated within the
attached draft Transpoi�tation Impact Study. Accordingly, the requirement for assuring that
"allowed land uses are consistent.witli the identified function, capacity and level of service"
has been satisfic;d.
I)a�-i.I'ru�,crt�
.IUIll2�, I�)�I�l I9 I\PRUIECTIS75\I5750101�DRDAVIS.APP
ATTACHMEN"fS�
A. Assessor's ��ap
B. Meetin� Notice
C. Ov�mer's Authorization �
D. T'raffic Stuciy
Da�•i,l'ro���rt�,
JU(1C 2�, 199C� �O I'�I'RUJE(�1�1575\I57S0101\URDAVIS.APP
,;��
d '��I�
o c�
� � !�!� ��5� Q k�
.i•u t g� P�y � M�
� " � , � ' � �� ����' ) ,�;f � N .
� ��8� }•.�, ' � �± ...
r � 1� I �} ,o
IB� , " • �
i� � 1, La •
■�� � � � Mti��
� ���...��,ti�JLi�—�.li':lT�___ -
' ' ��� . � ■� •
� �3 p� ��
. � .
� '� � X a t0 �M
� N ��g� ` O •d�.�� n•
� M � ♦
�1 F W .
Q� \�
� ' �a � K� � �� � � a�ti ,
� � � � '�' � � � i
r o $ � \\ i � —�-----4��.�r— ,----- + � _._�._-----
�T
R � � t � � d � .
a � ' � :� a .
� ��\ 9 T �t 1.4 � �4� �4Z'� 3�
t� � � g� � ��'�+ � - - - - _sti v'�� ;,�`r � A �r �i �
Z td \ d ---,-, ,�� ��•� 't' .�7� $� • .
� l I �ii
Z r i � � I �IM� J I �
; ' g, � '3:\ , '� � , ' �' ' ..
C F p� -.►— �\ �0 1 �I .
•.9 � i A� n -� �� ' ' . (v �io� �l;i� ��
E .,. - a,,., q"` � r i's 1 R .ri g
� ',, '., = �` o.�' ��, �
� � ' �� �� ` ,� � . � �l
,.., �
�rq } �� ��uv • � ' y�L�q� • a �� z� � '1s�---V----- --� , .
,.,�Mi .�
� ' • i�} �' sl
�� f(i� IE 1 �R� 1 R N �� �,. �� \ `\ A�I.r� +'� ��. �
I' t " � �... JJ \ `� 63 �� �A �RR� a�i F� 'Q .
3��3hb . --- P "� �
—�r—� '� " � .
r , �....l1J{LL. � U�� ���a�a+•�•p` M,s .
1 �"� .^�i�n�
� � �\
��
•� , / \ \` ��
= S �` .
�- �w
: I PACI Fl�
8405 S.VI'.Nimbus Avenue
Bea��enon.OR 9700R-7120
June 28, 1996
Dear Property Owner and Interested Party:
RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
W&H Pacific is representing Dr. Davis/Foreign Nfission Foundation, who is interested in developing
property located southeast of Oak Street and SW 95th Avenue (also known as Tax Lots 3500, 3600,
3700, 3800 and 3900). Dr.Davis/Foreign ivrssion Foundation is considering an amendment to the
comprehensive plan and zoning map to change the zoning of Low Density-Residential (R-4.5) to C-P
(Commercial-Professional) for these tax lots in order to develop the area with a restaurant.
Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary approvals, we would like to discuss the
proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents and hear what you have
to say. Therefore, you are invited to attend a meeting on:
Thursday, July 18, 1996
Tigazd Water Board
8777 SW Burnham Street
�.-_. Time: 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Please note that this will be an informational meeting only, to review schematic plans and discuss the
implications of these proposed changes. The owner does not have specific site plans developed at
this time.
We look forward to discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 626-0455 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
W&H PACIFIC, INC. �
' � �- ��- ���)
��,� �-
��
Laura Jackson
Planner
(5031626-0455 Fax(503)526-0775 Planning•En�ineerin_•Surveying•Landscape Architecture• Em�ironmental Services �
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
>
VIITHIN SEVEN(7� CALENDA.RDAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING?R.fiTURN THIS AFFIDAVIT:TO :
:..
, City of T�gacd ' ..:
>:.:::::::..:::.<.....
..:.:;�:•:::
Planrun Drvision:':::` '
.. : :...... .:
.. g
; . ..
:.
. .. :: : . . :
:' . �� � :;; .13;125 SW Hnll Boule�ard
; :
�
T�gard,.OR 97223
I, J�ilia R H�ylan ,do affirm that I Fun(represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed amendment to the
Tig�ud Com�rehensive Plan and Zoning M��. affecting the land located(state the approximate location(s) if no
Address(s)And/or tux lot(s)currently registered) crn�theast of Onk Street nnd SW 95th Avem�e(T�x Lots� 3500_
3600, 3700. 3800 & 39001, und did on the 28 h day of ine, 1996,personally post notice indicating that the
site may be proposed for a zone chlnee application, and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the proposal.
The sign(s)were posted at the northeacr and northwest propertv corners
(state location you posted notice on property)
��.°� � � �� ,�-�-,
Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public)
.
(THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETFJNOTARIZE)
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the�day of • , 19�.
o��au s� �
SUSAH 1! MILLER �n . ��
i N07AriY PUBUC•OREGON /� I���
' C0IAMISS10�1 N0. 038419
MY C01��t�SS10N EXDIAES JULY 19, �aee � NOTARY PUBLIC OF O_EGQN
My coirunission Expires:� �,L�� � 9� � ���
(Applicant,please complete infonnation below for proper placement with proposed project)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME:Dr Davis 14-1996-2191�
TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Zone Change A�lication
- Naine of Applicant/Owner:Dr Davis/Foreign IGfission Foundation --- -- " -" - ---�— - -----�- -� -
Address or General Location of Subject Properry: Southeast of Oak Street and SW 95th Avenue in Tigard.Oregon
Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot#(s):Tax Lots 3500.3600.3700.3800&3900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
„ -�
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
) SS.
City of Tigard )
I, Julia R. Havkin _, being duly sworn, depose and say that on _ June 28 , 19�, I caused
to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed
development at(or near) southeast of S.W. Oak Street and S.W. 95th Avenue in Tigard, Ore�on, a
copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof.
I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were
� deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 7405 SW Garden
Home Road. Portland, Ore_�on, with postage prepaid thereon.
����, �- . �,� ,�,�.
Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public)
'(THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETFJNOTARIZ.E)
��
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the�day of : , 19 .�.
��.�-�
`; o��au�x ' ' /
SUSAM M YILLEA
' � tJ�TARY Pl,6UC•OREGON
rn'cou�Ok�PIR S JULY 19, �9se OTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON
My commission Expires: ,J�; (Cl ���
� r
(Applicant,please complete inforn�ation below for proper placement with proposed project)
-------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME:Dr Davis (4-1996-21911
TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Zone Chznge A�lication
Name of ApplicanVOwner:Dr Davis/Forei�n Mission Foundation
Address or General Location of Subject Property: Southeast of Oak Street and SW 95th Avenue in Tigard.Oregon
Subject Property Tax Map(s) und Lot#{(s):Tax Lots 3500,3600.3700.3800&3900
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
ORLAND LTD John Endicott Saiz Cpa Robert -
8980 SW Oak St 9000 SW Oak St 12753 SW 68th Ave #220
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Gene & Vivian Davis Charmie Culbertson John Pearl Blomgren
8750 SW Pinebrook St 9460 SW Oak St
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard., OR 97224 Portland, OR 97223
►Og7 S SW g9�,q i,�c
Clarence Lois Thoms Dorsey Wayne Summit Duane Van McKinley
9400 SW Oak St 8995 SW Oak St 5135 SW Nebraska St
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97221
Winona & Stephen Wright Robert Bruce Jr.
Jack & Mary Brown Helen Bracanovich S Valerie
10445 SW 90th Ave 11575 SW Terrace Trails 10425 SW 90th Ave
Tigard, OR 97223 Dr Tigard, OR 97223
Tigard, OR 97223
Thomas & Jean Keegan
SCHOOL DISTRICT #23J Michael Dalton James Keegan
13137 SW Pacific Hwy 2535 NE Lindsey Dr 13728 S Warrick Rd
Tigard, OR 97223 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Molalla, OR 97038
SF OREGON CO LTD Matthew Plourd
10220 SW Greenburg Rd M Marsha Stephen Perone
#15 9055 SW Oak St 10435 SW 90th Ave
Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATI
l o�7S s r�89 t`'A�
n��:,_�"", OR 9-�-6-6�5
11�9GCr�f 9 7ZZ3
� ` � �
1.. . . i- . . , i'i �J _
; .:%r ,iv;i_ ��-.�� ��. ✓, :�•��. ��� �"r�,� , �
. <
,� � ,
i�i,;. �;�c. �. . -- � �`--=-' —
�
�;�'��ff�✓� /l,-'�4'/'j�.o ��p�,C.L' y055 .S�%C/ v�1y S� ii y� - :�yS-?
�E-rv ti F CulA�c---. ��".I�{�...i �.1 i� S�,/ Lt�-/ w.i i'91, 2�f-S'- �-��4�
�
�o c r,3a�yu� ( ►� f �JP I�s s�Sn�r:4� 3'9 3S s u� Da k �hl-Y - ���3'
�rrr��h e �/�q��h-,13u%��/c ��y.� 5'w D�/� ,�3 / - 9 3�� ` .;�= .,
1� �/ S"9 S� S cv �/�/c �S 3/ — �.3��� G�.��
�-� �� ..s• ��. a��� � r��N ��� � �,� �� 1� ti� l� -,�� � �
�
��-�.� � � , � ,a��. .D� �~,s ��,>s s�� � ;7� �ya�� � �yb -S�6 Z
� _.� �,�, � „ ,
, _ , .j; .. .. . • -
;���: , il ..+� (r -r�..-� ri7+� `,
✓;/,rj�.i ---��, v i�� %
L.
,
i
; ,_� �, Oregon Method Summary Sheet
� . .
}
Unit 2 Lower Ash Creek
� Function Evaluation Description Rationale
, Wildl'rfe habitat B Permanent water for wildlife is the most significant
feature. Detractors include lack of vegetation diversiry
�structure, and Hwy 217
Fsh habitat B Ash Creek ofiers potential fish habitat; ODFW notes
red-sided shiners, large scale sucker, 3 spine
stickleback, bluegill, pumpkinseed, 8� mosquito(ish
'- Water quality q Stream corridor with EM (57%), FO (20%),OW(23°/a);
fringe wetlands trap sediment 8� nutrients
Hydrologic control q Stream corridor provides runoff 8� flood storage
opportunities
Sensitivity to impact B Potentially sertsitive
I Enhancement potential B Soil compacted due to grazing practices�fill
' Education C No schools in the vicinity; unlikely to be used for
� ' educadon
; i Recreation C Highway 217-too noisy (pond (B11) appreciated by
� � _. adjacent business)
. Aesthetic quality B Highway 217-too noisy; 810& C12 provide a noise
buffer and aesthebc view for Highway 217.
i
� Characteristic � Desc�iption.
Physical characteristics of gently sloping topography with channeled stream corridor including 10 to 200 ft
watershed or basin wide fringe weUands; major culverts at Hwy. 217 and Greenburg Rd.; inGudes
14.5 acres EM, 5.7 acres OW, 8� 5 acres FO.
Biological information most disturbed unit due to development related to fills and Hwy 217
Water quality Ash Creek has been rated moderate W�condition by DEo (1988); degraded due
to runoff from agricultural lands and commercial and residential stormwater
Land use existing land uses within 500 ft. of wetland edge include approximately 28%
agricultural,43% residential, and 28%commercial; the complex of wetlands north
of Highway 217 have recenUy been altered.
i �:>;;::_�
. Fishman Environmental Services page 18
�
,
;
1
t
City of Tigard Wetlands
" �'' December 1994
�-__
Uait 2 Lower Ash Creek
Unit 2, Lower Ash Creek, is located between SW Hall Blvd. and the Southern Pacific
railroad line west of SW Greenburg Rd. Unit 2 begins at the southern end of Unit 1 and ends
at the confluence of Ash Creek with Fanno Creek. Lower Ash Creek contains approximately
25 acres of wetlands including 5 acres of forest, 14 acres of emergent, and 6 acres of open
. water. Most of the wedands occur in the Ash Creek flood plain with the exception of C9-11
and B13 which are physically isolated due to residential development.
Lower Ash Creek is one of the most disturbed wedand resource areas in Tigard. It is
bisected by Hwy 217 and is also crossed by SW Greenburg Rd. Ash Creek travecses an area
of mixed residential, commeccial, and agricultural land uses. Agricultural land is rapidly
becoming comercially developed; three sites. (B9, B18, B21) have been filled since the 1989
wedand inventory.
Wedands in Lower Ash Creek provide two primary functions: water quality and hydrologic
control. Fringe forested and emergent wetlands and ponds serve to retain sediments and
nutrients during high water events. They benefit downstream water quality although it
remains degraded due to runoff from pastures, and commercial and residential stormwater.
Wedands also provide hydrologic control by storing flood waters and reducing impacts of
(� . `, storm events.
� _.
Some individual wedands provide unique functions.Two large forested wedands (B10, C12)
adjacent to Highway 217 provide a noise buffer and aesthetic view. Three ponds (B6,7, B8,
B12) were created to mitigate for wedand fills related to adjacent development.
' �'���. ' Fishman Environmental Services page 17
i
;
, .
• - - . , � � � . � �_ ���� ��, � �
,�",■ .j...� ■ y� ' , . ���-��,� •
��� �����""'1" � �1�� � ��■ �-� �
� � � �' �� �� : � � •
IIIIII� ■tlll■■ ■■1��17�► / ���r11'i1� i■iiC � �
� - �� � - „'�■ � �,
�1����� //:I���� ■■ =��c�� - . ���■ �������► ■���� � r�
■ � -JIIII�,/ - - ■ ■ � . � .
���111111: ■1� _� � ■ ■ _ - .
�1�/,'�► , � �11�� ■ , _ . .
. ..-�r'r ■ 1�111 11�11■ :1�■ :1■
� ��� .��_. . � . - . .
� . ::��� ■ �_ :��■■ :���e :����: ■� �
.� .. .;7� 11��!��� :111 �. i1111`1 ��: 11■ � . . . _ . _
����i��t . ` � -■ � ■■ ■�- _1 � ,■:� : . . .
�- ■�,. . .11. :.�111 _1•.11.. :11111■ �III
� �� �i . /1 ,� � r . -. . �.:■. . . �
���■ � .i�■ .�I�1 �i�■11��� ..:1�1 -
il�� 11� . ■IIr. . . . .
= :�111� �' � t���► �� ;" �I�1. �I�C: ::III��: �111 - . .
- �= � ■ ��"" � ■ � ■ � .
a �i ■1
� ., •. r11111 .�111��
.1111�. ■���' , . _
'� ` � ° � �1; ■■ ■■ � .. � � ■ ■ - -' . ' .'
�1111 111.. .111.1. .1■
�..�IT -�� ' — —�—�
� �111�■ 11� �.. �������
. .� ,� i� W : ,���� �� ■■.��,��,��,��� ������■
w � r- -' � '� '',.,,111,,.i �
. ,��/�• , �� �
� J' � ��-���` ■ ���
= � ■� ....� � �. � ��C JV �
�
�.•:•. �+
: e � � "��■ ���■ ii�/��/_�s���,-■
�:; �_______� �� ■ " -a�'� ��'��
.� •�,� � � �►� � �i�■ �,i :��..�_�
„� ��� ; , � ,�. �' ,� ,.� '�� .�.;�■ ■�
� �s - - � � � ��� ��� �
�_...... .... .i4r.,� � .. _:_.:._:__�.. .
.1: ., i�� ► ,,,� ••�- � -,� �. !' . _ _
,���� ���� �� �= =■ � �'� :.�:��i.:��: =.. : � � • .. .
� •
�T..�� � �:�:� �, � � � �� �� �� �� � • .
� . • • . • • ' • • ` � .
Ji�� ,�� ��■►.�■� �■ " � 1 �� _� �� �, � � �
� � ■ � �� �, �� ��� �� . . . - .
� . , ■
■ ��� , 1 .
�1 ■ ����� ,�i L��� �� °- , . . . . . . _ .
��� �����- �■ �.� �� ��� � I • • _
�• ■ �i� ■�-�• � - . . . . . - - . .
�� �.� ' � �� �� �: = �� � � , o . . . -
����� , �,���,�� ������ � � � ��, � � . _ . . - o • u . • '
( ,C"� . . _ _
+� . �
��,
.. . �
, �
�
_ � ��� �� � �� _ �
� ,�„ �. ��;�-� _ _
- - � r�,'���% �.,�-�- ,,'� 4'SS-,�.a-�k.z �, ��
- ��r�.
- ,ti�'�-- ��-�.,Y ��` "v`��=� 1 .
_ �� _ $ �b � `�^�� __
r � - 1
, �"Y �11 �-V-� �
' � ����
� rwt . �,,, - _ �� `
_ �°-,�-�,""a��,� p���,�,-'- �_ -
� rnn �v�-� Q cfi� � o�'�"` . ��-Q� —
� � � .�-c� - _ _
__ � �e � ��b _ �n�,,.'�-�J
____ � �'�,,�,�,��.,. .��` �r'�'�"'r�" �'' -
_ ,-�-°� � -� �` p�sr`'G- —
-- - - � �
_� - �- �`f'" ` �`�'�.g� . _ -
,
� 1 �1 'e `'-�l � �r?�+ -�p`�vY -,�a �e �-•�--
�-°-� �� � L =- �'� ,
�
���� �^'�v ��� �S� —
a� �' ^ �-�� - "
��
o�'�` _
-�i�e -�- � � �
-�. -� ��'�''°.�' � � � —
-� ,� ��� �
� -�e��
� , ,
.-.��
��
�� .al
��'
. ,�
� ._.___�_ , 1 .
-- .�__._._�. w.� L L(. �-4�-v��"
l , t , � (Z�
�' -t�,�, ,�, c�. ,n�.�.����.9�.r
# ���.�t,e� �� > t� 'V1.Q,Q-4 �
� — � � '
� �°��- ��? Cv�v�
� � �n�? ' ��-�.0.�- � ��.c�--
;. .
, ��
�
�
-- . �----- — ------ - -- -- -- - —---------�
,�.
� �
�
�
, �
-�,.
r ,
------ , - , . .. .
_ _ � ,,
- , _ , -.
. , %,, Y; , . : :
, . ._ . -
, . ..� �_ � -.
_ _ _
_ �_ � , _ ...
. . u. . , ._ _ .
::.<: � . :: ,:
. .. . ... .,3, . ,
. .. . . . .,:s. � . . , . _
. , . . . . . . . : . _
� .. �. i , -- . . . . . .
� . '4a . . � . .,,: . �' .. "' , ' �' ,.: T.:, ..
. .. . .. � . .. . � � .�
. .u. ..._ . . . .. .
. r... . ... j -,. . . .. . ;, ..�.
` . .. ' . ' ' . � . • . .r�; ' .. . � .. . .
. . ' ._ . � . �' .-r . . -. .. . . .,. .. , _.�f
_ �
:4e' �_`
. _
' .. . . . � . :. . � .,.,� . - . .1
_
. . �. : ' . ... '-N� . :'� ., ' .
�. . �..J ,.� . � i
JATA CORPORATION
4485 NW Wallowa Ct
Portland, Or : 97229 �
Phone: 645 4438
July 12, 1996
The City of Tigard
We are the owners of Record on Tax Lot 3800 and support W&H Pacifics project � 4-1996-
2191, which is an application for zone change/plan amendment.
Dr. Gene Davis is authorized to act as our agent in any land use matters related to this
application. �
Please know that we will corporate in every way possible to achieve this zone change.
3AT CO • O ,QNi;' �%�I�! .
' �����'
✓
i
Joel Adamson
1�� �
\` �, ..
A
Report
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation
Rezone Traf ic Impact Study
r
d� ,�
. � ��
-�-��� - -�-
�.�' -�.Q.Q� ���-- _
��'T � , ,
— . � ���� �� .
`� � ��
� � _�,,�
, �" ��,�" ,
�� �-' �'
. _ G ,�
_ ��,�,�, ,��
-�,�.� .
_ �..� �-
July 1996 I�o�� �
Parametrix, Inc. -y�'yA'1' �
`\�/ 1 R �
w
T 1 .
�
� 1 ,
DAVIS-FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION PROPERTY
ZONE CHANGE TRAFFIC IlVIPACT STUDY
Prepared for:
DR. GENE DAVIS
. 10875 S.W. 89th ��p PROFlrS
Tigard, Oregon 97223 '��' NG�NEF
� � 17�3�7 4 s
a '`.-��,..
�, b EGON
��y g
Prepared by: F� tN s�
Exp,e�s: �o�.�,/9g
PA�AMETRIX, INC.
7820 N.E. Holman Street, Suite B-6
Portland, Oregon 97218
(503) 256-5444 L1 a,� I
�� 2� �_
July 1996
, . ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS ,
�,
�,
SECTIONI - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SCOPE OF THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT DFSCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SECTION II- EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ACCIDENT HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 16
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SECTION III - TR.AFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ANALYSIS ME'THODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 �
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT
PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DEVELOPMENT PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 _
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT
UNDER EXISTING ZOI�TING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC AI�'D LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT
UNDER ZONE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
COMPARISON OF TWO ZOI�TING ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL . . . . . . 41
SI'I'E ACCESS AND CIRCULA'I`ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3. Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4. Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 5. Existing Weekday P1VI Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6. Vacant Land in Study Area - 80-90% Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 7. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 8. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 9. Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 10. Weekday AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips With Existing Zoning . . . . . 29
Figure 11. Weekday PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips With Existing Zoning . . . . . . 30
Figure 12. Weekday AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips With Rezone . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 13. Weekday PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Trips With Rezone . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 14. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Existing Zoning . . . . . 34
Figure 15. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Existing Zoning . . . . . 35
Figure 16. 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Rezone . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 17. 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Rezone . . . . . . . . . . 39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Two-Way and All-Way Stop Controlled
Unsignalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3. Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 4. Summary of Traffic Accident History in Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 5. Characteristics of Existing Transit Service in Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 6. 1999 Background Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Levels of Service . . . . . . 24
Table 7. Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 8. 1999 AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary with Maximum
Project Site Build Out Under Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 9 1999 AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary with Maximum
Project Site Build Out Under Proposed Zone Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 10. AM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison of Two Zoning Alternatives . . . 42
Table 11. PM Peak Hour I.evel of Service Comparison of Two Zoning Alternatives . . . 43
, ' ' Parametrix, Inc.
S�,y
hq
�
C e��J
WASHINGTON SQUARE
SHOPPING CENTER
i
SW LOCUST ST
� _
y U�v
i 2
. / v
�
� SW OAK ST
rPaircQl;
�OJ�-
t�a
'�,
.�:::;�«a.:.:.
`�Pai+ed°A
217'.�:�
�
99W
S�
c9
�Fti
aG
9c
9p
�y vJ °>
QPG\��GN m
a
_
�
�
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27•3121-Ot(Ot) 7/96
N Figure 1. " �
NorTOSCn�e Site ViCinity Map
, • ' Parametrix, Inc.
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27-3721-01(07) 7/96
Figure 2. • -
Conceptual Site Plan
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF TIiE REPORT
This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to assess transportation impacts related to the
commercial development of the Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation property in Tigard, Oregon.
The proposed project consists of a hotel, an all suites hotel, and a restaurant. The project site
is bounded by Highway 217 to the south, S.W. Oak Street to the north, S.W. 95th Avenue to
the west, and S.W. 90th Avenue to the east. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity and project
site.
As shown in Figure 1, the project site consists of two adjacent parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B.
The southern parcel, Parcel A, is 9.71 acres and zoned C-P. The C-P zoning is basically a
commercial zoning. The northern parcel, Parcel B, is 4.54 acres with a R-4.5 zoning. The R-
4.5 zoning is a residential zoning which allows single family lots with a minimum lot area of
7,500 square feet or duplexes with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. Since the
- proposed project is all commercial, Parcel B which is zoned R-4.5 would have to be rezoned �
to C-P before the entire development is feasible. The potential difference in traffic impacts
between the maximum build out with the existing zoning versus the proposed zone change is the
focus of this traffic study.
The following traffic issues are discussed in this report:
• Existing traffic conditions in the project study area.
• Trip generation estimates for the maximum development potential of the project
site with existing zoning and proposed C-P zone change.
• AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts at study area intersections with the
maximum project site build out with existing zoning and proposed C-P zone
change.
• Site access and circulation characteristics.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The cunent project site plan calls for the rezone of Parcel B from R-4.5 to C-P. With the
rezone, a commercial development could be constructed on the two parcels, A and B. � The
project proponent proposes to construct the following: 300 room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel,
and 6,000 gsf restaurant. The project is expected to be built out in 1999. Figure 2 shows the
conceptual project site plan.
Davis-Forergn Mission Foundation 1 July 1996
ReZone Tra,�c Impact Study . _
SUNIl�IARY OF FINDINGS
The following paragraphs summarize the major findings of the traffic impact analysis. The
findings are divided into two parts: a) summary of the traffic impact analysis methodology; b)
the general impact analysis conclusions and recommended on-site and off-site mitigation
improvements.
Traffic Anal,ysis Methodolo�v
The following are the conclusions and recommendations from the traffic analysis:
1. Existing traffic conditions within the project vicinity were documenterl in the area
that would be impacted by the proposed project.
2. 1999 future traffic conditions without the project were established to define a
baseline by which project impacts could be determined. These traffic volumes
were estimated by determining the trip generation and distribution characteristics
related to vacant property in the study area expected to develop by the project
- -- build out year. � — -
3. Trip generation from the maximum build out of the project site with both the
existing zoning and proposed zone change was estimated for the AM and PM
peak hours. These trips were estimated from rates published in "Trip Generation,
Sth Edition," 1991 (Institute of Transportation Engineers). Predicted site-
generated trips for the two zoning scenarios were then assigned to the roadway
network and added to the 1999 baseline traffic volumes to develop the 1999 "with
project" traffic volumes.
4. 1999 future traffic conditions with the existing and rezone development potential
were compared to the 1999 traffic condition without the project build out to
determine the impact of rezoning Parcel B, the 4.54 acre parcel, from R-4.5 to
C-P.
Findings and Recommendations
1. The 1999 maximum project site build out with existing zoning is expected to
generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour
trips. The 1999 maximum .project site build out with the proposed changed
zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour,
and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to
generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips.
Davis-Foreign Mission Fouirdation 4 July 1996
ReZOne Tra„�Sc Impact Study ,
2. In comparing the signalized intersection levels of service between the maximum
build out with the existing zoning and the proposed zone change, the difference
in average vehicle delay is below 2.1 seconds for all the signalized intersections
with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. I,ocust Street intersection.
The existing zoning condition has an average vehicle delay of 11.5 seconds less
than the proposed zone change condition at the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W.
Locust Street intersection. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning
scenarios would operate at LOS D or better in 1999.
3. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are LOS D
or better in the AM peak hour for both zoning alternatives. In the PM peak hour,
the levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized intersections under both
zoning alternatives with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak
Street intersection which operates at LOS B under both zoning alternatives.
4. Although all of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are
projected to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing field
observations indicate that the S.W. Greenburg Road traffic experiences
progression problems through the corridor. These existing problems may be
� partially alleviated by the S.W. Greenburg Road widening project from the �
Highway 217 Southbound Ramps to Washington Square Road. However, signal
_ coordination improvements should still be considered in 1999 with or without the
project to further enhance traffic flow through the S.W. Greenburg Road
�� corridor.
5. All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better in
the 1999 with actual development condition with the exception of the S.W. Hall
Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street intersection. In the PM peak hour, the eastbound and
westbound approaches of the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street intersection
would operate at LOS F. The LOS F condition at the eastbound and westbound
approaches are primarily due to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements
conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall
Boulevard. As the delays become significant, it is likely that these eastbound and
westbound left turning vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection of S.W.
Hall Boulevard/S.W. L,ocust Street to make the left turn onto S.W. Hall
Boulevard. Since these eastbound and westbound left turn movements can divert
to a less congested route, no mitigation is being proposed or recommended.
6. The project access is the southern leg of the new intersection that would be
created with the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak Street. Although
the project access could function adequately at LOS D or better with only one
inbound and one outbound lane, for more efficient ingress and egress, the access
approach lane geometry (southern leg of the S.W. Oak Street/S.W. Lincoln Street
intersection) should include two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. T'he
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 5 July 1996
ReZOne Tra„fj`'ic Impact Study � � .
outbound lanes should be configured as a shared through/left lane and an
exclusive right turn pocket. ,
The project access would function at LOS D or better with either a two-way stop
with right-of-way to S.W. Oak Street or an all-way stop controlled intersection.
An all-way stop controlled intersection may be preferable since it would more
equitably distribute the intersection delay.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 6 July 1996
Rezone Tra�c Impact Study ,
SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USE
The proposed site is cunendy predominantly vacant. There are several houses located at the
northern portion of the project site. Office and commercial buildings exist northwest and west
of the site. The site is bounded by Highway 217 to the south. Single family homes exist
northeast and east of the project site.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The following provides a description of the existing street and highway system in the study area
includ�ng a description of street classifications and characteristics.
Highway 217: The major transportation facility in the study area is State Route 217, a north-
- south freeway connecting Highway 26 (the Sunset Highway) on the north with Interstate 5 on � - - —
- the south. Highway 217 is a four-lane, 55 mph limited access facility with auxiliary lanes at
several locations within and near the study area. Highway 217 is connected to the study area
by the S.W. Hall Boulevard, S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, and S.W. Greenburg Road interchanges.
S.W. Hall Boulevard: S.W. Hall Boulevard is designated as an arterial street in the Tigard
Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is also known as the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway in the
Oregon State Highway System. Within the study area, S.W. Hall Boulevard is generally a two-
lane road with left turn pockets at major intersections.
As properties adjacent to S.W. Hall Boulevard and east of S.W. Greenburg Road develop,
frontage improvements will require widening of this street to a three-lane cross-section in
accordance with ODOT development concept for the street. S.W. Hall Boulevard has a
designated speed limit of 40 mph and no on-street parking is provided.
S.W. Greenburg Road: S.W. Greenburg Road is designated as a major collector street in the
Tigard Transportation Plan. This roadway has a four-lane cross-section with left turn pockets
at major access points south of S.W. Locust Street. North of S.W. Locust Street, S.W.
Greenburg Road narrows to a single through lane in each direction with left turn channelization.
To the north of S.W. Hall Boulevard, S.W. Greenburg Road is known as S.W. Oleson Road
and has a single travel lane in each direction with left turn pockets at intersections. Within the
study area, S.W. Greenburg Road is signed for 40 mph speeds and has no on-street parking.
S.W. Locust Street: S.W. Locust Street is identified as a collector street serving the residential
neighborhood directly east of S.W. Greenburg Road and north of Highway 217. This street has
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 7 July 1996
ReZone Traffic Impact Study ,
_ . ' ' � �
a single travel lane in each direction with traffic signal controls at S.W. Greenburg Road and
S.W. Hall Boulevard. S.W. Locust Stre�et also serves the major office development at Lincoln
Center and the Metzger School.
S.W. Oak Street: S.W. Oak Street is a minor collector between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W.
Lincoln Street. East of S.W. Lincoln Street, S.W. Oak Street is a local access street. S.W.
Oak Street is a two lane roadway with a 25 mph speed limit. It provides access to both
commercial and single family residential properties.
S.W. Lincoln Street: S.W. Lincoln Street is a minor collector with one travel lane in each
direction. The speed limit it 25 mph. It provides access to both commercial and single family
residential properties.
The following signalized intersections were analyzed as part of this study:
• S.W. Greenburg Road at:
- S.W. Locust Street
- Washington Square Road (Mapleleaf Road)
- Highway 217 northbound on- and off-ramps
-� - Highway 217 southbound on- and off-ramps
• S.W. Hall Boulevard at S.W. Locust Street
The following unsignalized intersections were analyzed as part of this study: S.W. Locust
Street/S.W. Lincoln Street, S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street and S.W. Hall
Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street.
Figure 3 shows the existing roadway system in the study area including number of lanes at all
major intersections and traffic control features.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUNIES
AM and P1V1 peak hour traffic volumes were obtained at all the study area intersections.
Morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the following study
area intersections on Wednesday, June 26, 1996 and Thursday, June 27, 1996:
• SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Northbound Ramps
• SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Southbound Ramps
• SW Greenburg Road/SW Oak Street
• SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street
� • SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road
• SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street
• SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street
• SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 8 July 1996
Rezone Tra,(jic Impact Study . �
_ , ' � � � Parametrix, Inc. -
��
�
� � � Il I � �
�
I, �=J� �W`>� � <�j`>��
� T� ��-�' T�' �',`Y' �`1T�' �x
� ! , �
WASHINGTON SQUqR SW LOCUST ST �
�R� � �
w _____—.�
a w� y
��� � � _ >
�- ��� � ��°v � �� m �
l �� T�� v �! �� � � ---- -
J "
� Q �
y 1 �; ��
� � ��
SW OAK ST �-------
F�
� � A :j
<����-- ';
.� �
�!1 I' �
�
� -
I I I 217 ;
W y�> �
� � TT� �� �
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27-3121-07(01) 7/96
N ---> Lane Usage Figure 3.
� TraKc Signal Existing Lane Configuratiorls
NOTTOSCALE � Stop Sign and Traffic Control
. �^ -��
Existing morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts in the study area are
presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. The AM peak hour in the study area typically begins
between 7:15 AM and 7:45 AM. The PM peak hour in the study area typically begins between �
4:30 PM and 5:00 PM.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
Based on the volumes presented in Figures 4 and 5, peak hourly traffic operations were analyzed
at the intersections identified above using the methodologies outlined in the 1994 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM).
According to the HCM, there are six levels of service (LOS) by which the operational
performance of an intersection may be described. These levels of service range between LOS
"A" which indicates a relatively free-flowing condition and LOS "F" which indicates operational
breakdown. LOS "D" is usually considered as a minimum acceptable standard in urban areas.
With this level of service, some delays are expected for certain traffic movements.
The HCM methodology for analysis of signalized intersections was used at those locations which
- = are cunently traffic signal contiolled. At these intersections, level of service is related to the � --
average delay experienced by all vehicles as they approach the intersection. Table 1 summarizes
the relationship between level of service and average delay.
The HCM methodology for 2-way stop-controlled intersections was used to analyze the
intersections of S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street, S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street
and S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street. At these unsignalized intersections, level of service
is based on average intersection delay. The relationship between various levels of service and
delay is shown in Table 2.
Existing morning and evening levels of service are summarized in Table 3 for all study area
intersections. As indicated in Table 3, all of the signalized intersections are currently operating
at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the morning and evening peak hours.
All the unsignalized intersections are also operating at acceptable levels of service with the
exception of the S.W. Hall Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection. During the PM peak hour, both
the eastbound and westbound movements operate at LOS F with average vehicle delays over 60
seconds. All other movements at this intersection are operating at LOS D or better.
When assessed on an individual basis, four of the five signalized intersections in the study area
are currently operating at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak
hour. However, intersections in close proximity to each other do not operate in isolation.
Delays at one intersection which cause traffic to back up, will affect traffic operations at
upstream intersections. This is not reflected in the intersection capacity analysis for an
individual intersection but becomes more apparent when an analysis is conducted of traffic
progression along an entire length of arterial street.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 10 July 1996
Rezone Tra�ic Impact Study 4
, � � e Parametrix, Inc.
� �e
N�m �11 O o,�•, ! '�48 �
�6 � "" �35 t--153 �NC°r �93
� � � 50 J� `� �S�110 �62 v
� �,� �76
11 �I =� 2 '� � 52������ 11� ���� �
19� eoa�o lU�, � ���, i e��a 15—s
57� �v� �� m°' I 47 orNi� .r�
f�� { � N
Sl.. �f
� �
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST �
�UARF RD ,
w
�� �3�72 N � �s v� = Q! Q �
� �182 Q N � _
� �� �s �o° � � m �
- - `11' � °° =
o m �' s � � 3 ��
( � Q
�n NO � = r�
n Q i (/�p '
Y � ' �
�' s ��
SW OAK ST �� _�i''�, �r -
�
�o�N I ��B �
�<-25 �
� ,Irl� �„
F186 1 � ���� �
48� 15� ,�ro 'u
�� � �R' 32�1' 1 '�`°' R
"'� 217 �
� �> �� �
283� � �
�
10�
266� `*`�
N O
m�
AshWook TraHk Study/27-3121-01(01) 7/86
N Figure 4.
� TraHic Signal Existing Weekday AM • -
NOTTOSCALE t StopSign Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
_ , , • � � Parametrix, Inc. _
��� �26 O o nc�.�ao � ��
�49 � ce �799 E-135 avv �58 �
276
�� � JQ � l �-229 �2 � �� r 86 �,�!
13—s �� �U= > 329� � � 23� ��I �
v�in !V � � 3� 178—> �.- �
490� �°ou^i�n U,Q �o �' 250� m�� �
3, v i
� �r�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST �
N QUAR�R� w I �
N� �65s N
>I � 4°`�-----
a! W . a
� �, �aos ��, � �? o' Q o �
� �, '�so `'c,° °'i � 3 �
-- --- _ `�� �`'' v�il °j 0° .
� (' �. �� -' �
�° m� � � �'� x
y � ��
/ � �
SW OAK ST �—�,
F�
��n � �39 �
vmrn ��13 �
F— ei � �l'i � 24 �
� 282—> ' 60������ ��
o< "� 2n� i Q;,N �
j'`jI 217 ' �
� y
284� � � � �► �
3—�
475�, `D'°
N N
n N
AshbookTraHieSludy/27-3121-01(01) 7/86
(� Figure 5.
� Traffic Signal Existing Weekday PM ' -
NOTTOSCALE �. Stop Sign Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
. � � � � e . _
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Average Delay
Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle)
A < 5.0
B > 5.0 - < 15.0
C > 15.0 - < 25.0
D > 25.0 - < 40.0
E > 40.0 - < 60.0
F > 60.0
Table 2. LOS Criteria for Two-Way and
All-Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersections
Average Delay
- Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle)
A < 5.0
B > 5.0 - < 10.0
C > 10.0 - < 20.0 :
D > 20.0 - < 30.0
E > 30.0 - < 45.0
F > 45.0
For example, while the individual intersection capacity calculations for Greenburg Road in the
vicinity of Highway 217 indicate level of service "C" and "D" operations during the evening
peak hour, actual traffic operations were observed to be significantly congested. Southbound
traffic queues were observed to back up from the northbound ramps to Washington Square Road,
a distance of approximately 500 feet. A major reason for this queue is the lack of adequate
green time for southbound vehicles to progress along Greenburg Road through the interchange
area. This is in part the result of heavy turning movements from both the east and west at
Washington Square Road which continually add to the platoon of through-moving vehicles. It
is also, in part, the result of the existing lane configurations on the Greenburg Road bridge
which forces all vehicles heading to destinations south of the interchange into a single travel
lane. Although the progression analysis is beyond the scope of this study, the field observations
of progression or lack of progression should be considered in interpreting the level of service
results.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 13 .luly 1996 I''
Rezone Tra„8Sc Impact Study �
�
- . � � -
Table 3. Existing LeveLs of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Average
Signalized Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 7.4 B 8.4
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Square Rd B 12.7 D 25.5
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB C 15.1 C 18.8
Ramps
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB B 12.9 C 23.5
Ramps
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 14.0 C 16.1
Average Average
_ Unsignalized Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) _
SW Locust St/SW Lincoln St
Northbound Approach A 4.2 A 5.4
Westbound I,eft Turn A 0.7 A 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Southbound Left Turn B 10.0 B 6.2 .
Westbound Right Turn A 3.2 A 11.0
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St
Northbound Left Turn A 3.9 A 0.3
Southbound Left Turn A 3.2 A 0.6
Eastbound Approach B 7.6 F >60.0
Westbound Approach C 12.0 F >60.0
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 14 July�1996
Rezone Tra�j`'ic Impact Study � �
- � � � �
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Accident data on major roadways in the study area was obtained from the City of Tigard and
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Data was provided by the City of Tigard
for the period between April, 1989 and 7une 1996 and includes total accidents and accidents by
type (i.e, fatal, injury or property damage only). Data from ODOT included the period from
January, 1991 through August, 1994. Accident data is summarized in Table 4.
Review of Table 4 indicates that the highest number of accidents occuned at the Highway 217
interchange with S.W. Greenburg Road (includes both ramp terminal intersections) with an
average of over 9.5 accidents per year. This equates to an accident rate of 0.65 per million
vehicles entering these intersections. All other intersections within the study area for which data
was available had significantly fewer accidents.
Generally, accident rates of less than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles are considered
acceptable. As shown in Table 4, all of the study area intersections have accident rates of less
than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicle. There does not appear to be any significant
accident problems within the study area.
Table 4. Summary of Traffic Accident History in Study Area
Average
Annual Accidents/Million
Intersection ADT' Accidents Entering Vehicles
SW Greenburg Rd at: �
SW Locust St 20,800 2.4 0.32
Washington Sq Rd 36,100 6.5 0.49
SW Oak St 34,800 1.8 0.14
Highway 217 Interchange 40,250 9.5 0.65
SW Locust St at:
SW Lincoln St 0.0 0.00.
SW Hall Blvd at: .
SW Locust St 17,650 2.2 0.34
SW Oak St 17,000 2.2 0.36
`�`'°'°"d by assuming that the PM peak hour traffic represents eight percent of the
average daily traffic (ADT).
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 15 July 1996
Rezone Traffic Impact Study , _
_ . . � . � e
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
Public transit service in the study area is provided by the Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District (Tri-Met). Service within the study area is focused on the existing transit
center located on the west side of Washington Square and includes five routes; three providing
service between the Tigard/Washington Square area and downtown Portland and two providing
service to the Beaverton Transit Center (one of these also serves the Lake Oswego Transit
Center). These routes include �43 (Taylors Ferry Road), #45 (Garden Home), #56 (Scholls
Ferry Road), #62 (Munay Boulevard), and �t78 (Beaverton/Lake Oswego). Table 5 includes
a summary of the transit routes' key service characteristics.
The major transit destination in the study area is the Washington Square Transit Center with
over 1,100 daily boardings according to the 1990 Passenger Census. Other major transit
destinadons within the study area include bus stops along the access roads into the Mall.
A new park & ride at Highway 217/Scholls Ferry Road has been added in the study area. This
park & ride is known as Progress Park and is served by express route 92X-South Beaverton
Express. This service is only available from the park & ride to downtown Portland in the
mornings and from downtown Portland to the park & ride in the evenings. Service is available
- - every 15 to 30 minutes. , --_--_ -
There is no direct transit service adjacent to the project site. Transit service in the project
vicinity would generally be accessed from Washington Square Mall.
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION/CIItCULATION
The non-motorized transportation system in the study area includes both bikeways and pedestrian
facilities. Some street space has been set aside and delineated for bike travel along S.W. Hall
Boulevard, but the system is not continuous. There are no bike facilities along S.W. Greenburg
Road in the study area.
The majority of the study area, with the exception of S.W. Hall Boulevard, has sidewalks on
at least one side of the roadway. However, these pedestrian facilities do not provide continuous
connection between the neighborhood/employment areas and the shopping areas. For example,
pedestrian facilities are lacking between the Metzger neighborhood east of S.W. Greenburg Road
and Washington Square. This is also the case from Lincoln Center and Washington Square.
The limited non-motorized facilities within the study area minimizes the potential of alternative
modes being used to access the proposed project.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 16 July 1996
Rezone Tra�`'ic Impact Study
!
__- , . � . � e
Table 5. Characteristics of Existing Transit Service in Study Area
Trip Frequency
Line Description P� Hour Off-Peak Sat Sun
43 "Taylors Ferry Rd" 30 min. 60 min 60 min 60 min
Washington Sq. to
Downtown Portland
45 "Garden Home" 20 min AM 60 min 60 min 60 min
Tigard T.C. to Downtown 30 min PM
Portland
56 "Scholls Ferry Rd" 15 min AM 30 min 60 min 60 min
Washington Sq. to 20 min PM
Downtown Portland
62 "Murray Boulevard" 20 min 30 min 60 min None
Washington Sq. to
- Beaverton T.C. �- _ - - -
78 "Beaverton/Lake Oswego" 20 min 30 min 30 min 60 min
- Lake Oswego T.C. to 60 min
Beaverton T.C.' after 6:00
PM
' Via Washington Square and Tigard Transit Center
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IlVIPROVEMENTS
There is currently one recommended streets TIF (traffic impact fee) project planned by the City
of Tigard in the project vicinity. This project is a right-of-way acquisition project along S.W.
Greenburg Road north of Washington Square for future widening.
Washington County has an MSTIP improvement project for the S.W. Greenburg Road bridge
over Highway 217. Plans call for the bridge to be widened from five lanes to six lanes with
bicycle
lanes. Widening of the northbound ramp for an exclusive right turn lane is also included in this
improvement project. Construction is tentatively scheduled for the summer of 1997.
The S.W. Greenburg Road bridge widening project was assumed to be in place during the 1999
condition with and without the project since the tentative construction schedule for the
improvement project occurs two year prior to the estimatetl build out of the proposed project in
1999. .
Davis-Foreign Mission Founda[ion 17 July 1996
Rezone Trafj`'ic Impact Study
_ . � � � e
The extension of S.W. Lincoln Street from its southern terminus to S.W. Oak Street was
assumed to be in place prior to the estimated build out of the proposed project in 1999. It is
likely that the project proponent will construct this roadway concunently with his project since
the S.W. Lincoln Street extension will serve as the project's major access to the arterial street
network.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 18 July 1996
Rezone Tra�fic Impact Study �
— - I
_ � � � � • e
SECTION III
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The impact of traffic generated by the rezone of the Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation property
during the AM and PM peak hours were analyzed as follows:
• 1999 background traffic condition were estimated based on potential development
of vacant land in the project vicinity.
• Based on the maximum allowable, development per the City of Tigard zoning
code, trip generation was calculated for the existing zoning and zone change
conditions during the AM and PM peak hours.
• Trip distribution of site-generated traffic was developed from information in the
"Ha1UGreenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study"' January 1994 (Parametrix).
• Predicted site-generated traffic from the existing zoning and rezone development
scenarios were assigned to the roadway network and added to the 1999
background traffic volumes to develop the 1999 traffic volumes with the existing
zoning and zone change developments.
• Future traffic demands at each of the study area intersections in the project
vicinity were analyzed to identify any capacity or roadway deficiencies with the
two build out scenarios of the project site.
• Site access and circulation issues were analyzed.
A detailed discussion of the methodology summarized above, and the analysis results, are
contained in the remainder of this section.
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT
The year 1999 was chosen as the analysis year since it is likely to be the build-out year of the
proposed project. The 1999 background traffic volumes were derived by assuming an 80 to 90
percent build out of vacant developable land in the sunounding area that would have an impact
in the study area. This scenario is consistent with one of the alternatives studied in the
"Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study," January 1994 (Parametrix). Figure 6
shows the location, zoning, and density of these parcels. Several of these parcels have been
recently developed; however, these trips were still included in the 1999 background traffic
volumes to account for unforeseen background growth.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 19 July 1996
Rezone Tra�j`'ic Impact Study
N
�� �
a o
�� �
4i" D
hA� BL�'D. � a' D
V �
J � �
C
Z
v
D
�
. .�
4.0
OFFICE
LT8. IND. � � �, 5.5 �o' �2
OOFFlCE ��gd`� R9
� 23
z � OFFiCE
� a 2.4
0 1.5 �
N `'' RETAII R5
r� � � °
0 1 2.5
y WASHINGTON � 3•1 C R15
p SQUARE � R9
� J W D
72.8KSF � ��,w S7.
2.0 RETAIL 0.6
HVY. IND. OFFICE
� FCORAL ST.
0.7
ys 0.8 � R9 �
SG�,O OFF1C£ LOCUST 5T. �
N-o Wq�� t 00K5F �
� SOUqRE�� OFFiCE 1.5�
� 1.0 u R9
� c� RETAIL� � � 20
2'0 � � RETAIL
LT. IND. ➢ oAK sr.
v
m
LEGEND � LT. IND. OFFICE
� PARCEL DEVELOPED
UNDER TNIS � ��,
ALTERNATiVE �
Figure 6.
Vacant Land in Study Area
(Acres and Comp Plan Land Use)
80-90% Development
The 80 to 90 percent build-out scenario includes a total of 158 new dwelling units, 285 retail
employees, and 1,245 office and industrial employees. A total of 740 AM peak hour trips (630
inbound, 110 outbound) and 1,480 PM peak hour trips (550 inbound, 930 outbound) were added
to the study area roadway network. These background growth trips were assigned to the
roadway network based on the trip origin/destination information documented in the
"Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study," January 1994 (Parametrix). Figures 7 and
8 show the 1999 background traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Field investigation has identified several small retail developments under construction in the
study area that are not included in the analysis above. These developments should not have any
significant affect to the analysis since the traffic volumes generated by these developments are
nominal and are heavily dependent on existing pass-by trips.
Levels of service were calculated for all the study area intersections. It was assumed that the
S.W. Greenburg Road bridge widening project would be in place during this analysis condition.
The results of the analysis for the 1999 background traffic volumes without the project are
shown in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, all of the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable
level of service (LOS D or better) in the 1999 background AM and PM peak hour condition with
the exception of the unsignalized intersection at S.W. Hall Road/S.W. Oak Street. In the PM
peak hour, the eastbound and westbound approaches of the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak
Street intersection would operate at LOS F. The LOS F condition at the eastbound and
westbound approaches are primarily due to eastbound and westbound left turn movements
conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard.
As the delay becomes significant, it is likely that these eastbound and westbound left turning
vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Locust Street
to make tlie left turn onto S.W. Hall Boulevard. Since these eastbound and westbound left turn
movements can divert to a less congested route, no mitigation is being proposed or
recommended.
Although all of the study area intersections on SW Greenburg Road are projected to operate at
LOS D or better in the 1999 background condition, existing field observations indicate that the
SW Greenburg Road traffic experience progression problems through the corridor. Signal
coordination improvements should be considered in 1999 without the project condition to further
enhance traffic flow through the S.W. Greenburg Road corridor. The City of Tigard and ODOT
are responsible for the traffic signal operations along the S.W. Greenburg Road corridor and
should consider a signal coordination project to improve the corridor's traffic progression. The
signal coordination project would benefit all of the current and future users of the S.W.
Greenburg Road corridor.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 21 July 1996
Rezone Tra�c Impact Study . .
r
• ' Parametrix, Inc.
�� t J �
.��o �s o �,m L
n�� NmO
�65 � �� �40 �163 a c�cv �93
� �� j" JQ �, � �„s �ez � ��� ��s
�s `1T(' _� T �' 62—' `l��' `1T('
�9� PfN10 �((�� 17� 17�N �5�
S7� NVN Vi c'1� i S2� ! ONa1
� ��
�
WASHINGTON SW LOCUST ST !
S pUq��Ro
w '�,_�_
=� ' �432 Q �
.-�•, w
� � �182 � v y� � ~ _�
�6 �j�p�' °' � J �
`1T �' � 3 ° m �
� � J .
J i�
�m � fn Q 1
�� _ �
m< � � �
y � � ��a
SW OAK ST �7
�
�c�crv � �18 �
� �,��I�i i �
<— 186 '�—* � �
48� 15—>�� I � �
�" �� � '�.� � 3y� � ��� h
� I 217 �
`> d
s
313� I � �
10�
266� ��'
mo
m�
AshbrookTraHkStudy/27-3121-01(01) 7/96
N Figure 7.
� TraHic Signal 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour • .
NOTTOSCALE !. StopSign Traffic Volumes Without Project
, . Parametrix, Inc.
m�v �69 �O u�in ��q F175 vvv �50 �
� � �--366 Q'� � 244 �p � �' 63 �
m � � � �86 �
76 �I = � (� 344—� � I� 33� ����
490� eu�i� �Q�� �� 3� "m �55�5 O1em ,�
�� t � � �r
S� ,�
GJ �
WASHINGTON SQUqR SW LOCUST ST �
F R� �
o w — ------�
;� ses N a w
:
� � Fo � � Q �
�-406 � � v� o = O
� m
50 �G� � �
�� T (' v � � Q�
�a
r� o�, � _ �
��
y ��
� �
SW OAK ST /� ��'��'-°---w—
�
�
e�� �39 �
� I s—,3 �
��� �za
� e� �, �
282—� 60—���r' �
0 2t� � QNN q
o rn � i `O 1
I 217
� l� �
299� � � �
3�
475� �
�
� I �N
AshbrookTretlkSludy/27-3121-Ot(01) 7/96
N Figure 8.
� TraKc Signal 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour � _
NOT TO SCALE � Stop Sign
Traffic Volumes Without Project
, ' / _"
r
Table 6. 1999 Background Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Av.erage
Signalized Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 7.1 B 8.7
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Square Rd B 13.5 D 22.6
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB B 13.3 C 18.2
Ramps
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB B 13.1 C 17.1
Ramps
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 14.2 C 16.3
Average Average
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street
Northbound Approach A 4.3 B 5.7
Westbound Left Turn � A 0.7 A 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Westbound Right Turn B 5.6 B 6.6
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St �
Northbound Left Turn A 3.8 A 4.7
Southbound I.eft Turn A 3.2 A 4.9
Eastbound Approach B 7.8 F >60.0
Westbound Approach � C 12.5 F >60.0
Davis-Forergn Mission Foundation 24 July 1996
Rezone Tra„B�c Impact Study , _
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
As stated previously, the project site consists of two adjacent parcels, Parcel's A and B. The
southern parcel, Parcel A, is 9.71 acres and zoned C-P while the northern parcel, Parcel B, is
4.54 acres with a R-4.5 zoning. Since the proposed project is all commercial, Parcel B would
have to be rezoned from R-4.5 to C-P before the entire development is feasible. The potential
difference in traffic impacts between the maximum build out with the existing zoning and the
proposed zone change is the focus of this traffic study.
The two potential zoning scenarios would result in different maximum full build out conditions,
shown as follows:
Existin� Zonin� Rezone Scenario
Parcel A: C-P Parcel A: C-P
Parcel B: R-4.5 Parcel B: C-P
• General Office Building • General Office Building
444,116 gross square feet 633,766 gross square feet
• Single Family Detached • High Turnover Restaurant
Housing 6,000 gross square feet
38 dwelling units
The actual project site plan calls for the construction of the following:
• � 300 room hotel
• 125 room all suites hotel
• 6,000 gsf restaurant �
The project site would have access from the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street from its southern
terminus to the project site. From this extension, project generated traffic would have direct
access to S.W. Locust Street and the surrounding arterial system.
TRIP GENERATION
Estimates of morning and evening peak hour vehicle trips for the two zoning scenarios were
developed from rates published in "Trip Generation, Sth Edition," 1991 (Institute of
Transportation Engineers). Table 7 summarizes the trip generation estimates by zoning scenario.
As shown in Table 7, the existing zoning build scenario would generate approximately 4,694
daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour trips. The rezone build scenario would
generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips.
The trip generation of the actual development proposal is significantly less than the maximum
build zoning scenarios analyzed above. The project proponent's development prcposal of a.300
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 25 July 1996
Rezone Tra„Qic Impact Study , _
Table 7. Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Tripe Weekday Trips
Project Deacription Parcel Zoning Units In . Out Total In Out In Out
Build Scenario with ExistinR ZoninR
General OCfice Building A C-P 444,116 gsf 541 67 608 95 463 558 2,166 2,166 4,332
Single Family Detached Housing B R-4.5 38 d.u. 7 21 28 25 13 38 181 181 362
Total 548 88 636 120 476 596 2,347 2,347 4,694
Build Scenario with Rezone
General Office Building A C-P 633,766 gsf 714 88 802 123 602 725 2,834 2,834 5,668
High-Tumover Restaurant B C-P 6,000 gsf 47 47 94 53 45 98 616 616 1,232
Total 761 135 896 176 647 823 3,450 3,450 6,900
room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel, and a 6,000 gsf restaurant would generate approximately
3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution of site generated traffic was based on the trip origin/destination information
documented in the "Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study," January 1994
(Parametrix). The trip distribution pattern used in assigning the project-generated weekday AM
and PM peak hour trips is shown in Figure 9.
Based on the trip distribution pattern, Figures 10 and 11 were prepared which represent the
assignment of AM and PM peak hour traffic generated by the maximum build out of the project
site with the existing zoning. Figures 12 and 13 represent the assignment of AM and PM peak
hour traffic generated by the maximum build out of the project site with the proposed zone
change.
Inbound project generated trips from the south predominantly use S.W. Oak Street to access the
project site. The inbound trips from the north will use S.W. Locust Street and S.W. Lincoln
Street to access the site. S.W. Oak Street will not be used directly by inbound trips from the
north due to a future turning restriction at the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street
intersection that will be in place with the S.W. Greenburg Road widening project. The traffic
signal at S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Locust Street facilitates access for left turning traffic from
SW Greenburg Road to SW Locust Street. The inbound travel paths for project trips generated
from other directions are direct.
The outbound travel path for project generated trips is S.W. Oak Street for trips traveling north
on S.W. Greenburg Road. For project generated trips traveling south on S.W. Greenburg Road,
the travel path is S.W. Lincoln Street to S.;;J. Locust Street to S.W. Greenburg Road. Project
generated trips must take this travel path to access S.W. Greenburg Road southbound due to a
future turning restriction at the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection that will be
in place with the S.W. Greenburg Road widening project. The signal at the SW Greenburg
Road/SW Locust Street intersection facilities the access for left turning traffic from SW Locust
Street to SW Greenburg Road.
The outbound travel path for project generated trips traveling south on SW Hall Boulevard is
direct. The outbound travel path for project generated trips traveling north on SW Hall
Boulevard is dependent on the congestion level of the direct travel path. A direct travel path
to northbound SW Hall Boulevard exists via SW Oak Street. However, as congestion is
experienced at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street intersection, drivers typically divert to
either SW Lincoln Street, SW 90th Avenue, or SW 87th Avenue to access the SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Locust Street traffic signal. The traffic signal at SW Hall Road/SW Locust Street
' facilitates access for left turning traffic from SW Locust Street to SW Hall Boulevard.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 27 July 1996
Rezone Tra,fjSc Impact Study �
. Parametrix, Inc.
7% 10%
� �
�
¢° �
� �
e �
zm ��
� ,r
�Q� �
3 �
�� N
WASHINGTON SqU fl SW LOCUST ST ;
3% ARFRD � � � �
� i Q i ��..,.._.��
� w k
; � � Q t 3
A
���� � �� � �
� � � m �
25% " "' � � �
`� i �
j ��
� a
.� � i
�\ ,` SWOAK`ST _ .._ _ il _."_ —°.°` LL �J%
\ — —- --�"
� �>._, :. :., .. .. °
\, PROJECT.�.��.`.���1 �
�:_ �;SITE . •� ��
�. - � - _.._ A�
� � - - . - a�
217 . �
• - a
_ �
15% 10%
�y�
�
�y��
25°�O
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27-3721-Ot(07) 7/96
N
Figure 9. • -
NOTTOSCALE Trip Distribution Pattern
Parametrix, Inc.
�
� � � L �
N N �— � � � F � � �
�i I I If—
� �� � _ � l� ,�59 �!` � ��S; � ,�J
� � � �� � � 54� ! 1(' 6��`l 1'�' �
� '� � �� � � o
f I r � k'
� ;�
WASHINGTON S �' SW LOCUST ST �
DUq,4F RO � �
w _______�
N N ��'.�7 Q �
NI c� � _ ;� P
r � � � � � �0�� � � J p
�
�� 7 `�G 3 ° °' �
°' �' (' � �� �1 ¢�
N � � �
�
y � ` ��
�
i / �,�
. ,
q , , -----�
_ ,i�..._...._.._.._ —r.''� r il
- --=E - . �
;�
�
:-� _ .�.. ` A �
PROJEyCT.�- � I � � �F 2e ;i
::�;. SITE :.: `� !�— I �
_—.'.=� � ���� �13e � �Y l>� v �
'4 - • � 4�}`1T(' ��
� � ' ---- _ sse�';`lr(' 9� , � h
� � #
�' 217 - � � k
� � � � ii
137-1 � � � s "
--->
� m
AshbrookTraHieStudy/27-3121-Ot(Ot) 7/96
Figure 10.
N Weekday AM Peak Hour
� Traffic Signal Site Generated Trips • -
NOTTOSCALE � StopSign With Existing Zoning
� Parametrix, Inc.
rn � � Q � ^ � �y
v� � � � �
� � � � 1� y �323 � � � �
J
4 —s � � �/_ � � �y� � � 34� ����� Y
� � �(/ �r �v —>
C?¢- ��,''e `N'� � I � ,v
1� � ` 4�
h�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST r
QUqRF Ro ! + ,,
� � — ;
� W i
� �
O1� � � 3� 7 Q E w. .�_�r
4 '
I� E— � �+ �j Si >: i
eJ �� � \ ,�33 Vv�s rn� _f > �
O
`1 T �' ' ? � �; m �
e T (' �' a '�
y
^ t S.�
y ai�
/ E '
. x ;�
SW OAK ST 1_-- �: .�_�._��--'--��;�..�....�..._......_.,_
_ _.� ,... :
� .;,.� ., ; �
' '� PROJECT ' ^ ; '� �I � s
� `� , SITE . . I i�—so � l ; � -
;�, _ �J �l�! ,` � >' �
� �� - _��- 14 �
�° - - �+`1i�' 24�;`�1'�
,6' Q1 " 2��' 7B v ; ��m 48 v s ^ a
� � �� 217 ^ 1
� se � - u
30 � I �
�
� �
AshbrookTrafticSludy/27-3121-01(Ot) 7/96
Figure 11.
N Weekday PM Peak Hour
� TraKc Signal Site Generated Trips � _
NOTTOSCALE � StopSign With Existing Zoning
Parametrix, Inc.
�
� � O { i j
N m R � b 1 'i
�— � � E— n {�—
� �r � �JQ� � l> �90 � �� ��! �
? r' �s � � �s
23 � a o� �<U= � I 77-� ��� 9 �i��I
-� � N m � i v f.
3 _�
� A
��
WASHINGTON SQU SW LOCUST ST ,;
AqF R� / �
� � -------�
�� t i90 , a w �
� +� m )# x > r
� � v d � y ��� ��O! �� H J �
�� i I �` m 1
s �'( N' � J d
o � � � � Q 5
�' � = E
v � ?� �
y � ���I
,� SW OAK ST _ �.`h;"°"�---
._�:�:�.�<.-., _ -- �
,�
PROJ�ECT�Y � ; � � .-- 3e t
- S I T E;�:: �n j� � � l }
`^ � 1 � ��90 v >� �
'�< A > 4 � �����
�`�. ; _-` ,' � � i ( e �? �
o v i �°'`°a . - 494—�� �rn N �3� � r �
N �, 2�� - � � v a
,� ��� ��� � - . . �
� 190� � � �� �
�
� r
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27-3127-01(01) 7/86
N Figure 12.
� Traffic Signal Weekday AM Peak Hour , .
NOTTOSCALE .: Stop Sign Site Generated Trips With Rezone
� Parametrix, inc.
rn N � Q,O � � m L �
� � �
� I � I F
i--- ,
�' � J� � l �-440 � �� v l� �
m �'
5 _�� � �� �lU= � I� 17� � �� 46 �i���� �
�r '� �Q Q N Q Q � ! � a'7
� r � a
� '/
WASHINGTON SQVqR�RD 6 SW LOCUST ST ��
""�� � W ! �--------�
�� � 44 QE w! �
N
I � F � � 2� >i „
N
e� � � � � y�Ov � �± 0 �
�� 45 �� �'� ^� m �
� � �
> � � ;I
n � � � �a Q ,�
� t � � 1
y /" ' v�'i
o �
► ; ,�
SW OAK ST-� —__ - _� �." �� _°'—.,—.•,-
- --- � �
�
',=.::::r`,°a.�: ` m � � �
PROJECT- � � 'L ;� s
� _SITE � ���� � F �
v 45 19��,' � > ';
� � . .. J `1 T�' 32—>,`l 1'r `
� � � � ..,�.:�. _ t�a�' ��� es� � �
q � �° 2» -" v ; �'�� �' `�.
♦ 'A �
-s �� .,_ �
44 � �
�
� �
N
AshbrookTraHieStudy/27-3127-Ot(01) 7/96
N Figure 13.
� Traffic Signal Weekday PM Peak Hour , .
NOTTOSCALE � StopSign Site Generated Trips With Rezone
1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT UNDER
. EXISTING ZONING
The 1999 background traffic volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 were combined with the traffic
volumes in Figures 10 and 11 to arrive at the 1999 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with
the maximum project site build out under the existing zoning, respectively. The 1999 AM peak
hour traffic volumes with the maximum project site build out under the existing zoning is shown
in Figure 14. Figure 15 shows the 1999 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the maximum
project site build out under the existing zoning.
. Based on the traffic volumes shown in Figures 14 and 15, AM and PM peak hour levels of
service were calculated for the 1999 total traffic volume conditions with the maximum project
site build out under the existing zoning. The improvements identified in the "Planned
Transportation Improvements" section of the report were assumed to be in place. These
improvements include the following additions: 1) northbound right turn lane at the S.W.
Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Northbound Ramps intersection, 2) an additional lane on the
S.W. Greenburg Road bridge across Highway 217, and 3) a second northbound left turn lane
at the S.W. Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road intersection. The results for the AIv1 and
PM peak hour level of service analyses are shown in Table 8.
As shown in Table 8, the maximum site build out under the existing zoning would result in all
the signalized study area intersections operating at LOS D or better in 1999.
Table 8•shows that the following two unsignalized study area intersections are projected to
operate below LOS D in the PM peak hour:
• S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street
• S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street
The northbound approach of the S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street intersection is projected
to operate at LOS F in the 1999 PM peak hour condition with the maximum project site build
out under the existing zo�ing. This condition is primarily caused by the heavy northbound
turning movement volumes and one lane northbound approach.
The LOS F condition at the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street in the 1999 PM peak hour
condition with the maximum project site build out under the existing zoning is primarily caused
by the eastbound and westbound left turn movements conflicting with the heavy northbound and
southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As the delay becomes significant, it is
likely that these left turning vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall
Boulevard/S.W. Locust Street to make the left turn onto S.W. Hall Boulevard.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 33 July 1996
Rezone Tra,�c Impact Study
Parametrix, Inc.
� �3
o� '!
n<° ��s ¢� mm N�o j 'L46 j
� � �65 JQ v l� �174 �623 � �I ��93 �
�-- �>j 76 �,
32 '�� 22
19----s 71
S�� NCN �� �� 62� ��� � 52������ �,�
� f�l� � � i N /
�
�
WASHINGTON S SW LOCUST ST W
qUqRF RD t �, i
� w� --.�.,_._
nc� �569 Q� w�
e� � �o r S� �) ~� 2� y
182 �°n
I '�13 �v�v °'I �d � ,
�� � `' �I °? m '
� v � i J Ii
�o T r' �; Q ;
N� = 1
� �� � d
m�
y ' � ��
/ � y
i = �,�
SW OAK ST f' .�----.°��..-�-....__.._.__
---- -- h�
- �.d
" -:� .o=.._ _ �
-� :-P . ��� ? � 18
ROJECT." � i '�o `O"N ;F 53 '
_: SITE'� ' �i� �<—�es <� v�>i v��
� _ s l�� �138 �-- i -�'---` .
� >
� , 4
�-�.. °J ��i�' ,9�:���„�
..� 0 ~v,. ae—>. �,�� ai–� ; N�� �
u^io _ 356� I �� v :
�N � zi� v i
� � �> - �
� ,so s T �' � � -
,o-�
2es�, '°�'
��
AshbrookTraHicStudy/27-3121•01(07) 7/96
Figure 14.
N 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour
� Tra�c Signal Traffic Volumes With , .
NOT TO SCALE .L Stop Sign
Existing Zoning
Parametrix, Inc.
1�
. ���
_ � 'C �a� �
�-
� J �
��< �as o� � 1 �Q� ' '� �
�
�69 � / `em �224 �'175 vvv ��63 �
� � �3 � J�°� �, ���684 �2 � ,Ir��� �es �
� �
B] � (�_ � �� 344—���I �� 79 J �t A >
490 eu ��U ' 20� ! a�o 178—si �o� �
l'� � ��a ` �� � e� 55� ; �Nm i
1 � �
/� �
WASHINGTON �' , SW LOCUST ST
SpUqR�RD � ,
o+ w , --------�-
�? �639 �,, Q w u
E-0 w � Si > 3
� � �406 � � v� O; Q� O �
,� �95 �V� �� �� � g
`l�. �/ 3� �; m .
rn� � r v� �? �� J -r
�� ' ; 3' Q ,'
Nm °� i � _� = ;i
�N � / �� 1 �
Y � �;;
s� i !j 4 "�I
`_,� SW OAK ST i_—._� _ _....✓ �._/���.�—'"�--._._._.
:.�: _ �
`.PROJ,ECT . � N;; f �'39 -
o�o � �0 �F22 �:
,y ���� ;� sITE -' �� ���j�as �� ��>� v 24 �i
�� ��� ,. � < <
24-� � �
o,' � A > 92�;� I ( ry
��_ - ZeZ—,`��r ZEZ� t0 N N
� . �
"� iia-� , em� v ; �
�� � 2t� " � , Q�
���>� � . -
� � A � _
343 I
3� '
475�, � m N
1�N
AshbrookTrafllcStudy/27-�121-07(01) 7/B6
N Figure 17.
� TraHic Signal 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour
NOTTOSCALE 1. StopSign Traffic Volumes With Rezone
Table 9. 1999 AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary with Maximum
Proj�.:ct Site Build Out Under Proposed Zone Change
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay Average Delay
Signalized Intersection LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 8.6 D 26.4
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sq Rd B 13.8 D 35.0
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB B 14.6 C 23.4
Ramps
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB C 16.0 C 18.7
Ramps
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 14.7 C 20.2
Average Delay Average Delay
Unsignalized Intersection LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Locust St/SW Lincoln St
Northbound Approach B 6.5 F >60.0
Westbound Left Turn A 0.7 A 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Westbound R.ight Turn B 7.7 B 7.9
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St
Northbound Left Turn A 1.8 A 0.4
Southbound Left Turn A 0.2 A 0.6
Eastbound Approach C 12.1 F >60.0
Westbound Approach D 26.7 F >60.0
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 40 July 1996
Rezone Tra�`'ic Impact Study 4
COMPARISON OF TWO ZONING ALTERNATIVES
Tables 10 and 11 show level of service comparisons between the maximum build out with the
existing zoning and the proposed zone change for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would operate at LOS D or better
in 1999. During the AM peak hour, all of the signalized intersection levels of service between
the two alternatives are the same and have minimal average vehicle delay differences equal to
or less than 1.0 seconds with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg Road/Highway 217
Southbound Ramps intersection. This signalized intersection would operate at LOS B with the
existing zoning build out and LOS C in the zone change build out. Although there is a change
in level of service, the difference in average vehicle delay is only 1.1 seconds.
As for the unsignalized intersections in the AM peak hour, Table 10 shows that no levels of
. service changes occur between the two zoning scenarios. The differences between average
vehicle delay range from 0.0 seconds to 5.7 seconds.
Table 11 shows that all of the PM peak hour levels of service at the signalized intersections
between the two zoning alternatives are the same and have minimal differences in average
vehicle delay equal to or less than 2:1 seconds with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg
Road/S.W. Locust Street intersection. The S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Locust Street
intersection would operate at LOS B with the existing zoning build out and LOS D in the zone
change build out. The difference in average vehicle delay is 11.5 seconds.
The unsignalized intersections in the PM peak hour have the same levels of service between ,
zoning alternatives. The differences,in average vehicle delay is less than 1.0 seconds.
Although all of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are projected to operate
at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing field observations indicate that the S.W.
Greenburg Road traffic experiences progression problems through the corridor. These existing
problems may be partially alleviated by the S.W. Greenburg Road widening project. However, ,
signal coordination improvements should still be considered in 1999 with the project build
condition to further enhance traffic flow through the S.W. Greenburg Road corridor. The City
of Tigard and ODOT are responsible for the traffic signal operations along the S.W. Greenburg
Road corridor and should consider a signal coordination project to improve the corridor's traffic
progression. The signal coordination project would benefit all of the current and future users
of the S.W. Greenburg Road�corridor.
LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH ACTUAL DEVELOPn�NT PROPOSAL
The actual development proposal of 300 room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel, and 6,000 gsf
high turnover restaurant would generate significantly fewer trips than either of the two maximum
build out zoning alternatives. As previously discussed, the actual development proposal would
generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips. This is approximately
43 and 36 percent fewer AM and PM peak hour trips than the 1999 maximum build scenario
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 41 July 1996
Rezone Tra�c Impact Study ,
Table 10. AM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison of tl�e Two Zo�iing Alternatives
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Average Average
Signalized Intersection LOS Delay(sec) LOS Delay(sec) LOS Dift'erence Delay Difference(sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust Stroet B 8.0 B 8.6 none 0.6
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sq Rd B 13.7 B 13.8 none 0.1
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB Ramps B 14.2 B 14.6 none 0.4
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB Ramps B 14.9 C 16.0 +1 (LOS B to G� 1.1
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 14.5 B 14.7 none 0.2
Unsignalized Intersection �
SW Locust St/SW Lincoln St
Northbound Approach B 6.0 B 6.5 none 0.5
Westbound Approach A 0.7 A 0.7 none 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Westbound Right Turn B 7.0 B 7.7 none 0.7
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St
Northbound L.eft Turn A 1.6 A 1.8 none 0.2
Southbound L.eft Turn A 0.2 A 0.2 none 0.0
Eastbound Approach C 10.1 C 12.1 none 2.0
Westbound Approach D 2I.0 D 26.7 none 5.7
: •
�: -
; Table 11. PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison of the Two Zoning Alternatives
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Average Average
-, Signalized Intersection LOS Delay(sec) LOS Delay(sec) LOS Difference Delay Difference(sec)
SW Greenburg RdlSW Locust Stroet B 14.9 D 26.4 +2(L.OS B to D) 11.5
� SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sq Rd D 34.6 D 35.0 none 0.4
� SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB Ramps C 21.3 C 23.4 none 2.1
SW Grcenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB Ramps C 18.5 C 18.7 none 0.2
SW Hall Blvd/SW L.ocust St C 19.1 C 20.2 none 1.1
Unsignalized Intersection
� SW Locust St/SW Lincoln St
Nocthbound Approach F >60.0 F >60.0 none -
Westbound Approach A 0.0 A 0.0 none 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
� Westbound Right Tum B 7.4 B 7.9 none 0.5
�
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St
Northbound Left Turn A 0.4 A 0.4 none 0.0
Southbound Left Turn A 0.6 A 0.6 none 0.0
Eastbound Approach F >60.0 F >60.0 none -
� WestboundApproach F >60.0 F >60.0 none -
under the existing zoning. As for the 1999 maximum build scenario under the rezone condition,
the actual development proposal generates 59 and 53 percent fewer AM and PM peak hour trips,
respectively.
The expected levels of service values at the study area intersections for the 1999 with actual
development proposal scenario are between the 1999 background condition and the 1999
maximum build scenario under the existing zoning. All of the signalized intersections would
operate at acceptable levels of service under these conditions. Therefore, it is logical to expect
that all of the signalized intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in the 1999
traffic conditions with the actual development proposal.
The S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street unsignalized intersection level of service ranges
from LOS B to LOS F between the 1999 background condition and the 1999 maximum build
scenario under the existing zoning condition. This intersection was further studied below to
determine whether or not it functions adequately in the 1999 with actual development condition.
Based on level of service calculations, the S.W. Locust StreetlS.W. Lincoln Street intersection
wo,uld operate at LOS C or better for the 1999 with actual deve opment c ndition.
Since the eastbound and westbound approaches of the unsignalized intersection at S.W. Hall
Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street would operate at LOS F in the 1999 background condition, the
intersection would continue to operate at LOS F in the 1999 traffic condition with the actual
development. The LOS F condition at the eastbound and westbound approaches are primarily
due to eastbound and westbound left turn movements conflicting with heavy northbound and
southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. As the delay becomes significant, it is
likely that these left turning vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall .
Boulevard/S.W. Locust Street to make the left turn onto S.W. Hall Boulevard.
All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better in the 1999 with
actual development condition with the exception of the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street
intersection. The S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street intersection would operate at LOS.F;
however, due to alternative travel paths, no mitigation is being proposed.
SITE ACCFSS AND CIlZCULATION
The proposed project's only access is on S.W. Oak Street. The project driveway will be aligned
with the S.W. Lincoln Street extension to create one intersection at S.W. Oak Street. It is
assumed that the SW Lincoln Street extension will be constructed concunently with the proposed
project and will provide the project site its only access to and from the arterial street network.
Based on the project traffic volumes at the project's access at S.W. Oak Street/S.W. Lincoln
Street, the project access could function adequately at LOS D or better with only one inbound
and outbound lane. However, for more efficient ingress and egress, the project access approach
lane geometry should include two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The outb lanes
should be configured as a shared through/left lane and an exclusive right turn pock�. Level of
Davis-Forergn Mission Foundation 44 July 1996
Rezone Trn�''ic Impact Study ,
service analysis indicates that the project access could function adequately as either a two-way
stop controlled intersection with right-of-way to S.W. Oak Street or as an all-way stop controlled
intersection. The all-way stop controlled intersection may be preferable since it would more
equitable distribute the intersection delay. Also, level of service analysis shows that the all-way
stop would function at LOS C while the two-way stop would function at LOS D. Since the
intersection is projected to function adequately as a stop controlled intersection, signalizadon was
not considered.
I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
� The following are the conclusions and recommendations from the traffic analysis:
1. The 1999 maximum project site build out with existing zoning is expected to
generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour
trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed changed
' zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour,
and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to
generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips.
2. In comparing the signalized intersection levels of service between the maximum
build out with the existing zoning and the proposed zone change, the difference
in average vehicle delay is below 2.1 seconds for all the signalized intersections
with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Locust Street intersection.
The existing zoning condition has an average vehicle delay of 11.5 seconds less -
than the proposed zone change condition at the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W.
Locust Street intersection. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning
scenarios would operate at LOS D or better in 1999.
3. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are LOS D
or better in the AM peak hour for both zoning alternatives. In the PM peak hour,
the levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized intersections under both
zoning alternatives with the exception of the S.W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak
Street intersection which operates at LOS B under both zoning alternatives.
4. Although all of the study area intersections on S.W. Greenburg Road are
projected to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing field
observations indicate that the S.W. Greenburg Road traffic experiences
progression problems through the comdor. These existing problems may be
partially alleviated by the S.W. Greenburg Road widening project from the
Highway 217 Southbound Ramps to Washington Square Road. However, signal
coordination improvements should still be considered in 1999 with or without the
project to further enhance traffic flow through the S.W. Greenburg Road
corridor.
Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation 45 July 1996
Rezone Tra,�jic Impact Study , _
, Parametrix, Inc.
o �
o°o� �46 � o n��
�-'69 � v"'i� �224 �175 v v e �63 �
� �� �366 J� v l �567 �2 � �l� �B6 s
z''
80 �'� �? � �S 344—► �l /� 6�� �'��� �
490� �o°r �U � �5� �n v 17E—� io o rn
�ir �o�o �Q' v`n r �� 55� : rnom �'�
� � �� � � �
� �
. H�f
WASHINGTON SQUqR� SW LOCUST ST +
RD q �
0
�� w '---�.
Q� �s2s a� .
`—p n = ji ;
� � �406 � �Ov� O = Q � .
5 °' � � �
�� � �83 �� � � mi�
� � v � 3 �
�� � Q �
Nm �� , � = 1
10 P7 _ � :
�� /� � r{
y � � ��
� SW OAK ST � - / _._......__. —- ``� �r"� •....�.
__.i.___.____
•°,(`�`'�i�J;x'= �'��. (oi k
�.r.`�'�r;�s.:��x��r;,a'�,'rs',rn- 3
. �^.Ax=.°."gy�"�:y:a• arv�-aa ;�_� � � �
,�vfakw;.;^es�w�:" .r' N
'' . =`.::'� ! � �o n�n 39
"PFtOJECTar ^ ��o �'°°' �—is
�:�,SITE.=�.=;<<� � ° ��—e� vl>� �2a
y�;-.w,�:- �l� v 30 �
s��;r��'a;'`�;::. �, � �9� ����� �
.:s�. `::��;M�.. � �`1��' 84--� a
o � ";j". .�..:. 282—>i 265� � ui°i N N *
�m � �=-��;� Ze� � ��m r i `° �'b
�Y �s 2i� xy.�e�:�:^'�:m v �
� ��a;:;;�;;�;.; �
329� � � �
3�
475� �� �
AshbrookTraflicStudy/27-3121-07(01) 7/96
Figure 15.
N 1999 Weekday PM Peak Hour
)8E Traffic Signal Traffic Volumes With • -
NOTTOSCALE � Stop Sign Existing Zoning
Table 8. 1999 AM and PM Peak T_-Iour Level of Service Summary with Maximum
Project Site Build Out Under Existing Zoning
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay Average Delay
Signalized Intersection LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Locust St B 8.0 B 14.9
SW Greenburg Rd/Washington Sq Rd B 13.7 D 34.6
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 NB B 14.2 C 21.3
Ramps
SW Greenburg Rd/Highway 217 SB B 14.9 C 18.5 �
Ramps
SW Hall Blvd/SW Locust St B 14.5 C 19.1
Average Delay Average Delay
Unsignalized Intersection LOS (sec) LOS (sec)
SW Locust SVSW Lincoln St
Northbound Approach B 6.0 F >60.0
Westbound Left Turn A 0.7 A 0.0
SW Greenburg Rd/SW Oak St
Westbound Right Turn B 7.0 B 7.4
SW Hall Blvd/SW Oak St �
Northbound Left Turn A 1.6 A 0.4
Southbound Left Turn A 0.2 . A 0.6
Eastbound Approach C 10.1 F >60.0
Westbound Approach D 21.0 F >60.0
Davis-Foreig�i Mission Fou�ulation 36 July 1996
Rezone Tra�'ic Impact Study
1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT UNDER ZONE
CHANGE
The 1999 background traffic volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 were combined with the traffic
volumes in Figures 12 and 13 to arrive at the 1999 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with
the maximum project site build out under the proposed zone change, respectively. The 1999
AM peak hour traffic volumes with the maximum project site build out under the proposed zone
change is shown in Figure 16. Figure 17 shows the 1999 PM peak hour tr�:�fic volumes with
the maximum project site build out under the proposed zone change.
Based on the traffic volumes shown in Figures 16 and 17, AM and PM peak hour levels of
service were calculated for the 1999 total traffic volume conditions with the maximum project
site build out under the proposed zone change. The improvements identified in the "Plannerl
Transportation Improvements" section of the report were assumed to be in place. These
improvements include the following additions: 1) northbound right turn lane at the S.W.
Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Northbound Ramps intersection, 2) an additional lane on the
S.W. Greenburg Road bridge across Highway 217, and 3) a second northbound left turn lane
at the.S.W. Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road intersection. The results for the AM and
PM peak hour level of service analyses are shown in Table 9.
As shown in Table 9, the maximum site build out under the proposed zone change would result
in all the signalized study area intersections operating at LOS D or better in 1999.
Table 9 shows that the following two unsignalized study area intersections are projected to
operate below LOS D in the PM peak hour:
• S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street
• S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak S treet
The northbound approach of the S.W. Locust Street/S.W. Lincoln Street intersection is projected
to operate at LOS F in the 1999 PM peak hour condition with the maximum project site build
out under the proposed zone change. This condition is primarily caused by the heavy
northbound turning movement volumes and one lane northbound approach.
The LOS F condition at the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street in the 1999 PM peak hour
condition with the maximum project site build out under the proposed zone change is primarily
caused by the eastbound and westbound left turn movements conflicting with the heavy
northbound and southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall Boulevard. If the delay becomes
significant, it is likely that these left turning vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection
of S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Locust Street to make the left turn onto S.W. Hall Boulevard.
Davis-Foreign Mrssion Foundation 37 July 1996
Rezone Traffic Impact Study 4
, Parametrix, Inc.
� 9
� �N ; L e
rv° �46 �� �a°v �qp <-163 Nc`nic°� �63 �,
� �Y ,�65 J¢- l���--sos �ss `� v l�� es �.
19� �� [UZ� � t > 62� �I � �� � � �s'y
57 o m`r Q(V f � � 94� � e�r' 15—>��� �s�
�i NRN � � �' f � rj'z� + ON� A�
� � �,.
� �
WASHINGTON g SW LOCUST ST �
�. SDUqRFRp � ;q
� �. .
, w f ---�-,--_.._.__
�° L ezz _ � Q; w:�a�
f
�� � 2; >F ,
� �, ��e2 � v ��17 ��ov�; 3' �� m +!
�� , V/ �1 G0� J .
ON � f � 3� J 'f
�� � �� _ �
rn°o �
mrn �
�' , � � �
� SW OAK ST j_ ,% / Y,, - ,� -°.--^�°-.-
� � - -_� _�._.��_.�__�..�.. ���
�� - _ . ..
� _ . : N�r� �. 18
�'``�,� ,,''�. PROJECT_:. ^ �o m"� <—63
A
a ``�..��.�, SITE..• o�o ,��es <� �l>, v�� �
�'`�`°' �J �`>.�190 a..__,�._ ._._._,....._.r .
� ��� --� , � ;< A > 5—
A �
/
�� °J 1 i � z3--�:�1 i�'
.s� � �."�. � ae-->. r�� as� ; ��° �
t�0� � .. 494� : �1D N r , N� ��
f�N �Y2�7 r l �)
� �>� �.� �-
.� T � `�:� '
• 503 3r
10—�
266'� m"
mo
rn�
Ashbrook TreHic Study/27-3121-01(01) 7/96
N Figure 16.
� Traffic Signal 1999 Weekday AM Peak Hour.
NOTTO SCALE s. Stop Sign Traffic Volumes With Rezone
5. All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better in
the 1999 with actual development condition with the exception of the S.W. Hall
Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street intersection. In the PM peak hour, the eastbound and
westbound approaches of the S.W. Hall Boulevard/S.W. Oak Street intersection
would operate at LOS F. The LOS F condition at the eastbound and westbound
approaches are primarily due to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements
conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound through volumes on S.W. Hall
Boulevard. As the delays become significant, it is likely that these eastbound and
westbound left turning vehicles would divert to the signalized intersection of S.W.
Hall Boulevard/S.W. Locust Street to make the left turn onto S.W. Hall
Boulevard. Since these eastbound and westbound left turn movements can divert
to a less congested route, no mitigation is being proposed or recommended.
6. The project access is the southern leg of the new intersection that would be
created with the extension of S.W. Lincoln Street to S.W. Oak Street. Although .
the project access could function adequately at LOS D or better with only one
inbound and one outbound lane, for more efficient ingress and egress, the access
approach lane geometry (southern leg of the S.W. Oak Street/S.W. Lincoln Street
intersection) should include two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The
outbound lanes should be configured as a shared through/left lane and an
exclusive right turn pocket.
The project access would function at LOS D or better with either a two-way stop
with right-of-way to S.W. Oak Street or an all-way stop controlled intersection.
An all-way stop controlled intersection may be preferable since it would more
equitably distribute the intersection delay.
Davis-Foreign Mission Fou�utation 46 July 1996
Rezone Tra,�jSc Impnct Study , _
M:)Datlio•ti4 .NiA
DoctiV•AIrcs
�oi�sizo�o . _ CITY OF TIGARD .��;� Page 1 of 1
1:24:32PM ImageFlow Lite Report - Legislative History (Detailed) UserlD: USER1
, � �.
�
�
oc. e . o e oc. ate tem e . ction o e ne escr�ption et. o e
Cont. Date Exp. Date Name Referred to File Reference # Security Class
Abstract Keywords
RESOLUTION NO. 96-70
DENY
APPLICATION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CPA 96-0006
ZONECHANGE
ZC 96-0001
DAVIS, DR. GENE
FOREIGN MISSION
GREENBURG ROAD
Total Items Printed: 1
V
J ,
;
�
(V/
\
� �
�
V
�
Cap Tab Summary Portlet Page l of 2
,_.
. Record ID: CPA96-00006
i
� !Menu ��J Help
+!Go To Summary Record Activities (0) Activity Summary (10) Address (1) Addtl
File Date: 07/Z5/1996
Application Status: Denied
Application Detail: Detail
Application Type: Planninq/Comprehenslve Plan Amendment/NA/NA
Address: 9360 SW OAK ST
Owner Name:
Owner Address:
Application Name: DAVIS PROPERTV
Parcel No.: i5135AC03500
Contact Info: Name Organization Name Contact Relationship Address
Type
DR GE NE _ Applicant 10875 SW 89TH,
DAVIS TIGARD, OR 97223
Licensed Professionals Info.: Primary License License Name Business Name Business License#
Number Type
Description of Work: AMMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TAXLOTS 15135AC 3500, 3600, 3700,
3II00 AND 3900 FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL PROFESIONAL.
LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF SW OAK STREET, EAST OF 95TH AND NORTH OF HWY
217.
Job Value: $0.00
Total Fee Assessed: �0.00
Total Fee Invoiced: F0.00
Balance: $0.00
Application 5pec Info.:
GENERAL
Received Date: 07/25/1996
Current Comp Plan LO\N
Designation:
Proposed Comp Plan CP
Designation:
Received By: _
Complan Sections to be _
Amended:
Sections of Zoning Code to _
be Amended:
P_PROPZONE
https://av.accela.com/portlets/cap/capsummary/CapTabSumma�y.do?mode=tabSummary... 10/13/2010
Cap Tab Summary Portlet Page 2 of 2
Proposed Zoning: G�?
Proposed Zoning Suffix: __.
Proposed Zoning Area: _
Proposed Split Zoning:
Proposed Split Zoning Suffix: _
Proposed Split Zoning Area: _
ASI TIDEMARK
Master Number: CPA96-00006
Issued: 10/3?./7.996
CPA
Current Zoning: '.-�.�_
Application Spec Info. Table: ARBORIS7 REPORT
Date Compliance Comments
Workflow S4a4us: Task Status Status Date Action By
'1:c �ca u,i Su��m��iz.i
Completeness Review
Staff Review
Planning Commission
City Council
Land Use Board of Appeals
Final Processing
Condition Sta4us: Condition Name Status Apply Date Severity Action By
Application Comments: View Comment Date
ID
https://av.accela.com/portlets/cap/capsummary/CapTabSummary.do?mode=tabSummary... 10/13/2010