The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/14/2013 TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING May 14, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1:1Design & Communications\Donna\City Councillccpktl \jC 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov I II 1 • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda • i i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Revised 5/9/2013, Added Agenda Item No. 4 - EMS Week Proclamation MEETING DATE AND TIME: May 14, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign -up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 -639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. I • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: May 14, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION ON RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING •EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 2. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) A. Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Tigard High School Student Envoy C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce D. Citizen Communication — Sign Up Sheet 4. PROCLAIM MAY 19 -25, 2013, AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) WEEK 5. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7:40 p.m.estimated time A. Receive and File: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics B. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes for: 1. March 19, 2013 2. March 26, 2013 3. April 9, 2013 4. April 16, 2013 5. April 23, 2013 C. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A RIVER TERRACE UTILITY IMPROVEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY D. APPROVE TIGARD /TRIMET GRANT APPLICATION FOR NEW TRANSIT SERVICE ON 72ND AVENUE • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council / City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 6. AWARD THE 2013 "IF I WERE MAYOR" CONTEST PRIZE 7 :45 p.m. estimated time 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR THE 72ND AVENUE /DARTMOUGH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 7:50 p.m. estimated time LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD 8. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE 72ND AND DARTMOUTH PROJECT 8 :00 p.m. estimated time 9. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON RIVER TERRACE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE 8:10 p.m. estimated time 10. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR PARKING REQUIREMENT MODIFICATIONS 8:25 p.m. estimated time 11. APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 MAY BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL 9:25 p.m. estimated time 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS 15. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. estimated time • City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIGARD May 14, 2013 • STUDY SESSION Mayor Cook to call the meeting to order. 1. DISCUSSION ON RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: • Updates for tonight's business meeting: o Revised April 16, 2013 minutes per Deputy Recorder Krager's May 14, 2013 email. o Proposed resolution for the LCRB Item No. 8 — memorializing the LCRB granting an exemption from the competitive screening and selection process for the 72n and Dartmouth Project. • Facade Improvement Subcommittee — Councilor Woodard • Council Stipends Payment Schedule • Council Calendar: o May 21 — Workshop Meeting, 6:30 p.m. o May 27 — Memorial Day — City Hall offices closed o May 28 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting No executive session items scheduled. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. May 14, 2013 City Council Agenda Page 1 Sf U d Sess LOf\ AIS -1256 1. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace Community Plan - Infrastructure Financing Submitted By: Darren Wyss, Community Development Council Business Mtg - Study Item Type: Meeting Type: Sess. Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE How much land use flexibility is the city open to considering in implementing the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Council is requested to receive briefing from staff, ask questions and provide input as desired. Additional information and discussion is planned for the May 21st workshop. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has commenced its effort to complete a River Terrace Community Plan. The city signed an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County to perform this work by moving forward from the West Bull Mt. Concept Plan that was adopted by the Washington County Commission in November 2010. The concept plan process included a significant amount of investment, financial and volunteer time, and a well - documented public involvement effort. The community plan will build upon and refine the concept plan into the necessary zoning and land use regulations that will ensure development accords with the publicly endorsed concept. The planning effort will also result in adopted infrastructure master plans and an infrastructure financing strategy that will convert the area from rural to urban use. The plan area will accommodate approximately 2300 dwelling units and a small neighborhood commercial area to provide services to local residents. A series of parks and trails, as well as a system of well - connected streets, will be developed to provide recreational opportunities and transportation options for autos, bicycles and pedestrians. The Tigard - Tualatin School District owns property in the planning area and will develop a school in the future. The city has begun work related to zoning and natural resource mapping. Meetings with the community, the technical advisory committee, and the Council- appointed stakeholder working group have recently been held for initial review of this work. The city is now in the process of choosing a consultant team to help with updating infrastructure master plans and developing a financing strategy. The consultant team will outline available tools, funding opportunities, and policy options the Council will need to weigh and consider when it comes time to adopt an infrastructure financing strategy to ensure a successful implementation of the community plan. As part of the community planning process, Council will be asked to hold public hearings and adopt components of the community plan. These include: zoning and land use regulations, transportation system plan updates, natural resource maps, public facility plan, and infrastructure financing strategy. To help prepare for these decisions, staff will schedule a series of discussions with Council focusing on key policy decisions needing deliberation over the next year. These include: • Individual stakeholder needs versus planning area needs • Land use recommendations from the concept plan • Park locations and how to fund the acquisition, development, and maintenance • Transportation impacts - financing on and off -site impacts and coordinating with Beaverton, Washington County and ODOT • Infrastructure phasing - not all properties will develop at the same time or have the same access to existing infrastructure • Financing strategy - striking a fair balance between development versus city responsibilities All of these policy decisions are important to the community plan process. However, during the May 14, 2013 study session, staff hopes to concentrate on the land use recommendations that come in the form of the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan. The Concept Plan identifies locations for streets, single family housing, multifamily housing, parks, natural areas, a commercial area and a school location. The city can take these land uses and apply City of Tigard zoning to the entire area, using city zones that will formally restrict each area to the use envisioned in the Concept Plan. (The Parks Zone doesn't yet exist but will be brought to Planning Commission and Council for adoption prior to the completion of the River Terrace Community Plan). The land uses described in the Concept Plan were arrived at through a lengthy and transparent public process. Some stakeholders are suggesting that the city would be wise to alter the location of some land use elements. One primary point of discussion has revolved around the location of the neighborhood commercial center, which is adjacent to a public space, central to the entire district, and off the major arterials. The concept plan process outlined the rationale behind its size and location, and the concept plan technical advisory committee and stakeholder working group both supported its location. The Washington County Planning Commission questioned its location prior to adopting the plan, but the Board of County Commissioners did not address the issue. Staff is seeking to engage the council in a discussion about whether and why the city might consider amending this part, or any part, of the location of land uses in the Concept Plan. The provision of the land uses, and the amount of acreage dedicated to each, have raised fewer questions than the location of certain elements. Park locations are another topic of interest to community plan stakeholders. The concept plan identified preferred park locations, with eight neighborhood parks (1 to 2.5 acres each) and two community parks (10 acres each) located in the River Terrace Community Plan area. The neighborhood park locations do not seem to be an issue and received little comment during the concept planning process. Staff has also not received any comment on the locations. However, the community park locations were discussed at length during the concept plan process, with the identified property owners requesting flexibility in siting these larger parks. Staff has also heard repeatedly about needed flexibility in locating these facilities. The concept plan shows the preferred locations of the community parks, with an acknowledgment that the locations might change slightly. The plan provided limited flexibility for adjusting community park locations. It was not drafted to allow for a community park to move to another location. The success of the River Terrace Community Plan will lie with the ability of the city to deliver and finance infrastructure, including park amenities. Prior to beginning to work in earnest on infrastructure planning and financing, the city needs to determine where elements are going to be located, and whether /if any flexibility will be available to developers to adjust land use locations. As a critical path item, this early decision and the consequent establishment of a fixed zoning map will drive the remainder of the project work program and schedule. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Complete River Terrace Community Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council Workshop - April 23, 2013 Fiscal Impact Cost: $134,100 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): CD Additional Fiscal Notes: Washington County transferred CET funds to the city for completing the community plan. The city has applied for additional CET funds for specific infrastructure master planning and financing strategy tasks. p b '1 v ti , GL -3 - CA a-)-, t t, .pda -tt City Council Update SUPPLEMENTAL PAC Chamber Events FOR `. / `' l /a v / ? (DATE OF MEETING) 5/16/13 — 7:30 A.M. Networking - Symposium Coffee @ their location in Tigard Chamber building 5/21/13 — Members only educational webinar. Check Facebook and your inbox for details 5/22/13- 11:45 a.m. Lunch Local - Gametime - 17880 Lower Boones Ferry Rd Lake Oswego, OR 97035 5/23/13 - 7:30 A.M. Networking New York Life @ TACC 5/28/13 —8:00 a.m. Tigard Young Professionals Breakfast of Champions, Game -Time 6/6/13 - 7:30 A.M. Networking Blessings of Spirit @ TACC 6/24/13 — 5 -7 p.m. Annual Chamber Meeting, Sip, Savor, Celebrate! —At Broadway Rose Theatre For more information on all events visit our event calendar at htta : / /business.tieardchamber.org /events /calendar/ Or go to www.tieardchamber.org and click on the calendar icon. Tigard Farmers Market Update Opening day was fabulous. We saw a doubling of volume of token sales on opening day as compared to last year, and those were all spent with vendors that day!. Many vendors reported record days. Traffic was steady from the start. Again, thank you to the City of Tigard for their support and neighboring businesses like Frontier and KEI Embroidery who are providing customer and vendor parking. Also a big thank you to Burgerville as our major sponsor. Note our recycling bins and entrance signage made possible through that sponsorship. Tigard citizens wanting more information should check recent issues of Cityscape and the TAFM website at www.tigardfarmersmarket.org or sign up for our newsletter. Non - profits wanting a free booth during market season can also apply on the market website. Downtown Updates Downtown Tigard's 3` Friday in May is 5/17/13. Check local merchants closer to that date for specials. Downtown Tigard will hold its 2 Annual Street Fair, Saturday August 17` Save the date and check Explore Downtown Tigard Facebook and website for details. Interested in sponsoring or being a vendor? Contact us at DTTEvents @tigardchamber.org . We've launched a new Explore Downtown Tigard facebook page and website. Learn what there is to do in Downtown Tigard by liking that page on Facebook at www.facebook .com /exploredowntowntigard and visit the new website at www.exploredowntowntigard.com and see what there is to do in Downtown Tigard! Join our Downtown Tigard newsletter e-mail list for updates, specials and events start by texting DTTIGARD to 22828. The newsletter should roll out in the next month or two. You can also join off the new website. The Tigard Chamber is excited to announce that Symposium Coffee is opening Memorial Day, May 27` in Downtown Tigard, in the front section of the Tigard Chamber building. Symposium Coffee is a full service coffee cafe with a full coffee and tea menu accompanied by a breakfast and lunch menu. Learn more at www.symposiumcoffee.com TIGARD AREA k `..,.,, i , F \ rei Exp lore , s` E DoN4 NTO\x IN L C__ tigardyoungprofess onals C I S connect cdlM cd4bo.cN climb 7 0 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ,� /iy /� (DATE OF MEETING) Tigard High School Agenda 1 ,l 04 -ry 3 Student Envoy: EJ Albaugh (current Junior Class President and future ASB President) Meeting: May 14, 2013 Recent: ACT Testing — April 23 Speech State Champs — The THS speech and debate team won first place at the Speech State Championships. Many contenders qualify for nationals. Tiger Pride Assembly — April 29 — May 3` School honors students for excellence in school in areas like 3.75 GPA +, Service, Most Improved, Perfect Attendance and Tiger Pride. New Leadership Announced —The 2013 -2014 Leadership class was elected and inducted. New ASB President is EJ Albaugh. Prom — Saturday May 11 . Theme was "A Night in Neverland" at Montgomery Park Future: Graduation — Friday June 7 - Seniors last day of school is Wednesday June 5th Last Day of School — Last day of school for freshman, sophomores, and juniors is Wednesday June 12th AGENDA ITEM NO. 3-D CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: May 14, 2013 (Please keep remarks to around 2 -5 minutes. If a large number of citizens have signed in, the Mayor may ask that testimony be kept to around 2 minutes.) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: NV/5�� ,2 5 cK Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: ■/c--Y2 Address 117 7 - 1 5 L L ) /? 5 C % 7 4 / 4 `E 0/W47 Ai City 7`7 State �( Zip 9 7 L 3 Phone No. . X3 3 4 7 - ?g'i/ Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AIS -1301 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Proclaim May 19 -25, 2013 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall Mayor Cook proclaim May 19 - 25, 2013 as Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Issue the proclamation honoring these public servants. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY National Emergency Medical Services Week brings together local communities and medical personnel to publicize safety and honor the dedication of those who provide the day -to -day lifesaving services of medicine's "front line." OTHER ALTERNATIVES Don't issue the proclamation. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council issued this proclamation last May - and in previous Mays for many years. Attachments EMS Week Proclamation 4 54) n c/a SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR _5/ /L/ / Di3 (DATE OF MEETING) Good evening Mayor and City Council members. My name is L` .c " ` and I'm a - at Metro West Ambulance. Metro West has been providing ambulance service in Oregon since 1953. I'm personally honored that you've trusted Metro West to serve your community and look forward to our continued relationship. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. EMS Week is May 19 -25th. This proclamation before the City of - 1 -tf 0.(CL Council is important to the many teams of EMS workers in -X As the providers of pre - hospital care in : 1(- , Metro West EMTs are part of a team of professionals providing emergency healthcare to your citizens. We feel honored that your community has entrusted us with the emergency care of your residents and strive every day to continue to earn your trust. Because of your commitment and support of EMS, Washington County enjoys one of the finest emergency healthcare systems in Oregon. Our EMS partners include fire personnel, police, and emergency room staff. Our goal is to meet the emergency needs of your community in a compassionate, timely, and professional manner. On behalf of all EMS workers in 0 \a' 4- , thank you for the proclamation and your continued support of emergency medical workers. I'd also like to take this opportunity to invite each of you to our EMS Celebration on Thursday May 23, at 300 pm at our Hillsboro office. Thank you again and have a great evening AI S -1293 5. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Receive and File: Council Calendar and Council Tentative Agenda Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Consent - Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and file the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda for future Council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action requested; this is a receive and file summary for information purposes. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Council Calendar and the Tentative agenda for future Council meetings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Long -Term Council Goals: Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A - Receive and File Items Attachments Three -month Council Calendar Tentative Agenda Agenda Item No. " A. I 11 a For Agenda of May 14. 2013 MEMORANDUM T I( AKF) TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council /City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Carol A. Krager, Deputy City Recorder RE: Three -Month Council /CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: May 7, 2013 May 6 Monday Budget Committee Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Public Works Auditorium 7 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting – Town Hall – 6:30 p.m. followed by a City Council Executive Session 14* Tuesday Council Business Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall 21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall 27 Monday Memorial Day – City Hall offices closed 28* Tuesday Council Business Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall June 4 Tuesday City Center Development Agency – 6:30 p.m., Red Rock Creek Conference Room 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 25* Tuesday Council Business Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall J 2 Tuesday City Center Development Agency – 6:30 p.m., Red Rock Creek Conference Room 4 Thursday Fourth of July Holiday – City Hall offices closed 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk ( *). I: \adm \city council \council calendar \ 3-month calendar for c mtg 130514.doc Agenda Item No. A - o; Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Meeting of !Y7 4 Pi o?. O /-3 Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated Form Meeting Submitted Meeting Inbox or # Date By Type Title Department Finalized I - l l 1220 05/13/2013 Cathy AAA Budget Committee Meeting; 6:30 p.m., Public Works Wheatley Auditorium I __ H 1123 05/14/2013 Carol Krager AAA May 14, 2013 City Council Business Meeting I _ l 1256 05/14/2013 Darren CCBSNS 45 Minutes - River Terrace Community Plan - Infrastructure ommunity 05/02/2013 yss Financing ID evelopment TL Ll I al . 1292 05/14/2013 Carol Krager CCBSNS Consent Item - Approve City Council Meeting Minutes City Management 05/02/2013 1293 05/14/2013 Carol Krager CCBSNS Consent Item - Receive and File: Council Calendar and City Management 05/02/2013 Council Tentative Agenda 1174 05/14/2013 Greer CCBSNS Consent Item - Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Public Works MartyW, City Gaston Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Manager Regarding the Construction of a Water Line to Serve River Terrace 1252 05/14/2013 Judith Gray CCBSNS Consent Item - Tigard /TriMet Application for New Transit Community 05/02/2013 Service on SW 72nd Avenue Development 1 I Page is \adm \carol \tentatv ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated 1280 05/14/2013 Joanne CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Award 2013 "If I Were Mayor" Contest Prize City Management 04/30/2013 Bengtson 1167 05/14/2013 Renee CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Consider a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Public Works 05/02/2013 Ferguson Property for the 72nd Avenue /Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvement Project 1241 05/14/2013 Joseph CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Public Hearing to Grant an Exemption from Financial and 05/02/2013 Barrett the Competitive Screening and Selection Process For the Information 72nd and Dartmouth Project Services 1202 05/14/2013 Carissa CCBSNS 15 Minutes - River Terrace Street Maintenance Fee Financial and 05/02/2013 Collins Information Services 1180 05/14/2013 Cheryl CCBSNS 60 Minutes - Community Development Code Amendment - Community 05/02/2013 Caines Parking Requirement Modifications Development 1289 05/14/2013 Toby CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Fiscal Year 2013 May Budget Supplemental Financial and 05/02/2013 LaFrance Information Services i II 1124 05/21/2013 !Carol KragerIAAA 1May 21, 2013 City Council Workshop Meeting 1 11 1158 1 05/21/2013 Alison CCWKSHOP 20 Minutes - Joint Meeting with the Library Board Library MartyW, City Grimes Manager 1137 05/21/2013 Judith Gray CCWKSHOP45 Minutes - SW Corridor Plan Update Community Gray J, Sr Development Transportation Planner 1257 5/21/2013 (Darren CWKSHO 30 Minutes - River Terrace Community Plan Update Community 1Wyss D, Senior I yss Development Planner 2 1 Page is \adm \carol \tentatv ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated 1275 05/21/2013 Cathy CCWKSHOP 55 Minutes - Strategic Planning Discussion City Management MartyW, City i l Wheatley Manager Total Time: 150 of 180 minutes have been scheduled I II 1125 105/28/2013 Carol Krager AAA May 28, 2013 City Council Business Meeting II II II I II 1272 05/28/2013 Sandy ACCSTUDY 20 Minutes - Executive Session: Labor Relations City Management 04/10/2013 Zodrow Total Time: 20 of 45 minutes have been scheduled I II 1261 05/28/2013 Loreen Mills CCBSNS 20 Minutes - Establish an Updated Renewal of PGE City Management 05/02/2013 I Franchise Agreement 1199 05/28/2013 John Floyd CCBSNS 40 Minutes - DCA2012 -00003 MASCO DEVELOPMENT CODE Community Floyd J, Associate I AMENDMENT Development Planner 1212 05/28/2013 Marissa CCBSNS 45 Minutes - Public Hearing: Tigard Goal 10 Population and Community Daniels M, Assoc. I Daniels Housing Review Development Planner 1126 06/04/2013 Carol Krager AA ]June 4, 2013 City Center Development Agency Meeting I II 1127 106/11/2013 Carol Krager AAA June 11, 2013 City Council Business Meeting 06/11/2013 Carol KragerACCSTUDY Walmart - Pending Study Session Item TBD 1291 06/11/2013 Greer ACONSENT Consent Item - Consider a Resolution Amending Resolution Public Works Wright, M., PW Gaston No. 13 -18 Which Adjusted Solid Waste Rates Business Manager 3 I Page is \adm \carol \tentatv ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated !I 1213 06/11/2013 Cathy CCBSNS 15 Minutes - State of the Tualatin Valley Fire District Administrative 1Wheatley C, City Wheatley Presentation - Chief Mike Duyck Services Recorder 1223 06/11/2013 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Resolution Certifying that the City of Tigard Financial and Lutz L, Conf Exec Provides Services Qualifying for State - Shared Revenues Information Asst Services 1224 06/11/2013 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Financial and Lutz L, Conf Exec Receive State Revenue Sharing Information Asst Services 1225 06/11/2013 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Resolution Adopting the Citywide Master Fees Financial and Lutz L, Conf Exec and Charges Schedule replacing Resolution 12 -22 and All Information Asst Subsequent Amendments to Date Services 1226 06/11/2013 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 15 Minutes - Public Hearing- Adopting the Budget, Making Financial and Lutz L, Conf Exec Appropriations, Declaring the Ad Valorem Tax Levy, and Information Asst Classifying the Levy As Provided Services 1227 06/11/2013 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Public Hearing- Adopting the City Center Financial and Lutz L, Conf Exec Development Agency Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Budget, Information Asst Making Appropriations, and Imposing and Categorizing Services Taxes 1242 06/11/2013 John Floyd CCBSNS 45 Minutes - Development Code Amendment - Wetlands Community Floyd 3, Associate I Exemption Development Planner fl 11128 lI06/18/2013 11Carol KrageriIAAA (tune 18, 2013 City Council Workshop Meeting 11 11 11 I - - II 1085 06/18/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 30 Minutes - Review Draft Sustainability Plan Public Works right, M., PW Gaston Business Manager 4 I Page is \adm \carol \tentaty ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ . Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated 1273 06/18/2013 Kristie CCWKSHOP 90 Minutes - Discuss Naming Policy, Park Reservation Public Works Rager B, Asst. PW Peerman Preferences, Agreement with SSC and TTL, Park Bond Director Status 1283 06/18/2013 John Floyd CCWKSHOP 25 Minutes - Briefing on Creation of new Parks Zoning Community Floyd J, Associate District Development Planner 1284 06/18/2013 Tom CCWKSHOP 15 Minutes - Briefing on Upcoming Development Code Community McGuire, T, Asst I McGuire Update Projects Development CD Director 1287 06/18/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 20 Minutes - Briefing on the City's Continuity of Operations Public Works Lueck M, Gaston Plan (COOP) Emergency Coordinator ----II 1129 06/25/2013 Carol Krager AAA June 25, 2013 City Council Business Meeting - No Study Session Items scheduled as of 5/6/2013 I -- II 1288 06/25/2013 Greer ACONSENT Consent Item - Consider a Resolution Adopting the City's Public Works Gaston G, Conf I Gaston Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) Executive Asst I _. II 1169 06/25/2013 Kristie CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Public Works Berry G, Project I Peerman Property for Derry Dell Creek Culvert Replacement Project Engineer 1260 06/25/2013 Judith Gray CCBSNS 30 Minutes - Update on Initial Recommendation from Community Gray J, Sr Southwest Corridor Plan Steering Committee Development Transportation Planner 1282 06/25/2013 Kent Wyatt CCBSNS 20 Minutes - Public Hearing - Consider an Ordinance City Management Wyatt K, Amending the Tigard Municipal Code to Authorize Social Management Gaming Analyst 5 I Page i:\adm\carol\tentatv ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 5/6/2013 1:13 PM - Updated Total Time: 60 of 100 minutes have been scheduled 1128 07/18/2013 Carol Krager AAA July 16, 2013 City Council Workshop Meeting 1237 07/16/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 15 Minutes - Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan Projects Public Works Stone Mike, City Gaston Engineer 1290 07/16/2013 John CCWKSHOP60 Minutes - Willamette River Water Supply Options and Public Works Goodrich J, Utility Goodrich Analysis - Regional Partnership Opportunities Div Manager Total Time: 75 of 180 minutes have been scheduled 07/23/2013 Carol Krager AAA July 23, 2013 City Council Business Meeting - No Study Session or Consent Items scheduled as of 5/6/2013 1274 07/23/2013 Kristie CCBSNS 20 Minutes - Consider a Resolution to Adopt the Westside Public Works Peerman, K, Sr. I Peerman Trail Master Plan Admin. Spec. [Total Time: 20 of 100 minutes have been scheduled 6 I Page is \adm \carol \tentatv ag \2013 \may 6 2013.docx AIS -1292 5. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/.1 COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments March 19, 2013 Minutes March 26, 2013 Minutes April 9, 2013 Minutes April 16, 2013 Minutes April 23, 2013 Minutes AIS -1174 5• C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Regarding the Construction of a Water Line to Serve River Terrace Prepared For: Rob Murchison Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the council authorize the mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington County regarding the construction of a water line to serve River Terrace? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff respectively recommends the mayor execute the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The council was briefed on a draft version of this IGA at its April16, 2013, workshop meeting. Significant terms of the agreement remain the same; there were no substantive changes between the draft IGA and the final IGA now before council. • Washington County plans to reconstruct and widen the section of Scholls Ferry Road from Roy Rogers Road to the Walnut Street /Murray Road intersection. • The city needs to install approximately 2,600 feet of water line under a section of Scholls Ferry Road from Roy Rogers Road to Barrows Road. This water line will eventually become part of the distribution system that will supply water to River Terrace. • The county's project area for roadwork overlaps the city's project area for the water line. • The attached IGA incorporates the city's water line project into the county's roadwork project. This allows the city to avoid excavating the new Scholls Ferry Road roadbed in the future —an activity that would not be viewed favorably by the county due to their roadway cut moratorium. And, when compared to constructing the roadwork and water line separately, combining projects will save money and reduce the number and duration of disruptions for motorists and area residents. • The IGA outlines city and county responsibilities. In general, the county will construct, contract and manage the construction of both projects; this is similar to other agreements the city has entered into with the state and the county. The city will design, fund and inspect the construction of the water line project. • The attached IGA has been reviewed and approved as to form by the city attorney. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could choose to: 1. Not enter into the IGA and could construct the water line at a later date. 2. Direct staff to look at additional alternatives or pursue some other course of action. 3. Direct staff to re- negotiate the IGA to pursue a different allocation of project responsibilities and /or funding. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Not applicable DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The council was briefed on this IGA at its April 16, 2013, workshop meeting. Fiscal Impact Cost: $1.45 million Budgeted (yes or no): Proposed * Where Budgeted (department /program): Water CIP Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The estimated cost of water line construction and county administrative services, as outlined in the IGA, is $805,000. Additional monies will be needed to cover project design and city staffing costs (project manager, inspector, etc.). The total water related costs for the project is budgeted at $900,000. In addition, there are $550,000 of sanitary sewer related costs related to serving River Terrace, bringing the total project cost up to the listed $1.45 million. * The proposed 2013 -2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes $900,000 to construct this water line over FY 2013 and FY 2014. Depending on the timing of construction by Washington County, appropriations may need to be carried forward from FY 2013 to FY 2014. This dollar amount will be sufficient to fund the city's share of the project, including staff time to manage the city's interest in the project. Attachments IGA AIS -1252 5• D. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Tigard / TriMet Application for New Transit Service on SW 72nd Avenue Submitted By: Judith Gray, Community Development Consent - Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should the City Council approve the City of Tigard's partnership application with TriMet for a Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant application to provide new transit service in the SW 72nd Avenue corridor? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that the City Council approve the grant application. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY TriMet recently approached Tigard with an opportunity to pursue funds for future new transit service along SW 72nd Avenue. They asked that Tigard be a co- applicant on a Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program application. TriMet would provide the local match and would also be the service provider. The City of Tigard would not be providing local funds, administering a contract, or otherwise committing city resources. The JARC program provides federal transportation funds geared toward providing access to jobs, with an emphasis on serving entry level jobs and low income riders. As the program administrator, TriMet has always allocated the funds based on a competitive grant process. However, they have the authority to keep and administer the funds themselves, provided expenditures meet the JARC program objectives. The SW 72nd Avenue presents such an opportunity. The current JARC funds would likely not be enough to begin new service right away, but this application could enable TriMet to set aside a portion of funds now for new service. This would be included in future service planning, especially the upcoming Southwest Corridor Service Enhancement Plan. TriMet is hoping that new service could start in late 2014. Before any new service would be started, there will be extensive outreach to determine details of routes, stop locations, and schedules. However, it is assumed that the JARC funding would support service connecting the Tigard Transit Center; Tigard Triangle; and, Bridgeport Village, generally via SW 72nd Avenue. A memo summarizing the proposal was provided to Council before the application was submitted (attached). OTHER ALTERNATIVES n/a COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS • Will support transit service enhancement planning associated with the Southwest Corridor Plan. • Supports efforts to reduce traffic congestion by providing improved transit options. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION None Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: None Attachments Memorandum to Council " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Cook and City Council From: Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner Re: Potential Transit Grant Opportunity Date: February 28, 2013 cc: Marty Wine, City Manager TriMet recently approached Tigard with an opportunity to pursue new transit service along SW 72nd Avenue and have asked that Tigard partner with them as a co- applicant on a Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program application. TriMet would provide the local match and would also be the service provider. The City of Tigard would not be providing local funds, administering a contract, or otherwise committing city resources. However, due to the combined schedule constraints of the application process and Council agendas, it is necessary for us to submit the grant application before fully briefing you on the application. It is necessary to submit an application at this time in order to remain eligible and meet application requirements. I have asked Liz Newton to provide the signature. I am scheduled to have this item for your consideration at your April 9 meeting if you wish to have more information. Job Access and Reverse Commute Program The JARC program provides federal transportation funds geared toward providing access to jobs, with an emphasis on entry level jobs and low income riders. As the program administrator, TriMet has always allocated the funds based on a competitive grant process. However, they are not required by the JARC program to do this and they are able to keep and administer the funds themselves, provided it meets the JARC program objectives. TriMet knows that transit service is limited in the employment area of SW 72nd Avenue and they have determined that new service in the corridor would be consistent with JARC objectives. Community Input In order to get some initial community input, TTAC held a special meeting last night and invited guests from TriMet, Tualatin, and the Westside Transportation Alliance to discuss the opportunity, priorities, and potential limitations of the grant period. While there are limitations to this opportunity — only 8 service hours per day and no guarantee of future funding — TTAC members were unanimous in their strong support. In particular, one of our members, general manager of the Tigard Fred Meyer, was certain that his associates would consider the service valuable. If this grant is awarded, there will be extensive outreach to determine details of routes, stop locations, and schedules. However, it is assumed that service would connect the Tigard Transit Center; Tigard Triangle; and, Bridgeport Village, generally via SW 72 Avenue. Timeline Applications for the grant are due February 28 and awards will be made in early April. At this stage, an intergovernmental agreement would be developed that would clarify roles and obligations. Again, Tigard is not anticipating a commitment of funds, service delivery, or program administration. AIS -1280 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Tide: Award 2013 "If I Were Mayor" Contest Prize Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Council Business Meeting - Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 1 J Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook recognize and award student artist, Max Plaster, for his winning poster entry in the Oregon Mayor's Association annual "If I Were Mayor" contest. The prize is a $50 Visa gift card. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Award the prize. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Mayor John Cook will present a $50 gift certificate to Max Plaster, a student at Scholls Heights Elementary School, for his original poster submitted in the 2013 "If I Were Mayor" student contest sponsored by the Oregon Mayors Association (OMA). Mr. Plaster will be accompanied to the Council meeting by his mom Deedie Plaster for the presentation. Although he lives in Tigard, the location of his home places him in the Beaverton School District as a student at Scholls Heights Elementary School. There were no successful applications submitted in the Middle School Essay and High School Video categories. Mr. Plaster's poster will be entered into the statewide contest for a chance to win one of three new laptop computers from the OMA. Statewide winners will be notified (along with their Mayor) in mid June. The statewide winners and their parents will be invited to the OMA Annual Conference luncheon in Corvallis on Saturday, July 27, to be recognized and receive their prizes. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not award a prize in any of the three categories. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The Mayor of Tigard has participated in this annual contest since it began in 2007. Fiscal Impact Cost: 56.00 Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department /program): 100/0500 Additional Fiscal Notes: Three $50 gift cards were budgeted for, but the Mayor did not receive winning entries in two of the three categories. There is a $6 service fee attached to the purchase of a $50 Visa Gift Card. Attachments 2013 If I Were Mayor Contest Poster Winner 2013 If I Were Mayor Contest Winner's Application Pilior ___ 1 Li 7 1 00 eticoirok.50, ' I t - le - ' roPor.6;1310 bu'isneests , i V9j (;‘ki •\\ t ,---------- , / ',',. 4, • / _ ..... , 0 4111P .„ . tif s 0 NI" )0\o„ . • 0 is tVIA to„,A ' Oh f o• '‘§k?. 0-•- .... • 0 1) p It cJese '11111 ..... r_ ___ iii. ..-It -es . ) i l! ri7 _ k 7 ... _..... 4 - OFFICIAL ENTRY FORM (Must accompany EVERY contest entry) 2073 Student Poster /Essay /Video /PowerPoint Contest it it What does a mayor do? Oregon mayors are elected by the voters in their city to serve as the chair of the city's governing body — the city council. They are the recognized civic leader in the eyes of the community and the person who represents their city to other governments and individuals. The mayor presides over council meetings and participates in discussions. Depending on the city's charter (the equivalent of a constitution), the mayor may also appoint committees to study public policy (in areas such as parks, transportation, community planning, libraries, traffic safety, etc.) with council approval, and sign ordinances and other records approved by the council. JUDGING CRITERIA: Local judging will be conducted by Tigard Mayor Cook. Statewide judging will be conducted by a panel of mayors. In selecting the winners, the judges will consider: Creativity— Does the student demonstrate curiosity and originality? Clarity/Sincerity of Thought— Is the submission well thought out and organized? �,' Proper Use of Grammar— Does the submission contain proper spelling, grammar and punctuation? Subject Relevancy — Are the major points relevant to the role of a government leader? Does the student demonstrate an understanding of municipal government and the job of mayor? � � C A C- S) — 7 \ Home address: 3. 5�4,32 Student name: � Home phone: 5c NC 3 v`� oI y rD vi Lucy y City /state /zip: (A Y Dr C) n ` 7 Z 2:5 School: .JCi �''�O J e t Sponsoring teacher: nvy Name of parent/guardian: 176 (e) 1I a VY Email: - 0 1 6 VIA d''( 1710-14, I �� Signature of parent/guardian: (required for students under age 18) / L� � )t VERIFICATION STATEMENT I hereby verify that the �work enclosed was produced by the student whose name appears on this entry form. Signature: l` 7�t' 'IP7 Win Print name: D &�i`� I - 1 2 1 ,4 11 - W Relationship (parent/guardian, teacher): M ` (2-11 -6K _ Submissions (must be accompanied by a completed entry form and received no later than 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2013. CONTESTANT LAST NAME: 1 LA - ieT CITY REPRESENTED: Tigard, OR CITY OF TIGARD APPLICANTS ONLY: If you have questions, contact the Mayor's Executive Assistant Joanne Bengtson at Joanne © tgard- or.gov or 503 718 - 2476. AIS -1167 7 Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property for the 72nd Avenue /Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvement Project Prepared For: Mike Stone Submitted By: Renee Ferguson, Public Works Council Business Meeting - Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the council adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire certain real property and easements for the 72nd Avenue /Dartmouth Street intersection improvement project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Current Project The 'current' project, as outlined in the current 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), contains the following description: "This project will fund a reimbursement district to signalize the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street. The intersection is currently configured as an "all way stop" and is one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Tigard." The project envisioned the construction of a traffic control signal (conditioned on the Wal Mart development) matching the existing limited travel /turn lane configurations. This project would not construct pedestrian or bike lane linkages to the south. Current project budget: $1.46M. Proposed Project Expansion The 'expanded' project, as illustrated in the current Transportation System Master Plan (TSP), envisions additional widening of this intersection with continued development which would necessitate the relocation of the traffic control signal as currently planned at some time in the future. After considering the increases in background traffic volumes since the approval of the original Target land use application (now Wal Mart) and the anticipated impacts of the turn limitations along 99W (also conditioned on Wal Mart), Staff is now recommending that the traffic control signal be installed in the 'ultimate TSP location', an additional section of 72nd be widened to the south to provide for immediate additional intersection capacity and temporary ped /bike connections be constructed to the residential areas lying to the south. The 'expanded' project would provide some temporary relief until the remaining section of 72nd (which was not conditioned on Wal Mart to construct) to Beveland is completed in future CIPs. Proposed project budget: $2.65M. While there is sufficient funding to cover the current project cost expenditures for the current fiscal year, additional funding will be necessary in the next budget cycle should the Council wish to proceed. Staff is recommending that the significant portion of the increased costs be secured by using a portion of the City's Gas Tax revenue. Staff requested that the TTAC, at it's April 3, 2013 meeting, forward such a recommendation to the Council for this approach and that request was granted. Since the original project description envisions seeking reimbursement for the construction costs associated with the additional capacity generated at the intersection from future development in the area, it follows that the costs associated with the 'expanded' project would follow in a similar manner. The Resolution of Necessity In order to construct the improvements under either alternative, the city needs to acquire certain real property and easements for the proposed work from adjacent property owners. The city's standard practice is to negotiate with each property owner and purchase the property at fair price. However, as a last resort, it is sometimes necessary to acquire property and easements via condemnation. If there is a possibility that condemnation may be required, the federal property acquisition process dictates that a resolution of necessity be adopted before negotiations begin. The city follows the federal process to ensure it will qualify for federal funding opportunities now and in the future. If Council adopts the resolution of necessity, the city (or the city's agent) will enter into negotiations with the property owners to buy the required easements and properties, or portions of the properties, at the appraised value. Should negotiations prove unsuccessful, the resolution authorizes the city to proceed with condemnation. However, prior to filing any actual condemnation proceedings, Staff would return to Council for a briefing on the process to date. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Council could choose to adopt the attached resolution of necessity allowing the 'expanded' project to proceed forward. Alternatively, the Council could choose to proceed with the 'original' project which would have significantly less right -of -way /easements needs and Staff would return with a modified resolution of necessity. Failure to acquire the properties for either alternative will affect the city's ability to construct either project which would likely lead to significant traffic delays in the area once Wal Mart opens its doors. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS The 'expanded' project is included in the city's Transportation System Plan. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The Council was briefed on the resolution of necessity for the 'expanded' project in executive session on January 22, 2013. Fiscal Impact Cost: $2,650,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Partial * Where Budgeted (department /program): Multiple Funds Additional Fiscal Notes: * The 2012 -2013 CIP contains $1,405,000 of Gas Tax and Traffic Impact Fee Funds for the original project. This included $100,000 for property acquisition. Funding for FY 2013 -2014 has yet to be adopted. Funding for the expanded $2.65 million project is included in the proposed 2014 -2018 CIP, with $815,000 from the Gas Tax Fund, $165,000 from the Transportation Development Tax Fund, $520,000 from the Trafic Impact Fee Fund, $150,000 from the Utility Undergrounding Fund and $1,000,000 from the City Gas Tax Fund, as recommeded by the T1AC. The estimated cost to acquire easements and rights of way for the expanded project is $600,000. Attachments Resolution Exhibits to Resolution 72nd Dartmouth Map of Required Easements and Right of Way Acquisitions 72nd Dartmouth Preliminary Design Proposed Right -of -Way and Easement Acquisitions I / / ( / � _ _ SW 72nd Ave. & SW Dartmouth St. / r� ; -- - Intersection Improvements , i 1 ' ! 1 January 8, 2013 IDafteeen - - - -- rlcnkn i - - � 1 / I 1NHPacc IY Way 1 r ' 1 I , n , SW S� a, I e t , I �__- --- - - ----- -- I , __J , r r r i 1 ,f if r iII 1 I LI ' 1 I 1 - + I ; l I — ! ,' . " I I ---) ' - ' r • + 1 r r 1 M sW72 F . i — - --t--1-1-___.-------1) I r _, _ _____. . r - I I I � r 1 - -= I I l I I 4 1 ' Future Ultimate I Right -of -Way line — 1 �'�l SW EI St. ' _ - —Right Al i — — —— I ! I i I Proposed Acquisitions I I j Nom Z -' Entire Property Note: This exhibit shows the base right- of-way I • , and easements needed to construct the : 1 ; """° Right -of -Way improvements. Public utility easements and 1 SCALE additional temporary construction easements ( Ell Slope Easements may be needed beyond what is shown on these I 100 0 50 100 Temporary Construction Easements properties. I , ( FEET ) ' r , I 1 INCH = 100 FT. I� 1 1 t l / , t ' J 11 J —J Proposed Design I P SW 72nd Ave. & SW Dartmouth St. , — J J Intersection Improvements AO '~- January S, 2013 / � D 1 r iii ,— _ I ,� r , ,� J � - - - - -- WHPacific I I' 1 I iii i J i i ■ � i • I ' : ' J • - ' 4111! DMINIIIIIIIIMII1 i s...... , r __- --- � I I I ' .. I I I L i I I - ' I ' i i I I r -- + I i i I 10 a , , 1 , . : 1 ,_______ ,_______i_____, i , 1 1 . 1 1 , 1 t F --- -- --___ : r— , e ; I , I Legend: I ∎ Z t� — — — Proposed Curb I Proposed back of sideawlk , SCALE — •— • —• —•— Proposed cut limit I — 100 0 50 100 — • — • Proposed fill limit o 0 0 = Proposed tree wefts ( FEET i I I INCH= 100 FT. i I AIS -1241 8. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Public Hearing to Grant an Exemption from the Competitive Screening and Selection Process For the 72nd and Dartmouth Project Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Local �y� Contract Reso'h on n DU Review Item Type: Public Hearing - Informational Meeting Type: Board Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Yes Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 03/26/2013 Information ISSUE Shall the Shall the Local Contract Review Board grant an exemption from the competitive selection process, as allowed under Public Contracting Rule 10.110, for engineering services on the 72nd and Dartmouth Intersection /Street Improvement project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board grant an exemption to the competitive selection process, as allowed under Public Contracting Rule 10.110, which will allow staff to amend a current contract for engineering services on the 72nd and Dartmouth Intersection /Street Improvement project to a total of $205,302. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In the summer of 2012, the city entered into a contract to WHPacific, Inc. for engineering services to complete the design of a traffic signal and associated improvements to the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street. The total cost of the design work was $97,240 and was let under a direct appointment as allowed by Tigard Public Contracting Rule 70.015.C.1.b. Under a previous contract, preliminary design work had taken the 731d /Dartmouth intersection to roughly 60% level. WHPacific's charge under the new contract was to take this 60% design and flesh it out to 100% complete bid documents, so the city could bid and award the intersection project. A large development on Dartmouth Street had been approved a few years ago, and one of the conditions attached to the development is to install a traffic signal (but no other improvements) at the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street. The city learned in 2012 that this development would move forward with Walmart as its primary store. With Walmart required to construct the signal, the city's design effort changed to focus on the street improvements (instead of the signal) and coordinating with Walmart's engineer so that the signal equipment will be put in the right place for the future road improvements. Meanwhile, the city has been aware the need for a project to widen 72nd Avenue through its currently narrow section south of Dartmouth Street. The Walmart development will add a significant amount of traffic in this area, increasing the need to complete this project. Engineering staff have worked with WHPacific, within the current contract to a) coordinate with Walmart's engineer by provide the road design information necessary for the signal, and b) provide conceptual design of a project to widen 731d Avenue to its planned width south of Dartmouth Street, including a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk north of Beveland Street. WHPacific is finishing up this work, and city staff has been pleased with their work. Continuation the work in the area, with a new focus by the city on the needed street improvements rather than the traffic signal, would require the city to conduct new solicitation unless an exemption, as allowed under Tigard Public Contracting Rule 10.110 is granted. Staff has determined that an exemption is a good fit for this project as WHPacific has satisfactorily completed (and completed well) the preliminary design of this project and their coordination history with Walmart's engineers may make it very difficult to conceive of other company being seen as more qualified through a Request for Proposal, be it formal or informal, process. Staff believes the cost involved both from a city standpoint as well as from that of potential vendors, could be better utilized elsewhere. Additional information and findings regarding this exemption are detailed in the attached memorandum. The total cost of the additional work is $108,062, bringing the total contract price to $205,302. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject this request and direct staff to utilize either an informal or formal qualification based Request for Proposal process for the work. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has seen this request for an exemption. The original contract was entered into in the summer of 2012. -- - - - - - Fiscal Impact Cost: $205,302 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted ?: Multiple Additional Fiscal Notes: This project was original let for $97,240 and was for the traffic signal and associated improvements. Now that the scope of the project changed to street improvements (with Walmart taking care of the traffic signal) staff is requesting an additional $108,062. This brings the total contract amount to $205,302. Funding source for this design agreement is the Gas Tax Fund in FY 2012 -2013. The project, which will begin construction in FY 2013 -2014, has a total cost of $2.65 million and is pending adoption of the FY 2013 -2014 budget. The funding sources include the Gas Tax, City Gas Tax, Traffic Impact Fee, Underground Utility, and Transportation Development Tax Funds. Attachments Findings Memo - 72nd Dartmouth " City of Ti III ■ Y and g T I G A RD Memorandum To: Toby LaFrance, Finance Director From: Mike Stone, City Engineer Re: 72' Avenue / Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvements — Design Contract Date: April 16, 2013 Summary WHPacific, Inc. was hired in 2012 to complete the design of a traffic signal and associated improvements to the intersection of 72n Avenue with Dartmouth Street at a design cost of $97,240. A pending development ( Walmart) will significantly change transportation conditions in this area. We are requesting an exemption from the Local Contract Review Board in accordance with Tigard Public Contracting Rule 10.110 to allow this design contract to be expanded to $205,302 in order to widen 72n Avenue and add sidewalks through its narrow section south of Dartmouth Street. The Original Project The original $1.4 million project, as outlined in the 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), was to construct a traffic signal and related turn lanes at the intersection of 72nd Avenue with Dartmouth Street. However, the Walmart development will be constructing the traffic signal as a condition of development. While the city will still need to construct the turn lanes and intersection street improvements, it will not need to fund the installation of the traffic signal. The Proposed Project Expansion The section of 72nd Avenue south of Dartmouth Street is very narrow. It lacks sidewalks along some segments; this causes pedestrians to walk in busy vehicle travel lanes. Traffic volumes will increase significantly with the new Walmart development; this will exacerbate the issues associated with this narrow section of roadway. (It was not feasible to require Walmart to widen this section of 72nd Avenue, as the traffic it will generate did not exceed the capacity threshold). Due to Walmart's investment in the signal, staff will propose, (in the 2014 -2018 CIP), to use funds from the original project, along with $1.4 million in additional funding, to: • Widen 72nd Avenue to its design width and construct sidewalks along 72nd from Dartmouth Street south to just before the intersection with Hermosa Way. • Add a right turn lane on Dartmouth Street approaching 72nd Avenue to enhance traffic flow. • Construct a sanitary sewer line under 72nd Avenue so adjacent, unserved properties can be served without tearing up the new road in the future. • Construct the turn lanes and intersection street improvements from the original project. • Provide a continuous sidewalk along 72nd Avenue from Dartmouth Street across the Highway 217 interchange. The expanded project will leverage Walmart's multi- million dollar investment in street improvements and expand the transportation benefits by helping alleviate the traffic congestion and improve pedestrian safety along 72nd Avenue. The Exemption Need WHPacific, Inc. was hired in 2012 to complete CIP project # 95035, the design of a traffic signal and associated improvements to the intersection of 72n Avenue with Dartmouth Street at a design cost of $97,240. In accordance with Tigard Public Contracting Rule 70.015C.1.b., they were appointed to do this work as a continuation of previous preliminary design work they had done for the 72n /Dartmouth intersection to bring this project design to about a 60% level. Their initial task was to take this 60% design and flesh it out to 100% complete bid documents, so the city could bid and award the intersection project. A large development on Dartmouth Street had been approved a few years ago, and one of its conditions is to install a traffic signal (but no other improvements) at the intersection of 72n Avenue and Dartmouth Street. The city learned in 2012 that this development is moving forward again, with Walmart as its primary store. With Walmart required to construct the signal, the city's design effort changed to focus on the street improvements (instead of the signal) and coordinating with Walmart's engineer so that the signal equipment will be put in the right place for the future road improvements. Meanwhile, the city has been aware of the need for a project to widen 72n Avenue through its currently narrow section south of Dartmouth Street. While this has been a high priority project, it has not yet received funding. The Walmart development will add a significant amount of traffic in this area, increasing the need to complete this project. Engineering staff have worked with WHPacific, within the current contract to a) coordinate with Walmart's engineer by provide the road design information necessary for the signal, and b) provide conceptual design of a project to widen 72n Avenue to its planned width south of Dartmouth Street, including a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk north of Beveland Street. WHPacific is finishing up this work, and city staff have been pleased with their work. Tigard Public Contracting Rules Section 70.015 would require that the city conduct a competitive Request For Proposals (RFP) process to choose a consultant to complete the design of this project. Typical primary factors in an RFP process include experience on similar projects in the area, and knowledge of the project to be completed. The fact that WHPacific has completed (and completed well) the preliminary design of this project makes it very difficult to conceive of another company being seen as more qualified through this RFP process. When consultants respond to an RFP, they put significant cost and effort into preparing their proposal. It is our desire to be respectful of the time and effort of the private engineering community. We believe it would not be right to put out an RFP that would cause them to invest significant time and effort on a proposal when, by virtue of project - specific experience, it is already clear that a particular company is most qualified for this project. In addition, any other firm would need to spend considerable time (and thus expense) learning the project knowledge that the WHPacific team already has. For these reasons, we are requesting an exemption from the Local Contract Review Board in accordance with Tigard Public Contracting Rule 10.110 to allow this design contract to be expanded to $205,302 in order to widen 72 Avenue and add sidewalks through its narrow section south of Dartmouth Street. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ��"- -1 I ao I Benda f- e+^r1. (DATE OF MEETING) LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE SCREENING & SELECTION PROCESS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ON THE 72 AND DARTMOUTH TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, in July 2012, the city awarded a contract to WHPacific, Inc. in the amount of $97,240 for engineering design services for the 72n and Dartmouth traffic signal and street improvement project; and WHEREAS, the traffic signal and intersection improvements will now be completed by Wal -Mart, who is developing the area for a new retail store; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that additional engineering design services are necessary for the project as it has shifted from traffic signal and associated intersection improvements to street improvements to widen 72n Avenue through its currently narrow section south of Dartmouth; and WHEREAS, these additional services are estimated at $108,062 for a contract total of $205,302, and WHEREAS, staff has further determined that it will be cost - effective for the city to utilize the service of the current consultant to perform the required extra services; and WHEREAS, these extra services will require an amendment to the existing contract between the city and consultant; and WHEREAS; the issuance of an amendment to the existing contract requires an exemption from the city's competitive screening & selection process as allowed under Public Contracting Rule 10.110; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Local Contract Review Board that: SECTION 1: An individual exemption to the competitive screening and selection process is granted under Public Contracting Rule 10.110 allowing for an amendment to the contract between the city and WHPacific, Inc. for $108,062 on the 72n and Dartmouth traffic signal and street improvements project. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2013. Local Contract Review Board Chair — City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder — City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 13- 1 Page AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: May 14, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the Local Contract Review Board on: GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE 72 AVENUE & DARTMOUTH STREET PROJECT Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: May 14, 2013 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. bY Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Ph e No I Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AIS -1202 9. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace Street Maintenance Fee Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Carissa Collins, Financial and Information Services Motion Requested Resolution Special Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Meeting Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Yes Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 05/06/2013 Information ISSUE A resolution that will allow the deferrel of street maintenance fees for River Terrace until July 1, 2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the resolution to defer Street Maintenance Fee charges for all River Terrace properties until July 1, 2016. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Recently, it was discovered that the Tigard Municipal Code 15.20.090(1)(a) specifically states the following: "Street maintenance fees imposed under this chapter shall apply to all occupied units, occupied units owned and /or occupied by local, state and federal governments, as well as property which may be entitled to exemption from or deferral of ad valorem property taxation." As a result, the code currently mandates that all River Terrace properties are to be charged a street maintenance fee. However, on October 3, 2012, a resolution was approved by council authorizing the deferral of property taxes for all River Terrace properties until completion of the River Terrace Community Plan. This resolution was approved in order to avoid charging these properties urban level fees until their properties are able to be developed. Because the community plan is expected to be completed in the Spring of 2015, and in order to maintain the spirit of intent of this resolution, staff recommends that deferral of all taxes and fees be authorized for River Terrace until July 1, 2016. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Charge street maintenance fees as stated in Tigard Municipal Code 15.20.090(1)(a). COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/A Fiscal Impact Cost: $0.00 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department /program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: By waiving the fee in the River Terrace area, the city will fore go approximately $2,600 in revenue that would have supported the pavement management program. Attachments Resolution AGENDA ITEM No. 9 May 14, 2013 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEES FOR RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA PROPERTIES UNTIL JULY 1, 2016 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 9 May 14, 2013 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. • • Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AIS -1180 10. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Community Development Code Amendment - Parking Requirement Modifications Submitted By: Cheryl Caines, Community Development Council Business Ordinance Meeting - Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Yes Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 04/18/2013 Information ISSUE The applicant proposes to lower the minimum parking ratio requirements for certain uses (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales- Oriented Retail and Personal Services — banks with drive through) and lower the minimum percentages required for primary, secondary, etc. uses in mixed -use or multi- tenant developments. The purpose is to allow greater opportunities for the leasing or expansion of existing structures and businesses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the City Council support the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the proposed development code amendment, as amended by staff and the Planning Commission. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard minimum parking ratios were adopted in 1998 and are based upon upper limit minimum ratios found in Metro's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Tigard parking code regulations are imposed for new construction, expansion of existing uses, and changes of use. The applicant states that the current minimum parking ratios are preventing some existing structures from being occupied and some existing businesses from expanding, within particular multi- tenant or mixed -use developments. Not allowing expansions or changes of use can negatively impact economic development. At the same time, adequate on -site parking is necessary to prevent overflow parking into adjacent residential areas and other commercial development. Staff is aware of the concerns of business and property owners and also recognizes that the current minimum parking requirements may be too high. Ideally the city would complete a comprehensive review and amendment of the Development Code Off - Street Parking chapter that includes review of the minimum parking ratios as recommended by the Tigard Transportation System Plan. However that review is not expected to occur in the next year or more. This does not meet the immediate needs of the applicant and other business and property owners in Tigard. Therefore, the applicant has proposed this code amendment. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposal with a few amendments. The amendments included slightly higher ratios than those requested by the applicant for restaurants and no change to the ratio for banks. Planning Commission supported this "meet in the middle" approach that conservatively lowers the minimum parking requirements as an interim step until a comprehensive review of the entire parking code chapter can be completed. Commissionefs recommended adding the term "commercial" to the language regarding mixed use and multi-tenant developments to ensure sufficient parking will be provided in mixed use developments with a residential component. Staff is recommending additional minor amendments for clarification and to improve implementation. Specific details on these minor amendments can be found with the proposed language in the draft ordinance (Attachment 1). OTHER ALTERNATIVES Other alternatives include adopting the code as requested by the applicant, adopting the code as amended by City Council, or denying the request and making no modification to the current code. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS The Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) recommends a review and update of the Development Code off - street parking requirements to implement TSP Goal 1 (Transportation and Land Use Planning Coordination). However the proposal it for a citywide amendment to selected minimum parking requirements, while the TSP suggests a comprehensive review that includes densities, land uses, and multi-modal transportation options. An ancillary impact of the change in minimum parking requirements is that it may cause a recalculation of the Street Maintenance Fee. Commercial /industrial properties are charge the fee based on required parking spaces as a proxy for the number of trips the business generates on Tigard roads. The fee is calculated by allocating the costs of the pavement management program between commercial /industrial and residential properties based on criteria set in TMC 15.20.050. The portion allocated to commercial /industrial properties is then divided by the number of required parking spaces to determine the fee per required space. If the number of required parking spaces is decreased, the fee per space will increase, if all other variables remain constant. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION None Attachments Draft Ordinance Exhibit A - Proposed Code Exhibit B - Staff Report Exhibit C - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Applicant's Materials PowerPoint Presentation Agenda Item: Hearing Date: April 1, 2013 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2013 -00001 PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales- Oriented Retail, and Personal Services — bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for mixed -use developments (18.765.030.D). APPLICANT: Killian Pacific APPLICANT'S Cardno WRG 500 E Broadway St., Suite 110 REP: 5415 SW Westgate Dr., Ste 100 Vancouver, WA 98660 Portland, OR 97221 ZONES: R -25 and R -40 residential zones and all commercial and industrial zones. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code section 18.380.030.B and; Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 4, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development Goal 12, Transportation; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 4 9, and 12. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment as amended by staff and with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. This recommended approval is contingent upon the applicant's submittal of parking counts showing the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. OFF PARKING MODIFICATIONS 1DC. \2013 -00001 4/1 /13 PUBLIC I11:. \RING, SI'.\NP REPORT1'O T111i PL (:O19M!ssIoN P.\(il'. 1 01' 9 SECTION III. PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant proposes to lower the minimum parking ratio requirements for certain uses (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales- Oriented Retail and Personal Services — banks with drive through) and lower the minimum percentages required for primary, secondary, etc. uses in mixed -use or multi- tenant developments. Current Tigard minimum parking ratios were adopted in 1998 and are based upon upper limit minimum ratios found in Metro's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Metro established minimum and maximum parking ratios to prevent an over - supply of parking, encourage compact development and more efficient use of land, promote non -auto trips, and protect air quality. The ratios adopted by the City were the highest "not to exceed" minimums established by Metro. Lower ratios could have been adopted. Tigard parking code regulations are imposed for new construction, expansion of existing uses, and changes of use. The applicant states that the current minimum parking ratios are preventing some existing structures from being occupied and some existing businesses from expanding, within particular multi- tenant or mixed -use developments. Therefore, the applicant is proposing code modifications that require less parking for future developments and allow for the lease /expansion of existing storefronts. For example, the applicant owns a multi- tenant development at the corner of Scholl's Ferry Road and Nimbus Avenue (10105 — 11105 SW Nimbus Avenue). There is an existing restaurant within the center that would like to expand, but there is not enough on -site parking to meet the current parking minimums with the mix of tenants, even with a parking adjustment. Business expansions or changes of use cannot be permitted within some existing developments due to inadequate parking to meet minimum standards; this does negatively impact economic development. At the same time, in 2010 the City received a complaint from residents abutting a commercial area that employees were being instructed to park in the neighborhood to vacate parking spaces for customers. Over time, the mix of uses had changed without City review and the parking demand had increased. This lack of parking spilled - over into the adjacent residential areas. In 2010, the City adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) that guides future transportation policies, strategies, and projects to meet expected growth. The TSP also provides the transportation goals and policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Goal 12). Goal 1 of the TSP is to develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. One of the recommended actions to implement Goal 1 is to review and update development code requirements for on -site parking. The TSP states that on -site parking is provided to protect surrounding land uses (such as neighboring residential areas and other commercial developments) from overflow parking impacts. Further, inadequate parking can contribute to traffic congestion at driveways, which can have impacts on the adjacent streets. However, too much available parking encourages single- occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. Parking also requires large paved areas, which negatively impact pedestrian travel, increase stormwater runoff, reduce development opportunities and increase development costs. Therefore, it is important to strive for a balance that prevents or reduces all of the potential negative impacts associated with parking while still ensuring an adequate supply. City staff area aware of the concerns of property owners, businesses and residents but also recognize that the minim parking requirements adopted in 1998 may not still be appropriate for Tigard. For these reasons, and to implement TSP Goal 1, a comprehensive review and amendment of the Development Code Off - Street Parking chapter has been scheduled when time and budgets permit (likely 2014). The TSP states that it is appropriate to reduce the parking minimums in some areas of the City as part of an overall transportation demand management strategy. This strategy should also include improved connectivity, transit and bike /pedestrian services, carpool services, and shared or public parking. A comprehensive review of the code and policies is ideal, but that does not meet the immediate needs of the applicant and other business and property owners in Tigard. Therefore, the applicant has proposed this code amendment. OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS DCA2013 -00001 4/1;13 PUBLIC IIEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 9 1 SECTION IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & ANALYSIS Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment as amended by staff and with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. This recommended approval is contingent upon the applicant's submittal of parking counts showing the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. Staff Analysis: The applicant has proposed a Citywide reduction of the minimum parking requirements for certain uses and for multi-use or multi- tenant developments. Information provided by the applicant compares the number of required parkin spaces for several multi- tenant developments under the current, and applicant's proposed ratios. In addition, the applicant compared Tigard parking ratios with several other Metro area jurisdictions and national average parking demand ratios from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. Like Tigard, many of the other jurisdictions adopted the highest minimum parking ratios recommended by Metro. Those that have different ratios fall within the following ranges. All are based on spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (gfa). Use Tigard Minimums Retail 3.7 spaces per 1,000 gfa 2 - 4 spaces per 1,000 gfa Banks w /drive through 4.3 per 1,000 gfa 2 - 4.1 per 1,000 gfa Fast Food 9.9 per 1,000 gfa 4 —10 per 1,000 gfa Other Restaurants 15.3 per 1,000 gfa 4 —13.3 per 1,000 gfa Some cities have even lower ratios for specific areas such as downtowns and multiple use zones. Similarly, parking ratios within Downtown Tigard are reduced by 25 °'o and no minimums are required for developments along Main Street and near the Tigard Transit Center. These reductions are not considered in this analysis since the development patterns and alternative travel modes are not similar to those in other parts of a suburban city. Staff contacted planners /directors in other jurisdictions to ask what analysis was done to determine these lower minimum parking ratios; due to staff changes or the time that had passed, some did not know. Hillsboro is currently undertaking a major code rewrite that includes amendments to the minimum parking ratios where staff experience indicates the ratios are too high or too low. None of the cities contacted reported major parking issues, and the comparison seems to show that parking ratios lower than Metro's minimums are working in suburban areas. However, parking codes do not address parking demands for the affected uses. To address this issue, the applicant provided data from the ITE manual ( xhibit E). ITE data is based upon national averages. This data supports the proposed retail ratio, but does not support the proposed bank ratio, and indicates that the proposed restaurant ratios are too low. Again, these numbers are national averages and may not reflect specific demands for these uses in Tigard. Therefore, staff is recommending that no amendments be approved prior to parking count data from the Tigard area being provided by the applicant that shows the minimum ratios are adequate to meet Tigard development parking demands. Based upon I'VE information, professional opinion, ratios from other jurisdictions, loss of economic opportunities, and TSP goals, staff agrees that the Tigard minimum parking ratios may be too high. However, the applicant has failed to provide documentation that the proposed numbers are adequate to meet parking demands in Tigard. Likewise, little information has been provided to support lowering parkin percentages in multi- tenant developments. The City of Beaverton has a shopping center use category with a minimum parking ratio of 3.0/1,000 gfa. This lower standard for a shopping center is supported by the IIE manual information regarding shopping centers (Table 2 of Exhibit E), but it is unclear if these lower percentages meet parking demands. If the City were undertaking the Development Code amendment, then several issues and solutions would be OFF STREET PARKING 3IODIPICATIONS DCA2013 -00001 4/1/13 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 9 1 considered as part of a transportation and parking management plan as recommended in the TSP. However, the proposed parking reductions could be a bridge to a future review and amendment of the code and would support economic growth in the meantime. Information provided by the applicant does not support all of the proposed reductions. Staff has amended the proposed code amendments as shown in Attachment 1. These lower ratios are less likely to create negative impacts on adjacent streets and property owners. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed retail ratio reduction, denial of the proposed bank ratio reduction, and a slightly higher ratio for restaurants than what the applicant proposed. The staff recommendation is contingent on the applicant providing parking demand data to support these amendments. SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. The proposed will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision - making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3)) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Findings and conclusions are provided below for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. • The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under ORS Chapter 197 Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. Statewide Planning Goal 2 — Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. Statewide Planning Goal 4 — Environmental Quality: This goal seeks to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Statewide Planning Goal 12 — Transportation: This goal outlines how to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City s Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning foals. The proposed text amendment's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's Citizen Involvement, Land Use Planning, Environmental Quality, Economic Development, and Transportation goals and policies are discussed in this report, below. OFF STREET PARKING MODIFIC.11IONS DCA2013 -00001 4/1/13 PUBLIC I IRARING, STAFF REPORT TO 171E PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 9 CONCLUSION: Based on the findings below regarding Comprehensive Plan goals 2, 9 & 12, staff finds that the proposed code amendments are not consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. However, both local and statewide goals can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. • Any applicable Metro regulations; FINDING: The Tigard TSP is consistent with the policies of Metro's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals and policies were developed based on TSP goals. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan as outlined below; therefore the amendments are not consistent with Metro's 2035 RTP. If documentation supporting the amendments is provided by the applicant, then the Comprehensive Plan goals and Metro's 2035 RTP regulations can be met. The minimum parking ratios developed by Metro are upper limits. The proposed lower ratios are less than the upper limits developed by Metro. There are no other Metro regulations regarding local parking requirements. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed code amendments are not consistent with applicable Metro regulations. However, Metro's 2035 RTP regulations can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. • Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goa11.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. On March 6, 2013 the city mailed a Measure 56 notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all affected property owners in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.186. In addition, public hearing notices were mailed on March 18, 2013 to interested citizens and all property owners within a 500 foot radius of all commercial zones. A notice was published in The Oregonian newspaper on March 13, 2013, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) where opportunity for public input is provided. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, Goal 1.1 is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1: Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Tigard Community Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed code amendment is not completely consistent with the applicable provisions of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan as shown in the findings under Goals 9 & 12 below. OFF ti 1RFIfl' P.1RKTNG MODIPIC.1TIONS IDC.12013 -00001 4/1/13 PUBLIC 11I:.1RING, S'1'.11+REPORI" 10 '1'HE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OP 9 However if documentation meeting goals 9 & 12 are provided by the applicant, then the code amendment will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 20: The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. FINDING: The proposed amendment to the City's development code is precipitated by the applicant s inability to fully tenant existing developments due to minimum parking requirements. The proposed amendment is requested to increase economic development opportunities for Tigard businesses /property owners and allow efficient use ofland for future developments. The applicant states that the proposed change to the Tigard Community Development Code is responsive to a current community need. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, Goal 2.1 is not met but can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods or commercial developments. Comprehensive Plan Goal 6: Environmental Quality Goal 6.1: Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. Policy 3: The City shall promote land use patterns which reduce dependency on the automobile, are compatible with existing neighborhoods and increase opportunities for walking, biking, and /or public transit. Goal 6.2: Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. Policy 7: The City shall investigate and use, to the extent practical, measures that limit the community's effective impervious area. FINDING: The applicant states that the proposed reductions in parking represent a more efficient use of land resources. Reducing the amount of area dedicated for parking provides more land for landscaping, storm water processing, and denser development. If more landscaping or on -site stormwater facilities are provided, this promotes the City's goals of decreasing impervious area and enhancing water quality. If denser development is constructed, then more people may walk or bike to these developments, reducing the number of vehicle trips and improving air quality. The proposed parking reductions support the goals and policies for improving air and water quality, reducing dependency on automobiles, and limiting effective impervious surface area. This goal is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, Goals 6.1 and 6.2 are met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Goal 9.1: Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 3: The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrasttucture is made available. FINDING: Current regulatory practices in the form of the City's minimum parking requirements may be hindering economic development in the city. The applicant has provided information that indicates lower parking ratios will remove these barriers and promote economic development opportunities. However, the information provided is either anecdotal or is generalized across the entire country. The applicant has not provided documentation that shows these proposed minimum parking ratios meet Tigard's local parking demands. OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS DCA2013 -00001 4/1/13 PUBLIC 1 I1iARING, STAFF REPORT TO TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 9 CONCLUSION: The proposed changes are likely to encourage the growth of existing businesses; however, no evidence has been submitted that shows the proposed minimum parking ratios will meet parking demands for the affected uses within the City of Tigard. Based on the above findings, Goal 9.1 is not met but can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods or commercial developments. Comprehensive Plan Goal 12: Transportation Goal 12.1: Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. Policy 6: The City shall support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the function of the transportation system. FINDING: Reduced parking supports a land use pattern that encourages less travel by automobile, which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This policy is met. Policy 9: The City shall coordinate with private and public developers to provide access via a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system. FINDING: The City is working with the applicant (a private developer) to make adjustments to the code required parking minimums that best balance parking demand and for certain uses with site design and circulation to minimize off -site impacts. The City Engineer and Senior Transportation Planner both expressed concern that the proposed reductions in parking minimums may impact traffic by causing back -ups onto adjacent street systems as customers search for parking. No information was provided to address this concern. However, the applicant is preparing traffic counts for sites in and near Tigard that may address this concern. This policy is not met with the information so far received. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, Goal 12.1 is not met but can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods or commercial developments. Goal 12.2: Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods. Policy 9: The City shall require the provision of appropriate parking in balance with other transportation modes. FINDING: The applicant proposes to lower the minimum parking ratio requirements for certain uses and lower the minimum percentages required for primary, secondary, etc. uses in mixed use or multi- tenant developments. Current Tigard minimum parking ratios were adopted in 1998 and are based upon upper limit minimum ratios found in Metro's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Metro established minimum and maximum parking ratios for a number of reasons, including promoting non -auto trips. In 2010, the City adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) that guides future transportation projects and strategies to meet expected growth. The TSP states that it is appropriate to reduce the parking minimums in some areas of the City as part of an overall transportation demand management strategy. One purpose of the demand management strategy is to balance appropriate parking with other transportation modes OIT STRHETPARKING AMODIPIC.ITIONS 1CA2013 -00001 4;1/13 PUBLIC 11EAR1N(3, STAFF REPORT" TO THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 9 such as, improved transit and bike /pedestrian services as well as connectivity, carpool services, and shared or public parking. A comprehensive review of the code and policies is ideal, but that does not meet the immediate needs of the applicant and other business and property owners in Tigard. Therefore the applicant has proposed this code amendment. The key question is: what is the appropriate level of parking? The applicant has so far provided anecdotal information on what other neighboring jurisdictions require and ITE data that is generalized across the entire country. What's needed to determine the appropriate balance is parking count information for sites in and near Tigard. The applicant indicates that this information if forthcoming but a final determination cannot be made on this criterion until that information is received and analyzed. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, Goal 12.2 is not met but can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods or commercial developments. • Any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: The only applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances is TCDC I8.390.060.G, which is addressed here. All of the factors listed in this code section have not been fully satisfied because the applicant's proposal does not satisfy all applicable Comprehensive Plans goals. However, supplemental information regarding Tigard parking demands may show that a modification to the parking minimums is supported. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, the City's applicable implementing ordinances have not been met but can be met if the applicant provides parking counts that show the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods or commercial developments. (Continued on Next Page) OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS DC.■2013 -00001 4;'1/13 PUBLIC I11 .\RJNG, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 9 SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS City of Tigard: City Engineer, Mike Stone, reviewed the proposal and cautioned that reductions in parking may lead to complaints from adjacent residential neighborhoods and vehicles backing -up onto City streets while drivers search for a parking space. Senior Transportation Planner, Judith Gray, reviewed the proposal and states that Tigard should not just follow the actions of other jurisdictions. Parking demand studies and parking counts should be provided to demonstrate and support the proposed amendments. Other approaches could be to develop variance /adjustment procedures that address site specific situations. Redevelopment Project Manager, Sean Farrel ly, reviewed the proposal and supports the proposal because it will be positive for economic development and brings us more in line with neighboring cities. Other Agencies: DLCD was notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. Q March 25. 2013 PREPARED BY: Cheryl Caines DATE Associate Planner March 25, 2013 APPROVE ) B : om McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director OFF STREET iE P.IRKING MODIFICATIONS DCA2013- 00001 4/'1!13 PUBLIC III:.\RING, STAFF REPOR'I"to Till:. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 01: 9 Attachment 1 Proposed code with staff amendments in red: DCA2013 -00001 OFF - STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: StFikethraugh - Text to be deleted or not added [Bold, Underline and Italic! – Text to be added (proposed by applicant) [ /:, 'I.:, I n ed ne and lmlie, Red] – Text to be added (recommended by staff) 18.765.030 General Provisions D. Parking in mixed -use and multiple tent projects. In mixed -use and multiple tenant projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula: 1. Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2. Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at $ 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3. TertiaryStihsequettt use or u3c3, at 2080% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; .- ,,:.�•,a�:, . . 1 °, , -,' - paringrequiredforthat S ection 18.765.060:• 44. The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in Subsection D.1 -3 above. Table 18.765.2 (Minimum & Maximum Required Off - street Vehicle & Bicycle Parking Requirements). Use _ Minimums Current Proposed Amended by Staff Eating and Drinking Fast Food: 9.9/1,000 6.0/2,000 8.0/1,000 Establishments1 Other: 15.3/1,000 8.0/L000 10.0 /1,000 Sales- Oriented Retail 3.7/1,000 3.0 /1,000 -- Personal Services (Bank with drive - through) 4.3/1,000 27/1,000 4.3/1,000 (no change) f 8 1 Fact food des' a io t u d s I/ ea inn , , • • •• .4 • • , „ • ,, • . • • i - • • /Qtless than 10 tables. Example-1 include Subway_ , • Text Amendment City of Tigard Minimum Parking Requirements Tigard, Oregon An Application For: Type IV Text Amendment Submitted on: December 27, 2012 Applicant: Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway St, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 Phone: 360 - 567 -0626 Contact: Philip Bretsch Prepared by: Cardno WRG 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503 - 419 -2500 Fax: 503 - 419 -2600 Contact: Michael Cerbone LEGAL25444827.1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. APPLICANT'S TEAM 5 II. INTRODUCTION 6 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 IV. APPLICABLE STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND GOALS 7 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 7 GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING 8 GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY 8 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 9 GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 9 GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION 10 GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION 10 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION 11 V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 11 18.380 -- ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS 11 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map 11 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure 11 CHAPTER 18.765 -- OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 14 18.765.010 Purpose 14 VI. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2007) 14 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 15 GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING 15 GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY 15 SECTION 3: LAND RESOURCES QUALITY 15 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16 GOAL 9.1 16 GOAL 9.3 16 Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 3 GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 17 GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION 17 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION 18 VII. CONCLUSION 18 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Parking Table Comparison Exhibit B Existing Development Examples Exhibit C Proposed Code Amendments Exhibit D Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Existing Retail Centers in Tigard Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 4 I. APPLICANT'S TEAM Applicant: Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway St, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 Phone: (360) 567 -0626 Contact: Philip Bretsch Philip(c�killianpacific.com Applicant's Representative Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10 Floor Portland, Oregon 97209 Phone: (503) 727 -2036 Contact: Dana Krawczuk DKrawczuk(a�perkinscoie.com Planning Consultant Cardno WRG 5415 SW Westgate Drive; Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: (503) 419 -2500 Contact: Michael Cerbone, AICP michael.cerbonencardno.com Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 5 II. INTRODUCTION This proposal has been initiated by Killian Pacific, a community -based and family -owned local commercial real- estate development and investment company located in the Portland /Vancouver metropolitan area. Killian Pacific has offered to partner with the City of Tigard to complete amendments to the parking code (Community Development Code Section 18.765) in order to facilitate development and redevelopment opportunities, specifically within commercial and mixed use zoning designated areas. The current minimum parking standards for commercial retail uses are above standards typically used and successful for many PortlandNancouver suburban jurisdictions. Moreover, excessive parking minimums are contributing to vacant tenant spaces at existing properties and which limits economic development opportunities. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tigard's current minimum parking standards reflect a regulation imposed by Metro in 1997 that set an upper limit on the minimum number of parking spaces a city could allow -- i.e., a "maximum minimum." Cities were allowed to require less parking than the maximum set by Metro, but many jurisdictions, including Tigard, adopted the maximum parking allowed by Metro. Since then, several jurisdictions have reduced the minimum parking standards below the limit set by Metro. See Exhibit A. Since 1997, we have learned that an unintended consequence of Tigard's parking minimums is that some existing structures cannot be occupied by desirable uses because the existing parking is insufficient to meet the code. The problem is particularly acute in multi- tenant or mixed use developments. An example of an existing development that must keep tenant spaces vacant, despite tenant interest, is Nimbus Center (10115 SW Nimbus Avenue, Tigard). It is noteworthy that this development is not chronically under - parked (meaning the parking lot is rarely near or at capacity) Instead, there is adequate parking for the existing tenants and vacant storefronts; the only parking deficiency is "on paper." City staff and property owners that are unable to fully tenant existing developments due to the parking standards have met multiple times over the years to discuss the parking - related impediments to economic development. The solution that has been identified is to reduce some of Tigard's minimum parking standards. Staff is supportive of evaluating and reducing some of the minimum parking standards, but due to budgetary and staffing constraints, is unable to initiate the needed amendments. Killian Pacific has volunteered to lead and pay for much of the costs related to the text amendment process so that the economic development opportunities that are currently limited by parking standards can be realized. Exhibit C includes the proposed code amendments, with deleted language shown in and new language in bold and double - underline. The entirety of Chapter 18.765, Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements, is included in Exhibit C. The requested amendments to the minimum parking requirements in Table 18.765.2 include: Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type !V Text Amendment December 27, 2012 6 • Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for fast food restaurants, a sub - category of Eating and Drinking Establishments, from 9.9 per 1,000 sf to 6.0 per 1,000 sf. • Codifying the City's long- standing interpretation that "fast food" includes Eating and Drinking Establishments that offer counter - service and are primarily take -out, which may or may not have a drive- through or sit down seating. Examples include Subway, Starbucks or Chipotle. • Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for all other Eating and Drinking Establishments (i.e., sit down restaurants), from 15.3 per 1,000 sf to 8.0 per 1,000 sf. • Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for Sales- Oriented uses (i.e., retail) from 3.7 per 1,000 sf to 3.0 per 1,000 sf. • Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for a bank with drive in, a sub - category of Personal Services, from 4.3 per 1,000 sf to 2.7 per 1,000 sf. The 2.7 spaces per 1,000 sf ratio is the current parking requirement for general office uses, which is not proposed to be changed. The final requested amendment is a modification to the City's existing methodology in TDC 18.765.030(D) for how the parking standards apply to mixed -use or multiple tenant projects. The percentages of required parking are modified, and a fourth category of uses is introduced. Rather than proposing across - the -board revisions to Tigard's parking standards, the recommended revisions are the result of extensive research of how other cities regulate parking (Exhibit A) and analysis of the parking ratios of existing successful developments across the region (Exhibit B). Exhibit D includes a list of properties that the City has identified as having potential parking challenges. Based upon Killian Pacific's analysis, many of the properties listed have unique, property- specific issues, such as compromised or unusable parking spaces or likely non- conforming uses. The proposed amendments will not "legalize" the most severely under - parked properties, which was intentional. The most under - parked developments are not a model that should be replicated elsewhere in the City, so we intentionally avoided suggesting parking standards that would result in an undesirable supply of parking. IV. APPLICABLE STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND GOALS GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: The proposed text amendment is subject to a Type IV legislative process, which requires two hearings —one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. Per the notification requirements outlined in the Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.060(D), the notice of hearings shall be sent to any City- recognized groups and the scheduled hearings date shall be posted in a Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 7 newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 business days prior to the public hearing. Any interested parties will then have the opportunity to address the Commission or Council at the time of the public hearing. These opportunities for citizen involvement insure that any interested citizen is entitled to present evidence to either support or deny a legislative text amendment. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking requirements within the City of Tigard is subject to a Type IV legislative approvals process. Type IV text amendments must address applicable provisions within the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under ORS Chapter 197, any applicable Metro regulations, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response to each pertinent provision is provided within this narrative to serve as an adequate factual base for both Planning Commission and City Council determination. GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Response: The request to reduce the required minimum parking requirements for some commercial uses within the City of Tigard represents a more efficient use of land resources. For example, had Killian Pacific's Grand Central project in Vancouver been developed in accordance with Tigard's parking standards, 300 more parking stalls would have been required, which translates into approximately 3 acres of additional land needed for the project. See Exhibit B. As observed throughout various Oregon jurisdictions, anti -urban sprawl efforts are directly related to automobile and parking considerations. By reducing the amount of land devoted to impervious parking area, that land will be available for added development or landscaping, contributing to either greater commercial density or pervious surfacing for water quantity and quality processing, which will work to improve the quality of water resources. Also, by creating greater density where existing urban infrastructure is in place, this will limit the extension of utilities and roads to the urban fringe, which is costlier and a greater strain on the infrastructure grid. Finally, by creating opportunities for more dense areas, people will inevitably walk more, reduce their vehicle trips and miles traveled, which will improve the quality of air resources of the state. Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 8 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660 - 015- 015- 0000(9) To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Guidelines A. Planning 3. Plans should designate the type and level of public facilities and services appropriate to support the degree of economic development being proposed. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking standard will better support commercial and mixed -use development, while also removing obstacles to re- tenanting existing but vacant properties. This will provide the City a mechanism to more efficiently meet their employment land needs utilizing existing zoning within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). In addition, the proposed changes will facilitate new businesses in Tigard, and thus bolster local jobs and tax basis. The proposed text amendment does not change the zoning designation of any land, or otherwise diminish the City's ability to meet its economic development objectives, including but not limited to providing adequate sites and facilities for employment purposes, so the Goal 9 rules are not applicable to this application. OAR 660 - 0090 - 0010(4). GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660- 015- 0000(11) To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: Minimum parking requirements are not considered a Public Facility and Service, so Goal 11 is not applicable. Nonetheless, minimum parking requirements may impact the timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of commercial and mixed - use development within an urban /semi -urban context. As such, the text amendment, as proposed, would provide a more efficient allocation of resources to balance economic development with infrastructure needs. By reducing parking requirements to more closely match the needs of the community, we provide the opportunity to fully utilize built but partially vacant structures (and therefore avoid urban blight), increase density within existing developments, redevelop areas Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 9 and develop greenfield sites in a more efficient manner. This in turn results in the City's increased ability to provide for the long -term maintenance and development of infrastructure within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660- 015 - 0000(12) To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Response: The request to reduce the minimum parking standards for the City of Tigard will contribute to a safer, more convenient and economically efficient transportation system both within the area proposed for development /redevelopment and the larger regional system. A reduction in the parking requirement will likely lead to utilization of the existing zoned capacity (i.e., partially vacant structures will be occupied) and will likely put less strain on the transportation network through the reduction of sprawl associated with lower density development as well as through supporting transit opportunities. The proposed amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility, so the Transportation Planning Rule ( "TPR ") does not apply. Nonetheless, the proposed amendment will advance the goals of the TPR, which includes encouraging the reduction in parking standards. OAR 660 - 12-0045(5)(c). GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660- 015 - 0000(13) To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. Response: The proposed text amendment will support a more efficient use of the existing land within the City and UGB because additional land is not occupied by unneeded excess parking. As noted previously, this can have positive impacts throughout the community by reducing sprawl and providing more tax revenue to support maintenance and development of urban facilities. These outcomes will ultimately result in less energy expended within the transportation system, a more efficient urban infrastructure system and a more efficient pattern of development within the community. Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 10 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660 - 015 - 0000(14) To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Response: The proposed text amendment will result in the ability to fully utilize existing developments, redevelop underutilized centers and develop already served and zoned development -ready areas more efficiently. These outcomes will assist the City with providing for the employment needs of the community by first focusing on existing commercial, mixed use and employment land within the community. As noted previously, this will allow the community to provide urban services more efficiently and will reduce the need to add additional land to the UGB to provide for the long term employment options of the community. V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18.380 -- ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi - judicial amendments to this title and the zoning district map. These will be referred to as "zoning map and text amendments." It is recognized that such amendments may be necessary from time to time to reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires; to correct mistakes; and /or to address changes in the law. Response: The applicant is aware of the purpose of the Zoning Map and Text Amendments provision. The proposed text amendment to the minimum off - street parking standards is subject to a Type IV legislative amendment. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum off - street parking standards is subject to a Type IV legislative amendment. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision - making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 11 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include the pertinent Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines under ORS Chapter 197. The relevant Statewide Planning Goals include: • Goal 1- Public Involvement; • Goal 2- Land Use Planning; • Goal 6- Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality; • Goal 9- Economic Development; • Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services; • Goal 12- Transportation; • Goal 13- Energy Conservation; • Goal 14- Urbanization 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Response: There are no federal or state statutes found that are directly applicable to this application. 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; Response: Title 4 of Metro's Regional Transportation Functional Plan (Metro Code ( "MC "" 3.08.410) addresses Regional Parking Management, and sets forth both minimums and maximums for city and county parking ratios. Metro establishes a "maximum minimum" parking standard, meaning that Metro's minimum parking standards are the highest minimum parking standard that a city can require. A city may elect to require a minimum parking standard than is less than Metro's minimum standard. In other words, Metro's minimum parking standards are the ceiling for what a local government may require as the minimum parking standard. The proposed text amendment reduces some of the City's minimum parking standards, which is compliant with Metro's Transportation Functional Plan and the Metro Code. As noted in Table 3.08 -3 of the Transportation Functional Plan and summarized in a parking table included as Exhibit A with this narrative application, Metro's minimum parking requirements for uses associated with this text amendment are: • General Office- 2.7/1,000 SF of gross leasable area (GLA) • Retail /Commercial, including shopping centers - 4.1/1,000 SF GLA. Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 12 • Fast Food with drive thru- 9.9/1,000 SF GLA • Other restaurants - 15.3/1,000 SF GLA When Metro first adopted minimum and maximum parking standards in 1997, Tigard (like many other jurisdictions) adopted the highest minimum parking standard allowed by Metro. In the intervening 15 years, some similar suburban Portland area jurisdictions have adopted lower parking minimum standards, which suggests that lower ratios are beneficial. Our analysis of the actual parking standards utilized by successful commercial developments in the region demonstrate that the proposed parking standards are reasonable and contribute to a vibrant commercial use. Exhibit B. 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include the pertinent comprehensive plan policies. The relevant comprehensive plan policies include: • Goal 1- Public Involvement; • Goal 2- Land Use Planning; • Goal 6- Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality; • Goal 9.1, Policy 3 and Goal 9.3, Policies 2 & 3- Economic Development; • Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services; • Goal 12- Transportation; • Goal 13- Energy Conservation; • Goal 14- Urbanization 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include applicable provisions of the city's implementing ordinances. The applicable ordinances include TDC 18.380— Zoning Map & Text Amendments; Section 18.390 — Decision Making Procedures; and the proposed amendment to Section 18.765 — Off- Street Parking & Loading Requirements. Responses to those provisions are provided in this narrative. Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 13 Chapter 18.765 -- OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying- capacity of nearby streets. Response: The applicant is aware of the purpose of the Off - Street Parking & Loading provision. The proposed text amendment to the minimum off - street parking standards would provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various commercial and mixed uses affected by the text amendment. The Applicant has provided a comparison of existing parking requirements throughout the metropolitan area as Exhibit A and examples of similar developments throughout the metropolitan area as Exhibit B. These examples demonstrate that it is feasible to amend the City's code and still maintain vibrant commercial centers. The Applicant has also coordinated with City staff to identify existing centers within Tigard and analyze how those centers could be impacted by this request. This information is included as Exhibit D. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. Response: As supporting evidence provided with this application, there are multiple jurisdictions located within the Portland Metro area that provide lower minimum parking standards for commercial uses than those required under the City of Tigard CDC Section 18.765. A comparative Minimum Parking Standards chart is provided with this application, under Exhibit A. The proposed amendments to the minimum parking standards are consistent with the ratios at other successful commercial centers in the region, which demonstrates that the proposed standards will maintain adequate parking capacity. Exhibit B. The current standards require more capacity than is necessary, which is land intensive and results in some existing structures being partially vacant because minimum parking standards cannot be achieved. This is an issue for multiple tenant buildings, particularly those constructed prior to the adoption of the minimum parking standards allowed by Metro's Code. VI. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2007) APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 14 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Response: The proposed text amendment is subject to a Type IV legislative process, which requires two hearings —one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. Per the notification requirements outlined in the Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.060(D), the notice of hearings shall be sent to any City- recognized groups and the scheduled hearings date shall be posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 business days prior to the public hearing. Any interested parties will then have the opportunity to address the Commission or Council at the time of the public hearing. These opportunities for citizen involvement insure that any interested citizen is entitled to present evidence to either support or deny a legislative text amendment. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking requirements within the City of Tigard is subject to a Type IV legislative approvals process. This proposal is consistent with the City's land use program, does comply with state and regional requirements, and is in the citizens' best interest. The text amendment is responsive to community needs and will provide a form of economic development to spur both re- tenanting of existing commercial and mixed -use development, as well as future development. As addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, "In the City's downtown center, commercial corridors, regional center, and industrial areas, the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations will guide the development of vibrant and compact urban housing and employment/shopping areas." This goal for compact and vibrant development will be more efficiently achieved through the requested text amendment. The current minimum parking requirement creates unneeded parking areas that limit additional development opportunity within an existing commercial node, which inevitably promotes further development at the city edges, contributing to sprawl and inefficient use of land resources. GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY SECTION 3: LAND RESOURCES QUALITY "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state." Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 15 Response: The request to reduce the required minimum parking requirements for commercial uses within the City of Tigard represents a more efficient use of land resources. By reducing the amount of land devoted to impervious parking area, that land will be available for added development or landscaping, contributing to either greater commercial density or pervious surfacing for water quantity and quality processing, which will work to improve the quality of water resources. Also, by creating greater density where existing urban infrastructure is in place, this will limit the extension of utilities and roads to the urban fringe, which is costlier and a greater strain on the infrastructure grid. Also, by creating more dense areas, people will inevitably walk more, reduce their vehicle trips and miles traveled, which will improve the quality of air resources of the state. GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." GOAL 9.1: Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. POLICIES: 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. Response: The applicant is requesting the proposed text amendment to provide parking regulations that are more supportive of current development needs and infrastructure devoted to vehicle parking. This request will promote economic development opportunities, both for existing commercial and mixed -use properties, as well as future developments. As a result of lower parking requirements is a more efficient use of the existing urban infrastructure. GOAL 9.3: Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. POLICIES: 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well designed and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector investments. Response: The existing minimum parking standards are undesirable for multi- tenant businesses because they require an over - supply of parking. The applicant is requesting the proposed text amendment to provide adequate parking regulations that are more supportive of current development needs and Tigard Parking Standards Card no WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 16 infrastructure devoted to vehicle parking. This request, combined with the existing design standards, will ensure a well- designed and attractive urban environment that supports and protects public and private sector investments. As a result of lower parking requirements, more dense development will occur, which will create a more efficient use of the existing urban infrastructure as well as more vibrant commercial nodes that will likely bring added value to both public and private sector investments. 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. Response: This proposed text amendment will work to create more dense, vibrant commercial and mixed -use areas, which will make more efficient use of the existing infrastructure and create a greater sense of place both for the owners and operators and citizens of Tigard. The proposed reduced minimum parking requirement is more sustainable, as it will focus more dense development within existing commercial and mixed -use designated areas, while limiting sprawl and infrastructure extension to the urban and semi -urban fringe. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES "To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Response: Minimum parking requirements are not considered a Public Facility and Service, so Goal 11 is not applicable. Nonetheless, minimum parking requirements may impact the timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of commercial and mixed - use development within an urban /semi -urban context. As such, the text amendment, as proposed, would provide a more efficient allocation of resources to balance economic development with infrastructure needs. By reducing parking requirements to more closely match the needs of the community, we provide the opportunity to increase density within existing developments, redevelop areas and develop greenfield sites in a more efficient manner. This in turn results in the City's increased ability to provide for the long -term maintenance and development of infrastructure within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION "Transportation which requires local jurisdictions `to provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system." Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type 1V Text Amendment December 27, 2012 17 Response: The request to reduce the minimum parking standards for the City of Tigard will contribute to a safer, more convenient and economically efficient transportation system both within the area proposed for development /redevelopment and the larger regional system. A reduction in the parking requirement will likely lead to higher density development that will likely put less strain on the transportation network through the reduction of sprawl associated with lower density development as well as through supporting transit opportunities. GOAL 14: URBANIZATION "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." Response: The proposed text amendment will result in the ability to densify existing developments, redevelop underutilized centers and develop remaining greenfield areas more efficiently. These outcomes will assist the City with providing for the employment needs of the community by first focusing on existing commercial, mixed use and employment land within the community. As noted previously this will allow the community to provide urban services more efficiently and will reduce the need to add additional land to the UGB to provide for the long term employment options of the community. VII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated in this narrative, this proposed Type IV text amendment request to reduce some required parking standard meets all provisions applicable to Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regional goals, as well as City of Tigard code provisions and comprehensive plan policies. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of the text amendment. The amendment will better serve the community, sparking greater economic development and more vibrant commercial and mixed -use areas that fully serve both the residents and visitors to the City of Tigard. Furthermore, as evidenced by the exhibits included with this application, there is a precedent for the requested parking standards to adequately support commercial and mixed - use development. The comparative parking table (Exhibit A) and the assessment of existing development projects (Exhibit B) provides evidence that existing standards and projects that are already built can comply and thrive with the proposed minimum parking requirement. Tigard Parking Standards Cardno WRG Type IV Text Amendment December 27, 2012 18 Exhibit A Perkins July 10, 2012 Cole TO: Tigard Investors LLC/Fanno File FROM: Dana L. Krawczuk RE: Comparison of Minimum Parking Standards General Retail, commercial, including Bank with drive thru Fast food w/ drive Other restaurants office shopping centers thru Metro' 2.7 (gsf) 4.1 4.3 9.9 15.3 Tigard 2.7 Various sub - categories of general 4.3 9.9 15.3 retail as relevant to the site: Sales oriented: 3.7 Personal services: 2.5 Hillsboro 2.7 4.1 Not listed. If 9.9 15.3 retail /commercial, then Some reduced ratios for categories 4.1. If professional not relevant to the site such as office, then 2.7 bulky merchandise, service or repair etc. Per 1 k sf of gross leaseable area, unless noted. Also, Metro's standard is a not to exceed standard - NOT a minimum requirement Per 1 k sf of floor area, unless otherwise noted. Basically, gross floor area, which yields more parking that Metro. per Ik sf of gross floor area excluding restrooms, hallways, mechanical spaces, elevators, stairwells and loading docks. Basically, leaseable area, which is the same as Metro. 85 22 1- 000 1/LEGAL24118146.1 General Retail, commercial, including Bank with drive thru Fast food w/ drive Other restaurants office shopping centers thru Beaverton 2.7 3.3. Reduced ratio (3.0) for 3.3. Reduced ratio 10. Reduced 10. Reduced ratio "Multiple Use Zones ". (3.0) for "Multiple Use ratio(5.0) for (5.0) for "Multiple Zones ". Does not "Multiple Use Use Zones" and Distinguishes services businesses, distinguish based upon Zones" and specified transit which has 3.0 drive -thru specified transit oriented zones oriented zones Gresham' 2.7 Various sub - categories of general Not listed. Likely 6 8 retail, as relevant to the site: Commercial, Personal, Business services: 3.2 Retail trade: 3.6 Commercial, Personal, Business services: 3.2 Convenience market: 2.3 Milwaukie 2 Various sub - categories of general 2 4 4 retail, as relevant to the site: General retail: 2 Personal services: 4 Commercial services: 2.8 Lake 3.3 Various sub - categories of general 2.5 9.9 Various subcategories, ° Per 1 k sf of floor area, unless otherwise noted. Basically, gross floor area, which yields more parking that Metro. 5 Per lk sf of gross floor area, which yields more parking than Metro's leaseable floor area (but ratios are lower). 6 Per l k sf. Does not specify if gross or leaseable. -2- 85221 -0001 /LEGAL24118146.1 General Retail, commercial, including Bank with drive thru Fast food w/ drive Other restaurants office shopping centers thru Oswego' retail, as relevant to the site: including: Retail sales: 3.3 Specialty food store (take out primarily, Personal services: 4 i.e., coffee): 4 Convenience food store: 2.2 Eating or drinking (i.e, sit down restaurant): 13.3 Oreion 2.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Cite Tualatin 2.7 4.0 4.3 9.9 1 Per lk sf of gross floor area, which yields more parking than Metro's leaseable floor area (but some ratios are lower). R Per I k sf of gross floor area, which yields more parking than Metro's leaseable floor area (but ratios are lower). 9 Per I k sf of gross floor area, which yields more parking than Metro's leaseable floor area (but some ratios are lower). -3- 85221-0001 /LEGAL24118146.1 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM cr) Cardna Shaping the Future To: Noel Johnson, Vice President 5415 SW Westgate Drive Killian Pacific Suite 100 noel(a�killianpacific.com Portland, Oregon 97221 USA From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Phone (503) 419 -2500 Date: December 27, 2012 Fax (503) 419-2600 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums www.cardno.com CardnoWRG #: Re: Parking comparison of existing commercial centers Cardno reviewed a series of successful commercial centers around the Portland Metropolitan region to give a comparative overview of existing parking ratios and the variation between jurisdictions. The goal of the summary is to present a variety of centers and illustrate that excessive parking supplies are not warranted to achieve a successful retail center. Cardno considered the following items when compiling a center list: • Existing parking should be equal to or under 5 stalls per 1,000 sf of total leasable space. • Centers should have little to no vacancies. • Centers should have at least one major anchor tenant. • Two or more separate uses should be present in the center. • Examples should be taken from a variety of jurisdictions. In addition, Cardno provided parking calculations for each center based on the current and proposed parking standards for the City of Tigard. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses in the City of Tigard. Land Use Current Code Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking quantities for mixed -use projects in the City of Tigard. Current Required Parking Quantity for Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Percent of Required Quantity Required Quantity Primary Use 100% Primary Use 100% Secondary Use 90% Secondary Use 85% Subsequent Uses 80% Tertiary Uses 70% Subsequent Uses - 60% The Nyberg Woods, Macadam Village, and Millikan Pointe comparisons directly support the requested changes, However, the range of comparisons provided suggests that the proposed Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries <1 Car Ino® Shaping the Future changes will be beneficial for the community through reducing barriers to economic development and redevelopment of property within the City and by providing the ability to develop a tighter urban form with superior livability and vitality. Cedar Hills Crossin. — Beaverton, Ore•on -: w �I _� e ti y `11 r tire .,-•. 11 r 1 r .. ; I C ,1 P 1" r ' - - -+. I I �; mow,,, ■ ∎ / +,� �yj • ' . I . " , , t .. . , _ . lk : .. , -,:. : t s s' iro , 0 . --- in . $W.0 F.,IIS B C _ w.i! t..... . .ALF� .�Je,k 1 - , _ ,.. - . ,-T-F-" ,. , . . - =7.4: lot i v - ..N .• • • -,,-„- w S d F i 1 v ', - 1 { j ib Imo' - I 4 - Summary: Current Tigard standards would require 297 additional stalls, necessitating approximately 3 acres of additional land to develop this site. Under the proposed amendments the site would have a surplus of 299 stalls. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Ceder Hills Crossing - Beaverton, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 399,361 1,478 1,198 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 0 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 4,080 10 10 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 6,865 30 19 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 39,140 599 313 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 3,917 15 15 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 51,583 784 784 Existing Parking 2,409 Sub Total Total 504,946 2,915 2,339 Existing Parking Ratio 4.77 Difference from Existing N/A -506 70 Note: The theater in this project has 2,351 seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 399,361 1,478 1,478 Secondary Use 90% 51,583 784 705 Subsequent Uses 80% 54,002 654 523 Required Parking Quantity 2,706 Difference From Existing -297 Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 399,361 1,198 1,198 Secondary Use 85% 51,583 784 666 Tertiary Uses 70% 39,140 313 219 Subsequent Uses 60% 14,862 44 26 Required Parking Quantity 2,110 Difference From Existing 299 (f Car -tine Shaping the Future Millikan Pointe - Beaverton, Ore•on 1 it g ' '11.1.: ...... ' \ \ , . . - - ii" " ' ,... \ , 1 , . t. %;::f-• .4 .:j \ , 1 • g ••• •-• . .- .'' . k b., , ''' .. \ r -- _ .. . r't r I i ['+ r i a Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 90 additional spaces requiring approximately .9 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 80 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .82 acres of additional land. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Millikan Pointe - Beaverton, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq - Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 5.000 19 15 Personal Service Per 1.000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1.000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1.000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit clown) Per 1.000 sf 15.3 8 10,800 165 86 Office Per 1.000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 41.700 163 163 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 236 Sub Total Total 57,500 346 264 Existing Parking Ratio 4.10 Difference from Existing N/A -110 -28 Note: *Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 1001.. 41.700 163 163 Secondary Use 90° 10,800 165 149 Subsequent Uses 80% 5,000 19 15 Required Parking Quantity 326 Difference From Existing - Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 41.700 163 163 Secondary Use 85% 10.800 165 140 Tertiary Uses 70% 5.000 19 13 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 316 Difference From Existing -80 (j. Cardno Shaping the Future Lake Grove Villa•e - Lake Oswe•o, Ore•on 0 � 'ti it • 4 � ` , ` ` �, '' � ;u� ` �' �? \�\\ ..:.'' : \`(� \':M1 , � her(smon - �. . - .. /II/III/rii /F r-- - ' ' - — - _ C at, '•• ''''''' . .1 . ' ... i - .; - - ilINI •/ '' 4 4 , l• '' ' - . 'f pn, !•• \ ." •■■•-• .......;; :::,/ ..:1 /7 il. 4 • 11. • t - •... r• . , • - . •- . / 4ff - .- .. ' ''' t . - ^ . el' , kw. r .. "scr ! 3 . ' } Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 126 additional spaces requiring approximately 1.3 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 7 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .07 acres of additional land. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Lake Grove Village - Lake Oswego, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 27,000 100 81 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 14,400 220 115 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 0 0 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 172 Sub Total Total 41,400 320 196 Existing Parking Ratio 4.15 Difference from Existing N/A -148 -24 Note: 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 27,000 100 100 Secondary Use 90% 14,400 220 198 Subsequent Uses 80% 0 Required Parking Quantity 298 Difference From Existing -126 Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 27,000 81 81 Secondary Use 85% 14,400 115 98 Tertiary Uses 70% 0 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 179 Difference From Existing -7 (iir Cardno Shaping the Future Tanabourne Market Center - Hillsboro, ()region ,, . 7 F - l 1 _ +'i 1—i +; X11= - [-*._ ; . J — s 1 ill•1 1 II 1 ` - f ��C \, / �. -LUt _ 1 .!-,-I - '.ICI 1 .1 - _ I_I, I -. �\ '4 V .' I I i' ::.:=: � .tea I _ i �.�'.I ��= il° Iii i+ - ii 11T • _ � . - . i ____...,. ,.., • a �, ^ I t — lit . i�l.�l_I -.111 1 44 11 L _..,,, 1 .4 . 'i • 1 I !I �. N NW Ga llatin St �' • � N. ', , ,. ..-,,. D - •I Z ® ti Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 71 additional spaces requiring approximately .73 acre of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 3 stalls would be required. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Tanasbourne Market Center - Hillsboro, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 71,600 265 215 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 3,500 54 28 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 0 0 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 242 Sub Total Total 75,100 318 243 Existing Parking Ratio 3.22 Difference from Existing N/A -76 -1 Note: 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 71,600 265 265 Secondary Use 90% 3,500 54 48 Subsequent Uses 80% 0 Required Parking Quantity 313 Difference From Existing - Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 71,600 215 215 Secondary Use 85% 3,500 28 24 Tertiary Uses 70% 0 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 239 Difference From Existing 3 (j Car /no' Shaping the Future Nyberg Woods - Tualatin, Oregon ' � t ` i - � .1 „4" : ' 41 L -.L. 1 - ' , ,`"" , 1° :,:ii , .:' , .", , 1 i ; . , . 1 Ak a' ."‘ i'' l' N % ' ' =t- -1 i ji , 1 • , • ,. __.i I t T � . .. 1 " : ("" I -- ; 1 r ' i . i i ' � ' ' -' n . .' ' om ,y .. ' ... - _ _ _ ...- - - • 4 ' ,,. - r .._ Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 202 additional spaces requiring approximately 2.1 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 75 stalls would exist. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Nyberg Woods - Tualatin, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq - Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1.000 sf 3.7 3 211,100 781 633 Personal Service Per 1.000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1.000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 5,353 23 14 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1.000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 17,300 265 138 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1.000 sf 3.9 3.9 0 0 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 836 Sub Total Total 233.753 1.069 786 Existing Parking Ratio 3.58 Difference from Existing NSA -233 50 Note: 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 211,100 781 781 Secondary Use 90% 17.300 265 238 Subsequent Uses 80% 5.353 23 18 Required Parking Quantity 1,038 Difference From Existing - 202 Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 211,100 633 633 Secondary Use 85% 17,300 138 118 Tertiary Uses 70% 5,353 14 10 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 761 Difference From Existing 75 C Cara Shaping*. Film Uptown Shopping Center -Portland Oregon p, 2 ,-. .. : , -... . „ 4 , C. ,‘ ' i , ' ' ^ T , . . _t :_0:2_,L/ ' .,. r z 1, , . , Iti; . -, --: - 1 /r 't;' \ 1 i A (D ' , 1 \\:\ * m.M �+ -� . Z� -c -. - - -. -.,_- s wESc in si a S1 __ _ III III Ill mt I{ \ , . • • ll ■ rill ag gt 1 • t -..:- IF „ _,...._, p ? r. - 411 ' t y F '' ' ` � }fi 1 v ..1. 1 lb \ - ,. iiiilit r Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 55 additional spaces requiring approximately .57 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 4 stalls would be required. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Uptown Shopping Center - Portland. Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq - Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 16,000 59 48 Personal Service Per 1.000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1.000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1.000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 5,700 87 46 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 0 0 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 83 Sub Total Total 21.700 146 94 Existing Parking Ratio 3.82 Difference from Existing N/A -63 -11 Note: 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100'z. 16.000 59 59 Secondary Use 90`/- 5.700 87 78 Subsequent Uses 801 0 Required Parking Quantity 138 Difference From Existing - Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 16 000 48 48 Secondary Use 85% 5 700 46 39 Tertiary Uses 70% 0 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 87 Difference From Existing -4 J r, Carr /no Shaping the Future Cascade Station - Portland, Ore•on NE -a■oon way— ��Q (t.„ ..., ,.,.., . ,! k! + • i } , liff, btianUrt Cinti a r _ Pkw. `� 1, 2,-- , -.-........,4 , , • > . 1 , 0 • 7 2 ' • ' M." Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 374 additional spaces requiring approximately 3.9 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards there would be a surplus of 31 stalls. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27!2012 Cascade Station - Portland, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 333,730 1,235 1,001 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 2,500 6 6 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 24,500 375 196 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 0 0 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 1,203 Sub Total Total 360.730 1,616 1,203 Existing Parking Ratio 3.33 Difference from Existing N/A -413 0 Note: 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 333,730 1,235 1,235 Secondary Use 90% 24,500 375 337 Subsequent Uses 80% 2,500 6 5 Required Parking Quantity 1,577 Difference From Existing -374 Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 333,730 1,001 1,001 Secondary Use 85% 24,500 196 167 Tertiary Uses 70% 2,500 6 4 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 1,172 Difference From Existing 31 C at , Car dtic Shaping the Future Macadam Villa re - Portland, Ore•on , i , ii..,, , mil _ L ., .. i _ 4 .. . , ,, . iftr . :_ , ' . L, i .., , .... , . ' ..,- , 1 , 1 00. 1 i ,' \ * s / / / I—ld "` T" mir 4..Jr'� i i i • ~♦ `. r . c t 1' ) I ..4�f t 1' i � ill r s c i + i ? `` �'� :,:•-•: R� i t 2 ;- 1 l ' e T I a : ry -u gW yRa .,, / �' y • s t M a cadam q�e �r MY 1 ____I t _- ____ • 4 1 ! ,. , e• r -., :- • " ..••• t.- – - • / f f . ® .._ _.. 1 1l, — te r y " ' ae. F is :r ,∎ UAW.. •` .. •F • • I .. SWM�Ies Ct 'SW Nevada St Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 95 additional spaces requiring approximately 1 acre of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 40 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .4 acres of additional land. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Macadam Village - Portland, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1.000 sf 3.7 3 27.435 102 82 Personal Service Per 1.000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 0 0 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1.000 sf 15.3 8 5,200 80 42 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 6,300 25 25 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 92 Sub Total Total 38.935 206 148 Existing Parking Ratio 2.36 Difference from Existing N/A -114 -56 Note. 'Theater parking based on seats Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 27,435 102 102 Secondary Use 90% 6,300 25 22 Subsequent Uses 80% 5,200 80 64 Required Parking Quantity 187 Difference From Existing - Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Parking Quantity Primary Use 100% 27,435 82 82 Secondary Use 85% 6,300 25 21 Tertiary Uses 70% 5.200 42 29 Subsequent Uses 60% 0 Required Parking Quantity 132 Difference From Existing - C R , Carr /no* Shaping the Future Nimbus Center - Ti•ard, Ore •on 4 . ` : •• ;t r. - .' ` • f v • oir 7 : , ' , • / / /.. ', , / ;,,' ,..:, :::4's ;:',.' ,,...i, .. -5 : 4:4: . e ,..... ;)1/4.,.... . , ■ .N/ t i s! 1' 1 ,;11,: bi_� , B -a., - . — y Z .vi _ — -1 '` r r r. i :. .-.' r ra r. •. , r s r: r - - -- - -� A — t 1 ' Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 35 additional spaces requiring approximately .36 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 5 stalls would exist. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Nimbus Center - Tigard, Oregon Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq - Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3 13,678 51 41 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 2,692 7 7 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 0 0 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 7,068 70 42 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 0 0 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 0 0 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 2.889 11 11 Theater' Per 3 Seats 1 1 0 0 Existing Parking 93 Sub Total Total 26,327 139 102 Existing Parking Ratio 3 53 Difference from Existing N/A -46 -9 Note 'Theater parking based on seals Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Parking Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Quantity Primary Use 100% 13,678 51 51 Secondary Use 90% 7.068 70 63 Subsequent Uses 80% 5,581 19 15 Required Parking Quantity 128 Difference From Existing - Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Parking Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Quantity Primary Use 100% 13,678 41 41 Secondary Use 85% 7,068 42 36 Tertiary Uses 70% 0 0 0 Subsequent Uses 60% 5,581 19 11 Required Parking Quantity 88 Difference From Existing 5 Cardna Shaping the Future Grand Central — Vancouver, Washin.ton s jAroi o f rr N . , - - I i I I Summary: City of Tigard standards result in the need for an additional 117 parking stalls which would require an additional 1.2 acres of land. The proposed standards would result in a surplus of 14 stalls.. December 27, 2012 Parking Calculations 12/27/2012 Grand Central - Vancouver, Washington Current Code Proposed Code Size Current Required Proposed Required Land Use Ratio Units Parking Ratio Parking Ratio (Sq -Ft) Parking Quantity Parking Quantity Sales Oriented Per 1.000 sf 3.7 3 14,587 54 44 Personal Service Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 6,191 17 17 Bank Per 1,000 sf 2.5 2.5 3,700 9 9 Bank with Drive Thru Per 1,000 sf 4.3 2.7 0 0 Restaurant (fast food) Per 1,000 sf 9.9 6 6,591 65 40 Restaurant (sit down) Per 1,000 sf 15.3 8 15,247 233 122 Office Per 1,000 sf 2.7 2.7 3,865 10 10 Office (Medical) Per 1,000 sf 3.9 3.9 5,075 20 20 Grocery Store Per 1,000 sf 3.7 3.7 138,729 513 513 Existing Parking 712 Sub Total Total 193,985 922 775 Existing Parking Ratio 3.67 Difference from Existing N/A -210 -63 Note. 'Grocery Store considered Sales at 3.7 per 1.000 Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Parking Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Quantity Primary Use 100% 153,316 567 567 Secondary Use 90% 15,247 233 210 Subsequent Uses 80% 6.591 65 52 Required Parking Quantity 829 Difference From Existing -117 Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed -Use Projects Percent of Total Size Required Parking Adjusted Required Parking Required Quantity of Use(s) Quantity Quantity Primary Use 100% 153,316 557 557 Secondary Use 85% 15,247 122 104 Tertiary Uses 70% 6,591 40 28 Subsequent Uses 60% 6,191 17 10 Required Parking Quantity 698 Difference From Existing 14 Exhibit C Chapter 18.765 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying - capacity of nearby streets. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, offstreet vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. B. Expansion of existing use. At the time of an enlargement of a structure which increases the on -site vehicle parking requirements, off - street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070 subject to the following: 1. On the date of adoption of this title, the number of vehicle parking and loading spaces required shall be based only on floor area or capacity of such enlargement; 2. If the minimum vehicle parking spaces required for the enlargement added to the existing onsite space exceed the maximum number of vehicle parking spaces allowed for the whole project per the maximum parking ratios established in 18.765.070, the applicant may reduce the additional number of spaces provided so that the total spaces on the site do not exceed the maximum spaces allowed. C. Change of use. When an existing structure is changed from one use to another use as listed in Section 18.765.070, the following provisions shall apply: 1. If the parking requirements for each use are the same, no additional vehicle parking shall be required; 2. Where a change results in an intensification of use in terms of the number of vehicle parking spaces required, additional vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in an amount equal to the difference between the number of spaces required for the existing use and the number of spaces required for the more intensive use; 3. Where the change results in a decrease in intensity of use, the applicant may eliminate excess vehicle parking spaces in an amount equal to the difference between the number of spaces required for the existing use and the number of spaces required for the less intensive use. D. When site design review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I review, as governed by Section 18.390.030. E. Building permit conditions. The provision and maintenance of off - street vehicle parking and loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner: Exhibit C 1. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Director to show that property is and will remain available for exclusive use as off - street vehicle parking and loading space; and 2. The subsequent use of property for which the building permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of vehicle parking and loading space required by this title. 3. Required vehicle parking shall: a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, patron and employees only; b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conduct of the business or use; and c. Not be rented, leased or assigned to any other person or organization. 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off - street parking will be as follows: 1. Off - street parking spaces for single - family and duplex dwellings and single - family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s). 2. Off - street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; b. The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: (1) Disabled - accessible spaces, (2) Short -term spaces, (3) Long -term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces, (4) Long -term spaces. C. Joint parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: Exhibit C 1. The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. D. Parking in mixed -use and multiple tenant projects. In mixed -use and multiple tenant projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula: 1. Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2. Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at $598% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3. Subsequent use or uses, at 71188% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4. Subsequent use or uses, at 60% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 54. The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in Subsection D.1 -3 above. E. Visitor parking in multifamily residential developments. Multi- dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. F. Preferential long -term carpoollvanpool parking. Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long- term parking spaces shall provide preferential long -term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least five percent of total long- term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool /vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools /vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpoollvanpool spaces shall be full -sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040.N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. G. Disabled - accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. H. DEQ indirect source construction permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: Exhibit C 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. (Ord. 09 -13; Ord. 02 -13) 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off - street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off - street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well- drained; and 6. Excluding single - family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right -of -way will be required. C. Loading /unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. D. On -site vehicle stacking for drive -in use. 1. All uses providing drive -in services as defined by this title shall provide on the same site a stacking lane for inbound vehicles as noted in Table 18.765.1. TABLE 18.765.1 STACKING LANE REQUIREMENTS FOR USES WITH DRIVE -IN WINDOWS Use Reservoir Requirement Drive -in banks 150 feet /service terminal Automated teller 50 feet /service terminal machines Drive -up telephones 50 feet Drive -in cleaners, repair services 50 feet Exhibit C Drive -in restaurants 200 feet Drive -in theaters 200 feet Gasoline service 75 feet between curb cut and nearest pump Mechanical car washes 75 feet /washing unit Parking facilities: - Free flow entry 25 feet/entry driveway - Ticket dispense entry 50 feet /entry driveway - Manual ticket dispensing 100 feet /entry driveway - Attendant parking 100 feet 2. The Director may reduce the length of the inbound stacking lane by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.g. 3. Stacking lanes must be designed so that they do not interfere with parking and vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Stacking lanes for the purpose of selling food must provide at least one clearly marked parking space per service window for the use of vehicles waiting for an order to be filled. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop -off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow- moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop -off edges. G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking Tots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. H. Parking space surfacing. Exhibit C 1. Except for single - family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well- drained; 2. Off - street parking spaces for single and two- family residences shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well- drained; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an agreement to pave the parking area: (a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or (b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or (c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel - surfaced parking areas may only be permitted consistent with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially - zoned or residentially - developed area, b. Gravel access and /or parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course, c. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right -of- way, and d. A driveway which connects a gravel parking area with any public street shall be paved; and 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel- surfaced parking is warranted: a. The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the temporary use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application per the requirements of Section 18.385.050, b. The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of temporary use requested will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed, and c. Approval of the gravel- surfaced parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe ingress and egress when combined with other uses of the property. 1. Parking lot striping. Exhibit C 1. Except for single - family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the offstreet parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. J. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. K. Drainage. Off - street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single - family and duplex residences, off - street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) FIGURE 18.765.1 OFF - STREET SURFACE PARKING MATRIX Required Space and Aisle Dimensions in Feet COMPACT STANDARD A I3 C D E F G B C D E F G 7.50 15.5 13.0 10.61 44.0 2.0 8.5 17.5 13.0 12.0 48.0 2.0 450 7.75 15.5 12.0 10.96 43.0 2.0 9.0 17.5 12.0 12.7 47.2 2.0 7.75 15.5 11.0 10.96 42.0 2.0 9.5 17.5 11.0 13.4 46.0 2.0 8.00 15.5 11.0 11.32 42.0 2.0 10.0 17.5 11.0 14.1 46.0 2.0 7.50 17.0 18.0 8.62 48.0 2.5 8.5 19.0 18.0 9.80 56.0 2.5 6�0 7.75 17.0 16.0 9.01 46.0 2.5 9.0 19.0 16.0 10.4 54.0 2.5 7.75 17.0 15.0 9.01 54.0 2.5 9.5 19.0 15.0 11.0 53.0 2.5 8.00 17.0 14.0 9.20 44.0 2.5 10.0 19.0 14.0 11.6 52.0 2.5 7.50 17.5 25.5 7.73 60.5 2.5 8.5 19.5 25.5 8.80 64.0 2.5 750 7.75 17.5 23.0 7.99 58.0 2.5 9.0 19.5 23.0 9.30 62.0 2.5 7.75 17.5 22.0 7.99 57.0 2.5 9.5 19.5 22.0 9.80 61.0 2.5 8.00 17.5 21.0 8.25 56.0 2.5 10.0 19.5 21.0 10.3 60.0 2.5 7.50 16.5 28.0 7.50 61.0 3.0 8.5 18.5 28.0 8.50 65.0 3.0 9�0 7.75 16.5 26.0 7.75 60.0 3.0 9.0 18.5 26.0 9.00 63.0 3.0 7.75 16.5 25.0 7.75 59.0 3.0 9.5 18.5 25.0 9.50 62.0 3.0 8.00 16.5 24.0 8.00 58.0 3.0 10.0 18.5 24.0 10.0 61.0 3.0 Exhibit C Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard spaces; 50 %compact spaces. All compact spaces shall be labeled as such. A Parking Angle e B Stall Width • E-t C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) F o D Aisle Width Between Stall Lines (5) ‘T E Stall Width Parallel to Aisle C • F Module Width (no bumper overhang) G Bumper Overhane 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; b. 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. (Ord. 09- 13; Ord. 06 -20) FIGURE 18.765.2 PARKING STRUCTURE MATRIX Required Space and Aisle Dimensions in Feet Compact Angle Interlock Overhang Vehicle Width Module Reduction Projection Widths A B C D E F G H I J 45 2.0 1.41 15.25 11.5 26.75 42.0 40.0 38.0 39.16 60 1.41 1.75 16.08 13.33 29.66 46.0 44.58 43.16 42.5 75 0.75 1.91 16.5 16.0 32.5 49.0 48.25 47.5 45.16 90 0.0 2.0 15.5 20.0 35.5 51.0 51.0 51.0 47.0 Standards Angle Interlock Overhang Vehicle Width Module Reduction Projection Widths A B C D E F G H I J 45 2.4 2.08 18.0 13.0 31.0 49.0 46.66 46.33 44.83 60 1.66 2.58 19.5 16.0 35.5 55.0 51.33 51.66 49.16 Exhibit C 75 0.83 2.91 19.75 20.0 39.75 59.5 58.66 57.83 53.66 90 0.0 3.0 18.66 24.66 43.33 62.0 62.0 62.0 56.0 A Parking angle F • B Interlock reduction SL C Overhang clearance D Projected vehicle length perpendicular to aisle to • I E Aisle width A F Parking module width (wall to wall), single loaded aisle �I E 641 G Parking module width (wall to wall), double loaded aisle H Parking module width (wall to interlock), double loaded aisle B I Parking module width (interlock to interlock), double loaded aisle i? J Parking module width (curb to curb), double loaded aisle ,`� 7► SL Stall Length SW Stall Width - WP Stall width parallel to aisle CUt8 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on -site buildings and /or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi -story residential building. B. Covered parking spaces. Exhibit C 1. When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case, the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for longterm (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At -cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well- drained. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Single - family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The Director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.5.e. 18.765.060 Parking Structure Design Standards A. Ground -floor windows /wall openings. All parking structures shall provide ground floor windows or wall openings along the street frontages. Blank walls are prohibited. Any wall facing the street shall contain windows, doors or display areas equal to at least 20% of the ground floor wall area facing the street excluding those portions of the face(s) devoted to driveway entrances and exits, stairwells, elevators, and centralized payment booths. Required windows shall have a sill no more than four feet above grade. Where the interior floor level prohibits such placement, the sill may be raised to allow it to be no more than two feet above finished floor wall up to a maximum sill height of six feet above grade. B. Exit warning bell. A warning bell or other signal must be provided for exits from parking structures that cross public sidewalks where a standard vision clearance area cannot be provided. C. Other standards. Parking structures must comply with all standards of the State Building Code as it pertains to structural design, ventilation, lighting and fire /safety requirements and disabled accessibility. Exhibit C D. Parking layout and internal circulation. The layout of parking within a parking structure shall be subject to the requirements contained in Figure 18.765.2. An applicant may request approval of an alternative layout and internal circulation by means of a Type II adjustment, as governed in Section 18.370.010, using the approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.5.f. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off - Street Parking Requirements A. Parking requirements for unlisted uses. 1. The Director may rule that a use, not specifically listed in Section 18.765.070.H, is a use similar to a listed use and that the same parking standards shall apply. If the applicant requests that the Director's decision be rendered in writing, it shall constitute a Director's Interpretation, as governed by Section 18.340. 2. The Director shall maintain a list of approved unlisted use parking requirements which shall have the same effect as an amendment to this chapter. B. Choice of parking requirements. When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees. Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off - street parking or loading. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in Section 18.765.070.H: Exhibit C 1. On- street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; religious institutions may count on- street parking around the perimeter of the use provided that the following criteria have been satisfied: a. The on- street parking is on a street that is designed and physically improved to accommodate parking within the right -of -way; b. The street where on- street parking is proposed is not located on local residential streets. 2. Fleet parking. Required vehicle parking spaces may not be used for storage of fleet vehicles, except when a use can show that employee and fleet parking spaces are used interchangeably, e.g., the employee drives the fleet vehicle from home, or the spaces are used for fleet storage only at night and are available for employee use during the day. For the purposes of this title, space exclusively devoted to the storage of fleet vehicles will be considered as outdoor storage. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. When calculating the maximum vehicle parking allowed as regulated by Section 18.765.080.H, the following exception shall apply: 1. The following types of parking shall not be included: a. Parking contained in a parking structure either incorporated into a building or freestanding; b. Market -rate paid parking; c. Designated carpool and /or vanpool spaces; d. Designated disabled - accessible parking spaces; e. Fleet parking. 2. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than six parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area, the development shall be allowed up to six parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 gross square feet, the development will be allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking. Reductions in the required number of vehicle parking spaces may be permitted as follows: Exhibit C 1. The Director may reduce off - street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to 20% in new developments for the incorporation of transit - related facilities such as bus stops and pull -outs, bus shelters, transit - oriented developments and other transit - related development through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.b. Applicants who qualify for this adjustment may also apply for further parking reductions per 18.765.070.F.2. below. 2. The Director may reduce the total required off - street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to a total of 20% by means of parking adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.a. 3. The Director is authorized to reduce up to 10% of existing required parking spaces at a conversion ratio of one parking space for each 100 square feet of transit facility for developments which incorporate transit - related facilities such as bus stops and pull -outs, bus shelters, transit - oriented development or other transit - related facilities through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.c. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. The Director may increase the total maximum number of vehicle spaces allowed in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.5.d. H. Specific requirements. (See Table 18.765.2) 1. Developments in the MU -CBD zone. Please see Section 18.610.060, off - street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU -CBD zone. (Ord. 10 -02 § 2; Ord. 09 -13; Ord. 02 -13) 18.765.080 Off - Street Loading Requirements A. Off - street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off - street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. B. Off - street loading dimensions. 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location. 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site. 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710. 4. Screening for off - street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Exhibit C TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF - STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (NA: Not Addressed DU: Dwelling Unit (M): Metro Requirement) MAXIMUM] 1 MINIMUMm ZONE A ZONE 13 BICYCLE 2] RESIDENTIAL Household Living Single Units, Attached See Multifamily (M) none (M) none (M) none Single Units, Detached 1.0 /DU none (M) none (M) none Accessory Units 1.0/DU none none none Multifamily Units DU <500 sq ft: 1.0/DU (M) none none 1.0/2 DUs except elderly, 1 bedroom: 1.25/DU (M) which 2 bedroom: 1.5/DU (M) is 1.0/20 DUs 3 bedroom: 1.75/DU (M)('1 Manufactured Units 1.0/DU (M) none (M) none (M) none Mobile Home Parks 1.0 /DU (M) none (M) none (M) none Group Living I.0 /room none none 1.0/5 beds 1.0/2.5 beds 2.7/1,000131 none Transitional Housing 1.0/2.5 beds none none 1.0/5 beds Home Occupation none none none None CIVIC Basic Utilities none none none None Colleges 0/5 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.0 students/staff Community Recreation 2.0/1,000 2.5/1,000 4.0/1,000 0.3/1,000 Cultural Institutions 2.5/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 1.0 /1,000 Day Care Home: none none none Home: none Commercial: 2.0 /classroom 2.7/1,000 3.2/1,000 Commercial: l.5 /classroom Emergency Services 3.0/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.5/1,000 Medical Centers 2.0/1,000141 2.7/1,00014] 3.2/1,000141 0.2/1,000 Postal Services 2.5/1,000 3.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.3/1,000 Public Support Facilities none none none none Religious Institutions 1.0/3161 seats in main 1.0/1.7 seats in main 1.0/1.3 seats in main 1.0/20 seats in main assembly assembly assembly assembly area area (M) area (M) area (M) Schools Preschool: 5.0+1 /classroom Preschool: 7.0+1.0 classroom Preschool: 10.0 +1 /classroom Preschool: 1.0 /classroom Elementary/JR: 2.0/classroom Elementary/JR: 2.5/classroom Elementary/JR: 3.5/classroom Elementary/JR: 6.0/classroom SR: 1.0/5 students/staff (M) SR: 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) SR: 1.0/3.3 students/staff (M) SR: 6.0 /classroom Social/Fratemal 10.0/1,000 main assembly 12.0/1,000 main assembly 14.0/1,000 main assembly 2.0/1,000 main assembly area Clubs/Lodges area area area Exhibit C TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF- STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (NA: Not Addressed DU: Dwelling Unit (M): Metro Requirement) MAXIMUMn] MINIMUMts; ZONE A ZONE B BICYCLE421 COMMERCIAL is] Commercial Lodging 1.0 /room 1.2/room 1.4 /room 1.0/10 rooms Eating and Drinking Fast foodiai: 996.0/1,000 (M) 12.4/1,000 (M) 14.9/1,000 (M) All: 1.0 /1,000 Establishments other: 4438.0 /1,000 (M) 19.1/1,000 (M) 23.0/1,000 (M) Entertainment — Oriented Major Event Entertainment 1.0/3 seats or 1.0/6' bench 1.0/2.5 seats or 1.0/2 seats or 1.0/10 seats or 40' bench 1.0/5' bench 1.0/4' bench Outdoor Entertainment 4.0/1,000 (M) 4.5/1,000 5.0/1,000 0.4/1,000 Indoor Entertainment 4.3/1,000 (M) 5.4/1,000 (M) 6.5/1,000 (M) 0.5/1,000 Theater: 1.0/3 seats (M) _ Theater: 1.0/2.5 seats (M) Theater 1.0/2.0 seats (M) 1.0/10 seats Adult Entertainment 2.5/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.5 /1,000 1.0/3 seats (M) 1.0/1.25 seats (M) 1.0/2.0 seats (M) 1.0/20 seats General Retail Sales- Oriented 343.0/1,000 (M) 5.1/1,000 (M) 6.2/1,000 (M) 0.3/1,000 Personal Services 2.5/1,000 3.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 1.0 /1,000 Bank with drive in: 5.4/1,000 (M) 6.5/1,000 (M) 1.0 /1,000 442.7/1,000(M) Repair - Oriented 3.3/1,000 4.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.3/1,000 Bulk Sales 1.0/1,000 but no less than 1.3/1,000 2.0/1,000 0.3/1,000 10.0 Outdoor Sales 1.0/1,000 sales area 1.3/1,000 sales area 2.0/1,000 sales area 0.1 /1,000 sales area Animal - Related 3.3/1,000 4.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 _0.3/1,000 Motor Vehicle Related Motor Vehicle Sales/Rentul 1.0/1,000 but no less than 4.0 1.3/1,000 but no less than 4.0 2.0/1,000 but no less than 4.0 0.2/1,000 sales area Motor Vehicle 2.0 /1,000 but no Tess than 4.0 2.3/1,000 but no less than 4.0 2.6/1,000 but no less than 4.0 0.2/1,000 Servicing/Repair Vehicle Fuel Sales 3.0+2.0 /service bay 4.0+2.0 /service bay 4.0 +2.5 /service bay 0.2/1,000 Office 2.7/1,000 (M) 3.4/1,000 (M) 4.1/1,000 (M) 0.5 /1,000 Medical/Dental Office _ 3.9/1,000 (M) 4.9/1,000 (M) 5.9/1,000 (M) 0.4/1,000 Exhibit C TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF - STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (NA: Not Addressed DU: Dwelling Unit (M): Metro Requirement) MAXIMUMtii MINIMUMts ZONE A ZONE B BICYCLEt2J Self- Service Storage 1.0/4 storage units 1.0/4 storage units 1.0/2 storage units 1.0/40 storage units Non - Accessory Parking none none none None INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 1.8/1,000 0.1 /1,000 Manufacturing and Production Light Industrial 1.6 /1,000 (M) none none 0.1 /1,000 General Industrial 1.6/1,000 (M) none none 0.1 /1,000 Heavy Industrial 1.6 /1,000 (M) none none 0.1 /1,000 Railroad Yards none none none none Research and Development 2.0/1,000 3.0/1,000 3.8/1,000 0.5 /1,000 Warehouse/Freight <150,000 sq ft: 0.5/1,000 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 0.1 /1,000 Movement >150,000 sq ft: 0.3/1,000 (M) 0.4/1,000 (M) 0.5 /1,000 (M) Waste- Related 5.0 7.0 10.0 none Wholesale Sales 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 1.8 /1,000 0.1 /1,000 OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture 2.5/1,000 sales area but no none none none less than 4.0 Cemeteries Exempt Exempt Exempt none Detention Facilities 1.0/2.5 beds none none 1.0/2.5 beds • Heliports none none none none Mining <5.0 none none none Wireless Communication none none none none Facilities Rail Lines/Utility Corridors none none none none to To be determined by the City of Tigard based on Metro criteria, in Required bicycle parking shall be required per the ratios below except in no case shall there be fewer than two spaces provided. [ Refers to 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, unless otherwise noted. iq Does not include outpatient clinics or medical offices: see Medical /Dental Offices. tst Please see Section 18.610.060, off - street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU -CBD zone. [6]Religious institutions may provide 1 space for every 4 seats on site in the main assembly area provided that they supply the city with a parking plan that demonstrates that the peak parking demand of 1 space for every 3 seats is met utilizing any combination of the alternatives mentioned in this chapter. Adjustments to the minimum parking of 1 space for every 3 seats may be granted per applicable provisions of the code, but shall not decrease the amount of required on -site parking to less than 1 space for every 4 seats (unless the cumulative value of all adjustments granted results in an adjusted requirement of less than I space for every 4 seats). 1 i In the MU -CBD zone the minimum parking requirements for all multiamily units is 1.0 /DU. Exhibit C TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF - STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARIUNG REQUIREMENTS (NA: Not Addressed DU: Dwelling Unit (M): Metro Requirement) MAXIMIIMIII MINIMUM[5: ZONE A 1 ZONE B 1 BICYCLEI_i is Fast Food designation includes all eating and drinking establishments with a "walk up counter" and /or less than 10 tables. Examples include Subwa). Starbadm,Chipotle. ei�. Exhibit D MEMORANDUM ( Carvino® Shaping the Future To: Noel Johnson, Vice President 5415 SW Westgate Drive Killian Pacific Suite 100 noel(akillianpacific.com Portland, Oregon 97221 USA From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Phone (503) 419-2500 Date: December 27, 2012 fax (503) 419 -2600 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums CardnoWRG#: www.cardno.com Re: Assessment of Two Properties Historically Deficient on Parking Cardno reviewed a list of properties (see below) that are perceived to be historically deficient on parking when compared to current City of Tigard standards. Cardno analyzed a representative sample of these properties based on the existing and proposed parking standards. This memorandum gives a brief assessment of the parking conditions found so as to illustrate our general conclusions. Cardno understands the City is concerned about how the proposed parking modifications would affect these existing situations, based on our analysis the proposed amendments would not affect these properties as the problems are atypical and unique to each respective property. These properties represent existing deficiencies that would not be remedied with the proposed code amendments. While the extent of the nonconformity of each property with the City's parking requirements would be lessened, overall each of the sites analyzed would still not meet standards. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses. Land Use Current Code Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking quantities for mixed -use projects. Current Required Parking Quantity for Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed - Use Projects Mixed-Use Projects Percent of Percent of Required Quantity Required Quantity Primary Use 100% Primary Use 100x/ Secondary Use 90% Secondary Use 85% Subsequent Uses 80% Tertiary Uses 70% Subsequent Uses 60% Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries (j) C mino Shaping the Future Property Analysis Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency 11445 Pac Hwy Bounty Hunter Saloon Eating and Drinking Assessment: The property is adjacent to the Regency Inn motel, and thus a defacto shared parking situation complicates this property and its parking functionality. Furthermore, the property is significantly under parked. County records indicate this single tenant restaurant building is 5,446 SF in size, but current observations count only 32 stalls being available (and some stalls are significantly compromised /unusable). Under current Tigard parking minimum standards, the 32 stalls of parking would allow only 2,092SF of restaurant, while under the proposed standards, 4,000 SF of restaurant would be allowed. Conclusion: Even with the proposed standards 44 stalls would be required for this property. The proposed amendments would not make the property in conformance with minimum parking requirements for the City. Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency 12700 North Dakota Scholls Commercial Center Eating and Drinking — Insufficient Ratio Analysis: Key Bank, as well as significant eating and dining users (Starbucks, Quiznos, Pasta Pronto) exist with other users (Dry Cleaners, etc.) to create parking requirements that are significant. Per County records, Key Bank's 3,593 SF would require 16 stalls. County records do not provide the size nor breakdown of SF for the multi- tenant building; nonetheless, it is estimated to be approximately 11,500SF in size, which equates to a need of between 100 to160 stalls. Observed parking stalls were counted to be approximately 70 in number. Conclusion: The current situation does not meet code, nor would it meet the future code, as proposed. It is unknown how or why this occupancy situation has come to be. Nonetheless, even with the proposed amendments this site would still be nonconforming in terms of minimum parking spaces required.. Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency City Hall and Tigard Library Public Institutions Analysis: Parking appears to be deficient at these two locations as it relates to accommodating peak demands for the facilities due to special events. High volume events cause atypical needs for parking that realized during short specific timelines. Events such as these are unique to institutional and /or public gathering spaces. Conclusion: The concerns associated with these properties would not be realized within a commercial development and would be specific to public uses and should be addressed within that specific use. December 27, 2012 C Shaping the Future AREAS (PARCELS) HISTORICALLY SHORT ON PARKING Single Business Address Business Primary Cause 11445 Pac Hwy Bounty Hunter Saloon E&D* 11611 Pac Hwy Teriyaki Bowl /Union Mission E&D /Retail /Insufficient Ratio 11646 Pac Hwy Transmission Repair Insufficient Ratio 11652 Pac Hwy Hookah Bar Insufficient Ratio 13050 Pac Hwy Sanchez Taqueria E&D /FF ** 11320 Pac Hwy Martins Auto Detailing Business Expansion 12705 Pac Hwy Hookah Bar Shared w /E&D 12725 Pac Hwy Restaurant E&D Retail Centers Address Development Primary Cause 12100/44 Scholls Retail Strip E&D /FF /Insufficient Ratio 12210 Scholls Greenway Center E&D /FF /Large Retail 13125 Hall Blvd City Hall Insufficient Ratio? 13500 Hall Blvd Tigard Library Insufficient Ratio? 11705 Pac Hwy Pacific Crossing E&D /FF 15917 -95 Hall Blvd Strip Development FF /Insufficient Ratio 12700 North Dakota Scholls Commercial Center E&D /FF /Insufficient Ratio 9800 Shady Ln Retail Strip Insufficient Ratio * E&D = Eating and Drinking ** FF = Fast Food December 27, 2012 MEMORANDUM Shaping the Failure To: Noel Johnson, Vice President 5415 SW Westgate Drive Killian Pacific Suite 100 noel(a�killianpacific.com Portland, Oregon 97221 USA From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Phone (503) 419-2500 Date: February 8, 2013 Fax (503) 419 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums www.cardno.com CardnoWRG#: Re: Supplemental information to support the requested parking minimum text amendment This memo is presented to provide supplemental information to support the text amendment to reduce the minimum parking ratio for specific commercial uses in the City of Tigard. The applicant, Killian Pacific, owns and operates commercial, residential and employment properties through the metropolitan region. The applicant's primary concern when developing and commercial sites is that there is adequate parking to support the tenants and uses within the center. If there is not adequate parking they will not be able to lease storefronts. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses in the City of Tigard. Land Use Current Code Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 These ratios are based on two methodologies undertaken -1) a parking comparison of existing commercial centers in the region (provided as Exhibit B in the original submittal) and 2) a comparative analysis of jurisdictional minimum parking standards throughout the Portland Metro region. Based on the analysis conducted under the comparison of existing commercial centers, findings demonstrate that the application of the current Tigard parking ratios would require significant additional acreage, essentially making the project unfeasible. The comparative analysis of jurisdictional standards demonstrates that the requested minimum parking ratios generally fall in the middle of the parking requirement spectrum. As shown in the previously submitted Exhibit A- Comparison of Minimum Parking Standards, jurisdictions requiring lower parking ratios for both fast food and sit -down restaurants include: • Gresham (8/1,000 for sit down; 6/1,000 for fast food with drive - thru), • Beaverton (10/1,000 for sit down), • Milwaukee (4/1,000 for both), and • Oregon City (4.1/1,000 for both). 2011 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS (EOA) The 2011 EOA prepared by Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC summarizes the commercial land needs for the City of Tigard. There are three assumed land need scenarios — efficient, moderate, and high land need scenarios. Under the efficient land need scenario there is a land surplus of 8 acres Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries Cardno Shaping the Future of vacant commercial land, while the medium and high land need scenarios show a deficit of 19 and 45 acres, respectively. As stated in the EOA, As Tigard's population and employment levels increase with time, and vacant land diminishes, the City will need to rely more upon redevelopment areas, and productivity increases from existing developed lands to achieve long -term economic strength and diversity." As demonstrated in the previously submitted Exhibit B— Parking Comparison of Existing Commercial Centers, efficient or even moderate land need scenarios will be better achieved by reducing the minimum parking requirements for commercial development. The successful commercial centers around the Portland Metro region provide parking at a ratio of 5 stalls per 1,000 SF of total leasable space, which does save critical land that can be used for more efficient land uses and intensities. As an example provided in Exhibit B, the Nimbus Center would require 35 additional spaces requiring approximately 0.36 acres of additional land to develop under the current minimum parking requirements. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 5 stalls would exist. This text amendment request will achieve greater productivity from developed lands by reducing the area dedicated to vehicle parking. RESULTS OF THE 2011 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES SURVEY A memo from the 2011 Community Attitudes Survey summarized the key findings from a telephone survey conducted among a representative sample of 400 residents age 18 and older in the City of Tigard. Key findings applicable to commercial development and our requested text amendment include: 1) residents desire more family - friendly restaurants, upscale restaurants, and grocery stores in Tigard and 2) increased dining options were mentioned most frequently as a reason for residents traveling outside Tigard. If this trend continues and Tigard continues to have one of the highest parking requirements in the region for sit down restaurants, these uses will be the most difficult to attract to existing developments. THE STATUS OF THE ELMO STUDD'S SITE REDEVELOPMENT As noted in the memo addressed to Marty Wine and Kenny Asher, attached with this document, Killian Pacific has worked with Kittelson & Associates to maintain the full movement intersection that currently exists at SW Fanno Creek Place and the Elmo Studd's Building Supplies location. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has rejected the findings made by Kittelson, asserting that redevelopment would necessitate a right -in /right -out intersection. This discrepancy results even after Kittelson completed a study according to a mutually agreed upon scope. SUMMARY This supplemental information provides further evidence to support the text amendment request to reduce the minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. February 11,2013 I V K I TTE L SON 8c ASSOC I NC . TRANSPORTATION E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 1 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169 March 29, 2013 Project #: 11300 Noel Johnson Killian Pacific 500 E Broadway, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 RE: Parking Study of Various Sites in Tigard, Oregon Dear Noel, Pursuant to your request and conversations with City of Tigard staff, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. conducted weekday and weekend parking studies of six properties in Tigard. This letter provides a brief summary of the data collection process and the observed parking rates by time of day. The parking counts as well as graphical summaries of parking demand and occupancy rates are provided by time of day for further use by interested parties. Data Collection Parking data were collected at six locations in Tigard during a typical mid -week day and Saturday in March 2013. Parking supply at each parking lot was noted and hourly parking demand was measured throughout the day. Parking data was generally collected between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM, with data collection hours varying by site based on the type of land use, hours of operation, and expected peak parking characteristics. Table 1 below identifies the locations of the six sites studied. Table 1 Parking Demand Study Sites — Tigard, Oregon Total Building Size Study Site Address (square feet) Parking Supply' (spaces) Scholls Ferry McDonald's 12388 SW Scholls Ferry Road 6,682 66 Greenway Shopping Center 12220 SW Scholls Ferry Road 139,169 452 Buster's Barbecue 11419 SW Pacific Highway 9,421 116 Pacific Crossroads 11705 SW Pacific Highway 39,340 156 Wells Fargo Bank 11760 SW Hall Boulevard 7,550 32 Nimbus Center 10115 SW Nimbus Avenue 26,281 93 1 Includes handicapped spaces The parking count worksheets are included in Attachment "A." FILENAME: H: I PROJFILEI11300 - TIGARD SITE REDEVELOPMENTI PARKING111300 PARKING RATE L TR. DOCX Tigard Commercial Sites Parking Generation Rates Project #: 11300.10 March 29, 2013 Page: 2 Parking Demand Rate Summary Parking demand rates (as a function of building area) were calculated for each site for mid -week and Saturday demand during the morning, mid -day, and afternoon peak hours. The observed peak parking data are summarized in Table 2 by time period. The shaded cells with bold text in Table 2 highlight peak observed parking demand for each site. Table 2 Peak Parking Demand Rates for Various Sites in Tigard' Parking Rate By Time of Day Parking Spaces Occupied (Spaces occupied per 1,000 square feet) Building Mid -week Saturday Mid -week Saturday Size (square Mid- Mid- Mid- Mid - Study Site feet) AM day PM AM day PM AM day PM AM day PM Scholls Ferry 6,682 15 41 23 51 38 49 2. 24 6.14 3.44 7.63 5.69 7.33 McDonald's Greenway 139,169 117 239 229 230 277 232 0.84 1.72 1.65 1.65 1.99 1.67 Shopping Center Buster's Barbecue 9,421 12 36 41 14 28 48 1.27 3.82 4.35 1.49 2.97 5.10 Pacific Crossroads 39,340 43 71 55 44 98 86 1.09 1.80 1.40 1.12 2.49 2.19 Wells Fargo Bank 7,550 14 15 17 7 11 8 1.85 1.99 2.25 0.93 1.46 1.06 Nimbus Center 26,281 37 84 2 56 Z 30 49 43 1.41 3.20 2.13 1.14 1.86 1.64 For the purposes of Table 2, AM is defined as occurring in the period before 11 AM, mid -day occurs between 11 AM and 2 PM, and PM occurs after 2 PM 2 Represents data collected in October2006 Please call me at (503) 535 -7433 if you have any questions about this information. Sincerely, /r KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. l Chris Brehmer, P.E. t oo PR . Principal Engineer � et N F E ` 62836PE • ,, OREG • Attachments 1 s T 0 ly' /1 9 A. Raw Parking Data EXpirES: 1 �� ... B. Parking Demand Profiles Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Attachment A Parking Data Worksheets Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Greenway Shopping Center Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 L -0 L - L - L co v) i5 a m ," "O CL) 16 ' -O 01 !6 D N 0 0 . Stall on (a Q on ;° ro a on ;° r Q do ° ru Q Classification c �' _ , `�' = �' _ ° �' _ co Available 176 6 144 1 43 4 75 3 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls 7:00 AM 4 0 18 0 14 0 3 0 8:00 AM 9 0 20 0 12 0 9 0 9:00 AM 22 1 33 0 8 0 24 0 10:00 AM 40 0 34 0 8 0 35 0 11:00 AM 59 0 52 0 9 0 43 0 12:00 PM 94 3 57 2 18 0 47 0 1:00 PM 99 4 65 1 21 1 48 0 2:00 PM 78 2 49 0 18 0 37 0 3:00 PM 85 3 54 1 13 1 42 0 4:00 PM 54 1 39 1 18 1 42 0 5:00 PM 110 3 40 0 29 1 44 2 6:00 PM 98 3 40 0 26 0 38 1 7:00 PM 104 1 32 1 26 0 24 0 8:00 PM 57 1 14 0 29 0 21 0 9:00 PM 43 1 12 0 17 0 10 0 Zone 1 Note: Semi blocking 2 handicapped and 4 regular spaces at 8:00 AM Note: Truck blocking 7 regular spaces at 11:00 AM Zone 3 Note: Truck blocking 6 regular spaces and truck blocking 5 regular spaces at 8:00 AM Zone 4 Note: Truck blocking 7 regular spaces from 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM Note: Truck blocking 5 regular spaces at 12:00 PM Quality Counts I RANSPORT AT{ON DA A COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Scholls Ferry McDonalds r a v Stall o c a Classification cc f' = Available Stalls 62 4 Time Occupied Stalls 7:00 AM 14 0 8:00 AM 15 0 9:00 AM 15 0 10:00 AM 25 0 11:00 AM 31 0 12:00 PM 40 0 1:00 PM 40 1 2:00 PM 29 1 3:00 PM 17 1 4:00 PM 23 0 5:00 PM 16 0 6:00 PM 23 0 7:00 PM 18 0 8:00 PM 16 0 9:00 PM 9 0 Note: Truck taking up 8 regular stalls and 1 handicapped stall from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Note: Service truck blocked 3 regular stalls at 8:00 PM Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3119/2013 Buster's Barbeque — -0 3 v Stall co a a v, z rcs Classification cc Available 113 3 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls 11:00 AM 12 0 12:00 PM 36 0 1:00 PM 30 0 2:00 PM 14 0 3:00 PM 17 0 4:00 PM 19 0 5:00 PM 18 0 6:00 PM 33 1 7:00 PM 40 1 Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DA1 A COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Pacific Crossroads Zone 1 Zone 2 f6 N 'Es vt 'D QJ ra Stall c a c 3 c a. v to Q M .. (13 a r Classification = _ ° cc v' _ u Available 120 2 33 1 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls 11:00 AM 37 0 6 0 12:00 PM 47 0 7 0 1:00 PM 60 0 11 0 2:00 PM 45 1 5 0 3:00 PM 47 0 3 0 4:00 PM 34 1 7 0 5:00 PM 43 1 11 0 6:00 PM 41 0 12 0 7:00 PM 37 0 10 0 Quality Counts 1 RANSPOR I A I ION DA 1 A COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Wells Fargo Stall ;3 o Classification `r' _ (13 Available 30 2 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls 9:00 AM 8 0 10:00 AM 10 0 11:00 AM 14 0 12:00 PM 14 1 1:00 PM 13 0 2:00 PM 17 0 3:00 PM 13 1 4:00 PM 10 0 5:00 PM 14 0 6:00 PM 6 0 1 18295 SW 9591 715.0. OP 9722• Avenue Plione 50343204242 A al 653 820.4536 en. au•Idecounls.nel . _ ..�1e mn Tolal 8.14910 Aupply .1991 95 ..55• 191 • 20 775 •••,.1 2 ,,, beat 1135 13 Ss.sx I 755.1131 51 7 , 7 , 7r 1 5555.1 1 m l 0 UN 011 0755 lip• tete % Ave •'1 Oe..< s.il uAA. 0498 0498 SM tau •.. 015 •p5 Tote 155 x O•. •p. I1 BA 1 11 117 10 11 N M% . 1 0 1717 30 50% e e ] 1 1 55 •. 710 1 1 3 22u% , 2 7 2e 13% • • 2197% e e 77 sax 755 1 1 2 uuv 0 1 9 12 27 50% 10 10 70 575 6 e 57505. n 1 B It 04 375 0 11 77 771 9 9 50 072 710 1 1 1111% 1 . 7 11 04 0175 17 17 5 e a !0001 e 20 e 0 1 t 1111% 0 13 . 1 1 - 5 14 43. 1 1 1 TH. e 30. 3 750 5 f7 (IS f�rit.. 1 1� •. • 06 7 1 011 0 71 .1155 •,.1 y,,,,, •Iil ..- 1.550lul 55550 1131 72 .l% 455[15.1 5 sl .p• 717. 57 95 51 9. 5W ,a. . _ .. b 1a. 555 •1711 3 n 1 7 7 le% i . - .6 }1 >s 11 to 06. 130 1 9 70 a,. , 15 20 62,07 n 13 60 to 1. • m% 1170 1 , ], .% 1 1 55 7 4 1_ 1 n 261 I.-- a 1., 1 14 2 55 5 NI 35 5 2 .Sa 455•,.1 6111% •55•111 4550.0 ma y. 4550113, 530175 •155.11.1 16 93. 10 5 „,„ 000, is qx I :ts. 16 137661 .7 .50 5 55 Se% 0007. e. mr0. 71 5700. 13 65 507 0 55567 0D. .115x. 15 55.5. 15 5195% M 5 5 5 5 %1 1 p p 1 1 2,27. 1 b o 14 55, 1 1 .. 1]d .wwt 1 1 5 7 0 151 ..1 OP 97224 . 1 SO3 620-46= .70516! a 60.64 0 )5, 6 ,..,.1 .05 1611 fe man =a .,a, IS 2121... Owe wl If 6, e,n 64 4.345.44 .,.zn MB 6. 014os ea ,m , ... .. Of= .M ,m . A. BP 4b ADA ,m n Me .. 4b ,.„ ,.. n 6. e. 4b .4, ,m n An 75. n A. ,10 0 0 0 0 ; 0 , 00 : 070 • : 064 75 „26 , 50 6 0 , : 11 5115 : ` ,_' : 0 0„ ; ;0 ' ,w 0 3 6 0 z e 6 0 M . e 664. r 13 0% n 20 Ms. 510 ' e 3 � 0 , , 0 370 0 ,; ;_ 1. 0 ; u 54.41: N. 161 w. .70•(61 x... 11:=. 757 - 11:=1. , x. 1,270 .,e.. 512 ace ,D. ,.. ._ « 01= RIME! .. 707070 , ... .. RI ._ „. , • 7777. 1 "° e .se.MsermseMse�_smms ,,.e ,, 341,.„ 020 , , e Dime , sMUS sss__ _ _ s�s�ss , 1 .3.. , sn!+sasse... os•ssls „s 6* ,e,, 0 b 1 , 0eas. 7 RERMIIIIIIIMIRUIP=RIIRIIIMMEMINIRIMm,. ,a III 72% : 6 : 70 ; . 1 , 6.., RRI IRI e III,,. ; w"; ,a ,1,,, 1 M nASeAseIses r.� s�eII „s 5 .1„ , 3 s . nrimr efsememsssi „a n 2 7 5 2 5 . . 1 1 MEM=1 MASess• MIN RIR ..— ,es, 79 11616. , .."11M RIRIMR IERIses!s•ssiss 67 63 We 1 ' . e � ' BPI , e.,. ISO-. 6.,34 _ .. x ■•••.,.� .,� ••••C 1111 _ r. Plan ■ MP . 4 W m e. . , •.. Y CO. w .034 , B. 4ra ADe ,m M @. 41044 .M , m ,.. ,. 57 41 306. 1770 6 0x36 .6 06 1. 0.70 s sun „e 11 5 . J 5 I 2 0 0523 1 55 0 ,J � I o. :,1 1 G 6, l 1 v am Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Greenway Shopping Center Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 ro v, 'O a ra '^ €3 a m v, 'a a) -3 7, ra v' =p a o Stall 5 c a C a C Q c Q OD }, ra a o4 ,. ro a on �., ro Q Or) m a Classification = ( `) = v) = r `n = o Available 176 6 144 1 43 4 75 3 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls 10:00 AM 138 2 50 0 19 1 20 0 11:00 AM 170 3 66 0 13 1 23 0 12:00 PM 156 4 66 1 19 0 31 0 1:00 PM 150 4 53 1 19 0 33 0 2:00 PM 126 5 52 0 17 1 30 1 3:00 PM 108 4 40 1 18 1 31 0 4:00 PM 120 3 39 1 27 0 24 0 5:00 PM 100 4 37 0 25 1 12 0 6:00 PM 107 1 48 1 32 2 18 0 7:00 PM 100 2 42 1 35 0 13 0 Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Scholls Ferry McDonalds Stall m CO a Classification cc V) _ Available 62 4 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls 10:00 AM 49 2 11:00 AM 34 0 12:00 PM 37 1 1:00 PM 34 0 2:00 PM 44 1 3:00 PM 49 0 4:00 PM 32 0 5:00 PM 29 0 6:00 PM 21 0 7:00 PM 25 0 Note: Tractor occupying 3 regular stalls at 10:00 AM Quality Counts RANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Nimbus Center Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Zone E T, _ -o -2 (a vi 0 v (a �n N ra '� 'O N 'd aJ "O N Stall r 7,, c a 7,-, c a c 0 n c a c a aD Y ra a on Y (a Q. 0.0 a.+ (a a aJ v) I ra a1 N = (a aJ V5 = (a a1 (A = ra a) cif = (a Classification cc u cc 0 cc 0 CC u cC Available 9 0 2 1 32 0 31 3 16 0 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls 10:00 AM 4 0 0 0 15 0 8 0 3 0 11:00 AM 4 0 1 0 18 0 8 1 2 0 12:00 PM 4 0 1 0 22 0 19 1 2 0 1:00 PM 4 0 1 0 19 0 14 0 2 0 2:00 PM 9 0 1 0 17 0 13 1 2 0 3:00 PM 7 0 2 0 18 0 10 0 2 0 4:00 PM 6 0 1 1 18 0 11 2 3 0 5:00 PM 8 0 0 0 16 0 16 1 2 0 6:00 PM 6 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 2 0 7:OOPM 8 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 2 0 Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Buster's Barbeque v, v Stall m ° a Classification ce _ Available 113 3 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls 11:00 AM 14 0 12:00 PM 16 0 1:00 PM 27 1 2:00 PM 38 1 3:00 PM 38 2 4:00 PM 34 1 5:00 PM 31 3 6:00 PM 47 1 7:00 PM 41 1 Note: Truck occupying 2 regular stalls at 3:00 PM -- Truck occupying 3 regular stalls at 4:00 PM a: Quality Counts TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Pacific Crossroads Zone 1 Zone 2 m v, i7, a ca v, La a, = c a 5 a Stall on , a on c CO Q CU Classification `/' = ° �' _ 0 Available 120 2 33 1 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls 11:00 AM 31 0 13 0 12:00 PM 54 0 8 0 1:00 PM 86 1 11 0 2:00 PM 79 1 6 0 3:00 PM 71 1 5 0 4:00 PM 61 1 5 0 5:00 PM 59 0 11 0 6:00 PM 45 1 11 0 7:00 PM 34 0 11 0 Quality Counts IRANSFORIAIION DAT COLLECTION SERVICES 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/23/2013 Wells Fargo o J a v Stall ° 0 Classification Available 30 2 Stalls Time Occupied Stalls 9:00 AM 1 0 10:00 AM 7 0 11:00 AM 10 1 12:00 PM 9 0 1:00 PM 9 0 2:00 PM 8 0 3:00 PM 2 0 4:00 PM 2 0 5:00 PM 2 0 6:00 PM 1 0 Attachment B Parking Demand Profiles Scholls Ferry McDonald's - Tuesday 100% 60 - 90% 80% 5 — — 1 - -- -- -- 111 70% X 6096 i it P 1 S g 30 40% la 20 10 • I , I " 11 1 20% 10% 0 , 0% 8 c4 cP e & cP 6' 8 6' 8 8 6" 8 8 8 Time of Day MN Regular Stalls Occupied ■ Handicapped Stalls Occupied ■Total Supply Available — Parking Occupancy Scholls Ferry McDonald's - Tuesday 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 .6 14 c r 5.00 / 2.24 1.00 _ 135 0.00 Pg $ P4' P� Pi e e e c` e e e e e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A 8 8 8 8 f9 N 9:.• oi• gy p . h ,.,. y ti . ti. 'V 'V V y. ki. ^. %. C . Time of Day — Parking Rate Per 1,000 Square Feet Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) - Tuesday 450 100% 400 111111 1111 MI 90% 350 111 111 . IIII 10% 7076 Y 250 I IIIIIU UU II 60°.6 C st 200 U 50% f 150 ■■■■M IiiII 40°/ 100 • UP ' IUUU 1II U 20% II i 10% 0 ll ____ - __ II 0% / a a a a a a a a a a a a' 45' ' Time of Day i■i Regular Stalls Occupied ilM Handicapped Stalls Occupied ■ Total Supply Available - - -- Parking Occupancy Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) - Tuesday 10.00 9.00 - 1100 7.00 6.00 1 15.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2 _ 35 1.00 .17 T. .12 -•er,r : : 0.60 0.00 . - Time of Day — Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feat Pacific Crossroads (all zones) - Tuesday 100% 140 - - 90% 80% 120 ■ lox 100 _ 8 60% gp 50% g ■ r 6° - • 30% I Iii 0 ■ ■ __. - 2096 0 ■ ■ O% ti$ •�.& 8 / e 8 Pr � / Time of Day ■ Regular Stalls Occupied UM Handicapped Stalls Occupied aao Total Supply Available - Parking Occupancy Pacific Crossroads (all zones) - Tuesday 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 - - _---------------- 2 6.00 - 1 5.00 - t 4.00 - - 3.00 2.00 - 1.00 • - _ . 1.19 0.00 . I - � - -- , 4 ,v- „ft CP C4 CP CF 8 8 8� ' . ../ '1 ti b h b 1 Time of Day ---- Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Buster's Barbecue - Tuesday 100% 90% 100 80% 80 70% X u 111 60% m c m a a i 60 50% 8 c so co 40% E a 40 'Si 20 /. 20 %� 1111 10% 0 _ . - 0% Q ` ' Q * a Q Q e` a Q c oo oo oo o° oo oo oo oo oo Time of Day moo Regular Stalls Occupied mom Handicapped Stalls Occupied mom Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy Buster's Barbecue - Tuesday 10.00 — 9.00 - 8.00 7.00 V. 6.00 m cc c 5.00 0 4.00 4.35 :2 .61 3.00 .18 2.00 . 1.00 1.27 0.00 -- O o Time of Day Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Wells Fargo - Tuesday 100% 30 111 90% 25 80% x 2. .. . 11 SO% b 10 Ii • • p p i 409 5 II II . iii O% 0 Il II l U 1 1 196 P 4 P� P ` r a 4 a 4 a 4 a 4 d`r a 4 a 4 Time of Day ■ Regular Stalls Occupied MI Handicapped Stalls Occupied mai Total Supply Available — Parking Occupancy Wells Fargo - Tuesday 10.00 9.00 — 8.00 7.00 v 6.00 c 5.00 - Y d 4.00 3.00 2.00 .2 1.00 2 2 0.79 0 .00 I I I I I 1 ,Ir gQ 4 zr Q tr � � ,ce q ct Q ci . YO . yN. Y' �, ti . 'Y. n i. a . y. 66. Time of Day — Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Nimbus Center Total Utilization on October 18th, 2006 100% - 90% 80% -- - .■■■A 70% - -- - a 60% - itk c A u 50% - — V ez 40% - 30% •.A. - 20% - -- - 10% 0% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Time of Day Nimbus Center Total Utilization on October 19th, 2006 100% 90% 4 \41 1 80% 70% ›+ 60% o. 50% u u 0 40% - 30% - 20% 10% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Time of Day Scholls Ferry McDonald's - Saturday 100% 60 90% 50 - - - -- go% at i 40 0% a 10 a a 5 m 60% g 30 z d 50% .E 20 2 40% 10 30% 0 . , , , 20% P P� Q 4' Q � Q � Q 4 Q 4 Q 4' ti N; ti* d o 8 ro• ,■• Time of Day ■ Regular Stalls Occupied a>• Handicapped Stalls Occupied ■ Total Supply Available — Parking Occupancy Scholls Ferry McDonald's - Saturday 10.00 - -- - 9.00 8.00 - -- - 7.63 7.00 7.33 • . 3 6.00 GI e 5.00 — " - - 5.99 -- - - - 4 a. 4.00 _ 4.34 3.74 3.00 to 2.00 1.00 0.00 , , , , ,P et z 84 . ,Q 4 ss sA ,,A 1' c9 8 a N. j N. • .1% 5 b• h �• N. Time of Day — Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) - Saturday Iso • • 100% , 100 III • :.1.-!. _ 8 0 % 330 • • 70% 300 6040% °� X j 250 _ 111111 c ■ n a 50% g 200 a • 150 . 1111 30% 150 __ ••U••• • • 10% 50 0 -. • •••u• 0% ' 8 � � ; 8 8 8 8 8 N / e 8 Time of Day ■ Regular Stalls Occupied ■ Handicapped Stalls Occupied =RA Total Supply Available -Parking Occupancy Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) - Saturday 10.00 - - - - - - -- 9.00 - - 9.00 7.00 6.00 i 1 5.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.M 1.39 1.00 0.00 , Titer of Owe Parting Rate pr 1,000 Square fat Nimbus Center (all zones) - Saturday 100% ■ 90% 7 ■ _ _ ■ ■ ■ 70 ■ III ■ ■ ■ 8096 7096 60% a< i 50 96 1 40 IMI bib El ..._ III ...... um iii • ■ . ■ Ill 40% d 20 • ill • IIIII 10 • • ■ ■ 10% 0 - 0% � s s e e ' 9 �a 0P ' ,9 Time of Day MIII Regular Stay Occupied ■ Handicapped Stalls Occupied Me Total %poly Available — Parking Occupancy Nimbus Center (all zones) - Saturday 10.00 9.00 — -- - 0.00 7.00 - - 6.00 1 1 9.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 64 .29 1.00 1.11 u. o 0.00 , , , , „ 4, .49' 0 s4 8 ,s s 0 � 0 ," 0 , N. N. Time at Day — Parting Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Pacific Crossroads (all zones) - Saturday 100% 140 - -- 90% 120 ■ ■ fi ■ ■ 80% 100 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 70% I ,� ■■ ■ ■■ o %a ■ . ■ ■ :: mu 40% { 60 30% 40 a. 20°h 20 10% 0 0% cs 8 & d' & . 8 8 8 , ..; ti ti M 9. h b ', Time of Day MIN Regular Stalls Occupied ■ Handicapped Stalls Occupied aaata Total Supply Available --- Parking Occupancy Pacific Crossroads (all zones) - Saturday 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 1 6.00 c c 5.00 ` d 400 3.00 9 2.00 19 196 1.7X 1 le 1 4S 1.00 1.14 0.00 ti � A' 8 8 S. 8 8 8 Time of Day Parking Rate per 1,000 Square feet Buster's Barbecue - Saturday 100% 100 90% 80% 80 70% a° u 60% 60 5 0 40 % i Y A % d 40 A 30% 20 20% ■ • 10% 0 0% 0 o N. N. ti '1 ^i P 4 41' v) '\ Time of Day ■ Regular Stalls Occupied IIIM Handicapped Stalls Occupied ∎Total Supply Available — Parking Occupancy Buster's Barbecue - Saturday 10.00 9.00 8.00 - 7.00 ' 6.00 • K • 5.00 . d 4.00 - _ _ 4.46 3.61 3.00 —_ - _ - - 2.00 - - - 44- . 1.70 1.00 0.00 ■ � ' � � , 1 P 4. e Q 4 Q ` - Q 4 Q 4 Q d`r e � P' M CP Pr 8 8 0" 8 � x 4 ,� Time of Day — Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet Wells Fargo - Saturday 100% 30 UUUIUIUII 80% 25 UUUUIUUU . 70% X l is 20 60% . 50% 1 10 .. . ...... 5 •ii 20% ' . 10% cif y Ni ti , 0 Iv Time of Day nMM Regular Stalls Occupied ■ Handicapped Stalls Occupied ■ Total Supply Available — Parking Occupancy Wells Fargo - Saturday 10.00 _ 9.00 -- 8.00 7.00 II 6.00 ■ C c 5.00 — Y d 4.00 - — 3.00 — — 2.00 -- .n 1.00 �. . •� 6-- 0.00 I n 11 8 ti N; 1,- ti d' 8 8 8 S ST Time of Day — Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES INC. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503 228 5230 503.273.8169 March 12, 2013 Project #: 11300 Noel Johnson Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 RE: Review of Parking Proposed Minimums Relative to ITE Parking Generation Dear Noel, This letter provides an overview of select City of Tigard parking standards compared to parking rates prescribed in the reference Parking Generation, 4` Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2010. The ITE parking rate data is generally supportive of the proposed revisions to the parking minimums currently under consideration by the City of Tigard. Minimum and maximum code standards are typically established by Exhibit 1. Typical Parking Demand Distribution cities to allow flexibility for site specific needs while at the same time minimizing the potential impact to Expected Range for Expected Range for Parking Minimum Parking Maximum adjacent neighborhoods and /or the Standard Standard multimodal transportation system. These minimums and maximums Average typically "bracket" the average Peak Demand anticipated daily peak demand. This relationship is shown in Exhibit 1. Our review of the City of Tigard's development code identified several retail uses in which the specified parking minimums are equal to or exceed the average values shown in ITE's Parking Generation. In these instances the City's current parking minimums are set higher than the expected maximum peak period parking demand measured at other similar sites. Establishing parking minimums in excess of typical peak parking demand levels may have unintended and undesirable consequences in terms of requiring excessive parking, limiting the potential effectiveness of transportation demand management programs, not allowing for a context - specific review of a proposed land use and /or tenant, and the application of shared parking opportunities. Moreover, unnecessarily high minimum parking requirements may not achieve urban design and multimodal transportation system objectives and is also not an efficient use of precious land resources. Parking demand can vary substantially based on individual building uses and practices. From a parking design perspective, it would be appropriate for jurisdictions to set their parking minimums below the FILENAME: 11: I PROJFILEI11300 - TIGARD SITE REDEVELOPMENTSREPORT (FINAL I PARKING COMPARISON.DOCX Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Page: 2 ITE peak period parking demand while at the same time allowing applicants the flexibility to provide parking levels that meet or exceed ITE typical peak parking demand. City of Tigard code does not currently allow for this flexibility. Killian Pacific is proposing to reduce the City's current parking minimum for select land uses, with no changes proposed to the current City parking maximums. The proposed changes would allow for reduced parking options, where appropriate and desired, but would also continue to allow projects to build to the code maximum. The flexibility inherent to this approach would allow the City and applicants additional opportunity to assess and implement appropriate parking ratios for individual projects. Table 1 provides a summary of ITE parking data compared with the City's current parking requirements. The ITE data shown reflects average peak period parking demand and the corresponding range of data As shown, the range provides the lowest and the highest peak parking demand rates at the ITE study sites and is substantial given the wide spectrum of uses falling in the broad categories defined by City code. For reference purposes, Appendix 1 provides a more detailed comparison reflecting parking demand at additional land use subcategories documented in ITE Parking Generation. Table 1. Parking Data Comparison Summarized to Current City of Tigard Land Use Categories Parking Demand /1,000 Square Feet City of ITE Peak City of ITE Average Tigard Period Tigard Peak Period Current Demand Current Proposed Land Use Demand Minimum Range Maximum Minimum Eating & Drinking Establishment, Fast -food 12.4 9.9 0.98 — 29.17 12.4 - 14.9 6 Eating & Drinking Establishment, Other 16.4 15.3 2.59 — 37.5 19.1— 23.0 8 Shopping Center 4.67 3.7 1.33 — 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Drive -in Bank 1.44 -8.0 5.4 -6.5 2.7 GFA = Gross Floor Area GLA = Gross Leasable Area Light red shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum equals or exceeds ITE Average Peak Period Demand Key findings from the comparison in Table 1 include: • Fast Food with drive - through: There is a wide range of fast -food parking demand (refer to Appendix 1). Some fast -food uses have an average peak parking demand lower than City parking minimums while others are higher. 1 Average peak period parking demand is defined by ITE as the observed peak period number of vehicles parked divided by the building size. Unlike ITE Trip Generation, the average peak parking demand is calculated by taking the maximum observed parking demand ratio for each site over the course of a day and then averaging that maximum value over multiple sites. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Page: 3 • Eating and drinking establishments (non fast - food): As with fast -food restaurants, the City's minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand for some uses observed per ITE while the City's minimum parking ratio is higher than average peak period demand for other ITE sub - categories (refer to Appendix 1). The result is to create parking related barriers to entry for some types of restaurants. • Shopping Center: The City's minimum parking ratio is higher than typical average weekday peak period demand but lower than December -peak period demand observed per ITE. • Drive -in Bank: The City's minimum parking ratio exceeds the average peak period demand observed per ITE. This may result in a barrier to entry for banks seeking to locate in Tigard. From a fundamental principles viewpoint, establishing the required parking minimum below average peak parking demand for a given use is desirable. Based on the current City code requirements, applicants designing parking areas to the City code minimum may be constructing more parking than is required to meet average peak parking demand, effectively guaranteeing that more parking is provided than needed. This over - building phenomenon would be especially true for High- turnover Sit -down Restaurants, coffee /donut shops with and without drive through windows, and drive -in banks. In cases where parking minimums align with or exceed the average peak period parking demand, it will be difficult to encourage non -auto travel and there will be more parking spaces provided than needed. Please call me at 503 - 535 -7433 if you have questions regarding the comparison provided in this letter. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Chris Brehmer, P.E. Principal Engineer Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Appendix 1 Additional ITE Parking Data Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Appendix Page: 1 -2 Table 2. Parking Data Comparison Parking Demand /1,000 Square Feet City of ITE Peak City of ITE Average Tigard Period Tigard Peak Period Current Demand Current Proposed Land Use Demand Minimum Range Maximum Minimum Quality Restaurant, Non - Friday Weekday (GFA) 10.6 1 5.46 - 15.35 19.1- 23.0 8 Quality Restaurant, Saturday (GFA) 16.4 15.3 8.77 - 26.56 19.1- 23.0 8 High- turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (Suburban), Weekday (GFA) 10.6 Mil 2.59 - 21.78 19.1- 23.0 8 High- turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (Urban), Weekday (GFA) 5.55 15.3 3.13 - 12.41 19.1- 23.0 8 High- turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (Suburban), Saturday (GFA) 13.5 15.3 6.3 - 26.5 19.1 - 23.0 8 Fast -food with Drive - Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 9.98 9.9 1.45 - 23.26 12.4 - 14.9 6 Fast -food with Drive - Through Window, Saturday (GFA) 0.98 18.0 12.4 14.9 6 Fast -food without Drive - Through Window (Hamburger), Weekday (GFA) 12.4 9.9 7.14 -14.6 12.4 - 14.9 6 Fast -food w/o Drive - Through Window (Non- Hamburger), Weekday (GFA) 8.2 9.9 1.41 - 29.17 12.4 - 14.9 6 Coffee /Donut Shop with Drive- Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 10.4 15.3 2.96 - 37.5 19.1 23.0 8 Coffee /Donut Shop without Drive - Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 13.56 15.3 3.49 - 19.31 19.1 - 23.0 8 Coffee /Donut Shop without Drive - Through Window, Saturday (GFA) 14.44 15.3 14.0 - 14.67 19.1 - 23.0 8 Shopping Center, Non - Friday Weekday in December (GLA) 3 7 3.7 1.44 - 7.37 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Non - Friday Weekday in Non - December (GLA) IllgfrMMIF 1.33 - 5.58 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Friday in December (GLA) 3.96 3.7 1.47 - 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Saturday in December (GLA) 4.67 3.7 2.01 - 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Drive -in Bank, Weekday (GFA) 1.5 - 7.91 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 Drive -in Bank, Saturday (GFA) 4.3 1.44 - 8.0 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 GFA = Gross Floor Area GLA = Gross Leasable Area Light red shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum equals or exceeds ITE Average Peak Period Demand Light blue shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum is less than ITE Average Peak Period Demand by less than 0.1 spaces /1,000 square feet FINDINGS FROM TABLE 2 COMPARISON: • Fast Food with drive - through: The City's minimum parking ratio is 0.01 spaces /1,000 square feet lower than the average peak period demand observed per ITE. This means the minimum is set at the expected (average) peak parking demand, instead of a reasonable range below it. • Fast Food without drive - through: The City's minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand observed per ITE for hamburger -based restaurants and higher than ITE observations for non - hamburger restaurants. The result of the City's current minimum standard is to create additional parking costs (i.e. barriers to entry) for certain restaurants to locate in Tigard. • Eating and drinking establishments (non fast - food): The City's minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand for some uses observed per ITE (quality restaurant) while the City's minimum parking ratio is higher than average peak period demand for other ITE sub - categories such as high- turnover sit -down restaurants and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Appendix Page: 1 -3 coffee /donut shops. Similar to fast -food restaurants, the result of the City's current minimum standard is to create parking related barriers to entry for some types of restaurants. • Shopping Center: The City's minimum parking ratio is higher than typical average weekday peak period demand but lower than December -peak period demand observed per ITE. As a result, the parking minimum is set to a level that meets or exceeds typical peak parking requirements for 11 months of the year. • Drive -in Bank: The City's minimum parking ratio exceeds the average peak period demand observed per ITE, creating a potential barrier to entry for banks seeking to locate in Tigard. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 1, 2013 CALL TO ORDER President Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Anderson Commissioner Feeney Commissioner Fitzgerald Commissioner Gaschke Commissioner Muldoon Vice President Rogers Absent: Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Judith Gray, Sr. Transportation Planner COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Fitzgerald reported that she and Commissioner Shavey had attended the Downtown Public Art Visioning on the 27th of March. She found it very interesting to see what guidance the artist got to work on the new key entrances to Downtown Tigard. She said the artist will come back with some sketches, models, to get the next round of ideas through the committee. She thinks this is a very talented artist and she believes it will be something good. She reported about 20 people showed up; a good turnout. CONSIDER MINUTES March 18th Meeting Minutes: President Anderson asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the March 18th minutes; there being none, Anderson declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - OPENED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2013 - 00001- OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 1 of 6 REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales- Oriented Retail, and Personal Services — bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for mixed -use developments. (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R -25 & R -40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. President Anderson read some required statements. No commissioners wished to abstain or declare a conflict of interest. No one in the audience wished to challenge any member of the Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. It was noted that Commissioners Tim Gaschke and Matt Muldoon had both received public notices on this case as they live within the affected area. Vice President Jason Rogers had made a site visit. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Cheryl Caines introduced herself and went over the staff report. [Staff reports are available one week before the meeting.] She noted that this is a citywide proposal for reduction in minimum parking ratios for restaurants, retail shops and banks with drive - thru. The other part of the proposed code amendment is lowering the percentages for mixed - use or multi- tenant developments such as shopping strip malls and mixed -use development. Cheryl went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). She gave some background information regarding the establishment of the minimum parking ratios in table 18.765.2; she noted they were established by Metro in 1998 as regional highest minimums recommended for cities to apply. Tigard adopted those ratios straight from Metro's Regional Transportation Plan. There's been no modification to them since that time. Cheryl turned the microphone over to Judith Gray, Sr. Transportation Planner to speak about parking ratios. She referred to a slide to help in her explanation (Exhibit B). She pointed out that the "Shopping Center" portion of the slide was incorrect. It showed staff's recommendation at 3.7 when, in fact, they are at 3 — which means they are recommending accepting the applicant's proposal in that area. She said the City appreciates the initiative that the applicant is taking to improve City code. It helps the City move in the general direction they would like to go, and also provides flexibility for other developers. She gave reasons why this is a good thing: She noted this is a minimum ratio — developers would still be able to provide more — they just won't be required to provide this as a minimum; that's important and that helps. She said there are a few mitigating factors in this case that give some flexibility, some protection; one is that it is a minimum ratio, another is that it's fairly limited to just a few land uses. With that in mind — that's why the staff recommendation moves pretty far and in the right direction. Cheryl added that, as stated in the staff report, this may not be the ideal way of looking at the ratios, as Judith pointed out, but it is the direction that the City has been going and so in the recommendation and the analysis, the thought was that this could be I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 2 of 6 possibly a bridge to where we want to go. It will alleviate some issues and it will encourage some economic development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment as amended by staff and with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. This recommended approval is contingent upon the applicant's submittal of parking counts showing the amendments will result in adequate on -site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Commissioner Muldoon: Is there any assumption that there will be improved mass transit? No, it's strictly looking at the ratios and the percentages for the mixed -use developments. Commissioner Feeney: I understand the recommendations of the City adjusting it; why no change to the drive -in bank? I'm just wondering why we want to keep that in the current City code. It was based upon Exhibit E of the applicant's materials, the review of parking proposed minimums relative to ITE parkinggeneration. In looking at the range that was shown in that information, we didn't feel that that data supported lowering the number; that's why we recommended no change. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION — Noel Johnson, Killian Pacific, 500 East Broadway St., Vancouver, WA introduced himself and his colleague, Phil Bretsch, also of Killian Pacific. Mr. Johnson explained why they were bringing this forward. He noted that he realizes it's somewhat unusual for an applicant to bring forward a text amendment that is a citywide proposal. He explained the genesis of this decision; essentially it came out of a realization that a retail property they own "Nimbus Center" — is having some challenges and is unable to actually fill up with businesses. Problems occur when people want to locate businesses that may want to expand, or restaurants - and they simply aren't able to because of the parking problem. They realized it would be worth Killian, partnering with the City, to try to fix this small problem for them (just a few thousand square feet of space) that they'd like to fill up. They recognized that as opposed to spending their money and time on a variance for this property specifically, they'd spend that same money and time to try to fix, not only their problem, but a problem that exists in every other retail, restaurant, or bank establishment in Tigard. He said they looked at four pieces of data: 1. Other cities — Killian develops throughout the whole Portland Metropolitan area. They asked themselves — "What is working there? What's successful there ?" I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 3 of 6 2. See what other good developers that build well have done in the suburban communities that have a similar parking dynamic and transit need. 3. They looked at the ITE averages and data. 4. They looked at specific local parking counts and did a study as to the amount of parking needed during peak times. Mr. Johnson said they don't completely agree with staff — he believes there is too much conservatism there - they still like their numbers but are willing to be flexible. They just want a good result that they hope helps the City as well. He said they spent a total of $50,000 on this effort — far more than it's worth just to fill up a few thousand square feet of retail, but he said it seemed like the right thing to do, Killian Pacific is a community focused business, having been here 40 years as a company, and planning to be here a lot longer; that's their MO and that's why they're doing it. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR — Gerald Kolve — his business, Canterbury Square Shopping Center, is located at 14389 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard 97214. He thanked them for hearing this. He spoke about an older commercial property that he owned and developed in 1972. He used that as a demonstration of how excessive the parking requirements of today are. He said if they applied the parking requirements of today and applied them back then, they would have had a requirement of 374 parking spaces. There isn't enough land there, with the buildings, to be able to even come close to being able to provide 374 parking spaces. They've had retail tenants and have rarely exceeded 80% of the available parking at the center. He spoke about a vacancy he has at the center now of 7,400 square feet. He's had several inquiries by people who would like to go in, spend money, improve the place... but they can't because they'd like to use it as a restaurant. As a restaurant use for that space, it would require 115 parking places. The space in question is about 9% of the square feet of the total feet of the total shopping center but that 9% would, under the present rules, take out almost 40% of the existing parking — so you have 91% of the tenants left to use what's available of 60% and, obviously, it doesn't even come close to being enough. He encouraged the commission to please carefully examine the existing requirements. He hopes they will approve what the applicant is requesting, as it is indeed much more in line with common sense. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — Julie Blume, 6875 SW Pine Street, Tigard 97223 just wanted them to look carefully at the parking — make sure there's enough parking so there's not a bunch of problematic overflow parking from the bar there on weekends. Cheryl Caines mentioned that there was an email that had been submitted by Marvin Gerr who's the liaison of the Tigard Summerfield Civic Association. He'd asked that the email be passed out and considered by the commissioners (Exhibit C). Basically it spoke about what kind of impact this might have on parking at the clubhouse at Summerfield. Cheryl said she'd spoken to him on the telephone that afternoon and told him she wasn't foreseeing any significant impact on Summerfield due to the distance. Mr. Gerr was present, and there weren't any questions by the commissioners. I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 4 of 6 QUESTIONS /COMMENTS Commissioner Feeney asked if this would be an interim move. Is the City still doing a full study? Yes — we feel this shouldn't be the end of that discussion because the TSP says look at the ratios but it also says look at the other items that make up that whole parking management system. So this is just one piece of that. Commissioner Fitzgerald said she didn't have a problem with the staff ratios, but she didn't like the language above that. She wanted them to pull the term "residential" out of the equation. Sr. Transportation Planner said she believed this was beyond the scope of this particular study at this time. She thought they could clarify a bit better such as "This is for mixed commercial uses" so it wouldn't be confused with residential. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mr. Johnson said `We're more locally focused on where we're driving our numbers. We put less weight, rightly or wrongly, on the ITE numbers which are a national average. They can be adjusted but you're taking into consideration cities like Houston or Phoenix, which operate very differently than our Metropolitan area." PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Anderson asked all the commissioners present to give their ideas on this. • Commissioner Rogers — I was a bit apprehensive originally but I do like what staff presented. More of a slower approach rather than jumping into it and changing it completely. It's probably better to adopt this slowly. • Commissioner Feeney concurs with this. He thanked the applicant for bringing this forward. He agrees with staff's recommendations... and would like a "meet in the middle" type of thing. • Commissioner Gaschke — agrees and likes the direction they're going in. He agrees the parking ratios are extremely conservative and appreciates the applicant "greasing the skids" for Tigard to go in the right direction. • Commissioner Fitzgerald — Would like to go with the staff recommendations. • Commissioner Muldoon — any really big revitalization is dependent on improved mass transit. • Commissioner Anderson — appreciates the applicant bringing this forward. He likes the meet you halfway type of thing. MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Feeney: I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 5 of 6 "I move for approval of application DCA2013 -00001 and the findings and conditions approved and contained in the staff report except for modification adding commercial to the language of multi- tenant." A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Muldoon suggested that a public interest talk to the water partnership folks with Lake Oswego, and a possible joint meeting with the Planning Commission be looked into. Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire, said he would look into it. ADJOURNMENT President Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Gdmmission Secretary /'� AA 4. /( AT1EST: President Tom Anderson I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2013 PC Packets \040113 \tpc 040113 mlnutes.docx Page 6 of 6 05/07/2013 arr0 City of Tigard Respect .a c..• 1 o. the sow Thin I Gait Dow Off-Street Parking Code Modifications D(1\2013 -00001 c. o Ti Proposal • Citywide • Reduction in minimum parking ratios • restaurants • retail shops • banks with drive - through • Lower percentages for mixed use or multi - tenant developments 1 05/07/2013 City of 1 ig trd Background Information • Metro established minimum ratios (1998) • New development, redevelopment , and change of use • Sometimes limited by parking requirements • Overflow parking creates issues for residents • City Parking Code Review (estimated 2014) CM of 1 ig trd Applicant's Information • Other jurisdictions • Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual • Local Parking Counts 2 05/07/2013 Other Jurisdictions l sc Tigard Minimums Retail 2 - 4 Banks - drive through 4.3 2 - 4.1 Fast Food 9.9 4 — 10 Other Restaurants 4 — 13.3 Land Use Type ITE COT Applicant Staff Peak Min & Drinking Establishment. Fast 124 9.9 6 A Food Eating & Dnnking Establishment, Other 16.4 15.3 8 10 Shopping Center 4.67 3.7 3 3.7 Drive-1n Bank 4 4.3 2.7 4.3 16 16 14 12 _ _. 10 • ITE Peak g • COT Min • Applicant 6 • Staff 4 2 0 Eating & (oinking Eating & Drinking Shopping Center Drive -In Bank Establishment, Fast EstablithmeM, Other Food 3 05/07/2013 Cin of Tigard Summary • Existing possibly high • Comprehensive review for code amendments • ITE and parking counts support recommendation Cin of Tigard Recommendation Support the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the proposed development code amendment, as amended by staff and the Planning Commission. 4 AGENDA ITEM No. 10 May 14, 2013 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA2O13-00001) OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales - Oriented Retail, and Personal Services — bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for missed use developments (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R -25 & R -40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Three - Minute Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 10 May 14, 2013 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AIS -1289 11. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 05/14/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Fiscal Year 2013 May Budget Supplemental Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Toby LaFrance, Financial and Information Services Council Business Resolution Meeting - Item Type: Public Hearing - Informational Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Yes Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 05/09/2013 Information ISSUE Shall the Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013 May Budget Supplemental to approve a 0.8 FIE Records Technician in Administrative Services to last no more than two years? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approval of the FY 2013 May Budget Supplemental. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Over the past several years, the city has used temporary help to scan paper record archives into the electronic records management system as specific areas of the city are brought online, including the records of the City Council, Human Resources, Community Development, and some Finance records. The city's collective bargaining agreement limits the use of temporary employees such that if an employee works in a position for more than 1,040 hours the status will be changed to regular full or part -time status. The use of temporary staffing for this function has become frequent enough that the city should now either create a regular position or cease the use of temporary staffing to scan records, which would adversely affect the continuing transition to the electronic record management system. The electronic records management system helps staff respond quickly and efficiently to public records requests for external and internal customers and offers better management of and access to records used in daily work. If approved, a Records Technician position will be created in Administrative Services for a two -year period to bring the city's electronic record management system (Laserfiche) current. The technician would continue to work on scanning archived paper records into the system while existing staff will enter records into the electronic system as they are created, which will keep the records system current from this point forward. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the supplemental. Without additional records scanning assistance, the electronic records conversion in the records management program will proceed with the existing 1.01 Records Management Specialist. This one staff person does not have the capacity to scan the public record paper archives and manage other duties. If the limited duration position is not created, this will mean a less efficient hybrid records management program consisting of paper records and electronic records. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Attachments Resolution Exhibit A AgendaQuick©2005 - 2013 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved AGENDA ITEM No. 11 Date: May 14, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the City Council on: A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FY 2013 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 11 Date: May 14, 2013 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. v 0 o