Loading...
03/19/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 19, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman 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. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager; Sean Family, Associate Planner; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Manager Ron Bunch reported that the Tree Board met on March 7th to discuss its proposed charge statement to develop a tree protection program. The program is intended to look at trees in a larger context rather than as street trees or trees in development property. The Tree Board also reviewed the Costco tree planting plan. Costco had been conditioned to have 35% tree coverage in their parking lot. They came back with a tree planting plan that they would like to try to meet the standards. The secretary reported that the new Commissioners will be appointed by Council on March 27th. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the February 26, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0. Commissioners Caffall and Walsh abstained. It was moved and seconded to approve the March 5, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. President Inman abstained. 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2006-00002 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE DOWNTOWN GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 1 REQUEST: The proposed amendment to Chapter 11 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan would update the Goals, Policies, and Action Measures to reflect the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's vision of a pedestrian- oriented, mixed use Town Center in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The complete text of the proposed Code Amendment can be viewed at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code amendments. LOCATION: Tigard Urban Renewal District. ZONE: CBD, C-G, C-P, R-4.5, R-12 (PD), R-25. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 11, Metro Functional Plan Title 6, and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 10, and 12. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Sean Farrel ly gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A) for the proposed amendment for an update of Downtown goals, policies, and action measures to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP). He advised that the amendment would not change the Development Code. It lays the groundwork for future changes; any specific development code changes will be subject to further public hearings. Farrel ly noted that with the new format, action measures will replace the current implementation strategies in the Comprehensive Plan. This particular amendment is needed to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The current land use in the Comp Plan that deals with the Downtown is inadequate. Section 11, Special Areas of Concern that deals with the Downtown, treats it primarily as a shopping area. This amendment will reflect the multi-functional role of the Downtown. Another part of the Comp Plan that needs to be changed is Economy Policy 5.5 which restricts residential development above the first floor. Farrelly reviewed the goals of the TDIP, He advised that most of the language for this proposed amendment was taken from the TDIP. The policies and action measures are organized into 3 categories: Facilitate the development of an urban village; Develop and improve the open space system and integrate natural features; and Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. This amendment would apply only to the Downtown Urban Renewal Area. Staff reviewed the proposed amendment against the applicable criteria and found it to be consistent with present Comp Plan policies and Development Code policies. The amendment is also consistent with applicable Metro requirements and all applicable Statewide Goals. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. President Inman asked about the new action measure 11.A.2. She asked if Tigard was actually pursuing form based code (FBC). Farrelly advised that this action measure would only pursue FBC in ways that are consistent with Oregon Land Use Law. We might not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 2 adopt FBC, but we may use some of the principles in the eventual new development code. This action measure allows us the opportunity, but does not require that we use FBC. Vice-President Walsh asked for clarification that the Commission was being asked to approve only a change to the Comprehensive Plan adopting the format and structure of the proposed Comp Plan that the Commission will see later. This one section is being approved ahead of time; it will be put in place of the existing section of the Comp Plan and nothing more. Farrelly concurred, saying that this starts the process to allow for further changes and gets the process moving along. It does not change existing Development Code regulations or land use laws. Before changes to the Development Code happen, there will be more outreach to property owners and stakeholders. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard 97223 commended staff and the Downtown Task Force for developing this portion of the Comprehensive Plan. He is concerned about the explanation for form based code, saying that the language states, "The City will utilize form based design where consistent with the State regulations." It doesn't say may use it. He would like to endorse the language as written. He disagrees that this section is outside the Comp Plan. It is Section 11 of the Comp Plan; it is the Comp Plan. This is the first piece of the Comp Plan to come before the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. He wants to get it right the first time. In that effort, he has a list of issues that he brought up (Exhibit B). He asked that the Commission to continue the hearing so that these matters can be addressed. Mike Swanda, 13285 SW Village Glenn Drive, Tigard 97223, testified that he owns and operates My Time Beads at 12200 SW Main Street. He thinks the TDIP is a wonderful goal. He had one comment about Section 11.1.3 which states, "The City shall not permit new land uses such as warehousing; auto-dependent uses; industrial manufacturing; and industrial services uses that would detract from the goal of a vibrant urban village." He would like to see more clarification for the term "auto-dependent" uses. He asked what the term meant. Jonae Armstrong, 16333 SW Stahl Dr.,Tigard 97223, Tigard testified that she works at Washington Square. She has been watching this process and urged the Commission to continue the approval process to go on to City Council. She believes it is important to focus on the Downtown and offered her encouragement. Lisa Olson, 14720 SW Cabernet Ct., Tigard 97224, advised that she was a member of the Downtown Tigard Task Force,was the chair for the Streetscape work group, and will be on the steering committee for the Fanno Creek Master Plan. She encouraged the Commission to continue to look at keeping the community involved in this process and to encourage City staff to involve community members. There is a large number of people who have been working on this and understand what's going on. She would like the City to utilize the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 3 resources available in community members to continue to have the community involved in the process every step of the way. Phil Yount, 11222 SW Cottonwood Lane,Tigard 97223, stated that he was undecided about the amendment. He has been an interested observer and an occasional participant in some of the surveys and task force hearings, so he is aware of what's going on. He supports the TDIP proposal in general. He was impressed with John Frewing's testimony. While he encourages the Commission to proceed with the process, he urged them to look carefully at Mr. Frewing's critique. What we do needs to be done right. Mike Stevenson testified that he owns a business at 9040 SW Burnham Street, Tigard 97223. He has been involved with the Downtown Task Force since the beginning and is happy with the progression. The TDIP affects him personally because he owns a large piece of property in the Downtown. He has concerns about Section 11.1.3 to not permit any new land uses, such as warehousing, auto-dependent uses, etc. If this process is going to take 20-25 years, he will be put in a "no-man's position" as far as expanding his business is concerned. Section 11.1.4 states that existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of allowed expansion. He wonders what this means and he is concerned about what we will do with existing businesses. Mr. Stevenson has another thought about the staff report, under 3.5.3 — "The City has designated the 100-year floodplain ... Where landfill and/or development are within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain." Does that mean he will be required to give open land to the City? He asked for clarification on this. Staff answered that this code section is an existing policy. If he wanted to do some development, would he be required to donate some land? Staff advised that currently in the Tigard Development Code, there are specific standards that require protection and preservation of the floodplain. This was quoted in the staff report to show how the proposal is consistent with the existing Plan. The City cannot essentially exact property for dedication. Since this existing this policy is probably 23 years old, it may be out of date. However, it is the criteria we have to use now to judge the current proposal to make sure it's consistent with existing policy. The entire Comprehensive Plan will be updated, including the Natural Resources section. We have to work with the Comp Plan we have now. Mr. Stevenson will be subject to the policy as it exists currently. It may very well be amended in the future, but the existing policies had to be used as a tool to judge whether the new proposal meet the requirements of the existing Plan. President Inman noted that this is in a different chapter which will be reviewed at a later time. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 4 REBUTTAL Planning Manager Ron Bunch responded to Mr. Frewing's concerns. He noted that what Mr. Frewing spoke to, to a great deal, was the entire Comprehensive Plan, e.g., Goal 9 Economic Development; Goal 10 Housing; Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services; Goal 6 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. This proposal is just one small part of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, in the Goal 9 Economic Development Rule that was quoted, in the Comprehensive Plan, there's a separate chapter that addresses Goal 9. The Industrial Lands Inventory, Analysis of Available Lands, Buildable Lands Inventory, etc., take place in the context of that particular section of the Comp Plan. This proposal is looking at a specific district— the Downtown. These tools (goals, policies, action measures) are needed to start having the broad community dialog to begin to implement the Urban Renewal District. The sections of ORS 197 that Mr. Frewing spoke to are out of context for this particular hearing. Regarding the process, the TDIP is a study that was accepted, but not adopted. Mr. Frewing referenced the need to have facts that are relevant and recent. This application was coordinated with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). DLCD found the proposal to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and the Administrative Rules. Regarding the facts, Bunch advised that this is a legislative hearing;we are obligated to look at the facts according to specific criteria in the Comp Plan and other criteria. Staff reviewed the criteria and found that the proposal complies with all the applicable criteria. As a legislative amendment, essentially the City Council can determine what facts it wishes to rely upon. The facts that we consider relevant are the ones we have on hand—we can't constantly go back and get new facts and refer to them. We have to begin the process and stop it at some time. Regarding zoning classifications and mapping, this hearing is about creating the tools — goals, policies, and action measures. In referencing the maps, there are discrepancies in the TDIP and in the Community Development Code and in the Urban Renewal District. This proposal is just to establish the goals, policies, and action measures. This proposal only applies to the Urban Renewal District. Regarding the moving target of the floodplain, where the landuse designation should be, etc., those are refinements that will be built from the goals, policies, and action measures. The public amenities associated with the Plan are part of the development regulations that will come later. We need to have the tools first before we can build development regulations. When we amend the Development Code, we will use the tools to judge the Development Code Amendment— does it or does it not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding comments about the interrelated use of land, ORS 197, these comments apply to the whole Comprehensive Plan. Each element does not have to be judged against that, but when we have the whole Comp Plan put together in one document, we'll have the whole range of issues within which to judge. We have to look at whole plan, not just one part. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 5 These goals, policies, and action measures will provide the legislative basis by which we can develop a Transportation System Plan refinement that can be adopted as part of the TSP. We will get there using these tools. A pre-application was done. The papers are in the file. A key item for staff was coordinating this with DLCD, Metro, ODOT, Trimet, and LCDC. We have not received any comments against the proposal. The Planning Commissioners asked the following questions: • Section 11.1.3 says it shall not permit new land uses, such as warehousing, etc. What is an example of an auto-dependent use business? Staff responded that new drive-thru businesses would be an example. The proposal does not prohibit people from driving Downtown. Will this affect current businesses? Existing drive-thru businesses would be grandfathered in as non-conforming uses. It would protect the current business, but would not allow for expansion of the non-conforming business. The current non-conforming use standards that apply to the whole City allow 20% expansion. Specific code language for Downtown non-conforming businesses will need to be discussed. • Staff explained that the current non-conforming use standard allows existing non- conforming businesses to be grandfathered in and allowed to continue, subject to certain restrictions. If the non-conforming use is discontinued for more than 6 months, it would not be permitted to come back. The new business would have to conform to current applicable zoning standards. Staff believes that in the CBD zone, there are several properties that have been exempted from that requirement. Business owners were encouraged to work with staff on these issues. Staff noted that the current CBD zoning does not allow industrial uses. All existing industrial businesses in the Downtown are considered non-conforming and allowed to continue, subject to certain restrictions. When we begin to develop the Code, we will determine the specifics on how to deal with non-conforming uses in the Downtown. • The Commission suggested doing an outreach to business owners that own non- conforming businesses in the Downtown. Staff answered that the Code development phase will include that type of outreach. • Under 11.1.3, would the Fanno Creek Microbrewery be allowed or not allowed? Staff answered that this is considered an eating establishment and would be an allowed use. Producing the microbrew would be considered auxiliary to the eating and drinking function. • Staff advised that industrial services provide services to manufacturing, warehousing, construction, etc., that are necessary to keep those services going. Some examples are janitorial services, machinery repair and refurbishing, and repair of lumber equipment. In some codes, it includes fleet operations to maintain trucking fleets and equipment. It varies by region. • Has staff talked to people involved in a performing arts center or a farmers' market? Broadway Rose Theatre is now beginning a capital improvement project to have their own performing arts center. Staff noted that farmers'market people are aware of the plans. The performing arts center is a catalyst project that is more long range projects, maybe 10-15 years PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 6 out. Commissioner Dougherty suggested involving more than just the Downtown boundaries in the discussion. Ron Bunch noted that these specific activities are considered action measures, which fall into placeholder categories for implementation. The statements which have real legislative intent are the goals and policies;action measures are things that we would like to implement and that we could use as a gauge or measurement to see how we're doing. For example, if Broadway Rose finds another place,perhaps we should consider another kind of performing arts in the Downtown. • The Commission suggested adding a definitions section. Staff answered that the Plan will have a definitions section that will also include a list of acronyms. • President Inman said she thinks the language on the form based code principles reads fairly strong. She would like the language to state that it gives us the opportunity to utilize form based code, but not state that we will utilize it. The Commission likes the wording, "Consider utilizing form based codes." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Inman feels good with the modification of 11.A.2 to say "consider" rather than "utilize" form based code. She hopes that the Commission gets the same participation when these issues come back so nothing will be dropped when we get to the implementation phase. Commissioner Walsh thinks it's a great start, the structure works, the language is supported. Commissioner Anderson noted that these tools can help with other committees and community involvement. He likes the language and the definition sheets. He supports the proposal. Commissioner Dougherty would like staff to seriously consider the comments that Mr. Frewing made. She thinks there should be definitions to prevent confusion and misunderstandings down the road. She agrees with President Inman on the dealing with the verbiage of form based code. Commissioner Walsh moved to recommend approval to City Council of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2006-00002, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update Downtown Goals, Policies and Action Measures,with the change to 11.A.2 to change the language to add "consider utilizing form based codes" in place of what is there, based on the staff report as presented and testimony given. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Staff advised that the there will be a meeting with Council on April 17th to discuss Planning Commission liaison duties. It was suggested that maybe Planning Commissioners and members of other committees could alternate attending each other's meetings. It was also suggested that staff might take a bigger role in information sharing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 7 The Commissioners discussed the Form Based Code subcommittee. It was noted that form based code may be beneficial to the City and that having a subcommittee to review examples from other cities and make a recommendation is a good idea,however the committee needs parameters and a set timeline. Members of the CCAC and the Planning Commission feel they need more information before they can make a decision about form based code. Ron Bunch stated that the important thing for staff is that we're burning time;we need to move this along. Council would like to have a worksession in May about urban design in the Downtown. There will be a yes-no decision by Council soon. Bunch advised that staff has been directed to get a clear representation of what the future Downtown will look like in architectural form, block size,transportation, etc. Once we have that,we can then work backward to determine the kind of code we need to achieve that model. There are some codes and standards that can be done no matter what method we use. Staff can begin now to get an idea of what the Downtown will look like. Staff will take the leadership to put together information and work with the City Manager and Council to educate them so they can help make a decision. The subcommittee can provide an endorsement. It was decided that the subcommittee could meet before regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings beginning on April 2nd. Commissioners Inman and Anderson agreed to serve on the committee. Commissioner Walsh suggested having a short meeting prior to the public hearing on April 2nd to meet the new Commissioners and talk about the meeting process. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 19,2007—Page 8 a4 �''�� � nsiv�e �lan Comprehensive Plan Amendment � � t ((1� rr�� - Comprehensive Plan . # .. �^ :- , will be completely Proposed Upd`. `ofawntown � '- updated in the next �: ; Goals, Policies, and Action Measures year. This Amendment is a precursor to the ° t.,,;t.„.,tty,,xiej;:,s,tf;*74,...s,f:,,,,.:7,14,::%,..„,,:„..,:....1;r.:.:„..-..,?1,..;-,,,,,,._-„:,,,� • � "' «P format of the eventual '''''',"';,4f."--,Z rt � (it of Tigard updated Comp Plan. Long Range Planning �� `- �a Planxung Commission Public 1 �� � r y a Hearing „.r.e.,-, n ,...,,,,,;:.„,„%.'-x ,:=4, ...-::-,,._ ."- �..�... March 19,2007 1 ,....r s pie purls pug'sapoa'asn purl S J T3 aip Jo.; uoprpunoj aqi are pur uouaaiip it'saua2 am oud"Cara, •aminj alp ui pue nlou Aiin aqi of papuaw! sivaurams iraaua5 are saimod • •saiisap s,Aiiunuruioa ssaa ord aiaip uo vai{a ai[i jo ivauiaitis past'q-proiq arp are spoD . of 'siseq.w1u ar uo paienpna aq urea •sainstaix uotiay Aari j, •saiaipod pue sp op alp 1uauraidurt pup'`sapiiod `sipo9 aip aoj sisi'q alp are trip siarj Hine i1ip suoi;at uuai uinipaur put' iuIliaiai 3o sivauiaieis uaiiiim aip are s$uapUiJ aijiaads wow air sa.lns19ap 21o110v . :a.Puzaod maN u1id anisuauaaduzoD :irtmod maN -me m anisuagaaduJo3 C y '^--1 � y Y .S..5�aiod Cw ou00;® ` } �, pare la?usJQ ssauisng J'.' suoil n, az u ' e ua uoila I s J* , u2Isap pur asn purl mau \V W031103 fo saa y JV as S. \� c� ' �:�e ' uipniaui) apo�luauadoiaeaQ `ued antsuatazduaop % � V � -4f:1-14,1 ,� �` � aul o� sluaupuau� � a ; uau a of A1Essaaau�� ` ' � m ` ti aznn.ayeuu of sasrq t r, si 3T'u yid luauaanozdui I ° o j umolumoG pre.ou,aq). , aAnrisa ai ari apxnozd pinomi •.�r z s luauaaiduaa of zapzo uI •- , -nr..u.—kv d'papaaN 1uampuauUV papaaN luauupuauTT lipid 3ATS1.131131duIOD aTjp Si ARAI, utjd a AiSuaT.iaadu.TOp np ST Aq Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Current Comprehensive Plan c } •Sept. 2005: Downtown t '` Plan adopted • Current language is insufficient. `' r'`� r • Special Areas of Concern Section 11.1 outdated- s *Dec. 2005.Lrban °- primarily focuses on Downtown as a shopping 'f YF�r P Y Pp� g � ��' _ Renewal Plan (to implerre,,� area. TDIP ) approved • Economy Policy 5.5 recommends residential '� 1 �� development only above the first floor. N. (F� •May 2006: Tax Increment .\ Financing Ballot Measure t, a i — a pp r oved by voters of ,1 Preterr_ Design_ ti 1 70 PreferreA DaAlternative ®l 4 9 • io;;a fiuiuunid Uaznta dH ii 3tp.O3 �, sang uo2aao Jo antea-I l aT41 Aq pigmy aauuu.Tanoo •luaurpuauiV uric P009 5002 3141 papiume - aA sua y adduo a y 1 io 3 «dodaa as nosar a a 1 sr dQL a yZ sem pa12T,I,3o AID aqi • szaaxuniol�uazi�ia Aq «•psr�r j Aianbrun sr lryl pagauai aIdoad 00£I Ja°o X'' luauruosaAua ur u► dogs pup,Arid'apo t 'an!'of aidoad aigrua ' , , lryi sasn jo uorlrurquroa r sasnlraj pur 'lassr ur sr saasnosas Aanans asnoH uadp 9tu1�aaJAI poogJogii.TaN , ,� iranleu sasn pur. sazru..000a u'uorlYlaodsur.i ;o sapour Aural Aq aigrssaaar 'pat uario-ueulsapad sr try A.liunuituoa 's oie1Q A1TUnunuo3 - aylJo prat'aye 1r a2riirn urgsn a,ular,pur,lursgln r.,, Nag (siaquxaux iZ) iiii :AUrlrasa jo iroa ayl ylim urid UaAisp-ua'Lilra y 0310,4 aisu1,umoWumoQ • ILU W AjoAUJ u3ZU.t3 dial uejd 1U)U1)hordtuI umoluMO(J p.uo u, li 9 -"-.. pt a ' 4 �` E IZ uopaas III sauoalga , ' a r aa it Japun T[V3 sainsuay�uopav puu satarioc •Iuo2 s‘dIQ,L a o1 Ifapuapi :IuoD samsrapi uopay 8 pui sararfod L I' avtirg uegan 'dIQ,L 4 aril wag Apaaatp ualrl a2rn2uti luaurpuaure Isom' ur Jo 1ualUdoIanaG aril aimiizale3 T'fl II saansuaw uoflov saanseami uouoy Rae ‘saIa-Hod `strop pasodoad pug dIGI p uu �saiD o 'strop asodo�.i d s i Jp dp ut. dial.., L ;,. ipr o �xw t _ a sainsuaj& uouDV OT pui saiariod 9 �rsu� y pue �saia iaig 'saiigouro�n� saansLaN uor aJ pup, saaadod £ z 'sueuTsapad Jo3 s}uaurano1duri uoT�-einarij samluad iPJn1UN a3ta alui puL ura1sAS pur:aa.1ns anrsuaria1duro3 doianaa cIT o cards uadp atp anozduri pur doTanaa it-FT saxnsral,J uoIPV saansraw uopa' put 'saFaMiod 'strop pasodoJd pine dIQ,L pur 'saiatiod 'sirup pasodozd put dial Downtown Urban Renewal District Downtown Urban Renewal District ill�,.•� , �r1 • Slightly larger area kr ;,- P'� • Slightly larger area � '..., ' than the CBD zone `� w than the CBD zone wAirskb 4o fl ► and the original tartar* " , and the original V y% °' + ,4 ,! I Downtown Plan Area..;'' ;. .�� •t ' V, �!. ,,/lIi . �w> ��/4 ,r0, • Downtown Plan Area. Za�i 4 `' �* '�• CPA would apply to t = "��j /'-..„,4,y'`°��. , • CPA.would apply to M`' this 193 acre area ��T'�. ,# �� this 193 acre area tts'et' V4Ive\S irlio 1 .„... 411. .. , litir ,-.-.00,..,.„ ,er.,4,,,„:„„..1, 41.1N,„ , _ ish. pv0*, v \, A: , - -- ►+ 111 ,,,,,..„,..,,,,,,.....„ ii, \ cm.,,,44,"ts:111,1,,,,,, \ '..,, 0:44_,Is--.1,t,z_„.. , 41sydv.mialgtilm: mizi I, \,....tc„ . . ,,,,,,,,,,,..,..f.,,o;„-;,-;if_.., .,...k., ih,,.._,_ 1 ,.„,,,,,,,s,„.. . ....„--,,,,,,,„„„..... , I.Z w. Y lin onwg Ctassdicauons Zama Clascuicahws L?eW..keneaaiD r �HeonilSTi:mn 0'� ” .,*" ■ ma !''1 U+[T,•v• ++.v. SY viii. x 8 6 0zaug'6 UpLZe�odsu�i3,, 8 �,ulsno�3'9 6uz°up°'�.'s na�a3i'ez°a�l4 £ �azodsu�x 1 Zj aa�dS uaaQ P�uavaa°i°`' ice`voi9.1.0 j Io1 jsnox'41 saca�i ataeaiidd�' °'gyp°� 6 azd�°,�.�x����- zaad°u� zua doTa�'aQua aaxV0'3 o�u�t�a��sua`t 06c:St zaz dvuo- sQaau i i�z � 'S sacatl a pSt' o px eSi• ' saaznosa�s��u�e'I'Z 3u dotan Q�YUnaz uz njonuluaap z�S• a�°� a � X�ajaeas�S�o`u a odpza I. sieo� "`"ud 9 affix �ixa��x�px �sai�ttQd st• (SZazua�Also yata'�andd� s� voie awl dd ' saxns�a a���S ajci asodoxcl a�1' 's1,�oOp r�.xaxjx�l��a� u� `sataR°d uQpa�V :saxns'�a�` 0 v 1 s v ;5m•"7::4 1 , e '1.0';' c )- A, sblitto ,i'll o a 'ice '' ; ^ N 1 k,� { 5A.�- C cd - b Q 5. F ,o .N, 8.‘,; U � � \ �+ - " 1 s '' A 9 "A Q '0. • r 1) P y•fei 44 y (7)4, eel 0 � G o V) y a L 0 0 a ctl v N N O ca ,. ' O C3 O Siiiiiiiiii- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TIGARD DOWNTOWN GOALS,POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES Comments of John Frewing 3/19/07 before the Tigard Planning Commission 1 Most of the data relied upon is 3 to 6 years old. Much more recent data is available and should be used in a revised comp plan amendment for downtown. 2 The `Background' and `Findings' of the proposed comp plan amendment mention respectively the TDIP and current zoning classifications for downtown Tigard,but the `Policies' of the proposed comp plan amendment do not identify or reference zoning classifications which are conclusions in the TDIP. Thus,there is no change in zoning made by this comp plan amendment. 3 State rules require that decisions of the Commission and Council be based on fact. The proposed comp plan amendment does not include any facts which define the need and circumstances of the comp plan change. At least some such facts appear to be included in the TDIP and the more recently adopted Urban Renewal Plan,but are not part of the proposed changes. In the current comp plan, such facts are provided as Volume 1,Resources. The facts supporting the proposed changes should be identified and adopted as part of the comp plan change. 4 The physical boundaries of the downtown area subject to this revised comp plan are not defined. In the Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Contstraints Report,Figure 1 purports to show the plan area,but it includes areas outside the urban renewal plan boundaries. In the Paramatrix Technical Memorandum map of the TDIP, a different boundary is shown. In the main body of the TDIP, its Figure 1 shows still a different boundary. Further inconsistencies exist between the TDIP, Figure 1 and the Paramatrix Technical Memorandum map—in the TDIP Figure 1,the FEMA floodplain is shown to include most of Tigard City Hall buildings,but in the Paramatrix Technical Memorandum map,the mapped floodplain is moved south of these buildings. This is significant because the Fanno Creek Open Space Overlay zone (TDIP, page 30) is defined as "between Burnham Street and the Fanno Creek 100-year floodplain . . .". 5 Nothing exists in the proposed comp plan amendment that ensures public amenities will be developed at about the same pace as private developments in the downtown area. This is important to include;the experience of the Washington Square Regional Center plan shows that the public amenities(eg a circumferential trail, street improvements)have not been developed as millions of dollars have gone into intensive commercial development according to the plan. Perhaps one kind of control for at least one aspect of the plan would be to require that properties ADJOINING the Green Corridor/Urban Creek Overlay zone be subject to some additional design review(including view clearances, setback distances, pedestrian amenities,etc)in addition to properties IN the Green Corridor/Urban Creek Overlay zone. 6 The proposed comp plan amendment, including its purported factual base(TDIP, 9/27/05), seems to fall far short of the state requirements(ORS 197.015,ORS 227.170)that it"interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to use of lands including but not limited to sewer and water systems,transportation systems,educational facilities,recreational facilities and natural resources and air and water quality management systems"and be"based on factual information, including adopted comprehensive plans." Of these minimum scope requirements,transportation systems have been discussed the most,but in the TDIP and proposed comp plan amendments,none of the other systems/activities have been discussed in substance. For example,the entire discussion of the natural resources is to state that Fanno Creek originates near Wilson High School and drains to the Tualatin River,with diverse wildlife species. There is no discussion of trends in wildlife counts, invasive species, water pollution, air pollution, noise impacts of development, etc. There is no mention of the required CWS buffer zone around riparian and wetland areas which is likely to impact vision statements of a central gathering place near Fanno Creek(ie it must be moved away from the stream further than shown on drawings). There is no discussion of the small stream which will be the focus of the Green Corridor/Urban Creek catalyst project and what natural features it might harbor. There is no discussion of tree canopy cover and how to achieve it, an important part of any `green' development and significant because of Tigard's past failure to enforce development conditions for this subject(eg Costco parking acreage). 7 To the extent that the TDIP appendices provide the basis for future modification of related local plans, eg Community Development Code,TSP,they should be qualified to indicate that they do NOT reflect any community plan for action,by any city body. For example,Figure 1 of Appendix C(Kittleson, 10/24/04) shows a `planned sidewalk' for a non-existant Wall Street extension, east of the current Tigard library—not only is this outside of any definition of downtown,but it is not supported by any pedestrian traffic studies. Similarly,the proposed bike facilities of Figure 2 are a disjointed collection of routes not supported by any study or discussion with interested citizen groups. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 OAR 660-009-0015 has requirements that are effective as of 1/1/07 and appear not to have been met in this comp plan update. See for reference,OAR 660-009-0015 (6). For example, 0015(1)requires the plan to"identify the major categories of industrial or other employment uses that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area. . .". In the present comp plan proposal, only real estate trends have been analyzed as distinguished from types of employment,eg by SIC code. 9 OAR—0020(1)(b)requires the city to adopt a policy"stating that a COMPETITIVE supply of land as a community economic development for the industrial and other employment uses selected through the economic opportunities analysis . . . ."(full cap emphasis added my me). This does not exist in the proposed comp plan amendment and must be added to comply with state rules. HOUSING 10 The proposed comp plan change to Policy 5.5 regarding allowance of housing makes reference to a `Commercial Professional District' that is not one of the zoning districts outlined in the TDIP (Paramatrix, August 05, Technical Memorandum,pp 12-14 and associated zoning map). Thus, it is impossible to determine the comp plan's housing for downtown. Inconsistency#1: In this same comp plan change,MUE multifamily housing is encouraged to develop at R-40 densities,while in the TDIP noted above,MUE multifamily housing is limited to R-25 densities. The inconsistency should be resolved. Inconsistency#2: The proposed comp plan change for Policy 5.5 refers to MUC-1 district,a designation not included on the recommended zoning map of the TDIP. This reference to MUC-1 calls for housing between a minimum of 25 units/acre to 50 units/acre,but exludes from these density limits housing developed above non-residential uses. In the TDIP, multifamily housing in the MUC district is ONLY allowed above non-residential uses and is required to comply with the R-40 standards and density. The inconsistency should be resolved. 11 A Buildable Lands Inventory is not provided for the downtown area as required by OAR 660-007- 0045 (1). This should be provided to comply with state rules. 12 This comp plan amendment appears to not address important and relevant Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. Such ommisions include Goal 6 regarding the quality of air,water and land resources, Goal 7 regarding protection of the community from natural disaster and hazard areas(eg flooding), Goal 11,regarding planning for public facilities and Goal 13 regarding energy conservation. A revision of the proposed comp plan section for downtown should include consideration of these issues. 13 Note to review: Does the record of the pre-app meeting and application itself meet the requirements of Tigard CDC 18.380 and 18.390??