03/05/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 5, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Vice President Walsh; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall,Doherty,
and Vermilyea. Also in attendance was Councilor Gretchen Buehner, liaison to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioners Absent: President Inman
Staff Present: Tom Coffee,Director of Community Development; Ron Bunch, Long Range
Planning Manager; Sean Farrel ly,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission
Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Commissioner Caffall reported on the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). He advised
that the committee is working on web pages for neighborhoods. He noted that Tigard's
website was voted as one of the nation's best websites for small cities for its usability and
readability. The Committee co-sponsored a drug awareness program at the Library. They were
disappointed with the amount of community involvement, so they hope to do it again in the
spring.
Councilor Buehner reported that the Intergovernmental Water Board will probably be doing
some transfers of property titles. It will involve some permitting issues that may come before
the Planning Commission.
Councilor Buehner advised that she will be attending hearings on annexation bills this week in
Salem. She also noted that the ordinance for the City's annexation policy will be coming back
to Council next week.
Vice-President Walsh reported that the Tree Board will meet Wednesday night. They will be
picking up with the new endorsement from the Council on the role and scope to develop an
expanded tree code. It will be complementary to the Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 1
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the January 29,2007 meeting minutes as submitted.
The motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded to approve the February 5, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Vermilyea abstained.
5. FORM-BASED DESIGN FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY
26 MEETING
City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) members in attendance: Roger Pothoff, Carolyn
Barkley,Alexander Craghead,Alice Ellis-Gaut,Lily Lilly
Planning Manager Ron Bunch advised that when he attended a CCAC meeting last fall,the
CCAC expressed a desire to have a consultant provide background on form-based code (FBC).
They wanted a neutral overview of PBC with the possibility of NBC being used in the
Downtown. Staff arranged for a consultant to give a presentation at a joint meeting of the
CCAC and the Planning Commission on February 26th. Although the presentation wasn't as
good as it could have been because of technical problems, the Commissioners were able to ask
questions and discuss some of the issues surrounding NBC.
Mr. Bunch noted that he received emails from some CCAC members expressing concern that
they are being pushed out of the process. He reassured everyone that this will be an ongoing
collaborative process - the Planning Commission and City Center Advisory Commission will
decide together where to go with FBC from this point forward.
Planning Commissioners and City Center Advisory Commissioners provided the following
comments concerning FBC:
> Do we want to go anywhere with FBC? Do we explore it further or should we table it
and look for other things? Is 1413C permissible under current statute? Is it going to
accomplish what we want?
> Some people don't care one way or the other between form-based and fact-based code,
but they're interested in developing design standards.
> Whatever the two Commissions decide,it's going to be irrelevant unless Council is up
to speed and understands what's going on. It was recommended to schedule the last
hour of the Council workshop meeting every month to talk about this issue—to give it
to them in"bite size"pieces.
> The CCAC already knew more than the presentation, so they expected more
information from the presentation than they received. They have not come to the
conclusion that F13C is something they want to do;but it's a potential idea. They still do
not have the necessary information to say it's really going to work.
> There is concern about design standards and aesthetics with the redevelopment.
Existing code may not be able to convey this information in an accurate way. Fact-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 2
based code leaves a lot more open to interpretation—there may be too much flexibility
in some situations. There's a potential that PBC might be able to more accurately
portray what the Downtown Improvement Plan envisions for the Downtown. The
CCAC isn't at the point to be able to make a decision; they need more information.
> It would be useful to have some actual code to see how FBC looks when it's reduced to
paper. There are probably many variations for how that can be accomplished. That's
the next step.There's an urgency to look at this now because of upcoming development
and the Comp Plan update. We need more in-depth information before we can go
forward. If we have an arrangement that's easily understood,we'll spend less staff time
and money on attorney fees—we need to spend the money up front to have it done
right.
> The presentation was helpful to those who have never heard the term form-based code.
> Will the FBC process fit in with our small Downtown,with a major thoroughfare
running through the center of the Downtown? We need more information before we
can make a decision.
> What kinds of information do we need to make a decision about exploring FBC more?
The legality issue could be one item.
> The discussion with the consultants was useful. We're still in a fact-finding mode, so it's
a good idea for the CCAC and the Planning Commission to be in a parallel mode. We
should"begin with the end in mind". How does this apply to what we're trying to
create in the urban renewal district?
> We need to come to a consensus about the role of Tigard City government in
overseeing design. We need to have a discussion about the proper level of control we
can recommend for Tigard City government to have in design control.
> In the past,there has been a bias against design review. We have an opportunity now to
look at design review again to see if it's appropriate for Tigard.
> It would be helpful to see what actual code looks like. We need samples from cities that
use FBC—maybe put similar codes next to each other so we can compare them.
> The Commissioners asked staff to provide examples of PBC from other cities and to
get an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether FBC will pass muster under •
Oregon's current land use statues.
> Developers need to be involved in the discussion as soon as possible. Staff said that to get
developers involved, they need to know what standards we're considering the properties we're looking at,
and what it's supposed to look like. We need to do more work first.
> The City needs to make it easier for developers. If 1-BC could help speed up the
process and we could convince developers that it would be more efficient,it would be a
good selling point. Staaff believes that Downtown development standards won't make life easier or
quicker for developers. The Downtown is more complex than any single issue project or parcel in Tigard.
In the absence of eminent domain and the ability to acquire land, it's going to be more difficult. We
shouldn't say that FBC is one of benefits of Downtown design standards.
> We need a consensus regarding the level of control the City should have regarding
design review,whether it's form-based or traditional. Everything will come to a
grinding halt if Council isn't on board with design review. Having worksessions with
Council is a good idea.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 3
➢ It was reported that at a recent Council meeting, design review was mentioned and at
least 2 Councilors were very receptive to it.
➢ It was noted that a decision that needs to be made up front is whether we want design
review or not. The CCAC thinks design review is critical.
➢ It's easy to say yes or no about having design review;it's harder to say what it means.
➢ Would it apply just to the Downtown or should it be citywide? Maybe we could start
with the Downtown.
Ron Bunch advised that staff is anxious to start to work rather than to continue to bring in
consultants. We need to formulate goals,policies,and actions measures to have a foundation
to begin with. Staff will bring in resources and code samples so the Commissions can take a
look at Main Street and begin to draft out what we want the Downtown to look like.
Tom Coffee advised that the Planning Commission,by City ordinance,is the body that passes
on recommendations for land use regulations. Design review would be considered a land use
regulation. The CCAC is the body set up to specifically advise the Redevelopment Agency on
redevelopment of the Downtown. How that is regulated impacts them. There is a need for
both groups to work together. He advised both groups to concentrate more on the outcome
(what's it going to look like and how it's going to function) rather than worrying about the
method. We may find that FBC works for some aspects and the traditional code works for
others. He agrees that it's important to know what level of design review the Council will
support. He also agrees that we need to get legal advice on the parameters of the code.
Ron Bunch estimates a 10-12 month process for the Downtown land use program,but that
stop gap measures should to be in place to prevent"something awful" from happening in the
meantime. This should be rolled into the CCAC/Planning Commission process. The overall
10-12 month process can have milestones, e.g.,land use part, design part, downtown circulation
part,and administration part.
It was suggested to have a sub-committee of both Commissions to work together. It was
decided that each Commission would identify 2 people at their next regular meeting to serve on
the sub-committee. The sub-committee will work on a recommendation to bring forward to
the Commissions. It will be necessary to have the answers to the questions already asked
before the sub-committee can begin.
The Commissions would like to see codes with a FBC element from other cities and also see
what infrastructure they have in place. Do they have design review boards; do we need it? Is it
something we can obviate by having PBC or do we still have to have it? What does it look like;
how does it work? These are some of the things that will be charged to the sub-committee.
There was consensus for the groups to forward 2 names for the sub-committee. Staff was
asked to draft an outline of what the sub-committee's charge would be and load it with
questions—what is the exact charge;what is the timeline? It was suggested that we may just
want to set a timeline for the first report back to the Commissions. Staff was asked to
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 4
concurrently get answers to the questions raised and maybe take a"fatal flaw" approach—is
there any reason this will not work (legally/Council buy-in, etc.). Staff can create a timeline for
the sub-committee to consider.
7. 07-12 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN WORKSHOP
This item was taken out of order.
Tom Coffee discussed the 07-12 Community Investment Plan (CIP) and the new 5-year
format. In the past,the Planning Commission would get a list of projects that were primarily
focused on the following year. Other projects would be listed,but they weren't programmed
for the subsequent 4 years. The idea is to do an inventory of all the capital needs of the City for
the next 5 years and program them so that 1) coordinating projects are identified;2) the master
plan shows the sequence of projects; and 3) the costs are identified so projects can be
prioritized.
He noted that the draft 07-12 CIP project book was distributed a few weeks ago, along with a
funding matrix. Staff has refined project estimates and descriptions and developed a revised
matrix (Exhibit A). The CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For the Planning
Commission, the CIP is an exercise for keeping the Commission informed and allowing them
to comment and make recommendations on it.
The Planning Commission had the following comments/questions:
> For projects that say"funded",is that 100% rock solid based upon levels of income or
tax revenue? Coffee answered that some projects might rely on a grant and some projects are only
partially funded. The newly passed City gas tax is targeted to do the Greenbui /99W intersection. The
money will come in over a 4 to 5yearperiod,however, we will want to build it in 2years To accomplish
this, we will have to get a bond or borrow money from another fund and then repay it. This matrix will
change again before it is adopted by Council, to show the entire expenditures in 08-09 and 09-10, but
the revenue won't show until the 4th or 5th year.
> Will this cause confusion for the tax payer? To avoid that, we will borrow the money to build
the improvements early (in 08-09 and 09-10). The money will be repaid after we receive the revenue
share. Another example is the Traffic Impact Fee (111-9. Over the next 5 years, we have identified
street projects that total over$24 million;however, we will only receive an estimated 36 million from
"121-d1
> It was advised that Larry Galizio,a School Board member,and County Commissioner
Roy Rogers recently met with CPO members to discuss a school SDC proposal. They
also discussed streets and TIF. When asked if the County planned to increase the TIF,
Commissioner Rogers said he did not see anything happening within the next 5 years.
> Where does TIF revenue come from? It comes from people getting building permits for new
development. They pay a"1 IF based on the impact their development will have on the street system (or
some percentage thereof). When the County implemented the TIF'severalyears ago,.they did an estimate
of what all the road costs would be Countywide for the next 20 years +/-and came up with a cost
recovery of only 35%of that amount. From the beginning, they were 65%in the hole in covering the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 5
costs for roads in Washington County. Over time, because'11h hasn't been raised, the cost recovery is
only about 25%. As a result, the backlog of needed road improvements is climbing. Recently, the
Transportation Financing Strategy Committee discussed the possibility of the City having its own SDC
for transportation. The problem is that a lot of revenue potential has been lost because so much
development has already occurred.
> Is there a consensus among cities in Washington County that TIF needs to increase and,
if so,how can we get all the cities together to approach the County Commission? There
is talk of that, but what effect it will have remains to be seen. They tend to look at the next election
instead of the 20 year road plan.
> There is another problem now because all the people who live in urbanized,
unincorporated Washington County now outnumber all the people living in the cities
and the rural areas. They don't want to see any fee increases.
> One Commissioner believes that we saw too much detail in the past CIPs,but would
like to see major themes identified in the new format(e.g.,3 years of sewer
improvement projects, 4 years of street projects, etc.). That would help in terms of
policy and planning. Coffee advised that staff will have a workshop with Council on March 20 and
will come back to the Planning Commission maybe in the beginning of Apri l with that kind of format..
> It would be nice to have a list of prior years'priorities.
> For the water-related projects,it would be helpful to have more break out of the detail
(location of the reservoirs and more specificity in the timelines).
6. LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAINING
Ron Bunch distributed copies of An Introductory Guide to Land Use Planning for Small Cities and
Counties in Oregon (Exhibit B). He noted that it could be germane to land use decisions the
Planning Commission makes—quasi-judicial,legislative, or administrative. He also provided
copies of a document detailing the different types of land use decisions (Exhibit C).
He advised that the Planning Commission would be working on goals,policies,and action
measures for the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Commission will be doing code work
for the Downtown. Legislative land use decisions are created and adopted as law; the Planning
Commission recommends the adoption of laws to the City Council. Quasi-judicial decisions
apply the law. It also takes into account things we use the Comp Plan as criteria for, such as
individual zone change and Comp Plan map amendments.
Bunch referred to a matrix on page 2 of Exhibit C showing the notification,hearings, findings,
and appeal requirements for the different types of land use decisions. He noted that, as the
Commissioners review the goals,policies, and action measures, they should always ask staff to
make sure there's an adequate factual base for the decisions.
Once criteria have been established for a legislative decision, anyone can bring up new
information at the Council meeting as long as it addresses the criteria. It's good for staff to
write a complete and "bullet-proof' staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 6
Bunch advised that we will have some difficulty as we begin with goals, policies,and action
measures because we have to use the old Comprehensive Plan as the criteria to justify the
adoption of the new policies. The Commission will see this at the public hearing on March
19th.
Bunch reported that DLCD [Department of Land Conservation and Development],LCDC
[Land Conservation and Development Commission], and Metro are all very involved in
legislative land use decisions. He detailed the steps that staff have to take with notifying these
agencies. He advised that DLCD and Metro can appeal decisions if statewide planning goals
are involved.
Regarding hearings for legislative decisions,Bunch advised that the Planning Commission
holds an initial hearing and sends a recommendation to Council. Council holds a second
hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation. Council can accept, reject, or
modify the recommendation. If Council rejects the recommendation, they may remand the
work back to staff and the Planning Commission for further work,which then means
beginning the hearing process again.
Vice-President Walsh advised that, for controversial projects in the past, the Planning
Commission has sent a representative to the Council meeting to speak for the Planning
Commission. We may want to consider doing this again.
Bunch said that during the Comp Plan update, staff will hold worksessions with the
Commission. It is alright for the Planning Commission to have a higher level of ex-parte
contact on these issues.
The Comprehensive Plan will be arranged in goals,policies, and action measures. They identify
the intent of the City to do certain things. Goals are most general;policies and action measures
are more specific. Essentially,goals and policies are laws, enumerated in the Plan. They are
used for decision making,legislative land use hearings, quasi-judicial hearings involving Plan
map and zoning map changes, and sometimes for conditional use applications. Bunch noted
that once the Comprehensive Plan is developed, the next step is to implement it.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Ron Bunch asked the Commission about training and how staff can support them more. The
Commissioners made the following suggestions:
> Some staff reports are very large—having an executive summary,broken down with
bullet points or 2-3 sentence paragraphs,would be helpful in letting the Commission
know what they need to focus on.
> It would also be helpful if one of the planners could walk the Commission through a
staff report and show the Commission what they need to concentrate on.
> The Commission could use some feedback on how they can be better prepared for
meetings.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 7
> If a Commissioner has questions ahead of time about an application,what is the process
that staff prefers for asking those questions? The Commissioners can contact staff directly with
questions.
> To what extent are the Commissioners bound by the open meeting law? If there is a
quorum present during any discussion, the meeting must be open to the public. The Commission can
meet before a public hearing, but the public has to be invited to hear the discussion. The Commission
can ask questions, but cannot deliberate among themselves in private.
> The Commissioners talked about having weekend training sessions and bringing in a
trainer. It would give the Commissioners an opportunity to get to know each other
better and would help to make the group more cohesive and productive.
> It was decided to discuss the role of the Downtown subgroup at a future meeting. Ron
Bunch said that once the decision is made about PBC, staff would like direction
regarding who they will be directly working with—the Planning Commission or the
CCAC=to come up with a proposal. Commissioner Vermilyea doesn't think that we
should jump into code writing until it is decided what type of code to use. Once the
decision has been made,we can brief Council.
> The Commission would like to have a"play book" of acronyms.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Jerree- e "s,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: Vi Pr-sident II id Wal
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 8
System I Fund , ,FY00 7,708, I FY 2008-091 FY,2009 .0,I FY 2010-11;I FY 2011 12, ) Total; ` ',
Facilities
Facility
Expenditure $1,774,486 $167,000 $5,110,000 $4,750,000 $14,500,000 $26,301,486
Resources 1,307,486 167,000 0 0 0 1,474,486
Grants 467,000 0 0 0 0 467,000
Difference $0 $0 ($5,110,000) ($4,750,000) ($14,500,000) ($24,360,000)
Parks
Parks Capital
Expenditure $3,356,320 $2,120,400 $4,358,511 $933,000 $340,000 $11,108,231
Resources 3,356,300 2,030,400 2,106,511 933,000 340,000 8,766,211
Difference ($20) ($90,000) ($2,252,000) $0 $0 ($2,342,020)
Streets
City Gas Tax
Expenditure $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000
Resources $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000
Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gas Tax
Expenditure $2,940,000 $6,855,000 $5,217,000 $3,425,000 $6,925,000 $25,362,000
Resources 2,900,000 655,000 500,000 618,000 600,000 5,273,000
Grants 0 2,090,000 0 292,000 1,825,000 4,207,000
Difference ($40,000) ($4,110,000) ($4,717,000) ($2,515,000) ($4,500,000) ($15,882,000)
Street Maintenance Fee
Expenditure $1,200,000 $1,220,000 $1,246,000 • $1,263,000 $1,286,200 $6,215,200
Resources 800,000 750,000 700,000 690,000 690,000 3,630,000
Difference ($400,000) ($470,000) ($546,000) ($573,000) ($596,200) ($2,585,200)
Traffic Impact Fee
Expenditure $2,235,000 $1,600,000 $5,900,000 $6,450,000 $8,548,000 $24,733,000
Resources 1,990,000 2,225,000 575,000 575,000 575,000 5,940,000
Difference ($245,000) $625,000 ($5,325,000) ($5,875,000) ($7,973,000) ($18,793,000)
TIF-Urban Services
Expenditure $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000
Resources 240,000 0 0 0 0 240,000
Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tigard Triangle LID #1
Expenditure $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000
Resources 2,300,000 100,000 0 0 0 2,400,000
Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Underground Utility
Expenditure $200,000 $150,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $850,000
Resources 200,000 0 300,000 0 100,000 600,000
Difference $0 ($150,000) $300,000 ($500,000) $100,000 ($250,000)
Revised 3/5/2007 1:10 PM
System ( Fund 1: FY,2007-08 1FY 2008-09:•1 FY 2009=10`1 FY 2010-11 I FY 2011-12 I _ Total,, '1
Sanitary Server
Sanitary Sewer
Expenditure $2,450,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $6,850,000
Resources 2,290,000 1,850,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 100,000 6,940,000
Difference ($160,000) $250,000 $0 $0 $0
$90,000
Storm Drainage
Stormwater
Expenditure $360,000 $485,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $1,175,000
Resources 360,000 0 0 0 0 360,000
Difference $0 ($485,000) ($110,000) ($110,000) ($110,000) ($815,000)
Water Quality/Quantity
Expenditure $480,000 $535,000 $325,000 $325,000 $345,000 $2,010,000
Resources 480,000 535,000 325,000 325,000 275,000 1,940,000
Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 ($70,000) ($70,000)
Water
Water
Expenditure $769,000 $714,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700 $3,142,300
Resources 594,000 689,400 656,800 758,400 243,700 2,942,300
Difference ($175,000) ($25,000) $0 $0
$0 ($200,000)
Water CIP
Expenditure $6,235,000 $10,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000 $33,756,224
Resources 6,235,000 10,078,000 5,457,112 6,986,112 5,000,000 33,756,224
Difference $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0
Water SDC
Expenditure $377,000 $290,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $892,000
Resources 552,000 190,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 967,000
Difference $175,000 ($100,000) $0 $0 $0 $75,000
Urban Renewal
Urban Renewal
Expenditure $5,000 $0 $2,461,000 $782,000 $0 $3,248,000
Resources 57,398 0 0 0 0 57,398
Difference $52,398 $0 ($2,461,000) ($782,000) $0 ($3,190,602)
•
Revised 3/5/2007 1:10 PM
'total
FY 2011'12
Y 2010_11 $4,600,000
FY 2009-�10` $1000,000
FY 2008 09 $975,000
FY.20p7 08 $975,000
,Tree Funding $1150,000
Revenue So Status $500,000
Froject(Account Funded $4,600,000
Banking Fund Balance $1,000,000
$1750,000 0 $975,00
Gm ptovet ::::::: 0,000
a $1,150,000 $1,00 Sty eet $500,000 $97 5,000$925,000
0
Impzo�7ements
$900,000
-Totals:
ReSOUtces available:
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Facility Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 200910 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status.
Commuter Rail Fund Balance: Funded $105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000
Enhancements $105,000
Library Parking Lot Fund Balance: Funded $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000
Expansion $250,000
Library Projects- Fund Balance: Funded $417,486 $0 $0 , $0 $0 $417,486
Houghton-Root $417,486
Donations
Senior Center Remodel Fund Balance: Funded $757,000 $167,000. $0 $0 $0 $924,000
and Seismic Upgrade $375,000
Community
Development Block
Grant(CDBG):
$307,000 Other
Revenue:$75,000
Transit Center MTIP Grant:$160,000 Funded $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Redesign Fund Balance:$40,000
Water Building UST Transfer in from Funded $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000
Decommission General Fund:$45,000
New Police Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $11,000,000
Department Source:$1,000,000
New Public Works Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $5,110,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $12,610,000
Facility Source:$5,110,000
RFID Technology Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000
Source:$750,000
Totals: $1,774,486 $167,000 $5,110,000 $4,750,000 $14,500,000 $26,301,486
Resources available: $2,267,486 $570,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Parks Capital Fund -
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007 08'. FY 2008 09 FY 2009 10 FY 2010 11 F1 201112 Total'
Brown Property Trail Park SDC:$5,750 Funded $0 $25,000 $225.,000 $0 $0 $250,000
Construction Metro Gxecnspace
Revenues:419,250 •Cach Park' Park SDC;`$265,000 Funded $0 ``$0 $0 $0 $265 000 $265;000
Development _
rY $0 $0 .0 $a $1,100;000
Canterbu Park Park SDC $440,0.00 Funded $1,1"00,000
Development Transfer in GF
$660,000
City Entryway Transfer in from Funded $35,000 $36,400 $38,000 $0 $0 $109,400•
Monuments General Fund:$35,000
•Clute Property Park Park SDC':$36,000 Funded $0, $0 $0 $15;000 $75,000 v $90,000•
Development Transfer-in.:GF: .'i
$54 000
Cook Park Bathrooin Transfer in from Funded $0 $70 000 $0 $0 :$Q •
000
&Shelter Replacement General Fund-,:.$70,000
Downtown Park Land. Park SDC:$115,000 Funded $115,000 ;:$0 $0 $0 ' :;.$0 $115,000•
Acquisition
Downtown Urban-.: Park SDC;:$80,000 Funded $0 $80,000 • $0 $0 $0 $80,000
Corridor-Master Plan
Elizabeth:Price Park Park SDC:.$100,000 Funded $100,000 $0 $0 ,' $0. •. $100,000
Development
Fanno Creek Park- Park SDC•''$2.50,000 Furided, $170,000 $1,OOQ000
•
Farino Creek Park-/ Park SD•C:.:$60,000 Funded $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000
Plaza Master Plan
Fanrio Creek Park. Park SDC:$30,000 Funded $0 $'30,000. $225,000 • $0 '$0 $255,000•
Gateway at Main St.
Fanno Creek Trail(Hall Park SDC $35,880 Funded $156,000 $a $0 $0 -` $0 $156,000
Boulevard to Fanno Transfer in from
Creek) General Fund
$120,120
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Parks Capital Fund:
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding` FY 2007 08' FY 2008-09 FY 2009 710 `•FFY 2,010-11". FY 2011"12 Total
l"
l?f"r x .; F {iy l } ;1 c;; f,'t StatUS - ..•
Fanno Creek Trail Park SDC $150,000 Funded '$115;000 $0 $0 $0 $0' $115,000
(Main,St.'to Grant St)..
Jack Park Extension Park SDC $275,700 Funded $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000
Metro Greenspace:
$207,000
Ttansfer'n from`GF
$117,300
Land Acquisition- Metro Greenspace Funded . $329,000 $674,000 $781,511 $0 $0 $1,784,511
$1,070;717
Park SD;C $713,794
Park SDC Park SDC:$15,000 Funded $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000
Methodology Update.-
Park System Master Park SDC:$50,000 Funded. $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Plan Update
Skate;Park ' ' Park SDC;,:.$111,300 Funded $326,300 • $0 • $0 $0 $0 $326,300
Development& Oregon Recreation
Construction Parks Grant:$150,000
Donation:.$65,000
Washington Square MTIP Grant:$179,349 Funded $300,020 $90,000 $0. $0 $0 $390,020
Regional Center Trail VISTIP 3 Bike/Ped
Funds :$120,651
Fanno CreekPlaza Park SDC;i$837,000 - Funded $0 '$0 $837,000 $918,000..: $0 _ $1,755,000
Urban Creek Corridor Park SDC:$2,052,000 Unfunded $0 $0 $2,252,000 $0 $0 $2,252,000
Urban Renewal:
$1,748,000
Totals: $3,356,320 $2,120,400 $4,358,511 $933,000 $340,000 $11,108,231
Total Funded $3,356,320 $2,120,400 $2,106,511 ,16933,000 :340,000
Resources available: $3,273,570 $2,942,210 $106,511 $918,000 $1,600,000
Grants
MTIP 179,349 179,349
MSTIP 120,651 120,651
Park SDC 1,637,165 2,412,155 1,516,050 918,000 465,000 6,948,370
General Fund 932,000 106,400 38,000 1,076,400
Metro Greenspace 404,405 423,655 577,655 1,405,715
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
■
Gas Tax Fund
Ranking .Project/Account Revenue Source ,Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11• FY 2011-12 Total
Status
100th Ave Fund Balance: Funded $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $600,000
Improvements(Sattlei $300,000
to Murdock St)
121st Ave Crosswalk Fund Balance: Funded $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Improvements(at $200,000
Springwood IDr&
Katherine St).
72nd Ave/Dartmouth Fund Balance: Funded $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000
St.Intersection $125,000
Signalization
Ash Ave Extension Fund Balance: Funded $300,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000
(Burnham St to $300,000
Railroad Tracks)
Commercial St Fund Balance: Funded $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $700;000
Improvements(Lincoln$608,700
Ave to Main St) Community
Development Block •
Grant(CDBG): .
' ' $91,300 •
Hall Blvd&Tigard St. Fund Balance: Funded $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0:- ,• $100,000
Crosswalks(at Fanno $100,000 .
Creek Pathway)
Hall Blvd and Highway Fund Balance: Funded $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
99W Gateway $200,000
Treatments
Hall Boulevard Fund Balance:$75,000 Funded $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000
Sidewalk(Spruce St to
850'south)
Main St.Green Street Funded $570,000 $2,470,000 $0 $400,000 $2,500,000 $5,940,000
Retrofit-Phase 1 MTH'Grant:$450,000 .
Fund Balance: •
$120,000 .
Main Street Safety Fund Balance:$25,000 Funded $25,000 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $25;000
Improvements
Upper Boones Ferry Fund Balance:$20,000 Funded $20,000 $0 SO $0 $0 $20,000
Rd.Traffic Signal
Interconnection •
Upgrade(at Sequoia
Parkway)
Collector&Arterial Fund Balance:$35,000 Funded $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $175,000
ROW Enhancements
Main St Traffic Light Fund Balance: Funded $0 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
(atTigard St) $160,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Gas Tax Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Burnham St Fund Balance: Partially $500,000 $1,425,000 SO SO SO $1,925,000
Improvements $1,010,000 Funded
Pavement Major Fund Balance: Partially $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
Maintenance Program $150,000 Funded
(PMMP)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Fund Balance: Partially $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $700,000
Paths $140,000 Funded
121st Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 SO $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000
Improvements $500,000
(Whistler to Tippitt St)
121st St Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $500,000 $300,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,000
(Walnut to North $300,000
Dakota St)
92nd Ave Sidewalk Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,000
(Durham Rd to Cook $450,000
Park)
Ash Ave Extension Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $1,300,000
(Fanno Creek to $300,000
Scoffins St)
Burnham St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $3,092,000 $0 $0 $3,092,000
Improvements $3,092,000
Commercial St(Main Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $600,000
to Hall) $600,000
Main St at Highway Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000
99W Intersection $225,000
Gateway Treatment
Murdock St . Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000
Improvements(103rd $200,000
to 97th Ave) $300,000 $400,000 $700,000
North Dakota St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $
Improvements $300,000
(Greenburg to 95th
Ave)
North Dakota St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $100,000 $0 $400,000
Pedestrian Bridge $300,000
Totals: $2,940,000 $6,855,000 $5,217,000 $3,425,000 $6,925,000 $25,362,000
Includes$450,000 Includes$2,090,00 Includes$292,000 Includes$1,825,000
grant for Main St grant for Main St grant for Main St grant for Main St
Project and$91,300 Project Project Project
grant for Commercial
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Total
Fy 2010-11 201142
$3,630,000
Fy 2009_10 $690,00
pi 2008-09 $690,00'FY 200 -08 $700,00'II F Funding $7 50,00
Fee(Slvl ) Revenue Status $800,00
Stteet Maintenance Account gouirce $3,630,000
Project/ Funded $690,000
Ranking rung $2,585,200
$700,000 546, $690,000 $5960 00
Pavement Maj° gain Balance: $'150,000 $573,000
MaintenanceProg' $800,000 $800,000 $546,000
MA11') $470,000
(l' $400,000 $2,585,200
Unfunded $596,200
T otals: Fund $53,000
SIIIIIIIIIII $546,000
Pavement ajor gram Balance: $410,000 $690,000
Maintenance ls: $400,000 $400,000 $690,000
�MMP) $700,000$750,000
Totals:
$800,000
Resources available:
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
McDonald Street Fund Balance: Funded $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
Traffic Median (at $40,000
Hwy 99W)
Durham Rd/108th Fund Balance: Funded $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Ave Signalization $200,000
Hall Blvd/Wall St Fund Balance: Funded $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000
Intersection-Phase 2 $1,200,000
Burnham St Fund Balance: Funded $510,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $510,000
Improvements $510,000
Hall Blvd Half-street Fund Balance: Funded $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000
Improvements (Fanno $275,000
Creek to 450 feet
north) .
Hall Boulevard(at Fund Balance: Funded $0 $100,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $400,000
McDonald Street) $400,000
Right-turn Lane
Widening
Traffic Improvement Fund Balance: Funded $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Analysis-Greenburg $10,000
Rd/Tiedeman
Ave/North Dakota
St/Tigard St Area
72nd Ave Fund Balance: Partially $0 $0 $1,000,000 $600,000 $600,000 $2,200,000
Improvements $1,000,000 Funded
(Dartmouth St to Hwy
99W)
72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $1,000,000 $1,450,000
Improvements (Bonita $450,000
Rd to Hunziker St)
72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000 $448,000
Improvements $448,000
(Dartmouth St to Hwy
99W)
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $800,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $4,200,000
Improvements $800,000
(Hunziker to
Dartmouth St)
Dartmouth St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $2,800,000
Improvements (72nd $300,000
to 68th Ave)
Greenburg/Tiedeman Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $200,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,700,000
/N.Dakota/Tigard St $200,000
• Scoffins/Hall/Hunzik Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $0 $4,800,000
ex Re-alignment $300,000
Walnut St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000
Improvements (116th $1,000,000
to Tiedeman Avenue)
Totals: $2,235,000 $1,600,000 $5,900,000 $6,450,000 $8,548,000 $24,733,000
Resources available: $1,990,000 $2,225,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Traffic Impact Fee Fund—Urban Services
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08. FY°2008``-09 FY 2009-10 FY 201041 FY 2011-12 ' `Total;
Source Status
Bull Mountain Rd Fund Balance Funded $240,000 $0 $0 , $0 $0 $240,000
(at Hwy 99W)Right-: $240,000
Turn Lane
Widening
Totals: $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000
Resources available: $240,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Tigard Triangle LID,#0 ,_
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Source: Status
-.
Tigard Triangle Street Fund Balance Funded $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000
Improvements LID : $2,300,000
No.1
Totals: $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000
Have to sell a BAN to pay for this project.
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Underground Utility Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10- FY2010-11 'FY 201112 Total.
Source Status
Burnham St Fund Balance: Partially $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Improvements $200,000 Funded
Walnut St Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
(116th to Tiedeman $150,000
Avenue)
121st Ave Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
(Whistler to Tippitt St) $150,000
Dartmouth St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Improvements (72nd to $150,000
68th Ave)
Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000
Re-alignment $200,000
Totals: $200,000 $150,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $850,000
Resources available: $200,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $100,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Sanitary Sewer Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009.10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Status
Bonita Road at Fund Balance: Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Fanno Creek Pipe $20,000
Removal.
Citywide Sanitary Fund Balance: Funded $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 $5,000,000
Sewer Extension $2,000,000
Program
Commercial St Fund Balance: Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Sanitary Sewer $20,000
Upgrades(Lincoln to
Main St).
Highway 217 Fund Balance: Funded $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000
Sanitary Sewer $500,000
Upgrade
Hunziker Sanitary Fund Balance: Funded $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000
Sewer Upgrade $500;000
McDonald St(at Fund Balance: Funded $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000
Hall Boulevard) $50;000
Sanitary Sewer
Connection
Red Rock Creek Fund Balance: Funded $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Sanitary Sewer . $100;000
Repair
Sanitary Sewer Fund Balance Funded $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000
Master Plan $70,000
Sanitary Sewer Major Fund Balance Funded $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100;000 $500,000
Maintenance $100,000
Program
Totals; $2,450,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $6,850,000
Have plenty of resources to fund all these projects.
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Storm Water Fund "`
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 ' FY 2011-12' ; - Total
Status
Durham Rd Stream Fund Balance: Funded $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
Bank Stabili7ation (at$150,000
108th Ave)
Deny Dell Creek Fund Balance: Partially $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Slope Stabili7ation $200,000 Funded
(at 118th Ave)
Storm Drainage Fund Balance: Partially $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Major Maintenance $50,000 Funded
Program
Pedestrian/Bicycle Fund.Balance: Partially $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000
Paths $60,000 Funded
Cascade Ave Storm Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Drain Overflow $100,000
Greens Way& Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $125,000
Highland Drive $125,000
Storm Drainage
Improvements
Storm Drainage Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Master Plan $50,000
Totals: $360,000 $485,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $1,175,000
Resources available: $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
■
Unfunded Projects
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Water Quality/Quantity Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding. FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011=12 Total
Source Status
72nd Fund Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Ave/Dartmouth St Balance:
Culvert Replacement $20,000
Commercial St Fund Funded $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
Improvements Balance
(Lincoln Ave to Main $120,000
St)
Community Tree Fund Funded $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50;000 ' $150,000
Planting Balance
$50,000
Culvert Replacement Fund Funded $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000
Balance:
$150,000
Deny Dell Creek Fund Funded $50,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $400,000
Culvert Balance:
Improvements (at $50,000
Fanno Creek&
Walnut St)
Deny Dell Creek Fund Funded $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000
Tree Planting Balance:
$25,000
Hiteon Creek Fund Funded $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000
Riparian Balance:
Enhancement- $80,000
Phase 2 Construction
Riparian Restoration Fund Funded $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $70,000
and Enhancement Balance:
$10,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 201041 FY 2011-12
Total
FY 2007-08 $142 $420,000
Water Quality/Quanti Fund Revenue Funding $90 001
project jAccaunt Status $90,001
Ranking Source $1 $150,001
Fund Funded $125,000
11 Stoxzuwater Out£all Balance: $25,001 $25,001
Retrofits $150,000 $25,001 $25,001
$25,001
Fund Funded $150,000
Water Quality $1 $1
0 Balance: $i
Enhancement $25,000 $1
$150,001
Fund Funded. $2,010,000
Commercial Street $325,000 $345,000 Regional Detention Balance: $325,000
$150,000 $480,000 $535,00
WOFacility
Totals:
Revised 3/5/2007 9.23 AM
Water Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Source Status
ASR 1 Rehabilitation Fund Funded $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $0 $170,000
Balance:
$170,000
Burnham St Fund Funded $350,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $525,000
Improvements Balance
$425,000
Cathodic Protection Fund Funded $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000
of Steel Reservoirs Balance:
$60,000
Defective Meter Fund Funded $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,300 $58,500 $270,800
Replacements Balance:
$50,000
Meter Installations Fund Funded $60,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $230,000
Balance;
$60,000
Reservoir Seismic Fund Funded $0 $300,000 $312,000 $325,000 $0 $937,000
Upgrades Balance:
$300,000
Walnut Street(116th Fund Funded $0 $0 $127,000 $43,000 $0 $170,000
to Tiedeman): Balance:
Relocate 12-inch $127,000
Waterline
Water Main Fund Funded $50,000 $75,000 $54,000 $56,300 $80,000 $315,300
Replacements Balance:
$50,000
Water Reservoir Fund Funded $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000
Seismic Upgrade Balance:
Evaluation $70,000
Water Service Fund Funded $10,000 $10,400 $10,800 $11,300 $11,700 $54,200
Installations Balance:
$10,000
Water Site Security Fund Funded $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,500 $58,500 $271,000
Upgrades Balance :
$50,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Water Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Source Status
Fund Unfunded $84,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,000
550' Zone Beaverton Balance:
Connection $84,000
Totals: $769,000 $714,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700 $3,142,300
Resources available: $594,000 $689,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700
*Can afford these project,but cannot maintain the$1 million desired fund balance in the Water Fund.
FY 07-08 $901,689
FY 08-09 $667,622
FY 09-10 $514,388
FY 10-11 $33,688
FY 11-12 $393,215
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Water CIP Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Source Status
550'Zone Reservoir Fund Funded $4,400,000 $1,560,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,960,000
No,2 and Supply Balance :
Piping $4,400,000
ASR 3 Fund Funded $300,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000
Balance: .
$300,000
ASR Expansion Fund Funded $810,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $810,000
Studies Balance:
$650,000
Commercial St, Fund Funded $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,000
Improvements Balance:
(Lincoln to Main) $135,000
10 MG Transfer Fund Partially $50,000 $2,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,910,000
Pump Station Balance: Funded
Upgrade $50,000
550'Reservoir No. 1 Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $200,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,200,000
Balance:
$200,000
550'Zone 12" Fund Unfunded $0 $789,000 $41,000 $0 $0 $830,000
Canterbury Loop Balance:
$789,000
550'Zone 18" Fund Unfunded $0 $1,169,000 $246,000 $0 $0 $1,415,000
Canterbury Supply Balance:
Line $1,169,000
ASR 4 Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $1,000,000 $0 $1,300,000
Balance:
$300,000
High Tor Pump Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Station Rebuild Balance:
$1,000,000
JWC Raw Water Fund Unfunded $90,000 $1,500,000 $2,970,112 $2,970,112 $0 $7,530,224
Pipeline Balance:
$90000
Scoggins Fund Unfunded $400,000 $700,000 $700,000 $1,016,000 $3,000,000 $5,816,000
Dam/Tualatin Balance:
Water Supply $400,000
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Water CIF Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total
Source Status
Water Building: Fund Unfunded $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Water Conservation Balance:
Demonstration $50,000
Garden
Totals: $6,235,000 $10,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000 $33,756,224
Resources available: $6,235,000 $1,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000
Assumes a revenue bond sale of$16 million in FY08/09
and a revenue bond sale of$15 million in FY 10/11
Note in CIP Plan for each project.
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Water,'SDC Fund '. `�
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 ` FY 2010-11 ' FY 2011-12 Total'
Source Status
Water Main Fund Funded $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $425,000
Oversizing . Balance
$75,000
Ash Ave.Extension Fund Funded $6,000 $40,000 $0 $0 . $0 $46,000
Waterline Balance
$6,000
Burnham St. Fund Partially $0 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $175,000
Improvements Balance: Funded
$175,000
Water Distribution Fund Funded $100,000 $0 $0' $0 $0 $100,000
System Hydraulic Balance
Study Update $100,000
Water SDC Fund Funded $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
Methodology Balance:
Update $30,000
Fund Funded $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0. $116,000
550'Zone Beaverton Balance:
Connection 116,000
Totals: $377,000 $290,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $892,000
Resources available: $552,000 $190,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Can afford these projects and maintain the desired$100,000 fund balance.
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
Urban Renewal Fund
Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009 10 FY 20,10 11 FY 20,:11 12 Total
Source Status
Downtown Park Land Urban Funded $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Acquisition Renewal
Revenue:
$5,000
Fanno Creek Plaza Urban Funded" $0 $0 $713,000 $782,000` '$0 $1,495,000
Renewal
Revenue:
$713,000
Urban Creek Corridor Urban Unfunded $0 $0 $1,748,000 $0 $0 $1,748,000
Renewal
Revenue:
$1,748,000
Totals: $5,000 $0 $2,461,000 $782,000 $0 $3,248,000
Resources available: 57,398
Revenues acquired through property taxes in FY07-08.
There is not enough revenue to support these projects. Bonds must be sold to pay for these projects and there won't be enough
of a revenue stream to pay dept service on the bonds needed.
Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM
--v, 13
An Introductory Guide
to Land Use Planning for
Small Cities and Counties
in Oregon
„,„#,
, --„,:;,,,,--,-,...,444,,,,
' ,_--,-.. . ;,„0,- ,..4,,,,,,,......,,
.,,.. . ,,,,,„... ,,,,04,,,4,,,,,,,,:t.A'
' 4.-;43'44P'7 ',i''''-...7,7"--...,';;2:'7'-1::;=;i:;:iif,,,f—41.,, :le ,',. :,..,.,,,,4 35,-.. ,
-.• •
4„, „,,,,,,4,,,,, .. „,.,„.•, ,.., ,,,,,„,,,,.,.., ,,,,,...,...., :,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:,,
„.,,
,,,,,„,,,„,,,,...,,,,, ,,,, ,,:- ,,,• ,M.,:,-....,;---,-,.:11.`•,li i,-...54$'f':7).',:'1,W., =.-- ,:.:4-.
a" ,,,:;',..= am i
10,-t r 5
to- '�z,2 � e � m }, , 74. � t
� y^ '� Ns;ew y4 vim„ e .µ : .:f }t'
aka'' 'S d{'y i .f:447 r r �, t #''4�' C :.,VW
r''' 7 1.,� ," , ;. w mix "a ` ..i s- :'..43 �. r',1
wA
r �
S!I ' ciiG:3``4 Vl
Produced by the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
January 2007
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This guide is an update of City Recorder's Guide to Land Use
Planning: The Basics prepared for the Department of Land
Conservation and Development by Daniel Meader of Tenneson
Engineering Corporation in 1993.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Overview of the Land Use Planning Program 2
Chapter 3 Land Use Planning Documents 3-5
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 4 Typical Land Use Actions 6-7
Building Permits
Land Use Permits
Partitions and Subdivisions
Chapter 5 Variances 8-9
Chapter 6 Conditional Use Permits 10-11
Chapter 7 Zoning Map Amendments 12-13
Chapter 8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments 14
Chapter 9 Partitions and Subdivisions 15-16
Chapter 10 Other Land Use Considerations 17-18
Nonconforming Uses
Floodplain Development
Overlay Zones
Land Use Compatibility Statements
Chapter 11 Types of Public Hearings 19-22
Legislative Hearings
Quasi-judicial Hearing
Findings
Tips on Running Public Hearings
Final Decision
Notice of Decision
Appeals
Chapter 12 Public Notice 23-24
Legislative Hearings
Quasi-judicial Hearing
ii
Glossary 25-28
Exhibits
A: Sample Forms
B: ORS 197.763 —Conduct of Local Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearings;
Notice Requirements; Hearing Procedures
C: Planning Documents
Index
iii
Chapter 1
Introduction
The purpose of this guide is to provide descriptions of various land use actions,
basic information regarding the land use from the simplest building permit
planning process in Oregon. It is meant signoff to planning commission hearings
for land use planners and government to comprehensive plan and zoning
officials in small cities or counties who ordinance amendments.
are new to land use planning or who
rarely process land use applications. The Other available resources include:
guide offers a step-by-step explanation
of the various land use actions that take • Department of Land Conservation
place in small cities and counties. and Development(DLCD),
www.oregon.gov/lcd(503) 373-0050.
For those who have been around the land • League of Oregon Cities (LOC),
use planning.process for some time,this www.orcities.org(503) 588-6550.
guide may appear oversimplified. • Association of Oregon Counties
However,there should be some tips that (AOC),www.aocweb.org(503) 585-
will help even the seasoned planner with 8351.
day-to-day work. The guide includes
1
Chapter 2
Overview of the Land Use Planning Program
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, compliance with the statewide planning
Oregonians became increasingly goals.
concerned about the effects of Cities and counties adopt comprehensive
population growth and the threat to the plans that meet the applicable statewide
quality of life and resources that make planning goals. Local governments make
Oregon a special place to live. day-to-day land use decisions in
conformance with their state-approved
In response, the Legislature enacted a plans.
series of laws to help shape development
throughout the state, including the Beach The 19 Statewide Planning Goals
Bill, Senate Bill 100 (creating statewide The statewide planning goals are
land use planning), and others. These Oregon's standards for comprehensive
laws have resulted in land use plans and planning. Goals set requirements for the
state regulations that guide how and content of land use plans. Goals 1-14
where new development occurs. apply to the entire state,while Goals 15-
19 focus on specific geographic areas.
Today, every city and Statewide Planning Goals
county has a 1. Citizen Involvement For example, the goals
comprehensive land use 2. Land Use Planning require that local
plan that has been 3. Agricultural Lands governments provide
acknowledged by the 4. Forest Lands 5. Natural Resources opportunities for citizen
state. Each plan 6. Air, Water and Land Quality involvement. They also
represents years of effort 7. Natural Hazards set standards for how
and a consensus by 8. Recreational Needs certain types of land are
citizens and officials 9. Economic Development planned and zoned. The
10. Housing
about the future of their goals also apply to other
community. 11. Public Facilities state agencies when
12. Transportation
13. Energy Conservation they make decisions
Day-to-day Decisions 14. Urbanization affecting land use.
at the Local Level 15. Willamette Greenway
In Oregon, state and local 16. Estuarine Resources LCDC meets regularly
governments share the 17. Coastal Shore Lands (about every six weeks)
18. Beaches and Dunes
job of planning. The 19. Ocean Resources and is responsible for
state,through the Land adopting rules to
Conservation and Development interpret the goals and some land-use
Commission (LCDC), sets overall rules planning statutes. LCDC has adopted
for planning decisions. DLCD provides rules interpreting most of the statewide
technical assistance and grants, and planning goals. DLCD carries out LCDC
reviews local plan amendments for decisions and administers other parts of
the state's land use laws.
2
Chapter 3
Land Use Planning Documents
Each city and county in the state is sections on farm and forest land
required to have a comprehensive land resources.Background documents may
use plan and implementing regulations. also discuss the adequacy of community
The regulations may be contained in a services such as education and law
zoning ordinance and a subdivision enforcement;
ordinance or in a combined development
code. There may also be supplemental • Goal and policy statements,which
ordinances — for example, a mobile indicate,in a general way,the objectives
home park development ordinance, a of the jurisdiction over a specific
sign ordinance, a floodplain ordinance, planning period—normally 20 years
or a nuisance abatement ordinance— from the date of adoption of the plan—
which may be administered by the and provide guidance on how to achieve
planning department or planning those objectives; and
commission as a part of the land use
process. • A comprehensive plan map,which
depicts, in a site-specific nature(i.e.,to
A brief discussion of the three most individual property lines), the desired
common land use planning documents arrangement of uses for the entire
follows. See also Exhibit C, a summary jurisdiction. The designations may be
of common planning documents. very general, such as residential, forest,
and industrial, or they may be specific,
Comprehensive Land Use Plan such as low-or medium-density
The controlling land use document in all residential, neighborhood or downtown
Oregon jurisdictions is the commercial, and light or heavy
comprehensive land use plan, or simply, industrial;
the comprehensive plan(or even more
simply,the"comp plan"). The The comprehensive plan map is the
comprehensive plan generally includes controlling instrument, directing the
the following three elements: future of land use in the jurisdiction. The
zoning map must be subordinate to the
• An inventory or a"background" comprehensive plan map. That is,the
document, which includes inventories zoning map cannot allow a more
and descriptions of existing land uses, intensive land use than is shown on the
natural resources,natural hazards, comprehensive plan map for the same
recreational facilities,transportation area. To take that a step further, if a plan
facilities, and economics. City plans will designates a certain area as residential,
also include inventories of housing the zoning map cannot designate the
stock, developable lands, and public same area as commercial—a more
facilities such as water, sewer, and storm intensive land use. Some jurisdictions
drainage. County plans will also include may have only one map that serves as
3
both the comprehensive plan and zoning • Definitions.A word or phrase will
map. have a specific meaning that is not quite
the same as in ordinary conversation.
The goals and policies are generally
designed to provide guidance to elected • Uses.These will include descriptions
and appointed officials over the use of of what land uses may occur in each
land. They are important when zone. Some uses will be permitted(often
reviewing proposed zone changes, referred to as an"outright permitted
comprehensive plan amendments, and use"),which means that the approval of
sometimes, conditional use permits. the use is not subject to approval-
subjective criteria. Other uses will be
The inventories,while significant, do not listed as "conditional"or"special"uses.
play a major role in the These are subject to
day-to-day Note: A comprehensive plan discretionary criteria
administration of the policy can only be used as an and a local government
planning program of a approval criterion for a zone may deny the land use
city or county. The change or permit if it is worded or place conditions on
inventories are most to be mandatory. If the policy approval of the use.
uses such terms as should,
important when The zoning
developing the goals "encourage," or "consider," it is classifications may also
and policies. The not to be used as a basis for include "overlay"
making a land use decision. On y"
inventories are the other hand, if the policy uses zones, which add
normally updated "shall" or "must," then you will provisions to the
during major plan want to make sure that requests "base"zone, such as
updates, and the for land use changes comply. special considerations
updated inventories for floodplains, historic
may lead to changes in sites, or airports. An
policies within the plan. For example, if overlay zone does not replace the
a policy was adopted in 1988 to provide requirements of the base zoning district.
additional tourist-related housing to
further an economic development goal, • Development Standards.
and by 2005 the city found it had an Requirements such as minimum lot
overabundance of tourist-related housing sizes, yard setbacks, and height
that had been constructed in the requirements are often included in the
intervening years, it would probably be individual zone chapter. In a county,
prudent to consider revising that these would also include standards for
particular policy. development in farm and forest zones.
Other types of standards such as natural
Zoning Ordinance resource protection, off-street parking
The zoning ordinance is the most and landscaping requirements are often
important tool in the day-to-day found in their own chapter.
planning effort. It is used in conjunction
with the zoning map. The typical zoning • Procedures. Several sections of the
ordinance includes: zoning ordinance deal with the
procedures for processing applications
for variances, conditional use permits,
4
zoning ordinance or map amendments, such as sewerage, street development,
and the administrative provisions, water system improvements, and a host
including enforcement. of other design standards. It includes
requirements regarding whether and how
Subdivision Ordinance a new lot must be surveyed. The
The subdivision or land division subdivision ordinance sets forth
ordinance deals with a different aspect of procedures for approving all types of
land use—the division of land. The development actions,including
subdivision ordinance provides the partitions and subdivisions. There is
process for subdividing or partitioning additional information on land divisions
lands within the jurisdiction. in Chapter 10.
In a small jurisdiction that has not faced There may also be supplemental
many requests to divide Iand,the ordinances—for example, a mobile
subdivision ordinance, adopted many home park development ordinance, a
years ago,may be difficult to implement. sign ordinance, a floodplain ordinance,
Generally,in small cities, it is wise to or a nuisance abatement ordinance—
take even a minor partition request to the which may be administered by the
city planning commission(if there is planning department or planning
one) or the city council. In many small commission as a part of the land use
communities,the elected or appointed process.
officials want to be informed of all land
use decisions, even the most mundane.
The subdivision ordinance provides the
standards for providing infrastructure
5
Chapter 4
Typical Land Use Actions
This chapter provides a brief summary structural plans,which will be reviewed
of the procedures for processing the by the local building official.
most common types of land use
applications. You should also consult the The site plan will show the property line
specific regulations contained in the configurations, the exterior dimensions
zoning and subdivision ordinances or of the building, and the distance in feet
development code. from the property lines to the proposed
structure. If there are other structures,
Building Permits subsurface facilities such as water lines
The simplest land use action is approval or a septic tank, or easements on the
of a building permit for a home or an property,these should also be identified
accessory building(i.e., a garage or in the site plan.
shed). Before issuing a building permit,
be sure to answer the following Using the site plan, determine whether
questions: the setbacks from the exterior property
lines are adequate to satisfy the zoning
• What is the zoning of the property? ordinance standards. If off-street parking
• Is the proposed use of the building is required,the number of off-street
allowed within that zone? parking spaces must be shown on the
• Is the use a conditional use? (See site plan. A key element not always
conditional use permits below and in shown on the site plan is the proposed
Chapter 6.) height of the structure, particularly of
• Does the proposed building and site accessory structures. Almost all
plan comply with all of the development jurisdictions have height limitations on
regulations such as setback, height limit, single-family dwellings. If this
and parking? (Some of these regulations information is not specifically required
will apply citywide or countywide, some on the site plan, it should be requested
will apply in specific zones, and some from the applicant.
will apply to specific types of buildings.)
• Does the proposed building require Remember to keep on file a copy of the
any special review such as site plan site plan with the building permit. If
review, floodplain review,hillside there are subsequent questions
review, or historic review? concerning the completed structure, that
site plan will be the key in determining
The building permit applicant must whether the applicant has followed
include with the permit application a site through with the development as
plan showing the tentative location of proposed.
the proposed structure. The building
permit application will also include
6
Land Use Permits map to change the designation on a
Even the smallest communities are faced specific tract. The process is more
with land use actions, including detailed than for the other types of
variances,conditional uses,zone permits described here, and requires
changes, comprehensive plan map several steps,which are discussed later
amendments,partitions, and in this guide. A comprehensive plan map
subdivisions. amendment often accompanies a zone
change. (See Chapters 7 and 8 for
A variance is simply a process to allow additional information.)
an applicant to vary from development
standards required by the zoning Partitions and Subdivisions
ordinance—normally setbacks, These applications deal with property
building height, or other physical division rather than how the property
dimension(See Chapter 5 for additional will be used. These procedures allow
information.) parcels to be divided into smaller lots or
parcels. The subdivision ordinance is
Most zoning ordinances list uses used to process these applications.
permitted outright and uses that may be
permitted(usually called"conditional The subdivision ordinance outlines the
uses") in each zone if certain criteria are process to be followed and in most
satisfied. A conditional use permit is cases,prescribes specific infrastructure
issued by the city or county when the standards such as street width, water,
applicant has shown the criteria have and sewer system requirements, and in
been met. (See Chapter 6 for additional some cases, curb, gutter, and sidewalk
information.) standards. (See Chapter 9 for additional
information.)
A zone change, also known as a zoning
map amendment, is a process by which
the applicant seeks to amend the zoning
7
Chapter 5
Variances
A variance is a planning term that refers Variance Procedures
to a permit that allows some deviation Normally the process requires the
from a development standard. An applicant to fill out a variance
example of the common use of the term application form provided by the city or
is: "You need to get a variance to place county, and accompany it with a site
your single-family dwelling within 10 plan showing the proposed development
feet of the easterly property line instead including the exterior boundaries of the
of the 15 feet required structures, distance
by the zoning TIP: Dealing with the general public from the property
ordinance." over property rights is not always lines, access, and
an easy task. Planning staff may be other information
The zoning ordinance inclined to tell a potential necessary to support
contains approval applicant that it is a waste of the request. The
criteria against which money to undergo a particular applicant must
an application is process that is likely to be denied describe the nature of
evaluated. A variance and to take no for an answer. the variance sought
is generally applicable However, the applicant has the and explain how it
right to be heard by the
only to physical, appropriate appointed or elected satisfies the approval
measurable body on a given land use issue. You criteria in the zoning
requirements such as should be as tactful as possible, ordinance.
setbacks, height indicating that while the request
limitations, or lot may not be practical and obtaining In small jurisdictions,
width-to-depth ratios. approval may be difficult, the a variance request is
applicant has the right to go before often reviewed in a
A variance is the planning commission or city public hearing before
generally not used to council. the planning
allow a land use that commission or elected
is not a permitted or conditional use in a officials; however, cities and counties
given zone. For example, if a zone may choose to have planning staff
allows only dwellings, churches, and administratively make decisions on
parks,the jurisdiction would not approve variances. There are certain procedural
a variance to allow a grocery store. This steps that must be taken in any case.
is particularly important in farm and (See Chapters 11 and 12 on notice
forest zones because permitted uses are procedure and quasi-judicial hearings.)
prescribed by state regulations; a county
cannot approve a variance to allow a use A request for a variance will be
not permitted by state provisions. evaluated against the criteria established
by the individual city or county. A
variance that does not satisfy all of the
criteria should not be approved.
8
There are generally four criteria for welfare, or injurious to other property;
approval of a variance. The criteria and
usually read something like this:
• The hardship is not self-imposed,
• Exceptional or extraordinary and the variance is the minimum that
circumstances that apply to the property will alleviate the hardship.
but do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity. As these criteria imply, a variance
These circumstances result from lot size should be approved for unusual
or shape,topography, or other conditions circumstances. If you find that your city
that the property owners cannot control; or county receives a significant number
of variance applications for a particular
• The variance is necessary so that the standard—the side setback in the R-1
applicant can enjoy a property right,the zone,for example—it may be a good
nature of which owners of properties in idea to consider whether the requirement
the same zone or vicinity possess; is too stringent and needs to be amended.
• The granting of the variance will not
be detrimental to public safety,health,or
9
Chapter 6
Conditional Use Permits
A conditional use permit is probably best Through the review process, the decision
described as a process rather than a maker can assess neighborhood
permit. It is a process by which the comments as well as comments from
jurisdiction reviews a proposed land use other parties of record(those who
that is listed in the zoning ordinance as a respond to the notice or participate in a
conditional use in a given zone. public hearing). The decision maker can
approve the request, deny it, or approve
A conditional use permit allows the local it with conditions,based on criteria in
government to (1) determine whether the the zoning ordinance.
proposed use is appropriate for the site
and neighborhood, and(2) attach The city or county will often place
conditions to an approval to assist in conditions in order to reduce or offset
reducing the impact the impact of a use on
of the proposed use TIP: Always require a site plan for adjoining properties
any structure involved in the
on the surrounding conditional use permit request, and or the general
area. Typical attach the plan to the findings of neighborhood.
conditional use fact. For commercial enterprises Common conditions
permits in a city are such as a home occupation or public placed by a city
for multi-family or semi-public uses, it is normal include:
dwellings and public procedure to ask for a "Statement of
and semi-public Operations." Most ordinances do not • Limiting the
structures, including require it, but a Statement of hours of operation;
churches. In a county, Operations is very helpful in setting • Limiting the size
common conditional the parameters of the use. A of the use;
uses include certain Statement of Operations is simply an
•
applicant's written statement Requiring
dwellings in farm and landscaping or
detailing how the proposed use will
forest zones, home be conducted. fencing to screen the
occupations, and proposed use;
temporary dwellings • Requiring
for medical hardship situations. lighting to be directed away from
adjoining properties; and
In small jurisdictions, conditional use • Setting a time limit to establish the
permit requests are often taken to the use. If the use is not established within
planning commission or elected officials the time limit, the conditional use permit
in a hearing process. A jurisdiction may expires.
choose,however, for staff or a hearings
officer to make decisions on conditional
use permits.
10
In a county,the above conditions may be section of the zoning ordinance as the
appropriate for some uses. Other conditional use review procedures.
conditions include: Typically,the criteria will provide that:
• Increasing setbacks to reduce • The proposal be consistent with the
conflicts with farm use; comprehensive plan and the objectives
• . Signing an agreement not to object to of the zoning ordinance and other
farm or forest practices on adjacent land; applicable policies of the city or county;
and • The proposal have a minimal adverse
• Renewing the permit annually or impact on abutting properties and the
biennially. surrounding area compared to the impact
of development that is permitted
The procedure for processing a outright,taking into account location,
conditional use permit varies among size, design, and operation
communities,but it will generally follow characteristics of the proposed use;
the procedures described in Chapters 11 • The proposal preserves assets of
and 12.An application,including a site particular interest to the community; and
plan and frequently, a public hearing, is • The applicant has a bona fide intent
required. and capability to develop, use the land as
proposed and has some appropriate
Conditional use criteria.also vary from purpose for submitting the proposal.
city to city and county to county, but
they are normally contained in the same
11
Chapter 7
Zoning Map Amendments
This chapter could also be titled"zone A zone change begins when a property
changes." Zone changes involve owner/applicant submits a completed
redesignating property from one zone to application(sample in Exhibits)together
another(for example,residential to with a map showing the subject
commercial)on the zoning map. property. It is important that a legal
Frequently, a request for a zone change description of the property be provided.
will also involve a comprehensive plan
map change,which is described in the Once city or county staff determines the
next chapter. The zoning map application is complete, a hearing is
amendment and comprehensive plan scheduled before the planning
amendment are generally combined for commission and the city council. As
review and dealt with at the same noted previously,the city or county
hearings. provides DLCD with a notice of the
proposal at least 45 days before the
A zone change is normally a two-hearing hearing. The hearing process is
process, the first before the planning discussed in greater detail in Chapter 11.
commission and the second before the
city council,board of county Approval criteria for a zone change are
commissioners,or county court. It provided in the zoning ordinance.
requires that post-acknowledgement plan Typical criteria include:
amendment rules be applied,including
notifying DLCD at least 45 days before • A demonstration that the proposed
the first public hearing on the zone will be compatible with
application. This gives DLCD the surrounding property uses;
opportunity to evaluate the proposal and • Public services are adequate to serve
participate in the process. The notice of . the proposed use; and
proposed action must include a form • The change will comply with the
provided by DLCD,the text of the goals and policies of the comprehensive
proposed amendment and a map of the plan.
affected area. Forms are available online
at: www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml, For the last criterion listed, a review of
or may be obtained by contacting relevant provisions of the plan is needed.
DLCD. Be aware that different sections of the
plan may seem to conflict with each
The remainder of this chapter addresses other. This requires the decision makers
quasi-judicial zone changes. (To to balance the policies with the unique
understand the difference between quasi- circumstances of the request in question.
judicial and legislative hearings, see
Chapter 11,Types of Public Hearings.) Note that state rules may apply to a zone
change as well. A prime example is the
12
Transportation Planning Rule, which conform to the comprehensive plan map.
requires a demonstration that the effects If not, a comprehensive plan map
of the zone change on the transportation amendment will be necessary(see
network have been adequately Chapter 8).
considered.
• Don't generally rezone lands to
There are many nuances to a zone create islands of a special designation in
change. Here are a few"dos"and the middle of a different zone.This
"don'ts:" practice is commonly called"spot
zoning."For example, don't drop a
• Do notify DLCD at least 45 days in single-lot residential rezone in the
advance of the first hearing at which the middle of the downtown commercial
public can testify. This is usually the district.
hearing before the planning commission.
It will generally take two or three days A specific application for a zone change
from mailing for DLCD to receive the should not be processed without
notice. Add 45 days to the date DLCD signatures from all property owners
will receive the notice. Sending a notice involved in the subject area. In other
late is better than sending an incomplete words,those whose property is being
notice. Be sure to include the rezoned should be in favor of the
information about the requested zone proposed action. However,it is not
change. necessary to have all adjoining property
owners support the proposed zone map
• Don't, as a general rule,rezone a change.
portion of a piece of property without
rezoning the whole parcel. This is not You must also send DLCD notice of an
always possible because the parcel may adopted zone change decision within
cross jurisdiction boundaries. five days of the decision becoming final.
DLCD will provide the appropriate
• Do always look at the form.
comprehensive plan map before
accepting the zone change application to
ensure that the proposed zone will
13
Chapter 8
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
A comprehensive plan map amendment For cities, an important consideration
is generally reviewed using the same will be whether the amendment would
process as for a zoning map amendment. result in a deficit of land of the
In most cases, a request for a zone designation currently applied to the
change will require a comprehensive property. For example, if the application
plan amendment as well. Many is to change the plan designation and
comprehensive plans do not include an zone from industrial to residential,will
amendment procedure within the plan there continue to be an adequate supply
document itself. Therefore, many small of industrial land in the city, according
cities and counties rely on the to what the comprehensive plan says is
amendment process outlined in the needed?
zoning ordinance.
TIP: Unlike a zone change, Plan amendments in
The comprehensive plan which is reviewed primarily counties often include an
map amendment is for compliance with the local "exception"to a
generally a two-hearing comprehensive plan, a plan statewide planning goal.
process: the first before amendment must be shown An exception is governed
the planning commission to be consistent with the by Goal 2, statutes, and
and the second before the statewide planning goals. rules,not just local
The application should
city council, board of include an explanation of criteria.
commissioners, or how the request complies
county court. This is with the goats. As with zone changes, do
because the not re-designate a portion
comprehensive plan and zoning of private property without including the
ordinance must be adopted by ordinance, entire property,unless the owner is also
and therefore, can only be amended by partitioning his or her property. Small
the elected officials. cities are especially susceptible to "spot
zoning"—creating a commercial island
Comprehensive plan and zoning map in the middle of residentially planned
amendments can run concurrently,with property. While circumstances
combined notice to the public and sometimes warrant a spot zone, it is
DLCD, one public hearing before the usually not a desirable situation.
planning commission, and one public
hearing before city or county elected As is done for a zone change, remember
officials. The same set of rules that was to send DLCD notice of an adopted plan
addressed for zone changes applies to amendment decision within five days of
comprehensive plan map amendments. the decision becoming final—usually a
signed ordinance. DLCD will provide
the appropriate form.
14
Chapter 9
Partitions and Subdivisions
Partitions and subdivisions are governed Who to involve Why to involve
by the subdivision ordinance or them
subdivision chapter of the code.The Public works Adequacy of
subdivision ordinance primarily does director, existing public
three things: city/county infrastructure and
engineer necessary
• Provides a set of standards for improvements
improvements to public infrastructure, Private utilities Adequacy of
such as streets (including sidewalks), existing
water, sewer, and drainage system; infrastructure and
• Provides procedures for processing necessary
applications; and improvements
• Provides criteria for reviewing Oregon If a state highway
applications. Department of adjoins the site
Transportation
Some ordinances may still include both County road If a city
Major and Minor Partitions,but department subdivision adjoins
currently there is no distinction in state a county road
law. Similarly, some jurisdictions may County sanitarian Wastewater
still require that partitions and or Oregon disposal in rural
subdivisions go before a public hearing. Department of areas
However, changes to the statutes now Environmental
allow administrative approval of Quality
partitions and subdivisions by staff. This Fire department Hydrant locations
is being done with increasing regularity Postal service Mail box locations
in the larger jurisdictions of the state. County surveyor Name of the
subdivision,
The elected officials, especially in small preparation of the
cities and counties, should be aware of final plat
any development being considered.A Oregon If site includes
public hearing process on a partition or Department of wetlands (or
subdivision, although not required, State Lands potential wetlands)
might be beneficial for local decision
makers in understanding the proposed Applications also need to be reviewed by
development in their community. the planner. Some of the criteria for a
land division are included in the zoning
When processing a land division ordinance. For example,minimum lot
proposal,there are a number of other size, street frontage,and lot width-to-
departments, agencies, and organizations depth ratio requirements vary from zone
that may need to be involved. to zone and are usually included in the
15