03/03/2008 - Packet • •
City of Tigard
TIGARD Planning Commission — Agenda
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m •
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m
4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:10 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 p.m
5.1 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on
the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD)
overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future
development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design
criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 706) and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th
Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G:
General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G:
General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3, 4, 5, 7, 8,9,and 12.
6. WORKSHOP 8:30 p.m.
Continuation from 2/25/08 Policy Interest Team meeting on the Land Use chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff will present draft policies based on results of the Building Blocks
exercise. Staff will also brainstorm ideas that will be used to create Recommended Action
Measures.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:30 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 p.m
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MARCH 3, 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
• •
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing Date: 3/3/O g
Starting Time: c) ',no V vN
COMMISSIONERS: (V Jodie Inman (President)
✓ Tom Anderson
Rex Caffall
Margaret Doherty
i/ Karen Fishel
Stuart Hasman
1.7 Matthew Muldoon
Jeremy Vermilyea
7 David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
ZDick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
1 .Gary Pagenstecher V Ron Bunch
Cheryl Caines John Floyd
Emily Eng Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly
Gus Duenas Darren Wyss
Phil Nachbar Marissa Daniels
• •
..,
Tigard Planning Commission 46,: n5)
Agenda Item # 5, ( Page \ of 1 Date of Hearing 3 - 3-O 9
Case Number(s) Zcd N 2 o -. O oc'
Case Name Fr 2or`Ie CIA A/UC
Location 1 2625 5 (A. r-i0 AVE
If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name,
address, and zip code below:
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: L,By.IS y ^ Name:
Address: 2 4 Sul veL- v 9 Address:
City, State, Zip: te,0f14/ l'\l('3 City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: - City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
• •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman 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: President Inman, Commissioners Anderson, Cattail, Doherty, Fishel,
Muldoon,Walsh, and Vermilyea
Commissioners Absent: Hasman
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Ron Bunch,Assistant Community
Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner;Doreen Laughlin,
Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea, to
approve the February 19, 2008, special meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, and Vermilyea
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners Caffall&Walsh
EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman
There was a motion by Commissioner Fishel, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve
the February 25, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Cattail, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: President Inman
EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 1
I:LLRPLMDoreen1PCIPC Minutes 2008ltpc 3308 Draft Minutes doe
ti • •
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a
3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth
Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement
for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future
development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the
Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between
SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax
Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General
Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED
ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;
and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12.
President Inman opened the public hearing. Commissioner Caffall reported a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He
drew attention to copies of submitted comments —one for, and one against the zone change.
The comment against the change was from Susan Bielke (Exhibit A), and the comment for it
was from a neighbor from the parcel to the south of the applicant's property (Exhibit B).
There were some questions asked of staff by the Planning Commission. The
recommendation by staff to the Planning Commission was to give 3 different alternatives
from which to choose in the form of alternatives:
Alternative #1: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review and applicability
of the revised PD standards are not necessary to this particular site, approve
the change as requested by the applicant.
Alternative #2: If the Planning Commission feels that Commission review is important but
the application of additional open space was not intended for
commercial/industrial development:
A. Have the applicant prepare an amendment to the code eliminating
the open space requirement for commercial or industrial land; or
B. Wait for review of a staff proposal to clarify the applicability of the
revised open space requirement to commercial and industrial land.
Alternative #3: If the Planning Commission finds this particular site, because of its unique
nature and the intent of the PD provisions,warrants Commission review
and applicability of the PD standards, deny the applicant's request for
removal of the PD overlay.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 2
I:4RPLMDoreenP'C1PC Minutes 20084pc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes doe
• •
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
The applicant introduced himself as Lans Stout, a planning consultant in Tigard [the
applicant's representative.] He noted this same type of zone change was discussed last
August [at which time the overlay was removed]. The applicant itemized reasons why he
wants the PD overlay removed in this case. He pointed out what he considered to be
conflicts and inaccuracies in the staff report. He took exception to the comment on page
one that stated, "Removal of the PD overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing
process to meet current standards." He said they are not trying to get around the public
process. He noted the public hearing process is embodied in a Type II administrative staff
review on the Tigard Triangle design standards. He said if a review body, an applicant, a
neighbor, or an interested party feels the need to appeal it, it still will go to public hearing.
He reiterated they are not trying to escape the public process but are trying to focus on the
issues. He went through other pages of the staff report pointing out statements he
considered inaccurate. The applicant showed a preliminary exhibit of another property as an
example of how he could lay out a development. (Exhibit C).
After a lengthy presentation, Mr. Stout said this is an important and complicated issue and
suggested that the findings made last summer also apply to this site and the PD overlay be
removed from this particular property. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look
into a larger legislative fix so that this does not have to be done again on other properties
that historically have had this PD applied to them that were not subject to the interactive
process.
There was a time for questions from the commissioners. Some of these questions &
comments follow (answers by the applicant are in italics):
• Did I hear you say that you were not able to locate any legislative history with respect
to why or how the PD overlay came to be? This is true. I did not find it when I was doing
this last summer for the other project. I didn't go back and reinvestigate it this time because staff
informed me there was none.
• Do we have a copy of what Clean Water Services [CWS] presented to you? I don't
know what the standards are —whether they are high, low or medium. The city does.
[He went on to explain the process.]
• Did you say CWS had permitted the wetlands for you already? Yes. Permits are in hand
for the corridor, DSL, and Clean Water Services.
• Are there any height restrictions on the site that would prevent going up rather than
out if it were necessary to have the required open space? I don't believe there are height
restrictions in the Tigard Triangle standards that would be a factor. Parking is what's going to be
the issue.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 3
I:V.RPLN\DoreentPCIPC Minutes 2008Vpc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.eoc
• •
• So assuming no change is made tonight, and you have to live with the PD overlay,
you cannot lose any parking. Presumably, you are not going to build a structure,
which means, somehow you have to come up with a way to deal with it within the
footprint of the building itself, correct? I think that's a safe assumption.
• You have not developed a contingency design if you have to apply the PD? That's
true.
• Do you have an intended use for these buildings? I'm a little bit out of my area here
because I'm not the developer—I'm just the planning consultant- but I believe what they're talking
about is some extra retail-probably some medical offices and some general pul,ose offices.
• So your parking requirements are for retail—people coming and going often? The
parking requirements are based on what the code requires for both retail and medical offices.
President Inman gave a general reminder to the commissioners that this is a zone change
and encouraged them to avoid getting too specific on the actual plan.
There were no other questions for Mr. Stout.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
President Inman opened up the meeting for testimony from the audience. There was no
public testimony, either for, or against the zone change.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
President Inman closed the public hearing at 8:17pm and said this was the Commission's
opportunity to deliberate and discuss where they are. Commissioner Walsh asked of the
group "Does anyone care to go back and ask questions of staff at this time?"
There were questions regarding setting a precedent should two approvals of removal of the
PD overlay go through. Staff answered they don't think so. It was noted that, theoretically,
an applicant could always come to them and say, "Look, you've done this twice before. Why
can't you do it again?" There is no requirement to do it again. No precedent is set.
After a few more questions of staff, the commission deliberated at length. A portion of the
deliberation follows:
One of the commissioners encouraged the others to think about what they want the
Triangle, ultimately, to look like. To think about how do they want to see development
progress — the kinds of development they want to see... and is there a danger of getting too
locked into this one parcel. He noted, "This is obviously what's before us tonight, but I
think it may be the circumstances have changed from 1984, and even since 2006, in terms of
what the original purpose was for the PD overlay. The fact remains it is a tool we have at
our disposal to help try to guide the nature and character of the neighborhoods. I think that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 4
IN.RPUODOreentPCWPC Minutes 2008ttpc 3-308 Draft Minutes.doc
• •
is a good thing. I am uncomfortable with one of the options, which is to just do away with
the overlay. I think that would be premature at this point. I'm leaning towards not removing
the overlay from this property."
Another commissioner said she was struggling with the fact that if we do not have the open
space requirement in the PD code, she would see this application again as a PD and would
not have the opportunity to participate in the process.
After much deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea:
"I move that we deny the application to remove the PD overlay on this parcel with respect
to zone change application ZON2007-00018 in light of the testimony and the deliberations
we've had tonight and the staff comments and recommendations. I move that we deny it."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doherty.
Some discussion ensued regarding identifying findings more clearly. Commissioner
Vermilyea withdrew the motion and Commissioner Doherty withdrew the second.
After further discussion, Commissioner Vermilyea put forth a new motion:
"I move that we deny the application of ZON2007-00018 based on the following findings:
On the basis that the Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the
relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the
natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not;
that, in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay
provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this
site; and because of the unique nature and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review
is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards on this particular site. For that reason,
I move that we deny the application."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fishel and carried as follows:
Ayes: President Inman; Commissioners Doherty, Fishel,Walsh, and Vermilyea
Nays: Muldoon,Anderson, Caffall
Abstained: None
Excused: Commissioner Hasman
6. WORKSHOP WITH LAND USE POLICY INTEREST TEAM
Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, suggested that, [due to the
lateness of the hour], they postpone this workshop to a later date. The Commission agreed
this was a good idea and they moved on to the next agenda item.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 5
I:LLRPLMDorees0PC1PC Packets for 20081PC Packet for 317-08 Warkshop\tpc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.0oc
• •
7. OTHER BUSINESS
It was noted the next meeting would be held on March 17 and will be a workshop.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.
111111i •
Doreen Laughlin,Administrative Sp- 'st II
A i EST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 6
I:VRPLN1Doreen%PC1PC Minutes 2008tlpc 3308 Draft Minutes.doc
• • Exhibit A
March 3, 2008
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard, Oregon
RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fry - 2007-00018
I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD) to
just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170`'' Avenue
in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows:
I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan
our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was
one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a
group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan
(CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the
Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be
made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the
old version.
The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard
for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section(18.350) of the CP provides ways in
which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do
consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a
PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found
here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we
rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would
be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal
5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving
water quality, wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property
currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as
adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very
significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native
songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically
there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some
development.
It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in
place,as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant
natural resources.
We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied
since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the
requirements of the PD that help to create"unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard
in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some
• • ..
development in order to create a vibrant, walkable community that increases the livability
for all of Tigard.
We also request the applicant's request be denied because on the Public Hearing Notice
that was mailed, under the Applicable Review Criteria,the section for the PD section of
the code, 18.350, was NOT listed and should have been. This is a serious problem and
we request the Notice be sent again and that the Hearing scheduled for tonight be delayed
until all parties that received the original Notice have sufficient time to review ALL
applicable criteria and comment if they so choose.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Susan Beilke
Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
Vice-President, Friends of Summer Creek
• • Exhibit B
To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner
From: John& Debora Scott
George & JoAnn Nordling
(Elmhurst Street Residents)
File#: Zone Change 2007-00018
File Name: Fry Zone Change
This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that
due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled
for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the
state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had
discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots
surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008, you indicated that
we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is
overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be
affected with these zone changes and the development of this property.
As with any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry
Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind
our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small
commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were
shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive-
thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes
is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause.
Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the
type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for
this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical
building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also
have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines
and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers
that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the
development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording
contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an"adult entertainment"
business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type
of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our
households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates
increase when there is an"adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city
allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle?
If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started, a concern we have
is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause.
Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made?
• •
Pg 2
Our final concern is that we feel that there is potential of losing home value if the
proposed development occurs and feel that based on this fact, appropriate compensation
would be needed for this loss of value. Both of our families agree and are not opposed to
new development within the Tigard Triangle, including the land behind our residences.
We would consider selling our properties to the development company assuming that the
offer price is fair and equitable. By offering our homes we feel this will provide the
company with more developed space to attract potential businesses.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. We anticipate responses to the
questions above, and request correspondence at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Debora and John Scott
JoAnn and George Nordling
4, s
. . • —4
. , •
4' SW.DAR-MOUTH STREET
_ _ . _ .„ , t.
, - .. _ -- •
• - -. , 3 .. Exhibit C
Y '
,.•k 14!!! i • l'- • 1.` ''''' •:,1
1 i
4'1
, 1 t 9 urr = , . .01 ' M.S. , n
l'Alti• • !,, ' I It !,
ti t., g , . . .i. t, Imo. ; i i 7.,,,:i:i 1 hi 1 r., . , r? . " 1.1■1
'f I --;i1 1. i • ' ! • I'.' : l', ',
i ', . 14' 'FPERVE, '' °"'"'"'"' ""ii' rttito. • 44t 1'''
ii.
1.,:11 ' j. : .3'
7 1
1 r.
1 :1,‘.■.ig.,4, '':, •iiegePe.; ,I!!!;,, !I • ri
' • ! . '!' * ...":"N,e,,'': •' , .. • t: ;•• 1,..**" A. , 0
i 1 0, , , •if,4,.
I
; 1 , ' ''''. ' ,._ .• . , , , .„ 4,,, 1 .
.. . ., .-
. • . itir 4 •,,..,
Omni.. ■
*^{%**4
4' i! Tii4 : ''-'- ti,,A,i7;06■/,,,;:;.. .`1, ,,.:7,5-::':A.''.:'1'.4'` :
i ,., . ,:,,C;.< iii:i*Zn.1 ,,i4.44;(41,...%.;:,:::" : f „ ue,
o ,...,i 4110
. 1 1 .-fi -444' .:kosiii .
-: , `- -
lit ; ' ."4•,- 75' i 1)47,-,------.,= ...i.,-,-.7.-. ,, .
_. -..;,---44,..n.r. i,c ''--r-,- .-
'.1 . 1,,y,,,, • „ ,,, _ ,..-- '!,•-- . ' --,7 ,,,
— 4• ' ' )
••
-• J''''""
0-1
i
.,..,r .0.,„ ..•_ ,11,,.k
2::..c,4,-Kr..4, ,1.4741iStaltX I.. 1
.!1 ! . .
AM ItXXXCENTER:•aNDS,C../110 I KG/0 P EN;$PgI MALYS'S '
PLANNING COMMIS$10.0•111EARING ,WIASACH 3,ZOOS, :: ,, '1,
'CM,Of TOG ARCI4 F ILE 74N2007440018.
- ;...
I _
"G11057 SITE AREA I 31510.0 4 aftosissq 1 , •
_ ,
414, 22,79,1.Si 0,PCNISce RT4LIJINED AT 20,5‘, . I
.414, 11,9681F ACTUAL 101441 MAL USE OTIENSPACV,(WETTAISID/VtGETAME CONN D011 i ;
d .
• 16,023 SF ADI)ITIONAL lASSIV,C1'011'ACTAfrOPENSPA4ERECIVI$E0 h,_4. ,i
LI
00,F.FER ANDAAND,SCAPING PARKING INITERHAVANCi ORIllitlEfERIk. . , -aimil•••7 ,
ACTUAL RASED ON:CURRENTITTE PIM IF 2012 SF , Im......s..T.,at a 111..4•11110. .-... .,.. .
ELAM RST SLOE DICATIO4
OPEN 3RAMANDSCAPI NO 4SUM MARY: .
.,i, M I U SEP FIA.$PNCE(WrrILAIIIV,VEGerAmix COMM:411)d 11,268 SF
4 PASSRAE GRAMM OPEN SPACE REWIRED 0 1S,623 tIF
wr: kAtiosetaj NO OTHERWISE REOLLINE0 • 21:1,412 SF
. . 'Tom 13 41i4c0iCftOioF SwrfstiF l
RE-) ROC
K CENTER
• . 0 PLO 4.
416‘1,11 I,PO
1 . IMPPM01■1
. .
• PAC HEARING ITEM:
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning
COMA/ UNITY Commission on Monday March 3,2008 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard
Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.;Tigard;Oregon.
. NEWSPAPER.S Both public oral and written testimony is invited.
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland,OR 97222•PO with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted
Box 370•Beaverton, OR 97075 by the Planning Commission and City Council and available at
Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390.
Email: Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public
le aladvertisin hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an
9 g @commnewspapers.corn issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the
hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford
AFFIDAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue pre-
AVIT appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue.
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development
Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed pre-
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, cludes an appeal based on that criterion.
A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submit-
depose and say that I am the Accounting
depos er of The Times(serving Tigard, ted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are
available for inspection at no cost. If you want to inspect the file,
Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of please call and make an appointment with either the project plan-
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in ner or the planning technicians. A copy of the staff report will be
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided
at a reasonable cost.
City of Tigard Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division
Notice of Public Hearing (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner)at 13125
Not
Not ce of SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171,
or by email to HYPERLINK "mailto:garyp @tigard-or.gov"
GARY P @TIGARD-OR.G O V.
A copy of which is hereto annexed, was ZONE CHANGE (ZON)2007-00018
published in the entire issue of said -FRY ZONE CHANGE-
newspaper for REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G
1 (PD)to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW
72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned
Development(PD)overlay eliminates the requirement for a public
Successive and consecutive weeks in the hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future
following issues development must still meet all other applicable development stan-
February 14, 2008 dards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION:
South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues.
12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's
C4 .x W Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G:
General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD)
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manger) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial
District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9,and 12. Publish
February 2008,E 2/14/2008. TT11087.Ad • r ,...2 \ 1-4 ,
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ORE4i�C ■ I~ ,, 1 t_ii I I vu.INm'l+uP
My commission expires {` IT r-,- �
f i I I jL� 1.� � [-'4`-+ --1 t l ZON200--IN0EFI
1 i '�- 1 i ; P,i—j 1Jt I—! f , FR ZONE
5' C I I, ii 1 Eu1 1.i ; t7l.1VGE
Acct#10093001 I., • � J �, i I
1a
Patty Lunsford —-�_.-- `j _I ( END.
City of Tigard -_- `T r ! n
13125 SW Hall Blvd ( j inn f---1
Tigard, OR 97223 '% ��,`� "�� ' '?�
—i li
[ -;r `� t
Size 2 x 10 � -.'— I 1 r-1-, -1 - =1
Amount Due$167.00 �T V_ ) °J i i ' ,L.--- _w
'remit to address above LL I 7 �, ,1—i `I i ,
OFFIC!AL SEAL a ry
-
WIN A.BURGESe I ; rt [_ �_._NOTA.RY PUBUC-OREGO\ ' t r�—�� i I i ! ,J-__
Q`;;;1 � COMMISSiON NO.39070
��
MY ,9I19MISSION EVT.E3'+AAY`6.3009
II •
Agenda Item: 5.1
Hearing Date:March 1 2008 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
n
PLANNING COMMISSION : =
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD
120 DAYS = 5/20/2008
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NO.: Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00018
FILE NAME: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling
approximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW
Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates
requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any
future development must still meet all other applicable development standards
including the'Tigard Triangle design criteria.
APPLICANT & APPLICANT'S
OWNER: Douglas Fry REP: TM.RippeyConsulting Engrs.
do Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn: Lans Stout
Attn:Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland St.,Suite 100
22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223
Tualatin, OR 97062
LOCATION: South of SW Dartmouth, between SW 70th and SW 72nd Avenues; 12625 SW 70th
Avenue;WCTM 2S 101AB,Tax Lot 100.
CURRENT
ZONE: GG: General Commercial District (PD). The GG zoning district is designed to
accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even
regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to
single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide
range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment
repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event
entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned
Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone
are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's
Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and
mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; and to provide such added benefits as
increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs,
walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,
and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of- trict
adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;and to
achieve unique neighborhoods (by.varying the housing styles through architectural
accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their
character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing
neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and to
reserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and-amenities
trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site
design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed
review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 1 OF 14
• •
to consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density
requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer,neighbors,and
the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural
environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility
construction methods and materials.
PROPOSED
ZONE: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to
accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a Citywide and even
regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to
single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide
range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment
repair and storage mnu:warehouses, utilities, heliports medical centers, major event
entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted-conditionally.
APPLICABLE
RE VIE W
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and
Comprehensive Plan-PPolicies 1,2,3,4,5,7, 8,9 and 12.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider three alternatives in addressing the requested
Zone Change to remove the Planned Development overlay on the subject parcel.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site History&Information
Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The
subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map des nated as "agricultural' . The site was
shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in
unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps
including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject
property and surrounding properties extending to the west comprising roughly the same area that was
shown designated GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City.
A search of City records showed that no land use applications to develop the site have been made beyond
the site development and planned development review applications associated with the current owner,
which have been withdrawn. Tax lot 100 has had several Code Enforcement Actions for noxious
vegetation and a junk car.
Vicinity Information
The site is located within the Tigard Triangle, which is subject to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to
create a high quality, mixed use employment area. Site and building design requirements for this area
include building placement near the street,ground floor window requirements and articulation along street
frontages. Zoning in the area is a mix of GG, GG (PD), and MUE (Mixed Use Employment). Many of
the sites within the Triangle are being re-developed and converted from residential to commercial uses.
Properties to the south and east are zoned MUE and improved with single-family homes and office
buildings. Property to the north across Dartmouth Street is zoned C-G (PD) where site development for a
proposed office building is in progress. Also to the north at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and
Dartmouth Street,the Planning Commission recently approved a zone change (ZON2007-00008) from
GG (PD) to GG on an approximately one-acre site containing no sensitive lands.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING OOMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 2 OF 14
• •
In addition to the subject parcel, the remaining undeveloped properties in the Tigard Triangle zoned GG
(PD). an adjacent :55-acre parcel and, to the west across SW 72nd Avenue, six contiguous parcels
totaling approximately 24.72 acres.
Site Information and Proposal Description
The proposed zone change applies to one 3.19-acre parcel, Tax Lot 100. Sensitive lands including a
draingeway and jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject parcel. The subject parcel slopes moderately to the
north and west and contains a number of emergent and some mature trees, and is otherwise covered with
grasses and shrubs.
The applicant is requesting to remove the planned development overlay zone, changing the zone from GG
(PD) to GG to facilitate development of a new commercial retail/office project without the burden of the
planned development standards and review.
The applicant states that other options were considered to address the PD overlay, including development
under the PD criteria, modifying the PD code to address the difficulty of developing a commercial site under
the current standards, or changing the entire site to MUE through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone
Change.
The applicant concluded that "it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD
provisions themselves, ut] in the end the question remains whether the interest of the property owner and
the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than simply correcting
the problem and applying the appropriate Code standards to a development application."
The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the PD overlay zone, in
summary, as follows:
• The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4
relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG.
• The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject
parcel the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards or rely on the
underlying zone standards as intended in TDC 18.350.020.
• The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of
addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the preservation
of natural features and development that has significant advantages over a standard development.
• The applicant contends that 40% of the subject commercial site would be required in landscaping 20%
(TDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and shared open space 20% (TDC 18.350.070.4A.m) representing a
significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard.
Staf5raddrEsse aide cf these pats in the analysis ski(Phis report an page 12.
Summary of Issues
The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial
development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6,2007 Planning Commission me that the
shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A..m) may not be applicable to commercial development. The open
space standards were adopted long,after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or
required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned
Development standards (Ord. 06-16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and
commercial developments.
The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity of
the subject parcel and found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of natural resources and
application of the Tigard Triangle Design Stan, removing the PD standards would have no significant
effect. Are the circumstances of-this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request?
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 3 OF 14
• •
Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the CA /DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply
to the subject parcel without the PP overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned
Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD
overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity?
Staff addresses thee issues in the analysis sazion f this report on paw 13.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Metro Regional
Framework Plan Policies are not applicable to this land use decision. No changes are proposed to the
Comprehensive Plan and the land use action requested is not legislative.
TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380:
Section 18.380.030.A states that the Commission shall decide zone change applications which do
not involve comprehensive plan map amendments.
The proposed zone change application to remove the PD overlay, changing the zoning on the subject
parcel from GG (PD) to GG does not involve a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the
Planning Commission shall make a decision on the proposed zone change application.
Section 18.380.030.B states that a recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with
conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the
following standards:
Section 18.380.030.B.1
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
1. GENERAL POLICIES:
111a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are
consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service
District;
Implementation Strategies
1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map in the Official Zoning District map will
reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner.
f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located
along major traffic ways. The applicable zoning district is General Commercial(GG).
The proposed zone change from GG (PD) to GG complies with the Comprehensive Map designation of
"General Commercial" because the GG zoning district implements the General Commercial
Comprehensive Plan Designation. Removal of the PD overlay would not amend the comprehensive plan
and is not a legislative change. Therefore,the General Policies do not apply.
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT:
2.1.1 The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that
citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved m all phases of the planning
process.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 4 OF 14
•
The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property. owners and neighborhood
representatives,posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on December 27,2007 in
accordance with the City of Tigard's nerg iborhood meeting notification process. According to the
minutes of the neighborhood meeting, five neighbors were in attendance. Discussion related to the timing
of traffic signalization on 72nd Avenue and street improvements on Elmhurst Street, the height of the
proposed Building C,construction noise, and wetland fill. No objections were given to the proposed zone
change.
In addition,the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500
feet of the subject site,interested citizens, and agencies,published notice of the hearing and posted the site
pursuant to'IDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures.
With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed
zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.
3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE:
3.1.1 The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development
limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering
techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed
development. (note: this policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands
on the floodplain and wetlands map.): A. Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under
chapter 18.26 of the community development code;
According to the applicant, the site does include jurisdictional wetlands and does not include any
significant wetlands as identified on the City of Tigard's "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map". These
wetlands are subject to Corps/DSL and Clean Water Services standards and will be addressed at the time
of Development Review.
3.4.2 The city shall:
A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat
and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural
vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum
extent possible;
B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed
through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and
C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as
delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the city.
As the applicant states, there is no floodplain or steep slopes on the subject parcel Any geotechnical
issues may be addressed during Site Development Review. There is a draingeway, a tributary to Red Rock
Creek that traverses the property from east to west. The drainageway would be better characterized as a
ditch, rather than a natural drainage course. The creek has been significantly altered by the construction of
SW Dartmouth Street. The stream corridor across the propeerty no longer includes areas of standing trees
and the natural vegetation has been significantly degraded. The "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" has been
replaced (Ord.06-20) by the "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which shows both lower and moderate value
habitat areas on the site. CWS standards will apply to the moderate value vegetated corridor on the site.
The Significant Habitat Areas Map is implemented through non-regulatory measures such as cluster-type
development usually associated with residential development.
The natural resource chapter includes implementation strategies that encourage, through the
Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on pnvate and public
lands including inventoried plant and animal communities; and,where there exist large or unique
stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City
shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation
areas through the Planned Development Process and the "Tree Cutting" section of the
Community Development Code.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 5 OF 14
•
• •
The existing property, zoned C-G (PD), is bordered by a collector, an arterial, and intense commercial
development. The approximately 3-acre property does not include large varied habitat areas of inventoried
plant and animal communities or large or unique stands of trees. Therefore, the purpose for which a
planned development overlay was originally established under these implementation strategies may not
continue to exist. The PD designations in the Triangle preceded the environmental regulations and appear
to have been placed to cause review partly because of the proximity of residential neighborhoods whose
residential designations no longer exist in the Triangle. However, there remains a drainageway and
jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property that will be protected at minimum under Corp/DSL/CWS
permits.
The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Natural Features and Open
Space Policies have been adequately addressed with respect to planned development review.
4. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY:
4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable
federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean
Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15)
4.3.1 The city shall:
A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which
creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into
the site plan:
1. Building placement on the site in an area where the noise levels will have a
minimal impact; or
2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise impacts to levels
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
B. Coordinate with DEQ in its noise regulation program and apply the Vol. Ii,policy
4-4 DEQ land use compatibility program.
C. Where applicable require a statement from the appropriate agency(prior to the
approval of a land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met.
Removal of the PD overlay will not change the standards related to water quality or noise standards. All
new developments within the City of Tigard are required to collect and treat storm water run-off for the
site utilizing Clean Water Services design standards. Noise level allowances are regulated by the Tigard
Municipal Code 7.40.130 through 7.40.210. During pre-application meetings held for future site
development, the applicant has proposed retail and office uses. These are not uses which create excessive
noise. They are also the same type of uses already existing on man surrounding properties as the
neighborhood continues to change from residential to commercial. Buffering will be required where
future commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use.
The roposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Air,Water and Land Resources
Quality Policies will be addressed at the time of Development Review.
5. ECONOMY:
5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic
opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth
of the local job market.
Because the underlying zone remains General Commercial, all the allowed uses will be the same. The PD
overlay does not provide more growth opportunities for the local job market. Due to the constraints
outlined within the PD code, the applicant states that removal of the PD will allow the site to develop in a
manner that will increase economic activity. The question is whether application of the PD process is seen
as inhibiting economic opportunities. This must be weighed in relation to the benefits of the PD review.
Other than the fact that most applicants prefer a Type II process in terms of speed and certainty of the
standards, there have been no arguments made in this application that conclusively indicate that the
economy is not served by use of the PD review process.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING OOMIVIISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 6 OF 14
•
•
5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach
into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses.
There are residential uses south of the site. The area is currently zoned for commercial development and
many sites in the area have been re-developed with commercial uses. Any proposed commercial
development on the site will not be encroaching into residential zones. Buffering.and screening will be
required next to these existing residences if the site is developed with a commercial use. This policy is
typical of the existing Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on protecting existing.single-family neighborhoods,
which in this case no longer exist because of zone changes from residential to commercial and recent
development activity.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Economic policies.
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES:
7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that;
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including:
1. Public water,
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the city unless
the property involved in over 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington
County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is
obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed
development; and
2. Designed to city standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
According to City maps, storm, sanitary sewer, and water are all available at the corner of 72nd and
Dartmouth. The proposed use of the site will undergo development review to ensure that public facilities
and services are adequate,capable of serving the properties, and designed to city standards.
The.proposed zone change does not involve any development. City's applicable Public Facilities and
Services Polices will be addressed at the time of actual development review.
8. TRANSPORTATION:
Transportation System
8.1.1 Plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the
livability of Tigard by:
a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities.
b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable
pedestrian routes.
c. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets
through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective
measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic
calming.
8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation
(including motor vehicle, bicycle,pedestrian,transit and other modes) by:
a. The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize
the multi-purpose nature of the street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle,
transit,truck and auto use.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 7 OF 14
• •
b. Coordination with Tri-met, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to
improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and
collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide
direct pedestrian accessibility.
c. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent
with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall
strive to have direct access to a bikeway.
d. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools parks, public
facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk.
e. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails.
f. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing
connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity
centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections.
g. Tigard will participate in vehicle trip reduction strategies developed regionally
targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in Table 1.3 of the
Regional Transportation Plan.
h. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the
regional transit network.
8.1.4 Set and maintain transportation performance measures that:
a. Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and
requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard.
b. Set parking ratios to provide adequate parking,while providing an incentive to limit
the use of the single occupant vehicle.
c. Encourage working with other transportation providers in Washington County,
including Tri-Met,Metro and ODOT to develop, operate and maintain intelligent
transportation systems, including coordination of traffic. g
8.2 Trafficways
8.2.1 The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets
current needs and anticipated future growth and development.
8.2.2 The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process
within the city and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state,
regional and local jurisdictions.
8.2.3 The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that:
A. Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by
the approopriate approval authority;
B. Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width;
C. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city
standards within the development;
D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and
sidewalks to the extent of the developments impacts;
E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the
development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard;
F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of
a type which generates transit ridership;
G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and
that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled
persons; and
H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance
with the adopted plan.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 8 OF 14
• •
The Transportation Goal olicies and implementation strategies are largely directed at the City and include
objectives that create the framework for ensuring that the transportation system is adequate for all modes
of travel at the time development occurs. These objectives are implemented by the Development Code
standards that apply during development review. None of the minimum requirements for streets, access
or parking wouldbe different if the site were developed as a Planned Development.
As stated in the applicant's narrative,the proposed subsequent development will require a traffic study. At
a minimum this study must address site distance for access points, peak period vehicle trips and the
development's affect on nearby entry/exit ramps for Interstate 5.
At the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review, the City will require additional
dedication of land and street improvements to meet current standards along (Jinton Street, Dartmouth
Street and 72nd Avenue. In addition funds will be collected that will contribute to the signalization of the
Dartmouth/68th intersection and Dartmouth/72nd intersection.
The future commercial project is likely to generate increased transit ridership. Tri-Met bus route 78 serves
the subject site with a bus stop located at the intersection of 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street. Any
future development must incrude pedestrian connections such as a sidewalk or plaza. Sidewalks are
currently not constructed to connect this site with the bus line along 68th Parkway, but will happen with
future development.
All on-site parking and circulation for any proposed development will be done to City specifications as
required by the Tigard Development Code. Maximum parking regulations will limit the amount of parking
provided to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation.
As shown in the foregoing analysis, the City's applicable Transportation Polices will be addressed at the
time of Site Development or Planned Development Review.
9. ENERGY:
9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy
conservation, design and construction.
Applicable implementation strategies to support this goal include: 3) The City shall locate higher
densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes
specifically with convenient access to federal and state highways, artenals and major collector
streets, and 8) The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that
advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride share,bicycling
and walking for commuter purposes.
The site is located at the corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is within 1/4 mile of an I-5
interchange. State Highway 99 is less than 'h mile to the north. Another collector(68th Parkwa)) is within
two blocks of the site. The proposed removal of the PD overlay would not change the allowed uses on
the site. Tigard Development Code standards such as maximum parking and required bicycle parking will
encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. These criteria are reviewed during the Site
Development or Planned Development Review process.
The proposed zone change will have no effect on the efficient use of the transportation system to
conserve energy and will remain consistent with the applicable Energy Policies.
12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA:
12.2 COMMERCIAL
12.2.1 The City shall:
a. Provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required
trade area.
b. Apply all applicable plan policies.
c. Apply the appropriate locational criteria applicable to the scale of the project.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 9 OF 14
• •
2. General Commercial
General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services.The uses
classified as general commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users,a combination
of retail, service,wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses
range from automobile repair and-services, supply and equipment stores,vehicle sales,drive-in
restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or
major collector street.
A. Scale
1 Trade Area. Varies.
2 Site Size. Depends on development.
3 Gross Leasable Area. Varies.
B. ocational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two
sides.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on
street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes,the speed limit, number of
turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types
of uses.
(b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street.
(c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area.
(3) Site Characteristics
(4) ia The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses.
b The site shall have high visibility.
mpact Assessment
(a)-The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses.
(b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of
adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and
development plan.
(d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-
residential uses.
The proposed removal of the planned development overlay does not change the underlying General
Commercial zone. Therefore,the Locational Policies do not apply.
FINDING: Both GG (PD) and GG zoning are treated as General Commercial under the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Designations. The removal of the overlay zone would not change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. The Comprehensive Plan Polices for Natural
Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provided a basis for the use of the planned development
process, and its use on the subject property and properties in the vicinity to protect the
character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major
vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. Based on the analysis
above, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been adequately addressed. The
proposed zone change to remove the PD overlay may not be consistent with Natural
Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have
resulted in substantial degradation of tiie resource where the PD standards would no
longer be applicable.
18.380.030.B.2
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other
applicable implementing ordinance; and
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 10 OF 14
• •
FINDING: The proposed zone change does not include a specific development proposal. However,
during Site Development or Planned Development Review, any proposed development
will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards.
18.380.030.B.3
Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the
comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the
development application.
Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The
subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map desgnated as "agricultural". The site was
shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in
unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps
including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject
roe and surrounding properties extending to the west comprised roughl the same area that was
des gnat p
d GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. The Comprehensive Plan policies
for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provide a basis for the use of the planned development
process, and explain its use in this case, to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist
large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land.
In 1999, the City adopted the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the area lying between Highway 99
Interstate 5 and Highway 217. These standards adopted guiding principles to create a high-quality mixed
use employment area, provide a convenient pedestnan and bikeway system, and utilize streetscapes for a
quality image.
In 2006, the Planning Commission adopted the revised PD standards to emphasize the balancing of
flexible standards with environmental and community benefits (Ord. 06-16). The revisions included
among others new open space requirements and affirmed a two-step review process for conceptual and
detailed development proposals. There is some question whether consideration of the open space
requirement was intended for use on commercial and industrial properties. The Natural Features and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan policies provide some basis for the use of PD review.
Prior to adoption of the Triangle standards and the revised PD standards, three commercial sites were
approved through the PD process including WinCo, Costco and Toys-R Us. These were all large sites of
at least 6 or more acres and included or were adjacent to sensitive lands. Over the years,the Triangle area
has been redeveloping into an area with larger retail uses alon with large and small scale office buildings,
consistent with development allowed in the GG (PD) and M zones.
FINDING: The foregoing suggests that development in the neighborhood, known as the Tigard
Triangle, has occurred consistent with the underlying zones and the planned development
overlay. There is no apparent evidence of a mistake or inconsistency m the comprehensive
plan or zoning map. However changes to the original zoning and the development code
standards that apply to the neighborhood have precipitated the proposed zone change.
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department was notified of the proposal and did not
provide comment.
No outside agencies were notified of the proposal because no development or other applicable action is
proposed for their review.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 11 OF 14
S •
SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
ANALYSIS:
Based on the information above, the proposed zone change may or may not be consistent with Natural
Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2), depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in
substantial degradation of the resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable; any new
development will be required to meet all of the current Tigard Development Code standards during Site
Development Review. Changes have occurred in the primary zone designations as well as development
code standards applicable to Triangle properties.
The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the revised PD standards, in
summary, as follows:
1) The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4 relate to
residenrma[development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG.
Staff Response: Of the PD Chapter's six purpose statements Nos. 3 and 4 relate to residential
development, referring to "housing styles" and "density requirements" respectively.
Purposes 1, 2, 4, and 6 relate generally to both commercial and residential
development. Thep a ose statements have always applied as appropriate to either
commercial or residenridevelopment.
2) The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel,
the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards and relies on the underlying
zone standards as otherwise intended in TDC 18.350.020.
Staff Response: The PD standards explicitly address applicability to commercial development: "The
planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An
applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development,in compliance
with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial
project, an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a
condition of approving any application for the development" (18.35020). In
1983 the City legislatively applied the PD overlay to specific properties in the
Triangle including the subject parcel. Other than reformatting, the revised PD
standards did not change the substance of TDC 18.350.020 or affect its previous
application by the City to the Triangle. The code now and has always indicated that
the PD process can apply to commercial and industrial development as well as
residential. The question is whether there are substantial reasons to apply the PD
to this property.
3) The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of
addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the "reservation of
natural features" and development that has significant advantages over a standard development .
Staff Response: The applicant's preliminary plans demonstrated that Corps/DSL and CWS permits
would-result in preservation of wetlands to some extent. However, under the PD
standards these approval criteria are the means by which the distinctive quality of a
development may be assured either by further protecting natural features, integrating
them into the development,or byproviding other amenities.
4) The applicant contends that a total of 40% of the subject commercial site would be affected,with 20% in
required landscaping (TDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and 20% in shared open space (TDC 18.350.070.4A.m),
representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15%landscaping is the conventional standard.
Staff Response: Section 18.350.070.A.3.d of the revised PD standards require 20% of the net site
area be landscaped (18.350.070.4.A.h refers explicitly to residential development);
section 18.350.070.A.4.m requires 20% of the gross site area be designated as a
shared open space facility. The standards do not state that these provision must be
additive, nor prohibits landscaped areas to be used for the shared open space
requirement. However, the definitions adopted with the revised PD standards
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 12 OF 14
. • •
(18.120.102) do imply some "passive use facilities" be reserved for medium-impact
recreation and education uses related to the functions and values of the natural
area. The PD standards further set maximum site coverage of 80%
(18.350.060.0.2). By comparison, commercial development in the CBD and IP
zones are subject to maximum site coverage's of 80% and 75%, respectively. The
actual amount of open space required for any given development is dependant on a
number of factors that makes the open space standard hard to quantify without a
specific development proposal. The resulting uncertainty is problematic for
developers.
In summary, the PD process requires at least 5% more landscaping than the Site
Development Review process.
ISSUES:
A) The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for
commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting that the shared open space standard(18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to
commercial development. The opens space standards were adopted long after the original
i
application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for
commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06-
16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments?
As reflected in staff's responses above, the applicant's broadly drawn statements on the applicability of the
revised PD standards to commercial development are not completely conclusive nor supported by code Staff
believes that applying the requirement for shared open space facilities (18.350.070.A.4.m) to commercial and
industrial development may have been an oversight because the Planning Commission and Planned
Development Committee focus was on residential development?open space requirements for commercial and
industrial development were not discussed d the code revision. However,the above analysis suggests that
the standard may not be as onerous as thoouit depending on the.open space/landscape calculation for a
specific development proposal. Because of e difficulty in determining the actual amount of opens space
required, the Commission may want to qualify the applicability of the standard for residential development
only, or otherwise clarify the standard to address the uncertainty that is problematic for developers.
Alternatively, is there public benefit to retaining the standard in the likelihood that commercial development
could better relate to natural resources on the site and improve the quality of the development?
B,) The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the
vicinity the subject parcel found that due to the subject Standards, removing the PD standards
would have no significant effect.Are the circumstances ofthis case substantially different to allow the
Commission to deny the request?
The subject site is different in three important respects to the property previously addressed in ZON2007-
00008 including: 1) the size of the subject property is 3.19- acres versus approximately 1 acre 2) the
presence of jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways on the subject property versus the absence of natural
resources, and 3) the PD Concept Plan Approval standards (18.350.050.A.1, 2, and 6) that relate to the
natural resources on the subject property are not otherwise covered under the Tigard Triangle Design
Standards. These differences in the site and the applicable PD standards that pertain to natural resources
allow the Commission to find that the facts of this case could support denial o1 the request to remove the
Planned Development overlay.
C) Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements
would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to
apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the
other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity?
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
Z0N2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 13 OF 14
• S
Although the Tigard Triangle Design standards ensure high quality development, principally with regards
to building placement and articulation, they do not relate to the relationship of the development to the
natural resources on the site. Similarly, Corp/DSL/CWS permits address natural resources on site without
concern for the relationship of the proposed development other than providing for exclusion and
rehabilitation of resource values. The primary focus of the revised PD standards, as conveyed in the
purpose statements and Concept Plan Approval Criteria, is the relationship of the development to the
resource that results in development that has significant advantages over standard development. This is
the promise of the PD overlay legislatively applied to the subject property and on the approximately 25
remaining undeveloped acres in the Triangle also zoned GG (PD).
CONCLUSION:
There is a question whether the PD review was intended to have commercial and industrial properties
include the new open space provisions.
There is a question whether PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources
and development?
There is a question whether natural resources would be more protected given the applicable standards.
There is a question regarding the need for and purpose of the original PD overlay.
Therefore with respect to the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider the following recommendation in addressing the requested zone change to remove the Planned
Development overlay on the subject parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
In a departure from the standard approach of a single recommendation, staff provides three alternatives
for Planning_ Commission consideration due to the vagueness of the application the intent of the
Commission in recommending open space requirements, and the analysis provided in the staff report:
Alternative # 1: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review and applicability of the
revised PD standards are not necessary to this particular site, approve the change as
requested by the applicant.
Alternative #2: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review is important but the
application of additional open space was not intended for commercial/industrial
development:
A. have the applicant prepare an amendment to the code eliminating the open
space requirement for commercial or industrial land;or
B. wait for review of a staff proposal to clarify the applicability of the revised
open space requirement to commercial and industrial land.
Alternative #3: If the Planning Commission finds this particular site, because of its unique nature
and the intent of the PD provisions, warrants Commission review and applicability
of the PD standards,deny the applicant's request for removal of the PD overlay.
P I February 25,2008
PREPARED Gary Pagenstecher DATE
Associate Planne
41PP 0/1"
i
Or
�. Feb r�25,2008
APPROVED B : Dick Bewe d■rf f DATE
Planning . .ger
c\cuzpin\gary\ZON\Douglas Fry Zone Change(ZON2007-00018)\ZON2007-00018 staff report
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 14 OF 14
, , CITY of TIGARD
I --\-------2. Xj I I 1 , .
1 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ,
, , VICINITY MAP
/ cli r_c________,
, i ,
_ . 1
1
, i r i 7 ______ r_
lui__J___ >uji )_ 7
,< __,‹
. , ZON2007-00018
1 iiii 1 ai
CD
.. I _----"' an 1
a iii ii ____1_ ,Ic.;
I__
, ii c:-...,-,
SUB JE CT
DARTu• . . Mk
MIMIIIIIIII if sin
W.
L......:H. e''
TIor 4;1 jil IF-'7. :
• PINNER IIII
co
iliiiirERMOSO w#1111/ MI
1111111111t A I „,
ill,,,,„„ar TAIIIIIIII L__ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet
,,,„ ......_=.___... ._
7k• ST , I'm 390 feet
allikii RD 1111111
BEVELAND RD - III
Ili r- , Information on this map Is for general location only and
should be verified with the Development Services Division.
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Community Development . Plot date: Feb 5,2008;C:\magic1MAGIC03.APR
S 411
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2008-01 PC
a
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD
A FINAL ORDER DENYING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE. THE COMMISSION
HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MARCH 3, 2008.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER.
120 DAYS = 5/20/2008
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NO.: Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00018
FILE NAME: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling
approxumnatel 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW
Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates
requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any
future development must still meet all other applicable development standards
including the Tigard Triangle design criteria.
APPLICANT & APPLICANT'S
OWNER Douglas Fry REP: T M.Rippey Consulting Engrs.
do Commercial Tenant Advisors Ann: Lans Stout
Ann:Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland St.,Suite 100
22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223
Tualatin, OR 97062
LOCATION: South of SW Dartmouth, between SW 70th and SW 72nd Avenues; 12625 SW 70th
Avenue;WCTM 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100.
CURRENT
ZONE: GG: General Commercial District (PD). The GG zoning district is designed to
accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even
regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to
single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide
range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment
repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event
entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned
Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone
are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with igard's
Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and
mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; and to provide such added benefits as
increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs,
walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,
and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict
adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;and to
achieve unique neighborhoods (by.varying the housing styles through architectural
accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their
character and city benefits, while res ecting the characteristics of existing
neighborhoods through appropriate buffering .and lot size transitiorung; and to
reserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities
trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site
esign and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 1 OF 14
• •
review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and
to consider an amount of-development on a site, within the limits of density
requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer,neighbors,and
the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural
environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility
construction methods and materials.
PROPOSED
ZONE: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to
accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a Citywide and even
regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to
single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide
range of uses,including.but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment
repair and storage min:warehouses, utilities, heliports medical centers, major event
entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted-conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and
Comprehensive Plan-PPolicies 1,2,3,4,�,7, 8,9 and 12.
SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
The Planning Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural
resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more
protected using a PD review process than not;that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24
wars, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses
on this site; and because of the unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions,Commission review
is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed Zone Change would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and DENIES the
Zone Change.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site History&Information
Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The
subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural' . The site was
shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in
unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps
including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject
property and surrounding properties extending to the west comprising roughly the same area that was
shown designated GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City.
A search of City records showed that no land use applications to develop the site have been made beyond
the site development and planned development review applications associated with the current owner,
which have been withdrawn. Tax lot 100 has had several Code Enforcement Actions for noxious
vegetation and a junk car.
Vicinity Information
The site is located within the Tigard Triangle, which is subject to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to
create a high quality, mixed use employment area. Site and building design requirements for this area
include building placement near the street,ground floor window requirements and articulation along street
frontages. Zoning in the area is a mix of GG, GG (PD), and MUE (Mixed Use Employment). Many of
the sites within the Triangle are being re-developed and converted from residential to commercial uses.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 2 OF 14
• •
Properties to the south and east are zoned MUE and improved with single-family homes and office
buildings. Property to the north across Dartmouth Street is zoned C-G (PD) where site development for a
proposed office building is in progress. Also to the north at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and
Dartmouth Street,the Planning Commission recently approved a zone change (ZON2007-00008) from
C-G (PD) to GG on an approximately one-acre site containing no sensitive lands.
In addition to the subject parcel, the remaining undeveloped properties in the Tigard Triangle zoned C-G
(PD). include an adjacent :55-acre parcel and, to the west across SW 72nd Avenue, six contiguous parcels
totaling approximately 24.72 acres.
Site Information and Proposal Description
The proposed zone change applies to one 3.19-acre parcel, Tax Lot 100. Sensitive lands including a
draingeway and jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject parcel. The subject parcel slopes moderately to the
north and west and contains a number of emergent and some mature trees, and is otherwise covered with
grasses and shrubs.
The applicant is requesting to remove the planned development overlay zone, changing the zone from GG
(PD) to GG to facilitate development of a new commercial retail/office project without the burden of the
planned development standards and review.
The applicant states that other options were considered to address the PD overlay, including development
under the PD criteria, modifying the PD code to address the difficulty of developing a commercial site under
the current standards, or changing the entire site to MUE through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone
Change.
The applicant concluded that "it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD
provisions themselves, but] in the end the question remains whether the interest of the property owner and
the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than simply correcting
the problem and applying the appropriate Code standards to a development application."
The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the PD overlay zone, in
summary, as follows:
• The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4
relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG.
• The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject
parcel the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards or rely on the
underlying zone standards as intended in TDC 18.350.020.
• The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of
addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the preservation
of natural features and development that has significant advantages over a standard development.
• The applicant contends that 40% of the subject commercial site would be required in landscaping 20%
(1DC 18.350.070.4Ah) and shared open space 20% (TDC 18.350.070.4A.m) representing a
significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard.
Staff addresses old)cf tlse points in the andyis section grthis wort on page 12.
Summary of Issues
The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial
development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6,2007 Planning Commission meetungthat the
shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to commercial development. The open
space standards were adopted long,after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or
required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned
Development standards (Ord. 06-16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and
commercial developments?
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 3 OF 14
• •
The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity of
the subject parcel and found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size, lack of natural resources and
application of the Tigard Triangle Design Stan, removing the PD standards would have no significant
effect. Are the circumstances of this case substantially'different to allow the Commission to deny the request?
Given that the Tigard Triangle n Des' Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply
to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned
Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD
overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity?
Staff addr sses these issues in the analysis section(this report on page 13.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Metro Regional
Framework Plan Policies are not applicable to this land use decision. No changes are proposed to the
Comprehensive Plan and the land use action requested is not legislative.
TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380:
Section 18.380.030.A states that the Commission shall decide zone change applications which do
not involve comprehensive plan map amendments.
The proposed zone change application to remove the PD overlay, changing the zoning on the subject
parcel from GG (PD) to GG does not involve a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the
Planning Commission shall make a decision on the proposed zone change application.
Section 18.380.030.B states that a recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with
conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the
following standards:
Section 18.380.030.B.1
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
1. GENERAL POLICIES:
tt1a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are
consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service
District;
Implementation Strategies
1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will
reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner.
f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located
along major traffic ways. The applicable zoning district is General Commercial(C-G).
The proposed zone change from C-G (PD) to GG complies with the Comprehensive Map designation of
"General Commercial" because the GG zoning district implements the General Commercial
Comprehensive Plan Designation. Removal of the PD overlay would not amend the comprehensive plan
and is not a legislative change. Therefore,the General Policies do not apply.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 4 OF 14
• •
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT:
2.1.1 The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that
citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning
process.
The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property. owners and neighborhood
representatives,posted a sign on the propertyy, and held a neighborhood meeting on December 27,2007 in
accordance with the City of Tigard's neigaborhood meeting notification process. According to the
minutes of the neighborhood meeting, five neighbors were in attendance. Discussion related to the timing
of traffic signalization on 72nd Avenue and street improvements on Elmhurst Street, the height of the
proposed Building C, construction noise, and wetland fill. No objections were given to the proposed zone
change.
In addition,the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500
feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies,published notice of the hearing and posted the site
pursuant to '11)C 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures.
With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed
zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.
3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE:
3.1.1 The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development
limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering
techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed
development. (note: this policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands
on the floodplain and wetlands map.): A. Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under
chapter 18.26 of the community development code;
According to the applicant, the site does include jurisdictional wetlands and does not include any
significant wetlands as identified on the City of Tigard's "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map". These
wetlands are subject to Corps/DSL and Clean Water Services standards and will be addressed at the time
of Development Review.
3.4.2 The city shall:
A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat
and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural
vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum
extent possible;
B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed
through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and
C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as
delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the city.
As the applicant states, there is no floodplain or steep slopes on the subject parcel Any geotechnical
issues may be addressed during Site Development Review. There is a draingeway, a tributary to Red Rock
Creek that traverses the property from east to west. The drainageway would be better characterized as a
ditch, rather than a natural drainage course. The creek has been significantly altered by the construction of
SW Dartmouth Street. The stream corridor across the property no longer includes areas of standing trees
and the natural vegetation has been significantly degraded. The "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" has been
replaced (Ord.06-20) by the "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which shows both lower and moderate value
habitat areas on the site. CWS standards will apply to the moderate value vegetated corridor on the site.
The Significant Habitat Areas Map is implemented ythrough non-regulatory measures such as cluster-type
development usually associated with residntial development.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 5 OF 14
• •
The natural resource chapter includes implementation strategies that encourage, through the
Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public
lands including inventoried plant and animal communities; and, where there exist large or unique
stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City
shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation
areas through the Planned Development Process and the "Tree Cutting" section of the
Community Development Code.
The existing property, zoned GG (PD), is bordered by a collector, an arterial, and intense commercial
development. The approximately 3-acre property does not include large varied habitat areas of inventoried
plant and animal communities or large or unique stands of trees. Therefore, the purpose for which a
planned development overlay was onginally established under these implementation strategies may not
continue to exist. The PD designations in the Triangle preceded the environmental regulations and appear
to have been placed to cause review partly because of the proximity of residential neighborhoods whose
residential designations no longer exist in the Triangle. However, there remains a dramageway and
jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property that wilf be protected at minimum under Corp/I)SL/CWS
permits.
The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Natural Features and Open
Space Policies have been adequately addressed with respect to planned development review.
4. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY:
4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable
federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean
Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15)
4.3.1 The city shall:
A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which
creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into
the site plan:
1. Building placement on the site in an area where the noise levels will have a
minimal impact; or
2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise impacts to levels
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
B. Coordinate with DEQ in its noise regulation program and apply the Vol. Ii,policy
4-4 DEQ land use compatibility program.
C. Where applicable require a statement from the appropriate agency(prior to the
approval of a land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met.
Removal of the PD overlay will not change the standards related to water quality or noise standards. All
new developments within the City of Tigard are required to collect and treat storm water run-off for the
site utilizing Clean Water Services design standards. Noise level allowances are regulated by the Tigard
Municipal Code 7.40.130 through 70.210. During pre-application meetings held for future site
development, the applicant has proposed retail and office uses. These are not uses which create excessive
noise. They are also the same type of uses already existing on many surrounding properties as the
neighborhood continues to change from residential to commercial. Buffering will be required where
future commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use.
The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Air,Water and Land Resources
Quality Policies will be addressed at the time of Development Review.
5. ECONOMY:
5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic
o portumties available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth
of the local job market.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 6 OF 14
• •
Because the underlying zone remains General Commercial, all the allowed uses will be the same. The PD
overlay does not provide more growth opportunities for the local job market. Due to the constraints
outlined within the PD code,the applicant states that removal of the PD will allow the site to develop in a
manner that will increase economic activity. The question is whether application of the PD process is seen
as inhibiting economic opportunities. This must be weighed in relation to the benefits of the PD review.
Other than the fact that most applicants prefer a Type II process in terms of speed and certainty of the
standards, there have been no arguments made in this application that conclusively indicate that the
economy is not served by use of the PD review process.
5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach
into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses.
There are residential uses south of the site. The area is currently zoned for commercial development and
many sites in the area have been re-developed with commercial uses. Any proposed commercial
development on the site will not be encroaching into residential zones. Buffering.and screening will be
required next to these existing residences if the site is developed with a commercial use. This policy is
typical of the existing Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on protecting existing single-family neighborhoods,
which in this case no longer exist because of zone changes from residential to commercial and recent
development activity.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Economic policies.
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES:
7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that;
a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including:
1. Public water,
2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the city unless
the property involved in over 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington
County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is
obtained; and
3. Storm drainage.
b. The facilities are:
1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed
development; and
2. Designed to city standards.
c. All new development utilities to be placed underground.
According to City maps, storm, sanitary sewer, and water are all available at the corner of 72nd and
Dartmouth. The proposed use of the site will undergo development review to ensure that public facilities
and services are adequate,capable of serving the properties, and designed to city standards.
The.proposed zone change does not involve any development. City's applicable Public Facilities and
Services Polices will be addressed at the time of actual development review.
8. TRANSPORTATION:
Transportation System
8.1.1 Plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the
livability of Tigard by:
a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities.
b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable
pedestrian routes.
c. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets
through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective
measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic
calming.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 7 OF 14
• •
8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation
(including motor vehicle,bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes) by:
a. The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize
the multi-purpose nature ofpthe street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle,
transit,truck and auto use.
b. Coordination with Tri-met, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to
improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and
collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide
direct pedestrian accessibility.
c. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent
with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall
strive to have direct access to a bikeway.
d. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools parks, public
facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk.
e. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails.
f. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing
connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity
centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections.
g. Tigard will participate in vehicle trip reduction strategies developed regionally
targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in Table 1.3 of the
Regional Transportation Plan.
h. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the
regional transit network.
8.1.4 Set and maintain transportation performance measures that:
a. Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and
requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard.
b. Set parking ratios to provide adequate parking,while providing an incentive to limit
the use of the single occupant vehicle.
c. Encourage working with other transportation providers in Washington County,
including Metro and ODOT to develop, operate and maintain intelligent
transportation systems, including coordination of traffic. g
8.2 Trafficways
8.2.1 The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets
current needs and anticipated future growth and development.
8.2.2 The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process
within the city and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state,
regional and local jurisdictions.
8.2.3 The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that:
A. Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by
the appropriate approval authority;
B. Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width;
C. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city
standards within the development;
D. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and
sidewalks to the extent of the developments impacts;
E. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the
development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard;
F. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of
a type which generates transit ridership;
G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and
that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled
persons; and
H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance
with the adopted plan.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 8 OF 14
• •
The Transportation Goal olicies and implementation strategies are largely directed at the City and include
objectives that create the framework for ensuring that the transportation system is adequate for all modes
of travel at the time development occurs. These objectives are implemented by the Development Code
standards that apply during development review. None of the minimum requirements for streets, access
or parking wouldbe different if the site were developed as a Planned Development.
As stated in the applicant's narrative,the proposed subsequent development will require a traffic study. At
a minimum this study must address site distance for access points, peak period vehicle trips and the
development's affect on nearby entry/exit ramps for Interstate 5.
At the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review, the City will require additional
dedication of land and street improvements to meet current standards along Clinton Street, Dartmouth
Street and 72nd Avenue. In addition funds will be collected that will contribute to the signalization of the
Dartmouth/68th intersection and Dartmouth/72nd intersection.
The future commercial project is likely to generate increased transit ridership. Tri-Met bus route 78 serves
the subject site with a bus stop located at the intersection of 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street. Any
future development must include pedestrian connections such as a sidewalk or plaza. Sidewalks are
currently not constructed to connect this site with the bus line along 68th Parkway, but will happen with
future development.
All on-site parking and circulation for any proposed development will be done to City specifications as
required by the Tigard Development Code. Maximum parking regulations will limit the amount of parking
provided to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation.
As shown in the foregoing analysis, the City's applicable Transportation Polices will be addressed at the
time of Site Development or Planned Development Review.
9. ENERGY:
9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy
conservation, design and construction.
Applicable implementation strategies to support this goal include: 3) The City shall locate higher
densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes
specifically with convenient access to federal and state highways, artenals and major collector
streets, and 8) The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that
advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride share, bicycling
and walking for commuter purposes.
The site is located at the corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is within 1/4 mile of an I-5
interchange. State Highway 99 is less than 1/2 mile to the north. Another collector(68th Parkway) is within
two blocks of the site. The proposed removal of the PD overlay would not change the allowed uses on
the site. Tigard Development Code standards such as maximum parking and required bicycle parking will
encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. These criteria are reviewed during the Site
Development or Planned Development Review process.
The proposed zone change will have no effect on the efficient use of the transportation system to
conserve energy and will remain consistent with the applicable Energy Policies.
12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA:
12.2 COMMERCIAL
12.2.1 The City shall:
a. Provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required
trade area.
b. Apply all applicable plan policies.
c. Apply the appropriate locational criteria applicable to the scale of the project.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 9 OF 14
II/ •
2. General Commercial
General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses
classified as general commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, a combination
of retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses
range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores,vehicle sales, drive-in
restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or
major collector street.
A. Scale
1 Trade Area. Varies.
2 Site Size. Depends on development.
3 Gross Leasable Area.Varies.
B. ocational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two
sides.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on
street capacity,existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of
turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types
of uses.
(b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street.
(c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area.
(3) Site Characteristics
a The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses.
b) The site shall have high visibility.
(4) mpact Assessment
(a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses.
(b) The site configuration and charactenstics shall be such that the privacy of
adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and
development plan.
(d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-
residential uses.
The proposed removal of the planned development overlay does not change the underlying General
Commercial zone. Therefore,the Locational Policies do not apply.
FINDING: Both GG (PD) and GG zoning are treated as General Commercial under the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Designations. The removal of the overlay zone would not change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. The Comprehensive Plan Polices for Natural
Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provided a basis for the use of the planned development
process, and its use on the subject property and properties in the vicinity, to protect the
character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major
vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. Based on the analy§is
above, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been adequately addressed. The
proposed zone change to remove the PD overlay may not be consistent with Natural
Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have
resulted in substantial degradation of tfie resource where the PD standards would no
longer be applicable.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 10 OF 14
• •
18.380.030.B.2
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other
applicable implementing ordinance; and
The proposed zone change does not include a specific development proposal. However,
during Site Development or Planned Development Review, any proposed development
will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards.
18.380.030.B.3
Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the
comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the
development application.
Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The
subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural". The site was
shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in
unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps
including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject
dproperty and surrounding properties extending to the west comprised roughly the same area that was
es gna ed GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Toning Map for the City. The Comprehensive Plan policies
for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provide a basis for the use of the planned development
process, and explain its use in this case, to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist
large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land.
In 1999, the City adopted the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the area lying between Hi hway 99,
5 and Highway 217. These standards adopted guiding principles to create a high-quality mixed
use employment area, provide a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilize streetscapes for a
quality image.
In 2006, the Planning Commission adopted the revised PD standards to emphasize the balancing. of
flexible standards with environmental and community benefits (Ord. 06-16). The revisions included
among others new open space requirements and affirmed a two-step review process for conceptual and
detailed development proposals. There is some question whether consideration of the open space
requirement was intended for use on commercial and industrial properties. The Natural Features and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan policies provide some basis for the use of PD review.
Prior to adoption of the Triangle standards and the revised PD standards, three commercial sites were
approved through the PD process including WinCo, Costco and Toys-R Us. These were all large sites of
at least 6 or more acres and included or were adjacent to sensitive lands. Over the years,the Tnangle area
has been redeveloping into an area with larger retail uses along with large and small scale office buildings,
consistent with development allowed in the GG (PD) and MUE zones.
FINDING: The foregoing suggests that development in the neighborhood, known as the Tigard
Triangle,has occurred consistent with the underlying zones and the planned development
overlay. There is no apparent evidence of a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive
plan or zoning ma_p. However changes to the original zoning and the development code
standards that apply to the neighborhood have precipitated the proposed zone change.
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department was notified of the proposal and did not
provide comment.
No outside agencies were notified of the proposal because no development or other applicable action is
proposed for their review.
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 11 OF 14
• •
SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS:
Based on the information above, the proposed zone change may or may not be consistent with Natural
Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2 , depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in
substantial degradation of the resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable; any new
development will be required to meet all of the current Tigard Development Code standards during Site
Development Review. Changes have occurred in the primary zone designations as well as development
code standards applicable to Triangle properties.
The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the revised PD standards, in
summary, as follows:
1) The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4 relate to
residenmldevelopment and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG.
Staff Response: Of the PD Chapter's six purpose statements Nos. 3 and 4 relate to residential
development, referring to "housing styles" and "density requirements" respectively.
Purposes 1, 2, 4, and 6 relate generally to both commercial and residential
development. The purpose statements have always applied as appropriate to either
commercial or residential development.
2) The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel,
the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards and relies on the underlying
zone standards as otherwise intended in TDC 18.350.020.
Staff Response: The PD standards explicitly address applicability to commercial development: "The
planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An
applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance
with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial
project, an approval authority may,apply the provisions of this chapter as a
condition of appproving any application for the development" (18.350.020). In
1983 the City-legislatively applied the PD overlay to specific properties in the
Triangle including the subject parcel. Other than reformatting, the revised PD
standards did not change the substance of TDC 18.350.020 or affect its previous
application by the City to the Triangle. The code now and has always indicated that
the PD process can apply to commercial and industrial development as well as
residential. The question is whether there are substantial reasons to apply the PD
to this property.
3) The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of
addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the "reservation of
natural features" and development that has significant advantages over a standard development .
Staff Response: The applicant's preliminary plans demonstrated that Corps/DSL and CWS permits
would-result in preservation of wetlands to some extent. However, under the PD
standards these approval criteria are the means by which the distinctive quality of a
development may be assured either by further protecting natural features, integrating
them into the development,or by providing other amenities.
4) The applicant contends that a total of 40% of the subject commercial site would be affected, with 20% in
required landscaping (TDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and 20% in shared open space (IDC 18.350.070.4A.m),
representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15%landscaping is the conventional standard.
Staff Response: Section 18.350.070.A.3.d of the revised PD standards require 20% of the net site
area be landscaped (18.350.070.4.A.h refers explicitly to residential development);
section 18.350.070.A.4.m requires 20% of the gross site area be designated as a
shared open space facility. The standards do not state that these provision must be
additive, nor prohibits landscaped areas to be used for the shared open space
requirement. However, the definitions adopted with the revised PD standards
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMIVIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 12 OF 14
• •
(18.120.102) do imply some "passive use facilities" be reserved for medium-impact
recreation and education uses related to the functions and values of the natural
area. The PD standards further set maximum site coverage of 80%
(18.350.060.C2). By comparison, commercial development in the CBD and IP
zones are subject to maximum site coverage's of 80% and 75%, respectively. The
actual amount of open space required for any given development is dependant on a
number of factors that makes the open space standard hard to.quantify without a
specific development proposal. Te resulting uncertainty is problematic for
developers.
In summary, the PD process requires at least 5% more landscaping than the Site
Development Review process.
ISSUES:
A) The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for
commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting that the shared open space standard(18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to
commercial development. The opens space standards were adopted long after the original
instances of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain nstances PD review for
commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06-
16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments?
As reflected in staff's responses above, the applicant's broadly drawn statements on the applicability of the
revised PD standards to commercial development are not completely conclusive nor supported by code: Staff
believes that applying the requirement for shared open space facilities (18.350.070.A.4.m) to commercial and
industrial development may have been an oversight because the Planning Commission and Planned
Development Committee focus was on residential development;open space requirements for commercial and
industrial development were not discussed during the code revision. However,the above analysis suggests that
the standard may not be as onerous as thought depending on the open space/landscape calculation for a
specific development proposal. Because of the difficulty in determining the actual amount of opens space
required, the Commission may want to qualify the applicability of the standard for residential development
only, or otherwise clarify the standard to address the uncertainty that is problematic for developers.
Alternatively, is there public benefit to retaining the standard in the l kelihood that commercial development
could better relate to natural resources on the site and improve the quality of the development?
B) The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay.on property in the
vicinity the subject parcel found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of natural
resources, and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards
would have no significant effect.Are the circumstances ofthis case substantially different to allow the
Commission to deny the request?
The subject site is different in three important respects to the property previously addressed in ZON2007-
00008 including: 1) the size of the subject property is 3.19- acres versus approximately 1 acre 2) the
presence of jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways on the subject property versus the absence of natural
resources, and 3) the PD Concept Plan Approval standards (18.350.050 .A.1, 2, and 6) that relate to the
natural resources on the subject property are not otherwise covered under the Tigard Triangle Design
Standards. These differences in the site and the applicable PD standards that pertain to natural resources
allow the Commission to find that the facts of this case could support denial o-t the request to remove the
Planned Development overlay.
C) Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements
would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to
apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the
other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity?
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 13 OF 14
S
Although the Tigard Triangle Design standards ensure high quality development, principally with regards
to building placement and articulation, they do not relate to the relationship of the development to the
natural resources on the site. Similarly, Corp/DSL/CWS permits address natural resources on site without
concern for the relationship of the proposed development other than providing for exclusion and
rehabilitation of resource values. The primary focus of the revised PD standards, as conveyed in the
purpose statements and Concept Plan Approval Criteria, is the relationship of the development to the
resource that results in development that has significant advantages over standard development. This is
the promise of the PD overlay legislatively applied to the subject property and on the approximately 25
remaining undeveloped acres in the Triangle also zoned GG (PD).
SECTION VII. CONCLUSION
The City of Tigard Planning Commission has DENIED Zone Change (ZON2007-00018) - FRY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE, based on the following findings: that the
PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this
particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process
than not; that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a
valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the
unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review is appropriate to address
and apply the PD standards to this particular site.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER.
DENIED: THE 3`1 DAY OF MARCH, 2008 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING
COMMISSION.
Jodi Inman,Planning Commission President
Dated this 16' day of March,2008.
c\cwpin\gary\ZON\Fty Zone Change(ZON2007-00018)\ZON2007-00018 PC FINAL ORDER
ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMIVIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 14 OF 14
-—-
_
—-; ---------------1------ i-7-S15471 i. __;_--------
CITY of TIGARD
, , -,-------) j,--i---- /--------;
, i
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION sysrem
1
1
. 1 I ,---- '
----___ r______,_
I 11
I 1 i
1 ' _J I !_____--H-( tz- -U._ VICINITY MAP .
_i_.
\ r-----1
I I I r- -7-1 1
j L I I I L__] L___ zi i
,1 F----------------------- -
ST j i _a_
1 i
1- BAY-LOR
-1-1.1 _______I<___ I
I -77 E------1
I
i il
>
I 1 21 _I
>- -------
. In—I-
. !
ZON2007-00018
K/ ..
I I ,
-11 ___L 1
1 I Li a
ST 1-
L]/co
Li 1
1 u,
iFRY ZONE
CHANGE
Iffil
Pal 0)
co
ft
LEGEND:
DART e . A SUBJECT
srm
I. , 10., . 4: r.: ji. T,,flo:,-;
,c•
F. ••• . cI
•
•
.?3 . 174 ..1,• .• ,t. .1'
,..•
,
MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
I I 1 1 LMHURST ST
I
1; ;-.)v:r NI)• i■
0 PIININ
all
H
0)
7 I !Ill 00
CO
in Ili
llgard Area Map
-1. .---1,—,
0..2°41,:,3°130-4 0 500 Foot
390 feet
,.,
11 oos° ,,, ,
mmitro
BEVELAND RD _
\._
_
o
MI
"----L-]Li IIIIIIIIII
Information on this map is for general location only and
should be verified with tho Development Sam cos Division.
htt13125 SW Hall Blvd
Z
pTli(g50.ma r3d;.60c3i12.949a177d21.203r..s
r..-
Community Development --- ... I
• -- -
Plot date: Feb 5,2008; C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR
Zone Change WritillStatement •
December 19, 200
Page 1
JAN
tr
ZONE CHANGE WRITTEN STATEMENT
December 19,2007
•
Applicant: Douglas Fry c/o
Commercial Tenant Advisors
Att: Brad Pihas
22151 SW 55th Ave
Tualatin OR 97062
Planning Consultant:
T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers
Att: Lans Stout
7650 SW Beveland St. Suite 100
Tigard OR 97223
503/443-3900
503/443-3700 fax
Site Location:
Tax lot 100, WCTM 2S1-IAB
Southeast corner of SW 72nd Ave and SW Dartmouth St.
Proposal:
Amend the Tigard Zoning Map to change the zoning on the subject
property from CG-PD (General Commercial with Planned Development Overlay) to CG
(General Commercial).
Zone Change WriteStatement •
December 19, 2007
Page 2
Description of the Request:
This is a zone change application which will remove the Planned Development
Overlay from the subject site. This property has been in the preliminary design phase
since early 2007, and plans have been discussed with the City staff and neighbors. When
this project was first discussed with City staff, the PD Overlay was not recognized as an
issue, even though the PD standards are very difficult for a commercial site to meet, and
given that this site contains both CG-PD and MUE zoning. Consequently, a PD
application was made in May 2007, but it was not deemed complete. Subsequently, as a
result of additional discussions related to the ramifications of the PD issues, it was
determined that the best approach would be to remove the PD overlay and apply the
Tigard Triangle Design Standards through a Site Design Review application.
The PD designation on this site was applied legislatively in 1984. However, since
there has never been a development plan proposed for this site, there have never been any
plans considered under the PD overlay. Further, the recent changes to the PD section
would make application of the PD standards impossible to meet on this commercial site.
A number of approaches were considered to address the application of the PD
section to this property, including development under the new PD criteria, a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to bring the entire site into the MU-E
zone, and a Development Code text amendment to address the difficulty of commercial
development under the revised PD section. However, simply removing the PD overlay
and allowing the site to redevelop under the CG zone and Tigard Triangle Design
Standards is the best solution to facilitate implementation of the City's development
standards for this area while allowing a responsible commercial development of the site.
The issues with respect to this site and the resulting application are much the same
as those considered by the Planning Commission in City File ZON2007-00008. The only
difference is that this site does contain some sensitive lands, which have been addressed
through CorpsIDSL permits for fill and CWS approval of vegetated corridor mitigation.
Notwithstanding this, the basic difficulties with respect to commercial development
under the PD standards remain, and are addressed as follows.
Commercial Development Issues Under the PD Overlay Zone:
The 2006 revisions to the PD section of the Code provide processes and criteria
suited for residential development on difficult sites. The flexibility provided allows the
City to adapt the otherwise required standards based on creative approaches to
development of residential neighborhoods while still protecting resources. These
standards and processes are not readily applicable to commercial development on sites
without unusual development constraints, or where development constraints can be
effectively addressed by using Code standards otherwise required.
The specific sections to consider include: •
18.350.010A.2 through 4 state that the purposes of the PD section is to increase
preservation of natural areas and to facilitate the development of"walkable"
Zone Change Writ.Statement
•
December 19, 2007
Page 3
communities. While this is an appropriate direction for the development of new
residential neighborhoods, it is not applicable to a site zoned General Commercial
that can be developed within the parameters of the Tigard Triangle Design
Standards.
18.350.030.B provides that the PD overlay designation shall be applied at the time
of approval of the Detailed Development Plan. While sites that already have the
PD Overlay applied from an earlier legislative action can still use the PD process,
the intent of the Code is to encourage owners to use the PD provisions, and to
provide that as a option rather than a requirement.
18.350.050.A provides Concept Development Plan approval criteria which stress
the development of a plan that addresses preservation of natural features,
neighborhood context, and "significant advantages over a standard development".
While the subject site does contain some wetland, the approval of permits related
to this work shows that the site can be developed using the primary Code
standards, so a positive finding with respect to this criteria could not be made.
18.350.070.4.A.h. requires 20% of the site to be landscaped, including
"landscaping on individual lots". This is clearly intended to apply to residential
development. Further, in combination with the required 20% `open space" in a
PD, requiring 40% of a commercial site to be designated open space and
landscaping would be a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15%
landscaping is the conventional standard.
18.350.070.4.A.m requires shared open space facilities. As noted above, this also
is clearly intended for application to residential development, and is not
appropriate for commercial projects.
While it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD
provisions themselves, in the end the question remains whether the interests of the
property owner and the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a
historic problem rather than simply correcting the problem and applying appropriate
Code standards to a development application. By removing the PD overlay from this site,
the standards of the PD section are not compromised, the owner is returned to a position
the same as the owners of other property zoned CG, and the other standards of the Code
maintain the City's interests.
Zone Change Writtiptatement •
December 19, 2007
Page 4
Code Criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment:
Section 18.380.030B of the Development Code provides standards for quasi-
judicial decisions. Each is addressed as follows:
1."Demonstration of compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies
and map designations."
Comment: In considering this standard, it is necessary to keep in mind the nature
of the application. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the site is "General
Commercial", and the zoning is CG-PD, which is a consistent zone for the plan
designation. This application will not affect the Plan Map nor the base zoning, so this
criteria is met with respect to map designations. In considering Comprehensive Plan
policy implications, since the land use designations will not change the applicable
policies would be those which provide guidance on the creation and application of
overlay zones such as the PD provisions. While the plan does discuss such related matters
as the application of the General Commercial designation, and natural resource
protection, it at no point actually discusses the establishment and application of a Planned
Development Overlay zone. Since there is no policy guidance in the Plan, and since the
land use designations are not effected, this criteria is inherently met.
Nevertheless, the staff has listed a number of Plan Policies that have been
identified as applicable to this application. Each is addressed as follows:
Policy 1 and its subsections relate to maintaining consistency between the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Goals as well as other local and regional planning
documents. Since this change does not effect the actual land use designation for the site,
and the eventual site development will be regulated by existing standards, the proposed
zone change doe not impact the consistency of these planning documents.
Policy 2 and its subsections relate to the citizen involvement process. This
application has been presented at a neighborhood meeting and will be considered by the
Planning Commission in a public hearing, which meets the intent of these policies.
Policy 3 and its subsections relate to development in areas with physical
constraints. The site does contain some wetland area, which have been addressed through
approval of DSL/Corps permits and issuance of a CWS Service Provider Latter. There
are no floodplain, steep slopes, or geotechnical issues. Further, the PD overlay is not
required to address any such physical issues since other Code standards are applicable
and will remain in effect after this zone change.
Policy 4 and its subsections relate to air, water, and land resource quality.
Removing the PD overlay from this site will not effect the implementation of all
otherwise required regulations related to these issues.
Policy 5 and its subsections relate to economic development and diversification in
the City. Removal of the PD overlay from this site will allow the property to be
developed in a manner consistent with the Development Code, which will increase job
opportunities and economic activity, which is consistent with this policy.
Policy 6 relates to housing, which is not applicable to this application.
•
Zone Change WrittStatement
December 19, 2007
Page 5
Policy 7 and its subsections relate to the provision of adequate public facilities
. and services. The removal of the PD overlay has no bearing on the provision of facilities
and services,which will be addressed through the development review process.
Policy 8 relates to transportation. A traffic study is required for development of
this site notwithstanding whether the PD overlay applies or not.
Policy 9 relates to energy conservation, which is not impacted by the application
of the PD overlay.
Policy 12 establishes locational criteria for various types of development areas,
including commercial. However, since this zone change does not effect the underlying
commercial plan designation and CG zoning, this policy is not applicable to the
application.
2. "Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of
this code or other implementing ordinances."
Comment: Compliance with standards of the Code is similar to the
Comprehensive Plan Policy issue. Since the base zoning is not affected by this change,
the only applicable Code standards are the PD section itself and the standards contained
in this section related to quasi-judicial changes to the zoning map. The standards of the
PD section, as summarized above, are not appropriate for application to this site, and
there is no indication that their continued application to the site is necessary to implement
the intent of the Code. This discussion of the standards for approval of a quasi-judicial
map amendment shows that Standard 2 is met.
3. "Evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map a sit relates to the property which
is the subject of the development application."
Comment: As described above, the PD overlay was legislatively applied to this
site in 1984. At that time the City was experiencing development of the larger
commercial area west of SW 72nd Ave. and there was valid concern about implementing
the PD standards as a way to ensure high quality development in the area. Since 1984 the
City has adopted the Tigard Triangle Plan, which precipitated the MU-E zone that applies
to part of this site, and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards which apply to the CG-PD
portion as well as the MU-E portion. Most importantly the City has adopted revisions to
the PD section itself which make it relevant to residential development but not to
commercial. There has clearly been a change in the neighborhood as result of adoption
and implementation of the new Tigard Triangle standards, which makes application of
the PD section both unnecessary and inappropriate. This standard is met.
Impact Statement:
Section 18.390.040.B2(e) of the Code requires an impact study to assess the
impacts of an application on public infrastructure. In this case there is no development
proposed in association with the application, so there is no impact on public facilities and
services. Any impacts and associated mitigation will be considered through the Site
Design Review process, which will be required prior to site development.
•
. •
Zone Change Writ Statement
December 19, 2007
Page 6
Concluding Comments:
This application will not affect the base zoning and development standards for
this site. It will, however, allow both parts of the development site to be developed as a
single unified project that is consistent with the Tigard Development Code and
specifically the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. This change will correct an inequitable
situation that has resulted from the application of the PD overlay at a time when this was
an appropriate method to address development concerns, but is no longer needed because
of the adoption of new standards that achieve the same goals.
•
PRE-AP}HELD BY:
114 1.1
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION
LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION
City of Tigard Pere it Center 13125 SW Hall Bluff, Tigarrh OR 97223
Phone 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960
File#I 1 Other Case a
Date J By I I Receipt# . Fee Date Complete
T E OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR
❑Adjustment/Variance(I or II) 0 Minor Land Partition(II) jizi Zone Change(III)
D Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) 0 Planned Development(III) D Zone Change Annexation(IV)
D Conditional Use(III) 0 Sensitive I ands Review(I,II or III) D Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV)
D Historic Overlay(II or III) 0 Site Development Review(II)
D Home Occupation(II) 0 Subdivision(II or III)
LOCATION WHERE-PROPOSED ACI1VI TY WILL OCCUR(Address d avarlaik)
TkfaiReAx LOJT'N/DOSe. s.t? Datarit4.041704 807 '7o *Jo 72/
S51 - / AB 7-c L-dr /o0
TOTAL SITE SIZE - ZONING CLASSIFICATION
j- 3, i9 /0-G Gy - AID
APPLICANT"
LX+.t'b c-.6-5 F-R-7 c/o Gc$44,4 4 irat,4i9Air on-0 Vi SG✓146
MAILING ADDRESS/QTY/STATE/ZIP
2
24 S/ 3...t) SS y e -r_49-7n/ 02. r 7o fo Z
PHONE NO. FAX NO.
/63E3 — Z 41¢ 'b 3/!0 38 •-o SF Z3
' PRIMARY OONTACr PERSON PHONE NO.
1340412 pi sfras 57->3/33:-) —&S
PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list if more dux oat)
c ?a e-4 5 7
MAILING ADDRESS/QTY/STATE/ZIP
22-i 57 Sc4) SS—Pi / "E. 7264-c-4-71/N/ *V2 ?(:)4,2
PHONE NO. FAX NO.
*When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written
authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form
or submit a written authorization with this application.
PROPc ALSUMMARY(Please be specdsc)
-24.2%1 c r C '71.) C 6 ( -7-( - E PP vve=Rt.9-,1
t
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET.
is\curpin\masters\land use applications\land use permit app.doc
. •
•
THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT:
♦ If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and
subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval.
♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are
true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, map be revoked if it is
found that any such statements are false.
♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria, and understands
the requirements for approving or denying the application(s).
SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED.
--1 (— — / 2-//3701
e s Signa re Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
•
Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date
Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date
�) is v t~ ci u 1� I�- • No. 4{�3 I. 1
DEC 2 0 2007
U • •
•
rvices
• Our comnlitnnCnt it chi. . fwa Fab number
Sensitive Area Pre-Screening 107-0011(3 1
Site Assessment
Jufl6dlctlon:, G.i7'1 Alm' hls4e-O
_ .�.�.�.
Property Information: (example 1$234A801400) Owner Information:
Taxiot 1D(e);_2,'51- iAA Name: TIOC.4(.. A 5
Company: 4'b ammewix.,7E7YQNt A terStOR.T
Address:
j.
tt slnl L S 04.5 St'47 E
Site Address;
Phone/Fax.
• Nearest Cross Street: 2 0 tAhk E-mail
Development Activity: Check all that apply Applicant information:
Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms,deck garage) 0 Name: L4MlV slum.
Lot Une Adjustment 0 Minor Land Partition ❑ Company.TM ketip/ ce45, ■
Residential Condominium ❑ Commercial Condominium ❑ Address:_ 70ST) tw AgtiPLAAV oA
Residential Subdivision (] commercial Subdivision ❑ '1-14421,11.411 al u.4
Single Lot Commercial ❑ Multi Lot Commercial ❑ phone/Fex:st,3/W/3.-vc,e, l3/44 3-.2efl
Other, 2ontE Wow&B oMyy - E-mail• L SrbuT ! TM 1Ct139Z41fr9,il
cONsnPtiono 1,o iraN
Will the project Involve any off&te work: YES❑ NO® Unknown ❑ Location and description of off-site work
Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project; MbS Fot2- A zd t'l�rtrtLeEr
Li - - i. • ••/ mil 1t,. iii, • . - • —! t- -
"hls epplmatlon door '• rep to the need for Orad ng and Beaton Control Perait;s,Connection Permits,euildtnp Permits,S to Development
Permits.DEQ 1200-C Permit or other pormlts as leaved by the Department of Environmental Wordy.Department of State lends and/or Oepanment or
the Army COE,MI required permits and approvals must be obtained and cotrtpreted under eppileabbte local,state,end federal law,
By signing this form.the Owner or Owner's ev hodeed spent a/representative.edmowtedees end agrees utet employees of Clean Water Servtcos have authority
to enter cite protect au at aA reasonable times for the propose of Inepeolinp present lite conditions em gathering Information rotated to the project site. I certify
that I am MA I/with the infofinetlon contained In tide document,and to the best of my knowledge and beget,this information Is true,omelets.and emirate
Print/Type Nome: -. 'sirtiteT Pr'ulVType Ttle: PLONA4Agi a edv;'u[,
Signature: fa fir___ ___ Date: i 19 c
e. FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY
❑ Sensitive areas potentialy wrist on bite or within 200'of the site. TI, CIE A LICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSME
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIQER OTTER, If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on
adjacent properties,a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required.
❑ Based on review of the submitted materials and beet available Information Senaltive areas do not appear to exist on site or
within 200'of the site, This Sensitive Ares Pre-Screening Site Assessment doe&NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and
protect water quaky sensitive aces If they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider
letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and
9.. completed under applicable local,State,and federal law.
Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project Will not significantly
impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s)found near the site.This Sensitive Area Prescreening Site Assessment
does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas If they are subsequently
discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20.Section
3.02.1. All required permits end approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state,and federal law.
❑ This Service Provider Letter Is not valid unless CWS approved efts plane)are attached.
❑ The proposed activity does riot meet the definition of development or the tot was platted after 9/9195 ORS 92.040(2), NO SITE
ASSESSMENT 0 RVICE PRO IDER LETTER 16 REQUIRED.
Reviewed By: Date: /Prix iJ
2550 SW IeMboro Highway•talsboro,Oregon e7129 rji x
Phone: (5D3)set-sloe•PAC(505)551.4455•!re•Or•]slnsetsaer•iceSOrti
Witt.Mn't.tsar
• •
PRE-APPLICATION NOTES
TM Rippey.Genstiritetien Engineers
December 4,2007
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher,Dick Bewersdorff
APPLICANT: Lans Stout,TM Rippey Construction Engineers
PROPERTY LOCATION: 12625 SW 70th Avenue;southeast corner of SW 72"d and Dartmouth
TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 2S101AB-00100 &00300
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: To remove the Planned Development (PD) overlay on Tax Lot 100
and rezone as C-G (General Commercial).
COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONING: Tax Lot 100,C-G (PD);Tax Lot 300,MUE.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting is required for the proposed zone change.
NARRATIVE
Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies.
(Note that this list is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application,and that
additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application,or as other
issues are raised. In other words, this is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's
responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1,2, 3,4, 5, 7, 8,9,& 12
Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380.030:
Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.050,using standards of approval below. The Commission shall decide
zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments.
The proposed zone change is a quasi-judicial amendment because the Comprehensive Plan
Designation for both the C-G (PD) and C-G is "General Commercial".
A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a
quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards:
1.Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations;
2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other
applicable implementing ordinance; and
S •
3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the
comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the
development application.
Section 18.390.050 Decision-Making Procedures (Type III process)
Application must include information on the application form, a narrative addressing the relevant
criteria in sufficient detail for review and action,the required fee, and an impact study:
The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services.The
study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system,including bikeways, the drainage
system, the parks system, the water system,the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the
development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose
improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on
the public at large,public facilities systems,and affected private property users. In situations where
the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant
shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports
the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the
projected impacts of the development.
Approval or denial of a Type III action shall be based on standards and criteria,which shall be set
forth in the development ordinance, and which shall relate approval on denial of a discretionary permit
application to the development ordinance and,when appropriate,to the comprehensive plan for the
area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive
plan for the City as a whole;
The decision of the Planning Commission in a Type III action is final for purposes of appeal.The
decision of the City Council on any Type III appeal is the final decision of the City.
Application Fees for a Quasi Judicial Zoning Map Amendment: $3,200.00
Decision timeline is approximately 6 to 8 weeks from receipt of a complete application.
PREPARED BY
Gary Pagenstecher
Associate Planner
•
r
AF DAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME
PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW:
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard,OR 97223.8189
IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT &COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE
TIME OF APPLICATION.
MAILING:
I,•LANts ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the iL- day of I -CK6 k_ ,
2007 ,I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at
(or near) 7 2 K% A ,a copy of which notice so mailed
is attached hereto and made a part of hereof.
I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated
above in the United States Post Office located at '71.6064-49 r rs4
with postage prepaid thereon.
Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public)
POSTING:
I, 61-1■5 3 .7 ,do affirm that I soi(represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application
for ?e..% CA4444.�� a RV 0201? -t,J affecting the land located at(state the approximate
location(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) 2S1— I AT, -ve.x. (o—r 100 .# 3c��
,and did on the I day of 06tc.+.Le - ,20t a7
personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a= c-/50tz t tai Zt_en1 land use application,and the time,
date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposaL
The sign was posted at S(TE ribir.nAc,e e.N 5,A) 72.114-f /JrI7 S:&) Q4es M«LT{
(state location you posted notice on property)
Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public)
(THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE)
STATE OF )
County of ) ss.
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of ,20 .
NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON
My Commission Expires:
i:\curpin\mown\neighborhood meetings\affidavit of mailing•poning neighborhood rneetingdoc
Page 5
•
I
Elf q‘lik.IPPEY 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100
Tigard.OR 97223
C I SULTING ENGINEERS Phone:(503)443-3900
Fax:(503)443-3700
December 10, 2007
RE: Neighborhood meeting
Dear Interested Party:
T.M. Rippey Consulting Engineers represents the developer of the property located at the southeast
corner of SW Dartmouth St. and SW 72nd Ave.
As you may be aware,there has been a previous neighborhood meeting to discuss this project. However,
the application process will now include a zone change to remove "Planned Development" overlay zone
from the part of the site that is now zoned"CG-PD",as well as a partition to create three parcels within
the development. Finally,while the development plan itself remains as previously discussed,the City's time
frame for completing the application has been exceeded,so a new neighborhood meeting is required.
•
You are invited to attend a meeting on:
Thursday, December 27, 2007; 6:00 PM
The meeting will be held at:
TM Rippey Consulting Engineers
7650 SW Beveland St. Suite 100
Tigard OR 97223
Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior
to the submittal of the application to the city.
I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503/443-3900 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lans Stout
Planning Consultant
ICITY of TI6ARQ
iGEOGRAPHIC INf ORYATION avt1EM
6AYL R ST
Q �-
_ AREA NOTIFIED
) ) —c-- .._______
r i > (500')
w
Q
MR
>~ FOR: Lans Stout
TM Rippey Cons. Eng.
U1tNNNN
ST RE: 2S101AB; 100/300
•
e >~ .
UUNNtIaa
waessss I�i___
UUSlaW2N I � (0
• H O NN•
<tJ
��__� UUNeNSN MINN
outNNUa 13110X0410 �' Property owner information
13011;1111411 oOI is valid for 3 months from
the date printed on this map.
AMES N
DARTM•
UltiYNUI ‘\ \ \ "\
\.` 1 \ ,\, .....
11.1L 1 matetuntile . inn—tirNtoto
mnwom \
1
LU
N MHURST
ST •
• 11131NN,N N
..____ co
HERMO
_____
So WAY al.uttN01 n 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 4
a Nasal, `. NN Y-340 loll
11111131111111 -r
6 S e:,
RD TIGARD:
iiiiiimBEVELAND
Information on this map is lot general location only and
BEVELAND should be verified with the Development Services Division.
RD 13125 SW Hall Blvd
L Tigard,OR 97223
(303)839.4171
__ http://www,ci.iigard.or.us
Community Development Plot date:Dec 6,2007;C:lmagicWMAGIC03.APR
1E 36DC-02504 2S101AB•00601 •
AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC • FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC
1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 7130 SW ELMHURST ST
PORTLAND,OR 97209 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S101AB-01100 1S136DC-03900
BAUER DANIEL E& FARZA JAVAD
BAUER BARBARA G 7110 SW CLINTON ST
12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S136DC-04600 2S101AB-00300
COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY INC FRY DOUGLAS
450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 23077 SW NEWLAND RD
ORLANDO,FL 32801 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070
2S101AA-01800 2 101AB-00100
CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K FR OU S
PO BOX 23970 23077 EWLAND RD
TIGARD,OR 97281 SONVILL , R 97070
2S101AA-04900 2S101AB-00600
CORLISS-1 LLC GUILLEUX FEMY
PO BOX 23970 18200 DAVIS ST
TIGARD,OR 97281 SANDY,OR 97055
151360C-04400 2S101AB-00801
DARTMOUTH SQUARE LLC HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC
BY ZIMMLER DEVELOPMENT BY COOPER CHASE LLC
7165 SW FIR LP#10 17952 SW PARRISH LN
TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140
1S13600-07500 2 01AB-00800
DARTMOUTH TOWNHOMES LLC HA ON PA ARTMENTS LLC
2508 NE 24TH AVE BY CO HASE LLC
PORTLAND,OR 97212 17952 RRISH LN
RWOOD, 97140
136DD-07600' 01AB-00900
DA MO H TOWNHOMES LLC TON P APARTMENTS LLC
2508 24TH AVE BY CO CHASE LLC
RTLA OR 97212 179 W PA SH LN
ERWOOD,OR 7140
2S101AB-00400 2 01AB-01000
DITTER MARK W • • 'TON PA' APARTMENTS LLC
PRISCILLA A BY CO • ' HASE LLC
7070 SW ELMHURST ST 17952 = - •RRISH LN
TIGARD,OR 97223 S- RWOOD, •• 97140
ISSUE/C-04000 2S101AB-00700
ESLINGER CASEY HERAS MIGUEL RAMON
7140 SW CLINTON ST ELAINE C
TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
• 2Sa01A8-00303 1S136DC-03600 •
HUNT CLAYTON R& MYERS FAMILY LLC
GORANSON NELS R 12670 SW 68TH PKWY
7040 SW ELMHURST ST STE#200
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 136DC-03800 1 S 136DC-03700
IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L MYERS FAMILY LLC
5285 SW MEADOWS RD#369 FIVE CENTERPOINTE DR#280
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035
2S101AA-02000 2S101AB-00302
LANDMARK FORD INC NORDLING GEORGE DALE&
ATTN:JIM CORLISS JOANNE TRUSTEES
PO BOX 23970 6695 SW HYLAND WAY
TIGARD,OR 97281 BEAVERTON,OR 97008
2S101AA•05200 2S101AA-02301
LANDMARK FORD INC OPDAL ELLA J
PO BOX 23970 12170 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S101AB-00500 2S101BA-00101
LAU JOSHUA L& PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES
MARCHWICK SARAH B ATTN:N PIVEN
7100 SW ELMHURST ST 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97224
2S 101 AB-00101 1S13600-06900
MARTIN GORDON R ROTH J T JR&THERESA A
8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200
PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223
2 S 101 AB-00200 1 S 136DD•07001
MARTIN GORDON R ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A
BY ADAMS&STEWART 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200
8565 SW BARBUR BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97219
2S101BA-00400 1S136DD-07601
MARTIN GORDON S SALARIE MARZIE
12265 SW 72ND AVE 19432 WILDERNESS DR
TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068
2 101BA-00402 2S101AB-00301
MA IN G ON S SCOTT JOHN D/DEBORA K
12265 72ND AVE 7085 SW ELMHURST
T RD,0 7223 TIGARD,OR 97223
2S101AA-02300 1S13600-07300
MATHANY A JAMES SORENSEN JOHN A&
PO BOX 1769 EVANGELINE P
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 250 STAMPHER RD
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034
1�136L0.06300 1S136DC-042000
SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC TL C
15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PO B 716
BEAVERTON,OR 97006 TLAND,OR 97298
1S1360D-06200 15136DC-04300
S'-CHT '• ELOPMENT INC TL LC
15408►' MILLIKAN WAY PO B 25716
. •VER c. OR 97006 P TLA ,OR 97298
1 13600-06100 2S101BA-00401
SP HT ELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST
1540 MILLIKAN WAY BY ADAMS&STEWART
VERTO , OR 97006 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD
PORTLAND,OR 97219
1S136D0-06600 2S101BA-00100
SP T ELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST
15400 MILLIKAN WAY MARTIN GORDON R TR
B VERT OR 97006 BY ADAMS&STEWART
8565 SW BARBUR BLVD
PORTLAND,OR 97219
2S101AA-02900 1S136DC-04500
TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER WINCO FOOD LLC
LTD PARTNERSHIP ATTN:SUSAN BUSCHE
ATTN:GREG SPECHT PO BOX 5756
15400 MILLIKAN WAY BOISE,ID 83705
BEAVERTON,OR 97006
2S101AA-09100
TI D CORPORA •E CENTER
LTD PA NER P
ATTN:GR SPECHT
154 LLIKA AY
VERTON,OR 006
2S101 AA-03800
• •RD CORPO-• CENTER
LTD P -TNE"-IP
ATTN:G-• SPECHT
1540. ILLI WAY
-' VERTON,OR - 006
2S101BA-00300
TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LLC
12265 SW 72ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 136DC-04100
TLB LLC
PO BOX 25716
PORTLAND,OR 97298
136DC-044
TLB
PO 716
RTLAND, R 97298
• •
Mildren Design Group
Nathan and Ann Murdock Attn: Gene Mildren
PO Box 231265 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120
Tigard, OR 97281 Tigard, OR 97223
Sue Rorman Susan Beilke
11250 SW 82"d Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach
11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Diane Baldwin
3706 Kinsale Lane SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
Gretchen Buehner
13249 SW 136th Place
Tigard, OR 97224
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 4B
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 6-Aug-07
•
NEIGHBOR MEETING: FRY SITE AT 72ND AND DARTMOUTH
MEETING MINUTES 12-27-07 6:00 PM
Attendance list attached.
Lans Stout described the project and the additional steps in the development process that
will be forthcoming, including the zone change to remove the PD overlay, followed by
Site Design Review and Partition applications. Several questions were raised about the
relationship of this project to other property in the area. The site plan and use of the
buildings also were discussed.
The participants raised the following issues:
1. Traffic on Elmhurst will be a problem until it is developed the entire length to 72nd
The residents feel that temporary barricades should be installed.
2. The two-story design of Building C is a concern to the neighbors to the south. It was
agreed that the design team would try to lower the elevation of the building as much as
possible,and that a grading plan would be provided and explained when it is ready.
3. Construction noise is an issue.
4. The wetland fill and enhancement was discussed but it is not a concern.
5. Timing of the signal installation and street improvements is seen as very important
given the current traffic conditions.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.
By: Lans Stout
I •
0 0
_ . crf- .6. _.C, reg., NP/Ce.1.-I-a:42 Al
07. .e2, c?7.
Ca,. _ . . . . . . ...
c•t9Y45
57T „.
.........._. ._ . .. .. _ctejri,ect-wf e.7,4kiniFe-45.
- • . .... ....___ _ . . .. ... ._. .... . .. . ... .. . . .
Sc.. .E.1.6.,.,4,. s...r Tilg,r-.4 0(1..___.....„
•, •
. S BM SieJet tAiilist‘— . - -.---..--------...- -- . — ------.. -------------
.J
/ ' 5— ....) 7,9.!... R •
--.1-Ax.ces2, "0L, -cr•-.
._____________
Th'. ..r•-- i 0 r- .
_________ .......____: : \_i:‘\ ‘._\ \.__...._\ %,_.-- -.01 ___...._ 1p__,
W. OVVIIWN SI --1--'‘
-,.:,
•f
......___ _ ------- . __. ----------------
•y FL,v■A -1... c.. 1_, @_, ts,oL _ c_ory •
0 :
c 44 0(3-7
. . . . . . _ . . . . . _. . . . . . . . _ .
. _ . .. .
- -
c •
•
351 - ---- --
Wpion County,Oregon 2006.025727
03/0312005 03:42:15 PM
D•M CW1 {fist KORUKEWALO
$35.00 0.00$11.00•Total•$31.00
`� THIS SPACE RESERVI IIULIflflh1I1liu1li1flVliL 1 IIIIIII
M•
• ^ 00111227200800257270070074
1,Jerry Morron,D000tmSIMs i merkmolTautl.n -
end Ei-0ekta Cant* Clark for Wm/M1to41 cure/.
Orson,Is%Way sally Wit,*within Mtunont N ,_.
wrleM woo guava end n'co_r usd`la a boat,e/ �.
nconis of um ow*. ll d dAw . � ,
,pry R.Nana Biretta GuSM Clete end Teuton, `: �
After recording return to:
Providence St.Vincent Medical
Foundation
9205 SW Barnes Road
Portland,OR 97225
File No.: 7034-672910(G3M)
Date: February 21, 2006
0 Map/Tax Lot # 2S11AO-00100
Tax Account#R0456946
TRUST DEED
cl (Assignment Restricted)
THIS DEED OF TRUST, made this Twenty-first day of February, 2006, between Douglas Fry, as
GRANTOR, and First American Title Insurance , as TRUSTEE, and Providence St. Vincent
Medical Foundation, as BENEFICIARY.
O WITNESSETH: Grantor irrevocably conveys to Trustee in trust, with power of sale,certain real property
in Washington County,Oregon,described as:
•
0
See Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein.
1
Q Together with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, including easements,and all other rights
1L. thereunto belonging or in any way now or hereafter appertaining, and the rents, issues, and profits
thereof, together with all fixtures now or hereafter attached to or used in connection with said real
estate.
C
VI• .
8
E •
R Z Note: The Trust Deed Act provides that the Trustee hereunder must be either an attorney who is an active member of the
0o Oregon State Bar,a bank,trust company or savings and loan association authorized to do business under the laws of
E Oregon or the United States,a title insurance company authorized to insure title to real property of the state,its
g subsidiaries,affiliates,agents or branches,the United States or any agency thereof,or an escrow agent licensed under ORS
c 096.505 to 896.505.
8▪.2 *WARNING: 12 USC 1701/-S regulates and may prohibit exercise of this option.
Page
•
•
B e- -. i .. - - la - sic YU".iIaifail(0I!. — ... _ . _ . . .
•
•
APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued Fie No.:7034-672910(G3t4)
• Date:02/21/2006
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PERFORMANCE of each agreement of Grantor herein contained and
payment of the sum of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars($1,750,000.00),with
interest thereon according to the terms of a promissory note of even date herewith, payable to
Beneficiary or order, and made by Grantor, the final payment of principal and interest hereof, if not
sooner paid, to be due and payable September 03, 2007.
In the event the within described property, or any part thereof, or any interest therein is sold, agreed to
be sold, conveyed, assigned or alienated by the Grantor without first having obtained the written consent
or approval of the Beneficiary,then,at the Beneficiary's option, all obligations secured by this instrument,
irrespective of the maturity dates expressed therein, or herein, shalt become immediately due and
payable.
Grantor agrees:
1. To protect, preserve and maintain the property in good condition and repair; not to remove or
demolish any building or improvement therein; not to commit or permit any waste of said property.
2. To complete or restore promptly and in good and workmanlike manner any building or
improvement, which may be constructed, damaged or destroyed thereon, and pay when due all costs
incurred therefore.
•
3. To provide and continuously maintain insurance on the buildings now or hereafter erected on the
said property against loss or damage by fire and other hazards as the Beneficiary may require, in an
amount not less than $1,750,000.00, written by companies acceptable to the Benefidary, with loss
payable to Beneficiary; proof of Insurance shall be delivered to the Beneficiary as soon as issued.
4. To comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting
said property.
5. To keep said premises free from construction liens and to pay all taxes, assessments and other
charges that may be levied or assessed upon or against said property before any part of such taxes,
assessments and other charges become past due or delinquent and promptly deliver receipt of payment
to Beneficiary.
6. Should the Grantor fail to make payment of any taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, liens or
other charges payable by Grantor, either by direct payment or by providing Beneficiary with funds with
which to make such payment, Beneficiary may, at its option, make payment thereof, and the amount so
paid, with interest at the rate set forth in the note secured hereby, together with the obligations of
Grantor, described in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Trust Deed section,shall be added to and become a part
of the debt secured by this Trust Deed, without waiver of any rights arising from breach of any of the
covenants hereof and for such payments, with interest as aforesaid, the property herein before
described, as well as the Grantor,shall be bound to the same extent that they are bound for the payment
of the obligation herein described and all such payments shall be immediately due and payable without
notice, and the nonpayment thereof shall, at the option of the Beneficiary, render all sums secured by
this Trust Deed immediately due and payable and constitute a breach of this Trust Deed.
7. To pay all costs, fees and expenses of this trust Including the cost of title search, as well as the
other costs and expenses of the Trustee incurred in connection with or in enforcing this obligation
together with trustees'and attorneys'fees actually incurred.
8. To appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security rights or
•
powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; and in any suit, action or proceeding in which the Beneficiary or
Trustee may appear, induding evidence of title and the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorneys' fees. The
amount of attorneys'fees mentioned in this paragraph 7 above in all cases shall be fixed by the trial court
and in the event of an appeal from any judgment or decree of the trial court, Grantor further agrees to
pay such sum as the appellate court shall adjudge reasonable as the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorneys'
fees on such appeal.
Page 2
•
• • crea e• WI p• ac ory -ro na version .r. .p• . . . o-
•
APN:R0456946 Trust Deed•continued Fde No.:7034-672910(WK)
Date:02/21/2006
The parties mutually agree:
1. In the event that any portion of the property is taken under the right of eminent domain or
condemnation, Beneficiary shall have the right, If it so elects, to require that all or any portion of the
monies payable as compensation for such taking, which are in excess of the amount required to pay all
reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys'fees, both in the trial and appellate courts, necessarily paid or
incurred by Beneficiary in such proceedings, be applied upon the indebtedness secured hereby; and
Grantor agrees, at its own expense, to take such actions and execute such instruments as shall be
necessary in obtaining such compensation promptly upon Beneficiary's request.
2 . Upon any default by Grantor hereunder, Beneficiary may, at any time without notice, either in
person, by agent,or by a receiver to be appointed by a court, and without regard to the adequacy of any
security for the indebtedness hereby secured,enter upon and take possession of the property or any part
thereof, in its own name, sue or otherwise collect the rents, issues and profits, including those past due
and unpaid, and apply the same, less costs and expenses of operation and collection, including
reasonable attorneys' fees upon any indebtedness secured hereby, in such order as Beneficiary may
determine.
3. The entering upon and taking possession of the property, the collection of such rents, issues and
profits, or the proceeds of fire and other insurance policies or compensation or awards for any taking or
damage of the property, and the application or release thereof as aforesaid, shall not cure or waive any
default or notice of default hereunder, or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice.
• 4. Upon default by Grantor in payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in Grantor's
performance of any agreement contained hereunder, time being of the essence with respect to such •
payment and/or performance,the Beneficiary may declare all sums secured hereby Immediately due and
payable. In such event Beneficiary, at its election, may proceed to foreclose this trust deed by
advertisement and sale,or may direct the Trustee to pursue any other right or remedy,either at law or in
equity,which the Beneficiary may have. In the event the Beneficiary elects to foreclose by advertisement
and sale,the Beneficiary or the Trustee shall execute and cause to be recorded a written notice of default
and election to sell the said described real property to satisfy the obligation secured hereby whereupon
the Trustee shall fax the time and place of sale, give notice thereof as then required by law and proceed
to foreclose this trust deed In the manner provided In ORS 86.735 to 86.795.
5. The Grantor and those persons authorized by ORS 86.753 may cure any default(s) 5 days before
the date the Trustee has designated for sale. Any cure of default(s) shall require payment of or
tendering performance and the payment of all costs and expenses actually incurred in enforcing the
obligations of this Trust Deed, including, but not limited to, trustees'and attorneys'fees as authorized by
law.
In the absence of any such cure, the Trustee will enforce the obligations of this Trust Deed in
accordance with paragraph 4 herein and as authorized and required by applicable taw.
6. When Trustee sells pursuant to the powers provided herein, Trustee shall apply the proceeds of
sale to payment of(1)the expenses of sale, including the compensation of the Trustee and a reasonable
charge by Trustee's attorney, (2)the obligation secured by the trust deed, (3) to all persons having
recorded liens subsequent to the interest of the Trustee in the trust deed as their interest may appear in
the order of their priority and(4)the surplus,if any,to the Grantor or to his successor in interest entitled
to such surplus.
7. Beneficiary may from time to time appoint a successor or successors to any Trustee named herein
or to any successor trustee appointed hereunder. Upon such an appointment, and without conveyance
to the successor trustee, the latter shall be vested with all title, powers and duties conferred upon any
Trustee herein named or appointed hereunder. Each such appointment and substitution shall be made
by written instrument executed by Beneficiary, which, when recorded in the mortgage records of the
Page 3
•
-'Ur createcfwim pdffaciory i,ro trial version wWw.parfactorv.com
•
APN:R0456946 •Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034.672910(G3M)
Date:02/21/2006
county or counties in which the property is situated, shall be conclusive proof of proper appointment of
the successor trustee.
The Grantor covenants to and agrees with the Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's successors in interest that
the Grantor is lawfully seized in fee simple of the real property and has a valid, unencumbered title
thereto,except as may be set forth in any addendum or exhibit attached hereto, and that the Grantor will
warrant and forever defend the same against all persons whomsoever.
This deed applies to, inures to the benefit of, and binds all parties hereto,their heirs, legatees, devisees,
administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The term Beneficiary shall
mean the holder and owner, including pledgee, of the contract secured hereby, whether or not named as
a Beneficiary herein. In construing this deed and whenever the context so requires the singular number
includes the plural.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written.
glas F
OFFICIALSEAL
GLORIA MILLER
STATE OF Oregon % ISM F
)ss. MY COMMISSION WIRES APR.it 21306
County of Washington )
This instrument was acknowledged befo me on this � ' day of , 20.01
by Douglas Fry.
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires:
•
Page
• cre- -i I P• • 7 - • la - I•- .. ' .•Ioi,f44r.1y. •._ ...
l V
•
•
•
APN:R0456946 Trust Deed•continued File No.:7034.672910(63M)
Date:02/21/2006
REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE(To be used only when obligations have been paid.)
TO: ,Trustee
The undersigned is the legal owner and holder of all indebtedness secured by the foregoing trust deed. Al suite;secured by the trust
deed have been fully paid and satisfied. You hereby are directed,on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of the trust
deed or pursuant to statute,t cancel all evidences of Indebtedness secured by the trust deed(which are delivered to you herewith together
with the trust deed)and to reconvey,without warranty,to the parties designated by the terms of the trust deed,the estate now held by you
under the same.
Mail Reconveyance to: Dated:
By
By
By
Beneficiary
Do not lose or destroy this Deed of Trust OR THE NOTE which it secures.
Both must be delivered to the Trustee before cancellation before reconveyance Is made.
•
•
Page 5
-'DF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactorv.com
c ► .. •
APN:R0456946 Trust Deed•continued File No.:7034-672910(G3M)
Date:02/21/2006
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Parcel I:
A portion of that certain tract as described in Book 262,Page 471,Washington County Deed Records and
State of Oregon,as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim.No. 38 in Section 1,
Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian;thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a
point;thence North 88°34'East 359.5 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein to be
conveyed;thence North 0°20'East 215 feet to a point;thence South 88°34'West 107.4 feet to a point;
thence North 0°20'East 210.65 feet to a point;thence Wirth 88°34'East 307.4 feet to a point; thence
South 0°20'West 425.65 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 200 feet to the point of true
beginning of this description.
Excepting therefrom the following:
Beginning at a point which bears North 88°34 East 75 feet from the Southeast corner of Parcel II of that
tract deeded to CJ. and D.A.Fleming recorded in Book 266, Page 23, Deed Records,Washington County,
Oregon; said point being North 3°10'West 451 feet and North 88°34' East 330.23 feet from the
Southeast corner of the Geo. Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38; thence running from the true point
of beginning North 0°20'East 210.65 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 75 feet to a point; thence
South 0°20'West 210.65 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 75 feet to the place of beginning.
Further excepting therefrom the following:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Parcel U of that tract deeded to CJ.and D.A.Fleming recorded in
Book 266,Page 23, Deed Records,Washington County,Oregon, said point being North 3°10'West 451
feet and North 88°34'East 255.23 feet from the Southeast corner of the Geo.Richardson Donation Land
Claim No. 38;thence running from the true point of beginning North 0°20'East 210.65 feet to a point;
thence North 88°34'East 75 feet to a point; thence South 0°20'West 210.65 feet to a point;thence
South 88°34'West 75 feet to the true place of beginning.
•
Further excepting therefrom the following:
A portion of that tract conveyed to Emil Nordling, et ux, by Deed recorded October 29, 1954 in Book 362,
Page 67, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon:
•
Page 6
• crea e• wt p• -c •ry -ro la ers • .r.., •c •rv. o-
•
• APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(CAM)
Date:02/21/2006
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38 in Section 1,
Township 2 South,Range 1 West,of the Willamette Meridian,in the County of Washington and State of
Oregon; thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a point;thence North 88°34' East 459.5 feet to the true
point of beginning of the tract to be herein described;thence North 0°20'East 185 feet;thence North
88°34'East 100 feet to the East line of aforementioned Nordling Tract;thence South 0°20'West along
said East line 185 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence South 88°34'West 100 feet to the true
point of beginning.
Further excepting therefrom the following:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38, in Section 1,
Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the Willamette Meridian,in the County of Washington and State of
Oregon; thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 359.5 feet to the true
point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 0°20'East 185 feet;thence North 88°34'
East 100 feet;thence South 0°20'West 185 feet; thence South 88°34'West 100 feet to the true point of
beginning.
Together with an easement for road and street purposes described as follows:
Beginning at a point North 3°10'West 421 feet from the Southeast corner of the George Richardson
Donation Land Claim No.38, in Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the Willamette Meridian;
thence North 88°34'East 370.8 feet to a point;thence North 0°20'East 30 feet to a point;thence South
88°34'West 362.63 feet to a point;thence South 3°10 East 30 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel II:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, in Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the
Willamette Meridian,in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon,and running
thence Southerly along the West line of said Lot, 368 feet to a point; thence North 88°94'East 575 feet,
more or less,to the East line of said Lot 1; thence Northerly following the East line of said Lot 1, 368 feet
to the Northeast corner thereof;thence Westerly along the North line thereof 608 feet to the place of
beginning.
Except therefrom the following:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the
Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; running thence Southerly along
the West line of said lot, 368 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract to be herein described;
thence North 88°94'East 238 feet to a point; thence Northerly parallel to the West line of said lot a
distance of 125 feet;thence South 88°94'West 238 feet to a point on the West line of said Lot 1;thence
Southerly 125 feet, more or less,to the point of beginning.
Also excepting that portion for right of way described in Deed recorded October 8, 1999 as Fee No.
99114855.
Page 7
POE created%Mth pdfFactory Pro trial version www.patlarturv.com
• •
To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner
From: John & Debora Scott
George & JoAnn Nordling
(Elmhurst Street Residents)
File#: Zone Change 2007-00018
File Name: Fry Zone Change
This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that
due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled
for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the
state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had
discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots
surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008, you indicated that
we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is
overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be
affected with these zone changes and the development of this property.
•
As with any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry
Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind
our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small
commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were
shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive-
thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes
is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause.
Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the
type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for
this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical
building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also
have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines
and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers
that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the
development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording
contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an"adult entertainment"
business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type
of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our
households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates
increase when there is an "adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city
allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle?
If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started, a concern we have
is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause.
Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made?
•
•
Pg 2
Our final concern is that we feel that there is potential of losing home value if the
proposed development occurs and feel that based on this fact, appropriate compensation
would be needed for this loss of value. Both of our families agree and are not opposed to
new development within the Tigard Triangle, including the land behind our residences.
We would consider selling our properties to the development company assuming that the
offer price is fair and equitable. By offering our homes we feel this will provide the
company with more developed space to attract potential businesses.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. We anticipate responses to the
questions above, and request correspondence at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Debora and John Scott
JoAnn and George Nordling
• •
March 3, 2008
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard, Oregon
RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fry - 2007-00018
I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD) to
just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170`h Avenue
in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows:
I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan
our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was
one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a
group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan
(CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the
Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be
made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the
old version.
The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard
for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section(18.350) of the CP provides ways in
which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do
consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a
PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found
here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we
rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would
be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal
5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving
water quality,wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property
currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as
adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very
significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native
songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically
there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some
development.
It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in
place,as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant
natural resources.
We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied
since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the
requirements of the PD that help to create"unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard
in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some
0
development in order to create a vibrant, walkable community that increases the livability
for all of Tigard.
We also request the applicant's request be denied because on the Public Hearing Notice
that was mailed, under the Applicable Review Criteria,the section for the PD section of
the code, 18.350, was NOT listed and should have been. This is a serious problem and
we request the Notice be sent again and that the Hearing scheduled for tonight be delayed
until all parties that received the original Notice have sufficient time to review ALL
applicable criteria and comment if they so choose.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Susan Beilke
Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
Vice-President, Friends of Summer Creek
• •
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director
RE: Goal 2: Land-Use Planning, Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action
Measures.
DATE: February 28, 2008
Attached is the assembled Goal 2: Land Use Planning, Goals,Policies, and Recommended Action
Measures. We are providing these to you in two formats: one with, and one without, commentary.
We have incorporated your comments in a way that we feel meets the City's need for legislative
tools to create,adapt, and update its land-use program. As we discussed at our February 25 meeting,
the city currently lacks a substantive foundation on which to base its legislative and many quasi-
judicial land-use decisions. This Comprehensive Plan chapter, along with others,would address this
gaP.
We appreciate your patience through this process.The "building block" exercise was successful with
several citizen groups we have worked with thus far;however, I'm concerned about the expressed
level of process dissatisfaction by some members of the Planning Commission. I want to stress that
we wished to work with the Planning Commission from "ground zero," as we have done with other
citizens, to create Comprehensive Plan chapters. Another objective was to bring other citizens into
the process, along with the Planning Commission, and provide them an opportunity to participate.
The next time we do a similar policy or ordinance development exercise,we will work first with the
Planning Commission to determine what kind of process it would like to follow. Our objective is to
help the Commission's meetings be efficient, productive, and hopefully satisfying.
In addition, staff is always open to hear from the Commissioners "off-line" about any concerns they
may have. Doing so would give us an opportunity to make adjustments ahead of time, and help our
valuable meeting time become even more productive.
Thank you.
Copy: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director
Darren Wyss,Associate Planner
Marissa Daniels,Assistant Planner
File: mpc22608goal2
I\LRP11a\Doreen\PC\PC Packea for 2808\PC Packet for 3-3-08 Public I fearing\Memo-October 24,2006Aoc
•
•
Goal 2: Land Use Draft Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures
February 26, 2008
Goal:
2.1. Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan,implementing regulations and action plans as
the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program.
Policies:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and
regional requirements, and shall also serve its citizens' own interests.
Policy 1, Commentary: State acknowledged Comprehensive Plans consistent with state law and
administrative rules are required by the state of Oregon. Coordination of local planning efforts with
other agencies and jurisdictions are required to ensure local policies and implementing actions are
not at cross purposes or contradictory with state law, policies, and rules of agencies and other
jurisdictions. In addition, jurisdictions in the Portland Metro area must also coordinate their
Planning efforts with Metro to comply with the Portland Metropolitan Area Functional Plan and
other state/federal mandated Metro responsibilities such as natural resource and transportation
planning.
However, the City of Tigard must also represent the aspirations and desires of its own citizens and
work with the state,Metro and other jurisdictions to ensure its own interests are pursued. In
addition to signaling that the City will comply with state and Metro requirements, this policy states
that the City's own interests are important.
2. The City's land use regulations,related plans and implementing actions shall be consistent
with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2 Commentary: The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are the primary
approval criteria for legislative land use regulations,related plans, and Comprehensive Plan / Zoning
map amendments. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the legislative foundation for City actions
related to the use of the land. It is important that the Comprehensive Plan specifically establish that
it is at the top of this hierarchy.
3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use
program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies.
Policy 3 Commentary: This Policy is a standard coordination policy that signals the City's intent to
coordinate its land use related actions consistent with state law and administrative rules.
4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of
incentives and redevelopment programs.
5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and
Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
•
•
Policy 4, 5 Commentary:The City and its regional partners have agreed upon the utilization of
urban lands in a way that prevents urban sprawl, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure,
reduces the need for automobile travel, conserves energy,and provides for easy access to needed
goods and services. These objectives can be accomplished by implementing a variety of
development principles,including incentives and redevelopment programs that result in less land
being utilized to accommodate specific uses, thus resulting in compact urban development.
In the mid-1990s,Metro adopted the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives(RUGGO),which is
part of the Regional Framework Plan (1997) and includes Metro's 2040 Growth Concept(1995). RUGGO
was developed to implement regional compliance with state goals for land use in a coordinated way
and to ensure that housing and employment growth could be accommodated equitably across the
region. The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (1998), or UGMFP,implements RUGGO and
contains several requirements for local implementation.Metro's 2040 Growth Concept requires cities
and counties to draw boundaries for each of the design types as defined in Title 1 of the UGMFP.
The design types correspond to the general boundaries shown in Metro's 2040 Growth Concept map.
Design types applicable to Tigard are Regional Centers,Town Centers, Industrial Areas,
Employment Areas, Corridors, Inner Neighborhoods and Outer Neighborhoods.
Regional Centers serve large market areas outside the central city and have connections via high-
capacity transit and highways. Metro has designated Washington Square as one of nine Regional
Centers. Town Centers (Tigard Downtown)are intended to be a principal center of urban life,while
corridors are intended to feature a high-quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to transit,
and somewhat higher than current densities. Industrial and Employment Areas are set aside to
support a strong economic climate by protecting the supply of employment"clusters" and limiting
the type and scale of non-industrial uses on industrial lands.
6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which
are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social
and fiscal stability.
Policy 6 Commentary: A City requires a properly balanced mix of land uses to ensure that it
derives the tax revenues necessary to fund needed community services. For example,under
Oregon's current tax structure, cities that consist primarily of low-mid value residential land uses
find it difficult to fund services. A balanced mix of commercial, office,industrial and residential
land uses is needed for fiscal stability. For example it is in a community's interest to foster a land
use pattern that emphasizes high value, high employment commercial /industrial land uses rather
than the opposite.
Community services are addressed in the policy because these land uses are quite common in urban
areas and present unique siting and design issues. In this context Community services include those
land uses that provide for needed social public facility and governance services,institutional uses and
some forms of specialized housing.
•
•
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the
Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where special planning and regulatory tools are warranted;
and
F. Public services.
Policy 7 Commentary: The Comprehensive Plan,its factual base,goals, and policies are the basis
by which the City establishes and sometimes amends specific land use districts (Plan and Zoning
Map). The City has a state mandated requirement to provide for the full range of needed land uses
which should be acknowledged by the Plan.
Staff's position is that the Plan should list,in a general way, the needed land uses that are provided
by the City's land use program rather than enumerating a long catalog of locational land use district
criteria. The Development Code is the proper place for this level of detail. The Plan needs to be a
flexible policy tool. Furthermore,Tigard is mostly built out and its land use districts have been in
place for decades.
8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed,prior to
development approval and are constructed prior to or concurrently with development
occupancy.
9. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related
services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other
public facility systems.
Policies 8 and 9 Commentary: It is in the City's interest to assign to the extent possible, the
public facility costs associated with development, to the actual development itself. There are two
ways this is typically done in Oregon. First development must address the site specific costs
associated with the development itself. This includes assignable/proportionate transportation and
other public facility improvements. The second category is reimbursing a jurisdiction for system
wide impacts normally addressed through System Development Charges (SDCs). Currently in the
case of Washington County, transportation impacts are addressed through a County-wide
Transportation Impact Fees program.
Also the City provides essential development related services, such as planning,building and
engineering assistance. It is in the overall public interest that those that benefit from this service pay
for it.
10. The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions related to land use activities.
Policy 10 Commentary: A significant responsibility of local government is to assume the role of
protecting broad community safety and welfare. An important aspect of this responsibility is to
regulate land use activities to prevent the creation or exacerbation of hazardous situations. This
includes situations where there are natural hazards;inadequate transportation or public facilities,
such as sewer or drainage services. Even though other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan
•
•
specifically address these situation a policy is needed in the Land Use Planning Chapter to state that
the City will adopt regulations and standards to protect the general public and overall community
welfare from hazardous/deleterious conditions.
11. The City shall provide a wide range of tools,including planned development,design
standards, and conservation easements,to promote:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
Policy 11: Commentary: A wide variety of tools,including Planned Development standards /
regulations,are available to allow/encourage high quality/innovative design and quality
development. This is especially important in communities that are "built out" and without many easy
to develop sites and are experiencing more infill development on small and lot more difficult to
develop sites. It is important that any Planned Development type ordinances be easy to administer
and attractive to use by developers. Some communities are requiring that Planned Development
type ordinances be used in specific situations where sites are constrained by hazards,natural
resources are present, and/or neighborhood compatibility is important. In the past,Planned
Development standards were often voluntary. Their mandatory use is more prevalent today as
projects have the potential for significantly affecting existing development. Furthermore,in
developed communities these regulations may"kick in" at smaller projects sizes than in
communities with lots of buildable land.
12. The City shall plan for future public facility expansion for those areas within its Urban
Planning Area that can realistically be expected be within the City limits during the planning
period.
Policy 12 Commentary: A significant part of the City's currently identified Urban Planning Area
(this includes Metzger and Bull Mt.) has been urbanized in unincorporated Washington County.
Key services, mainly sewer services have been provided by County Service Districts. Public safety
has been accommodated to a degree by enhanced Washington County Sheriff's services. The
consequence of this is that Tigard's municipal boundaries will never include these areas, especially if
Washington County continues its current practices. Furthermore,lands recently added to the Metro
Urban Growth Boundary (Urban Growth Areas 63 and 64) adjacent to Tigard's Urban Planning
Area cannot be annexed. This is because they are not contiguous due to intervening unincorporated
urban development. Therefore, absent a change in Washington County's policy and state
annexation law, the City should not continue to plan to provide services for these areas.
13. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are
consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the
Comprehensive Plan and,when necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
Policy 13 Commentary: From a process and administrative perspective,it is important to
unequivocally establish that the burden of proof for land use approval to amend any part of the
City's land use program lies with the applicant. Also, this policy broadly establishes what constitutes
the burden of proof. It is important to stress that the "burden of proof test" is also applicable to the
City of Tigard and other government entities when they are in the role of applicant.
•
•
14. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments
to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available;or
committed to be made available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land
uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities
and services;
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as
provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing,
public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other
appropriately designated and developable properties;
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable,
appropriately designated land for the land uses that would be allowed by the
new designation;
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be
developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of
any overlay district would be fulfilled;
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible or
capable of being made compatible with environmental conditions and
surrounding land uses;and
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the
City's natural systems.
15. The City may condition approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the
development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements.
Policies 14 and 15 Commentary: Amending a City's Plan and Zoning Maps is a significant action
and it is essential that the governing body (City Council) have criteria to base a decision that will be
in the best interests of the Community. The specific criteria listed in proposed Policies 14 and 15
provide other essential criteria that are not elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. A secondary
intent of these criteria is to discourage applications for speculative Plan and map amendments and
assure that the applicant will develop their alleged land uses.
Communities have often had the experience of approving Plan and Zoning map amendments
thinking that specific land uses, as claimed by the developer would be developed. However, once
land use designations were changed, entirely different uses were developed. When there are no
conditions to prevent otherwise, a developer can construct a wide variety of uses allowed within a
zone. Policy 15 allows the City to condition Plan Map amendment to allow only a specific land use
or restricted set of land uses. This provides needed certainty.
Many otherwise positive Plan amendment / zone changes are highly contentious or fail because of
compatibility, natural resource protection or design concerns. It is possible for jurisdictions to
condition Plan/Zone Map amendments to develop pursuant to a specific set of design and
development standards.
16. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use.
•
•
Policy 16 Commentary: This policy provides the opportunity for property owners/developers to
save time and resolve uncertainty by doing concurrent amendments for approval of a Plan/Zone
Map Amendment and development Plan. Also the policy provides certainty for the City that a map
amendment will result in a specific use and that important design,public facility and compatibility
issues are addressed.
Implementing this policy would allow the City to approve and condition a specific project in
comparatively short period following a Plan/Zone Map amendment. This process has been used to
assure a specific land use is ensconced consistent with design and development conditions when the
Plan/Zone Map is amended.
17. The Council may at any time,upon finding it is in the overall public interest,initiate
legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text,Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or
the Community Development Code.
18. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the City Council that it consider
initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,Plan/Zoning Maps and/or
Community Development Code.
19. The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and
regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to
community needs,provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law,
administrative rules, and regional requirements.
Policies 17, 18, 19: Commentary: The following three policies provide the tools by which the
City may amend Comprehensive Plan text,Plan Maps and Community Development Code. The
intent is to provide the City Council with the flexibility to make changes to the City's land use
program based upon finding that it is in the overall public interest. The proposed policies also assign
the Planning Commission an advisory role of making recommendations to Council to initiate
legislative actions.
Some communities allow for a collection of citizen initiated legislative amendments to be considered
at certain times on an annual or bi-annual basis. Instead of this, these policies provide the
opportunity for citizens/development interests to make their case before the Planning Commission
and/or Council to initiate legislative changes. If Council decides to do so, staff and Planning
Commission can be directed to integrate these efforts into their work programs.
20. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations.
Policy 20: Commentary: This policy is provides the basic foundation for the City to adopt site
design and development standards including basic dimensional standards such as building height,
setbacks,lot coverage,parking requirements, etc. In addition it provides the basis for the City to
adopt standards that require more specific design and development standards such as preservation
of natural resources,water quality,landscaping, tree protection, etc.
21. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program.
Policy 21 Commentary: This policy provides the basis for the City to develop and adopt a natural
resource protection program. It provides the City flexibility to adopt and apply natural resource
•
•
protections ranging from that which is minimally required by Metro to more those more far
reaching.
22. The City shall require that new urban development does not diminish the quality of life in
the community.
23. The City shall require new development,including public infrastructure, to minimize
conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future
land uses.
Policy 22,23 Commentary: The need for land-use compatibility is an important issue in
developed communities that experience significant infill; especially when existing structures are
being torn down to develop large residential lots more intensely. These policies provide the City
Council explicit discretion to adopt a wider range of development related compatibility standards.
Tigard like many jurisdictions already has compatibility standards on the "books" in the form of
buffering and screening standards. However as more intense development occurs, this and future
City Councils may wish to broaden the compatibility requirements address site and architectural
design elements.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to
enhance the community's value, livability,and attractiveness.
Policy 24 Commentary: This policy provides the legislative foundation for the City to establish
design standards as a means to promote quality development and to allow development to adapt to
constrained site conditions. As above, Council has the flexibility to implement this policy to varying
degrees. For example, the City has very limited design regulations in the Tigard Triangle and the
Development Code has site design standards. These regulations implement the policy to a degree.
However, as an example,if Council wished to go further and adopt a higher level of site design and
architectural design standards for multi-family development,it would have the sound legislative basis
to do so.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),Metro,Washington
County and others to develop means to equitably assign costs to new development for
its impacts on the interstate and intra-regional freeway and arterial system.
ii. Develop and maintain land use regulations, standards, and procedures necessary to
enhance the design of multi-family, commercial,and industrial development, and to
mitigate impacts on adjacent land uses.
iii. Implement measures to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Tigard's
residential districts. Examples include managing the design of infill development,
mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses,improving quality of streetscapes and
the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open space.
•
•
iv. Develop and periodically update citywide Public Facilities and Transportation System
Plans (PFP,TSP) to guide the location, financing,and timing of future public facilities.
Coordinate the preparation and adoption of these Plans with other affected jurisdictions
and agencies.
v. Revise the Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and related findings as needed to maintain
reliability and timeliness; to ensure consistency among goals,policies and recommended
action measures;to assure accuracy of findings;and to comply with state,regional and
federal laws and rules. This includes review by the Planning Commission every two
years, formal evaluation every five years, and an overall update at least every ten years.
vi. Monitor and evaluate whether City actions and community conditions and circumstances
are consistent with the goal and policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan.When
appropriate, amend the Plan or adjust City actions,regulations, or standards.
vii. Monitor actions,programs, and policies of federal, state, and regional governments.
When appropriate, amend the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations and
plans to be consistent with those of other agencies.
viii. Develop and adopt special district plans to enhance opportunities for economic
development, housing, social vitality, access to transit, etc.
ix. Actively participate and engage with other Portland Metropolitan Area jurisdictions and
agencies to represent Tigard's interest involving region-wide land use, transportation,
natural resource, and public facility issues.
x. Implement incentive and redevelopment programs to utilize urban land and existing
public facilities more efficiently.
xi. Review transportation and other public facility plans and projects to address potential
negative aesthetic or operational impacts on neighborhoods and take mitigating action
when necessary.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the protocol used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiii. Review and analyze the use of the Planned Development process as a way to gauge its
functionality and whether it is working as intended.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's
land use program (maps, codes, and policies) and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xv. Develop criteria to identify and protect unique community features and resources.
•
Goal 2: Land Use Draft Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures
February 26, 2008
Goal:
2.1. Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan,implementing regulations and action plans as
the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program.
Policies:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction,comply with state and
regional requirements, and shall also serve its citizens' own interests.
2. The City's land use regulations, related plans and implementing actions shall be consistent
with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment,and implementation of its land use
program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies.
4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of
incentives and redevelopment programs.
5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and
Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which
are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social
and fiscal stability.
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the
Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where special planning and regulatory tools are warranted;
and
F. Public services.
8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed,prior to
development approval and are constructed prior to or concurrently with development
occupancy.
9. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related
services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other
public facility systems.
10. The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions related to land use activities.
2/28/2008 1 Draft Land Use Policies
•
•
11. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, to promote:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
12. The City shall plan for future public facility expansion for those areas within its Urban
Planning Area that can realistically be expected be within the City limits during the planning
period.
13. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are
consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the
Comprehensive Plan and,when necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
14. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments
to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available; or
committed to be made available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land
uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities
and services;
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as
provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing,
public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other
appropriately designated and developable properties;
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable,
appropriately designated land for the land uses that would be allowed by the
new designation;
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be
developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of
any overlay district would be fulfilled;
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible or
capable of being made compatible with environmental conditions and
surrounding land uses; and
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the
City's natural systems.
15. The City may condition approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the
development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements.
16. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use.
17. The Council may at any time,upon finding it is in the overall public interest,initiate
legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text,Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or
the Community Development Code.
2/28/2008 2 Draft Land Use Policies
•
18. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the City Council that it consider
initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,Plan/Zoning Maps and/or
Community Development Code.
19. The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and
regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to
community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law,
administrative rules, and regional requirements.
20. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations.
21. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program.
22. The City shall require that new urban development does not diminish the quality of life in
the community.
23. The City shall require new development,including public infrastructure, to minimize
conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future
land uses.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to
enhance the community's value,livability,and attractiveness.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),Metro,Washington
County and others to develop means to equitably assign costs to new development for
its impacts on the interstate and infra-regional freeway and arterial system.
ii. Develop and maintain land use regulations, standards, and procedures necessary to
enhance the design of multi-family, commercial, and industrial development, and to
mitigate impacts on adjacent land uses.
iii. Implement measures to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Tigard's
residential districts. Examples include managing the design of infill development,
mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses,improving quality of streetscapes and
the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open space.
iv. Develop and periodically update citywide Public Facilities and Transportation System
Plans (PFP,TSP) to guide the location, financing, and timing of future public facilities.
Coordinate the preparation and adoption of these Plans with other affected jurisdictions
and agencies.
v. Revise the Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and related findings as needed to maintain
reliability and timeliness;to ensure consistency among goals,policies and recommended
action measures; to assure accuracy of findings;and to comply with state,regional and
federal laws and rules. This includes review by the Planning Commission every two
years, formal evaluation every five years, and an overall update at least every ten years.
2/28/2008 3 Draft Land Use Policies
•
vi. Monitor and evaluate whether City actions and community conditions and circumstances
are consistent with the goal and policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan.When
appropriate, amend the Plan or adjust City actions,regulations, or standards.
vii. Monitor actions,programs, and policies of federal, state, and regional governments.
When appropriate, amend the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations and
plans to be consistent with those of other agencies.
viii. Develop and adopt special district plans to enhance opportunities for economic
development, housing, social vitality, access to transit, etc.
ix. Actively participate and engage with other Portland Metropolitan Area jurisdictions and
agencies to represent Tigard's interest involving region-wide land use, transportation,
natural resource, and public facility issues.
x. Implement incentive and redevelopment programs to utilise urban land and existing
public facilities more efficiently.
xi. Review transportation and other public facility plans and projects to address potential
negative aesthetic or operational impacts on neighborhoods and take mitigating action
when necessary.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the protocol used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiii. Review and analyze the use of the Planned Development process as a way to gauge its
functionality and whether it is working as intended.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's
land use program (maps, codes, and policies) and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xv. Develop criteria to identify and protect unique community features and resources.
2/28/2008 4 Draft Land Use Policies
O
Draft Land Use Definitions
Below are definitions requested by the Land Use Policy Interest Team:
Compatibility—the ability of adjacent and/or dissimilar land uses to co-exist without
aesthetic, environmental,and/or operational conflicts that would prevent persons to enjoy,
occupy, or use their properties without interference. A variety of remedies to compatibility
conflicts are normally provided in a jurisdiction's land use program;including limited land
use designation,buffering, screening, site and building design standards, transportation
facility design, etc.
Efficient Use of Land—utilization of urban lands in a way that prevents urban sprawl,
maximizes the use of existing infrastructure,reduces the need for automobile travel,
conserves energy, and provides for easy access to needed goods and services. The efficient
use of land also means the application of development principles that result in less land
being utilized to accommodate specific uses, thus resulting in compact urban development.
Fair Cost— (is not used in the policy language so it is not being defined).
Natural Systems —interactive,interrelated, and interdependent elements forming a
complex whole that exists in or is formed by nature. Hydrologic and ecological systems are
two examples.
Promote—support, advocate, or take affirmative action to achieve a particular community
objective.
Proven Community Need—evidence required to amend land use map(s),which ensures
that the new land use being proposed is needed in the community in that particular location,
versus other appropriately designated and developable sites.
Public Facilities and Services —publicly funded infrastructure and services, such as public
safety, sanitary sewers, domestic water,water quality,parks, transportation,governance,etc.
that are required for the community's safety, health,welfare,prosperity, and quality of life.
Public Interest—shared interests often expressed as commonly held values that are
perceived to be of general benefit to the whole community and the welfare of the general
public versus that of specific entities, and which warrant recognition,promotion, and
protection by the City.
Up-to-date—being in accord with relevant facts, knowledge, techniques, styles, etc.