07/21/2008 - Packet 41
City of Tigard
TIGARD Planning Commission — Agenda
MEETING DATE: July 21, 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 (Cont'd) 7:15 p.m.
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT—JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE
(CPA) 2008-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00001
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications
for two lots totaling 1.18 acres from Medium-Density Residential (R-12) to General-Commercial (C-G).
LOCATION: 11580 and 11600 SW Hall Boulevard; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1S135DD,
Tax Lots 100 and 1600. The site is bounded by SW Hall Blvd. on the west, Hwy. 217 on the east, property
zoned C-G on the south, and property zoned C-P on the north. CURRENT ZONING: R-12: Medium-
Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing
types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionally. CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-
Density Residential. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G 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. PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;Comprehensive Plan Goals #8
(Transportation) and #12 (Locational Criteria); and any applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Guidelines,and any Federal, State,or Metro statues or regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JULY 21, 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 2
:: • •
5.2 Workshop — Goal 14: Urbanization - 8:15 p.m.
Policy Interest Team
6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:45 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JULY 21, 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2
•
Tigard Planning Commission
Agenda Item # 5 Page L of Date of Hearing ^7-Z -O '
Case Number(s) GPR 2oO�-ooOe L( f ao N Zoos -0o0a 1
Case Name i,vUnJee_ Z-oNe C v\vvNq
Location 11, O 4 k l GOO 5U.) lAGA. a3 ock .
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 p J f j Name:
Address: q„S c -S v..1 CAL 5`^' - k (-r— Address:
City, State, Zip: p o j1,/J0 `V.1 titi\ City, State, Zip:
Name: /1 rr Name:
Address: ( 66c S'^' (3'011) Address:
City, State, Zip: � A, , ,, q 7 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:
40
0
JUL 14 2008 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Com-
CO f 1yIl Aj TI a • D mission on Monday July 21.2008 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic
��� 1 Il1V�LJl�I Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon. Public
SPAPERS NEW oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this mat-
ter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222• PO the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set
Box 370• Beaverton, OR 97075 forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review
Phone:503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council
Email: on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on
legaladvertising @commnewspapers.com the request prior to making a decision.Further information may be.
obtained froth the City of Tig.rd Planning Division(Staff contact:
Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171..COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00004/ZONE
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00001 - JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE-
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a Compre-
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, ' hensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to
depose and say that I am the Accounting change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map
Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, Classifications for two lots totaling 1.18 acres from Medium-Den-
, sity Residential (R-12) to General-Commercial (C-G). LOCA- I
TION: 11580 and 11600 SW Hall Boulevard;Washington County
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in Tax Assessor's Map 1S135DD, Tax Lots 100 and 1600. The site
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by is bounded by SW Hall Blvd. on the west, Hwy. 217 on the east,
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that property zoned C-G on the south, and property zoned C-P on the
north. CURRENT ZONING: R-12: Medium-Density Residen-
City of Tigard tial District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate
Notice of Public Hearing a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square
Not
Notice of feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted
conditionally. CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DES-
IGNATION: Medium-Density Residential. PROPOSED ZON-
ING: C-G:General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district
A copy of which is hereto annexed, was is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic
published in the entire issue of said uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where
newspaper for non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family resi-
t dences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A
wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertain-
Successive and consecutive weeks in the ment,automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses,
following issues utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment,
July 3, 2008 and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Com- .
CikaU( mercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive .
Plan Goals#8 (Transportation)and#12 (Locational Criteria); and
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting M ager) any applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines,and any
Federal, State,or Metro statues or regulations.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this RIT7 7_ II-I- 71 Lt-1 ,—i
July 3, 2008 _ .--i1 r_-i 1 ) }—:I, VICINT'MAP
� — t s, .a cr,2rxulaxioo r
,_9\),./ \c,x Q.. r----;--a rte-rte -L''cH.-1,\UE
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON � i-
My commission expires�l� ..,..,___0 i I ) ; ; -''T �-
,__ J
Acct#10093001 -v-_ _ �� �' `I
—,
Patty Lunsford ,r,: _ i�_ i� i, .(� �'
_f~
City of Tigard ' �` '� • -
13125 SW Hall Blvd —: - :_.: ----1 ` - , ,
Tigard, OR 97223 1 _ - `—;
• •
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing/Workshop Date: 1-?A-6 g
Starting Time: ' ' b3 e .
COMMISSIONERS: ✓ Jodie Inman (President)
Tom Anderson
Rex Caffall
Margaret Doherty
'/ Karen Fishel
t/ Stuart Hasman
Matthew Muldoon
(// Jeremy Vermilyea
David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
// Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
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
Todd Prager
S •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
July 21, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 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, Fishel, Hasman,
Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall and Doherty
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director;Dick Bewersdorff,
Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner;
Marissa Daniels, Assistant Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Walsh, to
approve the June 16, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Inman, Muldoon, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Fishel, Hasman,Vermilyea
EXCUSED: Caffall, Doherty
PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT—JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE
(CPA) 2008-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00001
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan
Designations and Zoning Map Classifications for two lots totaling 1.18 acres from
PLANNING COMI•IISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 1
I:\CDADMVERREE\PC\qc cm=7-21-08doal
•
Medium-Density Residential (R-12) to General-Commercial (C-G). LOCATION:
11580 and 11600 SW Hall Boulevard;Washington County Tax Assessor's Map
1S135DD, Tax Lots 100 and 1600. The site is bounded by SW Hall Blvd. on the
west, Hwy. 217 on the east, property zoned C-G on the south, and property zoned
C-P on the north. CURRENT ZONING: R-12: Medium-Density Residential
District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of
housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. CURRENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential.
PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G 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. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: General Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan
Goals #8 (Transportation) and #12 (Locational Criteria); and any applicable
Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, and any Federal, State, or Metro statues or
regulations.
Commissioners Muldoon and Anderson reported site visits.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He
advised that the applicant is currently developing property to the south as a self storage
project. The applicant is thinking about applying this same kind of development to the
subject site. That use is not allowed in the R-12 zone, but would be allowed in the CG
(General Commercial) zone as a conditional use. Staff believes the CG zone is appropriate
for the site and supports the zone change Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Pagenstecher noted that Warner Avenue, which connects to Hwy. 99W,would be the sole
access to the property; the Hall Blvd. access would be closed. Currently, there is an
apartment house abutting this property.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Saj Jivanjee,Jivanjee Circosta Architecture, 9055 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,
OR 97225, spoke about dealing with the inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan, the
process for dealing with it, and the cost implications for the applicant. The applicant has to
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 2
1:\CDADMVERREE\PC\qsc minutes 7-21-08.doc81
• 1111
pay the mitigation costs for something that was planned by the City. He thinks there should
be a 2 tier system and wonders how many inconsistencies there are in the Comprehensive
Plan. Should it be the responsibility of the City to pay for mitigation costs or should the
applicant have to pay?
With regard to connecting to Warner Road,Jivanjee said that there is an existing entrance
there and the implication is that there won't be a shortcut through Warner Road to Hall
Blvd. to miss the traffic control system on 99W. He said he might have to have some kind
of emergency access to Hall Blvd. Even though there is no traffic impact, there are still
issues about keeping the through road as a private road and if they can have access to Hall
Blvd. It was advised that Hall Blvd. is under ODOT's control.
President Inman noted that staff has recommended a condition of approval for limiting
trips. Jivanjee said this is a non-issue. The only problem he may have would be denial of
access to Hall Blvd. if he needs an emergency access. He said this issue will addressed as
part of the planning process for the conditional use of the property.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Henry Louie, 13665 SW 130th Place, Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak, but chose not
to testify.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Muldoon said the area isn't well-suited for residential development and
doesn't have any community connectivity aspects. He supports the zone change.
President Inman agrees and also supports the addition of the traffic trip generation
limitation.
Commissioner Anderson also supports the application.
Motion by Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon, to recommend
approval to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 2008-
00004, and Zone Change, ZON 2008-00001, subject to proposed conditions of approval as
laid out in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
AYES: Anderson, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Caffall, Doherty
5.2 WORKSHOP— GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 3
�:\DADM\JERRE\vc\q tea, docri
• •
POLICY INTEREST TEAM
Senior Planner Darren Wyss advised that the objective of the meeting was to garner input on
the issues of Goal 14, Urbanization and how to customize the language to fit Tigard's needs.
The draft language is broken into 3 goals: providing quality services to City residents; the
City's approach to annexation; and promoting Tigard's interests in urban growth
management decisions. Wyss noted that Commissioner Dougherty provided earlier
comments regarding the commentary and had a few issues with the policy language. Her
comments are reflected in the draft language.
Lisa Hamilton-Treick, Bull Mountain resident, participated in the discussion. She asked how
the interests of unincorporated Bull Mountain and Metzger are taken into consideration; has
there been representation by those people? Wyss noted that this is Commission's first look
at the language. The community is welcome to discuss the language, but this is the City of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, so it must represent the interests of the City residents.
Hamilton-Treick said this is a big issue with the Urbanization Forum. She's an appointed
member of the West Bull Mountain stakeholder's work group and she's a founder of the
Friends of Bull Mountain. She would like to see those affected included in a balanced,
unbiased discussion about this. President Inman advised that there has been an outreach
effort for this and one of the reasons this discussion has been delayed was to gather more
information.
Hamilton-Treick noticed that the staff report refers to the Tigard Urban Services Agreement
as being updated in July, 2006. Her understanding was that this agreement was terminated.
Staff advised that the intergovernmental agreement was terminated; the Tigard Urban
Services Agreement (TUSA) is still in effect.
She asked if Areas 63 and 64 have been formally included in the TUSA. Staff advised that
both areas are outside the of the urban service area boundaries. She believes that if this
process was handled in an unbiased way, it could help the City's goal to bring
unincorporated Bull Mountain into the City. There should be a thorough, unbiased,
verifiable assessment as to where subsidies are occurring and to what degree.
Commissioner Vermilyea had a different opinion. He asked, subsidies or not, to what extent
the City has an obligation to serve people who don't live inside the City limits. He doesn't
believe the City should be providing services to properties outside the City limits. Hamilton-
Treick agreed that the City does not have an obligation to go beyond its borders without
being compensated. The question is,is the City being compensated to the extent that the
services are being used by the people outside the City limits. For example, City residents pay
more for the library, but it was only City residents who voted for the bond to build the
library.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 4
I:\CDADM\ERREE\PC\4ic minutes 7-21-08.do I
• •
Commissioner Vermilyea said it sounds like there's not much disagreement. The City is
currently making determinations, less on the issues surrounding Bull Mountain and more on
how the County as a whole is going to be able to support 187,000 people living outside of
the City limits. They all need services; will it fall on the City to provide them? His
perception is that the City is going to focus on what's best for its citizens and will not be
providing services beyond our own borders. Tigard needs to figure out how best to manage
growth within our own City and focus our resources on services that benefit our citizens.
Hamilton-Treick encouraged language to be put into the Comp Plan that addresses the need
to respect the interests of people who live in unincorporated areas and make a concerted
effort to build a relationship with the people Tigard wants to govern. She's hearing the City
advocating for strong legislation to force these people into the City's boundary. Ron Bunch
advised that Council has affirmed that it's time for the City to move on and to consider the
interests of its own citizens and develop policies for urbanization. He said that Council's
current policy is to do only voluntary annexations. He agreed that a cost incidence study is
something that should probably be done on a Countywide basis, as well as a fiscal
sustainability study to determine how long the County can continue to provide services.
Hamilton-Treick wonders if it might be better to look at other options for getting urbanized
unincorporated Bull Mountain and West Bull Mountain into a city and maybe it doesn't have
to be Tigard. Commissioner Vermilyea said this is beyond the scope of what the
Commission is trying to do with the Comp Plan amendment, which is to look at what's the
best way to address the urbanization issue within the context of planning within the City
limits of Tigard. He thinks there are some big picture policy questions that need to be
addressed— fiscal issues, who is the best service provider, Areas 63 and 64—but, for now,
Tigard will continue with voluntary annexations, and for those already in the City limits,
providing services according to this Comp Plan amendment.
Hamilton-Treick noted that parks and planning are the 2 biggest issues in unincorporated
Bull Mountain; cost is not the biggest factor. She said that another big issue is the way that
the Bull Mountain Community Plan has been replaced with Tigard's Comp Plan as these
piecemeal annexations have happened. Tigard has never included Bull Mountain in its
comprehensive planning process; however, they are peeling off the Bull Mountain
Community Plan and applying a plan that applies to a much different topography. She
hopes that Tigard will address this as it moves forward with piecemeal annexations.
Hamilton-Treick advised that she is a strong supporter of service districts. Why would the
City oppose a service district if people are paying for the services they receive? Bull
Mountain is park deficient. If expanding a service district into that area did away with the
argument of folks having to come into Tigard to get more parks, then what is the motivation
for not supporting expansion of service districts?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 5
�:1mADMVERRPE\PLA∎pc®m 7-2I-01LAacz1
• •
President Inman said the code language is more aimed at opposing formation of service
districts outside of the City and holding the view that cities are the best provider of services.
For instance, if a service district was proposed for parks on West Bull Mountain, the City
would oppose it because it's perpetuating the County providing those services instead of a
city. Hamilton-Treick questioned, if it's going to be years or decades before that area comes
into Tigard, what is better—let that area pay for parks if the people are willing or continue to
point the finger and say they're using our parks and not paying for them when you're
preventing them from having a vehicle to pay for them.
Commissioner Vermilyea said it's less about the money and more about governance and
planning for urban services in that area. If special districts come into play and overlay that
area, it could create more conflict. Given that Tigard has a mandate to be the service
provider in that area, it necessarily wants to oppose special districts that would conflict with
that mandate. Hamilton-Treick questioned if that's a responsible land use thing to do.
Darren Wyss remarked that, in his view of the language, if Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District (THPRD), Washington County, and the City got together and decided
that the unincorporated area would be better served by THPRD, the policy language is
flexible enough to allow us to re-sign the Urban Services Agreement to let THPRD have it.
Ron Bunch reminded the Commission that Areas 63 and 64 are outside of the Urban
Services Area, so if THPRD wants to continue its policy of bringing in lands into their
district, the City would not oppose that for those areas. However, in accordance with the
TUSA, we have agreed to provide services for areas inside the Urban Services Area.
Hamilton-Treick noted that there's such an emphasis on Bull Mountain and she wonders
about the Metzger area. She suggests adding language about this to avoid the appearance of
"cherry-picking." Commissioner Vermilyea believes the reason Bull Mountain is mentioned
more often is because expanding westward is the only way the City can grow— that's where
the land is. With regard to the language, Vermilyea thinks the language should remain
neutral.
Hamilton-Treick does not like the fact that the Bull Mountain Community Plan has been
ignored as areas have been annexed into the City. She doesn't see anything that prevents
that from continuing to occur. She advised that the Bull Mountain Community Plan is their
Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1983 and it's the only Comprehensive Plan for
unincorporated Bull Mountain as a part of the County structure. She noted that the
County's policy is not to update any of the County Community Plans at this time. There
was a unanimous request by the stakeholders workgroup for Areas 63 and 64 that the
planning for that area include a sister process that would update the Bull Mountain
Community Plan to create more of a complete community concept for the whole area. The
Board of Commissioners denied the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 6
I:\CDADM\JERREE\PC\Wc nunuu:,7-21418.doc.i
• •
Staff advised that as areas are annexed into the City, the City's development code standards
and Comp Plan goals and policies apply. This update to the City's Comprehensive Plan will
be much more sensitive to these kinds of issues.
Hamilton-Treick said that one thing that could help this process is to recognize the need
people have for their community to not lose their identity, e.g., the Pearl District, the
Hawthorne District, and Sellwood. Those are all areas of Portland where concerted effort
was made to allow them to be identified as part of a larger city. It's an affordable thing to
offer people to encourage them to want to be a part of a bigger government.
The Commissioners reviewed the draft language and made the following changes:
Goal 14.1— Change the residents to citizens
Policy 1. —The City shall net only approve the extension of City services except:
(rest of policy does not change)
Policy 2. — Change recognizes to recognize
Policy 3. —No changes
Policy 4. —New wording: The City shall protect the existing and future delivery of
City services and oppose formation of any new district or expansion of existing
districts within the Tigard Urban Services Area.
Policy 5. —No changes
Action Measures —No changes
Goal 14.2—New wording: The City shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to
implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement, including annexation of unincorporated
properties as appropriate.
Policy 1. —No changes
Policy 2. —No changes
Policy 3. —No changes
Policy 4. — Staff advised that this policy currently is being reviewed by the City
Attorney. The Commissioners will review the draft language for this policy at a later
date.
PLANNING COMI\IISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 7
I:\CDADM.JERRFEWC1 p at=tes 7-21-0e,ao,I
• •
Policy 5. —New wording: The City shall periodically update and/or amend its
:a a:- . -, : : . :: : : Public Facility Plan to ensure the
predictable and logical provision of urban services for areas anticipated to be within
the City Limits.
Action Measures:
ii. —Utilize and communicate incentives, as appropriate, to encourage owners of
unincorporated properties to annex to the City.
iii. —Since this measure is related to Policy #4, the language will be reviewed at a later
date.
The Commissioners decided to postpone review of the rest of the language until the next
meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Staff advised that the urban forest section of the Comp Plan was approved by Council and
that there has been an intent to appeal filed by the Home Builders Association. The
Commission requested that they be notified earlier in the process when things like this
happen. Also, they would like to know ahead of time about significant new development
coming into the City (e.g., the new Target Store in the Triangle).
Commissioners Inman, Muldoon, and Walsh will not be at the August 4th meeting.
Commissioner Vermilyea will chair the meeting that night.
Staff advised that the Transportation Chapter of the Comp Plan will be updated alongside
the Transportation System Plan update that is just now being started. It will come to the
Planning Commission sometime next year. In the meantime, Commissioner Vermilyea
requested a primer on transportation issues in the Triangle. He believes transportation will
be the main issue in the Target application.
Commissioner Muldoon asked about Council's idea that planning could look at the highest
best use for the Tigard Triangle and then leave the burden for meeting the requirements of
that best use on regional groups such as ODOT or Metro. Staff said this is a regional issue
that needs to be worked out with other jurisdictions because of ODOT's application of its
mobility standards to the freeway system. Ron Bunch advised that staff will be working on
the Transportation System Plan and that the Tigard Triangle will be looked at specifically.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 8
I:\CDADMVERREE\PC\ mm 7-21-08.doc:(
• •
Qb, , , ,A.......A e ( p
2 ,S.L__
Jerree Lewis, Planning Commis '. Secretary N
n r h 4,-,
ATTES : 'Preside t Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 21,2008—Page 9
IACDADMUERREE\PC\ipc mamas 7-21 u141azl
• •
Agenda Item: 5.1
Hearing Date:July 21,2008 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
Fri PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Tr ilvvA\ n
120 DAYS = NA
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2008-00004
Zone Change ZON2008-00001
PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and
Zoning Map Classifications for two lots totaling 1.18 acres from Medium
Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial (C-G). The lots are bounded
by SW Hall Blvd. on the west, Hwy. 217 on the east, property zoned C-G on
the south and property zoned C-P on the north.
APPLICANT Jivanjee Circosta Architecture OWNER: Henry Louie
9055 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy 13665 SW 130th Place
Portland, OR 97225 Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Gerald C. Cach Credit Shelter Trust
Lisa Cach Heideger
6003 4th Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98115
LOCATION: The site is bounded by SW Hall Blvd on the west and Hwy 217 on the east at
11580 and 11600 SW Hall Blvd.; Washington Count Tax Map 1S135DD, Tax
Lots 100 and 1600.
CURRENT ZONE/
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is
designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size
of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionally.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 1 OF 11
• •
PROPOSED ZONE/
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G 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.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 8, 9, 10 and 12; applicable Statewide
Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, and applicable Metro statues or
regulations.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change subject to proposed conditions of
approval.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site History
Staff reviewed the zoning history of the subject property utilizing old zoning maps and City
records. The 1977 Existing Land Use Map shows Tax Lot 100 as vacant and Tax Lot 1600
developed with multi-family dwellings. The 1983 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map shows the
subject lots designated "MED," medium density.residential. All subsequent versions of the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Classification show the subject lots designated R-12.
Tax Lot 100 was developed in 1960 with a small single-family dwelling. Tax Lot 1600 was
developed in 1963 with the ten-unit Silver Creek apartment building. In 2004 the City approved a
Lot Line Adjustment (MI52004-00017) between the two lots.
Vicinity Information
The subject site is bordered by Hall Blvd on the west and Hwy 217 on the east. The 1.18 acre site is
part of an approximately 7-acre, 15-lot triangle area north of Hwy 99 zoned C-G on the south (11
lots), R-12 (subject 2 lots), and C-P (2 lots) to the north. The subject lots are separated from adjacent
R-12 lots by Hall Blvd on the west. Other R-12 zoned lots are located to the north across Hwy 217.
The subject lots are bordered by apartments to the north and single-family residences and a storage
unit complex under construction on the south.
Site Information and Proposal Description
'fax Lot 100 takes access from SW Hall Blvd. and is primarily covered in lawn with some trees
clustered around the single-family dwelling. Tax Lot 1600 also takes access from SW Hall Blvd. and
contains the apartment building, parking lot, and landscaping. The density of the apartments at 10
units/.44 acres exceeds the 12 units /acre allowed in the existing R-12 zone. C-G zoning allows new
multi-family dwellings with the planned development review process and standards.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 2 OF 11
• •
The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to
change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Ma Classifications for two lots totaling
1.18 acres from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial (C-G).
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380:
18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map
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 contained in
Subsection B below.
A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change
application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map
amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section
18.390.
The proposed zone change application to change the zoning on the subject lots from R-12 to C-G
also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall
make a recommendation to Council on the proposed zone change application and comprehensive
plan map amendment.
B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. 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:
18.380.030. B.1
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate 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 property, and held a neighborhood meeting on February 28,
2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process.
According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, 10 people attended. Discussion related to
transportation issues on Highway 99 and Hall Blvd., future development of the lots, and the zone
change process.
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 TDC 18.390.050 for Type BE Procedures.
With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the
proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 3 OF 11
• •
GENERAL POLICIES
Policy 1.1.1a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative
chan es are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission, the Regional P[an adopted by the Metropolitan Service
District;
The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan consistent with the statewide planning goals.
The applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are addressed in this section of the staff
report.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR 660-012-0060 is a state statute applicable to this
application and is addressed under the Transportation goal, below.
Two state and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within the
Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). These requirements are applicable to this
application and are addressed under the Housing goal, below.
TRANSPORTATION SYETEM
The 2001 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates the comprehensive plan and policies.
However, it does not fully replace all elements of the comprehensive plan adopted-prior to the 2001
TSP. Goal #4, Policy #1 of the Tigard TSP correlates to the following comprehensive plan policy:
Policy 8.1.4: Set and maintain transportation performance measures that 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.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted the following comment letter to
the file for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change:
For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments local governments must make
findings that the proposed amendment complies with the Transportation Planning
Rule (1 PR) OAR 660-012-0060. There must be substantial evidence in the record to
either make the finding of "no significant effect" on the transportation system, or if
there is a significant effect assurance that the allowed land uses are consistent with the
identified function capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility
within the plan function, of the local Transportation System Plan or 15 years
whichever is greater.
OAR 660-012-0060
1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation would significantly act an existing or planned transportation facility,
the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards(e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ration, etc.)of the facility.
A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it •
would:
(c)As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 4 OF 11
• •
According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), Hall Blvd is classified a District
Urban highway and OR 99 W is classified as a Statewide Highway. OHP Table 7:
Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios Within Portland Metropolitan Region
identifies OR 99W from I-5 to Tualatin Road as an "Area of Special Concern" with a
maximum volume to capacity ration of 0.95. According to the traffic impact analysis
prepared by Robert Morast of CTS and dated April 17, 2008 for the 2025 analysis for
existing and proposed zoning the intersection of OR 99W and Hall Blvd is projected
to perform below the .95 v/c ratio mobility standard. Therefore, for purposes of
evaluating land use regulations subject to OAR 660-12-060 the performance standard is
to avoid further degradation (OHP Action 1F.6).
OHP Action 1F.6 states: For purposes of evaluating amendments to
transportation system plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use
regulations subject to OAR 660-12-060, in situations where the volume to
capacity ratio for a highway segment, intersection or interchange is above the
standards in Table 6 or Table 7, or those otherwise approved by the
Commission, and transportation improvements are not planned within the
planning horizon to bring performance to standard, the performance standard
is to avoid further degradation. IF an amendment to a transportation system
plan, acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation increases the
volume to capacity ratio further, it will significantly affect the facility.
Doug Baumgartner, ODOT Traffic Analyst has reviewed the traffic impact study
prepared by Robert Morast of CTS and dated April 17, 2008. The study prepared two
versions of the 2025 analysis comparing the "worst case" traffic generation under the
existing zoning to the "worst case" traffic generation under the proposed zoning.
Tables 6a and 7a are based on projecting raw traffic that have not been seasonally
adjusted as required by ODOTs adopted methodology. According to adopted
methodology, all traffic volumes must be seasonally adjusted to represent 30th Highest
Hour Volumes (30HV). The 30HV adjustment was correctly applied to the PM peak
hour for the 99W/SW Hall Blvd intersection in Tables 6b and 7b. This data was used
by ODOT for determining whether or not the proposed zone change would have a
"significant effect" on State highway facilities.
The "worst case" traffic generation for the PM peak hour for the 99W/SW Hall Blvd
intersection 2025 Full Buildout Zoning scenarios shows an increase in the v/c (volume
to capacity) ratio from 1.01 with the existing R12 zoning to 1.02 with the proposed C-
G Zoning (Table 6b and 7b, CTS). Therefore, the zone change will worsen the
performance of a facility (OR 99W) that is projected to perform below the acceptable
performance standard and will have a significant effect on the facility (OHP Action
1F.6).
In order to make a finding of"no significant effect" for addressing OAR 660-012-0060,
ODOT recommends that the City condition the zone change such that a trip cap be
placed on the site equivalent to the land use with the highest trip generation rate
allowed outright under the existing R 12 zoning or 153 dairy trips as identified in the
CTS study. This cap will a owes under the proposed zoning while preventing a
significant effect to the highway.. ODOT and the applicant have discussed the
potential trip cap and the applicant is amenable to the idea and expressed their support
for the proposed cap. It is important that any proposal to allow more trips be
addressed in the Plan Amendment process and will trigger a new evaluation of TPR
compatibility at that time to determine whether the limit can be revised or removed.
As recommended in the ODOT comment letter limiting trip generation to that allowed under the
existing R-12 zone (153 daily trips) would avoid a significant effect finding. Therefore to approve
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, staff recommends the Planning
Commission condition the approval to apply the trip cap at the time of site development review
for any proposed development on the subject site.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 5 OF 11
• •
ECONOMY
Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
Policy 3: The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to
promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made
available.
The applicant pro poses a change in the zoning of the subject site to allow commercial development.
The standards in TDC 18.830 provide for amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map.
Provided the standards for a map amendment can be met, and the required infrastructure is
available as indicated in the transportation findings above, the commercial use may be
accommodated, thereby promoting the anticipated commercial development allowed by the
comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment.
HOUSING
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing
needs of current and future City residents.
Policy 5: The City. shall rovide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as
town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit corridors
where employment opportunities, commercial services: transit, and other public services
necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the
future.
Two state and Metro requirements help determine housing capacities on buildable land within
the Portland Metropolitan Area - the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1 of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). Both focus on increasing
jurisdictions' housing capacity in order to use land within the UGB efficiently.
The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007/Division 7) established regional residential density
and mix standards for communities within the Metro UGB. It set minimum residential density
standards for new construction by jurisdiction. Tigard must provide for an overall density
opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre, as well as designate sufficient
buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential units toe attached
housing (either single-family or multiple-family.)
Metro implements Goal 10 through Title 1. To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to
determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80%
of minimum density requirement for development in 1998,which means that a development must
build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation.
The City has a committed to providing the development opportunity for an additional 6,308
dwelling units between 1998 - 2017. This number shows Tigard's zoned capacity for additional
dwelling units. It is an estimate based on the minimum number of dwelling units allowed in each
residential zoning district, assuming minimum density requirements.
The City of Tigard maintains an up-to-date buildable lands inventory, a permit tracking system for
development, as well as complying with Metro's Functional Plan. The City is responsible for
monitoring residential development. All of these tools aid'the City.in monitoring its progress
toward the above goals, and determining if the opportunity remains for current and future
residents
to have diverse housing choices.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 6 OF 11
• •
The applicant's Impact Statement discusses the loss of 1.18 acres of residential land as a consequence
of the proposed rezone and concludes that there would be no negative effect on the City's progress
towards meeting the Metro Functional Plan, Title 1 goal. Using residential development
information provided by the City, the applicant calculates that with 370 acres of residentially-zoned
buildable lands (2008) within the City limits, and a progress to capacity (6,308) of 56.5%, the
additional 2,743 units required can be accommodated with an average density of 7.4 units/acre. The
applicant observes that since the average density of projects constructed since 2000 is 8.26 and has
been increasing over time, it is reasonable to assume the City can meet its Title 1 obligation
without the subject 1.18 R-12-zoned acres.
The City's Long Range Planning department maintains annual buildable lands inventory data.
According to this data, 1% (.44 acres/44.18 acres) of buildable lands zoned R-12 (2008) is contained
on the subject site. At 12 units/acre, the proposed rezone would reduce residential capacity by 5
units. The City's buildable lands inventory analysis found the City can expect additional capacity
of 3456 to 3925 new dwelling units. A reduction of 5 units would leave the City with a minimum
capacity of 3451 new dwelling units. As of Jan 1, 2007, the City had met 53.58°Io (3380 units) of its
target capacity number of 6308. Therefore, the proposed zone change would not adversely affect
the City s capacity to meet its housing density obligation under Title 1.
Additionally, the City anticipates increased housing capacity with the Downtown Improvement
Plan recently accepted by Council. Currently the CBD zone allows for, but does not require,
single-family housing at 12 units/acre and multifamily housing at 32 units/acre. In 2005, only 10%
of downtown acreage was used for housing (Downtown Improvement Plan, September 2005). It is
likely that the plan will result in reater residential density estimated at 40 unit/acre on a greater
percent of downtown acreage cup to 80%) estimated to yield approximately 1,200 units.
Furthermore, pre-application conferences with developers have shown interest in rezoning
industrial lands to medium and high density residential uses. Although these changes are not yet
assured, they represent a general trend toward increased residential use and density in Tigard.
Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
Policy 8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or
more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as:
A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another;
B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and
C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening.
The provisions of this policy bear on the possibility that there is an inconsistency in the
i
comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the subject property. The policy requires
measures to mitigate adverse impacts from more intense land uses on residential living
environments. In this case the R-12 residential zone is a wedge between two commercial zones, C-P
on the north and C-G on the south. Other areas zoned C-P to the east and west of the subject site
are adjacent to C-G zoned lands. This arrangement is consistent with the description of the C-P
zone in TDC 18.520.020.D which states that development in the C-P zoning district are intended
to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more-intensive commercial and industrial areas."
As the applicant's narrative points out, the current zoning arrangement makes it "very difficult to
protect residential development from loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare. It also places an extra
burden [buffering and screening] on surrounding commercial property That would not be necessary
if the subject parcels were zoned C-G."
In addition, as shown in the findings below, the subject lots meet the Locational Criteria for
general commercial areas.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 7 OF 11
• •
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA:
12.2 COMMERCIAL
Policy 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.
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 shallyhave 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 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 existing R-12 zone reflects the Medium Density Residential locational determinants contained
in Policy 12.1.1, including areas which 1) are not committed to low density development, 2) have
direct access from a collector or arterial street, 3) are not subject to development limitation, 4)
where the existing facilities have capacity for additional development, 5) are within lh mile of
public transportation, and 6) which can be buffered from low density residential areas.
However, as indicated in the locational criteria for the General Commercial areas, above, the
proposed zone change and comp plan amendment is also consistent with the general commercial
criteria: the subject area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides, would
not create traffic congestion based on the proposed ODOT trip cap, has direct access to either Hall
Blvd or Hwy 99 (via Warner Avenue), is of a size to accommodate the projected (storage facility)
use, is highly visible from Hwy 217 and Hall Blvd., could be compatible with surrounding
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 8 OF 11
• •
commercial uses, could maintain the privacy of adjacent residential uses through application of the
buffering and screening standards, could incorporate unique site features in the site design and
development plan, and could mitigate associated light, noise and activities from adjoining non-
residential uses.
FINDING: As demonstrated above, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change comply, or can be conditioned to comply with the applicable Comprehensive
Plan policies. The applicant proposes a change to the comprehensive plan and zoning
map designation from R-12 to C-G. Therefore, compliance with the map designation
is not applicable in this case.
18.380.030.B.2
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or
other applicable implementing ordinance; and
For the purposes of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, the applicant
has satisfactorily addressed the applicable Sections of Chapter 18.380, Zoning Map and Text
Amendments, of the Tigard Development Code. The standards of Chapter 18.390.050 for Type III-
PC procedures is applicable to this proposal, as identified in18.380.030.-The applicant has submitted
an Impact Statement as required under 18.390.050.B.e. Potential impacts to the transportation
system have been addressed under the Transportation goal, above.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change do not include a specific
development proposal. However, the applicant has indicated that he would propose a storage
facility similar to the one currently under construction on the adjacent property to the south off of
Warner Avenue. Any proposed development will be required to meet all of the current applicable
Tigard Development Code standards.
FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the applicable standards of Tigard Development
Code.
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.
The applicant's narrative states that the existing R-12 designation is an inconsistency in the
comprehensive plan as it sandwiches 1.18 acres of R-12 zoning between two large commercial
zoned areas. As shown above in the findings for the Housing and Locational Criteria goals, staff
supports the applicant's contention that the subject R-12 zone is inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan policies and would be appropriately rezoned as C-G with a Comprehensive
Plan designation of general commercial.
FINDING: The proposal demonstrates that there may be an inconsistency in the comprehensive
plan and zoning map as it relates to the subject property.
C. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval
with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or
denied.
FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi-judicial as it is limited to specific parcels and
does not apply generally across the City. Therefore, the Planning commission
recommendation to Council may be for denial, approval, or approval with
conditions.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/J VANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 9 OF 11
• •
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department reviewed the proposal and provided
information, which is included in findings for the Housing Goal section of the staff report.
The City of Tigard Arborist reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it.
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue reviewed the proposal and had no comment.
Clean Water Services reviewed the pp--r�o� osal and recommended that all of the relevant provisions
of the IGA between the City and C'WSpbe followed and that a site certification will be required
prior to development of the subject parcels.
SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's proposal to change the zone on 1.18 acres from R-12 to C-G could result in
additional trips to Hwy 99, a state facility that is already not meeting service levels. ODOT has
commented that with a trip cap, this issue could satisfactorily be addressed to meet the provisions
of the state TPR.
The proposal would reduce the City's capacity for residential density required under Metro' Title 1
and the City's Housing goals and policies. However, the 1% reduction in buildable lands would not
be significant because the City's existing.capacity, based on its buildable lands inventory, is
substantially in excess of the minimum requirement.
The proposal may affect existing residential development in the vicinity. However, the locational
criteria for commercial areas is met and is arguably more suitable for the subject lots than the
existing residential zone. Other areas zoned C-P to the east and west of the subject site are adjacent
to C-G zoned lands without residential zoned lands between, as is the case with the subject lots.
The proposed zone change would be consistent with the description of the C-P zone in TDC
18.520.020.D which states that "developments in the C-P zoning district are intended to serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more-intensive commercial and industrial areas." In addition,
the density of the existing apartments at 10 units/.44 acres exceeds the 12 units /acre allowed in the
existing R-12 zone. C-G zoning allows new multi-family dwellings with the planned development
review process and standards which does not include a minimum lot size or density requirement.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with applicable rovisions of the Tigard comprehensive
plan, statewide planning goals and rules, Metro Regional Functional Plan, Tigard Development
code, and provides evidence of inconsistency in the comprehensive plan and zoning map as it
relates to the property which is the subject of the development application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change with the following condition of
approval:
Condition of Approval
A trip cap shall be placed on the site equivalent to the land use with the highest trip generation rate
allowed outright under the existing R-12 zoning or 153 daily trips, as identified in the applicant's
CTS study.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 10 OF 11
• •
The trip cap shall be implemented as a condition of approval on subsequent land use permits for
proposed development and will be listed as a condition of approval in the ordinance adopting the
zone change, if approved by the City Council.
47, - --
July 14 2008
1'RE 'A rary agenstecher DA'Z'E
Associate Planner
12f:e4t c&A./.4
i iy gib'
/ ' i 1 / July 14, 2008
APPROVED BY: Dick Bewe sdorff / DATE
Planning Manager
is\curpin\gary\CPA\Jivanjee Zone Change(ZON2008-00004)\ZON2008-00004 staff report
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21,2008 PUBLIC HEARING
CPA2008-00004/JIVANJEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZON2008-00001/JIVANJEE ZONE CHANGE PAGE 11 OF 11
•
•
•
=I I
•
•
0.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
a •
x¢xx
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
•
•
.
max ...
•
•
•
."
•
i ••till'
xx
xxx.wx... trtr a
1 1111
0 0
• •
i a,/ Jivanjee Circosta Architecture, LLP
_-= . Architecture ® Planning e Urban Design
t
Memorandum
Date: 3/7/08
Project: 11600 and 11580 Hall Blvd Zone Change. (1S135DD00100 and
1 S135DD01600)
Subject: Compliance Narrative
Applicant:
Jivanjee Circosta Architecture
9055 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway
Portland, Oregon 97225
Contact: Doug Circosta
Owner:
Site 1
Henry Y. Louie
13665 SW 130th Place
Tigard, OR 97223
Site 2
Lisa A. Cach, Trustee, Successor Trustee, Cach Family Revocable Trust
6003 4th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Managed by: Silver Creek Apartments
do John Winquist— Regency Management, Inc.
13670 SW Wrightwood Court
Tigard, OR 97224
Parcel Description:
Site 1
11600 Hall Blvd, Tax Map 1 S135DD00100
.74 acres adjacent to Highway 217 with "flag lot" access to Hall Blvd.
Site 2
11580 Hall Blvd, Tax Map 1 S135DD01600
.44 acres adjacent to Hall Blvd.
Proposal:
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment. Change existing Zoning and
Comprehensive Plan Designation from R-12 Medium Density Residential to C-G
General Commercial.
9055 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,Oregon 97225 Tel.(503)297-5160 Fax(503)297-4635 ,:- - ',+;
869 MN Wall Street Suite 201, Bend,Oregon 97701 Tel.(541)330-0009 Fax(541)330-0027
• •
•
l p 9
5�• r
, - / }:, Cfgr ?r'. o'o o . -,ti. PPFA FLE- o - o - �o o a
It4F.--t :,:,,,.-11....f k 1."`Att. :'t lew-^:-
. f'4Kli-7),- '-'4'-irf'-"-k '''':'rY:':' .,C-r-, ,i- lila
i±v Sf SRY1y, v.
;
4t5tw ,� � '...:7.'",f �4 ie # n„
- v r
P t . �
y p s 3 x r=
om t xR:. Y, 45,,,r4:::.wg,-;,z ..:„x. t,,,,,,t,
t €255
$tz£5 O'"' SITE 2 -m-c4:::44,-.:3? ,` y
" SITE 1 wM ; F.i °.
*l t 1.Lo eX ,� '� . C" .
t-tt,-' r�w r' 1
3 n: w'
tiEi � % r.'wtz"p:
/ ,� � 4 .
. z. d '.
1 4 btiu3
try- +'. t?it3 r 4 n
*,` �y tti97.7
x Ut7c3 !:^ t� tf,
}
t ., tt:3e A %"1
t ¢l'. , �
�N'4. •'tE47 t
' 'mo t` `.S tr a
G .3
i ? �d ts�l�� l�tc y f
a,ti u'iiY{3'-X72 c _t -�"f
d. - e&., 7, _tC34
Figure 1 Parcel Map •
9055 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,Oregon 97225 Tel.(503)297-5160 Fax(503)297-4635 l'
869 NW Wall Street Suite 201, Bend,Oregon 97701 Tel.(541)330-0009 Fax(541)330-0027
.....4....
.: .
.....
....:,.... . ...„4 •,:.. ....• ..: • :4••....'...'f... 4..'itl.'„..r.,4.4.
...H.. „,:...„..,F ,1 ?•!„„...........h., •; .., .•,,,
* , .:+4,.... .iiii,,j1...iike“,„ . ..7.;•••• .0
..".
...,..''. 0,1414:".,7.:oi...,:ii.!51k'•...,:lr,
...••••• •
-.•••.* ., 'Ai...?-4..5.1 ...,.. .h.,...,..:3F.;••:••1111' • ..'''''.
''. •,,•!...
........ * ,t,,N.4'.4 :,4"04 *.
• . it.m ,..**I:AIKA
1.....
.... :Kt<
. . . ....,.......44, "•'•:''..1.4.' . ,..4,,,4 ..*.! ...:.44...i,k4L,;....;!. % 4.:**?17.11**k:41......:;7.f../. ,••••• ••••'•:+4...:1••••:..' i •'
t•;,...,...•,.. „4,....:...4,4.1...,..,
..,
•• -..
• .
•,, .,. ,....s, . ..
• W:4.:•141•'.• 4"' —...5•••• 'i ' ••••'. ...'.7:7f. •
• 7.. ,,
.••..0.44*.'
.....,••
..,...„••••
f.'
.:,...t.i•...0,,,,
.4...
•••,,„:44.4•;,,!.....x.,..
... .. ..0..i 1
• ...J.,
• '''..nil.f..... k..'••
.4._• ,
.,.....74.-
• _ - ..,,,,,....,
. *. .1.1......,%.....:. .
La: ,..)....,...",....:71,,,, .. .1. . ..••••:,.......,,;.....:;.:k.;•.....:•••:,:••••••:.!::::.••!...••,,..„4"...:. --... „...... :. ,,,,,i....,
.1.........i .
...16.. 'c..,.
H ,
....... ,..
...„.....
•• ,4„.
CI)
• •':'„....„.k. `:
44 •ii::it!
•414e. it.
......4.4.4:71r4.. 4:1:k...'......1 *".4\+:+1.. Iiii. ‘,..‘,,,,10.7., i•::44:;,...;:*4.'•'••• ' ' x .. if!.
': '114::*..• • 1:1•"!}.. • xt :4:4
Pi•...:4•„•,•
•••...t...• : :::::::•
..4,... • .
v...!..... . .
_ .
Ait.:1.,..... -..
...L.L.4.Li„„... ,...**..
... ..L.
, .
.4: L„ .,.....LL............„.
1 ........„-i . •,,......d... i.i _.:x0,..,..,.....:„..:54:„.„„: ... „
r.
a.. ..„.. L.L....„.1 ........„ LA....
.: ..4...470........ ,..--w-A4fi.......e...!..i... .1.,
,..:
.
x - '.::!* ;......,,....1.- '1.6..'.. '.. 't,...,:.';;:r,f'.!.....,..t......,:. .A..,,, ,......
. ...ii.i.
-•;••••
. * F.....'.....
. 41,.. ,4•41%*....'.. '...4.44:41.r.,•**4:44:NiAj A, ..........---.......
a; I •••
• •a
• •-•* •**•11.,.."***:!•:..'..1:::4.•:.**..4*.K.'••
— 4t.'.....*
• ; ,.'..i'' f. ,....•
. <6.•
ki., . , • 1::: 1/2-." ...
...• ,.....4
n' — n ••;0-147... n ki..:.n
.........% . .•,,,,,L....:.:. ..,'..,„:..',....,,,,kt,.....,; .. ;;
.......*:•74,..nnj .. ;...7„,
j4ii :itih.•,:' ,; ,.. '',1.. s'''.
x...•.••'••''''.. ,•••..•
' . „ •
,•..,:•
' 1....4= 'it''.....'..).• '1..:!.'
0* .4'i ,•,•1 i'••'."
• • ' Vtl, • ''
..„:". N,..,,1:40,.......
,—.
.n.
......-- •
:.......- .........
,..; ..........
::::,,.....,„,.,.......
;........... .....„:1,..,::
,...i... •• .....
• S
......
-s, .....
• R-12 - • - --- -•-• ,..•
:t..
,. . . f>.
• 3- .. :
. . .
. ..
.. ...
. . ..
.. ..
. ..
• - .. — - rib, '
......
1 li 1:
4abb-• ••- •>344.3
... .
.......... •
C-P
.. .. .
• L..- R-1 2....• .
- . • .•
••.. ... .
•
R.-1 2 • • • . . : -
.. . ,
. ........
•• •
....... . .
V ..
> F
0
oi
. %.
IDescription c..)f Recluest
E.,....,............,,,:-.......„.,r, i Li,: ;:::-.....1 ::-1....... ..........;..., .-.A .... "......;.:T....... ...........s....... t.............., ::,:::!**1...—; ''''.. •..:•;•••.:'-'........y.;:.'•....it....::-.... i-...---AI.' — '
..1',...15.-f...!--;.. r.—,....'''...".:.„:...!:',...'"e'y' 1:::: .7...1.. ...I:Jr r-c;,...... ...../............"i ..:,.,.-......-.,i ...-...... .......fth ....:-...,.:1-:-.....:1 ......-.....n:..!! ,.....: .......-.1!"..11 i... r................. ..:1,....;',"...f....... i•• ........"-.....:'
....:....1:-.::',17.11......n. T I.,(:- ,-.....,...!...k....-ic,:i.-.....,' 1.......--;:'....r...:1 1.,....: .4.4. ..--...11:11.::::.. ........1..-:1 !....-; °.:.1,--....--: 1...-....,`........!.......... ,...1 ...7......! ...,:::: '-'.../'...,.........,
'; ::.,--.....::............--.1.:::.-±.... c.:.,.tr.....-1..-....-. '.............-. 11--: !........:-...... ...........1 •••• ....1...:•!:' .......... .:,,....„. '......:......... ••••••-• :-..;...I.:::: .-... - ...--r-n •....'...
....1.-....-.........1...:. ....!..... °.......... .....-..1..... •....1'.... ....:.......:::...:.. i...........-...... 1.i!........ ;::'-......;.:.'„ ;.1..:-...........'.............! •:.• ''......----::...::. ....!......'"•1 :.i ......:::••-...•!" •..,
II.) .........t.r.L.t......... :-..- !........ .-...f.....:::-.....-.--..:!-.-- "....-.: I":-... L.:-...4...,...-........t.„...-......--....! ..-4--......i...: 1...... .....i; ,......,,......". n•.., ....f.',......; L.1-'..'..-.-.. ".....--....-.... ...1--'.--- .....-.
'''',>,?..."...,7''.7.:1'...'.....—-....;:•''..1:1;•''...*:. :'.., ........—r...".1.... '.....'...."...::—..*:: i'....- '....!•..........1.1 ...: s's::-.....7-.....—.}.....'''''. .:.:1. .....!,,......!...',..;"s"....1;''''...:"...1. ...T.:if l'''. ...-..•''''!.....':...1t. ...' ..":":"
•...:.:.—•......:::.....::: ...1:::-— :71 ..-.:.—.:....r., i'''..;:.•-•.***,,:-..-" :11'1 ..T...';').:—.:**.1'.r:.- ;'...."............. :',...::: ..*:***-:.. ..—:::...***.•: :....J. .:....i.'....;...sr...:',...' '''..-.1.*:''': :-..1.--..., ;: "*.*
'11'...-....-...1.1. .....-.-Fi ..:-_,..! .r.; .........::•..I ., -..-1....,:::: „:• :-..:P. p: :...,-.P..........f.......-P.....P.-.. ..... f t t : ,-..--:-....1-.. :.I. '..- ......-..- P.: "...;:...........-::: Jr'. ..--,
-.P...."‘..:i".....1 l'....: :::LP:: '..-.." ..... *PP... '.'....:-....-..P'... f.......E...4.. .....P.E.':„... :,......!... -...-..-.....11 `. •..."........P... P---;P.'.1":".c...-::: -.—.....: :::••..".
...........:1.4,
•
• • •
institutional uses. The subject property as currently designated is not well-suited to
this purpose. The small size of the parcel along with being isolated by major
roadways and commercial zones does not lend itself well to creating a livable
neighborhood. In contrast, the major roadways and surrounding commercial zones
are ideal for the requested zone change to C-G.
Code Criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment:
1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
map designations (e.g. Goal#8, Transportation; #12, Locational Criteria).
a. Changing the subject property to C-G is not in conflict with the goals of Policy
8 Transportation, in fact the change is more in keeping with the Policy than
the current designation.
i. Goal #1 of the Tigard Transportation System Plan is Livability and
Goal #3 is safety. The data in the TSP indicates that Hall Blvd is an
Arterial Street with a planned right of way of four to five lanes. Figure
3-1 of the TSP shows how the site area is surrounded by arterial
roads and Figure 3-17 of the TSP shows how the site area is
surrounded by existing truck routes. This is not conducive to
residential development in terms of livability and safety and much
better suited to commercial development. This is especially true given
the that the R-12 zone is only 1.18 acres split over two parcels.
ii. Goal #6 of the TSP relates to Goods Movement and designing arterial
routes for efficient transportation. Commercial uses are a better fit at
this location not only as a more compatible adjacency but also as an
efficient destination for goods movement.
iii. Figure 5-2 of the TSP also shows the subject property is included in a
Regional Center/Town Center area. Again the R-12 designation is
not ideal.
iv. Planned roadway, intersection, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
improvements planned for Hall Blvd and 99W insure that commercial
development at the subject property can be adequately served and
not overtax the transportation system.
b. Changing the subject property to C-G is not in conflict with the goals of
Policy 12 Locational Criteria, in fact the change is more in keeping with the
Policy than the current designation.
i. 12.2 Commercial: The intent of the comprehensive plan is that
surrounding residential areas be protected from any possible adverse
effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights, and glare. Changing
the R-12 zoning to C-G will aid in implementing this goal. Because
the subject property is bounded by Hwy. 217, Hall Blvd, and
commercial properties it is very difficult to protect residential
development from loss of privacy, noise, lights, and glare. It also
places an extra burden on surrounding commercial properties that
would not be necessary if the subject parcel was zoned C-G.
ii. Policy 12.2.1(2. General commercial) Locational Criteria: The
subject property is not surrounded by residential districts on more
9055 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,Oregon 97225 Tel.(503)297-5160 Fax(503)297-4635 , . ;rr
869 NW Wall Street Suite 201, Bend,Oregon 97701 Tel.(541)330-0009 Fax(541)330-0027
• • •
than two sides. The subject property has direct access from a major
collector or arterial street. Public transportation is available. The site
size is appropriate for many General Commercial uses and it is visible
from Hwy 217 and Hall Blvd. The subject site is such that it can be
buffered as required from adjacent properties.
2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the
Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but
not limited to 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050%060
Decision Making Procedures)
a. The subject property is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate the
requirements of Table 18.520.2 Commercial Development Standards and
therefore the property can be developed for commercial uses. No specified
use is proposed with this application. The subject property is capable of
supporting commercial development that complies with all applicable
standards of the Development Code. Detailed demonstration of compliance
would be provided when a development is proposed.
b. 18.390.050 / .060 list the procedural requirements for Type III and IV
Procedures. All requirements outlined in these procedures will be complied
with according to the timeframes described in the requirements.
c. The proposed C-G zoning designation is more compatible with the
Development Code. Because of the zoning designations of the surrounding
parcels and the existing transportation system, the current R-12 zoning
designation is not compatible with the primary purpose of the Residential
Zoning Districts which is to preserve neighborhood livability(18.510.010).
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.
a. The R-12 designation for the subject property is an inconsistency in the
comprehensive plan as it sandwiches 1.18 acres of R-12 zoning between
two large commercially zoned areas. It is also inconsistent to cut off this
residential zone from other residential zones while trying to meet the primary
goal of the residential zone which is to create livable neighborhoods. This is
not an ideal place to live. The single family residences along Hall Blvd have
been, or are being converted into commercial uses. The apartments to the
north of the subject property suffer from their location. Poor location, forcing
low rent, resulting in lack of maintenance, neglect, and undesirable housing.
The existing and planned transportation systems make the subject property
more suitable for commercial development.
4. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines.
a. The proposed zone change is compatible with applicable Goals 9 Economic
Development, 10 Housing, and 12 Transportation. There are no conflicts to
identify.
5. No conflicts in any applicable federal or state statutes or regulations can be
identified.
6. No conflicts with the Metro Regional Transportation Plan can be identified.
9055 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,Oregon 97225 Tel.(503)297-5160 Fax(503)297-4635 41
'ri
869 NW Wall Street Suite 201, Bend,Oregon 97701 Tel.(541)330-0009 Fax(541)330-0027
• • •
Impact Statement:
In this case there is no development proposed in association with the application, so
there is no specific impact on public facilities and services. Any impacts and
associated mitigation will be considered through the Design Review process, which
will be required prior to site development. In general, changing to C-G would have
an overall positive impact. This under utilized parcel could be developed into
contributing part of the urban fabric. Planned upgrades to the transportation system
as outlined in the TSP show that the subject parcel is ideal for commercial
development. Its proximity to arterial roadways and truck routes makes efficient use
of the transportation system.
The loss of a very small amount residentially zoned land would have no negative
affect on the City of Tigard's progress towards meeting the Metro Functional Plan
Title 1 goals. Based on Buildable Lands and Residential Development Data
provided by the City of Tigard and current as of January 2008 there are 370.90
buildable acres zoned for residential within the City limits. The 2017 target capacity
is 6,308 dwelling units and since 1994 to present 3,565 units have been created with
a progress to capacity of 56.5%. 2,743 additional units are required to meet the
2017 goal. With 370.9 acres available this represents an average density of 7.4
units per acre. The data shows that since 2000 the average density of projects
constructed is 8.26 units per acre. The data also shows that the average density
has been increasing over time and can be anticipated to continue that way. This
also does not include other zoning designations that allow residential development
as a use. The data shows that there is plenty of land capacity to reach 2017 goals
and that the subject property would have no negative impact if changed to C-G
zone.
Conclusion:
This is as much a case for why the R-12 zone is wrong for this location as it is about
the C-G zone being appropriate. This application will bring an isolated parcel into
more compatible compliance with the Community Development Code, The
Comprehensive Plan, and the Transportation System Plan. The Owner of the
subject parcel wishes to develop the property which currently is under utilized to its
highest and best use. Residential development on this parcel does not make sense
neither from an economic perspective nor a planning perspective. The existing R-12
zone is incompatible with some of the primary goals of the TSP and Comprehensive
Plan Policies while the C-G zone is a much better fit. Once changed to C-G zoning,
the parcel can become a contributing piece of the Tigard urban fabric; under its
current zoning designation it an isolated under utilized piece of land with little
opportunity.
9055 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Portland,Oregon 97225 Tel.(503)297-5160 Fax(503)297-4635 g
869 NW Wall Street Suite 201, Bend,Oregon 97701 Tel.(541)330-0009 Fax(541)330-0027 1
• •
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD 2027
TO: Planning Commission, Urbanization Policy Interest Team
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Urbanization Policy Interest Team Meeting
DATE: July 14, 2008
On Monday,July 21St, the Planning Commission will host a Policy Interest Team meeting
relating to Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization. The community has been notified and
asked to participate through a number of outreach efforts. Invitations were sent through the
Comp Plan Update Listserv, to the Interested Parties list for urbanization, to the Tigard
Community Organizations list, to the Community Connectors, to the weekly Tigard
Chamber of Commerce newsletter, and posted as a press release on the City's webpage.
Community members will work in collaboration with the Commission to review, edit, and
finalize draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures that will be taken through
the legislative process. The Commission previously acted as the host for the Land Use
chapter and based on the feedback received during that process, staff will not utilize the
building block exercise, but will present draft language with commentary. This draft
language is based on current state and regional conditions, as well as the City's current policy
position. The draft language is found in Attachment 1.
Staff has also provided current Comprehensive Plan policies (Attachment 2), a map showing
Tigard's planning boundaries (Attachment 3), Statewide Planning Goal 14 language
(Attachment 4), and annexation rules/positions (Attachment 5) to give everyone more
information relating to the draft language.
If you have any questions, please be sure to contact me at darren @tigard-or.gov or 503-718-
2442. See you on Monday the 21st.
1
• •
di Ot
IR
TIGARD 2027
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Urbanization Policy Interest Team
July 21,2008
8:15—10:00 pm
Agenda for Meeting#1
8:15—8:25 Welcome Darren Wyss
Meeting Objectives
Introductions All
Roles and Responsibilities
8:25 —8:35 Comprehensive Planning Overview Darren Wyss
- schedule
- role of interest teams
- goals/policies/action items
8:35 —9:35 Overview of Draft Language and Commentary Darren Wyss
Discussion: All
- additions
- changes
- deletions
9:35 —9:45 Overview of Next Meeting Agenda: Darren Wyss
Review and refine draft language
• •
.. ..
TIGARD 2027
Policy Interest Team Roles and Responsibilities
May 22, 2007
Thank you for volunteering to help the City of Tigard define important aspects of our draft
Comprehensive Plan policies. When adopted, the Comprehensive Plan will guide our
community's planning, actions and investments over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive
Plan sets policy direction for the City and should reflect the community's values.
As you will see by our agenda, we have a lot to cover in the meetings we have scheduled. The
meetings will be facilitated by City staff. We are eager to hear from all of you. Through the
course of our work, please adhere to the following:
• Attend all meetings. If you are unable to attend, send your comments to staff in advance
of the meeting.
♦ Review material provided in advance of the meeting.
♦ Ask questions for information or clarification, not to challenge or intimidate.
♦ Consider all opinions as valid and worthy of respect.
♦ Be willing to learn, compromise, and/or negotiate.
• Aim for a consensus that is fair and in the best interest of the community.
• • ATTACHMENT 1
Policy Interest Team Meeting #2
Urbanization — Draft Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action
Measures
Goal:
14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and the
residents within the Tigard City limits.
Goal 14.2 Commentary:
The City has an obligation to its residents to ensure the provision of the best facilities and
services the community can fund. Providing services outside of the city limits hinders the
City's ability to meet its obligation to its residents.
Policies:
1. The City shall not approve the extension of City services except:
A. where applications for annexation for those properties have been approved;
or
B. in circumstances where applicable state and county health agencies have
declared a potential or imminent health hazard pursuant to ORS 431.705 to
431.760 (Health Hazard Annexation or Service District Formation).
Note: This policy was adopted by City Council in November 2007
Policy 1 Commentary:
The City of Tigard's position is to not supply urban services outside of its city limits. The
simple application for subdivision and/or annexation should not be enough to approve the
extension of services, but the approval of the applications must happen first. An exception
to the policy is that when it can be proven that a health hazard exists that will be eliminated
by the extension of the service. Criteria for identifying a health hazard are located in the
Oregon Revised Statutes. However,providing services in the case of a Health Hazard
annexation also means that the affected properties must annex to the jurisdiction/agency
providing such services.
2. The City shall maintain,and amend when necessary, agreements a Urban ccry cc
Agreement with Washington County that recognizes the City as the ultimate
provider of governance and identified services within the Tigard Urban Services
Area.
Policy 2 Commentary:
The City has operated under an Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County
since 1983 that recognizes Tigard as the ultimate governance provider within the Urban
Planning Area (UPA). The current UPA contains the city limits as well as unincorporated
Draft Language 1 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
areas of Bull Mountain and Metzger. The City also has entered into the Tigard Urban Service
Agreement with Washington County. The agreement outlines the role, provision, area, and
planning/coordination responsibilities for service providers operating with the Tigard Urban
Service Area (TUSA). The Agreement was last updated in July 2006 and again identifies
Tigard as the ultimate governance provider to the TUSA,which coincides with the UPA.
These agreements have been put into place because of the recognition that cities are better
suited to provide urban level services than county government (Oregon Administrative
Rules). Maintaining the City's agreements provides the possibility that Tigard may eventually
govern new UGB expansions.
3. The City shall, as needed,coordinate and/or participate in planning activities or
development decisions within the Tigard Urban Services Area.
Policy 3 Commentary:
The City needs to be involved in decisions related to growth planning or development
applications within the TUSA. This will help to ensure that if the unincorporated lands
within the TUSA are annexed, the public facilities and services will be available to serve the •
planned growth or existing development. Conformance with adopted plans and agreements
will also be checked during this process.
4. The City shall oppose formation of any new service district, or expansion of existing
districts,within the Tigard Urban Services Area that could conflict with the existing
and future delivery of City services.
Policy 4 Commentary:
The City has a need to protect its rights as an identified urban services provider within the
TUSA. The City commits significant staff resources to plan for capital improvement needs
and then finances these improvements to better serve its residents. If the plans and facilities
are weakened by new or expanded districts, the City and its residents bear any associated
financial burdens. Cities already bear inequitable/non-assignable costs imposed by
underserved unincorporated urban areas when their residents use city services such as parks,
libraries, transportation facilities,public safety, etc. Expanding/creating districts to promote
additional unincorporated urban development damages the integrity of intergovernmental
service provision and planning agreements and interferes with the City's ability to be
efficient and effective in its own services.
5. The City shall enter into and maintain intergovernmental agreements with service
districts operating within the Tigard Urban Service Area to:
A. Define short and long term service provision roles;
B. Specify the terms and conditions of withdrawal of territory from service
districts and the transition of capital facility ownership and administration to
the City;
C. Provide for coordination of plans and programs; and
D. Ensure services are provided consistent with the City's adopted Public
Facility Plan.
Draft Language 2 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
III .
Policy 5 Commentary:
It is in the interest of the City to enter into agreements with any service provider operating
within the TUSA to ensure everyone is receiving adequate, efficient, and effective services.
This includes the planning of services, the need to eliminate duplicity of services thru
coordination, and defining the role of the providers. As importantly, the long term service
role must also be well defined. This includes the transition of facility ownership and
management,when these transfers should take place, and coordination to require service
provision is consistent with adopted plans.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Regularly review the Tigard Urban Services Agreement with Washington County
and amend it as necessary.
ii. Coordinate the review of land use proposals in the Tigard Urban Services Area
with Washington County and require annexation of development that requires
City services.
iii. Ensure the City is represented in planning efforts for unincorporated urban lands
within the Urban Growth Boundary and in Metro decisions to expand the urban
growth boundary.
iv. Regularly review existing intergovernmental agreements with service providers
operating within the Tigard Urban Services Area and propose amendments as
needed.
v. Encourage the City,County and service districts to adopt compatible facility
design standards.
vi. Coordinate the development and implementation of the City's Public Facilities
and Capital Improvement Plans with Washington County, service districts and
other service providers within the Tigard Urban Services Area.
Goal:
14.2. Annex unincorporated properties as opportunities arise in order to implement the
Tigard Urban Services Agreement.
Goal 14.2 Commentary:
Tigard has been identified as the ultimate provider of certain urban services with the TUSA.
Tigard's position is that cities are better suited to provide urban level services and will
welcome voluntary annexations as property owners inquire about the process and services
that will be received.
Draft Language 3 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
• •
Policies:
1. The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed property that
most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation on
that property.
Policy 1 Commentary:
Metro and its regional partners have invested greatly in the planning of the region. This
ranges from solid waste removal to transportation planning. In order for these planning
efforts to realize their intended outcomes, jurisdictions must cooperate in implementing the
assumptions of the efforts. Washington County has adopted a comprehensive plan for its
unincorporated areas that assumes a certain level of development in the future. This
includes housing and employment allocations that they are obligated to fulfill. When a
property annexes to a city,it is important for the planning assumptions to remain intact for
the region to function as intended. This is especially true to reduce negative impacts upon
the transportation system from higher than planned densities/uses.
2. The City shall ensure the capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed
urban level services to the area when approving an annexation.
Policy 2 Commentary:
The City is responsible for the provision of urban services to its residents. An important
part of this responsibility is adopting plans and programs to act as a guide. When a property
is proposed to be annexed, the City is obligated to analyze current conditions and future
plans for services to ensure the capacity exists, or will in the future, to effectively serve the
annexed property without diminishing service provision to current residents and their
properties.
3. The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request:
A. Eliminates an island of unincorporated territory within the City; or
B. Is contiguous to current City limits and is located within the Tigard Urban
Services Area;and
C. Can be accommodated by City's public facilities and services.
Policy 3 Commentary:
State law governs the annexation of property in Oregon. Municipalities are allowed to annex
islands, based on a number of requirements,without consent of the property owners. This
eliminates inefficient provision of services based on fragmented patches of governance. If
outside of an island, state law mandates a property be contiguous to the city limits to be
eligible for annexation. This again helps to eliminate fragmented governance. In both cases,
the annexed properties will now be paying taxes for facilities and services they either already
access or would in the future. In addition to following state law, the City must still ensure
the capacity exists to accommodate the services and facilities needed for the property.
Draft Language 4 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
•
4. The City shall evaluate and require,when appropriate, parcels adjacent to proposed
annexations be included to:
A. Avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City;
B. Enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire
area; or
C. Implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by
the Planning Commission or City Council.
Policy 4 Commentary:
It is in the City's interest to avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City because of
the consequences of fragmented governance and inefficient delivery of services that is
associated with islands. When application for annexation is made with the City, requiring
properties to join the annexation to eliminate the creation of an island is preferable.
Additionally, ensuring public services are being extended efficiently is in the best interest of
the City and its residents. Requiring a property to join an annexation to ensure efficient
extension of service, or to implement an adopted land use plan for the area is also preferable.
5. The City shall develop, coordinate, and implement an adopted Public Facility Plan to
ensure the predictable and logical provision of urban services for areas anticipated to
be within the City Limits.
Policy 5 Commentary:
State law requires the adoption of a Public Facility Plan for the City of Tigard. Included in
the plan are an inventory and assessment of existing systems and an identification of projects
needed to support land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose is to
ensure a timely, efficient, and orderly arrangement of facilities and services.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Periodically review and update the City's annexation methods and encourage
property owners within the unincorporated Tigard Urban Services Area to annex
based upon the benefits associated of being within the City limits.
ii. Utilize incentives, as appropriate, to encourage owners of unincorporated
properties to annex to the City.
iii. Develop criteria and procedures to encourage, and when possible,require
owners of adjacent parcels to also annex to the City when neighboring parcel(s)
annex.
Goal:
14.3. Promote En3urc Tigard residents'interests - - - --- : = -; in urban
growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management
decisions.
Draft Language 5 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
• 1111
Goal 14.3 Commentary:
The City wants access and representation in decisions regarding expansion and growth in the
region; essentially our due process rights as a member community must be preserved and
used. In addition,Washington County and the state are involved as it pertains to the Urban
Reserve and Rural Reserve issues. They must work in tandem with the City to make
decisions that affect Tigard residents.The City must have a seat at the table during the
decision-making process.
For example, urbanization decisions on new UGB lands can have profound impacts on
Tigard's Transportation System; negatively affect the City's ability to redevelop its
Downtown and Highway 99W Corridor;and further burden City services through
unincorporated urban development.
Policies:
1. The City shall support bra regional and state growth management decisions,
while promoting policy that to the extent they supports cities as the best building
blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact urban region.
Policy 1 Commentary:
Over the years,in addition to the management of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),
Metro has become much more involved in other growth management decisions. These are
related to the development of a compact urban form, efficient/effective use of
infrastructure, natural resource protections, transportation planning, focusing development
in centers, corridors, employment lands, etc.The City has agreed with and been involved in
the implementation of these principles and needs to continue to be engaged in the regional
and state political/growth management discussions. One issue the City has a pressing
interest in is the urban level unincorporated development that has taken place in the region,
some of which abuts the City's boundaries. The City's position is that cities are better suited
to provide urban services. The taxing structures of counties and cities are set up to make
cities better suited to provide urban services and implement regional growth management
principles. However, this has not stemmed continued unincorporated urban growth.
Addressing this issue is important to not only the City of Tigard,but to the region as a
whole.
2. The City's support of regional Urban Growth Boundary management decisions shall
consider if these actions prevent future unincorporated urban development, prevents
urban sprawl, and promotes the development of an efficient and compact urban
form.
Policy 2 Commentary:
One of the primary tools used in Oregon to control sprawl, preserve valuable resource lands,
and promote the coordinated and logical provision of public facilities and services is the
urban growth boundary. Tigard is located within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB),where Metro has the responsibility for establishing and managing the
UGB in order to accommodate urban growth in the region for the next 20 years. Existing
unincorporated urban development presents a problem when UGB expansion is proposed
Draft Language 6 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
• •
as it may block a city's ability to expand and provide services to new UGB areas. This
undermines the position of the region's cities as the best building blocks of an efficient,
stable, and compact urban region.
3. The City shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single
family residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in
its regional and town centers and within major transportation corridors to be
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Framework Plan.
Policy 3 Commentary:
The City and its residents would like to protect existing single-family neighborhoods to
retain the low density residential character of much of the community. Seventy percent of
Tigard is zoned residential,with low density zoning (7500 square foot minimum lot size or
greater) occupying 41.5% of City land. In order for the community to retain this character, a
need exists to accommodate more intense urban land uses within its town and regional
centers and major transportation corridors.
Metro has designated Washington Square as one of nine Regional Centers; all having
connections via high-capacity transit and highways. Town Centers (Tigard Downtown) are
intended to be a principal center of urban life,while corridors (99W and Hall Blvd) are
intended to feature a high-quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to transit, and
somewhat higher than current densities.
4. The City shall not provide municipal services outside its city limits.
Policy 4 Commentary:
City residents pay City taxes,while residents living in unincorporated urban development do
not pay City taxes. Based on the principle of equity,Tigard residents should not subsidize
services provided outside of the municipal boundary. This includes the maintenance of
infrastructure, the provision of staff services, and infrastructure capital improvements.
5. The City shall not support the formation or expansion of service districts or special
county funding levies if these actions result in the expansion/or intensification of
unincorporated urban areas.
Policy 5 Commentary:
Expansion and formation of service districts and special levies support unincorporated
urbanization, adding to the problems associated with this type of development. The
uncontrolled expansion of service districts exacerbates some negative growth management
consequences.
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
Draft Language 7 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
• •
safety has been accommodated to a degree by enhanced Washington County Sheriff's
services. The consequence is that residents of these areas use services provided Tigard and
other cities that are not provided by the County (parks for example). This situation negates
incentives for property owners to annex to the City.
The provision urban services by service districts to unincorporated urban lands have
negative growth management consequences as stated above. In Tigard's situation,
unincorporated development in the Bull Mountain area now separates urban growth areas 63
and 64 from Tigard. Because these areas are not contiguous, they cannot be annexed to the
city. 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.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Encourage Metro to adopt requirements that new lands added to the Urban
Growth Boundary be planned for urbanization by existing cities and annexed
prior to development.
ii. Work with the state, Metro and other jurisdictions to resolve legislative and
jurisdictional policy barriers to city annexation of lands that are within the urban
growth boundary.
iii. If there are to be new cities in the Portland Metropolitan region, encourage the
state and Metro to establish criteria for the formation of new municipal
governments to ensure they be fiscally sustainable and consistent with state and
regional growth management objectives.
iv. Work with Washington County,its cities, Metro and others to address:
a. public service equity issues associated with unincorporated urban
development;
b. quality of life needs and desires of both incorporated and unincorporated
residents; and
c. preventing blight conditions associated with underserved urban
development.
v. Participate in state and regional efforts to develop equitable ways to fund public
infrastructure needed to provide for existing service needs and support projected
employment and population growth.
Draft Language 8 Goal 14
PIT Meeting#1 7/14/2008
• • ATTACHMENT 2
Findings
annexations.
Ia
CPA2008-00006 7 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
CITY OF TIGARD
• •
= - _ = =
o. Provide a procoes for annoxations of land to the City.
limits-
POLICIES
a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO
ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO
SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE
ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF
SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED-LAND-WITH-IN
THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE:
1. WATER;
2. SEWER;
3. DRAINAGE;
CPA2008-00006 8 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
CITY OF TIGARD
• •
1. STREETS;
5. POLICE;AND
6. FIRE PROTECTION.
b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH
THE-FOLLOWING;
1 OWING_•
1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED
OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) WATER;
b) SEWER;
c) DRAINAGE; AND
d) STREETS.
2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE
c. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE
10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE
a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET' OR "ISLAND" OF
b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT
c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION;
d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND
IS CONTICUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY;
10.1.1(a).
OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY
(Rev. Ord. 81 21}
CPA2008-00006 9 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
CITY OF TIGARD
• •
POLICIES
10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE AGENCY(USA) LINES EXCEPT:
3. WHERE APPLICATIONS-FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR
+ ; .-
c. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS
10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, THE EXTENSION OF
SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE
CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE CITY.
10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR
THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
3. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO
_ _ _ • . . . _ _ • _ • . . . . .-i .-
b. PRECLUDE THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES.
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATING
ORDINANCE&
3. LAND USE;
b. DENSITY;
c. PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE;
d. STREET ALIGNMENT;AND
e. DRAINAGE.
•
•
CPA2008-00006 10 GOAL 14:URBANIZATION
CITY OF TIGARD
• •
.•
•_ •_ _,._•_ :. _ e_. ' •
•
- - -- - - - -- - - - - • = ` - • - = - =-
•
•
POLICIES
10.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD
_ . .
- _ -. •• _ :e _ e -
CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES 10.1 AND 10.2 AND AMENDMENT OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
• - _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ .. . _ _ • - . _ _ _ • _ . • •
- _ . . . -
CPA2008-00006 11 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
CITY OF TIGARD
•
...........................
••"'
- .••••• „ ,,
.••••• , •:: •
.......
• ...•
........
...-....
„
- ......................... ---......„..--„„„
. .
•
•
•
•I.;
:
•
7,
•:•:••
• •
ATTACHMENT 4
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
OAR 660-015-0000(14)
(Effective April 28, 2006)
To provide for an orderly and efficient population forecast coordinated with
transition from rural to urban land use, affected local governments; and
to accommodate urban population and (2) Demonstrated need for
urban employment inside urban housing, employment opportunities,
growth boundaries, to ensure efficient livability or uses such as public facilities,
use of land, and to provide for livable streets and roads, schools, parks or open
communities. space, or any combination of the need
categories in this subsection (2).
Urban Growth Boundaries In determining need, local
Urban growth boundaries shall be government may specify characteristics,
established and maintained by cities, such as parcel size, topography or
counties and regional governments to proximity, necessary for land to be
provide land for urban development suitable for an identified need.
needs and to identify and separate urban Prior to expanding an urban
and urbanizable land from rural land. growth boundary, local governments shall
Establishment and change of urban demonstrate that needs cannot
growth boundaries shall be a cooperative reasonably be accommodated on land
process among cities, counties and, already inside the urban growth
where applicable, regional governments. boundary.
An urban growth boundary and
amendments to the boundary shall be Boundary Location
adopted by all cities within the boundary The location of the urban growth
and by the county or counties within boundary and changes to the boundary
which the boundary is located, consistent shall be determined by evaluating
with intergovernmental agreements, alternative boundary locations consistent
except for the Metro regional urban with ORS 197.298 and with consideration
growth boundary established pursuant to of the following factors:
ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted (1) Efficient accommodation of
or amended by the Metropolitan Service identified land needs;
District. (2) Orderly and economic provision
of public facilities and services;
Land Need (3) Comparative environmental,
Establishment and change of energy, economic and social
urban growth boundaries shall be based consequences; and
on the following: (4) Compatibility of the proposed
(1) Demonstrated need to urban uses with nearby agricultural and
accommodate long range urban forest activities occurring on farm and
population, consistent with a 20-year forest land outside the UGB.
1
• •
land, a county may authorize industrial
Urbanizable Land development, and accessory uses
Land within urban growth subordinate to the industrial development,
boundaries shall be considered available in buildings of any size and type, on
for urban development consistent with certain lands outside urban growth
plans for the provision of urban facilities boundaries specified in ORS 197.713 and
and services. Comprehensive plans and 197.714, consistent with the requirements
implementing measures shall manage the of those statutes and any applicable
use and division of urbanizable land to administrative rules adopted by the
maintain its potential for planned urban Commission.
development until appropriate public
facilities and services are available or GUIDELINES
planned.
A. PLANNING
Unincorporated Communities 1. Plans should designate
In unincorporated communities sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to
outside urban growth boundaries counties accommodate the need for further urban
may approve uses, public facilities and expansion, taking into account (1) the
services more intensive than allowed on growth policy of the area; (2) the needs of
rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by the forecast population; (3) the carrying
exception to those goals, or as provided capacity of the planning area; and (4)
by commission rules which ensure such open space and recreational needs.
uses do not adversely affect agricultural 2. The size of the parcels of
and forest operations and interfere with urbanizable land that are converted to
the efficient functioning of urban growth urban land should be of adequate
boundaries. dimension so as to maximize the utility of
the land resource and enable the logical
Single-Family Dwellings in Exception and efficient extension of services to such
Areas parcels.
Notwithstanding the other 3. Plans providing for the transition
provisions of this goal, the commission from rural to urban land use should take
may by rule provide that this goal does into consideration as to a major
not prohibit the development and use of determinant the carrying capacity of the
one single-family dwelling on a lot or air, land and water resources of the
parcel that: planning area. The land conservation and
(a) Was lawfully created; development actions provided for by such
(b) Lies outside any acknowledged plans should not exceed the carrying
urban growth boundary or unincorporated capacity of such resources.
community boundary; 4. Comprehensive plans and
(c) Is within an area for which an implementing measures for land inside
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 urban growth boundaries should
or 4 has been acknowledged; and encourage the efficient use of land and
(d) Is planned and zoned primarily the development of livable communities.
for residential use.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
Rural Industrial Development 1. The type, location and phasing
Notwithstanding other provisions of of public facilities and services are factors
this goal restricting urban uses on rural
2
• •
which should be utilized to direct urban
expansion.
2. The type, design, phasing and
location of major public transportation
facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, rail,
mass transit, highways, bicycle and
pedestrian) and improvements thereto
are factors which should be utilized to
support urban expansion into urbanizable
areas and restrict it from rural areas.
3. Financial incentives should be
provided to assist in maintaining the use
and character of lands adjacent to
urbanizable areas.
4. Local land use controls and
ordinances should be mutually
supporting, adopted and enforced to
integrate the type, timing and location of
public facilities and services in a manner
to accommodate increased public
demands as urbanizable lands become
more urbanized.
5. Additional methods and devices
for guiding urban land use should include
but not be limited to the following: (1) tax
incentives and disincentives; (2) multiple
use and joint development practices; (3)
fee and less-than-fee acquisition
techniques; and (4) capital improvement
programming.
6. Plans should provide for a
detailed management program to assign
respective implementation roles and
responsibilities to those governmental
bodies operating in the planning area and
having interests in carrying out the goal.
3
411 • ATTACHMENT 5
3 . A N N E X A T I O N
revisions to the Urban Planning Area, which now includes unincorporated Bull Mountain and
unincorporated Metzger; removal and addition of policies regarding annexation; and the inclusion of
a section addressing Murray Boulevard.
Regarding annexation, the UPAA initially included conditions that allowed or limited the City's
ability to annex lands in the Area of Interest. The current agreement no longer includes those
conditions. It focuses primarily on service provision and transfer of services upon annexation,
including naming the annexation plan method as the most appropriate method of annexing
properties to the City (although it does not preclude individual annexations).
The TUSA (also referred to as the SB 122 agreement) was adopted in 2004 and relates to the long-
term provision of services to the covered areas. The Tigard Urban Service Agreement was amended
in July 2006.
The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement (USIGA) was first adopted in 1997 and amended
in 2002. It related to the provision of land development, building, code enforcement, and engineering
permits through the City on behalf of the county to the unincorporated Urban Services Area. The
concept was developed through the UPAA as an attempt to provide enhanced customer service to
the urban unincorporated population in Tigard and reduce the cost of providing services. In March,
2006, Tigard City Council voted unanimously to terminate the USIGA after concluding that
conditions have changed and the IGA is no longer a benefit to the City. Termination was effective on
June 30, 2006. Washington County is now responsible for providing development review and
building inspection services in the Bull Mountain Urban Services Area.
Map 6-4 shows the shared boundary of the Tigard Urban Planning Area and the Tigard Urban
Services Area.
B. RECENT ANNEXATIONS (1983-2007)
From 1983 to 2007 there were 5583.63 Table 6-6:Annexation and Buildable Lands Inventory
acres of land added to the municipal city Number of Acres Lots Acres on Percentage
limits through annexation. Table 6-1 Year Annexations Annexed Annexed BLI on BLI
g 2007 4 45.29 23 27.63 61.01%
lists the acres annexed to the City from 2006 3 38.96 11 0 0.00%
1983 to 2007. 2005 4 47.58 65 28.93 60.80%
2004 3 94.98 16 35.45 37.32%
2003 2 4.21 3 1.94 46.08%
Most notably, the City of Tigard 2002 4 64.63 16 46.41 71.81%
annexed what is known as the south Total 295.65 140.36 47.48%
Metzger area in 1987, including Source:Tigard Community Development,2008
Washington Square. To protect the City's border in 1986, the City of Tigard unsuccessfully tried to
annex the entire south Metzger area. In 1987 the City redrew the boundaries to include the eastern
Growth & Development Page 6-32 Tigard 2007
• •
01 IL
3 . A N N E X A T I O N
area and along Hwy 217, where residents had voted in favor of the annexation in 1986. Promising
maintenance and urban services, the City was able to successfully annex this area in 1987. The City
was also able to sway Washington Square away from Beaverton as part of the same vote by offering a
property tax phase-in.
Also notable is the Walnut Island Annexation (ZCA 1999-00006 through ZCA 1999-00020) in 2000.
Tigard City Council initiated the annexation of 15 areas completely surrounded by the Tigard City
Limits. The annexation contained 497 tax lots, 383 houses, and 1,034 people. The islands were located
south of Walnut Street, north of Bull Mountain Rd., west of Hwy 99W, and east of the Bonneville
Administration power lines that run north south over Bull Mountain.
In 2004 Tigard's Bull Mountain annexation effort failed using the "double majority" method. 65% of
City residents passed the proposed annexation, while only 11% of Bull Mountain voters did. In 2006,
an incorporation effort to create the City of Bull Mountain also failed. Figure 6-2 details the
annexation and incorporation efforts. The City recognizes that current circumstances may prevent
the City from ever reaching the intent of the Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.
C. CURRENT ANNEXATION POLICY
The City's policies on annexation are found in the Comprehensive Plan and are implemented
through the Tigard Development Code and ordinances approving several Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGAs). These IGAs are primarily between the City and Washington County, but also
include Metro and a number of area service provider districts.
Tigard Development Code
The TDC implements the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, stipulating a Type IV approval
process and approval criteria that a) require services and facilities are available to the area with
sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area, and b) that the applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied.
Intergovernmental Agreements
A series of IGAs from the mid-eighties between the City and Washington County have set the
management terms for the unincorporated territory within Tigard's UGB regarding provision of
urban services and the transfer of service provision upon annexation. The most recent of these
agreements, the Urban Planning Area agreement (8/8/2006), identifies the Tigard Urban Service
Area (TUSA) and a process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development. Section
III.C.1 Annexations, states:
The county and city recognize the City as the ultimate service provider of the urban services
specified in the Tigard Urban Services Agreement. The County also recognizes the City as
Growth & Development Page 6-33 Tigard 2007
• •
3 . A N N E X A T I O N
the ultimate local governance provider to all the territory in the TUSA, including
unincorporated properties. So that all properties within the TUSA will be served by the
City, the County and City will be supportive of annexations to the City.
Section III.C.3 states:
...Annexations to the City... shall not be limited to an annexation plan and the City and
County recognize the rights of the City and property owners to annex properties using the
other provisions provided by the Oregon Revised Statutes.
Administrative Policy
In 2006 Council determined that the City should have a neutral approach towards annexation. In
other words, the City would neither promote nor discourage annexation. Instead, Council's position
was that the City would receive and process annexation applications as they occurred. However, to
lessen the financial burden on applicants, Council approved waiver of the annexation fee for the
period July 1, 2006 to February, 2008.
On March 13, 2007 Resolution 07-13 was adopted by City Council and contained the following
policy on annexation:
• The City shall not resort to involuntary annexation of unincorporated land, except in
cases where it is found that such action is in the overall City's interest, such as to
resolve public safety and/or health issues where it is necessary to extend or provide
essential City services consistent with an adopted Community Investment Plan (CU?)
or Public Facility Plan (PFP), and/or resolve incongruous municipal boundaries.
• Tigard shall work with other cities, Washington County, Metro, and the state to
promote regional and statewide policies and actions that recognize that logical,
efficient and economically sustainable urban development can best occur in existing
incorporated cities.
• The City shall proactively promote the benefits of being within the municipal City
limits and invite owners of unincorporated properties to voluntarily join the City.
However, each annexation shall be evaluated on its own merits to ensure it is in the
• City's overall interests.
• The City shall communicate with, and otherwise work directly with, those that
express voluntary interest in annexation to facilitate the annexation process. This shall
include providing incentives to annex such as the following:
• Waiver of the City annexation application fee
• • Phasing in of increased property taxes for properties that annex
Growth & Development Page 6-34 Tigard 2007
Figure 6-2: Bull Mountain Annexation and Incorporation Effort Timeline
;� ®I983 The City 1983 Washington
,PI N
i '7/, of Tigard and County and
,. Washington Bull Mountain
*.e... ,. County sign an Residents develop
Urban Planning the Bull Mountain
Z, .(1 Area Agreement Community Plan
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1906 igarand d and
y
of f T •
Washington
County sign an ,-Urban Services :. .,_r.t,.y_.; >_-,,Y
•Agreement - -
. ..
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2001 Tigard City°2001 Bull Mountain 201)6 City of Bull...."2006 Bull Mountain
Council establishes Annexation Study ; - r Mountain Economic Incorporation Vote:
a goal to develop completed.Study ,: ;' ' Feasibility Study 48 percent-in favor
and annexation examined the costs and ` •' (June). of incorporation
policy/strategy for benefits of annexation — and 1,864 votes-or
unincorporated for Ti Tigard. .: ~ . 200( Washington
$ S2 percent against
areas. 2003 Public County Bard of (November).
Facilities and Commissioners
Services Assesment place Bull Mountain �y�'
Report for the Bull Incorporation
Mountain Area request on ballot •
complete. (August).
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
L20n2 Public 2004 Bull Mountain®2004 Tigard City® 2004 Vote on
TH¢auu.MOUNrNU
'� opinion survey of Annexation Plan Council Accepts Bull Mountain - AmmuiONPut, ►��
Ir Tigard and Bull completed(July) Annexation Plan Annexation:65% '�P'41
Mountain residents (Res.04-59)and of City residents ® ��'
on annexation. 2001 Formation sends the decision pass,only 11%
of Friends of Bull to the voters(Res. of Bull Mountain
A STEP TOWARD COA(Y!B/INC
Mountain.
OUR OONMUNT-
04-60) (August). residents did
(November). "`'""
November).
7- ..j_' v' , -, , 1 \.-!
} Map 6-4
�. f r � .. ter, I - r _�,f Planning and
' Urban Services
../ ',_ ,, .4 '.�;-, h', —_t` _ J ! ;. r' \ ° ; ,' Area
i t a m t
—`7 __ _- \v. ~'� _ I Tigard 2007
r
,- - a. y r m Plan Report
"`` •.t� 1��' f J -- - .. -�' °�,�� t l_�i-1-. FERRY ,r''7\ `--._ -_ t' `J I� I I City of Tigard
rt
'..._ cr. ' ' '''\: ' r J r• -j ?_ . - . . I Oregon
s ,.
_T.__ - �.i`� p� < 1•:,( i i? RPeRB�R� \ _._ ' �/ Boundary of..
` r
- � _. �\ � - "`-, � ,--� Tigard Urban
i; ) �. -,�fL P �° ���' f I Planning Area
� / ., ,-.;; t, ;� Agreement
% /a J.. 2.. W4 -, ! —. - ',-A- r5w: !,• + I `.,.....,_ _ is
� ! A
•.1 / \ '[NOT' -':� ; T I . M.6 V f'�'.�M 2, r....�...
) /t�' - "yam•;. P an•
1 Oc,,,' ; �_5 ., �_a / Y Tigard Urban
1 1 \ .' , '_ Nil • to°T C7/ .y, '.. ; I �:• a :,\ Services
fI %nt - -- ; Agreement
1 _ i // l f, 1 , . .. i °. 75 ` - . _.- --- Stream
, .. �.
r /. �° _ , // _ :;. I . \. Water
I1
I -- ,( ' - --, ,/'"j ..�_' �, t.�'w M6b°17ALO 51.`=.// - _ - �'. \ I Major Street
J J Rtr.; ti % I I + ,\ 1 -\ 4 1 - '"-'�- ' BONITA\\I •, RD Railroad
`\\`I` RD� ( Tr�b �
--._.-•., ' I 1 ��^1 I MOUNTAINI 4 „`-"• G - •l My ,.+ • \ l
) -• l iii 7 4 - City of Tigard
•
�' I .1 { .1
I 4 i ' 1Le ofomeconvcawwemwucmmin
7 %' yr _ -♦ = 1: • J. i : t /I ..Amels.m0A.Rev.a.aa iREemsdeuoewaximonl
---- 1 , ;' ` •K• r- , ]i.♦1• _ ; -( J.Il, - ,,, for weodvcma or�rodht the motmt of the map.
_'7 7 4 ; 1 f' IFtss: (-- /^. - - , - .. -i rC tr.....
, ,- }• s ;�
peep. ' _ i .!_ 1 ;o a•;. �'0, „e•., w,,,„, —r `I� 1�! .`♦I7_ N'....
. 66
—, - _ to
• y� a
LJ H
f PIP— \. 1`l ! 'll ~q { __ _ ,% r�Aim °. aiw�orm.p+�iaN
'" ' J .._ ._ .'F 't••/`_..'__i_. I �. —t ( f] - �..�_l._r.:._ ,f -1 / _._ nma,v 5.a y..CO. 9717. .5.63+171•
• •
3 . A N N E X A T I O N
• Council will review the annexation policy and the offer of incentives to individual
property owners who voluntarily annex to the City.
Resolution 07-13 has been amended twice to expand the offer of incentives. Resolution 07-47
expanded the offer of incentives to include City payment of the Metro Mapping/Filing Fee. City
Council voted to extend the offer of incentives during their annual review of the annexation Policy.
Resolution 08-12 extends the offer of all incentives to property owners who annex prior to February
2009. The incentives include:
• Waiver of the City Annexation Application Fee (currently $2,498);
• Phasing in of increased property taxes at the rate of 33% the first year, 67% the second,
and 100% the third year;
• City payment of the Metro Mapping/Filing Fee;
• Waiver of the Pre-Application Conference Fee to property owners who desire to
annex to the City of Tigard; and
• Assistance with the preparation of surveys, not to include field survey work.
Growth & Development Page 6-35 Tigard 2007
•
411
3 . A N N E X A T I O N
K E Y F I N D I N G S
• As the City urbanizes and expands into its Urban Services Area, annexation is used to
incorporate territory into the City to ensure the efficient provision of municipal services and to
incorporate urbanizing lands into the City's political and civic life.
• ORS 195 provides for annexation plans for large unincorporated areas which must be approved
by a majority of the voters in the areas to be annexed and the city annexing area. ORS 222
provides for annexations without a vote through consent agreements from those within the area
to be annexed when contiguous to a city boundary.
• Tigard has operated under three agreements with Washington County: The Urban Planning
Area Agreement (UPAA), The Tigard Urban Services Agreement (TUSA), and the Urban
Services Intergovernmental Agreement (USIA).
• The Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement dates back to 1983. The UPAA currently states
that the county and city recognize the City as the ultimate service provider of the urban services
specified in the Tigard Urban Services Agreement. The County also recognizes the City as the
ultimate local governance provider to all the territory in the TUSA, including unincorporated
properties.
• The Urban Planning Area is a mapped area including both unincorporated Washington County
and incorporated Tigard. Both the Metzger and Bull Mountain area were part of the "Area of
Interest" (AOI), where the City maintained an interest in County development/planning
activities due to its proximity and possible effects on the City.
• The AOI also represented the area that could be annexed to Tigard; i.e., unincorporated land
located within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary.
• The Tigard Urban Service Agreement was adopted in 2004 and relates to the long-term provision
of services to the covered areas. The Agreement was amended in July 2006.
• The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement was first adopted in 1997, amended in 2002,
and terminated in 2006. It related to the provision of land development, building, code
enforcement, and engineering permits through the City on behalf of the county to the
unincorporated Urban Services Area.
• From 1983 to 2007 there were 5583.63 acres of land added to the municipal city limits through
annexation. Most notably, the City of Tigard annexed what is known as the south Metzger area
in 1987. Also notable is the Walnut Island Annexation (ZCA 1999-00006 through ZCA 1999-
00020) in 2000.
• In 2004, Tigard's Bull Mountain annexation effort failed using the "double majority" method. In
2006 an incorporation effort to create the City of Bull Mountain also failed.
• The City recognizes that current circumstances may prevent the City from ever reaching the
intent of the Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.
• On March 13, 2007 Resolution 07-13 was adopted by City Council and contained the current
annexation policy. Resolution 07-13 has been amended twice to expand the offer of incentives to
property owners who choose to annex to the City.
Growth & Development Page 6-36 Tigard 2007