Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12/13/2010 - Packet
Completeness Review cAR for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Planning Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee Date of Meeting I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record. Doreen Laughlin Print Name Signature 8-17-11 Date City of Tigard m .7 E d Planning Commission - Revised Agenda TIGARD MEETING DATE: December 13, 2010; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Please note: The Commission will be meeting in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room at 6:00 pm for a brief social gathering, and to discuss Commission input regarding 2011 Council Goals. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2010-00001 7:08 p.m. CONTINUED -TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATIONS (Deliberation only—No public testimony will be taken.) REQUEST: The applicant requests minor modifications to the approved Tigard Retail Center Planned Development (PDR2008 00001). The 18.16-acre vacant property is located within the Tigard Triangle southwest of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The approved plan includes a proposed 137,900 square foot "big box" Target retail building (Retail 3) and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings (Retail 1 & 2). The proposed modifications would change the design details and color pattern of Retail 3 by removing all Target related details and replacing them with a generic earth-toned color scheme. A 1,800 square foot recycling area is also proposed at the rear of the site. The project would otherwise be consistent with Tigard Retail Center detailed plan approval and Planning Commission Final Order No. 2009-02 PC. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street, west of SW 72nd Avenue within the Tigard Triangle. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.755, and 18.780. 6. WORK SESSION— ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 7:38 p.m. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:08 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— DECEMBER 13, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of1 paillwqns pAo,:idclig s;nnulat. .-,np. p3.."13,[:-.)1p TITAN 3uou Vulaq -,),T;np fsolnumu ,„9 ;rxit,tialxkij ;.."44.4 suoppas,To3 'suolppp csuomppr. Are: A 144 pa>isu LisretA zsalnuiw ilup-aahr. tp 9 liaCIISNOD ‘;noA. 54j113141 iv S Jsni liszirprap Jo slo-11 “--satpzr-Kis fifuoi Oi LPAIV aLTO 4011 LUJ nUIS„ I.74q(JAI If3;11,411J,L )A -sxupic, fu.„4.,)::\os 4sud ;Dip ao-4 uirq opr.sVuoir: 2utAtti aAnsuzgid u-,NN s U-413341 pms (4upricuLTuop p,vaT-*Tq put; t qu3 11:70pISZYJIT DIA uol.:4-rtql.T4TIOD TUEDIIITTS SIR JOT Wig pur p3zipalAxotrIDF: ai.„1 .nuoissraicuoD iiumurld jurlxnu 4srt s4tIaAp-t_ux),\ from, pfus ;-.)H (ii-EspJuis Aupp amultu 01 alp paulvidx, gsfoiv,luzIpTs:vd, SMOLLVDINTINWOD ;RyfuQs ssiiNx u.Nata :auureqd al-zpossv.‘:unpaisuSiiEd A113 pu-t3 tiSt11313CiS 3 03DART juairtfd0pA;)(11 ,k1..ranLL1110:) 4 SISSV J13UUrt-i uusns JoiDazo- 4 ii-Dzu do pAars 31 itin caw°) ,43unl u(ya (4uugati auctrid xaritTv romocTs.TDporsrsipuloi-) wswd jims -14s-p5ixs,„luopswei pur ttaillauz)A 30,-uolssIww0D tippapps JquoTssquaioD ftl-132c-a,TauoIssl-puioD !uoopiniN.x.auotssuiumoD uausrE.IPTIOISSTUILUOD f31:13400;LinTOSSpAILUCO tuasjapuv :masaid TIVD PANI.1,PH SNS SZIA:t 73 't-yardzo DIAD pqr-1311." alp IF,ppq VaR3gai wd 0 v.L 413 ,:ppao 711 T7 ,11 polluD gstuv,-411„)psixd -Haifa() 01 TTVD 0102:'5L,Llym.133u SflflLflW,tupavq NOISSMINOD DNINNVId CIENDLL JO AID OPENED PUBLIC HEARING President Walsh opened the public hearing and explained that this is a continuation of a prior hearing. He explained that at the last hear* on fills mafier (iltillovensiber 1°) there were more questions the Cu mmissioners had — and it was left ope. , Thellihd said they would allow parties to present those findings and evidence in writing. It was sent to the commissioners and they are now back for deliberations only, He rerninRed the audience that deliberiation only" means that they will have conversation amongst the commissioners_ They- would not have a conversation with staff; the applicainfi or anyone else. They will have their own discussion and then seti if they can move on the applicant's request. CONTINUED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2010-00001 TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATIONS '77QUEST: The applicant requests minor modifications to the approved Tigard Retail Center Planned Development PDR2008-00001). The 18,I6-acre vacant property is located within the Tigard Triangle southwest of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue, The approved plan includes a proposed 137,900 square foot"big box Target retail building (Retail 3) and two additional 12,000 square foot refifil buildings (Retail & 2), The proposed modifications would change the design details and color pattern of Retail 3 Iv removing all Target related details and replacinig them with • generic earth-toned color scheme, A 1,81)0 square foot recycling area is also proposed at the re,ar of the site fievithdrawn . The prolect-would otheriegise be Consistent with Tigard Retail Center detaiRd plan -approval and Planning Conlmission Final Order No, 2Cli09-02 PC, LOCATION: The property is located south of SW lall,artmehutifi In tea west of SW 72t)t) :Aenue within the litigard QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural hems from the quasi-judicial heating guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of hi-acres)._ Ex-parte contacts: Cornmillssioner Vernallyea— has had cothscrsanons with Andre-isi Youniii from Pan lipist—but on a different subilect. No minversalion on this subjeCt matter. Site visfiafions: Commissioner Mldoon, Commissioner Hasman, and President Walsh, :Rd challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission. No conflicts of interest, STAFF REPORT President Walsh referred to page 4 of the staff report from the November 1,t). hearing. He said that under the applicable review criteria for the proposed modificatidins to the detail plan there were elevation changes to Buikling 3 and a proposed additional recycling stint-al-Ye area. He noted that from a [December 6thi merno provided Exhibit A. the recycling center profiosid ifiad been withdrawn, He summarized that the applicant is not asking filar the commission weigh in on that issue any longer. He said the staff report is limited to review of the other sections and contains staff recommendation for the commission's review and decision on the proposed modifications only, These modifications refer to Retail balding 3 elevations — basicaI y to remove all the tat a. name and colors and replace it with generic earth trines, President Walsh asked Associate Planne , Gary Pagenstecher, if he'd summarized that correctly_ Pagensmcher ansivcred At this point, President ‘Vaish opened the meeting up for deliberatons, Page 2 of 6 DELIBERATIONS Commissioner Muldoon sees no prObleth with the modifications and went on to explain why. Commissioner Doherty -was concerned that bat going to a "generic" sort of building perhaps the traffic informatitma presented earlier Will not properly reflect true numbers. She said this nall',hr be the ea-se if certain retailers that draw more traffic COMC UP: She is also concerned that the new retailer might change the iimbiance. President Walsh explained that when the Commission reviewed the initial detail plan and approved that in 2009 —all the traffic 1niforrn2tiOn was approval, _that aspect was not forced to reopen so it's not part of the deliberations. Doherty said there were epic concerns about 79=i(she wasn't quire sure which street) and how that backs up because of traffic going across onto Dartmouth, She -said they abproved it based oil a certain retailer and she thinks to go from a certain retailer to a generic building— she think they should be able to reserve the riii:ht of approving it based on at the traffic is going to be — because it could be tremendous, She said that, for the record, she believes that traffic was approved I sed on a certain retailer— and not an "unknown" retailer. President Walsh said a Target Super Center create-s a nuge anactunt of Traffic and the off-site improvements That-were included a has been approved and what will be done if this project moves frirward — those offsite improvements are pretty sigcant He wtndt-ired what more might I asked. Dtifierty reiterated that this is an "unknown retailer" an.d that could totally It the entire fac,e of the Tigard Triangle, She said she's concerned but lie Commissioner Ryan said she recalled tha.t the offsite inaphfivernents did not include 78'11. They did not cross Hwy 99\K at Dartmouth —so it still cari be an issue„ Commissioner Vermilvea said he had basically tan comments. "First of an we're not m a position to revisit the traffic impact analysis at this time. It's not before us. We approved the traffic intpact analysis. It just happened to be a Target. 1 reviewed the Kittelson rnerno. 7fifiese peopit are highly respected and It this for a living and their conclusion is that this is a conservative estimate based on a broad range of retail uses allowed under our 1.7/evelopment Ctule, les imiiitirtant that i:ve arc not in a posaura to discriminate between uses or between types of busiimu s as long as thefifis not a trip of any p:reater level of impact mation that needs to be covered, Based on this —right now Frn pretn, satisfied that that's not going •to happen. That's the science of it, Anecdotally -'mo -t imagine that there iwciuld be a use that would generate more trips for a building this size than a Target. Under any circumstances— that We WO-It have anything going in there that:would eclipse a fraiwt. Pm con- u-I pprweing as the current modification is proposed. Doherty doesn't agree. She said a Target isn't that big, Her concern is down the road, if there is a retailer that iS going to generate a kvhole lot more traffic thtin what this at she thinks i,ve should be able L- that and have that as one of the triii,;fiers in the approval of this. Vermilyea: "Procedurally„ don't think we can do that,"Dobeme 'Then nin not going to vote to approve this." Comnaissit:mer Ryan: "Ha retailer moves in there that-currently doesn't exist on the left sick, it's goin:a to draw A. kit of people, if it's a Target — there's alritt other Targets ,tin the left side in our rtigion— Ii a retailer, for example-, like Wals1=Nlart, which as I understand only exists on the east side riOt now it's going to drate a lot of people, Question of staff by President Walsh. "There are coricerns ha nembers of the Manning Commission as to the chaang,ie of name an the retailer. Ies still the same use—big box store. Can any form of the statement or any form of',a condition be placed into a motion on our part tonight in rulitiag on the request of the applicant?" Pa:L)-e 3 of 6 Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, answered that very important to nOt discriminate against uses that fall into the category. It essential to look at this within the category of a shopping center_ Lobkima at the ITE manual, shopping centers have a defined rate of trips. This was a shopping center, and that rate was used in the report. So essentially, it falls into the "shoppit center" category. I--lc asked to please avoid the use of specific names or different types of shoping centers in this category. Shoppirig centers are defined specifically iivithin the 1TE manual and that's what th elson Report utilized Commissioner Shavey. "Clarification. So no matter what The retailer is, it doesn't make any difference because it's a shopping center?" Bunch used the example of H & !troltity into downmwn Portland_ It was crowded and would probably c(,LOflV to be crowded--but it no within the clothing retail nod of store. So lit 's in that category of a shopping center retail use. Shavey: Sid this wasn't figured for a "Target". — it was figured for a "shopping center!' Bunch: Yes. The. ITE Manual ooked at it within the category of a shopping:centetill Shavey: "No matter what retailer was there,it'd be the same?" Bunch: "That's correct flhe numbers of rein are very specific to a shopping center and the n-E Manual is what was used, Vermilyea: "If the applicant was ultimately able to find a tenant that fell outside the shopping center category- that was previously approved, and that were amenditv tonight, they would have 'o come back to the City and request a modification of the plan — correct?" Pagenstecher: "Potentially, that could happen" Walsh: "So the City of Tigard's land uses would not recognize the difference as in the FIE Manual? Bunch: "Ifl, for extunple ir came in and became an "entertainment" use, or another use, then they would have a different impact and it would be different than a shopping ciefiter" Walsh: Would there be a trigger that-..vould bring it back through a review processir" unch: 'cliXthat would likely occ-ur to trigfer this is that if that is a modification that a potential buyer, or user of the site would want to reociiatny it. Let's say, ftir instance, a subsninhal portion as a fueling station— that could do it; or an entertainmem component; or if the site was utilized for office/commercial or other kinds of activities that did not fall into that shopping cemer or retail use kind of caregoria I ha would represent a substantial modification and would have to corrie back to the Planning Commission. MOTION fhe folloktiting motit.in was made Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Hasman: Page 4 of 6 940 -t!UltuiLfl! ti-lumoz tp1S4I 414q4STIIIAT3 31314241 roulsnput spuall TO NrCIXTril "„`SX44140d ITOTTLITUSTITIZildall `4444030/1S SSITID TISISILLIdOTTITSI/p 4ST2ISrip, J9J pasn n-pA.amp suodamssi! suop: ci p_xstmlp 44J0 atzos NOISSFIDSIG g 04 (!ltiT02 ST 011131,T;)DS ITTA\040„Trio:=11314 .N.UI st upuuulx! put= t-nq1:91-13-AT, 3At aM 0 U Ira 1A-‘, 3.10()! tuxes! spuau as-041 putuo pupg 4rup-A !lout spuus4 -4.ocl Uj pax14ui, yfyil „)T.,..11 30 JSOrirtiTI IU p-„)illyt1X:). sS-Scim. 3!MqX471- STSL1113IJV 4:441-nTi0ddo alwouoyil f,iulp41-filz)-4 uopuluzi.szvd TuTocplet\od Vnaltp. tflog icatp .VD surtiv,0 Isnog tp3npoival u3irect sisKrvxv£LINflUIOddO amoNoDa moissas 31110M -op 01 p:xnz pinom 113141 az-.41-2-F74 uoIssluTtuop pos:f4p13 Rags siiT Trzi sIT44 mot 0-4 IOU `144340„rd lb (414;10I.ATISIT TOIST SIVA DITIS 17141114IS -0913 IFS) "apuzuraTuozi pQuurid upof t -4 pug st;jps-Ia4 posnax;) JT:TuoIssp4uuTio:44. miod sum Iv- -.auoN r...!)qou (8) 'Isiev-A -t1SiTcritur:o2‘,iz!uo!ss!tuu!o =) ‘,6A-eqs:1\41/TOTSSITAILUOD ti=p1=tulps soucy!sp,uuto-D fule,:Aop .1;414003STITTULICO iJooppyki aDrio!ssfuJutoD ‘tiguis-GH louoIssItuatoi) ...T.DuoTssfurtno:-.) 'INUSHV :gaNIVISIV SANN :SHAY :SAW/104 SE paloA.TI(TS.SUTUI04) sirgT ;44.0.A.filatuoxv r! ITO 4:13I/NV3 1:101901/14 •T•mid oadd414I 13,0ij JflU1thp r allS 0141 110 uopnalsuo3 •z 30 !pod ni IJ-IA3s. ii UP-Pt unq ou smq urid luatudoloa Numaa paAoiddr DT JO uo3 3n,ustm irpurlsgrts --r •,j! osdri ipt Aoaddr Livid TuawdopAoci pur/aq ata •IrAoiddr Jo arep tuoij S:m°X uaA4S- 401 1AP=") 1.P °'(-1 Utis bri: 70-600Z .0NE "P30 P31114 sucifssIului°D) 10000 -SOOZIKI4 reAwddo 3a-luK) ifvlall PR 444 ‘90000-0T0ZHICI "°P. 1°3d431-1.1 se l°131:1 4u"S'Ind gar z su0plpuo3 pur liSTUS% 11.1pIS,3.1d tuoaj ampurgnuam JJ 4xio,J3aci -Llo Jo Lidr4t4rJrd puos ppe- ois 3auo!ssFLu ...;(4 popuoaas uoopinj " S D I INiamumawv Klamarud -uoplotu u! -;mptisou! put', =(ti 71.!cllu:— ppst .togun!!!)ci ry.)1.11) „1"04/14PIT) 14401144:01lp oupt.0 UP cp. SAIIIITOTISSILILIOT4 10 7414114SIT TINITSSITISI„:040111,1 III0901:33. ITV 110 ucipsPnb pz4 jj-els „• upraq3opd 31411r, -;us N imp icuolupsal w uo psrq pur srpodai jjr4s alp m puiriuo irAoiddr jo suompuoo pur sttupup aq4 jo uondopr pur clur,-Nddr "C(.1 pljlpolu sr To000-0-Eozund uoproncide To TrAOlddU .iej A01.1.1 WRAP UP Stew Faust wrapped up the meeting, -fie said Todd Chase will be presem at the next meetinz They will have a conversation to bring the connection of some of the questions that had been asked we. then He said theyll do their best to answer questions and come to an understanding-about how this might feed in to the mixt step which may t to mcare of the detail. they're looking far, rldlier that comnarsation, they will elevelop a number of implementation policies that will evernu-allv go inns the Comprehensive Plan. They will be working on a policy level next OTHER BUSINESS —Commissioner Vermilvea asked Commissioner Schmidt saihethet he is considering being the repre-sernative from the Planning Ccimmission to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee, Commissioner Schmidt.nsplied that he'd been asked. iand will be attending the upcoming: Gannary 50-°) meeting as an observer, After that, he will let the Pliinning Commission know whether he will represent them or not Gannmissioner Vermilyea strongly encouraged a member-of the Commission (whether Commissaamer Schmidt or sotneone cite- to participate. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the net:tin:a-at 8:46pria ra a asseiTilas gsP-Silr rCl2 ,,,LL„qa,aiii.cuir.„1 legbairscsigism___ m Doreen Laughlin, Planning Collmmissiimi Secretly; / gla a grE s' as se maralinq -- AT IEST: PEIsidessif.David Walsh" Page 6 of " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Re: Tigard Retail Center Minor Modification (December 13, 2010 Hearing, Continuation from November 1, 2010 Hearing) Date: December 6, 2010 At the November 1, 2010 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission heard from staff, the applicant, and public testimony on the proposed Tigard Retail elevation modifications, and addition of a 1,800 square foot recycling area. At the request of the applicant, the Commission agreed to leave the record open for additional testimony until November 8, 2010 and continue the hearing on December 13, 2010 for deliberation only. The City received testimony from Matt Oyen with PacTrust; Steven Pfeiffer, attorney for PacTrust; Michael Lilly, attorney for Plaid Pantry; Chris Tiesler, P.E. with Kittelson Associates, and Michael Ard, P.E. with Lancaster Engineering (see attachments). Significantly, the applicant has withdrawn the proposed recycling center from its modification request, leaving only the proposed building elevation modifications for consideration by the Commission. In addition, the Commission requested staff respond to the questions raised by the Commission as recorded in the minutes and outlined below. Since most of these issues relate to the withdrawn recycling center, staffs responses are brief. The applicant's written testimony also provides responses to these questions. 1. Commissioner Doherty asked for more specifics on the design of the recycle center. Since the proposed recycling area has been withdrawn, there is no specific information that is applicable. 2. Commissioner Walsh asked for clarification on the claims raised by Mr. Lilly with regard to the code regarding lot coverage by buildings, reduced landscaping, and change of use. Since the proposed recycling area has been withdrawn, theseissue are not applicable to the proposed modification of the building elevations. 3. Commissioner Vermilyea would like staffs' take on how the ITE Manual comes into play and what would trigger a major modification - particularly when it comes to traffic and the impact on the community. He would like an analysis of what triggers the need to revisit the Kittelson Report and the traffic impact requirements set forth in the last approvals, if anything. Generally, the ITE Trip Generation manual is a standard reference used to estimate trip generation for a wide variety of land use types and characteristics. Trip generation is estimated using some kind of proxy variable for size, the most common being square footage. Trip estimates are provided for various timeframes (e.g., weekday daily, weekday p.m. peak hour, Saturday peak hour, etc). Most cities, including Tigard, require traffic impact studies when a specific estimated trip generation trigger is reached. Virtually all jurisdictions throughout the country rely on the Trip Generation manual as a starting point for estimating trip generation, though they frequently allow alternative estimates if applicants have an independent trip generation study. Chris Tiesler with Kittelson and Associates prepared a memo to help capture the trite generation rate that was utilized for the original analysis and the questions posed by tie Planning Commission as it relates to the change from Target as the potential end user of the Retail 3 building (see attachment 4). Michael Ard with Lancaster provides information suggesting that a different ITE code is applicable to the subject development (see attachment 5). 4. Commissioner Walsh asked what the issues are with regard to an alternative location to the west of Retail 3. Since the proposed recycling area has been withdrawn, there has been no consideration of alternative locations. 5. Commissioner Muldoon would like an itemization of sustainability features of the previously approved Target Store. The sustainability features are itemized in the applicant's submittal and the Staff Report for the Concept Plan (page 10). The proposed features were identified in the applicant's response to how the proposal relates to the six purposes of the Planned Development Chapter. However, these items are not required by any condition of approval in the Final Order as there is no specific standard that requires them. Therefore, the building's end user will not be required to include the listed features, but will be encouraged to, as stated in the applicant's letter (Pg 2, #4). Attachments: 1. Michael J. Lilly Letter, dated November 8, 2010 2. PacTrust Letter, dated November 8, 2010 3. Steven Pfeiffer Letter, dated November 8, 2010 4. Kittelson &Associates Memorandum, dated November 8, 2010 5. Lancaster Engineering Letter, dated November 5, 2010 I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\12-13-10-PH-Continued-Tigard Retail PDR2010-00001 Michael J. Lilly Attorney at Law 4800 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 325 RECD NOV 0 8 2010 Beaverton, OR 97005 Telephone: 503-746-5977 Facsimile: 503-746-5970 Email: mikelilly@michaeljlilly.com November 8, 2010 Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 By Hand Delivery Re: File No.: Planned Development Review (PDR) 2010-00001 File Title: Tigard Retail Center Modifications Applicant/Owner: Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Pagenstecher: This letter is a follow up to my earlier letter dated November 1, 2010. I am supplementing the material submitted at the hearing with the following: 1. The changes increase the lot coverage by buildings. I enclose a photograph of a similar recycle storage facilities constructed at a nearby free standing Super Discount Store. Not only do the recycle storage facilities match the Tigard code's technical definition of building, but the recycle storage facilities are also functionally a building for land use planning purposes. a) The facilities occupy open space. b) The facilities have a visual impact on adjacent property. c) The facilities increase the intensity of the use. A 12' x 90' enclosed storage area like this allows a retailer to shift storage from inside the main building to outside the main building in this ancillary structure. That in turn allows more square feet inside the building for use as retail floor space, and more customers. The fact that the recycle storage area has no roof and only three sides is mostly irrelevant to its planning impact. This structure meets the code definition of a building, just as well as if it were fully enclosed. Therefore the Tigard Code does not allow this application for a change to be treated as a "minor" change. 2. The changes reduce the amount of open space and landscaping. No additional comments on the landscaping. 3. The new site plan involves a change of use. The point we made at the initial hearing is that the addition of the recycle storage facility indicates that the proposed use, for the first time, includes a feature for a free standing discount superstore. Your code does not refer to changes in the "categories" of use it refers to a change of use. Tigard Code definition for"Use" 18.120.030 (170): 170. "Use" -The purpose for which land or a structure is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. I have attached a letter from Michael Ard, a professional traffic engineer, and I have attached pages from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Different uses have different impacts, and as Mr. Ard points out, in his professional judgment he would analyze the traffic impact of part of this site plan using the ITE Land Use Code 813 for free standing discount superstores instead of using only ITE Land Use Code 820 for the shopping centers. The data pages for ITE Code 813 also confirm that this 137,900 sq. ft. store is large enough to be used as a free standing discount superstore. Furthermore, the specificity of the use approved in the prior application is emphasized by the language of the prior decision. The body of the decision refers specifically to a "Target" store 14 times, and "Target" store policies and characteristics are used as a basis for the decision. See items 4 and 5, pages 8 and 9. A marked copy of the prior decision is attached. Your prior decision is not a generic approval. Therefore this application changes the use and is not a "minor" modification. //if, Michael J. Lilly Attorney for Plaid Pantries, Inc. cc: Steve Pfeiffer i/ '- l s 41 I lik ■ M - ...._ 7 1 ■ r.% 3 I ` N 74. a r,. ` , ;•'. ti I=1 y...r� - - +R •• - .1 .Iii::;k: 7Y A 1 4" 11/540 PROp $' GIHEE,P , 54983PE November 5, 2010 O REGO oti LANCASTER ,•Fj� r10 As) ENGINEERING Planning Commission `'HgEL T •r. City of Tigard 321 SW 4th Ave.,Suite 400 13125 SW Hall Boulevard EXPIRES: 12/31//►I Portland,Oregon 97204 503.248.0313 Tigard,OR 97223 phone fax.03.248 9251 lancasterengineering.com RE: Tigard Retail Center Modification: ITE Land Use Codes for Trip Generation Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is written to provide transportation engineering comments related to trip generation calculations for the proposed Tigard Retail Center Modifications. The proposed development was previously analyzed based on ITE Land Use Code 820, Shopping Center. Typically,the shopping center land use is used to describe sites with numerous development pads and/or numerous tenants with retail uses. These sites include a variety of retail uses of different sizes,and patrons often visit more than one business during a single visit. The Tigard Retail Center as proposed does not appear to consist of a wide variety of retail uses of different sizes. Instead,the site is dominated by a single pad comprising over 85 percent of the available retail space. In instances such as this where the overwhelming majority of the site is developed with a single use,it is appropriate to analyze the site using the trip generation characteristics of the dominant site use. Based on the site plan, it is assumed that the dominant site use will be a Free-Standing Discount Superstore(ITE Land Use Code 813). Since this land use dominates the site, it would be appropriate to analyze the site using the trip generation characteristics of this specific land use,which differ from those of a Shopping Center land use. The two 12,000 square foot outlying pads may be treated as shopping center land uses if specific retail uses cannot be identified,however if restaurants may be included on the pads it may be more appropriate to analyze a potential worst-case scenario in order to verify that the transportation system can safely accommodate all permitted users of these outlying pads. Based on my review of the revised detailed development plan, it is appropriate to ask for analysis of the site based on the characteristics of the specific intended site use. Sincerely, Michael Ard, PE Senior Transportation Engineer Land Use: 813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore Description The discount superstores in this category are similar to the free-standing discount stores described in Land Use 815 with the exception that they also contain a full-service grocery department under the same roof that shares entrances and exits with the discount store area. The stores usually offer a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. They typically maintain long store hours 7 days a week. The stores included in this land use are often the only ones on the site, but they can also be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center and/or service station or as a part of a shopping center, with or without their own dedicated parking area. Free-standing discount store (Land Use 815) is a related use. Additional Data Peak hours of the generator— The weekday a.m. peak hour was generally between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.The weekday p.m. peak hour varied between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.The Saturday and Sunday peak hours varied between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The weighted average truck trip generation rates from approximately 30 sites surveyed for this land use are summarized in the table below. The average gross floor area of these facilities is 206,000 square feet. Weighted Average Truck Trip Generation Rate Day/Time Period (trip ends per 1,000 square feet) Weekday 0.87 Weekday a.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 0.05 Weekday p.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 0.03 Weekday a.m. Peak Hour of Generator 0.06 Weekday p.m. Peak Hour of Generator 0.04 Saturday 0.59 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator 0.04 Sunday 0.43 Sunday Peak Hour of Generator 0.02 One source provided information on trip generation rates for what the study defined as "typical" and "peak" seasons. These data indicated that weekday trip generation rates were similar in both seasons. However, trip generation rates on Saturdays during peak season were 13 to 20 percent higher than a typical season; Sunday rates were found to be 6 to 10 percent higher. For the purposes of this analysis, "peak" season was defined as the period between the week after Thanksgiving and the week prior to Christmas; "typical" season was defined as September through mid-November when transactions are close to average. The seasonal trip generation information provided was based on a sample of five sites. Garden centers contained within the principal outside faces of the exterior building walls were included in the gross square floor areas reported. Outdoor or fenced-in areas outside the principal faces of the exterior building walls were excluded. Please refer to Volume 1, User's Guide, for a more detailed definition of gross floor area. Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1375 Institute of Transportation Engineers Several sites included in this land use indicated the presence of fenced/covered space. The sites were surveyed between the 1990s and the 2000s throughout the United States. To assist in the future analysis of this land use, it is important to collect and include information on the presence and size of garden centers, outdoor fenced-in space and service stations in trip generation data submissions. Source Numbers 354, 522, 577, 595, 607, 609, 612, 618, 625, 630, 636, 651, 652, 661 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1376 Institute of Transportation Engineers Free-Standing Discount Superstore (813) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 45 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 53.13 29.65 - 85.01 13.31 Data Plot and Equation 18,000 - x 17,000 x 16,000 x 15,000 X 14,000-4 C,, X • X X W 13,000" x Q. • 12,000 X X X X 11,000 - X w X X 10.000-. X -.- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -X--- m _ x x x Q 9,000 X- X I— x x 8,000- r' X X X . - X 6,000— 'X X 5,000 - X X• X. 4,000 ' 1 1 , 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.35 Ln(X)+2.11 R2=0.54 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1377 Institute of Transportation Engineers _-- Free-Standing Discount Superstore (813) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 47 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.68 2.66 - 7.40 2.39 Data Plot and Equation 1,600 x x 1,500— 1,400— x X 1,300 — - X vi 1,200 X c . w 1,100 — X x x x = 1— x x _-, T,• 1,000 X x x x- - O 900- ,X -- 4( X m X X Q 800 ~ x - X X k -X II _ X 1— 700 X X X x 600 --, - - - - - - - - -X X X 500 - - - - X 400— X 300 1 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Polite Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.32 Ln(X)-0.16 R2=0.52 Trip Generation,6th Edition 1381 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 820 Shopping Center Description A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center's composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store. A shopping center also provides on-site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. Specialty retail center(Land Use 814) and factory outlet center(Land Use 823) are related uses. Additional Data Shopping centers, including neighborhood centers, community centers, regional centers and super regional centers, were surveyed for this land use. Some of these centers contained non- merchandising facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs and recreational facilities (for example, ice skating rinks or indoor miniature golf courses). The centers ranged in size from 1,700 to 2.2 million square feet gross leasable area (GLA). The centers studied were located in suburban areas throughout the United States and therefore represent typical U.S. suburban conditions. Many shopping centers, in addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include outparcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points). These buildings are typically drive-in banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices. Although the data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied included peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect. The vehicle trips generated at a shopping center are based upon the total GLA of the center. In cases of smaller centers without an enclosed mall or peripheral buildings, the GLA could be the same as the gross floor area of the building. Separate equations have been developed for shopping centers during the Christmas shopping season. Plots were included for the weekday peak hour of adjacent street traffic and the Saturday peak hour of the generator. Information on approximate hourly, monthly and daily variation in shopping center traffic is shown in Tables 1-4. It should be noted, however, that the information contained in these tables is based on a limited sample size. Therefore, caution should be exercised when applying the data. Also, some information provided in the tables may conflict with the results obtained by applying the average rate or regression equations. When this occurs, it is suggested that the results from the average rate or regression equations be used, as they are based on a larger number of studies. Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1497 Institute of Transportation Engineers Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 302 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 328 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 42.94 12.50 - 270.89 21.38 Data Plot and Equation 70,000 x 60,000- X 50,000 a x, x w o- X x x, x 40,000 - X X -j,' - - - U x X X X t X X X X ,' ' X X X co Es 30,000 X X X >3E X,''X X X X II X -;<x xx ~ 20.000 yCX )4(X z' x x X xx X X X X X X, C X , .f BSc,x xc X x X xx X X x 10,000 - -� .�;�:'; - x- X. x X X X • X •• X x , 1 : x : 0 i ' l , I 1 , , 1 , 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.65 Ln(X)+5.83 R2=0.78 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1500 Institute of Transportation Engineers Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 412 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 379 Directional Distribution: 49% entering, 51% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.73 0.68 - 29.27 2.74 Data Plot and Equation 9.000 8,000- 7,000 c 6,000" x - j a X �X H x ' X T.) 5,000 X L X X X 9K (1) 4,000 X X X X X „A x X xx„'' X X 3.000 X X x''XQ X x< x xX x X 3f Xx x X X 2,000 x • ;• XX 1.■ X 1,000 X x X 0 0 1000 2000 3000 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.67 Ln(X)+3.37 R2=0.81 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1502 Institute of Transportation Engineers 120 DAYS= 8/31/2009 (Includes a 212-day extension) DATE OF FILING: 5/29/2009 DATE MAILED: 6/2/2009 to CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR) 2008-00001 Case Name: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER Applicant's Name/Address: Pacific Realty Assoc.,L.P. 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway,Suite 300 Portland,OR 97224 Owner's Name/Address: Same as Applicant Address of Property: South of SW Dartmouth Road,west of SW 72nd Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co. Tax Assessor's Map No. 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101;and 2S101AB,Tax Lot 01400. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW,THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 1, 2008, FEBRUARY 2, 2009 AND MAY 18, 2009 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Request: > The applicant requested Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development lan for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, there will be surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans were reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. On December 1, 2008, the Commission continued the public hearing to February 2, 2009, where they reviewed and approved the Concept Plan and provided the applicant with direction in developing the detailed plans. On May 18, 2009, the Commission approved the Detailed Plan, subject to conditions of approval within this final order. Zone: C-G: General Commercial District with PD: Planned Development Overlay Zone. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested ® Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JUNE 2,2009 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 17,2009 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section I8.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 16,2009. J Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-02 PC N BY PLANNING COMMISSION e . FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT AND DETAILED PLANS FOR THE TIGARD RETAIL CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONCEPT PLAN ON DECEMBER 1, 2008 AND APPROVED THE DETAILED PLAN WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON MAY 18, 2009. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (TIGARD RETAIL CENTER, LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AUGUST 29, 2008), THE APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 10, 2009, THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT THE MAY 18, 2009 HEARING (SHEET L-lb, REVISED 5-18-09, (Attachment 2) AND EXHIBITS A-D "OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS" (Attachment 3)AND THIS FINAL ORDER. (Includes a 212-Day Extension) 120 DAYS = 8/31/2009 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2008-00001 "Detailed Plan Review" APPLICANT/ APPLICANT'S OWNER: Eric Sporre REP: Brian Dickerson Pacific Realty Associates,L.P. PacLand 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Suite 300 6400 SE Lake Road,Suite 300 Portland,OR 97224 Portland, OR 97222 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, there will be surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans will be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. The Concept and Detailed Plans are being reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. On December 1, 2008, the Commission reviewed and approved the Concept Plan and provided the applicant with direction in developing the detailed plans. This staff report includes the findings for the Detailed Plan. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Road west of SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101; 2S101AB, Tax Lot 01400. ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: 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. TIGARD RETAIL.CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 1 OF 19 PLANNING COMLbIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 (PD)The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space,innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning, 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780,18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed detailed plan meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Planning Commission, therefore, APPROVES the requested Land Use Application subject to the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AMENDMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN ITALICS IN CONDITIONS 1,2,11,14,17,18&19) g - r 4. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE/BUILDING PERMIT. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan and a statement demonstrating that the project incoorates safety measures such as video surveillance, enhanced lighting,prominent signage and monitoring by store personnel to address the e defensible space issues raised in the City of Tigard Police epartment s comment letter dated jay 15, 2009. 2. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the aplicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees (as proposed at the flay 18, 2009 PC Hearing, Sheet L-1 b, Revised 5-18- 09) will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide for parking lot canopy coverage of 30%. 3. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,000 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet,or less. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 2 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 4. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. 5. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper. 6. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with I8.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner. After such time, the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. 7. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the August 20,2008 arbonst report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,grading, and paving. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. 8. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 9. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 10. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 11. The applicant shall revise their plan set to incorporate landscaping (appropriate soil and street trees.spaced at the equivalent separation of one tree every 28 feet) and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W, except where sight distance may be compromised. 12. The applicant shall revise their plan set to show full pavement,curb and storm sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two northbound lanes to Beveland Road. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 3 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 13. The applicant shall obtain all ODOT permits prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. All work within the ODOT ROW requires an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it __along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the followin requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester at least, once every two weeks (or by agreement between the project arborist and the City Arbon's:), from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing insrallation, through building construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received-by time City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection f Th encing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 15. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 16. The applicant shall call for final inspection by the Current Planning Depaitnient to ensure that the project is built according to the applicable standards and approved plan set. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 17. OR 99W: (Refer to S/18/09 PC Hearing exhibits A-D "Off-Site Transportation Improvements')The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72nd Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217.To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignah7ed accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard lift lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. 18. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: (Refer to S/18/09 PC Hearing exhibits A-D "Off-Site Transportation Improvements') The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. (Contingent on successful adoption of a local improvement district) 19. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: (Refer to S/18/09 PC Hearing exhibits A-D "Off-Site Transportation Improvements')The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes. The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. TIGARD RETAIL.CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 4 OF 19 PLANNING COMhIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 20. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. 21. The applicant shall complete all public improvements prior to occupancy. THIS DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History PDR94-00019 approved a general retail center providing between 300,000 and 320,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, but expired. In 1998, the Tigard City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004). Grading, filling, and wetland mitigation occurred on the subject site, even though the retail development was not built. Subsequently, PD2000-00001 approved a phased commercial shopping center development with 297,179 square feet of building area including an anchor building at 223,461 square feet,which has also expired. On October 6,2008, at the Community Development Director's request, the Commission recommended the Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant Habitat Areas Map associated with CPA98-00002 regarding the subject property. On November 25, 2008, the Council approved the amendment. On December 1, 2009 the Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with direction for the applicant to proceed to the Detailed Plan. (See applicant's response below under the Planned Development section of this staff report,page 6). Vicinity Information: The subject 18.16-acre property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street, west of SW 72nd Avenue, and east of Hwy 217 in the Tigard Triangle. The subject site,zoned primarily C-G (PD) with a 0.45 acre parcel in the southeast corner zoned MUE, is surrounded on the north, west and east by C-G(PD) zoned land, and on the southeast by land zoned MUE. A 10.42-acre significant wetland associated with Red Rock Creek is located adjacent to the site on the west which buffers Hwy 217. Vacant developable land exists to the east fronting on SW 72nd,which was once a part of the previous approvals on the subject site. The area to the southeast, zoned MUE, is a neighborhood in transition where a number of residences have converted to commercial uses. Proposal Description The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan(PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition,surface parking,landscaping,lighting,access and utility infrastructure improvements are proposed. SECTION IV. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. The City provided notice to neighbors within 500 feet and the site was posted with a notice. Staff received several written comments from neighbors regarding this application. Kevin Lubby, a property owner to the southeast on SW Hermosa,attended the December 15`Commission meeting and testified that he was concerned about visual screening between the proposed loading dock and his business. The Commission requested the applicant to address his concerns in the detailed plan. RESPONSE: The applicant's response memorandum states that the landscape plan has been revised to incorporate additional large scale evergreen plantings along SW Hermoso Way and along the existing residence at the southeast corner of the site. These plantings include 28 Western Red Cedars, 10 Hogan Cedars and 15 Deodar Cedar in addition to the deciduous trees proposed at the southeast corner of the property to provide a dense evergreen screen. Refer to revised landscape plan L-1 a for additional information. TIGARD RETAII.CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 5 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Specht Development commented that their land use approval for a 70,000 square foot office building (SDR2007- 00003) required them to build the signal at SW 68th and Dartmouth. Specht Development suggests that the City instead require the first project to actually develop (Target,most likely) be responsible for building the signal. RESPONSE: There is an approved LID that will be responsible for the infrastructure that will support the signal installation. The signal is required to be installed as a condition of approval of SDR2007-00003. However, if the Tigard Retail development is requesting occupancy prior to an occupancy request for SDR2007-00003, then Tigard Retail shall coordinate with the LID and install the signal. The LID is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2010- 2011. Carol Getgen commented that the traffic at 72nd and Dartmouth is bad now and worries that increased traffic with the proposed Target will make it worse. RESPONSE: The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008, November 2008, and January 2009), and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to identify off-site traffic impacts. The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72nd and Hwy 99W. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.705* (Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745* (Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765* (Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780* (Signs) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795* (Vision Clearance) 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvements) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilited as guidelines,and strict compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters.These chapters are,therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupations) 18.750 Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) 18.785 (Temporary Uses) 18.798 (Vireless Communication Facilities) TIGARD RETAII.CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 6 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicant submitted for concurrent review of both the Concept and Detailed plan. On December 1, 2008, the Planning Commission approved the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001 with direction to the applicant for approval of the Detailed Plan. The findings for the Concept plan approval are not included below but are included by reference (Concept Plan Approval, PDR2008-00001pdated November 20, 2008). The applicant's narrative and plan set (Tigard Retail Center, Land Use Permit Application for Planned Development, August 29, 2008) demonstrates substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code without appealing to the discretion of the Commission or requesting any variances or adjustments. As such, the findings in the applicant's narrative are also adopted by reference with the exception of those chapters and standards below, for which staff has recommended conditions of approval. 18.350—(PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) In a Memorandum dated April 10, 2009, the applicant submitted a response to the Commission's nine issues on approval of the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001. A summary of the applicant's responses, followed by staff comment, is included below after each listed issue. The Applicant's full responses can be found in the Memorandum,on which PacTrust intends to elaborate at the May 18±Commission meeting. 1. Adequate screening for the SW Hermosa neighborhood. Applicant Response: Fifty-three additional cedars have been proposed to the southeast corner of the site to further screen the loading dock area of the development from the Hermoso neighborhood (revised landscape plan,L-la). Staff Response: The additional proposed evergreen landscaping distributed across the slope between SW Hermoso and the proposed Target store's loading area appears to adequately address the concern expressed by Mr. Luby. The City Arborist has reviewed the revised screening plan for SW Hermoso and found it to be satisfactory. 2. Further conversation with City Arborist. Applicant's Response: PacTrust and the project Landscape Architect have met on multiple occasions to discuss the project with the City Arborist since the December 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting including our presentation to the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The proposed landscape plans were revised to address several of the City Arborist's comments with regard to the tree canopy and the number of trees provided within the interior parking lot area. Included with this revised submittal package are copies of a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan to help clarify the trees on site that are proposed for removal with this development application. The project Landscape Architect, Beighley and Associates,will also be at the May 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to present the revised landscape plans and to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. Staff Response: The City Arborist has met with the applicant on several occasions and resolved a majority of the tree and landscaping items. Those items left to be resolved include ensuring consistency between the tree inventory and protection specifications in the arborist's report with the site plan drawings. Also, there is a difference of opinion on the feasibility of the proposed interior parking lot trees to provide substantial canopy in the long term(see below). 3. Further discussion regarding the parking lot and the plantings within the parking lot, both with the respect to the number and overall canopy,width to the soil vault,and the viability of the trees to produce the canopy. Applicant Response:The Landscape plan has been revised to add an additional 30 trees to the interior parking lot areas.As shown on the revised landscape plan,L-1b,this will provide 1 tree for every 4 parking stalls within the interior of the parking lot versus the code requirement of 1 tree for every 7 parking stalls. The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18,2009 hearing to discuss long term viability of the trees within the parking lot areas and their ability to produce canopy. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 7 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAII.F1)PLAN 5/18/2009 Staff Response: The applicant has investigated the feasibility of incorporating larger soil volumes to support growth to maturity of the proposed parking lot trees in order to provide greater canopy. They note that larger soil volumes would mean fewer parking spaces,which would be unacceptable to Target. They are concerned with durability and maintenance associated with alternative construction techniques that would allow for sufficient soil while retaining adequate parking spaces. PacTrust points to their experience in providing and maintaining successful parking lot landscaping in their other Tigard and Metro area properties. The Architectural Graphic Standards outline the projected tree canopy growth based on soil volume. According to these standards, the projected canopy growth in the interior landscape islands will be approximately 15 feet in diameter. The applicant projects the canopy spread of the interior parking lot trees to be 40 feet in diameter. While the applicant and City Arborist differ on their expectations of future parking lot tree canopy,the applicant responded to the City's concerns by increasing the number and spacing of parking lot trees in their revised submittal. The City Arborist has continued to request that the applicant provide more soil volume for the proposed parking lot trees in order to improve their long term viability and growth based on the above standards. However,the applicant has determined that increasing the soil volume available to the interior trees is infeasible for two reasons. First, increasing the size of the landscape islands will reduce parking below what has been deemed marketable by the applicant. Second, treating the soil beneath the paved surface in a manner that will allow for healthy root growth underneath the parking lot has been deemed cost prohibitive by the applicant. A third option was suggested which involves installing permeable pavers within the limits of the parking stalls surrounding the trees. The City Arborist indicated this option can improve the tree rooting environment, support long term tree growth, and help minimize costs. The applicant contends that the site soils are not conducive to permeable pavers. An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50% canopy shading as a standard for parking lots. American Forests recommends a 40% citywide canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan has determined that 40% citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). If averaged over the whole site, including the revised landscaping proposed by the developer in their Memorandum and the non-buildable open space areas,40%canopy coverage would be expected. This is an area for Pl Commission deliberation. New tree code standards will likely emphasize canopy cover rather than individual trees. If the Commission determines that adequate canopy cover will result from the applicant's proposal, the Commission should accept the applicant's findings. If not, the Commission can approve the use of permeable surface,additional soil volume,or other acceptable means. 4. Further discussion on LID flow impact development]green building practicer,LEED practices for both the site and the building Applicant Response: The applicant submitted revised elevations and information on a potential system to incorporate solar arrays into the building architecture as part of the awnings along the south side of the building. They have engaged the Energy Trust of Ore on to help analyze energy conservation systems as well as other available technologies. Categories within the I.EED rating system that the site would potentially be eligible for include restoring habitat, reducing heat island effect associated with roofs, construction activity pollution prevention, public transportation access and alternative transportation. Target has also continued with their efforts to develop the design and proposed sustainable features that they would incorporate into their building. A Design Intent Memorandum from Target's Senior Project Architect dated April 9,2009 is included. Staff Response: As shown in the Planning Commission minutes, the Commission is interested in a cost/benefit analysis addressing the issue of pervious paving materials, use of a green roof, and use of solar energy for both the site plan and building and-the rationale for including them, or not. The applicant has included Solar Concept Sketches incorporating solar panels in the awnings of the two retail shop buildings. However, the applicant believes there is more energy cost savings in conservation methods through energy efficient lighting low-E glazing and reffective roofing than would otherwise be off-set by the use of solar power. The a plicant included additional materials that showed which aspects of the project would be creditable under LEED and what sustainable initiatives were already being incorporated by Target. The applicant intends to share the results of the Energy Trust analysis with the Commission and may provide additional responses to this item at the upcoming Commission meeting. 5. Address further discussion on police department concerns. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 8 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Applicant Response: The applicant met with Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department (TPD) who commented that the Department's chief concern was the lack of defensible space on the store's south and west -perimeters.TPD supports using the proposed plaza space on the north side as an alternative route between SW iermosa and SW Dartmouth. Staff Response: Staff supports the inclusion of the proposed path along the wetlands as provided for in the Tigard Development standards for connectivity and the planned development standards for open space recreation. Additional pedestrian scale lighting may improve the safety of the trail. Monitoring trail use can provide information on whether the level of use of the trail will itself improve safety in the area, which is currently frequented by transients (as reported by the police). Monitoring trail use by both Target (remote cameras) and the City Police Department (potentially, quad patrol) would help determine if other techniques would need to be incorporated to enhance defensible space on the south and west sides of the proposed Target store. The Tigard Police, Planning Division, and the applicant will discuss the issue further to substantively address the potential conflict between public safety and access and enjoyment of the natural area. 6. Take a look at the front facade of the Target store to see if there's a may to bring the nght side of it down to more pedestrian scale. Applicant Response: As shown on the revised landscape plan, L-1a, a planter island has been added to the northwest corner of the building along with a trellis to effectively wrap the building with landscaping materials that tie into the pedestrian plaza and landscape elements that occur along the entire north elevation. Staff Response: Staff finds the revised landscape plan, L-1a, is consistent with the original plan set (PC-1.0) with no apparent changes to the plan. No revised elevations drawings were submitted with which to gauge the effectiveness of the proposed trellis and additional landscape island with respect to the pedestrian scale. 7. Address willingness to put in bus shelter should one be deemed appropriate at some future date. Applicant Response: PacTrust contacted Ben Baldwin with TriMet to discuss the project, bus service along Dartmouth and the potential desire to provide a bus shelter for the site. As noted in the email correspondence from Mr. Baldwin that is included with this memorandum,TriMet does not currently plan to change line in this area, or add a line to service to this area along Dartmouth. However, PacTrust will continue to stay in contact with TriMet as the project develops and would remain open to the concept of providing a bus shelter for the property. Staff Response: Staff supports the efforts and willingness of Pactrust to incorporate transit facilities into the project. 8. Meet with the The Board. Applicant Response: PacTrust met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. Tree canopy and long term viability with respect to soil volumes for parking lot trees were discussed. The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18, 2009 hearing to discuss the minimum standards that have been developed by PacTrust for parking lot landscaping installation and maintenance based on their experience. Staff Response: The applicant met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The Tree Board was generally positive about the overall site plan, but inquired about the possibility of improving soil conditions for the interior parking lot trees with permeable pavers, under pavement treatments,and bioswales. The applicant has investigated these options and determined that they are infeasible. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 9 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 9. Check to see if there are any incentives for energy aspects for the building. Applicant Response: PacTrust has a meeting scheduled with the Energy Trust in April to review some of the energy conservation measures that they have already proposed for the building such as Low-E glazing with our expansive glass line, TPO roofing materials and lighting systems. We will also be discussing other energy conservation measures that they would suggest for the building as well as some of the incentive programs that may be available and how they might apply to our project. Staff Response:The applicant may provide further information at the May 18th Planning Commission meeting. 18.520— (COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable commercial zoning district standards. 18.620— (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section.These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial,trees shall be planted at 3 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Where the parking lot is not located behind the retail pad buildings (approximately 280 lineal feet), the setback between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth St. exceeds five feet due to the width of the wetland and associated buffer area. The wetland buffer area is being enhanced per Clean Water Services requirements. The applicant's Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1a) shows Red Sunset Maples spaced approximately 28 feet apart, consistent with this standard. However, the size specified in the Plant Materials Listing is 2 '/z inch caliper rather than the required 3 1/2 inches. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot consistent with the L-1 standards. 2. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 2-1 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years.Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. According to the Landscape Rendering Plan (Sheet L-1d) and the Plant Materials Listing (Sheet L-2), the applicant has specified Crimson Sentry Maple (2 inch caliper) and Red Sunset Maple (2 '/2 inch caliper) for the parking lot field; Greenspire Linden (2 inch caliper), Kwanzan Cherry (no caliper specified), and Autumn Purple Ash (2 inch caliper) are specified street trees for SW Dartmouth, SW Hermoso, and the access drive, respectively. The sizes of these trees are not all consistent with the L-2 standard. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28' apart. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 10 OF 19 PLANNLNG COMhIISSION FLNAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design standards, with the exception of Section 18.620.070 as reviewed above. Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design Standards. CONDITIONS: ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28'apart. 18.705— (ACCESS AND EGRESS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Access and Egress standards. 18.725—(ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Environmental Performance standards. 18.745—(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chappter Section 18.745.030.C: Installation Requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. The accepted planting rocedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the American Institute of Architects'Architectural Graphic Standards. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. The City Arborist is concerned that the parking lot trees on the interior of the parking lot have not been provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity. According to the Architectural Graphic Standards, the required soil volume per tree should be 1200 cubic feet. The applicant has determined that it is not feasible to provide the required soil volume. Instead,the applicant has proposed additional parking lot trees at a ratio of one tree for every four parking spaces. An ISA ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50%canopy shading as a standard for parking lots.American Forests recommends a 40%citywide canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan has determined that 40%citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). FINDING: As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Landscaping and Screening standards, with the exception of the Section 18.745.030.C.1 as reviewed above. CONDITION: ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide for parking lot canopy coverage of 50%. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 11 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 18.755—(MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE): FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage standards. 18.765—(OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS): *PD Guideline Chapter Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The applicant states that "the proposed Target provides 4 truck loading spaces in the loading dock. The smaller retail buildings are multi-tenant retail shop buildings with up to 9 tenants in each building. The tenants will lease blocks of the building with areas ranging from 1,200-sf to 1,800-sf. Some tenants may choose to lease multiple blocks of the building, but the maximum tenant space for these types of buildings typically does not exceed 5,000- sf. These smaller retail format merchant stores do not typically receive large quantities through large delivery trucks and do not require dedicated loading space. Based on this information, no dedicated loading space is needed or proposed for the smaller retail buildings. ' The two proposed 12,000 square foot retail buildings have not been provided with any loading spaces, as required. The applicant states that the expected size of the leased space would not create the need for such loading spaces. However, it would be possible for a single business to lease the entire space, where the size would warrant the required loading space.Therefore this standard is not met. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements with the exception of Section 18.765.080.A.1. To comply with this section, the applicant would either need to limit tenants to less than 10,000 square feet or provide a loading space for each of the 12,000 square foot pad buildings. CONDITION: • The applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,000 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet or less. 18.775—(SENSITIVE LANDS): FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sensitive Lands standards. 18.780—(SIGNS):*PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sign standards. 18.790—(TREE REMOVAL): 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. The applicant submitted an arborist report and tree plan prepared by a certified arborist at Arbor Pro, Inc., dated August 20,2008.The report includes a site plan,Tree Inventory Table, and provides guidelines for the removal and protection of existing trees on the site. The applicant states that the majority of trees proposed to be removed with this development are dead or in poor health and pose a potential safety hazard. TIGARD RETAII.CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 12 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; The Arborist Report's Tree Inventory Table and site plan identify the size, species and location of all existing trees on the site. The site does not contain any trees designated as significant by the City. 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75%or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The applicant states that as shown in the Arborist Report, there are 19 trees on site that are alive and greater than 12" caliper. Of these, 13 will be retained (65%). In accordance with the mitigation requirements outlined above, 50% of the trees to be removed will be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D. Trees that are dead or a hazardous condition are not included in these calculations. The narrative refers to the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the proposed tree mitigation. However, the applicant's plan set includes a Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1). The applicant's Memorandum includes Landscape Concept Plans (Sheets L-la through L-1d) and a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PC-5.0). None of these plans include the referenced mitigation plan. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; All trees to be removed have been identified in the Tree Inventory Table and on the Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PC-5.0). A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The arborist report defines standards and methods to protect trees during and after construction. However, the proposed tree protection measures have not been shown in the plan set. To ensure tree protection in the field during construction, the applicant will be required to incorporate the tree protection measures in the plan set. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised grading plan that shows which trees are to be removed/retained, and how retained trees will be protected. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated 8/20/08. The grading/tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the 8/20/08 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree.The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 13 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required.Tree removal ermits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: No trees within sensitive lands are proposed to be removed. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development does not comply with all of the applicable Tree Removal standards. Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards. CONDITIONS: • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner. After such time, the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the August 20, 2008 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices,clearing,grading,and paving. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment,vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. • Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any parry found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipa- Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include,but not be limited to,the following: Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code;and Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 14 OF 19 PLANNING COMDIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 ♦ If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely Impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved-by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. ♦ Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (IPZ) fencing installation, through building construction,as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. ♦ Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6 diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 18.795—(VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS):*PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Visual Clearance Areas standards. 18.810— STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS : Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets,sewers, and drainage. The applicant's narrative and plan set address the applicable standards of Section 18.810. In addition to the proposed site improvements and adjacent right-of-way improvements for SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way, the applicant has identified and proposed off-site improvements to SW 72"d Avenue and OR 99W. The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008, November 2008, and January 2009), and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to identify off-site traffic impacts. The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72nd and Hwy 99W. The applicant has worked with the City and ODOT to satisfactorily address the impacts to streets and arterials in the vicinity of the proposed development. The City's Development Review Engineer has reviewed this information and provided the following comments and recommended conditions for the applicant's proposal: 1. OR 99W: The raised medians shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along its entirety, except where sight distance may be compromised. 2. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: City Engineering staff concurs with the ODOT recommendation. 3. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: City Engineering staff concurs with ODOT recommendations with the additional requirement that the applicant construct the full pavement,curb and storm sewer improvements to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. T IGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 15 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Street and Utility Impprovement standards for the subject site. With respect to offsite improvements the applicant shall be subject to following ODOT recommended conditions of approval and additional City conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: ♦ OR 99W: The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72nd Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left g vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99\X'/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. ♦ OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. • SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. ♦ ODOT Permits:The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. ♦ The applicant shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W,except where sight distance may be compromised. ♦ The applicant shall construct the full pavement, curb and storm sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. ♦ All ODOT permits must be obtained prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. • All public improvements must be completed prior to occupancy. 18.390—(DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 16 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. As shown in the applicant's Preliminary Site Plan and narrative,the applicant specifically concurs with the required SW Hermoso Way dedication. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County figures, TIF's are expected to recapture 20 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed,the applicant is required to pay TIF's of approximately$916,810. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 20 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $4,584,050 ($916,810 divided by .20). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. Mitigation Value Assessment: Full Imppact ($916,810_0.20) $4,584,050 Less 1'lF Assessment -916,810 Less SW Hermoso Way Dedication .($15 x 2,178 sq. ft.) -32,670 Less mitigated values for off-site transportation improvements (SW 72°d/Hwy 99W) -4.000,000 Estimate of unmitigated impacts -$365,430 TIF Credit $916,810 Total Net Estimate of unmitigated impacts $551,380 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Hermoso Way, a local street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet PC-1.0) and stated in the narrative. The applicant has proposed transportation improvements on SW Dartmouth, SW 72nd Avenue, and OR 99W to address the roject's impact. For this project, the TIF is creditable to the off-site impact mitigation required of the applicant for SW 72nd,an arterial. Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications, assessments, and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department commented that the side and rear of the proposed Target store should include design elements to increase natural surveillance to provide added safety to trail users. It was further suggested that utilization of the pedestrian plaza area on the north side of the building would better address the safety issues as an alternative to the pedestrian/bicycle connection between SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. The Tigard Public Works Department commented that they would support the proposed public sewer main segment entering the property via the westernmost driveway if the property is planned to be partitioned. The applicant plans to adjust the lot lines of the three existing lots to match the three separate buildings. The City Arborist commented on the proposed development finding that not all of the landscaping and screening, street tree, and tree plan requirements have been met. These standards are addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening and Tree Removal Chapters of this staff report. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Water District commented that the plans needed clarification and that fire lines cannot be tapped directly for domestic water for the buildings. These issues must be addressed with construction plan set review of by TVWD. Portland General Electric commented on the subject proposal requesting a public utility easement on the south side of Dartmouth along the frontage of the subject property and the adjacent property to the east to provide underground power from the east side of SW 72nd Avenue at Dartmouth. Oregon Department of Transportation provided additional comment on the subject proposal in a letter dated April 23, 2009 in which it made its final recommended conditions of approval to address off-site impacts to state highways: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 17 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Recommended Local Conditions of Approval: 1. OR 99W;,dThe applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72 Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised kpncrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72 Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbould at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74 Avenue (see December 1 , 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72 Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. nd 2. OR 217/SW 72 Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. nd 3. SW 72 Avenge through the OR 217 Interchange Area:The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72 Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. 4. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. Oregon Department of State Lands was notified of wetlands located on the subject site but did not comment on the proposed development. Because the proposal does not further impact wetlands on the site, it is unlikely DSL would prioritize this application for review and comment. Clean Water Services issued a service provider letter dated August 1, 2008 (CWS File No. 08-00228) requiring enhancement of existing sensitive areas. Washington County commented that they have no objection to the proposed development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue commented that they can endorse the proposed development with conditions of approval relating to required fire flow, reflective hydrant markers, hydrant fire department connections, access and water supply during construction, and provision of a Knox box. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 18 OF 19 PLANNING COMIIIISSION FLNAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 s1- Alt IN 1\. ( 1\( It •■I(1\ ; ; • ■ • A1'1'1“ A I I ). . ., • ; 1.; - --- • IT IS FLATI II l 1:1 )1 RI 1) T1111 liii. .11'1'1.1(. 1\ 1 .1\1) XI I s 10 TI 1%1 x I I )1\( •• Nt lilt. II or- I (.)1- TI Its )i(IiI R. 1, lit j\ I \\ -Fill ( Fl klf 11( 1\RI ) 1'1 \\\I\ , ( )NINI1' S1( t :,■• NITACI .\17,1t11:11 !II I! 1 1\C% later:41h ict L- and 3 _ iii I .1ttak.hint :11 ;: II 11.1:1,p, .n Inyn Acnkins (...1ppht:.mt., Exhibit' .\-I)) Ji :,4„:,„1":4 y7s,H,„:,,T, f RE E1V O PACTRUST 15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy.,Suite 300 j\ 8 Portland,Oregon 97224 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-6300 • Facsimile:503/624-7755 CITY OF IGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING ATTACHMENT 2 November 8, 2010 Planning Commission c/o Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Planning Commission and Mr. Pagenstecher: Re: Tigard Retail Center Planned Development Review Approval—PDR—2010-00001 PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On behalf of Pacific Realty Associates, this letter provides an itemized list of responses to the request for additional information that the Planning Commission outlined at the conclusion of the November 1, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing. 1. Provide additional details of the exterior recycling storage area including the intended use, architectural details and configuration of the facility. Response: Based upon the discussion at the recent planning commission hearing, the applicant withdraws the request for the screened recycling storage area and request that the current application be limited to the minor building elevation modifications to accommodate a non-specific user. It is assumed that this activity will be accommodated within the Retail 3 building at this time. If a screened exterior recycling storage area is determined to be necessary by the end building user once determined; the configuration, location and size of the facility will be submitted for approval as necessary at that time. 2. Respond to Tigard Development Code issues raised in the November 1, 2010 letter from Michael Lilly. Response: As noted in the response outlined in item 1 above, PacTrust has withdrawn the request for the screened recycling storage area and therefore the points of concern raised by the opponent, with regard to the screened recycling storage area, are no longer relevant. With regard to Mr. Lilly's assertion that the change from Target as the end user of the retail 3 building constitutes a change in us,please see the attached letter prepared by Steve Pfieffer with Perkins Coie, dated November 8, 201, addressing this assertion. Planning Commission Mr. Gary Pagenstecher Page 2 November 8,2010 3. Provide additional information regarding the ability to locate the screened exterior recycling storage area to the west of the Retail 3 building. Response: As noted in the response outlined in item 1 above, PacTrust has withdrawn the request for the screened recycling storage area. Therefore we have not provided additional information with regard to any site constraints associated with locating a recycling storage facility along the west side of the Retail 3 building. 4. Provide additional information regarding the sustainability features that the applicant would look to implement in the Retail 3 building. Response: Consistent with the spirit of sustainable development and the discussions with the Planning Commission during the original Planned Development Review approval, PacTrust will work with potential Retail 3 users to promote and encourage sustainable features in the construction and operation of the proposed building. This will include providing the research and contact information gathered during this project to assure that the tenant is aware of local organizations and incentive programs offered through various groups such as the Energy Trust of Oregon to help encourage sustainable development at the site. 5. Provide a sign off letter from Pride Disposal regarding their ability to service the proposed recycling storage area. Response: As noted in the response outlined in item number 1 above, PacTrust has withdrawn the request for the screened recycling storage area. Therefore we have not coordinated with Pride Disposal regarding their ability to service the recycling storage area. 6. Provide additional information on how the proposed building heights relate to the originally approved elevations. Response: The proposed building heights are consistent with the heights noted on the original approved building elevations. Attached to this letter is a copy of the revised building elevations that were submitted as part of the application with the building height information added to demonstrate consistency with the approved elevations. Planning Commission Mr. Gary Pagenstecher Page 3 November 8, 2010 Thank you for your ongoing assistance with this project and please feel free to contact me at (503) 624-6300 with any questions regarding the Planning Commission information request responses. Sincerely, PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. - Matthew Oyen Construction Manager cc: Eric Sporre Andrew Jones Ken Grimes Steve Pfieffer w:\construction management\dartmouth Tots\ site&infrastwcture\tigard retail center-pc response 11-08-10.doc 1 EIFS painted X �"r ' �, "Lawson Blend" uik Brik H�' .•• •:• 1 1,:.:,,.: „ F; ,,., L.I.„.<z. I. . ., � :,,. Q 0O>a,,-.:.,� , ,. �k���.�” d A _ (1 e�• tliR:;'.lr,u.:% ",.al- �---'-- '::v «u 0� t i lttll�.y - : �I„111 u1" (.4'1,f.tI+>'iilsf..: I: rt 1 f s1i j #hlilili cN,y)•y:E+;: ->•v:•�•,. _ 4.u+ c`F.t. aye?. - �x a r; t E• +r-r.�`- - 2Tf„f, ;' ;'r..+:•. ::s`:. � ' ,;.E �3�.� ��;M > .v r: . W 6481 =,,..;>� . f#: _ r I t,l own”S �,•. • • . =F Jf .111' ,. .. v �i 111'Ir:hr..(1U7 r :r• r. ;I :1 Sv`133'.3'> L j'L's 'sxt'., _it.. ( y p.u;'t. 1• $,g 5 t.,,+. ° i t5 x i G= 3 �-'F`.�' �kt'ST,t7>t,.F��S �:� � i {;. � .:.. . �.,it j,,it:.:. '. 1 s�B.r .. c w.n;•r,,.. 11� s't i ,. .... ..S i . .:w fir.•,. ,.�...31'..r3t v� 3 ) Ma.A` Y s 4 t: ( f..-a.�:v::'_ .PT41cjj;'!{ ' . ri s:ham s z °.- -1f ( :°.. dK:.. 1 f _ y# . ,. l ��?`-> iY �:•;'>�iJ1'r.':' ..rJl r. < .. SW' ■ ��1t�� q t- :7 15. I2 .. S j M$ • i li , ilt 411.. -„ • I :: I. .•1 I 3 I rF.' ,fl II; ■ .. Split face CMU painted FRONT ELEVATION Saddle Tan"Integral Color -�s "Saddle Tan"Integral Color Cobble Brown"SW 6482 Split Fate CMU "Saddle Tan"Integral Color Pilaster-"Irving Cream" Split-Face CMU "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Saddle Tan"Integral EIFS painted Promenade Blend"Quik Brik Split Face CMU Integral Color Split Face CMU p Split Face CMU Color Split-Face CMU "Oak Creek"SW 7718 al . ,,,. r >.,. . .' ;--.: .,. c .."-� �.. :-.:.:. •, _., r. .::i`: t .,- :Y e to ral Colo f'}�' :a'r'�- .,_, ,:,:.":, 'Y ,:.F.,.t, .'Vs"''!...":Y :,!.;- ,"�1111-:i'P.(.:,:II'll:,,7,111EG.,aI". .. ° Y dl 03.1 :a ��- �.....�. :� l� � - 'Px„t,:s. ft` 1 :.i1'1"111 1'.;;,r -1. >.g:5.:: ,... ) I Jit .•l E , ! .!, • �:'1 is ..,. 1111 IeSt,.i :.3 I. - p,. 1• 7n ,rc . ..., ...r, •3r-r ... yy , ,.,... a.. a Ii.. �,. • '+••1•:'.• . ..... 11. 3 . ,I. u ..1 7,,.",,,,.1,„,./41.,,. < J Itl7If Y�•�j 1 ,� •K ;...,,. nr. ., ,. tY .;...:.., .; .,..;,r..... �. 'l loo r •:° 'L °'Y I o t. }. e e° 00 CI �YY Lo23�� -:��i'l7e�:*3 ,r4. �1. ,. .� .-• o 01 „ „r,- o )> I It),Jt 11 , r . gg 1e11,:1,,i1.SY•,It•.11�..'ts�!•t•1'��;, >..P �S Y>P-,rx,.,sl ° 1 Py�:- 9i7•, ;}. .kr: 71'' .,b 3' ,n ,ea .,. : 1 .&..> .:. ..I ..a- -. ` _.s.,..a_ .._ .B.x '.•. YA ..f ,i.��g.<Er'A.. - a: ..y Ott ,i�`,�.'.li,, .... .r. -: ., 4�o^-'.t'�, ie': .Sn>'• vE �5 1:;: 4.*: ?l..' L 3• .. ... :.. i . .. _.,.. ..-...,:;•;',,'',..,,i.,"-,,..,,.c;:,,,.. , .... .:.,. .. .. ... ....: .. .:I� •••-`,'. . ...-il ,......_..,. . H. _:..tl�.y...E a�5,:��...v_..o-.h'fi`,.,..n.�.Y�r�a-� 'r r. SiFs !iF! 11 '.l 1 LEFT ELEVATION "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Lawson Blend"Quik Brik Split face CMU painted Pilaster-Split face CMU painted Split Face CMU "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Row House Tan"SW 7689 tv„} rn• p'. ; r°- as jy%ysdi':” e 7 tface'MU painted lit face CM afnted .::.ua:•, . : ��t.(f d .. . .,«. .1 1l(at.(d lul '1,1•1U1." c'x _ r .,e .f. !: ,_ ��;`"`r :K j , , r ow H,,iti �y�` R# b�CW9c 41 Ja ISIS 2&s� ,: Fi r, "x•�'�. >N a o e'f" S - .,.t (�:c' :/ (. .. y.. �r • I° .' n"SW 76 9 "1;t•tal,t.(areta{rl1 * .,lAfiF v 66 F>:,. ,. I. ,. •Jm. £i o t" t �s.ltig;{ 4:,. t e l3F�vr:;t" '''rY1% ( ; >.r 1.t... {'+i '4.� .I 1 y rr :nik IMIlimilimmilloypti.....c.:--,:-/.:., t'`s':;'6..,. _,:.,'t :•;I ,<3s . t. _ .>.. ,.. ...: ...:� ... .- :. 'rp :r• .- 1.•... er ..1'.h,..111. ... ..:...:.. >..>.<<. .,. .. ,. .... ,,.,. ..+., _ -- ..-,l ,..- . . .41<: .... ...,.r....: - _: �''-",.-:' .. .ei.. i�.:'`�y n5:+- 5'-• T., ., I,, : ,3^.. --L I" y 1;<<iY.:xg tir f`4�4::Y':^%.t i,'�»��: r a. fi: -.4411041-4 J {°- Y ff, is^{j' I: 1 Y.Ct r 1 REAR ELEVATION Split face CMU painted Pilaster-Split face CMU painted Split face CMU painted "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Row House Tan"SW 7689 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 r s"" ?a. .. x<p.: •--; •tr > -1-X ,.: 1' I , ii _r _. i'• I tia<y., rii ,.A 111.(iF(:~��u i rs,. ,a �.� .1: X. •ret i- "Blend" ui r" -^a• •F A :• :. ;.5 lit ace. to :,,>r:.;.,.:z„:� ''y, r - et 1. lit t• .ii x=n 4 4f- .i -a' -'-.- ; '' s z�.trt�{fd I• ..•,..11"' Ite ral Color - I�•Y• iv i••� r„�W �'{ l• fry sT;��x`s ,°a tt•.1.1.-.411P!!--;.-:� •#IA�• � •s-`F• Sy•9ltl..,`'' Y.. 9t`_z t ,,r s ' ` r`:f,:��1 .b'-;' i Y .Q ?w el•:. >r` `18 I1` -�l S rw Xr:.. , •r %. .,A .._.. _ .,..: . :' , ,_.. . .:� . :-.I, •. _=' £-- . ?3. a,.w(a'•;�;e b'+.+. d 't3. „ . •1.. .7 ms's xt.,,zv F .,i':� 3ia'a.. l I i ., .; ail I.• , y f Ala : r I RIGHT ELEVATION "Saddle Tan"Integral Color painted Split face CMU painted Split face CMU "Rookwood Split face CMU Clay”pa SW 2823 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 Pilaster-Split face CMU painted Split" p "Row House Tan"SW 7689 Cobble face BrownCMU"SW ainted 82 60 PAUsBT BUILDING ELEVATIONS VATIONS t*Re•,t, r..' August 05, 2010 RECEIVED 2 Tigard,Oregon NOV 0 , ,l� Not to Scale REPRESENTATION ONLY,NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION:All[ma the are a representation of the design Intent and may not portray the exact scale,colors,materials,or constmctlon that could occur due to material availability and final architectural modfficatlons, CITY('1I. 'f"I������ All Information contained In this document Is confidential and may not be reproduced without permission. A.✓J Pff.ANiI IKri�ENGIINEEI11NC • 1 . ... •[ }ar 4 EIFS painted +•., ..7 < y-��'s.-;v•.'''` .-- ..; fa� I C$1'• ,tllt.ili• l R l 1 r Ii:L„sran ai pc b.: 1 I { V. .. .. :;, "Lawson Blend"Q. Brk l c .u.,:•"h „-!,-. 5 y t :. 4 / , y :; - a' 114:Ji- 31it•b'r: t: ,. SpYllg "R.ft,41 � '.: ' •, w n.,s. i tP'r•` , �t'' , • •:x t , � �a c • • o ty t. ul.r r.i . a • OWn"�W 6Q . i,1' •i 'e 'i, :d ot S's : a '^?t <:: �., k. iirslY'o' 1!+r'.• llr, ,'�•• l;t J F • < . 4i1 ( .. :4P.a e, ¢ 1 t�• . w iaar '�ac'•�.di. 6 s.•y: ,!33', i ':i.?E- 1 :.d:r1.N9 s �+i,w e•e-:;"• '7s S'i'" .� a LYr,- < > {Si's : . . 1 i # 1 •_.__ ...... g .. , , , ! 1, i hill , '-'1 .31 i'11 1`;I 1 a Is .• ., 'Split face CMU painted FRONT ELEVATION ""Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Saddle Tan"Integral Color Split Face CMU "Promenade Blend"Quik Brik 9 Pilaster-"Irving Cream" Split-Face CMU "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Saddle Tan"Integral EIFS painted Split-Face CMU • Integra!Color Split Face CMU Split-Face CMU Color Split-Face CMU "Oak Creek"SW 7718 a 1' a rd 0 �•i;:� t t, _ -:I r: v r .n �Jlfc;�:r ,Ill t t IIt, } l.' -,a. ::r-� •�. S ,,,• :.:lit :::{El � .d •, ,:_-;. , •:. .,.�, � �-;: :.: e�ul. liltSt,l _:, p. t "'ri�':i.. .M ,�• .. . -.itr•..- Lam ,� r it '>-"I• :t "N • f .1f(!!1 A-,t1' s, 1f :, r Yf .c,,......,.._.a. N.•. r... ..: ,,::.. , tP �-� J14�"Ile >.' • .:. ..:..:>..: •aru. es .�, .y -.t' � .,. .,.,.-,. R00 ^. olYllntol�l•C.lielil..�A�/�.f.,;,l ,,.r.::'� OOL 00� CI� ;:��,..iCtl93�: �w2. :�, X'� �•le{1,Ltr 1.F4.11.tiro 1t1:'' `--;ayi 6, ).i, Y.... - a+, ""St x t•:;,y4,;.,..,.:, - d t -ti'i:' F •r { •t? ili8 .,�1- ,`,.. -.. 1� � a., ,• .. .. -.... -.: . �},.,=rs e:"� .,,,.b c:'yr "��;'�`: .s.t r rx.w•.II -. .y,�yyq.:: !.(icyy :--j: .-i:II'. ' It :'J 1: . LEFT ELEVATION Spilt face CMU painted "Saddle Tan"Integral Color "Lawson Blend"Quik Brik "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 Pilaster Split face CMU painted Split Face CMU "Row House Tan"SW 7689 . ,.., "ram;. .:$•u :< , 3� 5:•� •r{ 4 li t face jvIU ainted -S Ilt face CM aln#e f,,, r r .' e ..,i4';''''' ?4ertlz' rr�¢ 4�i"L• N1;..P 4�p. z:. ?xl.e 6 •, t•a 'iII�11:.1:G"i!15rllil Pl.; i _ i it- t . . .t• «.?:.st".i 7.,.fl- '{ : :i 1 ,;;, d ; ., i:,: owH W7689 R$a r.;.• •I L3 ,1 ."t'1 r 'f `.!..,..1.:,„ i a • S ,,:a'.F.*.'.. Mn .< 'l .h.x r .tel.' o . .tolola.atalia`i. .•xJ1 .ti .,<r ::;�•r' v. ,,:t Y: .'.1.. :(.��. .1-an..SW 7689 ixl 1. 1 F1) X � z;3 �� �. ,� :;s;.� r_f.. . 1..-:.:•9;:. •'''',"": "'''''.''' . 'sy,f: r -2`ir'.' ::Y:. .T;, •��,. t�' ] •-/,�: , .h _ _lye{it - - . _.• pr5V[ yfi ,�'•]1I ',i3}.' ^��n1 .3 ,..-_.. -'"a-::-''t,.V:'- .,,.,:S hl?i..t.:�'.,0.'S:�+.-{'':•t-, . /G,e•, r. -y, „h..a�aly'PrtlILY;:.:.r ... , "{;, ..i.fr.{t+i''x''�x c i'. - - ,.='.i.°, cc, 1MeY 5 YY,, , ,•..:.. 1l• _ , , -.1-.::•: •;.,,p:;:::8o-.s;,iSi:a g3.',� j �[' 1 • ri' t • ,ii..t I1 = .. I{'. `=1F J — • 1 REAR ELEVATION Split face CMU painted Split face CMU painted Pilaster-Split face CMU painted "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Row House Tan"SW 7689 ''3 ,.�:1'y: >ari " -jte'�Frr;.ti.#SzSti4i}74;; ;' .:�rCi•"Ya. _fr: ,iirr . , „ : isr,: `,al i a•t^C 1 •: :i : .. at` 0. r•-Y u :�sr �'"r.;- 2,;i'r `(t"�i!'.fir-t:�P .. so lend ui _........ _ .. . :1. if t. Cfi�,, :, r, �';^ , ���� '�e�:7;��,�.:r.�.: �:��t�°rb; ,,.,t.?��;,�:,. ,, . r.-', „ �. • C,1 ..1! ��: t C 1 I t : r :, r; .�: :..+";� { ;35 mr .r c ::_.. ,a.`' Claw,'11111 l g:�1: .:•r y. ::s. -i,.yr K�: f ,.,,e:;Sr�x e E•i�rPK�.,o r. . ••. 3:" rA 1 ell 1 e ral Color lal•X� 1r o i s .* ; z 6->r- n: a 5 n PGi'tP1-.t'� c s.. :-! •N,4:•.---, . ! g. 1 W 2 e•� {4 a n , r IF tilt! 9 l • ' 41!jI17Il�?K+7 ,E Y� r¢ 4.�,}(�1 t-- mea}-� . 4r r. -t. Yy�!' is.''•..:.. f. u- ,. P• .r � X54, %, f- ..}!' y:y'�'„" -. -fi sA...STout ..... .. ..I'. ......_. • ., _ J:'s 'a; .y.'4 .3; f.`: °:p' .°,•`si. _ 'q. •� .,.,.,..1. ,_;_ �,__ „ ::,. -.& C�'. � l+w.#. , rws.. . ,,.,. ,a.>a"x`b .,tt,+7,..R � � ,.,.Y e .,foie v iL'-N. L .. _N ..,,:..,:. ... '�. ,. - , . .!, ,. -..... .... .., ._.. .Jf a a, a H. ... .. ', ,,�` I . 'i its 11:,i w -i . - , • RIGHT ELEVATION "Saddle Tan"Integral Color Split face CMU painted Split face CMU painted Split-Face CMU Rookwood Clay"SW 2823 Cobble Brown"SW 6082 Pilaster-Split face CMU painted Split face CMU painted "Row House Tan"SW 7689 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 RETAIL 3 PA>> usT BUILDING ELEVATIONS �V �� P•PLO q.•M1Y A664o•ta:L.P. August 05, 2010 2 Tigard,Oregon NOV 0E18 7(i i� Not to Scale REPRESENTATION ONLY,NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION:All Images shown are a representation of the design Intent and may not portray CRY [ p�^y y the exact scale,colors,materials,or construction that could occur due to material avalfabllity and final architecluralmodifications. \'I`r-F/�',i"':`r�` I9fll� Al information contained in this document is confidential and may not be reproduced without permtssion. PLA,NNf(t°P(_=N(1NEER NG • ECEIVED ATTACHMENT 3 R NOV 0 8 ?ulo Perkins CITY OF TIGARD Cole Pl_•ANNiN 1fENGINEERING 1120 NW,Couch Street,Tenth Floor Steven L Pfeiffer Portland,OR 97209-4128 vxosre:(503)727-2261 PHONE:503.727.2000 FAx:503.727.2222 PAX: (503)346-2261 mum: SPfeiffer®perkinscoie.com www.Perklnscole.com mum: November 8,2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY David Walsh,President Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Retail Center Modification,PDR 2010-00001 Response to Comments Dear President Walsh and Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Pacific Realty Associates,L.P.,the applicant for approval of the above- referenced modifications to the Tigard Retail Center, The purpose of this letter is to address certain issues raised by Mr. Michael Lilly in his letter dated November 1, 2010 and by Mr. Chris Girard in his letter dated November 1,2010. For the reasons discussed in more detail below, we request that the Planning Commission approve the subject modifications. First and foremost, it is important to note that all of the issues raised by Mr. Lilly in his November 1, 2010 letter are premised upon the proposed addition of a recycling storage area. However,Mr. Lilly is incorrect in his assertion that only certain retailers support sustainable practices and incorporate recycling facilities in their projects. Regardless,as noted in the letter to the Commission from Pacific Realty Associates dated November 8, 2010,the recycling storage area component of the modification submittal has been withdrawn,which effectively removes any basis for Mr. Lilly's comments. Additionally, Mr. Lilly relies upon the faulty assumption that the only use allowed by the original Detailed Development Plan(DDP)approval for the Tigard Retail Center was a Target store. To the contrary,the decision on the DDP approved the wide range of uses allowed within the General Commercial District(C-G). The DDP provides, "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," DDP Approval,p. 1. Furthermore, although the DDP approval imposes 3788 1-0008/LEGAL 195 56020.1 ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER • LOS ANGELES • MADISON MENLO PARK • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates David Walsh, President Planning Commission City of Tigard November 8,2010 Page 2 conditions of approval regarding site planning building size and architectural elements,nothing in the DDP approval serves to restrict the range of uses allowed in the C-G base zone. Stated another way, there is no change of use issue associated with this project provided the ultimate use falls within the broad range of retail,office and civic uses authorized under the base C-G designation and the current DDP approval. Lastly,Mr. Girard's comments fail to raise any valid concerns with the proposed modifications. As explained above,the modifications do not result in a change of use and the recycling storage area aspect of the modifications has been withdrawn. The remainder of the proposed modifications are minor exterior improvements which do not increase the usable square footage of the building or otherwise modify the approved DDP site plan. Therefore,neither the Comprehensive Plan policies nor the Code provision referenced by Mr. Girard are applicable to this very limited review. Moreover,such policies and Code provisions were appropriately addressed at the time of the original Conceptual and Detailed Development Plan approvals. For the reasons above, and as set forth in our previous testimony and evidence,we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the requested modifications. Please include this letter in the official Planning Department file for this matter. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Steven . `'eiffer SLP:crl cc: Client(via email) 37881.0008/LEGAL 14556920.1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES , INC . N\ J TRANSPORTATION E N G I N E E R I N G / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 r 503.273.8169 MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2010 Project #: 7692.0 To: Matt Oyen PacTrust 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Cc: Gary Pagenstecher-City of Tigard From: Chris Tiesler, P.E. &Marc Butorac P.E.,P.T.O.E. Project: Tigard Retail Center-Tigard, Oregon Subject: Development Trip Generation Clarification The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to and answer the following question raised at the November 1,2010 Planning Commission hearing for the Tigard Retail Center development: Question: Does the transportation impact analysis (TIA) prepared for and submitted with PacTrust's application for PD approval of the Tigard Retail Center project address and accommodate reasonably anticipated trip generation associated with the range of retail uses allowed under the General Commercial C-G designation, based upon the approved site plan, in addition to trip generation associated with a Target anchor use?' Answer: Yes. The use of the Shopping Center land use category is both reasonable and conservative. The remainder of this memorandum provides additional details with regard to the above question. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Trip generation estimates for the potential retail uses on the site were based on empirical observations made at similar developments representative of the broad retail uses allowed under Tigard Development Code, as summarized in the standard reference Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). It should also be noted that the original transportation impact analysis (TIA) and conditioned improvements from the original approval assumed approximately 32,000 additional square-feet of retail space for trip generation estimate purposes. The original selection of the Shopping Center land use (ITE Land Use Code 820) as the most appropriate was made after carefully considering several factors: • Consistency with the land use description contained in Trip Generation H:\PROJFILE\7692 - TIGARD RETAIL CENTER\REPORT\FINAL\7692 TRIP GEN MEMO2_FINAL.DOC Tigard Retail Center Project#: 7692.0 November 8, 2010 Page 2 • A specific anchor tenant had not been identified • Compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area • Potential for future commercial development immediately to the east of the site The ITE manual defines the Shopping Center land use as "an integrated group of commercial establishments," and goes on to indicate that many shopping centers "include outparcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points)." The Shopping Center land use category relies on discreet studies of over 300 sites across the United States, comprising a wide range of users, sizes, intensities, and configurations. Its application in the case of the Tigard Retail Center is appropriate, and furthermore, conservative compared to other land use categories that may have been selected to estimate the trip generation of the development(such as Free-Standing Discount Superstore). CONCLUSION The ITE Shopping Center land use is representative of the broad range of retail uses allowed under Tigard Development Code, and conservatively estimates the development's impact to the surrounding transportation system. The results and recommendations in the TIA remain valid and unchanged. Further, the approved trip generation is conservative as compared to the application of the Free-Standing Discount Superstore land use category. We trust this memorandum adequately addresses trip generation assumptions and questions regarding the Tigard Retail Center. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this memorandum or the analysis performed. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon • ATTACHMENT 5 //.4 _QEp PROpk. 54883PE November5,2010 / " - OREGO �ve'o'10 z°°�40 LANCASTER NG NEE ENGINEERING Planning Commission CkAEL'�•1 City of Tigard 321 SW 4th Ave.,Suite 400 13125 SW Hall Boulevard EXP L IRES: 12/31t111 Portiand,Oregon 97204 phone:503,248.0313 Tigard,OR 97223 far.593.248.9251 lancasterengineering.com RE: Tigard Retail Center Mod/cation: ITE Land Use Codes for Trip Generation • Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is written to provide transportation engineering comments related to trip generation calculations for the proposed Tigard Retail Center Modifications. The proposed development was previously analyzed based on ITE Land Use Code 820, Shopping Center. Typically,the shopping center land use is used to describe sites with numerous development pads and/or numerous tenants with retail uses. These sites include a variety of retail uses of different sizes, and patrons often visit more than one business during a single visit. • The Tigard Retail Center as proposed does not appear to consist of a wide variety of retail uses of different sizes. Instead,the site is dominated by a single pad comprising over 85 percent of the available retail space. In instances such as this where the overwhelming majority of the site is developed.with a single use, it is appropriate to analyze the site using the trip generation characteristics of the dominant site use. Based on the site plan, it is assumed that the dominant site use will be a Free-Standing Discount Superstore(1TE Land Use Code 813). Since this land use dominates the site,it would be appropriate to analyze the site using the trip generation characteristics of this specific land use,which differ from those of a Shopping Center land use. The two 12,000 square foot outlying pads may be treated as shopping center land uses if specific retail uses cannot be identified,however if restaurants may be included on the pads it may be more appropriate to analyze a potential worst-case scenario in order to verify that the transportation system can safely accommodate all permitted users of these outlying pads. Based on my review of the revised detailed development plan, it is appropriate to ask for analysis of the site based on the characteristics of the specific intended site use. Sincerely, Michael Ard,PE Senior Transportation Engineer Land Use: 813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore Description The discount superstores in this category are similar to the free-standing discount stores described in Land Use 815 with the exception that they also contain a full-service grocery department under the same roof that shares entrances and exits with the discount store area. The stores usually offer a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. They typically maintain long store hours 7 days a week. The stores included in this land use are often the only ones on the site, but they can also be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center and/or service station or as a part of a shopping center,with or without their own dedicated parking area. Free-standing discount store(Land Use 815) is a related use. Additional Data Peak hours of the generator— The weekday a.m. peak hour was generally between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.The weekday p.m. peak hour varied between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.The Saturday and Sunday peak hours varied between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The weighted average truck trip generation rates from approximately 30 sites surveyed for this land use are summarized in the table below. The average gross floor area of these facilities is 206,000 square feet. Weighted Average Truck Trip Generation Rate Day/Time Period (trip ends per 1,000 square feet) Weekday 0.87 Weekday a.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 0.05 Weekday p.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 0.03 Weekday a.m. Peak Hour of Generator 0.06 Weekday p.m. Peak Hour of Generator 0.04 Saturday 0.59 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator 0.04 Sunday 0.43 Sunday Peak Hour of Generator 0.02 One source provided information on trip generation rates for what the study defined as"typical" and "peak"seasons. These data indicated that weekday trip generation rates were similar in both seasons. However,trip generation rates on Saturdays during peak season were 13 to 20 percent higher than a typical season; Sunday rates were found to be 6 to 10 percent higher. For the purposes of this analysis, "peak"season was defined as the period between the week after Thanksgiving and the week prior to Christmas; "typical"season was defined as September through mid-November when transactions are close to average.The seasonal trip generation information provided was based on a sample of five sites. Garden centers contained within the principal outside faces of the exterior building wails were included in the gross square floor areas reported. Outdoor or fenced-in areas outside the principal faces of the exterior building walls were excluded. Please refer to Volume 1, User's Guide,for a more detailed definition of gross floor area. Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1375 Institute of Transportation Engineers Several sites included in this land use Indicated the presence of fenced/covered space. The sites were surveyed between the 1990s and the 2000s throughout the United States. To assist In the future analysis of this land use, It Is Important to collect and include 14 Information on the presence and size of garden centers, outdoor fenced-In space and service stations In trip generation data submissions. „ ts .;i Source Numbers 354, 522,577, 595; 607,609, 612, 618, 625, 630,636, 651, 652,661 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1376 Institute of Transportation Engineers Free-Standing Discount Superstore (813) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area , On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 45 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area • Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 53.13 29.65 - 85.01 13.31 Data Plot and Equation 18,000 • x 17,000 ' X 18,000 - + X 16,000 — X 14,000 — x X X 13,000' XX . . . . .c ' X X F• 0 12,000 — XX , 0 11,000 - X X„ X X X g10,000 X. ,.'X-!.....X. _ . .. Xx. . < 9,000 _ + ,... t X- X. II 8,000 -f^- X J- 7,000- • x .-�'" X • 6,000- 'X X 8,000 A X, X. 4,000 , I I I 1 1 • 120 130 140 160 180 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X= 1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.35 Ln(X)+2.11 R2=0.54 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1377 Institute of Transportation Engineers Free-Standing Discount Superstore (813) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 47 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.68 2.66 - 7.40 2.39 Data Plot and Equation 1,600 X X 1,500 1,400 " X X 1,300 - - X v 1,200 - X ' ' lu X X 1,100 - X X X X d ~X . a 1,000 - X X •X •X N X N 900- X 500 X ,-`` Xr x X X X II ' F' 700 - - - 600 X vim. X X X X . X 500 - . . •' X 400"' " X 300 ■ 120 130 140 150 160 170 1e0 190 200 210 220 230 X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.32 Ln(X)-0.16 R2=0.52 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1381 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 820 Shopping Center Description A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center's composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store.A shopping center also provides on-site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. Specialty retail center(Land Use 814) and factory outlet center(Land Use 823) are related uses. Additional Data Shopping centers, including neighborhood centers, community centers, regional centers and { super regional centers, were surveyed for this land use. Some of these centers contained non- merchandising facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs and recreational facilities (for example, ice skating rinks or indoor miniature golf courses). The centers ranged in size from 1,700 to 2.2 million square feet gross leasable area (GLA). The centers studied were located in suburban areas throughout the United States and therefore represent typical U.S. suburban conditions. Many shopping centers,din addi>tigri tolhaCfltagrated unit of shops in';one•building or JancIQSed around a:malls include outparcels(peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points).These buildings are typically drive-In banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices.Although the data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied included peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect. The vehicle trips generated at a shopping center are based upon the total GLA of the center. In cases of smaller centers without an enclosed mall or peripheral buildings, the GLA could be the same as the gross floor area of the building. Separate equations have been developed for shopping centers during the Christmas shopping season. Plots were included for the weekday peak hour of adjacent street traffic and the Saturday peak hour of the generator. Information on approximate hourly, monthly and daily variation in shopping center traffic is shown in Tables 1-4. It should be noted, however,that the information contained in these tables is based on a limited sample size.Therefore, caution should be exercised when applying the data. Also, some information provided in the tables may conflict with the results obtained by applying the average rate or regression equations.When this occurs, it is suggested that the results from the average rate or regression equations be used, as they are based on a larger number of studies. Trip Generation, 8th Edition 1497 Institute of Transportation Engineers i Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday t Number of Studies: 302 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 328 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 42.94 12.50 - 270.89 21,38 Data Plot and Equation 70,000 - x 60,000 �'. ,' X 50,000 .' cn CX,^." X III ' a.M x X,'� x 40,000 ., #S X-. -, ,'� U lc X X : ,' X X > X ,'�� X X u) : XX �,'�,'X X X Es 30,000 x : Y : ... .-xx X X. , # )'`x :x x x x y� , x X r xi1r'xx ' XX 20,000 x(X. . . ; .. : X X X * x • x ,X< ) <<.;,f.♦ 1 �� ^X'xXX< ': X X x x 7C Xkce .* x.x x 10,000 - :/i.r'��� -x-x . . .X, x y., yiS X X X ; ;> Xx x ..a• , : x :• 0 r , I , l , , i , i , I , , 1 . , 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.65 Ln(X)+5.83 R2=0.78 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1500 Institute of Transportation Engineers Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 412 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 379 Directional Distribution: 49% entering, 51% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.73 0.68 - 29.27 2.74 Data Plot and Equation 9,000 8,000 7,000 — W6,000 - x �' CX , �- x 5,000 — X X , ' X _ X '" X kC 4,000 - �X X X x Q . X > 'J^ X X x X X ; II 3,000 — ,'X x x xX x x x xx' :.. xx 2,000 x ; , x X %!,, X X i'.'% •' '• ♦ 1,000 - , •' XxX X XX s X 0 , 0 1000 2000 3000 X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Pointe Fitted Curve - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.67 Ln(X)+3.37 R2=0.81 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1502 Institute of Transportation Engineers " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Re: Tigard Retail Center Minor Modification (December 13, 2010 Hearing, Continuation from November 1, 2010 Hearing) Date: December 13, 2010 The applicant has requested, and the Staff Recommendation to the Planning Commission anticipated, that the Commission's Minor Modification Final Order include a reference to the Director's Interpretation (DIR 2010-00006) that establishes the validity period for the original Tigard Retail Center approval for PDR2008- 00001 (Commission's Final Order NO. 2009-02 PC). The Commission's Final Order could state that: Pursuant to Director's Interpretation DIR2010-00006, the Tigard Retail Center approval PDR2008-00001 (Commission's Final Order NO. 2009-02 PC) shall be effective for a period of seven years from the date of approval. The Detailed Development Plan approval shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved Detailed Development Plan has not begun within a seven year period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. Note: Validity of the Minor Modification is the same as for the original approval. City of Tigard Economic Opportunities Analysis Presentation to Planning Commission December 13, 2010 COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Goals of the Meeting • Recap purpose of EOA • Review Existing economic development conditions Tigard strategy for future growth and development EOA process to this point Findings from Tasks 1 to 4 Task 5 memo — Assessment of Potential • Prepare for next meeting COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Economic Opportunities Analysis • Required by OAR 660 , Division 9 • Tigard periodic review requirement • Objectives: Examine 20-year employment land demand/supply to ensure adequate supply Develop a land use framework for the local economic development strategy Preserve and protect land for industrial and employment uses COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Tigard - Existing Conditions • Limited supply of vacant industrial and employment lands • Limited ability to expand boundaries • Unlikely to re-zone properties to industrial uses • Redevelopment important to Tigard 's future • ODOT performance measures COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Tigard Strategy • Better utilize existing industrial properties • Work with regional partners to address ODOT performance measures • Redevelopment Downtown Tigard Tigard Triangle Pacific Highway Corridor Washington Square Regional Center COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Process ✓Task 1 . Preparation/CEDOs/Agency Coordination ✓Task 2. Trends Analysis ✓Task 3. Site Suitability Analysis ✓Task 4. Inventory of Suitable Sites ✓Task 5. Assessment of Potential (December) • Task 6 . Implementation (January/February) • Task 7. Prepare Final EOA (March ) • Task 8. Final Adoption (April) COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN Community Economic Development Objectives 1 . Encourage family-wage jobs 2. Develop existing industry clusters 3. Promote efficient development of employment lands 4. Ensure flexible and adaptive regulatory practices 5. Focus growth in designated centers and corridors 6. Limit retail and service uses in industrial areas; support neighborhood commercial areas 7. "Encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable" COGAN O W EN S TIGARD COGAN Trends Analysis • "Jobs rich" with 2 .3 jobs per household • Healthy retail & services economy expected to continue to grow • Limited Class A office space • Industrial lease rates among highest in Metro suburbs • Recommend a low "land efficient" growth scenario COGAN O W EN S TIGARD COGAN Site Suitability Analysis - Target Clusters Existing Clusters Emerging Clusters Durable goods manufacturing Health care Education Advanced technology manufacturing Financial Services Research operations Information Professional and technical services Wholesale trade COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN dr . 1 . ; ii II 1, i Buildable Land Inventory ' r:- I I Washington Square %_---\,. _ Regional P<, January 1, 20 l II I RI ,I J I Wail u; i City of Tigard 74 I Oregon e IN "IP1, Ili ., -I_TIP ..v._..i ___ ,.,_ in 1N-4. _ ..-.!, ..._ .4- Rri �. ' • �y Al 4 \ . I Mi ‘, i 911111- I " ••, B� ` ; Q City Limits ,F :rata O Zoning • ill . Taxlot Bound.jillir 1 �p I Or t � � F I Wetland 1 two ' UM Water ; Stream Corridor likir r. 1i 4. , ti . •r. 100 yr Floodplam P„ � A Tigard II-- Buildable Lands itir e st �!.<!� "�.. f., Triangles- Downtown J �■ Commercial i.r Ju yn �° T`gard �/ ` ,P. Et - Industrial FM t a �, ! ` - Mixed Use Pas ‘4 illa 1, �. 11/ Residential J `°' I Frie ��4 + " a P), w. Improvement to Land R. , 0.7 . Improve_Land ��=� Less than 0 33 iir AIM MIL sr -0.33 to 1.0 PI.S 0\ -Greater than 1 0 0.[ Pl \\ Qom' PA Government Owned Lan II, 4 � �®� � 0.1) • _ a P1) im r _ ridld l be and aa.!ty yeepmod The tAdamanta Pacific Highway ® t la N �;oWeMnadwmve hROf.ha en�--_ P. dopmmt.but a[m<e.preanlnn[[Inn HCT Corridor mNsnsikekdla,ntNae to do sMman.pn don© P, dnelry or confers a meidLLe to do x,a[excbsan[doe:[ ■ at r*<'us Inventory.patyWealthk lands es Po Wort newer, I <W[ adnde of ette 3l lamb that:dandled as{saga admdeo,TNealace[NLLr "for N 1 Fu,ly vaunt tendnsloped,prnatdy-amN prod[ ( _ ' ®�� p 2 Pe-y..cant 4.1 eloped,ptn,nty.osnsf panel N W.aeamae of the pate vacant • El i ••The n,m[et v 0 mNe my nave. anu�1.2o1°R e.mons 1rlGmWe un�deol ac a IIIIIIIIiik --- , n amveeknere:mar to alter the menu of the m[q PEN V 4_m _I - 1 1 Invento ry of Suitable Sites Vacant and Partially Vacant Land Vacant and Partially Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11 .2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 39.0 _ 19 40.3 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.1 Ili n COGAN O W EN S TIGARD COGAN 1 _ 1 1 Inventory of Suitable Sites Redevelopable Land City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value) High (< 0.33) Moderate (0.33 to 1.00) Low (> 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 COGAN OWENS T I GARD COGAN it , 1 Assessment of Potential Industrial Land (20-Year Demand and Supply) Land Demand and Supply Low Land Need Med Land Need High Land Need Demand for Vacant Industrial Land 48 acres 64 acres 80 acres Supply of Vacant Industrial Land 50 acres 50 acres 50 acres Land Surplus or (Deficit) 2 (14) (30) Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Existing Forecast of Parcel Unconstrained Size Demand Surplus Efficient Land Need Forecast Supply (tax lots) (tax lots) (tax lots) Less than 1 acre 12 10 2 1 to 5 acres 5 5 0 5 to 10 acres 0 0 0 10 to 20 acres 2 2 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 19 17 2 COGAN ' ° OWENS TIGARD COGAN , . , Assessment of Potential Commercial Land (20-Year Demand and Supply) Land Demand and Supply Low Land Need Medium Land Need High Land Need Demand for Vacant Commercial Land 51 68 85 C omm ercial Z on ed Supply 65 65 65 Mixed Use Zoned Supply 40 40 40 Total Supply of Vacant Commercial Land 86 86 86 Land Surplus or (Deficit) 35 18 1 Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Efficient Existing Supply Forecast of Demand Surplus Need Forecast (tax lots) (tax lots) (tax lots) Less than 1 acre 89 12 77 1 to 5 acres 14 12 2 5 to 10 acres 3 3 0 10 to 20 acres 0 0 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 106 27 79 11111 q COGAN O W EN S TIGARD COGAN Next Steps •Task 6. Implementation (January/February) • Examples found on page 7 of Task 5 memo • Review existing Comp Plan policies • Commission will recommend changes •Task 7. Prepare Final EOA (March) •Task 8. Final Adoption (April ) COGAN OWENS TIGARD COGAN City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Re: Economic Opportunities Analysis Advisory Committee Date: December 6, 2010 At the December 13th meeting, the Planning Commission will act in its role as the Economic Opportunities Analysis Advisory Committee. The primary purpose of the meeting will be for the Commission to discuss and provide feedback on the following attached materials: • Task 5: Assessment of Potential Steve Faust, Senior Planner for the Cogan Owens Cogan,will join us for the discussion. At the beginning of the discussion,we will also recap the process to this point and review the purpose and suspected outcomes. Attached in the Economic Opportunities Analysis Overview (EOA) is information regarding Statewide Planning Goal 9, the purpose of the EOA, and how it fits into existing plans and vision the City has established for its future. We hope this review will be beneficial in helping the Commission during the process of developing policies and strategies to preserve appropriately zoned lands for future economic development opportunities. As always,if you have any questions that you would like to discuss before the workshop, please feel free to contact me at darren(atigard-or.gov or 503-718-2442. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\12-13-10-PH-Continued-Tigard Retail PDR2010-00001\Records Division Packet\12-12-13- 10 EOA AdvisComm Memo.doc Economic Opportunity Analysis Overview City of Tigard TIGARD The City of Tigard is conducting an Economic Opportunities Analysis (BOA) as part of its periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. An BOA is a specific deliverable in our work program. The City has agreed to a work program with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and received grant funds for technical consultant assistance to complete this task. The EOA must be developed in compliance with OAR 660 Division 9 (Goal 9) and is a technical study that compares projected demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. The last major step of this work is to develop a program to address any needs that might be identified by the analysis and in accordance with the City's objectives. The process helps communities implement their local economic development objectives and forms the basis for industrial and other employment development policies in the comprehensive plan. The City of Tigard economic development objectives as created in Task 1 of the project: 1. Encourage businesses that provide family-wage jobs to start-up, expand, or locate in Tigard. 2. Develop industry clusters, and preserve jobs, through the retention, expansion, and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. 3. Promote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. 4. Ensure the City's land use and other regulatory practices are flexible and adaptive and that adequate public facilities and infrastructure exist to support a diverse and stable economic base. 5. Focus significant employment growth in Tigard's designated centers and corridors and support the development of efficient regional multi-modal transportation systems. 6. Limit the development of retail and service uses in Tigard's designated industrial areas to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs. Support neighborhood commercial uses to meet smart growth goals. 7. Encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable. The anticipated significant effect of the project is to help focus the City's efforts to grow its economy and maintain its quality of life. This will happen by adopting policies that ensure an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land is available for existing businesses to expand and thrive and for new employers to utilize within the City of Tigard. A major emphasis of the Goal 9 comprehensive plan policies is to preserve and protect land for industrial and employment uses. Metro has sought to implement this preservation on a regional basis.Title 4 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan identifies Industrial and Other Employment Areas that are important to the region,including some areas in Tigard (see attached map). Preservation of these lands for employment purposes is important not only for vacant land, but underutilized land that could redevelop in the future. According to our inventory,Tigard has a limited supply of vacant industrial and employment lands and few sites suitable for new large-scale industrial development. The sites available should be preserved for industrial purposes in accordance with the economic development objectives listed above. Because the City is severely limited in its ability to expand its boundaries, the only other way to accommodate a large-scale industrial development would be to designate new industrial land through re-zoning existing land. This strategy is not part of the vision for the City and is unlikely to happen at a large scale. The City's vision is to better utilize its industrial properties by attracting uses that employ more persons per acres or to encourage industrial-type uses that are not as land intensive. As described in several plans,including our Comprehensive Plan,Downtown Plan, Urban Renewal Plan,Washington Regional Center Plan, and emerging High Capacity Transit Land Use Study, the City's vision also includes the redevelopment of Downtown Tigard, the Tigard Triangle, the Pacific Highway Corridor, and the Washington Square Regional Center. These areas are anticipated to become more urban intensive,high-density, mixed-use nodes in the community. These areas are currently zoned appropriately for economic development opportunities,but have not reached their full potential for a variety of reasons; ranging from ODOT mobility standards to the need for parcel consolidation to being low-density auto-oriented commercial space. A future opportunity to jumpstart redevelopment of these areas would be the arrival of high- capacity transit (HCT) along the Pacific Highway corridor. The City, along with Metro and TriMet, are beginning the review and analysis of bringing HCT to Tigard. It is anticipated that HCT could provide relief from ODOT mobility standards through reducing the number of automobile trips and associated mitigations a higher-density development would need to address. This could help projects become more financially feasible without extremely expensive traffic mitigation requirements. As stated, the City of Tigard is currently limited in its ability to expand it boundaries. However, significant economic development opportunities exist through our existing supply of vacant lands and by redevelopment opportunities,particularly in targeted areas. The City has a vision for its future; through development of the EOA,we will reaffirm and determine strategies to reach that vision by recommending appropriate policies and implementation actions to preserve the opportunity to reach that vision. \ ,, 47 1 IRi � kkillrft 1Vancouver 'as Banks Multnomah Co. � I .� Washington Co.1 lr- ©° �, , inaTampoimu■ 1 Th., , • - z S _ � 14 500 North , ' -------+- \ Plains I �, Columbr ,� %� 1,�1 -_ 1, \ �'�► 4�'t�er �. �� I 30 Q svingi. '' 1 40' \ ' ` Washougal 99iiii,,,,,...) . . \, �� ��� 205.E - -� �- 9 �� 14� I�� R— �_ xiN 1 __--)---- 1\ Mir . N M _ C.1111111111111111161141411h4N N'------- 47 � 5' \ u/t •26 I _ ® Portland 'M P rood °'I 4' 1 J 30 „:• (_._ ® 99E 30 213 /�I � : I 7r_ �� ita1 •-•ffiai��9 --�_ _____ _, Vii -,s, --- Mai 1 1 j Forest 8 11\1\441' �,,I��! !i --v44!1.11;%.1 Cornelius 8 )JmhISbOrO �84���� Village R® Troutdale a l err 11.rm, �■r'r!7 Cr 4 011*- .1140 4 gillill* '" 405/ \( • Gresham III. 11111 1 u. \K fr.rt_\11119115448 Oltireijoi NI alill 11114mNikvi ., III III /1.11 ----) --:;d- .......__ II ipp 10 ,t■' 217 n 219 � � �-210 D � . _ 213 ��' 114)00 Beaverton I 5 -4° . � � `c1 � iv Multnomah Co. 10 �� iiiq Clackamas Co. ,i / Milwaukee III r, 111 I ` ' `,�`+ ��� 05 419111 43 /' 11 HaPPYValley Ibl __ 1 stop I ,, 11Will Damascus 210 � I � 212 —- 99W Tigard ', �� 224 _ la*_— _—_ Washington Co. _ • � %� PIMILIIW ___ 212 Yamhill Co. , , -"- King Lake 47 I 210 City I �"/y Oswego �\ Johnson\ 212 224_ �� 11 11� . City i , --— I Durham N. 4 1 '' y��.. ��� 1 - s 224 219 ' =�L_„ Gladstone 1�' lliiiiClackamas, Rivergrove ` r/ I Tualatin j `� R,; ��j I f 205 %/�l/ She rwood ` . 224 I 5_ - 1 r fi, re n �" f' ay - D ' I //�" 213 I . ` ,A ., __Iiii.' 99W ' 240 I IJ 1 99E Irk z-. t L ___ Washington Co. Newberg ; IIII W 11 ilsonville 99W - J1x) o ,.. 5 i/' 2 Y 11' Esc y i L° 14 213 Dundee u /' \ i-______---k, ■—--Clackamas Co' o.—_ / - s _—_ _ , /� Marion Co. ' ❑ Canb I Title 4 Industrial and Other Employment Areas Employment areas Proposed main roadway routes Rail yards `� 1 Industrial areas Proposed road connectors — - - • County boundaries _ Metro ORDINANCE 10-1244, EXHIBIT D dim Regionally significant Mainline freight Urban growth boundaries November 18, 2010 industrial areas Making a great place Branch line freight Neighbor cities miles 0 1 2 4 COGAN 320 WOODLARK BUILDING PLANNING 813 SW ALDER STREET O W EN S C CONFLICT RESOLUTION [CATIONS CONFLICT RESOLUTION PORTLAND,OREGON 97205-3111 A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 503/225-0192 • FAX 503/225-0224 C V G AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT coc(a',coganowens.com • www.co};annwens.com GOVERNMENTAL/COMMUNITY RELATIONS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 6, 2010 TO: City of Tigard; Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development FROM: Steve Faust and Kirstin Greene, Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC; Todd Chase, FCS Group, Inc. RE: Tigard EOA Task 5 This memorandum provides a summary of the work conducted for Task 5 (Assessment of Potential) for the Tigard Economic Opportunities Analysis Goal 9 update. For this task, city staff and the consultant team: • Reconciled the estimate of types and amounts of industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in Tigard over the next 20 years (demand)with the estimate of employment land need (supply)within the Urban Services Boundary(USB)by category of site type. • Recommended actions for the City to pursue based on the City's ability to meet forecasted employment needs with land within the USB. The preliminary findings for each of these work activities are summarized below. Task 5. Assessment of Potential (Reconciliation of Demand and Supply) Buildable Land Supply Inventory Consistent with the employment land demand forecast, the buildable land inventory(BLI) for the Tigard EOA documents industrial and commercial inventory that currently exists within the Tigard USB. This analysis documents existing land use inventories and compares industrial and commercial land use needs required for addressing the low, medium and high growth forecast scenarios. Employment Land Inventory The Tigard EOA includes a recent buildable land inventory completed by the City of Tigard Planning staff using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data that is consistent with the current Draft 2009-2035 Urban Growth Report(accepted by Metro Council in December 2009). The City's BLI included an analysis of existing vacant and partially vacant (sub-dividable)tax lots by current zoning classification and deducted all significant environmental constraints to estimate buildable land area within the Tigard USB. The land supply analysis focused on the land use classifications that support employment uses, including commercial, mixed-use, and industrial zones. The City has 10 commercial zones to account for a wide variety of uses ranging from retail to medical centers to mixed use centers. Tigard has three zones which accommodate industrial uses. Please refer to the appendices for a detailed description of the allowed, conditional, and permitted uses within each of the City's zone classifications. The buildable land area for each tax lot was derived by analyzing GIS data pertaining to environmental features that would constrain the amount of potential site development on vacant and partially vacant areas. For purposes of this analysis, the environmental constraints were calculated for each site using estimates for land area that is constrained by the following: Metro Title 3 designation(waterways, wetlands, riparian buffers, 100 year floodplain). The vacant and partially vacant land inventory for the Tigard USB includes 125 tax lots with a total buildable land area of 136.1 acres, as indicated in Table 12. Tigard's vacant land supply primarily consists of small (less than one acre)tax lots and tax lots between one and five acres in size. As indicated in Table 12, the tax lots of less than five acres in size comprise 79.3 acres or nearly 60% of the total vacant land supply. The larger tax lots include three lots of five to ten acres (22.1 acres total), and two contiguous tax lots over ten acres in size (34.7 acres total). Please refer to the appendices for additional detail. Table 12 Distribution of Vacant and Part Vacant Lands by General Land Use Zone Classification, Tigard USB Vacant and Partially Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11.2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 39.0 19 40.3 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.1 Source: City of Tigard. As mentioned in the Site Suitability Analysis, the recommended targeted business clusters will need sites ranging from 1 to 25 acres to expand or locate within the Tigard USB, with a majority of the need falling in the 5 to 10 acre range. The City appears to have a range of sites available to accommodate the targeted business clusters; however redevelopment sites may be needed to accommodate development needing 5 to 10 acre parcels. In light of the importance of redevelopment to the City's ability to grow and diversify its economic base, the City and consultant team also evaluated the relative level of high, medium and low redevelopment potential for each developed tax lot in the Tigard USB. While this is not a stated requirement within OAR 660, Division 9, it is considered an important factor in deciding which land use growth scenario to target. The analysis of redevelopment opportunities is based on the ratio of assessed improvement value to land value for each tax lot using 2010 Washington County Assessor data. The results provided in Table 13 indicate that there are significant amounts of high and moderate redevelopment potential within the Tigard USB. The redevelopment analysis identifies 169 tax lots with a total of 115.6 acres as having "high"redevelopment potential, and 180 tax lots with 166.6 acres as having "moderate"redevelopment potential. 2 Table 13 Analysis of Redevelopment Tax Lots by General Land Use Zone Classification, Tigard USB City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential(Improvement to Land Value)* High(< 0.33) Moderate (0.33 to 1.00) Low(> 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 *Improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data(Sept 2010). *196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here. Source: City of Tigard. Short-Term Land Supply Determination In addition to the long-term land supply, OAR 660-009-0005 also requires the identification of a short-term supply of land meaning "suitable land that is ready for construction within one year of an application of a building permit or request for a service extension." OAR 660-009-0025 also requires that cities must provide "at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial and other employment uses as short-term supply." In Tigard's case all of the land supply currently included within the Tigard USB is deemed by the City to be within the short-term supply category. Hence, there are existing roads, water, sewer, and other infrastructure facilities that are sized appropriately to handle some level of new development on the remaining vacant tax lots. One of the issues the City has been dealing with is the ODOT highways running at or over capacity. This will continue to be an issue until a regional solution is found. It was the cause for a maximum floor-to-area ratio of 0.4 being applied to the Tigard Triangle when a portion of it was rezoned to mixed-use employment. This severely limits the ability to maximize the development potential of available sites. It also causes proposed developments to provide mitigating measures when it is determined the increased vehicle trips will not meet ODOT performance measures. This can be financially constraining to a project if additional lanes, medians, or intersection improvements are required to be paid for by the development. Additionally, the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-0600) and related ODOT performance standards for the state highways have presented a barrier to Tigard achieving its aspirations. This includes amending existing zoning to allow higher density developments that are consistent with the Region 2040 land use designations. The TPR requires an amendment to an adopted plan not cause an affected roadway to fail to meet performance standards, or if the forecast roadway operations are already failing to meet performance standards, the plan amendment must not further degrade performance. This is a known issue in Downtown, Washington Square Regional Center, along Pacific Highway, and in the Tigard Triangle, and may also arise in other areas near state highways or freeway interchanges. These issues are being partially addressed at the regional level and could be somewhat mitigated as the City, Metro, and ODOT work to develop alternative performance standards through a corridor refinement plan for Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway corridor is also being studied for 3 potential high-capacity transit service in the future. The presence of high-capacity transit could also alleviate some of the issues associated with ODOT performance measures by allowing new development to allocate additional trips to transit and reduce automobile trip demand. Strategies to promote transit-oriented development and address ODOT capacity issues are recommended as part of the implementation plan policies for the Tigard EOA. Short-Term Land Need Determination Commercial and industrial properties appear to clearly meet the statutory requirements for short- term land supply, as all of the long-term land supply can be classified as short-term as well as long- term supply. Industrial and commercial properties appear to be well served with adequate infrastructure, and there is an abundant supply of vacant industrial, office and retail building floor area being actively marketed in the Tigard USB today. Long-Term Land Need Determination Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis of land needs scenarios and the business clusters analysis indicates that the Tigard USB can add approximately 794 net new industrial jobs in the low land need scenario without needing to add additional industrial-zoned land over the next 20 years. In light of current downward trends in industrial business activity, the low land need scenario appears to be most consistent with regional growth forecasts and anticipated market realities. Industrial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 13, the low land need scenario assumes 48 acres of net new industrial vacant land demand, which is just below the estimated vacant industrial land supply of 50 acres. If the City opts to pursue a more aggressive economic growth strategy that is consistent with the medium or high land need scenario, the City would need to identify another 14 to 30 acres of vacant industrial land area to meet the level of industrial demand associated with adding another 1,059 to 1,324 industrial jobs. In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant industrial land supply of tax lots in excess of five acres, it is recommended that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous industrial sites for large industrial employment users. A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 13, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant industrial land supply within the Tigard USB will be absorbed over the next 20 years. 4 Table 13 20-Year Industrial Demand Forecast and Vacant Land Supply, Tigard USB Land Demand and Supply Low Land Need Medium Land High Land Need Scenario Need Scenario Scenario _ Demand for Vacant Industrial Land 48 64 80 Supply of Vacant Industrial Land 50 50 50 Land Surplus or(Deficit) 2 (14) (30) Existing Forecast of Parcel Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Surplus Efficient Land Need Forecast 21 Unconstrained Size Demand (tax lots) Supply(tax lots) (tax lots) Less than 1 acre 12 10 2 1 to 5 acres 5 5 0 5 to 10 acres 0 0 0 10 to 20 acres 2 2 0 20+acres 0 0 0 Total 19 17 2 1/Tax lot demand forecast expected to meet or exceed supply in 20 years. Source:based upon findings included in demand and supply analysis. Commercial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 14, with a commercial and mixed-use land supply of 86 acres, the Tigard USB appears to have an adequate existing vacant land supply to meet the land demand forecasts for all land need scenarios. Hence, Tigard is expected to accommodate between 8,871 and 14,784 net new non-industrial jobs within its USB over the next 20-years. The low land need scenario assumes 51 acres of net new commercial and mixed-use land demand, which equates to about 60 percent of the vacant commercial and mixed-use land supply. At other end of the demand spectrum, the high land need scenario assumes 80 acres of commercial and mixed-use vacant land demand, which would exhaust the supply of vacant land after the 20-year planning period. In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant commercial and mixed-use land supply of lots in excess of five acres, it is recommended that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous commercial sites for strategic commercial retail and office employment users, and condition housing in these areas, only if it is part of mixed-use developments. A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 14, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant commercial land supply of parcels over one acre in size within the Tigard USB will be absorbed over the next 20 years. The City also anticipates the development of high-capacity transit along the Pacific Highway corridor. The region has made a commitment to high-capacity transit and this corridor is the next to be studied. Any development of high-capacity transit would trigger the City to identify station areas to accept higher, transit supportive mixed-use densities. The logical locations for station areas would more than likely result in the rezoning of general commercial lands to mixed-use zoning. As both commercial and mixed-use zoned lands are included in this analysis, any rezoning would not decrease the amount of vacant or partially vacant land available. The range of allowed uses, from retail to multi-story office buildings,would also not be affected. 5 Table 14 20-Year Commercial Demand Forecast and Vacant Land Supply, Ti and USB Land Demand and Supply Low Land Need Medium Land High Land Need Scenario Need Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Commercial Land'/ 51 68 85 Supply of Vacant Commercial Land'/ Commercial Zoned Supply 46 46 46 Mixed Use Zoned Supply 40 40 40 Total Supply of Vacant Commercial Land 86 86 86 Land Surplus or(Deficit) 35 18 1 Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Existing Supply Forecast of Surplus Efficient Need Forecast 21 (tax lots) Demand (tax lots) (tax lots) Less than 1 acre 89 12 77 l to 5 acres 14 12 2 5 to 10 acres 3 3 0 lO to 20 acres 0 0 0 20+acres 0 0 0 Total 106 27 79 Source:FCS GROUP, based upon findings included in demand and supply analysis. Planning, Market, Cost and Risk Factors Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis, stakeholder interviews, and business clusters analyses indicate that the Tigard USB is uniquely positioned within the greater Portland metropolitan region to experience continued success in retaining and attracting businesses and economic development. Risk of Losing Large Commercial and Industrial Sites As Tigard's vacant land supply of large parcels (more than five acres)becomes diminished, the City could risk economic growth potential if remaining larger industrial and commercial sites allow non- employment uses that displace prospective business opportunities. While the current short-term employment market is sluggish at best, the future long-term job growth trends bode well for Tigard if it preserves large commercial and industrial zoned parcels for intended business activity. These risks can be mitigated in part by adopting new economic development objectives that preserve large commercial and industrial areas for desired commercial and industrial business activities. Risk of Not Adequately Preparing for Targeted Area Redevelopment As Tigard's population and employment levels increase with time, and vacant land diminishes, the City will need to rely more upon redevelopment areas, and productivity increases from existing developed lands and businesses to achieve long-term economic strength and diversity. New economic development objectives should be formulated to enable the City to leverage desired redevelopment in targeted locations such as downtown, and within planned transit-station communities. Risk of Expanding the USB in the Future Beyond the 20-year forecast time horizon the City may consider the need to grow into urban reserve locations, if the City's investment in infrastructure extensions yields a favorable return to its residents and businesses. A USB expansion is not necessary at this time to accommodate needed commercial/industrial land supplies for the next 20 years,unless the City opts to pursue the medium or high land needs scenario to accommodate additional industrial job growth. Planning and Permitting Risks The City may opt to review its land use development code to ensure that it preserves sites for their intended use, yet is flexible enough to accommodate a full diversity of commercial and light industrial uses consistent with public safety,public facilities, and positive urban design characteristics. The ability to provide streamlined and predictable permitting process outcomes can be a challenge as the City relies more on smaller infill and redevelopment sites to accommodate business growth. Non-Local Regulatory Risks The City is dependent upon ODOT to achieve higher trip caps in targeted redevelopment areas. As the City and Metro pursue high capacity transit facilities and service levels, these regulatory risks may be addressed by assuming higher non-vehicle mode shares that result in reduced traffic impacts from new development. Most of these risk factors maybe addressed by the City of Tigard but will require partnerships with regional and state regulatory agencies, such as Metro, Washington County and ODOT. The City can take a leadership position by providing a local planning and permitting environment that is favorable to business investment and more proactive economic marketing to raise awareness of Tigard's strengths as a preferred location for over 2,900 existing business establishments. Preliminary Implementation Policies OAR 660-009-0020 stipulates requirements for industrial and other economic development policies. Local comprehensive plans are required to provide community economic development objectives, a commitment to providing a competitive short-term land supply, and commitment to providing adequate sites and public facilities to serve new development. The outline of implementation policies is provided below. • Adopt current Community Economic Development Objectives • Commitment to Provide a Short-Term Land Supply • Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities • Adopt policies that Provide for Prime Industrial Land Development on Large Lots • Assist property owner with Oregon Industrial Site Certification Process • Adopt policies that Promote Targeted Redevelopment in Downtown and other areas • Adopt policies that Work with ODOT to Raise Trip Caps • Adopt policies that Provide Proactive Economic Development Marketing and Incentives Directed Towards Strategic Clusters Appendix: Summary of Tigard Employment Zones and Regulations The following is an overview of regulations related employment lands and zones for the City of Tigard. A general description of each zone is provided along with common and specific development standards when applicable. A summary table highlights specific regulations, such as building height, lot size, setbacks, landscaping and lot coverage. COMMERCIAL ZONES Neighborhood Commercial District(C-N) Provide convenience goods and services (those purchased frequently)within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. A limited number of other uses such as restaurants, gas stations and medical centers are permitted conditionally. Community Commercial District(C-C) Provide convenience shopping facilities to meet regular needs of nearby(1.5 miles)residential neighborhoods. Typically range in size from 30,000-100,000 sf on 2 to 8-acre sites. Separated from other commercial zones by at least one half-mile. Housing is permitted on the second floor at densities not to exceed 12 units/net acre. Limited other uses are allowed conditionally. Mandatory site development review. General Commercial District(C-G) Accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Residential uses limited to single family residences on same site as permitted use. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Professional Administrative Commercial District(C-P) Accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District,residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/net acre are permitted in conjunction with commercial development. Heliports,medical centers,religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more intensive commercial and industrial areas. Mixed Use-Central Business District(MU-CBD) Provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment,mixed-use, multi-family and attached single family residences are permitted. All uses are allowed in all areas. Specific Development Standards (18.610): Four sub-areas (see MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix)have different setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. • Pacific Hwy. and Hall Boulevard Corridor: designed to create a"pulse-point"along the Pacific Hwy. corridor. Regional retail draw and potential future high capacity transit. • Main Street—Center Street: pedestrian-oriented with smaller scale development. • Scoffins Street—Commercial Street: higher density residential and employment base of civic, office and commercial uses. • Fanno—Burnham Street: medium scale residential or mixed use development. 8 Mixed Use Employment(MUE) Designed to apply to a majority of land within the Tigard Triangle, it permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services,business/professional offices, civic uses and housing(multi-family at a max density of 25 units/acre. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Acknowledges a majority of trips by automobile,but supports alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible and encourages a mix of uses. Includes special design standards for Tigard Triangle(18.620). Mixed Use Employment Districts (MUE-1 and MUE-2) Apply to areas where employment uses such as office,research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but limited, and residential uses are permitted when compatible with employment character of the area. MUE-1 example is Lincoln Center(high density). MUE-2 example is Nimbus area(more moderate densities). Mixed Use Commercial District(MUC) Includes land around Washington Square Mall and immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses include office buildings,retail, and service areas. Also permits mixedOuse developments and housing at 50 units/acre. Large buildings encouraged with parking under behind or to sides. Includes special design standards for Washington Square Regional Center(18.630). Mixed Use Commercial(MUC-1) Applies to portion of the Durham Quarry site. Subject to IGA agreement between Tigard and Tualatin. Permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general retail, offices and housing at min density of 25 units/acre and max of 50 units/acre. Includes special design standards for Durham Quarry(18.640). Mixed Use Residential Districts (MUR) Applies to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with residential use. INDUSTRIAL/INSTITUTIONAL ZONES Industrial Park District(I-P) Provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses (restaurants,personal services and fitness centers)in a campus-like setting. Only those uses with no off-site impacts are permitted. Mandatory site development review and specific design standards(18.530). Light Industrial District(I-L) Provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses, including manufacturing and production,research and development,warehousing and freight movement and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics. Heavy Industrial District(I-H) Provides appropriate locations for intensive industrial uses including I-L uses as well as railroad yards and waste-related activities. Uses include those which involve the use of raw materials,require significant outdoor storage and generate heavy truck and/or rail traffic. Properties are carefully located to minimize impacts on established residential, commercial and light industrial areas. 9 DRAFT September 2, 2010 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MUE R-25 STANDARD C-N C-CPI C-C C-P MU- C-C MF DU" MUC-1 MUC MUE 1 MUE 2 MUR 1 MUR 2 CBD" 11711111 11711111 (17)U0 [1711111 "it'll Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq 5,000 sq ft None 6,000 sq ft None None - None None None None None None -Detached unit ft - - - - - L480 sq ft - - - - -Boarding,lodging, • - - - 6300 sq ft - - - - - - rooming house • Minimum Lot Width SO ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft None 50 ft None None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks •Front yard 20 ft 0/20ftI'll 0ftt"l Oftth1! ❑ 0ftl'11 20 ft v 0ft1"l 0111311 Oftt30 0ftt3'l 1011"11 -Side facing street on 20 ft - - - ❑ - 2011 \ 0 011"I 0111311 0 ftt"1 5 ft1311 10 ft"1l corner&through lots l'l -Side yard 0/20 ft 111 0/20 ft 111 0/20 ft 111 0/20 ft 01 ❑ 0/20 ft 10 ft V 0 0 fttml 0 OM O ft"q 0 fttml -Side or rear yard abutting - • - [et 30 ft v ft/191(201 - - - - more restrictive zoning ' district •Rear yard 0/20 ft hl 0/20 ft"1 0/20 ft ttl 0/20 ft C'''' ❑ 20 ft v 0 at"' 0 ftl2tl 0 0 •Distance between front • • • • - ihn_n tl 20 ft V 0 N/A NIA ftlsolt2=: df:o11::1 of garage property 111uvtt t 8 era PrWc Y N!A N A line abutting a public or - N/A private street. Minimum Building Height N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ N/A N/A WA 2 stories 2 stories None 2 stories None Maximum Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft 45 ft ❑ 45 ft 4511 70 ft 200 ft 200 ft 60 ft 75 ft 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage l4 85% 80% 85% 85% ❑ 85% 80%MI 90% 85% 85% 85% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape 15% 20% 15% i 15% ❑ 15% 20% 10% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% Requirement Minimum FAR t'1 _ N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ N/A N/A N/A 1.25 1.25 0.6 0.6 0.3 Minhrmm Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ N/A N/A N/A 50 50 25 50 25 Density 1'u+If'1 unit/acre-unit/acre unit/acre unit/acre unit/acre Maximum Residential WA N/A N/A N/A ❑ WA N/A N/A None None 50 None 50 Density l'u'u61171 - unit/acre unitfacre ' Multiple-family dwelling unit. **See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. V=See I 8.640.050.B. ❑=See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. [1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. 121 Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] Applies to all nonresidential building development and mixed use development which includes a residential component.In mixed use development,residential floor area is included in the calculations of floor area ratio to determine confomtancewith minimum FAR. 141 Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 18.715.020,minimum and maximum density shall be detantined for residential only projects using the number of residential units per acre shown in the above table.The provisions for density transfer described in Section 18.715.030.13 apply,using the minimum and maximum density shown in the above table.Any mixed-use or commercial only development does not have a minimum density requirement. [5] For purposes of determining floor area ratio and residential densities,the net development area shall be uses to establish the tot area determined per Section 18.715.020.A. [6] Adjustments to minimum density in the Washington Square Regional center area subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.630.020$. 171 The maximum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay district Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.020.D. [8] No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. 191 Sec Section 18.520.050.13 for site and building design standards. [101 No front yard setback shall be required,except a 20-foot front yard setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district. [I 1] There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirdnent;however,conditions in Chapters 18.745 and 18.795 must be met. 112] There are no setback requirements,except 30 fed where a commercial use within a district abuts a residential zoning district. 113]The maximum height of any building in the CBD zone within 100 feet of any residential zoning district shall not exceed 40 feet. 114]Where the side or rear yard of attached or multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district,such setbacks shall not be less than 35 feet. 115]Landscaped arms on existing developed property in the CBD shall be retained.Buffering and screening requiraments set forth in Chapter 18.745 shall be met for existing and new development. 116]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [17] Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.040.F. [18] The requirements contained in the Buffer Matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.7452 shall be used in calatlating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses in the MUC.MUE and MUR zones within the Washington Square Regional Center(WSRC)and abutting zoning districts not included within the WSRC,or zoning districts within the WSRC which are not mixed-use.For MUC and MUE zones,the requirements for Commercial Zones apply.For MUR zones the requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone apply. [19]For Commercial and Mixed-use developments.the maximum front and street side yard setback is 10 feet.For Residential only developments,the maximum front and street side yard setback is 20 feet. [20]Side and rear yard setbacks shall be 20 feet what the zone abuts residattial districts shown in Section 18.510.020 except R-25 and R-40. [21 1 The maximum setback is 20 feet. (221 The maximum setback is 10 feet. C-N•Neighborhood Commercial District MUC 1-Mixed Use Commercial C-C-Community Commercial District MUC-Mixed Use Commercial C-G-General Commercial District MUE 1-Mixed Use Employment/High Density C-P-Professional/Administrative Office Commercial MUE 2-Mixed Use Employment/Medium Density MU-CBD-Mixed Use Central Business District MUR 1-Mixed Use ResidentialHigh Density MUR 2-Mixed Use Residential/Medium Density MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix 1'2'3 STANDARD SUB-AREAS Main Street 99W/Hall Corridor Scoffins/Commercial FannoBumham (M S) (99H) (SC) (FB) Front setback 0/5 ft. Minimum 0 ft. (5 ft for frontage on 0 R. 0 ft. 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner and through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard Minimum/maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Rear setback Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Building height Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum(stories/feet) 3 stories(45 ft.) 3 stories(45 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.)7 Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping4 0%5 10% 10% 20% Minimum building frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential density(units per acre) Minimum8 25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 506 506 ' This table does not apply to existing development.All new buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 2 For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040,Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045,Exceptions to Standards in the MU-CBD zone. 4 In the MU-CBD zone,required landscaping can be provided on roofs. 5 Landscaping/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre(see Map 18.610A). 7 3 stories/45 feet within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park boundary(see Map 610.A)or within 50 feet of low or medium density residential district. 8 Minimum density applies to residential-only development(not mixed use). 11 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P 1-L 1-H Minimum Lot Size None None None Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. -Side facing street on corner& through lots[11 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. -Side yard 0/50 ft.[3] 0/50 ft.[3] 0/50 ft.[3] -Rear yard 0/50 ft.[3][4] 0/50 ft.[3] 0/50 ft.[3] -Distance between front of garage &property line abutting a public or private street -- -- — Maximum Height 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[5] 85% 85% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[6] 15% 15% [1]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must he satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district [4]Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. I-P-Industrial Park District -T.ight Industrial I-TT-heavy Industrial 12 Appendix: Typical Site Requirements for Development Types Typical Criteria For Specific Development Sites c Campus cu E a, Industrial/ 0. Heavy Hi-Tech Electronic and Call Center/ Commercial ✓ Industrial/ General Food Manufacturing Computer Warehouse/ Business Office Shopping O Manufacturing Manufacturing Processing &Processing Assembly Distribution Services (Class A) Center Hotel Tu c7 0. H v 5to25 5to10 5to10 10to25 5to25 10to25 3to5 1to5 5to10 3to5 f, z a) vInterstate,state Interstate, Interstate, Interstate,state Interstate,state Interstate or Along arterial Arterial Arterial or w state highway a, highway or state highway highway or highway or limited access Along or streets or street interstate a. principle or principle orapteriaple principle principle four-lane arterial or in down town visibility, visibility or o arterial within arterial within arterial within arterial within highway within streets centers and prefers downtown 7. within 1-30 c 1-10 miles 1-20 miles miles 1-15 miles 1-10 miles 1-15 miles transit areas transit areas centers J •Water flow •Water flow •Water flow? •Water flow •Water flow a, 65,300 GPD •Water flow>_ >4,600 GPD 3,500 GPD ?4,000 GPD ?10,000 GPD 3 _• • • • t •Sewer flow>_ 74,300 GPD •Sewer flow •Sewer flow>_ •Sewer flow •Sewer flow 3 36,100 GPD 17,000 GPD 24,900 GPD 11,700 GPD 58,800 GPD •Sewer flow? >_4,600 GPD 3,500 GPD >_4,000 GPD >_10,000 GPD L ••Sewer flow ••Sewer flow ••Sewer flow •2.0 MW 74,300 GPD •Sewer flow? •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW E 32,500 GPD 15,300 GPD 22,400 GPD 11,700 GPD Electricity •0.5 MW Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity m • 1.0 MW •0.5 MW • 1.0 MW •0.5MW • Fiber-telecom Electricity • Broadband • Broadband • Broadband • Broadband T Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity and route • Fiber-telecom Internet Internet Internet Internet diversity access access access access NCDA-Net Contiguous Developable Acres Source:Compiled by FCS Group based on Business Oregon Industrial Site Certification requirements and industry standards. DRAFT September 2, 2010 Appendix: Buildable Land Inventory City of Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory(as of January 1,2010) Vacant and Part-Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-G 19 6.8 6 14.0 2 16.4 0 0.0 27 37.3 C-N 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-P 7 2.7 2 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 8.9 Mixed Use MU-CBD 3 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.1 MUC 3 1.4 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8 MUE 35 13.9 4 6.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 19.9 MUE-1 10 3.8 1 1.5 1 5.7 0 0.0 12 11.0 MUE-2 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 MUR-1 9 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 3.2 MUR-2 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 Industrial I-H 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 I-L 7 2.2 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.7 I-P 5 2.0 3 6.7 0 0.0 2 34.7 10 43.4 Total 101 38.9 19 40.4 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Summary of Vacant Land by General Land Use Zoning Classification Vacant and Part-Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11.2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 38.9 19 40.4 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Source: City of Tigard. Appendix: Redevelopment Land Inventory City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)* High(<0.33) Moderate (0.33 to 1.00) Low(> 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 8.5 C-G 8 3.4 13 6.8 158 255.0 C-N 0 0.0 1 0.2 2 2.8 C-P 11 3.8 17 10.9 35 33.6 MU-CBD 24 10.5 50 38.4 86 59.0 MUC 7 12.6 11 24.2 35 155.0 MUE 70 40.5 22 12.3 59 61.8 MUE-1 15 11.5 10 6.9 24 30.9 MUE-2 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 29.4 MUR-1 10 3.9 23 5.6 16 5.3 MUR-2 6 2.4 8 2.6 6 3.0 I-H 2 3.4 4 5.5 9 41.3 I-L 3 11.0 8 25.1 61 203.5 I-P 13 12.5 13 28.2 76 193.1 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 Summary City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)* High (<0.33) Moderate (0.33 to 1.00) Low(> 1.00) 1 Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 _ Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1082.0 *Improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data(Sept 2010) *196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here Source: City of Tigard. 15 120 DAYS = 2/15/2011 (Includes a 47-Day Extension) DATE OF FILING: 12/15/2010 DATE MAILED: 12/16/2010 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2010-01 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2010-00001 Case Name: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: Pacific Realty Assoc.,L.P. 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway,Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 Owner's Name/Address: Same as Applicant Address of Property: South of SW Dartmouth Road,west of SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co. Tax Assessor's Map No. 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101;and 2S101AB,Tax Lot 01400. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 1, 2010 AND DECEMBER 13, 2010 TO RECEIVE 'TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL ORDER. Request: > The applicant requested Planned Development Review approval for minor modifications to an approved Planned Development (PDR2008-00001). Through Final Order No. 2009-02 PC, the Commission approved development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a 137,900 square foot Target retail building(Retail 3) and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings and associated surface parking,landscaping,lighting,access and utility infrastructure improvements. The approved modification will change the previously approved Target-specific color, materials, and logos of the Retail 3 building to accommodate a non-specific user to facilitate marketing of the entitlement to interested parties, since Target has decided not to locate at the subject site. [The applicant later withdrew their second modification request to add a 1,800 square foot recycling area at the rear of the site]. The project would otherwise be consistent with the Tigard Retail Center Planning Commission Final Order No. 2009-02. The Commission heard the request at its November 1, 2010 public hearing and approved the modifications on December 13,2010. Zone: C-G: General Commercial District with PD: Planned Development Overlay Zone and MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.755 and 18.780. Action: > © Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON DECEMBER 16,2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 4,2011 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JANUARY 3, 2011. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2010-01 PC PLANNING COMMISSION --05 FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF DETAILED PLANS FOR THE TIGARD RETAIL CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/PDR2008-00001 (COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-02 PC). THE MODIFICATIONS CHANGE THE TARGET-SPECIFIC COLOR, MATERIALS, AND LOGOS OF THE RETAIL 3 BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE A NON-SPECIFIC USER. THE COMMISSION HEARD THE REQUEST AT ITS NOVEMBER 1, 2010 HEARING AND APPROVED THE MODIFICATION ON DECEMBER 13, 2010. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (TIGARD RETAIL CENTER, LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION, AUGUST, 2010), AND THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 12/30/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATIONS CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2010-00001 (_A linos_t loth/iraiioni APPLICANT/ OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates,L.P. Attention: Matt Oven 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 REQUEST: The applicant requests Planned Development Review approval for minor modifications to an approved planned development (PDR2008-00001). Through Final Order No. 2009-02 PC, the Commission approved development of an 18.16-acre vacant propem- with a 137,900 square foot Target retail building (Retail 3) and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings and associated surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The proposed modifications would: 1) change the approved Target-specific color, materials, and logos of the Retail 3 building to accommodate a non- specific user to facilitate marketing of the entitlement to interested parties, since Target has decided not to locate at the subject site, and 2) add a 1,800 square foot recycling area at the rear of the site. [The applicant later withdrew this second modification request-. The project would otherwise be consistent with the Tigard Retail Center Planning Commission Final Order No. 2009-02. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street west of SW 72nd Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101;and 2S101AB,Tax Lot 01400. 1IG.\RD Rill \Il.CI:\1i:R\IODII•IC.\7lO\ PIR21)1ii-1wiiiI IN:I.1\\I.()RI)I:R\O.1ip-ill IN P.\GI:1 OI.11 ZONES/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD): 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-confomin& residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on die 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. (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planni . procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. MI E: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed- use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, busmess/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and- ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle,it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and-p2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied elsewhere in the City through the legislative process. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.755,and 18.780. TIGARD RELUL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR3110-00(101)PC FIN.U.ORDER NO.11-11 PC PAGE 2 OF 13 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed modification of Building 3 elevations meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Planning Commission, therefore, APPROVES the requested Land Use Application. Additionally, the Commission found that Pursuant to Director's Interpretation DIR2010-00006, the Tigard Retail Center approval PDR2008-00001 (Commission's Final Order NO. 2009-02 PC) shall be effective for a period of seven years from the date of approval. The Detailed Development Plan approval shall lapse if 1) Substantial construction of the approved Detailed Development Plan has not begun within a seven year period;or 2) Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The Planning Commission approved the proposed Tigard Retail Center Detailed Plan with Final Order No. 2009-02 PC,effective June 17,2009. Due to the off-site transportation impacts associated with the proposed development, the decision was appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals (LU B A) for alleged lack of adequate notice to property owners beyond the 500-foot notice area. LUBA dismissed the late- filed local appeals and affirmed the Planning Commission's Final Order. Vicinity Information The subject 18.16-acre property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street,west of SW 72nd Avenue, and east of Hwy 217 in the Tigard Triangle. The subject site, zoned primarily C-G (PD) with a 0.45 acre parcel in the southeast corner zoned MU E, is surrounded on the north, west and east by C-G (PD) zoned land, and on the southeast by land zoned MUE. A 10.42-acre significant wetland associated with Red Rock Creek is located adjacent to the site on the west which buffers Hwy 217. Vacant developable land exists to the east fronting on SW 72nd, which was once a part of the previous approvals on the subject site. The area to the southeast, zoned MUE,is a neighborhood in transition where a number of residences have converted to commercial uses. Proposal Description The applicant requests approval for minor modifications to an approved planned development detail plan (PDR2008-00001). The proposed modifications would 1) change the approved Target-specific color, materials, and logos of the Retail 3 building to accommodate a non-specific user to facilitate marketing of the entitlement to interested parties, since Target has decided not to locate at the subject site, and 2) add a 1,800 square foot recycling area at the rear of the site. The project would otherwise be consistent with the Tigard Retail Center Planning Commission Final Order No. 2009-02. [The applicant later withdrew this second modification request.] SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. As the proposal is a modification of-Planning Commission Order No. 2009-02,the appropriate review is through the Type III-PC hearing process. TIG.\RD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR311(1-00001)PC FINAL ORDER NO In-ni PC PAGE 3 OF 13 SECTION V. NOTICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property- owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity to provide written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. On October 8, 2010, staff posted the subject site with a notice. On October 12, 2010 the City mailed notice to neighbors within 500 feet and other interested parties. In addition, the October 14th edition of The Times included a notice of the Planning Commission hearing. Staff did not receive any written comment from neighbors or interested parties regarding this application. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria for the proposed modifications to the detailed plan, including elevation changes to Retail Building 3 and the proposed addition of a recycling storage area, are contained in Community. Development Code Chapters: 18.350, Planned Developments; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Standards; 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage;and 18.780,Signs. This staff report is limited to the review of these sections and contains a staff recommendation for the Commission's review and decision on the proposed modifications. Proposed Modifications to Retail Building 3 Elevations The applicant's submittal includes proposed non-specific user Retail 3 Building Elevations (August 5, 2010) and the previously approved building elevations Tigard Store Design (May 18,2009). A side by side comparison of these two sheets may be helpful to understand the proposed modifications. When comparing,please note that the order of the four views is inconsistent between the two sheets. Proposed Modification to the Site Plan for the Addition of Recycling Storage The applicant's submittal includes a Revised Detailed Development Plan (Sheet PC-1.0) that shows the location of the proposed 12' x 90' Recycling Storage Area with a 10' high CMi' screen wall. [The applicant later withdrew this second modification request. Therefore, the findings in this order relating to the recycling area are no longer applicable.] 18.350—(PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) 18.350.010 Purpose: The applicable purposes of the planned development overlay zone are addressed in Section 18.350.040.A.1.c,below. 18.350.020 Process: A.Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. At the time of the original zoning designation (1983), City Council applied the planned development overlay (PD) to a portion of the General Commercial zone in the Tigard Triangle that includes the subject site. Therefore, the applicant was required to apply for planned development review. However, the approved Detailed Plan met all of the applicable standards without variance or adjustment or the application of the Commission's discretion for those chapters that could otherwise be applied as guidelines (I'DC 18.350.070.A.3). TIGARD RvrAll.CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR2111N11 N01)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10411 PC PAGE 4 OF 13 B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. The applicant's proposed Concept and Detailed plans were approved under Planning Commission Order No. 2009-02. The planned development overlay zone (PD) already existed over the subject site. 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements: A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional information required by 18.350.040.B. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: 1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include: b)An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed; The applicant explains the architectural style, or design concept "is still to provide buildings that establish a modem presence within a natural landscape, enhanced to provide an expression of quality enduring architecture in a sustainably responsible environment that transcends period trends to create a special shopping experience." [Retail 3 Building Elevations (August 5, 2010),Tigard Store Design (May 18,2009)]. The proposed modifications pertain to removing elements of the buildings associated specifically with the Target store in order to accommodate a non-specific user: "The Retail 3 building concept proposes an architectural design of exceptional quality and construction, compatible with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards that will blend with the character of the surrounding area. The contemporary style of the architecture will create a continuous and unified composition throughout the development. Architectural design of the building entrance area allows pedestrian visibility from various points across the site. The main entry features storefront,windows, decorative lighting, and a canopy for weather protection. Pilasters add vertical elements which, along with the use of color, modulate the horizontal aspects of the building. The color palette will be comprised of warm earth- tone colors. Planters placed along the front facade provide further interest,articulation,and scale. The entry canopy, storefront, windows, lighting and planters further articulate the north (front) facade, adding pedestrian scaled interest along the front sidewalk. The front facade includes three planters strategically placed and will include native ornamental shrubs and trees. The front sidewalk will also include lit and standard bollards, benches and bicycle racks as well as lighting to illuminate the building and sidewalk.As a condition of approval, a free-standing canopy element, similar to the one proposed over the building's entrance, has been located near the right front corner of the building and a planter has also been located near the front corner of the right (west) facade. All of these design elements work together to produce a variation in texture, color, and scale to provide visual interest and a pedestrian-friendly experience." In addition, the Target building program included sustainability features addressing Site and Water, Energy Optimization, Materials and Resources, Indoor Air Quality, and other measures. The applicant states that "consistent with the spirit of sustainable development, potential Retail 3 users will be worked with to promote and encourage sustainable features in the construction and operation of the Retail 3 building at this location." TIGARD RETAIL.CINTER MODIFICATION(PDR3)10-00001)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE 5 OF 13 c) An explanation of how the proposal relates to the six purposes of the Planned Development Chapter as expressed in 18.350.010: To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed modifications to elevations of Retail 3 are consistent with the original approval in that they provide a similar appearance through the use of building articulation, changes in materials and colors, parapets, and awnings [Retail 3 Building Elevations (August 5, 2010), Tigard Store Design (May 18,2009)]. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Concept Plan Submission Requirements address the planning objectives of the proposed modifications and the purposes of the planned development chapter. The proposed Retail 3 elevation modifications relate to the aesthetics and innovative building techniques elements of these sections. The Commission may concur that the applicant has adequately addressed these elements and that the proposed modifications are consistent with the approved Detailed Plan. Alternatively, without the prejudice of Target as the tenant for Retail 3, the Commission may wish to consider whether to require additional building articulation, materials, colors, etc., or sustainability features that were a part of the Target proposal. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following applicable criteria are met: The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless: a. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount of parking; b. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping; c. The change involves a change in use; d. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard; and e. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements. b. Buffering,screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; The only adjacent property with a different type of land use is located to the southeast corner of the development. Although the adjacent property is zoned MUE which allows similar commercial use, the existing use of the noted property is residential. The proposed development allows for a 20' buffer between any hard surface improvements or structures and the existing residential use property. According to the Buffer Matrix, Table 18.745.1&2, only a 10 foot buffer is required. The buffer will consist of shrub groundcover, trees,and hedges per the Buffer Matrix requirements. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR2110-00001)PC FIN.U.ORDER NO.10-111 PC PAGE 6 OF 13 On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: a) What needs to be screened; b) The direction from which it is needed; and c)Whether the screening needs to be year-round. The applicant states that the proposed recycling areas will be screened by a 10-foot high CML" wall. The screening would screen the area from adjoining properties to the south. In addition to the wall, landscaping is proposed between the wall and the property line, which should further screen the proposed recycling area. Response:The proposed site plan modification is for the inclusion of a screened recycling area behind Retail 3 and is consistent with the approved concept and detailed plan.No significant changes are proposed to the site plan. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, any modification of the approved Detailed Plan must be generally consistent with the approved Concept Plan. Minor changes from the Concept Plan do not make the Detailed Plan inconsistent with the Concept Plan unless (b) the change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping. The proposed recycling facility would reduce the amount of landscaping approved under Planning Commission Final Order No. 2009-02. by 0.2%. The modification of the site plan to accommodate the proposed recycling areas is minimal and therefore generally consistent with the approved Concept Plan and may be approved. 18.520—(COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) 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 rm stations, are peitted conditionally. MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing, the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for The subject site is zoned C-G and MUE. The proposed general retail use is permitted outright in both the C-G and MCE zones. The proposed recycling area is accessory to the approved retail use and is subject to the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. The elevation modifications are aesthetic in nature and are subject to the applicable Planned Development standards. The applicant states that the proposed modifications are still consistent with the requirements of this section. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR2110-00001)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE 7 OF 13 18.520.040 Development Standards All development must comply with: L All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370; Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.502.2. 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. The applicant has not requested any development adjustments or variances. With respect to the proposed recycling area, the applicable standards in Table 18.502.2 include: STANDARDS C-G NICE (PD) Approved Proposed Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 0 ft 0 ft. - 100ft. 80 ft. Maximum Site Coverage (PD): 85% 85% 80% 67.0% 67.2% Minimum Landscaping (PD): 15% 15% 20% 33°0 32.8% The location of the proposed recycling area is in the rear yard approximately 80 feet from the southern property line, consistent with the 0 ft setback requirement. In addition, the proposed location is outside of the 50-foot wetland buffer. The proposed 1,800 square foot recycling area would minimally increase the site coverage by 0.2%. Therefore, the proposed development complies with all of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. All other applicable standards and requirements, as reviewed in this staff report, are met or otherwise conditioned to be met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed modification of the approved Detailed Plan with the addition of the 1,800 square foot recycling area is consistent with the applicable Commercial Zoning District standards. 18.620— (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. 18.620.040 Building Design Standards All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. 1. Ground floor windows - All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR.3010-)0X11)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10M1 PC PAGE 8 OF 13 The retail shops buildings (1 and 2) are within the required Building Setback. Approximately 58% of these building elevations facing the Dartmouth Street frontage are comprised of windows and/or doorway openings on the ground floor wall area. No changes are proposed to the approved ground floor windows within the Building Setback with this application. 2. Building facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: a) a variation in building materials; b) a building off-set of at least 1 foot; c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. No building facade facing a public street extends more than 50 feet without providing building offsets and architectural design features, as well as variations in building materials. No changes are proposed for Retail 1 and 2 with this application. For Retail 3, the north (front) facade is the only facade that faces a public street. This facade has been designed to meet the design guidelines of providing architectural features at least every 50 feet with the following: The north (front) elevations provide a variety of pattern, texture, and material. Pilasters and offset corners occur in less than 50' intervals along this facade. The entry utilizes a storefront system comprised of anodized aluminum and glass, additional glazing occurs to the right and left of the entry vestibule. An EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finish System) panel wall extends to the right to emphasize entry and display user identity signage. As in the original submission, the architectural treatment continues to the sides and rear with a similar vocabulary of materials, texture, and color. No building facades extend more than 300' without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. 3. Weather protection - Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. No changes are proposed to the approved weather protection measures with this application. 4. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. No change is proposed to the material pallet. 5. Roofs and roof lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. False fronts and roofs are not proposed. 6. Roof-mounted equipment - All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. TIGARD RETAIL.CENTER MODIFIO1TION(PDR )10-O E01)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE 9 OF 13 All roof-mounted equipment is proposed to be screened from view of adjacent public streets by using parapets. 18.620.050 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the C-G and MUE zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-25 zone 18.780.130B; nonresidential developments within the C-G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.130C; and non residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone,18.780.130D. In addition, sign area, height, and location standards further restrict signs in the Tigard Triangle. The proposed development site is covered by two land use districts, General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). The sign requirements of Commercial Zones have been met for signs in the C-G zoned portion of the site per code chapter 18.780.130C. See a more detailed code response in that section, below. No signs are proposed in the MUE portion of the site. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards continue to be met with the proposed modifications to Retail 3 elevations. 18.755—(MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE): A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that certain new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclable materials prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. B. Applicability. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non- residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. 18.755.030 Materials Accepted A. Materials accepted. Except as provided for in 18.755.040 G and I, the storage area must be able to accept at least all "principle recyclable materials" designated by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and other source-separated recyclable the local government identifies by regulation. The approved development included storage areas able to accept all "principal recyclable materials" that were specific to the Target operations program. The proposed additional recycling area provides this function exterior to the Retail 3 rather than interior. 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance A. Alternative methods of compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: 1. Minimum standards; 2. Waste assessment; 3. Comprehensive recycling plan; or 4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The minimum standards method was used to adequately size the trash enclosures for the proposed retail pads for this site. The trash enclosure for the Target building was based on building specific requirements as provided by the retailer. The proposed additional recycling area is based on coordination with other retailers as a typical requirement and is proposed to maximize marketability of the Retail 3 store. T1G.RD RP.T.UI.CI•:NTER\K)D1PIC.1110N(PDR21)111-( $E1)P(.FINAL ORDER NO.lo-m PC P\GI.PI 01. 11 18.755.050 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas A. Applicable standards. The following location, design and access standards for storage areas are applicable to all four methods of compliance, described in 18.755.040 above. B. Location standards. 1. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be collocated with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; 2. Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; 3. Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; 4. Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; 5. Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; 6. Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; 7. The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. As shown on the applicant's site plan (Sheet PC-1.0) the only change proposed to the approved mixed solid waste and recycling plan is the addition of exterior recycling storage to the rear of Retail 3 off of the access road. The proposed area is consistent with the applicable location standards. C. Design standards. 1. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; 2. Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; 3. Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; 4. Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed recycling area will meet Uniform Fire Code standards, will be enclosed by a 10' high split CM A screening wall, and containers (provided by tenants) will be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted, consistent with the design standards. D. Access standards. 1. Access to storage areas can be limited for security reasons. However, the storage area shall be accessible to users at convenient times of the day, and to collection service personnel on the day and approximate time they are scheduled to provide collection service; 2. Storage areas shall be designed to be easily accessible to collection trucks and equipment, considering paving, grade and vehicle access. A minimum of 10 feet horizontal clearance and eight feet of vertical clearance is required if the storage area is covered; I IG\RI)RI I I \II.CI:\II IR\IC)I)II Ic:.\'I I(/\Q'l)R_"�IUu N N Nil)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE.11 OF 13 3. Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out of a driveway onto a public street. If only a single access point is available to the storage area, adequate turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to safety exit the site in a forward motion. Access to the storage areas will not require backing out of a driveway onto a public street. Adequate turning radii are provided to allow collection vehicles to safely exit the site in a forward motion. Although the franchised hauler, Pride Disposal Company, reviewed and signed off on the approved site plan,no such review and sign-off has been submitted for the proposed additional recycling area. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development complies with the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage standards. Although the franchised hauler, Pride Disposal Company, reviewed and signed-off on the approved trash enclosure plan, no such review and sign-off has been submitted for the proposed additional recycling area. Therefore, a condition of approval shall require the applicant to submit a letter by the franchise hauler demonstrating the location,design and access of the proposed additional recycling area is serviceable. 18.780—(SIGNS): *PD Guideline Chapter Chapter 18.780 regulates the placement,number and design criteria for signage. 18.780.130 Zoning District Regulations C. In the C-G and CBD zones. No sign shall be permitted in the C-G and CBD zones except for the following: 1. Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties in commercial zones: The freestanding signs have been modified to remove the Target specific signage and provide signage for a non-specific use. The sign height (10 feet) and area for the proposed monument signs (66-sf per face, for a total of 264-sf for all four faces between the two signs) remains unchanged. 2.Wall Signs: No modifications are proposed to the wall signage for the retail shops buildings. As noted in the approved 2008 application, the total number and area of wall signs for the proposed retail shop buildings will be dependent on the tenant mix,but will comply with the requirements of this section. Without a user identified for Retail 3, the total number and area of wall signs for that building is also unknown at this time. FINDING: The proposed changes to the signs reviewed under the original decision relate to content only. The City does not regulate sign content. The applicant must still apply, and has stated their intention to apply for sign permits, when tenants and detailed sign designs are determined. TIG_RD RETAIL CENTER MODIFIC.111ON(PDR3)10-0n)1)PC FINAL ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE 12 OF 13 SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS Director's Interpretation on Expiration In addition to the requested elevation and site plan modifications, the applicant has also requested an extension of Final Order No. 2009-02 PC. Staff finds that the qualifying statement in the original approval "This detailed plan approval shall be valid for 18 months from the effective date of this decision" is not supported in the Tigard Development Code. Therefore, the applicant has requested a Director's Interpretation to clarify the expiration date of the approval. Being processed as Type II decision, the Director's Interpretation is due to be issued November 16, 2010 and become effective on December 1, 2010. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the November 1" hearing until December 13, 2010 for final deliberation of the proposed modifications after the Director's Interpretation is issued. Development Review Engineer Comment The City's Development Review Engineer commented that because the proposed action does not alter or affect any of the public improvements approved under the prior Planning Commission order (Final Order No. 2009-02 PC), no additional pubic improvements are required with this land use application. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS No agencies were notified as none, other than the City, has purview over the proposed modifications to the approved detailed plan. SECTION X. CONCLUSION The City- of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED, Planned Development Review (PDR2010-00001) —TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. Dave Walsh,Plannin� ommission President Dated this f day of December,2010. Attachments: 1 Vicinity Map 2 Preliminary Site Plan 3 Approved Elevation Drawings I:\CLRP1.N\Gary\Site Development and PD\PDR2O10-(MXK)1(Tigard Retail Center Modification)\PDR3)10-1NMMI PC Final Order.docx TIGARD RETAIL CENTER MODIFICATION(PDR3110-00001)PC FIN.\1.ORDER NO.10-01 PC PAGE 13 OF 13 i ;N II VICINITY MAP 11NM 'ill' ,Mij ��� �� �� '9 I ' PDR2010-00001 III re is I SAM 2i: ldo Ell TIGARD RETAIL CENTER 'I MODIFICATIONS Mr , .e. 111, SI 1 ■ gli)AIOIA 51 r I -1�S 1 t 4 I ,...:.......„ , . I7 1( > Subject Site JIJ! F :.� Gm , . cI. � :1111 Ii II • de Nel!ti l mi., I i . •••... ...47. • 4.1 No .„....„ „b, ,10410041,71 _ , - iistitliw . r NV* '• 4143 I 44F Alt'. TO . lik'' -,i ., . . 110' • •........♦ Vii- I �' .....♦...... I dj�to • �►'.�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i a �,.iri '•tea 111% I!it-..detiro 11 1111 fir. ; ,� . _ _� Q H 5 - Information on thle map la for general location T only and should be verified with the Development• i \ 111 II '� ��: Services Division.d. f!;,e ' Scale 1 8.000-1 in=U(i/h L Map printed at 01:55 PM on 20-Sep-lu LEE.� > DATA IS DERNED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY Of TIOARD im MAKES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TOTAL if / \\ CONTENT.ACCURACY,TIMELINE&&OR COMPLETENESS Of ANV OF THE•� �I h �� • OAT INFORMATION ROV THE CIGARDLESS OF&HALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF MOW CAUSED h- � � I1/ I M aty of l Igard Feet \ I ��� 13125 SW Hall Blvd -�~" RAMP N ST �►1 = Trig Mir Tlgard.OR97223 i, • 0 1000 `,.• I' - 503639-4171 e - - www.tigardor.gov TIGARD �> NU ALCM it u • ':0, S(1)=DATA AuNI I 7.W0 n1 1r�� BUILDING DATA PAd0Y0510Lk- �,, A;"‘..41e* / M1N11 aim aid dK�l MiWP Iu�1�OD A 1 xi ! 01 ]1�6i AACcS� IOIµbRIOYn MA 111.100 VA ' BAWL PROWRO•Al(V VOW r / Y ( l) 1 01AL ::Ac c-G ZONE MUEZCOMMERCIAL)wWl•xl 9W- . - 0 GAY w• CWA'CWI SINES tlµlt 10 Sr RA(Ad MO 10'MN M. -'POW*LANK 1 =arm, !Slµlf 11AO Y wA1 IOIµ) f I ., II�� �.�ftlf, ACRES IOGDp YDWIO nN LARD A%If 11,m0r(AMU IOW N AIMS :;',.:;::,(..'.:':')i �' An,7A.]0011 = I�IIII'� •• • ••�••�•• ••A�••P�••P�••∎•• �-- YkSRL RAlo SOI/I ano li9 .i l , Q WAIL J 111000 YS bYl•IO AMA) SIANOMD VALLS 11 SIµLi 1 4 S aWA BAWD ON low/ ' .; 7 ' 'i ' - - �•mli� U 3 OWES P IW ?0100 d %i ai:'i uls ; ;fss bAIt`COL•I•CWdS`�•` 10 IM bA I® / O AfCISS•i 51klS AW SIµlS IOIk 1751µL1,,,y Iw]OYU6- LAWN III /' ,A.. �) fn uW0/r CMI Cddµ51 IAhIW RAIp!II/1000 Y�Y T.�. �J •AYAIC SOON MAws Yaf 1•J ®n ]J 1 D ]J! O W'PAAWD SIµSS C4VKI `siAAD:PD siris�vl wtaYwµsj{I II/1 t,�' ') SIALS AM 002 A 0.11'AS COIIYACI SIµl1 IRS SINES/ '! N - it CCC 11'C C C I I I /}Z. ar uv MR.."- c.,CORAL'Sµl6 7i Swl5 kL WRwyw 0M1YO IAIR!7 P[R, `� .�- �CJY� R ,f®� G0° 6lAltl5 11- C7 .WU Y WSIMM PMAW MN PAID IDM 1f1 swlS 0#I I I SS t t,C00 IMA Y1PMAY•Y.1WI D1 PMxwO RAIq r07/1.0001./ {II I} ',]]J II}} I{{II SIpS I �NyN�T'J�`J��JIS }I J J J IIr II} () .y 1 IR 101W d KpNIIO PAYA ND IOw VI[MO STA112 1.77/1.000 Y CAIO (' Mil , � OI CGC '.- I I II I �C�p�C Ifs I CCC II �) ( bNPIN`I`µ/ SlµlS wAr COb'lY wM li 1 'y SIw0MD5(d OPKI SIUIS t 71 .Ir w;s 1 �y ® - 00 Pi 1 re ^• • LEGEND IAI 0 J! .�J]] J J!]. ry ,, I ��PXOPwi[0 WPLpwt 1 rI +0 1,,..•- II I II [an ocuRnl Wl Lx} I7 y-I-i 7 C r t CCC 1 M� ' ,\1 _-_1R rw// / /,� � CC[(II IIII wl II lid _ � �MDUIOf IxI f a1 I +1 tt _//////����yff... r(1 b I MIAs lPAN4 SIAl15%4M/ / � " � '1 J J .=J J JD• ]]]J ]J 7 l]J b 7 r.—.7_I CMKP[II WULRALA PAMMN' 'I tl l9R ' moon y 7 YWR LP WILOI PAMxO VALLS%x py } C C C C C C C�(II }�pyl��C N ®y SPACtS O'O Z• �? } }0 fWPk Swlxw[xl wAxlllcs L ] J. ®\ IAAAI I ♦ Afuxvut nw /11 / 1I . I,A Iti ',1 \ \ Y\Y' COwRACld7- - _•_.• 'D w [•I ttPx/I '1 _ A �\ \\\\\ Y%fN AN ' '.. OI If NIWN I/ MP IWNI• 1 �' lrr ■�■ ■�■ ■ \\ _ S�IICC j ' F rLI 0.f II f I: 1.j1\!1�\.�\�.,\\' IM , an I�. � _ ,1NpSCA A \\\ IGYY WIY AlPIW I[fONCn I1 PANYlx1 1�' y(YAWSIK I 01N ®y\ VAININIPL/1All LOTS 0 'p ]]7] ]]J,11,i, •�\. t� PLOLSO AI PAAWAS /MR f f �A1A)$[ R ®�••• RETAL 3 / LS L'� ASixk I P. 10IY NA I01µ) * PAM .10110 it -•011 I= OIAI•f IK RI rL p1 J _,@ ` nA AA41: �� y . I wr:,' 137,900 SFt MWIµ[IIARNSC[AMA / , IMgI ' ., Is1 ' �' fPAflt FFE•1AO.o ' :WE ZONE j �....� _ •MN y !- Y in �i® l'.3 nw0 RCYClN11I0RIr1I AIEA 1' j�. f- -- qp _P _ -ADCPoSID . �� Tn RRR !! ,,., w1INOaW eCKbI wAU �. �rA�s _` _ Lm LO! -- :^�� �,�- ��5 [R SS'fltkwllfA IT nwrmrss ' // / I nMLdsnw ,!\!�:\'!� I Jr 1' t f� II7I, .'ASEY1 t TIIL PeS'I[w••[x; "YAiri•1 •!/ /.. _, •` LOT 1 �` l ._ 1 1 y t2 t 1 1 I , D '1T I ,••/ .;:2:;:;:;:;.. RETAIL 1 ,�` $ .- N O+ / • O DARTMOUTH STREET 1 yy�[nMD >:::;•:�:ab:�. iA r 1 .110 .� ee lil BlRflll .� ��'.•Ir '� k 1:0° III,I(�1�jr • IMPROVEMENT SECTION +� y ::' ` %:?;;:,f ); • IxWIYAO !l 10 MI 1• \• /j 10'110 4. 4 3 - 4! ' i !'-77'S 11.PASS ' PL090W1{t1Q� UUUSRY, >]J J J 7!!]]J•_ R •. w 1 T`i F} 1 M ���y ' r I tw rlw•N1•IWSUw I nSnaAxnR . ` `'1 y Y ,.... , - i .1�' ,lrC YW11 IANKNI MYGliwl {1� rld■nlfnxc''' ) .�'.::::f. 1.. IF1t IW wAxttlwxl .• - ...,.+ •• •r Moll=•• ••—•At.•i"'` •'' ■• L1✓. i:y •• AwIR Ay�N•Ne►: .. �-}-•'-�.-.-!, • t.N ,f 4Qlr� �ss wJrJr��� •"•ti•1TI• �' ,1 MAARI —+0.4ii' — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` O HERMOSO WAY IMPROVEMENT SECTION GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF TIGARD "o1.9., * T T Y ' mditionally ATE vpd >r only the work as described in Padilaurr TIGARD RETAIL CENTER `iMI the fk as described D - Di'f/� PC-1.0 August 5,2010 REVISED DETAILED Tigard,Oregon DEVELOPMENT PLAN Sae Lotter to: Follow_.--..... ATfach ;cb Ad• I J F __ -_ oats:_.____----- �.o.. "Lawson Blend"Ouik Brlk "Irving Crean'Integral Color (IFS peened Split-Face CMU 'Toasty"S W tip95 PMnt•at 0:e Brown"SW 6082 y c yam. 111 R� 'I FRONT ELEVATION Splitlace CMU peinted `Cobble Brown"SW 6082 "Saddle Tan"Integral(olrn Split Fare CMU "Saddle fan'Integral Color 'Saddle CMU Color "Saddle 1411"Integral Color "%addle Tan"Integral EIFS painted "Promenade Blend'(Bilk Brlk plaster "Irving Cream" Split true CMU Split I a'r(Ml t Integral Color Split-Face(MU Split far a CMU t 01,8 Split Face CMU "Oak Creek"SW 7718 CMU painied BCMU painted:r- Split lace CMU painted Split fare CMU painted living l i earn'Interpol Gino( "Row House Tan*SW 2823 "Ronkwood May'SW 7827 !"Row House Tan"SW/689 I"Rookwood Clay"SW2823 Shui(Fae(MCI LEFT ELEVATION I "Saddle tan integral(clot 1 awson Blend"Quik Brik Split lace CMU painted Pilaster•Split fare CMU painted Split f are(MU "Cobble lir"wit"SW 6182 "Row House tai"SW 7689 SIPS painted Split face(MU painte paintorl Split late cMU, fd Split face CMU painted Split lace CMU painted "Toasty'SW 6095 "Row House tan"SW 7689 cod Clay'SW 2823 �. "Row Hausa Tan SW 7687 ,• "Row Haw Tan'SW 7689 "Rockwood Clay"SW 2823 REAR ELEVATION nl take I Irauvr'rI Plaster Spid tat e c MU painted Split face CMU painted "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 'Row House Tan"SW/689 "Gobble Brown"SW 6082 -'Lawson Blend"Quillgir"•11111111111111111111r Spilt tae se T painted'B" Sglt faa CMU paktad split tale(MU painted "Irving Crean"Integral Color !Tow House Tan"SW 7689 _ -Rockwood Cloy"S W 2823 "Row House Tan"SW 7689 Spit-Face CMU RIGHT ELEVATION "Saddle Tan'Integral Colo, Split lace(MU painted [ Split lace(MO panted Split-Face CMU "Rookwood Clay"SW 2823 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 Pilaster split face(MU painted I Split face CMU painted "Row House Tan"SW 7689 "Cobble Brown"SW 6082 RETAIL 3 CITY OF TIGARD PACTRUST August 05,2010 BUILDING ELEVATIONS Tigard,Oregon Approved [X I 2 Nut to Scale -.lnditionally Approved i J gn11N,".tr lr.T Poprl N1 NRUIW1.71,7y..,I,r..r,.rr..r�„ ,r,.Wr,w.":4,Wr,.,a„� rxnr,1z,',„ F r only the work a stescribed in: rivel.mane,,....1.th.wlun.nonlfia Mlulr,W11 ∎epouLea.11und lrrII.WMI,w,urYnxxlrM.rrrx,r •/ /��/� Nl.aiwn,enu,ruru..nl in Me Ju.unwrrr n.w,Ml.raul rut n.y rwr Ia7 reeulu.wl wnlwW N•rnv.w., PAR zcllo-o VrV.{// I'_9MIT NO. Sae: Letter to: Follow [ I Attach [ ,;c h.Ad E,. ,��_.. Date' __t 2.-14-it' - 11 .r- " City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: usan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director Re: City Council 2011 Goals Discussion Date: December 9, 2010 At the Planning Commission meeting on December 13, 2010 we have some time set aside to develop goals the Commission may want to suggest the City Council consider adopting during their upcoming goal setting meeting. Since this was a last minute addition to your agenda,we have asked you to come in early (6 PM) for this discussion and will provide dinner (pizza). Attached to this memo are some materials you may find helpful to review before your discussion. These include: • 2009 City Council Goals • 2010 City Council Goals (adopted) • 2010 City Council Goals Suggested by Community Development boards, committees and commissions • Planning Commission Project Matrix (April 2010) There are no particular directions from the City Council on the form or topic areas for your suggestions. If you have any questions or feel additional information would be helpful, please feel free to contact Doreen and we will make every effort to provide it. 2009 Tigard City Council Goals On January 6, 2009 the City Council met to set its goals for the coming year. These goals represent those items that the Council feels deserve special attention in the months ahead. The City will accomplish much more than what is listed here, but we identify these to be of particular importance to our residents. The goals listed below were adopted at the January 13, 2009 Council Business meeting. If you have any questions regarding City Council, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley. 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan a. Update Tigard zoning maps based on Comprehensive Plan Update b. Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan c. Continue to lobby for light rail in 99W Corridor d. Develop a 50-year aspirational goal in support of Urban/Rural Reserves Program 2. Implement Downtown Urban Renewal a. Move forward with Burnham Street Project b. Complete land use regulations and design standards for the downtown 3. Prepare for 2010 Bond Measure for Parks, Open Spaces and Trails a. Complete Parks Master Plan b. Pursue Fanno Park and downtown plaza property acquisition 4. Continue to support the legislature in addressing the financial needs of state and local governments in Oregon 5-Year Goals • Implement Comprehensive Plan • Develop a long-term financial strategy • Obtain 99W designation as the next Light Rail Corridor • Prepare 2010 Bond Measure for Parks, Open Spaces and Trails • Begin 99W access management implementation • Support WCCLS and Public Safety levy renewals in 2010 • Begin City Facility Needs Plan implementation Long Term Goals • Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard • Seek to improve Hwy 99 Corridor (land use, alternative routes, traffic, etc.) • Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Plan 2010 Council Goals 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan a. Complete the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and begin area plans (Tigard Triangle, 99W Corridor, etc.) b. Update Tree Code c. Continue to promote plan for 99W Light Rail 2 Implement Downtown Urban Renewal a. Initiate developer outreach/recruitment b. Adopt Downtown Circulation Plan 3. Stra tegize with Park and Recreation Advisory Board on a 2010 Parks Bond a. Decide whether to return to ballot and, if so, when b. Develop land acquisition strategies (potential options to purchase, etc.) 4. Advance Methods of Communication a. Support strategic clarity/City values initiative (do the right thing; respect and care; get it done) b. Develop communication tools to tell our story and support City goals 5. Support 2010 Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) and Public Safety Levies Five-Year Council Goals • Obtain Ash Street RR crossing in Downtown • Explore 99W Urban Renewal District • Continue to support the Legislature in addressing the financial needs of state and local governments in Oregon • Develop long-term financial strategy • Start implementing plan for city facility needs • Develop Sustainability Plan Long-Term Council Goals • Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion • Continue implementing Downtown Urban Renewal Plan • Continue to monitor the Tigard/Lake Oswego Water Partnership Council 2010 Goal Suggestions From CCAC Implement Downtown Urban Renewal a) Continue to pursue Downtown park and plaza property acquisition. b) Adopt the Downtown Circulation Plan as endorsed by the CCAC. c) Continue pursuit of the Ash Street at-grade crossing. d) Include a gateway feature in the redevelopment of the Hall/99W intersection. e) Evaluate what can be done via staff and or a consultant/contracted sub to develop and implement an active, ongoing plan to promote Tigard Downtown (and Tigard) to all appropriate interested parties. From Planning Commission 1. Tigard Triangle a) Consider a Master Plan for the Tigard Triangle 2. 99W Beautification 3. Completion and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan a) Complete and adopt the Transportation System Plan From Tree Board Develop tree and landscaping code provisions that will implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. From Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee 1. Develop community access transit options - a comprehensive plan that integrates with the Westside Express Service (WES) and the regional transit system. 2. Develop a plan to complete the bicycle/pedestrian system in Tigard. Set a goal with a timeline and prioritization based on funding, safety, schools, & connectivity. 3. Snow removal plan: Possibly utilize "on-call" contracts. Prioritize routes and consider leveraging options with other agencies. 4. Transform Hwy 99W—Pursue land use, high capacity transit (HC T), and adopted Improvement Plan along with interagency coordination& cooperation. Refine actions and approaches over time. Future Projects Matrix Tigard Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Staff Funding / Schedule Planning Project/Activity Type of Item Timeframe Contact Staffing Drivers Associated Projects Commission City Council Goals Priority Status Goals TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND STUDIES Briefing March 2010 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan — Downtown Circulation #1 Tigard Triangle a. Complete the Transportation System Grant Plan (TSP) and begin area plans Tigard 2035 Judith Gray TGM Grant contract Plan Transportation Workshops April/May 2010 J y #3 Complete and (Tigard Triangle,99W Corridor,etc.) expires System Plan Included as Periodic Implement Comp 3/31/2010 Review Work Task Plan Long Term Goal Continue pursuing opportunities to Public Hearings Summer 2010 reduce traffic congestion Briefing Summer 2010 Tigard 2035 2. Implement Downtown Urban General Fund Transportation System Renewal Downtown CCAC Plan b.Adopt Downtown Circulation Plan Workshops Fall 2010 Sean Farrelly Circulation Plan Urban Renewal review Funds Downtown Urban 5 Year Goal Renewal Obtain Ash Street railroad crossing in Public Hearings Winter 2010 downtown Winter 2010 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan Briefings Spring 2011 Interstate 5/99W Multi a. Complete the Transportation System Summer 2011 Modal Refinement Plan Plan(TSP) &begin area plans Sean Family Funding Alternatives for (Tigard Triangle, 99W Corridor,etc.) Pacific Hwy High Grant Highway 99W HCT #1 Tigard Triangle c. Continue to promote and plan for y g Workshops Fall 2011 Judith Gray TGM Grant contract Alternatives Analysis 99W Light Rail Capacity Transit Land Use Plan General Fund expires #2 Pacific Highway Metro 6/30/2011 Tigard Triangle Beautification 5 Year Goal Explore 99W Urban Renewal District Public Hearings Winter 2011 Downtown Urban Long Term Goal Renewal g Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion Note: Projects with grey tinted backgrounds are not yet certain due to outstanding issues such as pending budget authorizations,finali?ation of project scope, or the adoption of intergovernmental agreements. I Future Projects Matrix Tigard Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Staff Funding / Schedule Planning Project/Activity Type of Item Timeframe Contact Staffing Drivers Associated Projects Commission City Council Goals Priority Status Goals Westside Trail Master Briefing Fall 2010 Plan Development Duane Grant 10/11, Tigard Pathways Roberts contract Rail-to-Trail #3 Complete and Master Plan TGM Grant Implement Comp 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan expires Presentation/ Steve Martin 6/30/11 Tigard 2035 Plan Winter 2011 Workshop Transportation System Plan Street Circulation Requested in #1 Tigard Triangle Study&Connectivity Presentation Winter 2011 ,Judith Gray General Fund budget TSP Update 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan Inventory Interstate 5/99W Multi-Modal Briefings 2010-11 Judith Gray Metro is currently Pending Highway 99W/Barbur #1 Tigard Triangle Refinement Plan seeking TGM funding HCT LAND USE PROJECTS Urban Forestry Code Revisions Use Category Update #1 Tigard Triangle Regulatory Reform Quarter.ly Briefings Summer 2010 Susan General Fund 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan Hartnett Minor Sign Code #3 Complete and Amendments Implement Comp Plan Tigard Triangle Update Summer 2010 Tigard 2035 Briefing Winter 2010 Transportation System Spring 2011 Plan Pacific Hwy High Workshop Summer 2011 Capacity Transit Land Council Use Plan #3 Complete and Urban Forestry Code Todd Prager General Fund approved Implement Comp 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan Revisions a. Update Tree Code timeline Downtown Urban Plan Renewal Public Hearing Summer 2011 Tigard Pathways Master Plan Regulatory Reform Note: Projects with grey tinted backgrounds are not yet certain due to outstanding issues such as pending budget authorisations,finali?ation of project scope, or the adoption of intergovernmental agreements. Future Projects Matrix Tigard Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Staff Funding / Schedule Planning Project/Activity Type of Item Timeframe Contact Staffing Drivers Associated Projects Commission City Council Goals Priority Status Goals Briefing Spring 2010 John Floyd #3 Complete and TDC Use Category Workshop Summer 2010 General Fund Completion Regulatory Reform Implement Comp 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan Update Gary by Fall 2010 Plan Pagenstecher Public Hearing Fall 2010 Minor Sign Code Dick Potential for Amendments Public Hearing Spring 2010 Bewersdorff General Fund additional Regulatory Reform applications Visioning Exercise Tigard Triangle Briefing Fall 2011 Susan General Fund Regulatory Reform #1 Tigard Triangle Update Workshop Hartnett Public Hearing Mitigation Land Bank Briefing 2011 Susan General Fund Project for CWS Workshop Hartnett ASR Wellhead Briefing Susan Protection Program Workshop 2013 Hartnett Water Fund Regulatory Reform Public Hearing OTHER MAJOR PLANS AND STUDIES Summer 2010 Economic Advisory Committee Fall 2010 Opportunities Meetings Winter 2010 Grant Included as Periodic Analysis Winter 2011 #3 Complete and (Planning Darren Wyss Periodic Review contract Review Work Task Implement Comp 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan Commission will act Workshops Spring 2011 Grant expires as Advisory 5/31/2011 #!Tigard Triangle Plan Committee) Public Hearing Spring 2011 I Must be #3 Complete and Public Facility Plan Briefings Winter 2011 Darren Wyss General Fund completed Included as Periodic Implement Comp 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan by Spring Review Work Task Plan 2013 Periodic Review Must be #3 Complete and Housing Briefings Fall 2010 Darren Wyss General Fund completed Included as Periodic Implement Comp 1.Implement Comprehensive Plan Review/Population by Spring Review Work Task Plan Projections 2013 Note: Projects with grey tinted backgrounds are not yet certain due to outstanding issues such as pending budget authorisations,finali?ation of project scope, or the adoption of intergovernmental agreements. )