Planning Commission Packet - 11/29/1977 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29, 1977 - 7: 30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 S .W. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present: Wood, Popp, Sakata, Corliss, Tepedino (arrived 7:45
p.m. )
Absent: Brian, Goldbach
Staff: Bolen, Laws, Svart, Rosenburger (Washington County)
3. Approval of Minutes (November 3, 1977) :
Sakata said Brian was omitted from the absent testimony.
Minutes of November 3, 1977 were approved as corrected.
4 . Communications:
4. 1 Staff presented formal letter of resignation of Moore from
the Planning Commission.
4 . 2 Staff presented City Council resolution encouraging Plan-
ning Commission participation in the screening of candidates
for membership on the Planning Commission.
5. Public Hearing:
5.1 Proposed Urban Growth Management Plan for Tigard-Metzger-
Bull Mountain area, including: (a) 1985 Immediate Growth
Boundary; (b) Year 2000 Future Urban Boundary; and (c)
Implementing policies.
A. Staff Report:
Presented by Bolen
B. Public Testimony:
o Beverly Froude (Bull Mountain) stated that the citi-
zen committee had voted on two things only: a 1985
boundary and a population capacity for the year 2000 .
She said the committee had not had sufficient time
to go into these matters.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29, 1977
Page 2
o Henry Roshak (Bull Mountain) said people didn't know
what was going on at the November 3 meeting. He
asked for a clearer explanation of the urban growth
boundary.
o Leah Zednik (Bull Mountain) said the citizen commit-
tee had not discussed proposed natural resource
areas nor did they examine the urban growth boundary
carefully enough. She objected to restrictions on
development on Bull Mountain.
o Commissioners Wood and Popp said that this hearing
was to deal primarily with growth management issues
and not land use issues as such.
o Don McIntosh, Sr. (Area 8, south of Durham) asked if
the proposed 1985 boundary was recommended by the
citizen committee. He said this boundary was arbi-
trary and left out land which should be included.
o Rosenburger clarified action taken by the citizen
committee on boundaries.
o Dennis O'Shea (Bull Mountain) questioned how deci-
sions were arrived at deriving boundaries. Were
facilities such as public services and the 135th ex-
tension considered?
o Frank Bearden (representing Dorothy Pick of 98th,
south of Durham) said the 1985 boundary excluding
Area 8 looked artificial. He did not see how includ-
ing it would create any problems since utilities
could be provided without much difficulty.
o Rod Adams (representing James Funk, Bull Mountain)
objected to the proposed boundary and said this was
a staff recommendation, not a citizen commitee recom-
mendation.
o Dale DeHarport (developer) said he has not been able
to find ready sellers of land within the proposed
1985 boundary. He questioned whether the 14 member
citizen committee was more representative of public
feelings than the 200 people who showed up at the
November 3 hearing.
C
{
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29, 1977
Page 3
o Lionel Domries (real estate) encouraged including
Area 8 within the 1985 boundary.
o Bill McMonagle (engineer) said that to include only
225 percent of the land needed by 1985 was unreal-
istic. It would be illogical to proceed with the
U.S.A. sewer interceptor along the Tualatin River
and not let properties adjacent to the line develop
until several years later.
o Mike Robinson (developer) questioned the availability
of land and willingness of owners to sell for devel-
opment. The 1985 boundary should be much farther
out.
o Zednik questioned the representation on the citizen
committee and its decisions.
o Don McIntosh, Jr. expressed concern about artifi- s
cially raising cost of land by limiting growth within
the proposed boundaries. He said Calgary, Canada
has high cost housing for this reason.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Read by Bolen ,�sdd
l
A. 1985 Immediate Growth Boundary .
Staff advises adoption of the citizen committee
recommendation contained in the staff report dated
November 3, 1977.
B. Year 2000 Urban Growth Boundary
Staff advises adoption of the citizen committee
recommendation for a population capacity figure
(11,128) to be applied once the land use designa-
tions for Bull Mountain are adopted.
Policy F. The year 200 Urban Growth Boundary, to
be determined upon resolution of land use designa-
tions on Bull Mountain, shall be based on a popula-
tion capacity limit of 11, 128 within the Future Ur- 1
banizable Area and shall be located so as to pre-
serve the maximum amount of agricultural land that is
is feasible. Ir,
ry'
r„�
MINUTES f?
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION v,
November 29, 1977 1
Page 4 1„;'
C. Staff recommends approval of the County staff's
special policy for Bull Mountain. f
D. Staff recommends that the General Urban Area Policy f,
F be strengthened through the following changes:
(1) Add "Within the Tigard Growth Management Study ;`;
Area," before "The county. . . "
.+
(2) Add "shall enact" in place of "will pursue the
enactment of . . . " ''
fq.
(For complete staff recommendation see Memorandum to
Tigard Planning Commission of November 17, 1977 regard-
ing Proposed Growth Management Plan. )
D. Cross-examination and Rebuttal:
o Roshak objected to certain sections of the staff 'j
memo dated November 17, including reference to the `.,
"silent majority" , the agricultural deferral as a
means of tax avoidance, the profitability of farming
in this area, the idea that significant farm land ,'
_. would be preserved through adoption of the proposed
growth plan. Ii,
o Bearden reiterated his concern that Area 8 property
belongs within the 1985 boundary. ,
o Domries expressed concern about the impact of this
plan on the lives of property owners in Area 8 and
recommended including it within the 1985 boundary.
o William Dunn (Prestige Properties) said there is a
scarcity of land within the proposed 1985 boundary.
o John Vasginsas (Bull Mountain) , questioned` the via-
bility of farm land within the Year 2000 boundary.
E. Commission Discussion:
o Wood said he saw the City' s interest as only extend
ing to those areas where development would have an ;�
impact. He saw the proposed boundaries as possibly : I
creating an artificial scarcity of land and exclud
ing areas which could be easily serviced. He pro
posed a 1985 boundary which included Areas 8 and 9C.
,,
,:
>a
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29, 1977
Page 5
o Corliss expressed concern that the citizen group had
not been able to complete the work it was to do and
wondered whether it should meet again.
o Sakata said she had come to conclusions similar to
Wood's but also wished to ensure that Areas 8 and 9C
be developed only with sewers.
o Tepedino concurred with Sakata and saw little rea-
sons for excluding Areas 8 and 9C.
o Popp questioned whether there was really as severe a
shortage of available land within the proposed bound-
aries as had been alleged in public testimony but
saw little problem in including Areas 8 and 9C
within the 1985 boundary, since services could be
made readily available. He stated his concern about
allowing any further septic tank developments and
wished to see a study undertaken of the ability of
Bull Mountain to support them without failure.
Wood moved (Tepedino seconded) that the proposed 1985
( Immediate Growth Boundary be adopted with the following
changes:
(1) Areas 8 and 9C be within the 1985 boundary because
these areas are no longer suitable for agricul-
tural purposes and that there is an availability
of services to support developments.
(2) If and when Areas 8 and 9C are developed, that
sewer be required.
(3) The Tigard Planning Commission makes no recommenda-
tion on land uses beyond the Tigard Detailed Plan
Area.
(4) A study be undertaken to determine impact of sep-
tic systems and storm water run-off on Bull Moun-
tain, with results also to be forwarded to King
City.
(5) Washington County submit its recommendation for
land uses on Bull Mountain to the City of Tigard
for its review.
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29 , 1977
Page 6
(6) Staff Recommendation D (in memo dated November 17)
be adopted as corrected (with"For. . . " in place
of "Within. . . "
Ei
The motion was approved unanimously.
Wood moved (Tepedino seconded) to adopt General Urban
Area Policies A through G, as contained in the Novem-
ber 3 staff report, with F modified as above. t'
The motion was approved unanimously.
Wood moved (Tepedino seconded) to adopt Immediate r.
Growth Policies B through E, substituting the following
for Policy A:
In locating the 1985 Immediate Growth Boundary, the
relative social costs and benefits of including or ex-
cluding land were considered, including: projected jl
population growth, availability of land to meet that
growth, availability and cost of providing urban serv-
ices by public agencies, the suitability of land for
C .
non-urban uses.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Wood moved (Tepedino seconded) that Future Urbanizable
Policies C, D, E be adopted as recommended by staff,
with the addition of a policy requiring that develop-
ments in Future Urbanizable Area meet the same standards
as set forth for the Immediate Growth Area.
o Tepedino requested clarification of the proposed Fu-
ture Urbanizable Policies. Svart explained the
meaning and intent of each.
o Wood and Popp requested additional explanation on
Policy B, and Svart elaborated on its meaning.
Wood amended his motion to include Policy B (Tepedino
seconded) .
The motion was approved unanimously.
6 . Other Business:
f
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 1'
November 29, 1977
Page 7
o Tepedino expressed concern about run-off and flooding prob-
lems in the community, as evidenced by recent rains which
caused high water in the new Merestone Subdivision. He
would like an ordinance explicitly defining the flood plain li
location on all parcels and a run-off control ordinance, per-
haps similar to those of Washington County and Beaverton, re-
quiring on-site retention facilities. The commission set
January 24 as a study session on the subject.
o The Planning Commission meeting on December 20 was cancelled.
7. Adjournment:
i'.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at
12 :05 a.m.
4
is
is
•
• Y sl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard Planning Commission ur ,
FROM: Planning Department nya
SUBJECT: Proposed Growth Management Plan
DATE: - November 17;:_1977
Enclosed are copies of maps which• should prove useful to the
commission in its deliberations on a wide variety of issues and
•
proposals in addition to growth management. The maps available
for your continuing use are:
Existing Land Use
Topography
Floodplain and Wetlands
Existing Vegetation
Also enclosed are: 1) Minutes of the November 3 joint hearing
on a Growth Management Plan, 2) a letter from King City regard-
the proposed Growth Management Plan, letter from property
owner in Area 8 and 4) the Proposed Bull Mountain Interim
Leve?opmen•t Policies. Some copies of the Washington County
Comprehensive Framework Plan (on loan from the county) are
available at Tigard City Hall.
r<,
In view of apparent differences between the Tigard Planning
Commission and Washington County Planning Department on certain .,
elements of a Tigard Growth Management Plan, and also in considera-
tion
g g
tion of additional hearings required before adoption of such a
plan, the city planning commission is meeting separately to
recommend a plan to the City Council and County Planning Com-
mission. At previous meetings of the Planning Commission on H
this subject (October 25 study session and November 3 joint
hearing) , several major points of concern were raised. The f'
following remarks about the citizen committee recommendation
address these issues. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed
Growth Management Plan with changes enumerated later below.
A. The weight of opinion expressed at the November 3 hear-
ins,: called for moving the 1985 and year 2000 boundaries to allow
earlier development of parcels farther out. However;, the strong
consensus of the Citizen Advisory Committee was, it anything, in
favor of even more stringent controls on growth to the point of
page 2
requesting staff to investigate such possibilities. Staff is
convinced that the Citizen Committee, especially selected from
all segments of the community, was much more closely representative
of the general public's feeling about growth management than
were-those speaking at the hearing. The probable discrepancy
between views of the overall community and those vociferously k 3 ` } ,
opposed to the Citizen Committee proposal is a-well understood_ fz� ,
t - aspect of pluralistic democracy. The opinions of those tee- 4 hE
tifying at the hearing certainly require careful consideration, 4
but:the very real existence of a "silent majority" should also Mxls
be acknowledged.
'f H. Staff was requested by a county commissioner to conductY eeeee e
t : a study- of the amount of land actually available by owners for
development. Such an investigation is not within the resources
of the staff to accomplish and, moreover, the very act of doing
the study would be likely to invalidate the findings. It has
been staff's experience that a property owner' s statement that
his land will not be developed in the near future is not a reli-
able guide to his future action. For example, one landowner who
testified on November 3 in opposition to excluding his land from
the Immediate Growth Area testified only six months before in
opposition to allowing development in the same area. The
question of what proportion of smaller parcels of usable land
will actually be available for development is an important one
on which little serious research has been done. However, the
1985 boundary (and year 2000 population capacity figure) rec- -
ommended by the Citizen Committee should provide a more than
sufficient surplus of land required to house the expected pop-
ulation. The area proposed for inclusion within the 1985
boundary could house 2 times the new population expected to
settle here, and the year 2000 boundary could house an extra
2/3 more than is expected after 1985 even if all the 1985 capacity
is already used up. The substantial excess for the 1985 boundary
is due to the convoluted pattern of existing development in the
Tigard area.
C. Encouragement of excessive growth may be a more valid
cause for concern than lack of sufficient space for expected
growth. As pointed out previously by staff, a likely consequence- ,
of adopting growth boundaries with excessive land (relative tl
to the rest of the county) will be faster than expected-growth.
This result would be directly contrary to the general community's
feelings about growth. '?
D. Landowners whose county framework plan designations
be "downzoned" have objected to the decline in the value
of their property. As with any other investment, however, an
t in land entails a risk affected by vicissitudes of
investment la
i by
the market as well as changes in government policies and is a
private decision requiring awareness that the world is always ,g
in a state of flux. The 1973 county framework plan was not cast
in concrete. There have been dramatic and substantial changes
in the factors affecting the value of land on the urban fringe
•
Page 3
of cities around the country as well as in Portland since the
enactment of the framework plan. The gathering energy crisis
is one of the most important. The 1973 framework plan, in
retrospect, can be understood as a very broad brush document.
The current, more detailed, analysis of the framework plan
designations for the Tigard area is permitting a more accurate ea
estimate of the amount of urban land needed by the year 2000
than was possible several years ago. Effective "downzoning"
of parcels, it should also be realized, will result in lower tax
assessments and, in the case of area removed from the Urban ;; ;+
Growth Boundary (2000), removal from the Unified Sewerage
A.'. -•1 y k 1
Agency service area and its tax obligations.
E. Some testimony at the November 3 hearing argued that •
certain parcels were exclused from earlier development despite
roughly similar location to areas included, and that small
parcels were not economically suited for agricultural use.
In an urban fringe area it should be clear that the specific
geographic position of land is of fundamental significance to
its value for urban uses and costs of servicing. The
gradients that should govern suitability for development in
Tigard run east-west on Bull Mountain and north-south in
NPO #6. All other things being equal, parcels to the west and.
south of currently developed areas should have less potential
for development. With regard to smaller lots (1-5 acres) not
�.. being suitable for farming, it is obvious that they are not as
profitable, as larger acreages, but when they are still producing
crops (grain, orchards, etc. ) or are being grazed, they are
generating some net income and are producing a product that would
otherwise have to come from other land. They are in fact ag-
ricultural lands with low profitability, but agricultural all
the same. Moreover, lands receiving an agricultural tax deferral
are intended to remain in agriculture, since legal tax avoidance
is not the purpose of the program: that is, owners of parcels
with tax deferrals should be taken at their word.
F. The policy in the proposed plan which calls for a
two-year review cycle was disparaged at the hearing by reference
to the county framework plan's inclusion of a similar guarantee
which has never been realized. The framework plan does not,
in fact, require a review every two years, but merely includes
a "strategy" calling for an evaluation procedure whose purpose
would be rezoning every two years. The op licy (Immediate
Growth Policy B) in the proposed Growth Management Plan would,
by contrast, have authority to compel periodic re-evaluation.
Page 4
Staff Recommendation:
A. 1985 Immediate Growth Boundary - Staff advises adoption
of the Citizen Committee recommendation contained in the staff
report dated November 3, 1977 with the following changes: eYe
•
s .r
1. Area 8 should remain outside the 1985 Immediate.
Growth Boundary (as recommended in the staff
report) ' because:
a. The land-is not needed to house the expected t7
increase in population to 1985 since consider .
able excess land (225%) already has been :y •
bypassed by urban development, is closer to
the center of the metropolitan region, and
should be provided with urban services first.
Population capacity of this area is greater
than 2800.
b. A considerable part of the area is currently
in agricultural production despite the lower
profitability of farm operations adjacent to
the urban area. Several parcels currently
receive tax deferrals intended to permit con-
tinued farming. The area has almost entirely
Class II soils (with Classes I-IV defined as •
prime for agriculture) .
c. There are 6 undeveloped parcels in excess of 10 "f.
acres (4 in excess of 20 acres, ) totaling
109.75 acres. There are more than 18 parcels
of 3-10 acres in size, aggregating more than
85 acres. Some of this acreage includes flood
plain and most of these lots have homes for
which * acre would need to be subtracted as
unavailable for development. Total buildable
vacant land is 198 acres (see p. 13 of staff
report).
d. Existing residential development consists
mainly of widely spaced homes on multi-acre
lots except for the more concentrated develop-
ments of Royal Mobile Villa, south side of 'i
Graven Street, south end of 108th, and south
end of 113th. Aerial photographs show this
pattern well.
e. Sewer service is now available only on Graven
Street and for Royal Mobile Villa. The Lower
Tualatin Interceptor will probably be con-
structed in 1978 or 1979 (it is currently
awaiting federal funding) but will not divert
existing flows. Construction of Sewer trunks
through the area will depend on development i
north of Durham Road and development potential '
within Area 8.
Page 5
f. Improvement of Durham Road is not dependent on
development in Area 8 since a half street
improvement is not expected.
2. Portions of Area 9 should be included within the
1985 boundary as follows:
a. A small area of incorporated territory was in- -
advertently omitted (on p. 21 of the staff
report) south of Bull Mountain Road at Pacific
Highway.
b. A parcel west of Pacific Highway hwaY and north of
Beef. Bend Road (lot 3900) should be included.
The Tigard City Council has recommended an-
nexation of this parcel. The lot is adjacent
to both the City of Tigard and King City and
can be serviced to city sewer.
c. On the eastern slope north of Bull Mountain
Road, the Edwards and Ames subdivisions and
surrounding smaller lots in Section 10 (lots •
1300 1400, 1500, 1501, 1502, 1600, 1700,
1701) should be designated Immediate Growth
(within 1985 boundary) . The two largest parcels
have already been approved for development,
g so that restricting development on the six
smaller parcels until 1985 would not be equitable.
d. The portion of Area 9 south of Bull Mountain
Road should remain outside the 1985 boundary
as recommended in the staff report. The land
is not needed to house the population increase;
half the area is in agricultural production; the
largest lot has an agricultural tax deferral;
soils are Class III and IV; and a sewer connection
to the Lower Tualatin Interceptor is not ex-
pected for several years.
e. The northwest part of Area 9 should remain
outside the 1985 boundary as recommended in
the staff report. The land is not needed to
house the population increase; all of the largest
parcels, comprising most of the area, are in
farm use and are receiving tax deferrals;
soils are predominantly Class III and IV, with
perhaps 1/3 in Class VI; and parcel sizes are
large, with almost all of the acreage in 9
parcels of 8-40 acres each. Sewer service
could be provided by extension of City lines.
ti; !I
F: Page 6
1
kt 1'
B. Year 2000 Urban Growth Boundary - Staff advises adoption Fes: C
f of the Citizen Committee recommendation for a population capacity
figure (11,128) to be applied once the land use designations for f
Bull Mountain are adopted. Staff believes the land use issue
is being confused with the phased development issue of growth
management. The county staff has greater expertise and is more '
involved with the Bull Mountain land use issue. Close city - ; !
involvement with specific land use controversies on Bull Mountain : r3 e'
would unnecessarily delay city consideration and action on a t <,V, ,,
growth management plan for the entire community. However, the
t. city does have an interest in the outcome of the cour_ty re i;
r decision-making process on Bull Mountain land use designations. :�°� ;l'
1 To provide city input to that process the following additional 1 .
Future Urbanizable Area Policy is recommended: f:I
r
Policy F. The year 2000 Urban Growth Boundary, to be
determined upon resolution of land use designations on
Bull Mountain, shall be based on a population capacity limit t
of 11,128*within the Future Urbanizable Area, and shall bee t;
located so as to preserve the maximum amount of agricultural
land that is feasible. `'`
C. The question of the potential effects of septic tank ,f
developments on Bull Mountain is not one on which the staff can l
provide answers, .and in fact may not be answerable short of 4
actual experience in the future. The county staff, which is ,:
more familiar with this issue, is recommending a 40,000 sq. ft. j.
City staff would prefer f.
minimum (see staff report p. 20) . y P ,
that no developments be allowed until after 1985, since a special ,
Bull Mountain policy is a loophole exception which raises greater ;.
questions about the equitability of the growth management plan.
The county staff' s recommended policy would lessen the threat i`
of future water quality problems and would also help reduce �,
the size of the loophole. Larger lot minimums would also permit
later redevelopment at higher densities if that is desirable.
Staff therefore recommends approval of the county staff' s l;
special policy for Bull Mountain. 1
D. Staff recommends that the General Urban Area Policy F ,,
be strengthened through the following changes:
1. Add "Within the Tigard Growth Management Study t
Area, " before "The county . . . ." s
2. Add "shall enact" in place of "will pursue the
enactment of . . . ." E s
* The population capacity figure comes from the Bull Mountain t
Interim Development Policy citizen recommendation for land uses. x,
It is also based on the assumption that Areas 8 and 9c will be f
outside the 1985 boundary: Adding parts of these two areas to ; '�
the Immediate Growth Area (as recommended in this memo) will 1E) ' �
reduce this 1985-2000 capacity figure accordingly.
t..:
1
tF