Planning Commission Packet - 02/02/1982 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
_ . . _ _
I'
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIQN
FEBRUARY 2, 19'82 -- '7:30 �P.M.
FOWLER JUNI�R HIGH SCHOOL'=- Lecture Room
108h5 SW Walnut, Tigard '
1. Open Meeting
2. Roll Cali
3. Approval of minutes from previous meeting
4. Planning Commission' Comrnuni:cation
5. Public Hearings
5.1 V 1-82 Tigard High School Auditorium NPO ��6
5.2 CU 1-82 Oak Hill Investment Corporation (Color Tile) NP0 �kl
CU 2-82 Oak Hill Investment Corporation (7-11 Store) NP0 �kl
5.3 M 3-81 Unified Sewerage Agency NPO ��7 C P�st`�er+���
5.4 CPR 13-$l The Meadows NPO �F7 ��`�awe.e��
5.5 Conditional Use Standards (Withdrawn)
6. New Business
7. Other Business
Study Session -- M�ir� Street Development Project
8. Adjournment �
� _ _ _
fi;LGARD PLANNING COMMISSIOI�I
REGULAR MEETING MINUTE;S - �'EBRUARX 2, 1�82
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 �vW: Walnut Street - Tigard, Or�gon
' 1. Presid�nt �pedino called the mee�ing to order at 7:35 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Tepedino, Moen, Kolleas, Christen, Herron, Owens, Bonn.
(S�eaker and Helmer were excused)
STAFFe Planning I�irector, Frank Currie; Associate Planner, Elizabe�h Newton;
Associate Planner, Jerem}� Cbursolle; Legal Counsel, Ken Elliott;
�'" Support Services, Diane Jeldexks.
r,
E,• 3, 7l'he minutes �f the January, 12, 1982 meeting were considered. Commissioner
, ,
, Owens noted the s was missinq on her name throughout the minutes. (corrections noted)
,�.
Z�epedino moved for approval of minutes, secQnded by Moen. Motion carrie.c3
unanimously.
4. Cc9MMISSION COMMUNICATIDN:
,� (a) Ghairman �epedino announced �that Public Heari.ng items 5.3 - Unitied Sewerage
Agency; 5.4 - The Meadows and 5.4 - Conditional Use Standards were being
postponPd until �the March 2nd Planning Commission Meeting.
� � � Coursolle�,�
(b) Plan;n.ing Director in�:roduced the newly hired Associate Planner, ,7e?Yenl�i'
� (c) Conomiss�,oner Kolleas informed the Commission she had been questa.oned by the
F' Times inquiring i� she felt the�e wa.s a conflict of interest between �7B Bishop
� ' and Mayor Bishop a�d i.f she had been pressuxec� in any way regarding Main Str.eet
r Land Company's developmer�t.
(d) Chairman 2hpedino coirunented �hat each Commissioner may be contaeted by the press
7..
and cautioned the Commi.ssianers to �kae sensitive and caution in their pub]�ic
statements regarding public heaxing items, as they are govern by the ,Oper,
Hearings Law.
(e) Chairman �pe'dino distributed his letter wri.tten to Jack Ilelson, Mayor, IIeave�cton
regarding modification o� the flaoc�plain. Included were the respoz�aes froA�n
Mayor F�lsc�n and Christopher Bow�.es, City Engineer, assuring Chai.rman �pedino
this modifiaation would have no negative ef£ect on Tigard.
�t) Chzirman �pedino a.nquired if Staff could give status of �e Urban Renewal
Agency - I)owntown Tigard Revital:iza�ion descr.i,bing boundara:es ari.d the e�feCt
on shops wi£ha.n that area; Planning Director 'r.oughly deseribed the baundaries
and the creation c�f the Urban Renewal Age�.oy, �Ie state8 Tax Increment Financing
would be c�osng t� the vote of the penple. Invited concerned citizens to
come to City Hall in order �o go into anor� detail.
(g) J. Allan Paterson state�, there was only a sma11 amount of Tax Increment
Financing available which would only finance a little bit o� planning. P.s
of �this time nothing has been decided as to what will happen to property
within the revitaliza�ian area. Ea�plained how Tax Increment Finanaing would
af£ect a business that ��anaea and have no affeCt on a business that was
already imp�ov�d ta 100 per cent.
Planning Cammission Minutes
F'ebruary 2, 1982
Yag� 2
5. Chairman �peda,no opened �the PUBLIC I3EARING by read.i.ng the usual statemerit of
autharity for an�l procedure to Y>e followed in the meeting.
5.l UAFcIANCE V 1--82 Tigard HigYi Sch.00l Auditorium NPO # 6
A request for a 27-foot va.riance for section 18.20.1Q0 of ttae 7,oning Ordinance
to allow for a maximtun 57-foot high addition to the Hi.gh Schc�dl.
(a) Staff Report was read by Associate Planner, Newton.
(b) Ni�O Rr,PORT - Phillip A. Pastexis, Chairman� NPO # 6 stated that NPO # 6 had
reviewed this project on �Januaxy 21, 1y82 with applicant and su�pnrt�d the
approval of this variance. He r�commendec7 that speciPic evaluation criteria
be develo�ed which c�rould address special exceptions such as Schools and
Hospital facilities in :a residential zone.
(c) APPLICANTS PRESENTATION - Chuck Selig, 5elig/Henslee Architects, statedthe problem
was a serious one as the design of the auditor,ium was a standard design in
relation to High School Audito:riums in surrounc3ing areas. The height was not
a caprice of their offiee but simply a projection of the requirements of whatr.is
going on inside the building. If this variance was not approved it would
sevexely limit the type of performance that could be presented on stageo
He stated the're was not any Iiigh School Auditorium in tl�e State that would be
able to mee� the height restriction imposed by the Tigard Mu,nici�al Code anc�
requested the Plann.ing Cammission approve this Variance.
(d) PUBI�IC 'I'ESTIMONY
� Harris Hansen, 10610 S.W. Derry Dell, member of Tie�ard SGhaol Board stated
this auditorium has been proposed for a long time. The auditorium was approved
the second time i� was put on the ballot, showing L-he people of the Community
want this auc7i�torium. The Tigard Chamber of Commerce endorsed this partic;ular
auditorium. Iyiore impertant is �chat it is a complete faci].ity that will fit
in with City of Tigard and can be used for other groups. Mr, Hansen fel�t it
was impor�ant to have the height to make it a first class auditorium.
(e) COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
� • Commi�sianPr Maen ques�ioned Se1ig regardimg setting the b�xilding in the �
ground; Se].ig expZained because of the swamp type soil ronditions this would
not bE poss,ibJ„e. A.Zs�, if they weze able to inset int� the groeuid thez� �he
old stage would not match with the fl,00r in the new auclitc�rium.
• Commissioner Kolleas acknowle dged in the past the Comm3.ssion has }.�een ver�� I!
�t�ict with variances, however, f�1.t the facility was needed an d had no
problem vaitla height requirement,
• Commission�r Tierran commen�Fed that tt�te Community r,aould rnaZly� benefit from
tt�.is faci.lity and f�lt some allowance should be made for some cc�nditions.
� Comirassioner Ban,n guestioned if 5chool was there prior to zonirig; Staff replied
the zone was sizni�ar to what the County had used for this particular ar?a. Bonn
�was also r.oncerned Hrhen speci�ic evaluation �rXteria, whieh would ac�dre�s
spe�.a.a1 e�ceptinns, wpuld be atia.ilable; Staff stated this would be upcoming in
March.
.
■ - ---
PLAI3NING COMMISSION MINUT�,S
FEBRUARX 2, 1982
Page 3
� Gommissioner Moen s�id there:v.ras no douibt that the City neerled the facility, '
� howevEr, the Commission has been given ,explicat criteria for gxanting varianees
and have previously follo�wed 'them. He felt the Commission would be setting
a precedent if they approveci `r,his varian.ce, ��en though he felt this variance
should be approved, it shouid be done at the City Council level.
• Commissioner owens has no problem with the height, ho�aever, we do have criteria ��
for variances and she was not sure if this project dcesn't already meet
tilat criteria. She asked legal CQUnsel i� he could clarify; Legal Counsal
stated, we have 'a criteria to meet and should nat be swayed by the need of
� the Community. We must comply with the ordinance we have, even though Staff
is wo�king on specific conditionf=l use standards which may be adopted in �e
future, we have 'to deal with v,rhat is before us now.
• Commissioner Christen stated he lived in the area and would have no problem
,
living with the variance.
• Chairman Tepedino descz;ibed tizis as a tough case to decide. While the
auditori:um is beneficial for the public of Tigard, the variance requirements
were not being met, Even if we were to stretch and pull the variance ciiteria
to pass this variance, what happens next week? He would prefer� to see the
variance ordinance modified in such a way to allow these kinds of puk�lic
beneficial pr�jects, instead of sa�ing i�s there when in actuality it is not.
• Cnmmissioner Bonn noted a building permit was being re.�uested and wanted to
know time fram� for the modification of the criteria of thE varianeP; Associate
Planner Coursolle replied modification wauld be presented at the March 2nd Planning ;
Meeting then forwarded fnr a public hearing. Pl.anning Dixector commented this
could lae a public hearing at the City Council levei.
• Comma.ssioner Moen questioned T�egal Counsel if the City Cauncil would havP to
operate under the same restraints as tYie Planning Commission; Legal Counsel
stated City Counci"1 would be obliged to follow the same criteria. Council
wou�.d have to change the ordinance before a public hearing prior to setting
and following new cri.teria,
� Commissioner Owens questioned if there was any way they coul,d approve this
variance, taking into consideration tha�t not all f.our conditions were }aeing
� met t� the letter of the law, as a one �ti:me onl.yp C�mmzssioners agxeed a one
time shot �ou�� no� 2�e don�. O-we�s cont,inueeio }:�cause of the absence of an
o�3inance to cover thi.s particular sitiiation, the Commission is regulated by
the ordinance that defines building requirernents in � residential zone.
� Chairmari ��edinc� asked applican� �aha��. impact a delay in -the apgro�ral of the
v�riance would have on the constr_uction schedulA; Selig r.eplied the bids were
being received tomarrow evening 8:00 PoM. and taitYa successtul bi.dding within
the budget a contract cc�uld be awarded in one v�nk, The conta��or aould be
on s,ite :i:n �ive days, ThEre is a possibility of hol.ding the bids for 30 days
befdre con�ractors can withd:raw bids, ox sign a contract with a delayed star.ting
date, Ho�,vever, #:Mis would affect the completion date and may ca�use �he contz;a.ctor
�o ask for an extension.
_
PLANNT..�IG COMMISSION MZNUTES
F�BRUARY� 2, 1982
PAGE 4
• Co�nmi.ssioner Qweris q,uestioned cunclusion number one regar3ingo "no exceptional
or extraordina,ry conai�ians apply to the ,g,roper�y", �ahat abou� the �vater
level being to high to lawer the b�uilding? Discussion followed among
Commissioners, Staff and Lega1 Counsel regarding regulatians and the conclusi:ons
in tk�e Staff Re�ort.
• Commissioner Bonn MOVED to deny variance V 1-82 per the policies, canelusians
and recommendatinn of the Planning Deparfiment; then x�e�er this application
to City Council �or their review, especially in light of the pxoposed changes
in the conditional use criteria. Chairman Tepedino seconded ths .m�tion and
asked tor turthsr discuss.ian fram the Commissioners,
o Commissioner M�en commented that he felt this would be better addressed at the
Ci:ty Council Tevel.
• Commissioner Owens expressed her concern for the e�fect the delay would have
on the construction.
• Commissioner Herron question how long before t.his issue would appear before
City Council; Planning Directnr replied February 22nd, Furthex discussion
followed rega;.r.ding the time elenent involved,
� Ck�airman Te,pedino called for the question, division of the house was called,
Tepedino, aye; Moen, aye; Kolleas, abstain; Christen, n.ay; Herron, abstain;
Owens, nay; ftonn, aye.
MOTION FAILED 3 ayes - 2 nays - 2 abstaining
• Discussion �allowed between Comznissioners �or ather possible motions.
w Commissioner Owens MOVED for approval oi a 27 �t, variance to allow for a
' 57 f�t. high addition to the High School, with new findings ot fact as follows:
1 - With reference t�a the water table, that exceptional or extraordinary
conditions does apply to this property which does na',�� apply to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity. '
2 - Fa.cts relating to the timing o.f the bids and the ne€:d for this type of
construction.
3 - N
PO # 6 has declared this would not be conside�ed injurious.
4 - They are not requesting anything beyond their needs to allevia�e
�tnis hardship,
Motion seconded by Christen
• CY�ai�-man '�epedino called fnr further discussion,
• Legal Counsel presented two facto7s he felt the Commissioners slacsuld considFr.
Firs�, he was not sure if the ;recax.ds sh.awed tha� the excaptional and
extxaordinary condition U� #�he water �ab7.e did not app�y to other praperty
in that viainitye Secon d, in re�erence to preservation of a property right,
he cautioned �hat the bidding, timing az�d awarding of contract is arucial,
but are circumstances crea;ted by the appla.cant and �:re not necessary for. the �
presexvation of a property right,
f
i
� �I
I
i
� _ _ __-_ _
PLAN�IING-COI�IMTSSII�N A'IINtTTES
February 2, 1982 �
PAGE 5
s Commissianer Owens commented that while the water table may be high for
surroundin� p.roperties, na �ne else needed to build this type of s�.r.urt;�:i;.r.e
or need to g� that far undergr�unrl. Number two they need. the.building height
to get a fly gallery anzi this specific purpose would not be able to hap,pen
if this variance is not a17.owed. Therefore, isn't there a. property right
becaus� this has been a school site and a schonl site has an auditorium?
• Further discussion followed. among Commissioners regarding conclusions, the
proper procedures to follow in processing this application and effects it
will have in the future,
s Chairman �pedino ca].led for tlze question, division of the house was called.
Tepedino, nay; Moen, nay; Kolleas, nay; C�hristen, aye; Herron, abstain;
Owens, aye; Bonn, nay.
o MOTION FAILEA 4 nays - 2 ayes - �: abstaining
• Commissioner Moen MOVED to forward �lariance V 1-82 to City Council with
records of the Planning Gommissian comments azrd concerns, Commissioner
Bonn seconded th.e lnotion,
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
IRacess 8:45 F.M.
Heconvene $�5•2 P.:M.
5.2 CQNDITIONAL IISE - CU 1-82 anc� CU 2-82 Oak Hi11 2nvestment Corp. NPO # 1
A request for appraval of a Conditional Use Permit to allaw for the construction
of a retail �tzt�let and a convenience grocery �tore on the site.
(a) Staff Report was read by Associate Planner, Coursolle.
(b) NPO REPORT - No report was submitted and no one appeared to speak.
(c) APPT.ICANTS PRESENTATION - Mark Larson, Oak Hill Investment Corporation,
reconfirmed the Staff Report that the Conditional Use ap�lic:ation is in
direct con�ormance with the adopted Comprehensive P1an and the IJPO Land
�7se designatione
(d) 1'UBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeare�3 ta speak.
(e) COMMTS5ION' DTSCUS5IpN AND ACTION:
o Commi�ea.caner Moen questi�ner3 Staff regarding parking situation; Asspci.ate
Planner, Coursolle replied that the applicant had twice as many parking spaces
as were necessary. Moen conti:nued tha� he had no problems with the type of
businesaes, however, he was concerned with ela.minating access on Hall Blvd.
• Discussion follo�,red between Commissi.oners, Sta�'f ancl A�p�.icant r�gar�ding
traffic circula�.ion and access.
PLEINNING CGMMTSSTON MINiJTES
FEBRUARX 2, 19$2
P1�GE 6
• Commissi�ner Moen MOVED for approval of CU 1-$2. and GU 2-82 for Oak Hi11
Inve�tment based on Staff Finding and Recommendations; Item 1. The landscape
p"lans be submitted and appxc,ved prior to issuance of building perm9.ts.
Item 2. A �raffi.c czrculation plan shall be submitted and appzoved prior to '
the issuance of build3.ng permits on site. Also, the .proposed Hall Blvd.
access be eliminated leaving one access �orn� from the 7-11 si'te via the
existing ac�ESS::road, if possible. Motion secondec3 b� ChristPn.
• Coznmissioner Sonn i:nquized if thexe was a�y wor_k necessary on Hal]. Slt�c3;
` Planning Director state�3 there may be and would be nandled by the Site
Design Review.
• Discussion followed regarding tr�ffie access among the Commissioners and Staff,
• MOTION CARRIED, U.NANTMOUSLY
i-
PUBLIC HEARINGS CLQSED
9:05 P.M,
STUDY SESSION - Ma�n Street Land Co.
• Chairma.n Tepediro r�quested the presentation be kep� to 30 minutes, then called
upon JB Bishop.
• JB Bishop, Main Street Land Co, , distributed to the Commissione�s �nd Staff,
Blueprint of site shawing pro�,nsed design; A request lett�r. to PZanning Director
from JB requesting Commission time; Letter fram Western Oregon, Ma:rine, 1.esee and
JB, lessor regarding tax lot 1300; A capy of the Summaxy Repart for powntown Tigard
Revita�,izatian,
Mr, Bishap in�roduce� cwo of his Staff inembers, Bob Allan, CH2M Hill, wh� would be
able �o answer any qu�:,�tions r.egarding tr.affia and Dave L'arson, CH2M HilZ, who would
be able �to answer questions on hydrology, Civil Enginaering or floodplain. 2'he
Project Architect, Dennis Brun, Brun/Moreland/Christopher, �lrchitects was �xesent to
discuss the coneept and rationale of the design plan. Mx. Bishop �xpressed his
ap�reciation for the time the Cammissa.on is giving this project, th�� turnec� the li
p�esent,ation over to Dennis Bxun. !�
s Denna.s Brun, Arck�a.tec�, stat�d they had k>een following the Downtows� T.igard Revitaliz-
atior� Plan ar,d noted that �he Plan ca�led far a Shoppi.ng (;ez�ter ±o he used as a
anchor �or �khe South end of Downtown Tigard, He continued by describing the difficulty
o� working with this partiaular site, While putta.ng this design togsther the goals
they w�r� �rying to achi�ve were:
1. Make c�eaigaa at;trative and leasable to tenants.
2. � k,e able to att.ract top tenants,
3. Develop center v�rhi�h would fit tYae Gammunity imaqe.
3. Wanted a �bwn Squa.r.e quality, not a typical strip cen�er,
4
Mr. Brun, explained a.nd showed diagxamu of thP proposed plan and surrounding areas. :
He explained approximately 22� of the site i.s landscaped or c�pen space, The major
chang�e they woulcl be making to the property was oreating a l.ake and �'illing in a
pdrtion af tn� flooc3�laYn.
� ;;,
yi
PLANNTNG COMMISSION MTNUTES �'
�EBRUAR� . 2, 1982 �
PAGE 7
,,��
,r:
'{.
o Dis�ussion foll�wed b�tween Commas�a.oners and Applicant r�garding tratfic flow "'`'
ancl parking con�ic�ratior�, ,`
• Chairman �epedino �skady'�applicant to again address issues of traf�'ic circulation �k`
and invasion of �1�e floodplain; Mr. Brun outlined �the tra£fic f�.ow. Tie sta�ed '
r�
the int�u,sion aC'curs in tv�o �,tays; 1.) By providing for some parking in th� :
�loodplain and 2) Pla�e:in� tlae r�st.rauiat in th.e techni�ai boundary. of tlie floodplain ��
� ���
a�nd c�anging the floodplain'by creating a lake/pond '(depfih. 4 to 7� ft, dePp) .
s Discussion followed betwe�!n,applicant and Commissioners identifying the floodplain
i.n rel.acion' to', the project, Chairman �pedino �uggeste�d applican!t provti.de some
type af overlay so floodplain could b� easily identified. Tie r.ontinued by
informing the applicant that the two major concerns.�o� the Gommission were traffic '�,:
and the floodplain. Appl'xcant should be well �repaxed to answer thes:e issues in
a��tr►:
:,:J
• Mr. Bscun summarized that the City c3oes rieed this center, th��t it is vexy important ��;;
to the Revitalization Pl.an, There is no other land available in thi� area. ^`he ��
ro ect fits within the fabric and character of this community and because of the `�'
P 7
limitations an the site this desi:gn is the best solution. ,S
,..,,
�`I
• Commissioners MoPn and Bonn commented they felt this was one of the nicest designs
the had seen
Y
Meeting At��ourned 10:0p P,M. +
� � �,;i
. . � . � . . . . ...�_�.�.h
, r/`tT �
��� 7J
�
�
�
��?c��,�'� � -- ��
� �
�?.� �'2�- �''�
��
r��� �� � ..
��� �
�,-� ���-
�n,�c,�:�. �1�'r�� � ��
��r�� ��'
�
�} _
, : �
, _ . . _.
`
pI,P,NI�ING COMMISSION ROLL CALL
MEETING r1/� ��
�l
Date � v�' �4�
v/ �Q�
Frank Tepedino_ � �, ��'"��C-�`""`�
`, J
Cliftord SpEake
�
Don Moen
I �
Geral
dine Kolleas
����9���
j � Mark Chzi.sten G�
�v
�'' Susan Iierronr_______
. Richard Helmer �1J
� �
'e Owend . �
� Ronna.
gQy Bonn
�
TIGl�RD PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRIJARY 2, 1982 7�30 P.M.
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
'10�365 SW Walnut Street, Tigard
PUBLIC HEARINGS I
5.1 Variance U 1-82 Tigard High Schaol Auditorium NFO ��7
!� request� for a variance to the hei�ht requirement for construction of
alz auditorium as an addition to the existing high school complex.
Tax Map 2S1 14A Tax Lot 100
5.2 Conditional Use GU 1-82 (Color Tile) Oak Hill Investment Corp, NPO ��1
A request to open a Color Tile Store in a C-3 General Commercial Zone:
Tax :Map 2S1 2AA Tax Lot 60'0
Conditional Use G`U 2-82` (7-11 Store) Oak Hill In�vestment Corp. NPO ��l
A request to open a 7-11 convenience store in a C-3 General Commercial
Zone. Tax Map 2S1 2AA Tax Lot 600
5.3 Sensitive 'Lands Permit M 3-81 Unified Sewerage Agency NPO �k7 (���n��,>
A request for a Sensitive Lands Permit review to allow for the installation
of an underground sanitary sewer line from SeW. Tiedeman West to 121st
Avenue. Tax Ma� 2S1 3AA Tax Lots 100 and 101, Tax Map 2S1 3AB Tax Lots
100 and 300, Tax Txap 1Sl 34DC Tax L�ts 3Ei01, 3602, 3500 arld 1200, Tax
Map 1S1 34CD Tar. Lots 100 and 120�
5.4 General Plan Review CPR 13-81 (The Meadows) NPO ��7 �Pc���o n�� J
A r;equest k�y Bruce Kamhoot for a General P1.an Review of the Meadows,
a 27 .lot subdivision. Tax Map 34DA Tax Lot 2h00
5.5 Gonda.rional Us� Standards (WITHDRAWN)
, ;
C : --_ _ _ - -
' ' DATE� �"�f � O�
T Af�,O �M1MOtf1 �t►1'1M'l��l�l'�
� �
s t�i0a �1P 'S�LE:�"'
NOTxCF a ALI. PERSONS DESIRING 'r0 SPEAK ON d1NY ITEM MUST STGN THEIP, NANiE !:
_ �
and notF their address, on this �heet.: (please Print your n�.me)
�` � ITEN/bESCRIPTI�JN:��'���'�
���r�'�� .���`
� �_�__ __.=_��Z �����_
�ROPONENT (Fo.rj OPPONENT (against�
Name, Address ' and Affil.iation Name, Addr�ss anc� Af�iliation
�... ,�1
�f-, � t'� �- C�
���� ����
�.
__-- �
�'L-�,•vv-vV
M
�/�/t��'t-2 '^� ' �"''� � ✓�-�'� �(�--
,,,
ti
.
�
�
. I I
�
r
_ . ,
� _ __ _
DATE �•� � �
T=G�FtD PLAIVNING CU�ISSION SIGN U'P Sl'3EE? �-�
1`OTICr.; ALI� PEk2SONS DES3I�TI�7G PU SPEAK ON �1NY ITEi2 riusx SIGN THE�F. NAbiE
�
and note their addrass on thi.s sheet, (Please Print your name)
ITENI�bESCRIPTION: �� � � "'8,�
�
.�
�u. �n ut�?����►'_ l�� � -�Z� � �
� ��,- -��..�.r��.�� �._��e���
� C.�3 e��nE��� �n►+rnn��,a�� Z.o��.,
PROPONENT (For) �PPON�u�T (againstj
Name, Address and Af�iliation � Name, Addr�ss and A��iliation
.
PTOTICE : ALE, PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY I^lEbf biUST SIGN TFIETF? AiA6iF
and note t2-��i� address on thi.s sheet. (please Print your name)
ITEr1�bESCRIPTION:_ ���,� � �'^� _
_� I�t�.. .�:.��v�r�E�r- �G�_�-/
. ���� � L'Ult�i�A��.►� _
-- - f� � �, ,
. '���� ��a��, a���.. .
PROPONENT (F�r) OPPON-ENT (�gainst)
tVaxcie, Address and A��iliatian � Nam�, AddrESS and Af�ila.ation
� �
.
� -----_
.
.
---' -----------.�.._ �_w.. _ .
� _ _ ----
DATE
TIGARD PLANNING COMMIS�ION SIGN TJP SH��'I" �
�OTICE: ALL FEkSONS DESIFexNG 'IO SPEAiZ ON TiNY ITEi+I MUST S?�GN TFIE:IP. NAt+I�
i
and note thpir address cn this sheet. (Please Print your name)
•
ITEM/bESCRIP,TION:�
�� � —����-� r
7
PRO�ONENT (For) OPPONENT (against�
Name, Address and AFfiliation � Name, Address and A��iliation
_
.
.
,
i
NOTICE: ALI. PERSOlVS DESIRING TO SPEAI� ON ANY ITEbi DiUST STGIJ THETR IvA6iE
and note �hnir ad.dress on this sheet. (please Px�int your name)
ITEM/bESCRIP�'ION: ���� � � '�"'� �
�I --� �-rs�- -------�
� +
PROPONENT (For) O�'POiVENT (againsta
Name, Address and Affiliation � Nam�, Address and Xffiliati.�n.
;
!
I
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5.1
TIGARU PLANNING CONII�IISSION
February 2, 1g82 - 7:30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High -- Lecture Room
10865 SW Walntat Street, Tigard
January 25, 1g82
No subrnission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this
Public Heai�ing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this
occur, unrequested, the item will be tabled until. the following hearing.
A. FACTS:
General Information
Case: Variance V-1-82 (Tigard High School) NPO ��b
Applicant: Tigard Sehool District (23J) Owner: same
13137 SW Pacific Highway
Tigard, Oregon g7223
Location: 9000 S.W. Durham Road, Washington County Assessor
Map �� 25-1-14A, Tax Lot lU0 (Attachment "A")
Present Zone Designation: R-30 (Single Family Residential)
Hequest: The applicant is requesting a 27-foot �rariance for Section
18.20.100 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a maximum
57-foot high addition to the high school. (Attachment "B")
Notices Mailed: January 21, 1g82 - 9 mailed
Backgi°ound: On October 7, 1g81, the Planning Director approved a site
design review (SDR-27-81) for the auditorium.
On January 21, 1982, the NPO �k6 members met with the
applicants architect to discuss the proposed r�equest.
B. APPLTCABLE PLANNING POLICIES:
Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.76.020: "No varianc� shall be granted
by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following
conditions exist;
l, Fxceptional ar extraordinary conditions applying to the prope.rty
that clo not apply gPnerally to other properties in the same zone or
vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography,
ar other circumstances aver which the applicant has no control.
?_. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right
of the applicant substantially the same as �ossessed by owners of other
property in the same zone or vicinity.
STAFF REPORT
Variance V-1-82
Page 2
3. The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental
to the purpose of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or
vicinity in which the �roperty is located, or be otherwise detrimental to
the objectives of any cit,y development plan or policy.
4. Ths variance requested is the mininv�m from the provisions and standards
of this title which will alleviate the hardship".
C. CONCLUSION:
The applicant's request daes not meet all the requirements of the ordinance:
1. Staff finds that there are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions
that generally apply to the property as a resul.t of the property, size or
topography. However, there are circumstailces over which the applicant has
no control. The applicant states that when the high school cafeteria,
which is directly to the south of the proposed auditorium, was constructed
in 1966, it was originally planned that the cafeteria stage would be used
as the stage for the new auditorium. Since the original stage was con-
structed, the building standards have changed, and consequently, the
existing stage facilities would not function according to the school's
neec�s. These needs would include a stage area of 57 feet in height to
accommndate a fly gallery and other stage related apparatus. The auditorium
proper is proposed at 39-feet to accommodate proper accoustics and lighting
systems.
2. Staff does not believe that the variance request is necessary for the
preservation of a property right. Just �s other property owners within the
vicinity have bui'lt their structures to within the height limitation, the
applicant could construct an auditorium on the school site within the
height requirements without effect9_ng their rights to use the property as
a school facility.
3. According to the intent of the height requirements, the variance request
would be materially detrimented to the purposes of the ordinance. The
existing height limitations were intended to maintain a uniform height and
privacy for individual property owners within the single family residential
zones.
St�ff dc�es not believe �hat the proposed var5_ance request will be injurious
to property owners in the area. The NPO ��6 members met with the applicant's ',
architect to discuss the proposal. After reviewing the design and other I
alternatives of the proposed auditorium, Y,he NPQ �k6 members stated that they '
had no objections to the proposed structure and requested variance.
4. At the present time, no structure exists on the site and therefore,
the proposal for the auditorium does not create a hardship related to the
existing standards in the z�ning ordinance. A hardslzip, for example, would
constitute the taking of land. Theref.ore, there is not a minimum variance
riecessary.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Since the proposed vari�nce request does not meet all of the criteria
stated in Section 18.76.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends that
. _
�,
STAFF REPORT
Uar�.ance V-1-82 :
Pa,�e 2 ,
the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. If, however, the
Pl.anning Commission finds that the requested varianc� i.s appropriate,
approval slzould be subject to the following conditions;
l. A detailed landscape plan, including s'ize and type of plant materials
to be used sha'll be submitted concurrent with any building permit for
the auditorium.
2. Gonditions l-9 for case SDR-27-81 (Tigard High School - Site Design
Review) shall apply.
3. No building perm�,ts for the auditorium shall be issued untii the ex-
piration of the fifteen (15J day appeal period- from the date of approval,
pursuant to Ordinance $2-0'1 (P.dministrative Proeedures) .
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Under Section 18.20.020 of the Zoning Ordinance schools are permitted in
residentiaT areas if a Conditional Use pertnitted is approved by the Planning
Commisison. However,- the existing Conditional Use section of the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 18,72) does not have any criteria in which to adequately
evaluate the proposed use. It was staff's directive to the applicant to
applv for a variance on the height requirements of the single family resi-
dential zone.
To facilitate the Conditional Use process, staff is proposin� specific
evaluation criteria which will address speciai exceptions, such as school
facilities in residential zones.
� '
�� ��� :
Prepared by Jere Coursolle � Approved by Frank A. Currie
Asso iate Planner Public Works Director
�
_. _. .,.. .� ._ , , _ .. . __.. _ _�
..L_ e{.
�
;..,
.
.;_..........�.,............�-M,.,..,,�.,.....;_.:,w....,.�,.�,r,..�....._„..,�,::r:�,..�..,...,...,,.�....E..,wP.a.,..+.�....�.... ,.
` ' " � e►fch low i� m�d� �ol�ly for 4� purpos�oi�uisfirug in ioc�efinq wid p►emiws �nd ftie Comp�ny aasumes .,� •
no Ii�b�iP�r fo►v�ri�f+ons, if.rny, in dimen�ions snd�0ocr/ion es�e.i.��sd br o�e�.l su�•y. ,
� . ,
� , ' . Pioneer Nrdioeir!'I'it3e it�enveoe Gampu�y , `�
� Tltle snd Tnl'at Divlaton � '
� '� �
T a ' fc y
� � ����,�� �, � �� , � �� � , � -� �� -� � -� r 4� ; . .
H*�, >° t, � r' ' ' , ri. � ;.
,i �:h��'�ttr±� �.5y' i '�.!'�1 �,i�• ' � �t.;.. ._� � . ,�� t � �7' .. 5 .. �� '� t �xa ;,� r y.��l �..
�M,,,�{��'=NN'��F':I7��j-��t t'��� �1 • . . .. ` ' I 1y � �A l }f� �.� �� � � 1':, � ; ,�! � �y]tyA�.
�P �� ( 7h �ri�.��a�s'{j . � ' � - � � 1 'ti� ; ��,} � �-d� �•O�'." r..x� y_,�t �.��� f � Nt;g
��x.a��'�iy�� ��{��..��,/yF'� w�Ari@r)�}�.`�� �t� "yi�y � 1 r� 8 .�3 � ,�b ��dll
F �M1`�f 1 y R'��'� � �PI t'� ' � ��7�0.0 . � ) � � ,`I ! .J ' ' ' , . 4 �
�' tr,.lu��v�(� s�.,�.f m y d�tt�'!Y•ajI' '��' .. , . �±'1 � : t� h," r , . . , . �.,�t �' ��'��,r��J(
. . �'r -�. +Y y� .`i�;S
�f�µ������'��IBI f{'F1'f� ;i' i:� T w :t :i ' t�ti� ��a� CA;.R(I ' � �` r'h'���y 'e��i�+'�
y i x >4'
lt�L� • vy1,S*.'Tf �� f '.�� ` (' , . . � _ ` A� I�• .`1���I.,,m �. . . � .� A ` ! �tSl (�(, `,`� � ��.
L t �
�`^I i 'L t�a✓�#+� � !�tYj{ �f�� � �.; „-, �. . a� , �. �-. ."�� �.hx4 �'` r��
� � f i � '4 �.�J � 7 .
�f l��ru��� j,Ia��^�yr''�� "�S �. � !��<. � ' ` a . � i �,� .,��,,,� +
M� 1 y.� .� ��f�. � � r�� h . . .. �. k, . . 7 r' . . ' . _ f
�'�M � Y �i� . � . . .
y�'�x :t 4r ryi y�+;, • . , ' .'�� . * tt �' . 1�� , s �� , ��1��..
�j Y a� tl f fr, f " . . . . , : . :.
�4 � � ' � . . - r ';� � , . . • f.xir nYi fF���t,e�
R`wt'� j is r� 4 ,6y.j 1 . . w .. � � � , .. . � !i� tiY TA r A
�°�t'l14f4!1i'YR����Yr:fi ,.,L . . .. ; .. � �- � � ^': � - •� , , �:� ���
u.� . . .. . , .1,�� .;� r'l f ;o .t...�....�..r.. �a 'G � 5 y7���,�i
�.iv�v/��� { ��r�\.�� � t �+., r��
� . ��� �
,! . . . _-�.. ��•�r...,_� 1,;�,.Yw'�...�{.,_
, . . . . . � • . • i ' . . , . � . :t�
� . � - . � . � . , � . .��r .��L
, R . , y ,
t � � � � _ . . � � • 45�!�� h�
t L
� � ' ' . ' �. . ;y �;�y
. t)L t+e, � 1
st i�• woo � .:' `r�'
"u�, lCMO�I �NO ! � � � � , .aS's�i �{�.�„i- i
� s �r,�7 �' � �
(�0 � h
t_. . . . . . . � � . :i: � 2e�,t9t A��.
, /O.f�Ik , � �t?,:
��� . • ' ' �1�� 4� ...�,y
. . ' . . , ft�'t .�Yi:M1i$ � f:i
'' . ' i : 4z'`� '� ;
. : � ( r k r,�:�$-A.�1 i
` ,, • ., . . , � . J� Y r���� tytW�HK:`��.�y �;} ��.
(,1 �
{ . •. , ' ' � ' . o � t.Xt'�'�'ft,P�A R
. . . �t 74a$#�-��_,
. o e �s�f's�,��;,i��.
�� ' , o ` ,;,.y,���.r�
' .4::� t i �i ar�r''3't
. � , ' • _ �s 1�+,+ s��'+�Si
� . � s � � , �i�;r t+�'s,'r�
, .� Y a � « • �� ` �-�3;��� ,
� .�y:�' y y�4�t*. r
� ' � � � p S M h ft�'�'!F,'� rtS r��
h i� i�Y..in 7 vu.,_ � ) ' ' _,
� ?+ . . . . .. .. _ . . , k ����7 t��..
� , { 1` ,1-'1 �00� r d� � rtx p
� �`�r�� � ` � _... �• 1 . :( �lJAS� �,� j i ,c{��k§"�a��",y`"i
.t y.. ,... �:�.s , .. ,,. • . � ,r,.._..-,,. �,..._. � ,- . .... .} .. ,,. .._� .. .... .. � -, .. �:.. .,�<,«:��.�.���+ ��f ro.p:"..n�3�-`�`-;�2 . �N
' r . .''!A' � ,. . , '" � }��M 1S Sr�� .
x. � � � � . M� . � � AL�'�iij.�jjQ�4.:1�)� �..i'
. �, �- ����
�d��Y�r�}a�� s, ,r
y ti�. �, � , . . ' � �Grr!'�',� P� �, �i
� •�1/� R0�1 � ��'� �s
� .� � ` '' . �;��. ;rii�,�:
,�
s� +';�, r N t.
� ',� . 1200 ��"`,t��,'�' `�� ,� �
•.�.��� . '��� ��'���^ ��� ��
�,"'4 :� � 1'�.'�AP. , } v µy��':.
� ' � w " � .� , '�,
�� r� , i . `
k . M . � • . r }t '�� � �"
�� j t� ` . ' � a ��E��?! Y9�� ��
r '� � '.� ,� :,� 3r�� !��
� i � • � ' , � ,ri�,���+ac��t '
� �{ f . , ' � w , / , � , ,: ! ;�,`�`�r�;�:''��'r iy;
�:� ,, a . � ���,
� �� : ��,� � ;
� ,� .,
�
» '�Y� ' � in�� �;
�
� e` � A s ' i�e���43iq
. . �.:'tA r ��o.:� �' e�:.a�•. ., ., : x,.{ '�4��L���,��,{ ,.
r �- , � � r�
k :
��-'�'��'�.� tl a.` . - ,<' �'`x�'� ��.�
r � , � � •�:c:t.�i.��L�il���,J
f�d� � � �• � , i 3 00 � � � .
z ,�� �, � a`` ��.�o�r. �,
X� h, `�• : , � � ,; ' , * � ATTACHT�lENT ��A�� ,�
,z'� �
}Y � V.: �, .� I �r � :.� .' .. ,•F, � _ .... . ... . . . . � ..
�..�1► t��7� � . . I 1 '4'i:fi"�{�� ���w+: . . . . f..�'. 4.+ .�h!Y�� y¢�7:�'F,gr;S•�..
•�:
� . . . . . � .. . ... . . . ._.:. .. ... . ._ .
i
��
SELIG / HENSLE�
Architcct.5 c�a�c�Pl��iatiers
� � 213�szv As1�Str•eet,Pa�t•laric�,Oregon�97204�
Teleplione:(503)224-0173
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO TI�;ARD PLANNING GROlJP
In Ma� of 1981, voters of the Tigard School District passed a 6.8 million dollar
bond issue. Included in this�amount were funds for a new Auditorium for Tigard
High School . This facility, designed to seat 600, in addition to expanding the
educational opportunities at the High School , will provide for all the citizens
of the Tigard area a fine arts facility that they do not have at this time.
The new Awditorium is to be located �djacent to the existing cafeteria building.
This locatiorr has been identified by School District planners since the mid 60's
as the location for the new Auditorium. When the new cafeteria building was built
in 1966, a number of facilities were incor�porated in that structure to be later
used to swpport the new Auditorium. It was originally planned the cafeteria stage
could be used as the stage to the new Auditorium. Relating it to present-day
standards indicates it is Sadiy defici�nt and a new stage is being planned.
The existing stage will , however, be used as the sCene shop and drama classroom for
the new facility.
Two portions �f the new Auditorium exceed the 35 ft. height limitation. They are
� the main Auditorium prc;per 39 fte high and the stage with its associated fly gallery
57 ft. high. These heights have a direet re�lationship to the function inside the
structure. In the ca��e of the Auditorium proper, volume is necessary in order for
proper acoustic�. Trie height is also incr�ased by the need for a shaped ceiling
�hich refl�cts saun�d ta the spectators. Height is additionally required above that
ceil�ng for catwalk� �o s�rvice the varyous lighting systems installed there.
In the case of the s.,uge area, th� height is necessary so stage sets may be raised
into the f�y ga1lery area. Height is also necessary above the yrid iron for
servicing of that riggingo
No successful alternative to receiving �his variance is pflssible.
To r�duce the height of the structure to below 35 ft. would comple�ely cripple the
function of the facility. To relocate the Auditorium ta a differ�nt less prominent
portion of the site would mean the reconstruction of all existing associa�ed
facilities within the cafeteria building at great cost to ttre District.
Its removal from that portion of tfie site will also move it away from the exi�ting
parking areas.
The Architects and members of the School District Administration will b� present
at the evening of the variance hearing to present a numb�r of slides to show the
necessity for the height and to be available to answ�r any questions the Cammission
may have.
14 January 1982
ATTACHMENT "B"
CI-IA:RLES C.SL"WG AfA ' JOHN L.1•I�NSL�E AIA
,=, ORK HILL �
� INVESTMENT CORFORATION �
. � January 15, 1982 ,
,
Tk�is is a Conditioanl Use Request fo:r a conveni�ence
grocery s'tore to be located i.n a C-3 Zone. Subject Property:
' Tax� Lot. 600, Section 2, Township 2S, Range 1W: of the Willamettte
� Meridian., Washington Cc�un.tg, �.Oreg.ono 6Je p��sent the following
required intormation in support of our request.
1. The nature of the proposal is to obtain Ca�ndit'ionai .Use
approval fo-r locati.ng a conv�nierice grocery store in a
free-standing building to be devel.oped on the above '
meritioned properCy by Oa�c Hi11 Investment Corporation.
Reason foX. requesting this action is because a convenienc�
grocery store is not am out right pei�cnitted�. use in. a C-
3 Zone. '
2. Proposed u�e. is in direct. conformance wifi�h:. the Tigard' s
' adopted Comprehension P1an. and NP0 Land Use' Designation.
- The. :grocer.y stare .is shown as a permitted use in the C-
4' Zone� and Che permitted uses in the C-4 Zone axe
al.lowable cond.itional uses zn the C-3 Zone..
3. Public bene�f"it der.i.ved frQm ,the rocer store would be
.
� Y
�a convenie 1
nt located retail. outle
y t fo� food and
bevera e� i
tems. This' is oad utilization of n irre ular�
parcelgof proper�ty. � � �
4. The tnos.t paramaunt change. that would occur with �he �
approval of this Conciitional Use would be. converting a
b�ushy,. vacan.t 1At inta an aesthetically agpealing
reCail outlet. �rom the econ.omic standpoint,,. y�ou would
have the increase tax �e�renue from the� development of
this property. �
5. Not .applicable..
6. The convenience groc�ry store, would have..a positive
effect o�n the adjacen� �ites e . It wota�.d form a good
tenant tuix with the • �xisting,.te�ra�nts i�x the Payle�s
�hopping �Center and surrounding cou�aercial. developments.
The development of the store will not ereate any �.raf�ic
flow� p�ob�ezns on �'acific Highwa;� or Ha11 Bou�.e�ra�d
t�ecau�e of the ingress and egress arrangement ��� �hosan
on the site pl.an. ,
7 . There are no public services riecessitated by the develnpm�nt
of �h� canvenience grocery store. A1� the utils.tes �,re
avaible tv the site and no additional fi.r� protec�i�n,
poTice, or other city services would be required.
79qt S.E.JOHNSON CREE'K BIVD. PORTLAND,OFEGON 97206 503/777-4861
� �1
• � 1�/'
�
� _ - -: _ -
� f C'..J.�' /- � �--..
. h
,
..S CaAK H:ILL
� lNVESTMENT CORPORATION -
January 14, 1982
This is a. Canditional Use Request far a Color Tile Store to
be located in a C-3 Zone�
Subject Praperty: Tax Lot 60Q, Section 2, Township
2S, Range 1W of tYie Wi1l.amette Meridian, Washington County,
Oregon.
We pre��ent the following required information in
support of our request: .
1. 'The nature of the proposal is a Conditional Use '
approval for locating a Color Tile Store in a retail
commercial center to be developed on the aaove
mentioned property by nak Hill Investment Corporation.
The reason for requesting this action is because a
home improvemen� st�re is not an outric�ht permi'tted
use in a C-3 zone.
2: ThE proposed use is in direct conformance with �.�igard's
adogted Comprehensive Plan and NPO Land Use Des�.gnation�
The .Comprehensive Plan Designation for thi� p�a�ticular
piece of property is retail and the NPO No. l. c�esignation
is retail (gener�l commercial) . In the booklet
on page 21, their descxiption of general commercial
is developments accammodating a �ange of r�tail and
service commer:cial uses, in which the �olor Tile
Store would fa1T. �he prok�lem we ar� faced with
in this instance a.s the inconsistencies between The
City of Tigard �omprehensive Plan, the I�PO No. 1 Flan
vs. the existing zoning ordnance, which is very
specific on �he types of busin�ss permitted.
None of the coinmerciaY zones men�ion a home improvement
cent�r as a p�rmitted or conditionaluse, I am sure
this was not the intent Qf the Planninc� Commission.
One of the allowable con�itional us,es ror the C-3
zone .as any eonditional or. permitted u�e in the C-4
zane. It Ys my opinion that the Co1or Tile Stare,
m�re closely resembles a hardwar� store which is a
permitted use in the C-� zone. �,
3. The public b�nefit derived from. the Color Ta.le Store
ws�u.ld be a conveniently Zc�cated retail outlet
car�ying the largest assortments of tile, wallpapering,
bathraom vanities and a.nstallatron equipment in the
caznmun,i ty.
, 7941 S.E.JOHNSON CREEK B�VD. PORTLAND,ORCGON 97206 503/777-486t I
i
� ���O1
� '
� :
,��
,�
�
� �r�
- -
January 14, 1982
Co.nditinnal Use ?�equest '
Color Tile Store
Page �wn ��
�
4. Ths� most• paramournt change that would occur witti the ;
' approval-'of .the conditioa�al �zse would be conver.ting ,
a brushy, vacant. :lot into� an ae�thetically appealling
coaimercial dev+elopment. From the sconom�ic s`ta�ndpoint, �
you would have �he increase tax revenue from the� � '.
deaelopment of` this property.
5, N/'A
6. The fmpact the pro,posed store would have on the adjacent
� sites�`is posit%ve. T�ey would be filling a voad
that..is� no:t meant� by any of tkae existing tenants in
th� Payless Shopping Center- or the surrounding
, comm�rcial` development: One af the major prabYems ,
that tlie NPC� No: 1 group brou'ght out is the tr�ffic
problems �o�. .Pacifxc Highway. The appxoval of the '
• Color Tile S�ore 'at` this location wil'1 not hinder
the ,tx�a�fa.c. fl�w on� Pacific Highway because of the �
hi.ghw�y aneclian `at this location. Traffic entering
• Pacific Highway,�at, �he curb-cut will�-only :be allowed
to travel �ast�as shown' by the si-�e plan. H1e �Yiave
,
�.creat�d eas in: res _
s ��d e ress to' t
,
Y g he site b
9
Y,
. connecti.nc� �1�acific:.Highway and �the �asement'�road to •
�he south whxch, int�rsec�ts Hall Boulevard. �:Several '
points brought out in the NPO No. '�1, booklet '•aaa'•page .
27 are �hat retailers that� s`erve. the lar�ex .cc�nununit�
should �be l.ocated ix� a shopping center to`'a3.lev�ia�e
shart. e�cta�sioris on and off th� highway by stc�re _ .
patxons-, Our store 1.ocatinn is bas-ical7ly' an ex�texision
o£ the �ayl.ess �'Shopping Genter with access immediately
. to �heir lot. ,
7. 'There a�e no public servic�s nec�ssitates3 by .the
develc�pment�;.of;the Color Tile Stare. Ali th� utilities �
are available' to the si.�e and no additional fire ,
protection; police or other• city servies would' be
required. .
,�
,
� _ - -_----
E E�M/�P ' {_..x�•s�(J�1 " • /� .�:+,1 y CANCEILEG TAX IOT�
p �9U0 Tiwu 4
� . I 35D �! `c�� 2-� . '� �? ,::"' , t, � coo,a4o�. ,
D �91' ' 96A� � �70 I !0 3�2iq�A1�700�80p��,
; 8S0l�lSOQ.
��a'� �„• •, . J�Q� r 8��900�90?�iOF�
p� � . � ' S, �� \���9 �.2/i�C. i �
6y,�1�� .a. ��� e .20� , 1 � .
. . . � ...: r p � � .. . .
• i �/ ��`%� 1 .�Yi��9�D �e''.^ ��0 '� \
�r��rii/� � `600 so.e � '�^' .43Ac, ; _ .
� ���,;%N�'U cJ� 1- �.d9 Ac. � ; �
� � ° �'�:.:.� . " ' "1 " 35 ''. 36'.
��v ��,S.,�„�f,f� ,...�. �� ' � �
�rl''��22' ���" 602 1\ � g i . '/� , """„'yS'�"t'i�'�R'�r-.::�..�I ....�. � •�' '�'
T� . � a3oZe� � .B9AC, � � � .� � � � oy �� �3�
a� t, r �� 1• 1 _
I � . • _
't
,
n
.
. . . � � . - � ..
9p �J� � 1 a 2
5 •
I
. . oa. . . , . . . . . ��i. .
. .. . . .. . . . . .
P
,
�o ,e
.3
4
a .
v aJC. `�a ,, �O , � m ,
a .�� � . ^
. .
M
_ •
. i�
!.3
tl
. � . . . . .N� . ..
..
1 � �'^` o o- .
. n
. . . . I.. . o . . . .
. . � . . . . � . .t'
. . . . . , . . . . ,t
. 17 n
3.3
p . ` O , . .
�a s9 5 y , , te.i� �;z _ i
.J . ,�.: W V . . t
Q ��• �'"�: 4.9� •n� :
J 'b.: , I .4G AC. N'^ ��
e'' J��s'
� 0. . � . ln . Wj: . .1 ' .. � .. . . N� � . , ••,{ .
� ` � � I � . .
90 4 . ,
2.a,�,aG � y�°;�� 6O3 � I "� i SE'E MAP,
'•. •�, .93 A�
. 1� � y �.�, 1 � ; � s.oc►+. . s+oo 2S 1 18H.'
J � 2P9
.• . `' .�• `' • ' 1 ` 400 — . .
. 1 I a n .3/AC
, ' N ^ � 30 I 30 .
. :�o . • ��. � . •
r
���. • . � 'A� � 1 � { ' � � , ,.
�'"' t 214 o-
� � . \ I . � ,500 ' . 1 . ,�i
/ I r \ \ , �9J� 1\ I .62AC. . .. ' , �1 t
1 , ._,_,� � � ,,,. ` 3 � i
. \ I `rJ� i :r � � �.�i; .
4.• •
J� - N
� �:/`' � - _'x ^� , � �•
\ r �
I` � , � ?2a q J�` s m 'r
J� � � ) r .�, ., , . . ..
,�
� � - . • . 219 � .
` °,OS, 3.O CH - -
. �6` '�. 0 32OQ �,
(" ��' � r,., � , �\ .4e,a�. ' q .�.
�
�.. � ��J �� �f j . N � ;
. °,'��J . . �. '�b . ' N K � . � .,
. . • ' . .,. , fi.�, ' � ' ^� 5:E.C 0 R Mf R ' + ,'M�
\� • ANDY WOOODY'9 �•
;� . . . .�.0 CHc 2�1/2 Ac TRACT � ..,Y.�.
,._�._�.�'�,�._-Y,,._ �
°�-- - -_-- � �.�.__._,:.. ... . _ ._���u.--• --. .�
N���
, �
: J
STAFF REPOfiT
AGENDA 5:3
TIGARD �LANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
` Fowler Junior High =- Lecture Room
10865 SW Walnut' Street, Tigard ;
� January 27� 1982
This' item has `been postponed unti.l March . . .
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5.4
TIGARD PL.4NNrNG COMMISSION
Fek��uary 2, '1y82 - :1:30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High -- Lecture R�om �
� � �;
10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard ,.
i
January 27, 1982
This`item has been postponed until March . . .
;
ii
�!
. . . . . . � .. . : :. .. .
STAFP R�PORT
AGFNDA 5,5
TIGARD PLANNTNG CONINIISSION
February 2, 1982 - '7c30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High -- Lecture Room
10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard
January 27, 1982
Staff withdrew this item. It will be on the March agenda.
i
�-i..�{
�, f � � �o
�/� ,�,� 9rs�i�3C) �. IA1. ��6PJ O Tl��R1.3� i��`°IIFi.i9.�N �/Id:3
-�'���"�N€;° €�,�;�-�il'�
�, .-
�
� , �
,
J�-�2��': ��r���i
,�'l`'
r'� ,T�j4%�S�� c,'�s..�-�'�'�,c'
�1 ^�,.� � t
.. �-J �•��� � �.�,. d y;� �.,�% 1,� .�./1.:�'� �r-e,•qY��P��;li' � � � �
SF�i'<.. /�•`.``��/�.S �.JY't !. c.{��/o � � � . . .
9 �.p,d
�. � . .. . . . . �
. �J! �i�'y ��� !���If°��r�I°!rt(� . . .. . .
. /Cl fJ/'+ln.�` ��.!_���"'r',y .�✓ i�„�..,}r . .. � � . � . . � � . . . . .. � .
.
. . . �� ,.� . . �J . , .. , . . � . . . . � . � � _ ..
, ,.` � . ' . . . . . . . . . . . .
'�J' "'ri✓r.. �f t�`I!�'�,"1��
� . .� . � . • . �. � � . . . . � f, . �a' � . a r''`� � .�. �.
''"�� � � ,1!-./ )°" �'�C'a,•�`..,�r,, ,/�^ a�r•�� �':�,`�e''>�.; ;;tY;�1M�,.iPi�'�i"r ec.�:.,✓�
,% �
�,��r,�s ��, �ts,rit" P.S `j' r��+? t1.•"d'<3 /1�t'„�� �'�tv.: yaa�t ,� ,y. r/� ,,,r� f" )
� � � .�. An �'��'� /��L p �- « rle'�Rlt 17 ,�'r:!':�FYL J�i{! �'!�'Z0�tJ �d._) '��A�'!S�}lT�.
. � �l � '� 4'Y� �
�tis< t�:��ccF ���" �„'c'4r•, ;��:'7i��t �.c�r;� �7�=.i".rr•!;r�' o.,� >
�. l , � ,
/� ,� :.�„��.;�� , � ,� .�,
� � ,/,�f�.�'A:.��y�r, r..��C. ����,,1�I�_i�..�.� �f•p r.aYi�?'(�� Y�7G�` .
� - . � � ' � . ..
7 ,� W
r �%;. ~ ��•r
..-- , �/ • , ./�G'�.rr,t,�c?;;� �.'� /��j�;? .1��`.�°'r'�.��,� u.
.. (� .. 1 ^�1� . . . . 3'lJ�-r�..
. � "J'/.�'tf.':4/ �f lt�,'�t!c',"y 1 . ���t7.r i tiry V� �:a.4 °�"'!2' �t���rr�,i I f/ � � .
L��� I-+ . b+' .. � 'Ln a .9
,•� ,+}� � /y�.; . �I~ �,�e�- �°,L�v'JMtrf'1T'i�y� a'g �i�M4'' x a !'J'�"�t7�,v°� .
.%� . ' l .:y { � (G.9%^�i f r1����Z:.. ��� ,i
��, , i,�r �r, c !�.<�� �� f G r
f r� t. �!� ) i / . , { / �3�' ` �p
f-. d� `�r. .�. rl p/�/,_..: .,,J e �y �t''�*,��G�:r.rF'r.�'�' �p� ,�'�.,rQ•,�✓ .
�. � Y i.� ��A�S��Ip �bd'j���'� v��} Ie�Slry ��}��..���C ) .
��/Nr^.'1 t,�..".!� rr.i /�..(��`G�.� ,�`Sd � � � j �
f
� f' 9I � j Y(vii I( �,�`%'�t'� . Gt�lst •'��''�'! (:��e't' .:2�C�' ��:t'; +"�,`i
Y `�tl f.�trf�' S.t.h,.:'.n^ct.� �ti t+'" / �.
�'��,�,Yu. �l����G�e:�.�F •f'..y` c ] . .
�.1 ,; y r �. C�;rtj C. :�- i��rC. 7l�.� /FI l��iml� ,•3� !7_�r'� ,✓i,t•?•✓
:e ��: F'{��: � rfry'.p%�,,..�i :rr �f1✓ ��fiid'� 's r ,
a'� •� .�.�;, i� ���i.;'Y' �� /�y'��7�'"{�/, � ���� ,.�. a%.�a�,Y�r'/J/�'RJ'.:o.i7
.,��t�..;rt` �.,� zc:e r.,, f�t�'�'�/(.e.� [ �N ./'�1; .1 — i p
� '� ,? �� i f/D.� J',�"c'�� �.,� '�:°>i �" ;!�s�1� i�Ft,����'''i-�e�,;;'r'
�. . � �� / 7 ,� �'j'.+�t"� 1
. ' 'r'Fyt j, t'4;4��a,.� ��[:��i:"s`L°t�'r.! ,� :„Jvil'. ;Fpw•
,� ��. l�:r;•'�c°r>r s���'c ,`%�.`•'� 1`'l,l'l�
� .
�/ �_,�f JI r�/C ;'.`r;. �� III
�n>,� .,, f'+'�-�// /1� , ,�� . � '���`1+1 '.��,,/ � f� � �,
. ,� yYi'�V�... -^. a�„°'!^��"r "��' . ✓" �F�F���i � � �C� . �.
�..� � ,�� rf� \.�._, ..�t/,'4 "i'�`'^�,. .,:,`�`��•��;�-".�_..
� ��trJYt 6�^,j� �,�,p;f�ii�'�+'��. � � � r� �.�����,f 4:��� �
� � � ',.,�„� ,;�
�/ �,1 'V c.
rh j��''''tI 1 ..��'��t'I°' ~ f^v�}Y�l�'' G-�.�IL,t�� �.L•'�� ...� .r,..� !
��
�
:» .....__._:_ . ....-�.._.�........:.,,,,,..yi,.,._,,,.....»..... .x:.�..�.ti...Y,�.rar,�---•.,--.....�.....:....�-...._, �� . � .. �. � . � . . . .
. . . . �.,...,._..� �_�_,..-,...�,.' '-......._-.._._:. �.�........_.-..,,„�,�....,,.*:.,.+:.c � � .. � � ..
. . .. . � � .. . � � ..._.,,.__. . .. �_......_ �___-1
.� .. �.... -`------
�� � . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . _ �.� .- .�. -- ... --
�ecl�ewv�. � �cc'y�7�'� tiy C�/y Cou+,.c����%An, I2, /1�.?
� V ����� �
;
������
DOV1/NT'OWN- T1'[�AAD 'REVI'Y'ALIZATION -
' - R. � v
M� I
. ` _ � �`, � . .
�r-..
.. � . . �' � . �f . . �,;. . � � .
� . \ . � � il : 3_i. .. �
2 L
t � � -
/�' ��+
/ � �
/ / � /' �� ,
� / � •
� •� ♦
� •` °�
�► °� �
' �\
� �\
.. .. . . .4. . .� � ' : ..,
�
. . . . ♦ � � � �`� � . . . . .
.� \ � ' `,,�
\ ;,
�. '; '
,A `'
/
.. , ..� .�. . . .
� .. . . . . . . �/\ ♦ � , ... �
/ .
� ... .. . \� . ( � .
� S
� .. . . . . � . �^\���, . / .�q�` �`` ./� .. .
�/ � �
: � �-� /` I;
t + � � `1
. �-
. .. . � � . � 1411 Q T...... "'�.,` . . I
. \. . . -��C.- . . . . .
Q'Y�O�
� �. - �.L _ . �
� '�' � -- --
� --T�- � ,
1.
"•�`"'�'.
1 .;��»
'
.. . . . . . . � .. . .. � . . .Y r ,. . . . . . .
: ��TY OF TIG"A RD ,
VJASlilhJGTOlJ COUNTY,C�hEt;ON
- --- - -_ -
�' --=- _J
e�
. ;�. . ' . . . . � � . . . . . . . , � � . � . � . . . � � �� . . . : . � . . . � .
SUMMARY REPORT
DOWNTOWN TIGARD �tEWITALIZATION
DAf�➢IEL�ON
DRI'SCOLL
i-1 ESS
AR�H'ITECTS
QNE EAfT SROAOWAY
MALL WALK
6UGENE, OREGON
_ D7401 4b+•E7b7
I
�
JA�lUARY 12, 1982
,
I
, ,, !
� .
, �
SUNSMARY REPOR7
DOWNTOWfV T I GpRD ftEV T T'AL I ZAT I ON'
THIS 'REPORT SlX�1ARIZES' TME COIVSULTANT'S FINDINGS AI�D QBSERVATIOMS RELATIVE
TO DOWf�70�+M REV I TAL I ZAT I 0N,
THESE FdNDINGS 'ARE PRESENTED TO ASSIST Th� GITY AIVD 7F� AGENCY IN' PROVIDING
A COORD I NATE� PL/�f�h1IhIG` PRUGRAM FOR [70WNTOWN`T I G�RD.
FORMP�TION 4F THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AND TH� ADOPTION OF THE DOWN—
T(�IN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN PRpYIDES A ROSITIVE FIRST STEP IN' THE
REVITALIZATION PROCESS �OR DOWNTOWN TIGARD.
L10WNTOWN REYI7ALiZATIOM, HOWEVER, I5 NOT TFf 50LE RESPONSIBILII'Y OF THE
TIGARD URB�I RENEWAL AGENCY. A SUGCESSFUL REVITALIZATYON PROGRAM WILl� ALSO
REQUYRE THE COOPERATIV� EFFORTS OF THE CITY, Tif ''CNAMBER OF COPNNERCE, THE -
DOW�1TC�lN TIGARD CONMITTEE, THE CIVIC CENTER CONPIITTEE, TFE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGAN I ZAT I ONS, AND ALL OTHER I I�I V I DUALS OR GFt0UP5 AFFECTED 'BY C+OWNTOWN '
IMPROVEMENT,
THE RENEWAL 'PLAN 'FOCUSES OId A LIMiTED M1M�ER OF I�IPROVEMENTS TO BE UNDER=
TAKEN BY 7HE AGENCY. FOR DOWNTOWN RE�'ITALIZATION TO ACHIEVE ITS MAXIMUM !
1'UTENTIAL, P�10YJEVER, OTHER INTERRELATED EFFORTS AND ACTTYITIES MUST AL50
BE iNITIATED. I
'�
UNE OF THE AGENC�''"S F�RST ACTIVITIE5 WILL BE THE DETAIL�D PLA(WING THAT I
N�.IST RRECEDE Tlf OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTI1/ITLES. [�WNTOYJN PLAI�tdING MUSI" BE �
COORD�`NATED' WITH TFE GITY'S PL.AN�ING, ZOfVING AND D�V'EL:�PMENT S7AI�ARD.�', FOR ;
THE AREA. IT IS ESSENI'iAL ThWT DOWNTOVdN PLAI�NING START AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
aQ D4W�lTO1+M CONCERNS CAN BE dNCORPORATED INTO 7HE CI7"Y'S STANDARDS TtiAT ARE
PRESENT�Y UNDERGOTNG REVISION. ` t
�
� < .
A. THERE ARE THREE ACTIVITIES PRESENTLY IN PROGRESS WITHLN THE DOWNTOh�N AREA
THAT SHCIULD �E FULLY SUPPORTED. THEY ARE: .
1: TFE PE�OPOSED SHOPR bNG CENTER AT Thf SOUTH ,EI� OF
t�1A I N
STREET.
r
2. THE PROPOSED F�fVt�10 CREEK PARPC DEVELOPMENT.
3. TNE PROPO$ED CIVIC CENTER pEVELOPMENT PRESENTLY
UNDER STl1DY.
1. THESE PROJECTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO DOWNTQWN REVITALIZATION AND SHOULD BE
GIVEN MAXIMUM SUPPORT At� fNCOURAGEMENT BY THE GITY �D THE AGENCY.
COMi'LET'ION OF THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER WILL P�t�AN MAIN STREET WILL
• HAVE A SHOPPING CENTER ANCHOR AT EACH END, THdS SHOULD ENCOURAGE
INTENSIFICATION OF USE At� REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ALCN�IG MAIN
STRE�T BETWEEN Th1ESE TWO ANCHORS.
2. DEVELOPMENT Of-THE FANNO CREEK PARK WILL ALSO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FC)R
REDEVELOPMETIT AT SOUTH MAIN, BETWEEN BURNHAM ANa TF� PROPOSED SHOPPING
CENTER, AND ALONG BURNH�1 STREET. TFf_ PARK WILL PROVIDE A UNIQUE
SETTING APPROPRiATE FOR GOVERNMENTAL AND OFFICE USE. THIS SHOULD
INCREASE THE VALUE OF IANDS ADJACENT TO THE PARK THAT ARE NOW USED
PRIMARILY FOR It�USTRIAL AND �TORAGE USES.
THE CITY SHOUI� ALSO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES TO
ENCOURAGE EARLY C(�1VERSION. AN OPEN SPACE CREDIT AND HIGHER DENSITY
. SITE COVERAGE FOR PROPERTIES P,DJAC�NT TO "THE PARK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
I NCENT I�/ES.
PROPOSFD DEVELOPMENTS TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PARK SHOULD BE
R'�QUIRED TO COORDINATE AND TNTEGRATE 7HEIR PROPOSALS WITH TH€ PL�1Ep
PARP� DEVEl.OPMEN7 THROUGN A DESIGN REVIEW PkOCESS.
3. TF�E PROPdSEQ CIVTC CENTER I5 ESSENTIAI. TO DnWNTOWN REVITALI2ATION.
' THE CIVIC CENTER IN COMBTNATION WITH TH� FANNb CREEK PARK DEVELOPMENT
WILL HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN 6�E[�EVELOPMENT AND
CAtV BECOME 7HE PRIMARY GENERATOR FOR REVITALIZATION OF THE BURN��
STREET AREA.
T!-� GIVIC GEN7ER SHOl/LD BE LOCATED Af�JACENT TO TNE PROPOSED FANNO GREEK
PARK, A BURNFiAP1 STREET LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF ASH STREET OR MATN
STREET IS R�COMMEf�DED. A NEW CIVIC CENT�R BUILDIN6 LOC�TED AT MAIN AND
BURNHAM WOULD BE A HIGNLY VISIBLE LOCATION Atm W�ULD PROVIDE A FOCAL
POINT FOR MAIN STREET WFiILE AI_50 PROVTDING A GATEWAY TO THE PARK FROM
MqIN. A CENTRAL LOCATION ON BURNHAM IN THE VICINITY OF ASH STREET SHOULD
ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT ALONG BURNHAM BETWEEN MAIN AND ASH AND BETW�EN
ASH AND HALL BOULEVARD. '
-1- ,
a
THE TI6ARD DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE AND THE CIVIC CENTER C(�MMITTEE SHOULD
BEGIN COORDTNATING THEIR ACTIVITIES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE DOWNTOWN
COMMITTEE AND THE AGENCY SHOULD A5SIST THE CIVI� CENTER COhP1ITTEE IN
LOCATING THE FACILITY AND COORDINATIIWG THE TTMING OF' SUFPORT FACILITIES
CONTAINED IN THE AGENCY PL�4N.
fiHE C I TY 5HOULD ADOPT L�V�D U5E ANQ' DEVELOPMENT STANDA(�DS TO ENCC�URAG�
COMPATIBLE USES ADJACFNT TO THE CIVIC CENTER WHILE AL50 ESTABLISHING
REDtVELOPMEN7 INCENTTVES FOR PRQPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE FARK.
�
B. TWO 1=UTURE EVE�I'C:� THAT COULD ALSO IGNIFI
5 CANTLY AFFECT - 1'
DC�1FJ OWN DEVELOPMENT I
AND ACTIVITY PA1"TERNS ARE:
1. TF� PRAPOSED RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISITION.
2. THE P
ROPOS�D TRI—MET T
RANSYT CENTER DEVELOPNIENTa
1. THE ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY OFFERS THE
OPPQRTUNITY TO EXTEND TIGARD STREET THROt1GH AND CONNECT IT WITH BURNHAM.
THIS WOULD IMPROVE TRAFFIC MOVEN{ENT A1� PR01/IDE ACCESS TO THE �EEP
BLOCK BETWEEN BURNHAM AND THE RAILROAD.
ADDITIONAL OFF—STREET PARKING COULD ALSO BE PROVIDED WITHIN TI-E ACQUIRED
RIGHT—OF—WA`(.
THE CITY AN[) AGENCY SHOULD BEGIN NEGOTIA,TIONS WITFi THE RAILROADS TO
DETERMINE TRACK CONSOLIDATION AND 12I�HT—C}F—WAY ACQUISITION POTEMTIALS
AS SQQN AS POSSIBLE; POSSIBLY IN CO�PERATION WITH THE CITY OF BEAVERTON.
2., THE PRQPOSED TRI—M�T TRANSIT CENT�� COULD ALSO HAVE At�) IMP/�CE ON DOWNTOWN
AC'T I V I TY PATTERNS. I T I S D I FF I CULT TO iCNOW AT TH I S T I ME WHETHER Tf-!E
IMPACT WOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGA"tIVE. .
THE CENTER C011LD BRING MORE PEOPLE TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA THEREBY INCREASING
ITS COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OR THE INCRE45ED BUS TRAFFIC COULD INCREASE
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CREATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC HAZARDS.
7FIE CITY AtJU AGENCY SHOUL.D BEGIN A COOPERATIVE PE�INNING STUDY WITH TRI—MET
CONCERNING THE PRQPO5ED TRANSIT CENTER FOR TIGARD. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
AND TMPACT ANALY'SIS SHOULD BE JOINTLY INVESTIGATED.
�
C. LAND USES IN TME DOWNTOWN AREA ARE PRESENTLY UNCOORDINATED AND CONFLICTING.
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, STORAGE WAREHOUSING, CONh1ERCIAL, HOUSING, GOVERN—
MENT'AL AN� COPM1l1NITY SERVIGE USES JaRE ALL INTERMIXED WITFIO�UT A CLEAR
ORGANIZA7IOf�L PATTERN OR PLAN. F'LAt�NED LAND US�S AND Z(N�IED LAND USES ARE i
ALSt� PRESENTLY IN CONFLiCT WITHIN Thf DOWNTOWN AREA. IF DOWNTOWN ftEVITA— �'
LIZATION IS TO ACHIEVE �JY SORT OF C1�112ITY, THIS GONDITION MUST BE CORRECTED !
t
—2— �
;
AS S�OON AS POSSIBLE. TF� L��D USE PLAN FOR TNE DpWNTOWN AREA SHOULD BE
REANALYZED T0 REFLECT 7HE LAND USE GhiANGES THAT HAVE OCCUftED AND THE
Cf-SEWGES NECESSAf2Y TO SUPPORT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION. A L��ND USE PLAN
THAT I5 CON5ISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF TNE DOWNTOWN PLAN
ShpULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY TI� CITY AS SOOt�! A5 POSSIBLE.
CONI�IER C I AL, GOVERNNIENTAL AND RES I DENT Il�L USf S SHOULD PREDOM I NATE F!I TH I N
' TNE D01�1NTOWN AREA. TFiE FIRST GOAL OF THE RENEWAL PLAN STATES: ''TO
PROVIDE AN IDENTITY FOCUS fOR THE TIGARp COMMUNITY AND TO IMPROVE THE
VIABILITY OF DOWNTOWN TIGARD AS A COM�IERCIAL, GOVERMIENTAL AND CONMUNiTY
GENTER FOR THE CITIZENS OF TIGARD." DOWNTOWN REVI'TALIZATI'ON REQUIRES AN
IlVTENSIFICATION OF COMPLEMENTARY USES THAT ARE fNTEGRATED YNTO A PL��ED I
Oi2GAN I ZAT I ONAL STRUCTtJRE.
TO ACCOMPLISOi THIS GQAL, THE FOLLOWING RECONr1ENDATIONS ARE SUGGESTED:
l. Th� INDUSTRIAL LANp U5E DESIGNATION SHOULD BE D�LETED FROM THE DOWNTGWN
AREA. THERE IS PRESENTLY 260$2 ACRES 'DESIGNWTED INDUSTRIAL USE BY THE
CITY. EXIS7ING INDUSTRIAL USES MAY BE PERMITTED UNTIL SUCH USE IS
CONVERTED OR DISCONTINUED. TNDUSTRIAL USFS GENERr4LLY REQUIRE LARGE
I.AND AREA AIVD ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH AND DISRUPTIVE TO OTHER USES.
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USES SFiOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHTN THE RENEWAL AREA.
2• MAIN STREET IS TFiE COMMERCIAL CORE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND SHOULD BE
RESERVED FOR PREDOMINANTLY C(N�MERCIAL USE. HOWEVER, VEHICULAR SERVICE
AND REPAIR BUSINESSES SHOULD BE E�ICOURAGED TO LOG4TE OUTSIDE OF THE
DaWPVTOWN AREA. SERVICE STATIONS, TiRE STORES A(� REPAIR SHOPS ARE
GENERALLY LOCAT�D IN THE HIGHWAY COMMIERCIAL AREAS OF THE CITY. THIS
TY'PE OF A�CTIVITY IN THE t)OWN�OWI�! qREq CREA7ES PEDESTRIAdJ/VEHICULAR
CONFLICTS AND CA�S�S TRAFFIC I�iAZ�RDS AND CONGESTION G1�! DOWNTOWN STREETS.
3• BURNHAM, COV�MIERCIAL AND SCOFFINS STREETS SHOULD ALSO BE RESERVED FOR
PREDOMINANTLY' COh1h1ERCIAL USE IN THE VICINITY OF MAIN STREET.
4. PUBLIC GOYERNMENTAL USES AND CONWIERCIAL USES ARE VERY COMPATIBLE AAt�
SHOULD BE Ff2EELY INTEGRATED WITHIN THE DOWNTO►�M AREA ALTHOUGH fOVERN—
MENTAL AND OFFIC� ACTIVIT'IES WOULD BE ID�AL.LY LO�CATED .ADJACENT TO F'�NNO
CREEK PARK WITFi ACCESS FROM BURNHAM STREET. THE RECOPI*1ENDED LOCATION
FAR T1-E PROPOSED CI�/IC CENTER IS ALSO BETWEEld BURTWAM STRE�T AND THE
� F'Ai2K. THESE TWO PUBLIC IMPRUVEMENTS SHOULD PROVIDE f1MPLE INCENTIVES
FOR Ta1E REnEVELOPM�NT OF THE SOUTH BURNFiAM STR�ET AREA.
5• RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IS ALSp COMPATIBLE WITH COhr1ERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL
ACTIVTTTES AND CAlV PROVIDE A SUPPORT POPULATION FOR TME COhW1ERCIAI. CORE.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN IS PRESENTLY LOCATED
AWACENI' TO HALL SOUL,EVARD. IF TI-i� DOHlNTOWN AREA CANNpT qTTAIN FULL
CONY�IERC IAL � GOVERNPIENTAL UT I L I ZAT I CNd, AUp d T d ONAL N I GH DENS I TY HOUS I NG �
WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE 5UPPOR7'ING AGTIVIT'Y FOR THE AREA. FUTURE �
FIOUSING SHOULD ALSO BE LOCATED IN THE�VICINITY OF HALL BOULEVARD AND � '
r
-3` ,
SOUTH OF FANNO GREEK. i2ESTDENTIAL EXPANSION TOWARD MAINN STREET SHOULD
BE UEPEND�ENT UPON TF1E C�'V�'IERCIAL AND GOWERNMENTAL LAPD NEEDS WNICH WILL
B� DETERM'INEQ IN Th$ DETAILED PW�R!iNG �iTUDIES TO FOLLOW. PRIORITY
5MOGILD BE G I VEN TO C01�'MERC I AL AND GOVERM1ENTAL USES UfdLESS THE DETA I LED
PLANNING STUDIfS IPDI'CATE THE AREA C,fUVNOT ATTAIN FULL COrM1ERCIAL AND
GOVERNt�NTAL UT I L I 7AT I ON. '
D. T1-� FOLLOWING 5UGGESTED ANIENDN�NTS TO THE CETY'S CONPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ZONING ORDINANCE ARE CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO CORRECT EXISTING CONFLICTS
BETWEEN TF-E PLAN AhD ZON I NG ORD I NANCE ANt7 TO PROV I DE LMD USE DES I GNAT I OIeS
THAT ARE C�;VSISTENT WITH THE DaWNTOWN REVITALIZATION GOiALS.
l. THtEE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF HALL, JUST SOUTH OF TF� PAYLESS/ALBERT—
SUN'S SHOPPING CEN7ER ENTRANCE, ARE NOW DESIGNATED COt�IERCIAL. THESE
SMOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR NEDItX�1 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR
TtiE FOLL:OWING REASONS:
° THE ADJACENT" FRONTAGE TO THE SOUTH ON HALL
fiS RESIDENTIAL.
° TF�SE LOTS ARE NOW IN RESIDENTIAL USE, THE
SOUTHERLY LOT BEING ON A SMALL KNOLL AND
WITHOUT CONVENIEN7 ACCESS 70 THE STREET.
2. THIS ARFA IS PART Of= THE PAYLESS/ALBERT50N'S SF�IOPPING CENTER, BUT IS
DESIGNA7ED ()N THE NPO #1 PLAN AS A PARK. THE PLAN DESIGNATION SHOULD
BE CfiANGED TO C(�MIERGIAL TO REFLECT THE EXI5TING SITUATION.
- 3. THE TRTANGULAR SITE ADJACENT TO AREA 2 COULD ACCOMODATE THE PARK USE IF
TFiIS NEED STILL EXISTS; OTFIERWISE, IT St-pULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL USE.
b. THIS ARF� 35 DESIGNATED CONMERCIAL IN THE Pt�W. IT CONTAINS A M08ILE
HONIE PARK, AI'ARTMENT5 AND SEVERAL RES TDENC�S. TI-lE NORTM�JEST S IDE OF
ASii STREET IS DEVELOPED WITH APARTMENTS AND FACES APARTMENTS ON THE
UTHER SIDE; IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO F�IINTAIN THE RESdDENTIAL CHARAC—
TER OF ASH STREET. THE REMAINDER OF THE AREA COULD ALSO BE CNANGED
TQ MEDTUM DENSITY RESIDE�lTIAL, WHICH IS ITS EXISTING PRIMARY USE.
5. THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED I�6 THE PLAN AS CONN�IERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL, BUT IS
ZONED INDIJSTRIAL. THE DEVELOPMENT OF FANNO CREEK PA4tK, THE ELDERLY
HH�UaING PLAt�IED NEARBY AND THE REVITALI7ATION ACT'IVITIES PtANNED WOULD
IRfDICATE THAT TNE LAND lJS UNbERUTILYZED AS INDUS7RIAl,. AND SHOULD SUPPORT
A MORE INTENSIVE USE. THE PORTIQN SOUTH OF BURi�l1Ah1 STREET COULD SUPPORT
A VARIETY 0� USES SUCFi AS APARTMENTS, CIVIC CENTER, CONY�IERCIAL, OR
PROFESSIONAL OFFIEES. USES SUCH AS STORAGE bdRREHOUSES, INDUSTRIAL USES
At� PUE�LIC WORKS YARDS ARE A LIA�ILITY TO DEVELQPING NEIGHBOFZING PRO—
PERTI�S AP�D ARE NOT A GOOD UTILI7ATION QF DOWNTOWN PRtJPEi�TY. THE PORTION
_y_ ,
NORTH OF BURNFiAM STREET AD,JACENT TO THE RAILi20AD I5 ALSO UNDERUTILIZED.
- NONE OF THE USES ?HERE REQUIRE RAILROAD TRANSPORTHTION. RATHER THAN T0
ENCOURAGE: A l�4RGE WAREHOU5ING OR MANUFACTURING FIRM TQ LOC�TE 1'HERE,
THE APPROACH SFK�ULD B� TO BUFFER THE AREA fROM TF�`RAILROAD THROUGH
C�tEATION OF JOINT TRACKAC.E, LANQSCAPING, AND``BUILDING SETBACKS. WITH
MEASURES TO iN1TTGATE EFFECTS OF THE RAILRQAD, THE'AR�A COULD SUPRORT
GONNqERCIAL, PROFESSIONRL OFFICE OR EVEN CERTAIN TYPES OF LIGHT INDUSTRTAL.
6. THIS AREA I5 'DESIGNATED iNDUSTRIAL ANb ZONED INDUSTRIAL. LI'KE AREA
MX�IBER 5, THIS AREA 51-IOULD BE REDE5IGNATED COhWERCIAL, ALTHOUGH dT
SNOULD BE MADE CLEAR TNAT �GENERAL TEL;EPFiONE I S At�[ APPROVED USf.
'J. THIS AREA IS' LOCA7EA IN THE BLOCK WEST OF MAIN STREET AND JUST NORTH
QF F�NM�10 CREEK. THE PLAN SHOWS TFiIS AREA AS PART OF TNE PARK. IT TS
NOFI IN CON�IERCI�IL 11SE AND SHOULD PROBABLY REMAIN S0.
SEE MAP ON FOLLOWING PAGE.
�'
,
i
I
�
��_
�
. _ � , �, �
' , . .
' ��� � �� _ � `
.�!'' ■� ��!�. � / .���,�, /
� 1//i�-ti►�►=•►'►-� . -�►.r -�►. ..�r
��������-`�����i��������'��� � ��
��g,�' ��'',� •�►'� ,� � ■
I * � �� � �
� ����► � � , _
I . . �► �
t�- r� �
I� ♦ r
�• � ■.
�i►. � .. .. .
� ��
� • �' � ■■
♦ � .
. � �
rr � � � �
� �
, .� �� . ,I� �
♦ �. . . . • ��s
.. .� � � � ■ ♦
. <�• �� �. ♦
�. • . ♦ � .
� > � �� i►
.�'
♦ �
���� � ��
> ���'���: � �
' ��j� �~� � � �
r.44 �'�`'ncf �y'� '1
♦. �� �• ����}���i,7���`; ,
�, 1 h.J,,.:; ,°',{'-{.�tl� 8��. ':.�
�'t�- �j i����� ``,,�'.,� ,
, � . '��r :'�k� 6 d� .
� '
' ,, �� i: �,�: �� y�.�:• �
I ��� F``t�� � ':� ��.
� ',`
;ti+ '' ' `� 'c �'•j!R�
�°' ' � ,s�ro'����` tj 3y,�`4,'La r\',��,
��w, � 8 �14 \5th;\ 4 •
, � ��� t . ,i � ,
`�w '�, �.. •g � ���p� •�:
�V� ' .,• E �
k�� �,\\,r� � �Yr°' -
.
�� �` t
.,; '
, ��, i
,� �c����1 � I
�► �'� i�'�►� `���► �
� �/►�� �� � >
�� ri �r ��rr.�� �
�� �j ��' ���'►�
,� ♦ �,,� r►�,�
�� � �
♦ ����
� �,w f�+w
♦ ��' I� �' �
• �� �r►��� � �/� .
i► ♦` _ ,�
� � ��,�� Ir� ��t �
�1 � i�l.
11
. .. - -
- - . ..
E. THE STREET SYSTEM AND TRAFFTC CONDITIONS ARE THE ESSEI�TIAL ELEhIENTS IN NEED
` OF IMPROVEMENT WI;THIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. REDEVE'LOPMENT WTLL CREATE �",DDIT'IONAL
DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM 1WD PAST STUDIES MAY NOT FiAVE ACCOUNTED F�R TFiE IMPACTS
DUE TO DOWNTOWN (2EVITALIZATION.
7HE C I 7Y AND F�GENCY SHOULD 'BEG I N A �EV I EW AND EVALUAT I ON OF TRAFF I C GOIVD I T I CN�IS,
Pf�OBLEMS AND RECQ�'w1EMED IMPROVEh1EN1" OPTIONS FOR. DOWNTOWN S7REETS. INCLtJDE
CONSTDERATION OF PEDES7RIAN: AND '$ICYGLE NEEDS, QFPORTUNITIES bR POTENTTAL
CONFLICTS. EVALUATE 7RAFFIC NEEDS RELATIVE T0 PROP(�SED PIANS FOR DOWNTOWN
IMPFtOVEMENT AND CWRDINATE Fi�INGS INTO A PRIORITY LISTING OF IMPROVEMENTS
TA BE UNDER7AKEN BY THE REt�WAL AGENCY.
PARTICUl.AR ATTENTION SHOULD 13E PAID TO INTERSECTION CON7ROLS AI� PEDESTRIJ�IN
CROSSWALKS. TF� DOWNTOWN i-64S NO CROSS IhITERSEGTIONS. ALL INTERSECTIONS ARE
OF THE �rT°' TYPE.
MAIN STREE? POSES THE h1�ST DIFFICULT PROBLEM. MAIN STREET HAS F3VE "T"
INTERSECTIONS IfV ADDITION T0 THE T6J0 INTERSECTIONS WITH PACifIC HIGHWAY.
CROSS LANE TURNS CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND CONGESTION.
l. LEFT—HAND TURN LMIES WITH A CENTER MEDIAN ISLAND SHOULD $E INVESTIGATED
FOR MAI'N S7REET.
2. CURB fUTS SHUULD BE MINIMIZED ON NWIN 5TREET< CURB CUTS ONLY INTENSIFY
TfNE TRAFFIC tiAZARDS At� CONGESTION PROBLEMS. MAIN STREET SHOI.ILD MAIN—
TAIN A DENSE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WI7HOUT INTERVFNINf; PARKING
LOTS. PAFtKING ACCE55 SFiOULD BE PROYTDED FRON9 THE OTHER INT"ERSE�TING
S�REE3S.
. 3. PEDEST62It�W AN�NITIES ARE MINIMAL IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. SID�JALKS St10ULD
�E 4dIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMODA7E MOVEAIENT f TR�ES AIVD LANDSCAPING, BENCNES
A(�D OTFiER PE�ES7RIAfV At�1ENITIES AND COM/ENIEN�ES.
T
U. SIDEWALK EXT'ENSIONS '5HOULD BE PROVIDED AT ALL CROSSWALKS TO MINIMIZE THE
EXTENT OF STREET �ROSSING.
5. LAtVDSCAPED �EDESTRIAN WAYS SHOULD BE Pf20VIDED FROM ALL PARKING LOTS TO
STREET �IDEWALKS At� BUILDINGS.
6. L�4NDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE WAYS SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FROM MAIN,
�UftNf-f�'6, ASH AND HALL. BOULEVARD AND CONNECI'ED 70 TNOSE CONTAINED IN TH� I
FANNO CREEY. AARK pREA.
7. THERE IS A PEDESTRI�t�! UNDERPASS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SRIUGE; TNIS` SNOULD BE EXPANDED At�JD IMF'ROVED AS PART OF THE PARK TO
PROVIL�E A LINKA6E TO MF1IN STREET PEDESTRIAN WAYS AND THE NPO #� AREA.
-5-
,
I . _ _
F. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DE�ELOPMEh7 STANUARDS SHOtJLD BE PR�PARED AND ADOP7'ED FOR
THE DOWNTOWN AREA. IT 1S SlJ6GESTED fiHAT TME DOWt�TOWW BE DIVIDED INTO AREAS
UF C0�10N CFi�U2ACTER I ST I CS OR �ONCERNS. EACH STREE� HAS A lNN IQUE CN�RACTER
AND SPECIAL DEVELCPMENT CONCERNS. EACIi BLOCK DE:FINED BY THE STREET' SYSTEM
AJ._S0 HAS SPEGIALIZED CONDITICINS AND GONCERNS THAT SHOULD BE AD�RESSED.
TI� FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL SU&4REA5 ARE I-IEREBY IDENTIFiED FOR FURTN�R STWY
AND REFINEMENT RELATIVE TO APPLICABLE C3EVELOPMENT 5TANDARDS:
1. MAIN STREET
1.1) JHE NORTHWESTE�2N EtLOCKS OF MAIN STRE�T
1.2� T1-E SOUTHEASTERN BLOCK AREAS AS50CIATEO WITH MAIN STREET
2. Bl1RNFiAM STREE7
2.1) 1't� SOUTHWESTERN AREA BETWEEN BURNHAM APD F�NNO CREEK
2.2) THE NORTHEASTERN BLOCK BETWEEN BURNHAM AND THE RAILROADS
3• ��RCIAL STREET
3.1� TF-E SOUTFi1�JEST'ERN AREA BETWEEN CONY�IERCIAL AND TH� RAILROADS
3•2� TliE NORTHEASTERN AREA ASSOCIA7ED WITH COW�1ERCIAL STREET
4. THE COM�RCIAL AREA OF SCOFFINS STREET
5. PAC I f I C H I GFiWAY
5. HALL BQULEVARD
EACH OF THESE SUB,AREAS MAY REQUIRE THE AF'PLICATION OF DIFFERING DEVELOPMENT
STAhiDARDS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS TNE �PECIFIC ISSUES At�lD CONCERNS ASSOCIATED
WITH EACN AREA. APPLICATION OF C08VSISTENT DEVELOPM�NT STANDARDS SHOU�D
ASSIST TN C2�A�TNG A COORDINATED A�lD tJNIFIED D�LOPMENT PATTERN AND IMAGE
WH I LE ALSO PREVENT I NG ACT I tNVS TNlkl° WUtSLD DETRACT FROM A COORD I NATED PLANN I NG
EFFOR7.
TFIE PUBLYC DEVELOPMENT STANDAaDS WOUL� APPLY WTTHIN THE PUSL.IC RIGHT-OF-WAYS
� SHOIJLD INCLIIDE DEVELOPM�NT STANDARDS FOR:
A) STREET k�IDThiS, TURN Q.ANES, SIGNALIZATIOIV, Ot�l-STRFET PARlCIN�,
CURB CUTS pND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINCS.
B) 5ID�WAI..K WIi�THS, SURFACI�VG MATERIALS, AND CONTROL JQINT PATTERNS.
C) LAI�lDSCAPI�DG, L.TGHTING, BENCHES AND �7HER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
-7' �
� - - -- ;
D) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
PRIVATE DEVE�.OPMENT STANDARDS WCXJLD APPLY TO PROPERTY pEVEL�PNIENT AND COULD
INCLUDE �TpN(�ARDS FOR:
A� BUILDING HEIGHT.
B) SITE COVERAGE AND 5ETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING AND/OR PARKING.
C) BUILDING PARKING AND ACCESS LOCAl'IQtdS.
D) LANDSCAPING AND PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES TO THE PUBLIC 5IDEWALK SYSTEM.
E) DESIGN, COLOR, MATERIAL USAGE AND SIGNAGE.
EACH STREET SYSTEM At�D EACH DEFINED BLOCK HAS CONDZTI�IS TFiAT MAY REQUIRE
VARYING DEVELOF'MENT STANDARDS IN ORDER TO FULLY CAPITALIZE ON ITS POTENTIAL.
FOR INSTANCE, THE NORThiWESTERN BLOCKS OF MAIN STREET ARE I.WJIQUE DUE TO THEIR
ABUTMENT WI7H THE PACIFIC NIGFi�JAY EMBANKMENT. APPLICABLE STANDARQS HERE
MIGHT INCLUDE:
A� WIDE PEDESTRYAN PROMENAC)E SIDEWALKS C1�-12 FEE1') AT MAIN STREET.
B) CURBSIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET TREES BETWEEN PARKING STALLS.
C) PARALLEL CURBSIDE PARKING.
D) LEFT—HAND TURN LAf�fES WITH RAISED l�4NDSCAPED MEDIAN STftIPS.
E� iW PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ACROSS TURN LAtJES. PEDESTRIAN C(20SSINGS
' SHOULD OCCUR AT THE CORNER OPPOSTTE THE TURN 11aNE AND HAVE SIDE—
WALK EXTENSIONS TO THE TRAVEL L.ANE WHICH COULD ACCOMODATE BENCHES,
TRASH RECEPTACLES, TELEPHONE BOOTHS AND fJ7HER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
F� NO CURB Ct�TS OR AUTO ACCESS FROM N14IN STREET.
G� NO ON—SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. JOINT—U5E P�4(2KING LOTS COULD
BE P�OVIDED AT TIGARD AND COPMIERCIAL STREETS UTILIZING A PORTION
OF 1'HE ACQUIRED RAILROAD RIGNT—OF—WAY. OTHER PARKING COULD BE
PROVIDED FROM JOINT—USE LOTS BEHII� BUILDINGS FRONTING ON MAIN IN li
• SOUTHEASTEF2N BLOCK ARE�S OF M4IN 5TREET.
H; PEqESTRIAPV ALLEY5 BETWEEN BUILDTNGS CQULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO A
CONTINUC�US LANDSCAPED FEDESTRTAN WALKWAY AT THE BASE OF THE
PRCIFIC fiI6FiWAY EMBANKAIENT THAT WOULD ALLOW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
TO 7HE SI��S AND REAR �F MAIN STREET BUILDItVGS AND ENI.ARGE 7HE
NUMBEFt OF P07EPJTIAL 51-#�PS FOR THIS AREA. RESTAURANTS COULD
PROYID� OPEN COURTYARD DINING ADJACENT TO THt PEDESTRIAN WAY5
CREATIN� A UNIQUE SFIOPPING ENVIRONI�NT WI7N INCREASED ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE.
-8-
DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY TO THE BUf2NHAM STREET BLQCK�
ADJACEt�tT TO T'HE PAf2K. THE PROPOSED PARK IS A UNIQUE SETTING FOR BUSINESS
OR OFFICE USE WNICH REQUIRES SPECIALIZED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS. HERE, BUILDING
DENSITY COUL.D BE SIGNIFICfWTLY INCREASED DUF TO THE ADJACENT OPEN SPACE OF
THE PARK. COMBINED BUILDING AND ON—SITE PARKING DEVELOF'�1ENT APPEARS APPRO—
PF2IATE IN THIS AREA WITH PEDESTRIAN WAYS THAT WOULD LINK BURNHAM STREET AND
TF� DEVELOPMENT SITE TO THE PARK. PARK ACCESS CAN BE A VALUABLE EMPLOYEE
AMENITY THAT SH�ULD BE REGUGNI2ED AhlD UTILIZED.
ON—STREET PARKING ON BURNHAM DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MECE;SARY BEYOND THE
INr1EDIATE IN�LUENCE OF MA1N STREET ALYi-IOUGH THIS ASSUMPTION SHOtJLD BE
I M/E
STIGATED FURTIiER.
I'T SH0�1LD BE EMPHASIZED THAT SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULt� APPLY UNI—
FORMLY THRAUGHOUT THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHILE OTH�ERS MIGHT ONLY APPLY WITHIN
SPECIFIED SUSARrAS.
F'REPARATION AND qppPTTON OF DEVELOPMENT STAI�ARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN ,412E,q
SFIOULD BE UNE OF THE EARLY PLANNING TASKS OF TFiE AGENCY AND CITY.
WITH DEVELOPMENT S7ANDARDS IN �'LACE, THE DOWNTOWN WILL HAVE ONE OF Il"S MOST
VALUABLE TOOLS FOR CONSTSTENT AND INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT.
G. A SITE F'LAN REVIEW Of2 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE MAY ALSO BE UTILIZED TO GUIDE
DEi/ELOPMENT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
A REVIEW PROCEDURE IS A VALUABLE METHOD OF GUARANTEEING THAT DEVELOPMENTS ARE
COhWATIBLE. IT I5 NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO ANTICIPAT� ALL THE PROBLEMS OR
COl�DYTIONS THAY MAY OCCUR. A REVIEW PROCEDURE PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PREYIEW THE PROPUSED DEVELOPMENT AND M4KE ANY REQUIRED ADJU5TMENTS PRIOR TO
- .CONSTRl1CTI0N.
A PROJECT REYIEW PROCEDURE IS HIGHLY APPROPRIATE FQR THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND
SHOULD B� lJl'ILIZED TO GUIDE D�VFLOPNI�NT. THE ADOPTED REVIEW PROCEDURES AND
EVALUATION STMDARDS SHOULD ,BE WELL DEFINED T� INSURE THAT THE PROCESS IS
CONSISTENTLY APPLIED AND A[7i�1INISTERED. TFf ZONING ORDINAlJCE, AS ADMINIS7ERED
BY THE PLANNING CI�MMISSION, IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS PROCEDURE AND
SHOULD BE INCORPORATED THEREIN DURING TF� CITY'S PLAN AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS
NOW UNt)ER REV I EW.
IT IS ES5ENTIAL THAT THE MOMENTUM GAINED DURING THT5 INITIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PhWSE 6VOT BE LOST. TNE RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES GONTAINED IN THIS REPORT MU57 BEGIN
YMMEDIATELY TO INS�/RE THAT EACH NEW DEVELOPMENT IN TPiE AREA WILL CONTRIBUTE TO
THE DESIR£D PATTERNS THAT SUPPORT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.
'TFiE FIRS7 TASK SNOULD BE TNE UPI7ATE OF THE CI`fY'S OFFI.CIAL COMPREHEN5IVE PLAN
WITH RECONMENDED AMENDMENTS THAT SUPPORT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATI�JNe
_9.�
�
1 _ _ _ _.
.
PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROJECT REVIEW PRUCEDURES FOR DOWNTOWN
LAND USE DIS?'RICTS AND SUBpISTRIGTS IS THE MOST URGEI�T TASiC OF THE DOWNTOWN
COMMITTEE ATD AGENCY. PROPOSED STANDARDS MUST BE P{2EPAf2ED, STUDIED AND APPROVED
BY THE COhr1I1'TEE ANU AGENC`l PRIOR TQ REVIEW AND APPROYAL BY THE CI`fY PLANNING
CONw1I SS I ON MU C I TY COUNC I L FOR I NCLUS I ON I N THE ZOtV I NG ORD I N�#NCE. TFi I 5 5HOULD
OCCUR PRIOFt TO THE CITY'S �PTxON OF THE REVISED PL.Ab�I ANU ORDINANCE5 NQW UNDER—
GOING REVIEW.
II IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE 12ELEVANT DEVELOPfNENT STAl�ARDS FqWEVER RE UIRES
A DETAILED PL�INING PROCESS THAT ES7ABLISHES �tiE DESIRED PATTERNS OF DEVEL�OPMENT
, THAT WILL PROVIDE THE M4XI1�1 BENEFIT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THE REGOM�IENDATIONS
AND SIJGGESTIONS CONT`AINED IN THIS REPORT PROVIDES AN INITIAL STARTING POTNT FOR
THIS ACTIVITY. IT IS �SSENTIAL THAT THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN CC)MMITTEE CONTINUE THIS
PI.ANNING EF
FORT WITH CITY ASSISTANCf.
' —10— ,
-
I _
BEAVERTON January �9, �9s2
Jack Nelson
� Mayor
Mr. Franci,s J. Tepedino
Attorney At Law
Universi.ty Station, P.O. Box 8623
Portland, Oregon 97207
Dear Mr, Tepedino:
I appreciated receiving yaur letter especially since we discus'sed the sub�ect
at the City Club meeting on Friday. As I indicated, at that time, the scope
of our flo�dplain modification is directed at Beavertoa Creek which. runs
generally east to west thxough our downtown area.
We understand the problems resulting when a floodplain 3s modified and thereby
may be dis�l�c�d e1�ew�ese. We, both Beaverton and Tigard, share Fanno Creek
as a ma�or dra3nage system. Our development req�iremen�.s are specif ic and
work to gua•raietee that the exist�ng status nf Fanx►o C�eek won't be al�ered
and act negatively on your comffiunity°s system.
As I discussed briefly last Fri�ay, we are planning to utilize the stor�ge
capacity which exists on the St. Mar,y property and remove some blockages
which were created at Cedar Hills Boulevaxd and Murray years ago. The result
will be lowering of the 100 year flood elevation without significant disruption
of storage tm the west.
I appreciated receiving your comments and look to continued dialo�ue between
our two cities. .
Sincerely,
L-��4i�:�c.�'�,C�it---�
.7ack Nelean
J�N:tw
City of Beaverton • 4950 S,W: H�II Bouievard • Seav�rton,Qregon�700� •(503)644-2191 !
� . . _ ' � _ _ �I
�,
�
�°�� ,z,
'`��;t�,� u�
�;�=' Januar 20 �.982
�. y ,
,
BEAVERTON
,
Francis J. Tepedino I
Ghairman, Tigard Planning Commission
University Stat�on P.O. Box 8623
Portland, OR 97�Q7
Dear MJr. Tepedino:
This in response ta your letter of January 1982 directed to Mayor Nelson
concerning possible impacts to surrounding properties due to revisions to the
floodplain and floodways in Beaverton. Please let me assure you that the City
shares yowr concern for possible negative impacts caused by any alteration of
the floodplain. For this reason, the City Council arud the Engineering
Department h�ve adopted several ordinances and policies designed to eliminate
any of these nega�ive impacts. These ordinances and policies will allow
reasonable modifications to the floadplain, but still serve to protect
upstream and downstream properties. Some of the more significant poli�cies are
as follows:
- No fill in the floodplain; develop�rs may regrade in the floodplain as
long as there is balanced cut and fill .
- No buiiding �r obstructions allowed in the floodway.
- Negative environmental effects on the site must be mitigated.
- The s�te mus� be protected from erosion during construction.
- Developers are required to construct on site floodwater detention and
to restrict runoff to approximate the natural runoff from an
undeveloped parc�l.
- Notice must be published in the newspaper and s�nt to all properties
within 300 feet of the pro�osed floodp�aim m�dification prior to
construction.
These policies have been ri�idly enforced thraughout the City and have
all been in effect since at least 1979.
There are severel drainage systems that pass through Beaverton toward
Tigard. The most significant of these is Fanno Cr°�ek on afiich the City has
allawed several floodplain rra�difications, all in accordance with the above
policies. I have reviewed the more ma3or modifications witt� Frank Currie to
demanstrate to him that there would be no negativ� im�aacts to Tic�ard prior to
my issuanc� of the permits allowing construction to begin.
Cityof Beaverton • 4950 S.W� Hall Boulevard • Seaverton,Oregon 97005 • (503)644-2191
� �i.it„ . . . . � . . . . . . . . � .. . .. . . � ..
f.. . . .. � . . .. ... � . . . � . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .
i . .. . . . .. . � � . � � � . .
F'ra�tci s J. 7epedi no
January 20, 1982
- Page 2
Please �et me know if I can pravide any additional information to you , ,
regarding this matter.
Very trwly yours�
C ristopher Bowl��, P.E.
City En:gir�eer'
CB:jk;28
0120-C6-L
cc• Jack Nelson
i : . -
�� � r ��
"`���' F'�R1�NCIS J. TEPEDINO C�%�" v
4 �, ♦
s��:
y�� �r ��� ' ATT012NEY AT lI�[1W
UlVIVERSI'I`l STATION,P.O.BOX 86Q3 �r
PORTLAND,QREGON 97407
�� OFFI(;E 15031 79ft-8693 RF]S.18031 889-7H0O � ��
; , r
1 _ ,� ���,f� � ;�.,,e,,,
�'` ��,�
� Mr: Jack Nelson � �y�,�M� N �
Mayor �'��'�y� � �"' / ?
City of Beaverton �.""" ��,��
495(� 5. W. Hall B1vd. , ���.
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
Dear Mayor Nelson: �
I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman, Planning�
Commission for the City of Tigard.
A number of Planning Commission znembers have expressed
concern r�garding a recent announcement appearing in the
local newspapers concerning a �alan on the part of the
I City of Bea�erto.n to modif_y floodplain areas in order to
allow increased-or additional developmen�.
As you know, the City of Tigard is crisscrossed by a
number of streams, floodways� and floodplains which are
�eriodically inundated. Some c�f �hese floodw�ys and tlood-
plains pres:ent]:y pose some imminent danger to proper•ty in
the City of Tigard.
Because di these and ather related factors, the Tigard
Planning Commission is very con�erned about any chang�s or
mo,difications to not only floodplains anc� floodways witY�in
the City �f Tic�ard, k�ut such changes in adjacent communities
�ahich znay have a direc�t or indi.rect �ffect on Tigard.
There�ore� we would ask to be made aware of your plans for
modification or alterations, if any, to your flo�dways and
floodplains. We would a15o re��ectfully reques� that in
you� deliY�eratinn.s conc�rning these sensitive areas, that
you k�ep .�n mi.nd: any possible im�,a�.t on,yaur friendly
rleighboring citieso �� �.��'^..�` �'�.
t �
Youxs 3: , '
,
Fr cis J. Tepedino
FJT:bq
ccs John Myers, Chairanan of Planning Commi.ssion
City of Beavertnn
' Wilbur Bishop, Mayor
_ City af Tigard