Planning Commission Packet - 04/17/1984 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 17, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM
10865 SW Walniut Tigard, Oregon
1. Call to Order ,
2. ROLL CALL �
3. Approval of minutes from April 3, 1984
4. Planning Commission Communication
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 SIGN GODE EXCEPTION SCE I-84 Oak Hill Investment Npp �k 4
5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W. L. & Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO �� 5
5.3 SUBDIVISION S 7-84 VARIANCE V 7-84 Century 21 Properties/SI�ADOW E'ARK
NP0 �� 1
5.4 ZONE CHANGE ZC 6--84 City of Tigard Historic Overlay Districts
5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-84 OPEN SPACE OU�RLAY
5.6 CPA 9-$4 CHAPTER 18.26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS
5.7 CPA 10-84 COMMUNITY AEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
5.8 CPA. 13-84 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS
5.9 CPA 14-$4 CQMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS
5.10 CPA 15-84 SETBACKS IN THE CG AND CP ZONES
5.11 CPA 16-84 AMENDMENT DECISION PROCESS
5.12 CPA 17-84 DENSITY TRANSITION
6. OTHER BUSINESS
o Election of Officers
o NPO Appointment Pro�cess
o Training Workshop
o Comprehensive Plan update
7. Adjourn Meeting
. ,
TIGAftD PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 17, 1984
1. Vice President Moen called the meeting to order at 8:10 PM. The meeting
was held at Fowler Junior High School - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice President Moen, Commissioners Butler, Owens, Fyre
and Peterson.
ABSENT: Commissioner Vanderwood, Leverett, Tepedino, and Edin.
STAFF: Director af Planning & Development Bill Monahan;
Associate Planner Keith Liden; Associate Pianner
Elizabeth Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. Minutes from April 3, 1984 were considered. Commissioner Owens asked that
on Page 7 that the first sentence be clarified to reflect that high
density had been approved.
o Commissioner Fyre moved to approve minutes as amended.
Commissioner Peter.son seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION:
o A letter was received from Commissioner Edin regarding item 5.3.
S� PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 SIGN CODE LXCEPTION SCE 1-84 Oak Hill lnvestment NPO ��4
A request by Oak Hill Development Corp. Eor approval of a sign code
exception to allow a second free standing sign for a pr�posed shopping
center where only one is pemitted on property zoned C.G. (Commercial
General) located on the northwest corner of SW 78th Avenue and SW Pacific
�'Y• , T'igard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 36CD, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 1100,
1200, and 1300).
Associate Planner I,iden made staff's recommendation Eor approval with two
conditions. He noted the NPO had reviewed and had no problem with the
?xception.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Jerry Foy, Oak Hill, supported staff's
recommendation,
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak.
PAGE 1 - PLANNIN� COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1984
� -
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Discussion regarding size and number of s�gns.
o Commissioner Moen wanted to be assured the approval would be f�r the
resCauranC only and not anothex business that would mave in later.
o Commissioner Butler moved for approval of SCE 1-84 with the following
conditions:
1. 'Pwo freestanding signs will be allowed for the shopping center,
including the restaurant.
2. The signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director prior to issuance nf building permits.
3. The approval for the second free standing sign shall be for the
restaurant only.
o Commissioner Owens seconded. Mo�ion caxried unanimously.
5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W.L. S Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO �k5
Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval for a 20 lot development
on a 2.37 acre parcel zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) located on
the northwest corner of Durham Road and 8lst Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1
12CC, Tax Lots 1800 and 1802).
Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation noting concerns of the
Public Works Department. Staff recommended approval, conditioned on
resolving issues of concern.
NPO COMMENTS - Debra Naubert, 14365 SW 8�th - NPO ��5 Chairperson. The NPO
had concerns for houses abutting Durham R�ad, suggested some type of sound
buffer. Another issue was the traffic flow.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Kyan 0'Brian, 1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. , Hillsboro,
responded to the traffic issue and public improvemer; s. He requested
changing 24 f[. to 18 ft. on condition number One.
�
PUHLIC TE5TIMONY
o Edward Cotter, 8065 SW Durham Rd. , was concerned about the vaeation
of SW 81sC and what this would mean.
CROSS EXAMINATION AND RE�3UT`TLE
o Discussion followed between applicant and Commissioners regarding
street improvements.
o Discussion between staff and Commissioners regarding vacating of SW
81st.
o Dorothy Gage, adjoining property owner, expressed her concern for
decreasing pavement from 24 to 18 ft. Discussion followed.
PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSLON MINUTES - APRIL 17, 19�54
1
o Discussion regarding Gity's policy on half-street improvements -
Further discussion on stree.t improvements.
o Dorothy Gage wanted to go on record that she did not want to have to
make a commitment because of adjoining property developing.
o Further discussion between staff and NPO ��5 chairperson regarding
access and egress onto Durham Road.
o Mr. Peterson questioned what �ould happen to lot 5 if the street
would go throug�. Discussion followed.
o Commissioners and staff discussed the half street improvements at
length.
o Commissioner Moen asked if Mrs. Gage would object to letting the
developer put 7 ft. of pavement on her property. She felt this was
an encroachment on her property and did not want it. Discussion
followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Peterson felt lots 4, 5, and 6 should be adjusted. He
was concerned that the City was not clear about public improvements.
o Commissioner Butler did not support a non-remonstrance. He felt SW
81st should go through or be dedicated. He did not feel developer
sh�ould pave 24 ft. to the north. Discussion followed.
o Commissioner Fyre supported Commissioner Butler's commenksd
o Commissioner Owens wanted to see the 81st Street issue resolved.
Also the setback issue had not been discussed, There was alsa
concern about ingress and egress on Durham from 81st, �nd the
condition of Durham Road.
o Commissioner Moen supported having 81st going through.
o Ryan 0'Brien interjected how difficult it would be if the street was
opened.
o Staff recommended item be tabled until May 8th mPeting to give them �
opportunity to resolve issues of concern.
o Commissioner Butler moved to table S 6-$4 until the May 8, 7.984
meeting to allow staff, State Highway, and applicant to resolve issue
regarding SW �lst.
o Commissioner Moen added that lots 4, 5 and 6 might need adjusting.
He also had a concern for any half street improvements. He felt Bond '
Strest should go straight through.
o Commissioner Owens suggested adding to the motion that staff
encourage the property owners to negotiate so street improvements
could be made on property to the north.
PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION 1�T.NUTES - APRIL 17, 1984
o Commissioner Butler a;greed to add to his uiotion.
Commissioner Peterson seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
5.3 S'UBDIVISION S 7-84 VARIANCE V 7-84 Century 21 Properties/SHApOW pARK-NPO �kl
�
A request for preliminary subdivision plat approval of a 67 lot
development and a variance to the yard requirements of the R-12
(Residential, 12 units/acre) zone to allow a 5 foot szde yard and a 15
fooC rear yard where 10 and 20 feet respectively �re required. The
property is located at 9125 SW 0'Mara Street, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map
2S1 2DB Tax LoCs 400 and SDD).
Associate Planner Liden reviewed the applicant's proposal and letters
submieCed by Paul Johnson, Phil Edin and Willene Ettestad. He explained
that a sensitive land permit would be required as a condition of approval.
NPO COMMENTS - J B Bishop speaking as an individuaL member of NPO �1
supported staff's recommendation. He stated they wanted access to the park
APPLICANT'S PItESENTATION - Mike Fain, Century 21 Properties, Inc. ,
responded to the Sensitive Land issues. He was concerned aUout J B
Bishop's comment regarding access to the park. His understanding from the
recent NPO ��1 meeting was that they wanted the access closed. He reviewed
the traffic circulation, and addressed concerns which had been raised at
the previous hearing. He agreed to the conditions placed by staff as long
as condition one didn' t include both the bikepath and sidewalks.
PUaLIC TESTIMONY
o Larry Saub, Burnham Ct. and Hili gt. - stated he t�ad attended NPO
�1's meeting. It was the consensus of the NPO and individuals
present to eliminate the park access.
o Willene Ettestad, 9130 SW 0'Mara, would Like bikepath on south side
of the street.
o Gloria Johnson, 9700 SW Hill, was concerned about the park access
which would increase traFfic problems in the residential area.
CROSS EXAM AND REI3UTTAL
o Discussion regarding moving bikepath and the affect it wouid have.
o StaEf's commented that the Public Works Director preferred having
bikepath on the north side. Discussion followed.
o Butler questioned City's policy regarding dedicating open space
areas. Discussion followed.
o Lengthy discussion regarding alignment af the streets.
PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE$ - APRJ,L 17, 1984
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISaION DISCUSSION AND ACTION:
o Commissione� Fyre concexned with access to park. Sup�orted
bikepath on south side of street.
o Consensus was for bikepath to be constructed on the south side of the
street.
o Commissioner Moen wanted to see Lake Street finish�d off. He felt
Hi11 Street needed access to the park and that it should be well
lighted and paved. This access also should be dedicated to the
City. Lengthy d'iscussion followed.
o Commissioner Butler m�ved to approve S 7-83 and V 7-$4 modifying
condition number One by deleting bike lane and adding bikepaGh to be
constructed on the south side of the street. Modifying condition
number 5 to include pedestrian access between lots 54 and 55, and
dedicating designated f�oodplain to the City as park. Also adding
the following cc�nditions: ll. Parking spaces shall be provided on
the horseshae. 12. No structures sha11 be built in the designated
floodplain. 13. Open Space adjacent to 56-65 (Western Revine) shall
be incorporated' into these lots with deed restrictions to leave as
' open space in natural state for buffering. 14. Finish off end of
Lake Skreet. 15. Access area to be well lighted. 16. Site barrier
should be installed to Planning Director's approval at southern end
of the praperty.
o Commissiomer Moen seconded. Motion failed, Commissioners Owens, Fyre
and Peterson voting no.
o Commi��ioner Butler moved for approval of S 7-83 and V 7-84 with the
following conditions:
1. Standard minor collector half-stxeet improvements including
d d
sidewalks curbs an street li hts shall be rovide alon the
� , P•, P $
0'Mara Street frontage. A pedestrian bikepath will be
' constructed on south side of 0'Mara.
2. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction
plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped
by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvements shall. be submitted to the City's Engineering
Division for review.
3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public
improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 1Q0%
performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/sl-reetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a
street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall
occur prior to, or concurrenkly with the issuance of approved
public improvement plans.
PAGE 5 - PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUT&S - APRIL 17, 1984
� _ _- = _,_-- _ _ -- __
4. An additional 10 feet of rxghtrof-way shall be dedicated along
the 0'Mara Street Erontage to increase the right-of-way width
from centerline to 3O feet.
' 5. 7�e und�veloped portion of the praperty that i� within the
lOQ-yeas floodplain, shall be designated as floodplain and
dedicated to Che City as park.
6. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be obtained prior to submi�sion
of the final plat.
7. The setback restrictio�ls of the R-7 zone shall apply to the
portion of the development which is zoned R-12 (PD).
8. The subdivision shall contain: a maximum of 67 lots.
9. Necessary survey work shall comply with the follnwing:
a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N',G.S. 1929).
All exis:ting and established (temporary) bench marks in
the vicinity of the project shall be shown on the
consCruetion drawing.
b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following
exceptions:
18.160.160 A.2
Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on su�face of final lift will
be acceptable.
NOTE
18.160.160 B.1 ` - -
City of Tigard Primary Control Surveys �CS. �k 19,947 & 20,223)
Local-Ground coordinates axist for all stations. State plane
coordinates not required. City can make transformation given
local coordinates.
c. Compliance of 18.160.190 �B)
d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in positions
that DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation.
10. This approval is valid for the period of one yeax from the final
decision date.
11. Ten parking spaces shall be provided on the horseshoe. �
12. No structures shall be constructed in designated floodplain.
13. Open Space adjacent to 56-65 �Western Revine) shall be
incorporated into these lots with deed restriction to leave open
space in natural state for buffering.
PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APKIL 17, 1984
� - _ -
.
,
;
'
14. Finish off end of Lake Street. ,I
�
15. Site barrier should be installed to Planning Director's approval
at southern end of property.
_ 16. Eliminate 25' easement between 54 and 55, and install drainage
underground.
o Commissioner Peterson seconded. MoCion carried. Commissioner Owens
and Moen voting No.
5.4 ZONE CHANGE ZC 6-84 HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS
Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to assign Historic
Designation to the requested properties. She stated the owners were
notified and no one had objected. '�
PUBLIG TESTIMONY
o No one sppeared to speak.
I'UBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Owens moved for approval of ZC 6-84.
Commissioner Butler seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
5.5 CPA 3-84 FLOODPLAIN OVERLAX
Associate Planner Newton reviewed two alternative methods to address this
issue. Discussion followed.
o Staff recommended redrawing lines as proposed in alternative number
two.
PUE�LIC TES'TIMONY
� No one appeared Co speak.
FUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Discussion followed regarding redrawing the line.
o Commissioner Owens moved to Eorward recommendation of approval for
alternative number two to City Council.
Commissioner Fyre seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
YAGE 7 - PLANNING CQMMTSSION MINUTES - APItIL 17, 1984
5.6 CPA 9-84 COt�4IUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE DEFINITIONS
Associate Planner Newton reviewed definition which staff is recommendin�
be incorpoxated infi o the rode. Discussion followed.
NPO GONIMENTS - Phi1 Pastoris, NPO �6 Chairman, commented that the
definition for "Story, half" was unclear; even if it had been taken from
the Uniform Building Code.
PUBLIG HEARING CLOS'ED
COtYIIdISSION DISCYISSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Butler moved to forward recommendation of approval for
CPA 9-$4 to City Council adding °br external" to the Remodel
definition.
Commissioner Peterson seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
i
5.7 CPA 10-84 CHANGES TO THE COA4IUNITY UEVELOPMENT CODE
Associate Planner Newton reviewed changes being px•oposed. l
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur - Raised concern on Item III-288.
18.150.020 C, as being unclear. Staff stated they would add "except
for B above."
,
-
o Mar Clint�n -
y , 9865 SW View Court Raised concern with deleting
III-157, section 18--96.090 and recommended adding it ta Section '
1.8.98.030.
PUBLIC HEARINC; CLOSED
COMMISSION UISGUSSION ANll ACTION
o Consensus �f Commission was to zemove Item III-157 from the changes.
o Commissioner Butler moved to forward recommendation of approval to
City Council, with the exception of Item III-157.
Commissioner Peterson seconded.
Motion carried with Commissioner Owens abstaining.
PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINUT�:S - ltpRlL 17, 1984
� _ __ — __ _-
5.8 throug� 5.12
o Gommissio.ner Bu�ier moved to set over item$ 5.8 through 5.12 to the
May 8, 1984 hearing.
Commissioner Peterson sec�onded. Motion carried unanimouslye
6. Meeting adjourned' at 12:40 A.M:
C�..�I%�I
'��
.
Drane M. Jelde , Secretary
ATTESTt
A. Donald Moen. Vice Pxes.
(DJ:br/0421P)
PAGE y - PLANNING CUMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 19E�4
X&%�4%�4HXXX
PLANNII�G COMMISSION ROLL CALL �
�
/ �
Frank. Tepedino ►v V
John Butler _� �/�
Phi1 Edin ^� ��,�
��
Milton Fyre `� �
Deane Leverett � �
_ nn��
�
✓I '�
Donald Moen _��
Bonnie Ownes �
Dave Peterson �
Chris Vanderwood �
,
.�:. . ... _— _.�_�. i o �.__,� .. ..
�
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS D'ESZRING TO SPE;f�K ON ANY ITE�1 MUST SIGN TtIEZlZ NADfF:
and note rheir address on this sheet. (please Print your name)
.
ITEM/bESCRIPTIO'N: � � I���
�� �
PROPONENT {For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation • Name, Address and Affiliation
�
:
�
�
,�:, �: . _._�hi 1---- �.7,---.�.%�-- -
�
NOTICE; ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEFI MUST SIGN THEIK N11h1�:
and note their address on this sheet. (please Prin't your name)
ITEM/bESCRI�?TION: ��.L��_�(,'��UIS� S '" C'� � � �
�, � � ,
�1. � � r1"
1► � � o ,
h
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
/ ^ .,�sZ ���� S � 2��> '
� �,�- ����--�
,
:,
�
�
.
� ,
„ .. ... . ._���:/ ���_._. ._ �
� ��
NO'PICE: AIL PERSONS DE�IRING TO SPE1#K ON F�NY ITEh1 MUST SIGN THEIFt NF�M�:
and note their address on this sheet_ (please Print your n�me)
ti -7 ) f�
ITEM�bESCRIPTION:�(/��UIS�(J� � / �� �`' 1/i��/�'�., �r�v�
�. 3 �
�
� � � �
s �
PROPOt�ENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Af�iliation
� ��dT� ✓
� � � � �`� �
'.JJ�i r� -n��” ✓
—
+ �
�
� I G-- .e� �
�1 c .
C��VI.-�-l�lrt �� v' t �l�G �
`l� �� r I� �.( -��-�,
. '��.��-�� �-.� - 10 �2 ;,
��---27 �2
'
�______
------�_.–..-------------------•---
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION STGN UP SHEET
NOTICE: ATL PERSONS DESIRTNG TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN TH1;IK N�NIE
and note their address on this sheet. (�lease Yrint your name)
ITEM�bESCRIPTION: � �� �,,,'_�"'�� ��
�•
�
.
S � c�r�~
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against�
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
�
:�
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRZNG TO SPE1�K OI�1 ANY ITEM biUST SIGN THEIEt NAMF
and note their addtess. on this �heet. (pZease Print your name)
, � ITEM/bESCRIPTION: � �"
L �
PROPONENT (For). � OpPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � . Name, Address and Affiliation
_
.
'
� , '
;
i . � �
� �
,
_
� _ -- --- — - --- —
u�.. __�^r_.��Z-�.--._.._
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET
[vOTTCE: AL"L PEF<SONS DESII2ING TD SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THE:IIt NAHIE
i
and note their address on this sheet, (�leas� Print your name)
ITEM ESCRIP.TION: / Y `� °
/�.
�, �
.
�
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT� (against)
Name, Address and Affiliatian � Name, Address and A�£�.liation
r
, 1.
�ti
NOTICE: ALL PERSON5 DESIRING TO SPEAK ON AN`d IT�M MUST SIGN TI�ZEIEt NAMR
and note theix addt�ess, on this sheet. (please Print your name)
. ITEM/bESGRTPTION: t,,..•�� � •
� � �—
A
�/�.�,�„� �'
PROPONENT (For). ' O$PONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � . Name, Address and Affiliation
- �:' �' /o��J�S'�✓ ,��,l."� ,
. �
; ` .
�
,
� _ _ .
LL'�lu
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET
I30TICE: ALL PE�RSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIk NArIE
i
and note their address. on this sheet. (please Print y'our name�
ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: � •
� �
� _ ,
1 �
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (againstl
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
`
�( . �)" �I' �aS'. /e�(�'��(
, � _y�!�::':d :..�. 1 � c�s ceI,i vr��-
_�� - `
'� 6i-z� �' �-�-�1'rn.. �'4 5���� ���
, <'' -j 1 ��� � � w� �J;� C'�
�'� � S�ZUS P�l�o �� '
NOTICE: ALL PERSON5 DE5IRIN6 TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIFt NAMF
and note their address. on this sheet. (please Print your narne)
ITEM/bESCRIPTIOI�T: ��,� / '
S' � - �
;
,
��� � ���
PROPONENT (For) O$PONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affzliation . Name, Address and Affiliation
;
.
___ -- — _ �J
�... . __� __��_�r7:�_._.._
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET
� - �
NOTIt+E: AL'L PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIK NANI�,
and note their address on th�.s sheet. (pl�ase Print your name)
ITEM/bESCRIP,TION. ��� 1S ' � �
` '
. �� �� �� � � � � r �� ..
�
C�'� �' ZDv'V�'S
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
�
• ,
�ti
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRIN'G TO 5PEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIFt NAMF
and note t�aeir add�ess: on fihis sheet. (please Print youx' name)
ITEM/bESCRIPTIOI�T: /� �
. / t
� ,
� . .
.
.�11,�f:� 1'Y) � T e t,a� r�
PROPONENT (For): t O�PONENT (against) i,
Nam�, Address and A�filiation � . Name, Address and Affiliation
. .. ...
� �� -�i�:%e 3v.� /a��"r fi'� RGv
,
1. i
�_ .
, �i Y
. . . �. .� ` .�� �°�___._"'__""_.._.._ .
TIGARp PLANNTNG COMMISSIOI� SIGN UP SHEET
NOTICE: AL'I. PER50NS bESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIIt N�rIE
�
and note their addre,ss on this sheet, (please Print ybur name)
� �
ITEM/bESCRIP,TION. i9 7 ��
`� �-
. . s :�.. � �.
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affiliation
�
• ,
;f
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRIATG 7."O SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN TFIEIft NAMF
and .note thei.r adSt�ess. on this sheet. (please Print your �ame)
ITEM/bESCRIPTTON:
PROPONENT (For), ' OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address ancl Affiliation � . Name, Address� and Affiliation
I
�
.
�
�
.
� ,
�
Agenda Ttem 5. 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OKEGON
T0: Planning Commission April 13, 19$4
FROM: Keith Liden
SU�3JECT; Sign Code Exception (SCE 1-$4) for Oak Hill Investment
The applicant has applied for Site Development Review (SDR 7-$4) to develop a
36,000 square foot retail building and a separate 3,600 square foot restaurant
on the northwest corner of Pacific Highway and 78th Avenue. In addition, a
sign exception, as provided in Section '18.114.140 of the Code, is requested to
allow two free standing signs instea�d of one (Section 18.114.130 C).
Tt�e signs proposed for the develo�ment are as follows:
A. One free standing monument sign located at the main Pacific Highway
access with the project name in copy EPacific Crossroad Shopping Center)
and sign copy identifying each individual tenant of the main building.
Maximum of 24 tenants is anticipated.
This sign shall comply with ciimensional and height limitations
established in the Comprehensive Plan. (See site plan).
B. Back lighted, Plexi,• wall signs on the main building identifying each
tenant and compiying with area limitations of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. One additional free standing sign for the free standing restaurant.
(see attached sign plan for "RAX" and site plan).
D. Wall signs on the free standing restaurant. (See attached sign plans
for 1°RAX���.
NPO �k4 has no objection to the proposed exception, however, the NPO would like
an opportunity to review the entire project with' the developer prior to the
conclusion of Site Development Review.
The Code provides that exceptions to the sign requirements may be granted by
Ghe Commission. The Planning staff feels that the proposed exception is
consistent with the intent of the Code for the two reasons noted in the
applicant's statemenC whieh is attached.
The Planning staff recommends approval of Sign Code Exception SCE 1-84 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Two freestanding signs will be allowed for the shopping center,
including the restaurant.
2. The signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning llirector prior
to issuance of building permits.
(KSLspm/0403P)
,
t
The intent of this �pplication is to requ�st consideration of the overall signage
system proposed for the shopping center at the a:bovc address.
The devel�pment consists of a 36,000 square foot retail building located on a 3.147
acre parcel. In addition, a 3,b00 square foot, free standing restaurant occupies
a portion of the parcel.
Our proposed signage program consists of the fol,lowing:
A. One free standing monument sign located at the main Pacific Highway access
with the project name in eopy (Pacific Crossroad Shopping Center) and sign
copy identifying each individual tenant of the main buildi.ng. Pdaximum o�f
24.
This sign shall comply with dimensional and height limitations established in
the Comprehensive Plan. (5ee site plan) .
B. Back lighted, Plexi, wall signs on the main building identifying each tenant
and complying with area limitations of the Comprehensive Plan. (See building
elevations) .
C. One additional free standing sign for the free standin restaurant. See
g (
attached sign plan for "RAX" and site plan) .
D. taall signs on the free standinq restaurant. (See attached sign plans for
, "�X°) .
We are asking for an exception to the comprehensive plan's allowance of only one
free standing sign �er parcel based on tw� issues.
Firstly, the Tigard code allows a free standing sign for each parcel of propertyo
The area and configuration of our development could allow the Rax site to be
partitioned into a separate parcel thus allowing it's own sign4 However this project
is a combined effort on a single 55 year ground lease, therefore making subclivision
technically impossible. We are asking the Rax site be considered a separate parcel
as it normally would be under a land sale condition.
Secondly, the Tigard code makes a provision for a second sign in a "shopping center"
with two or more main entrances on separate f.rontages, providing the site is over
4 acres in size and accomoclates 8 or more tenants. Because our site is reasonably
close in size to �his requirement (3.147 acres) and accommodates far in excess of
8 tenants (20-24} we offer this arqument as further justificati.on for the allowance
- of a second free standing sign.
We appreciate your consideration of this issue.
.
Yours very truly,
ARCHITECTS VAr1 LOM; A.I.A.
�� ,��M------
Kelly Edwards
Architect
�
. � � . . . � � � . r. � . . � . . . . ..
4 �
CI;�"Y q� T]:Gf��tl7 PLANNI;NC t;ON�IT.`:;�:CON
t�
�:CNAL c�RI�H R Np. 84 .:_ �PC .
A F�:NAI.. OftCIEFt I;N TW�. MA'T"1"E.R QF' T'H�: AF��L.x�AT':C:ON F(�R A SUEiI��:VT.S:�;�N f2�::�UE:ST'�:u EiY '
W, l�, AIU� 8�F2'1":CNA Sf�WYFR, PI.ANIU:[;N� F:I:i..f�: NUMF3FR S 6--84. Ai�i�ROV:C.�iG APPi..;CL;AT:C(�N '
R�QUES"r',._.;E,NT�R�NG F�:NDI�IGS ANQ GONCLUSIONS�. ..�,.._.,. ,�.M._..,�;.._., ,.. ._ _.�.....�..,_,._...._.
The Tigard Planni.ng Cammissic�n Mearc� �the ��r��e application (�pr�il. 17, �.�384 �nd
or� Augus� 7, �.9g�i. Ryan p'Brian represen�ed tN�e app].i�ar7t, O�:Mer persrar�s
testif�:�d f�r and �gairist �Me applicati.an as n�ted in �the Apri:], 17, 138A
miriutes.
1"h� Cnmmissir,�n finds tMr� follc,wir�q F'AC7"S in thi,s matter;
�.. 'The �pplican�t requested �p�rova]. �tca suhac�ivi.�a a 2,37 �nd A.7� acre
parce]. in�n 7..?.. la�s an prGperty xr,,n�el R..,'1'l. (Resi.�lrr�t:i�7., i.7..
un�.ts/acre) and lacat�c� �t tl�» nc,r•thwc��t cr�riner ��•f �ur�ham Rr��d �ind
8y.st Aaenue (WasM. Cr�, Tax Ma�, 2;'1 12CC, T'�x L�ats 18Q0 ar�d 1A02).
Infornlatir�n supp�r•ting the request is frat,inc� a.n planna.ng F�i.le N��.
;; �..�gq,
7_, T'f�� a�a�].i.cant's justi.fic�ti.un i.s pres�n•t�c� in t:W�e �xhibi.�s subnri.tted
and the minutes c�f �he Apri1 17, ].9E�4 hparing,
� 3 , 1"he r�l.eu�nt �p�rovd]. critsri.a i.r�i th�i.s cas� are Sta:tc�wi.dc? F�lanni.r�q
_ Gaals �., 2r �nd 9,�; Gity a�f '1"igar�d Cr�mpreh�nsi.ve pl.an Prrlici.ss 2,7.. X.
ar�c� Ch�pter 18.16Q uf th� C��mmuni�y Qeuel�.�pm�r�t C�,de.
13as�c� upan •thr� recr�rc� in this case, th� Crammissi�n mak�Y •�he fa].lowing
FTIVD7fNC;�:
1. S��t�wa.d� P]:�r�n�.nc� Ga�l, #1 i5 met; b��cacise �h►� C9.ty has ac�ra�ted �
Giti��ns Inur�lvemexit progr�am i.nrluding reva.ew of al.l c�suel.opment
��7rJI.7.G�'�7.p1"18 by tN�� IV�i.ghburFyarac� P],�nna.ng Organir��ta.�an (NFyO) . In
�tiditinn, all publ:ic nnti�:e requir�ments were me�t,
?.., Statew�;d� F��.anni.ng Gra�], ,#`7 is met k�c�caus� thc� Ci.ty ��p].i.ad �].],
applicabl� ��ta�ewi.c�e P�.ani��ing Grrals, l:,:ity t�r,�m�r�h�nsiue P].�n pr�],ica.�s
ar�d Develnpmc�nt cc,d� requir�mEnts ta thE ag>p],i.cati,�n.
3. St�tewir�e Planning G�al #14 is met because a�a�rr,�val nf •this
swbrai.ui.si.c�n wil:]: prqvide for 2.7.. new r�si.d�ntial uni.ts in th� City,
A. City of 1°�igard Gnm�rehen�iue P].an Pcalicy 2,i.. 1 is sa•tisfa.ad because
the N�igMh�arhor,d Plar�ni,ng 4 _arrix..�ti.un anr� �surrr�ur�din ra erties
�! � P P
were giu�n n�tice of �hP hHaring arid an c�ppc>r�tunity tr� cc3mment an �the
appli.carr� prapr�sa]..
5. Chapter ],8.54 and ifl.160 raf �H�€� C�mmuni,ty D�auel.uprnei7t Gr�d� ar�
sa�isfipd because thp prnpr�s�l i.s cansisteri� wa.th tMe requi.r�ments af
�� the R-•-17. z�ane �nd the requirem�nts �For subda.uiding land,
�':CIVAI.; �Rq�R N0. 84 - �pC �UBI�IV:[SION 8Y W.l., 6 H�.RTTNA �C�WY�R pAfaE 1
_ .__..�, -
� _ -_ -
Th� Cr.,mmi:ssi,un adap�s th� fol.lc,u�ing CbNCL:US7f.ONS OF G.AW; ,
� 1. H�sp<� nn Finc�ii�c�s 1, 2, artd 3 �thp Commissinr� hias d�t�rma.inpd th�t •Ghe
appli.can�:`s prap�sal meets ap�l.i:�•�k�l.� Stateaiid� Planni:ng Graa].s.
2. F:iase�i upc�n Fa.nding 4, �the Cr,mmissir�n ha� c�e�ermi.nec� �that adpqua�e
r��purtuni.ty fc�r ci.ti.x�n p�arti.cipati:rar7 was giu�n,
3. Hased upan F'it�ding 5, ��Nie Cr�mmis�i���n has d��terminpd •tN��t •tha
appli.cabl� Cad� r�quirem�nts have b�er7 met,
9a�ed upon tMe abave �findings and ccanc'�usions, S 6.:_84 is h�I�NR�VFl3 subje�ct to
the fol.lowa:ng condi.ti:nx�s;
].. Stanciard ha�:f-•stre�t i:mpruvem�nts includi.ng 2.4--�fr�nt pau�n�Fnt wi.c�ths,
sid�wal!<s, curbs, strc��t l.i.gh�s, amd c�riuew�y �pratns sh�ll be
proui.dec� a7.aMg th7 8].st r�u�nu� �Frnnta�e and thte 6rar�d ��reet
�xt�nsir�n, Full•--str�et improvemeri�L-s r.�n Bc,r�ne Str4����t ir7cluc�a.ng a
�em�arary twrn arc,und at the west end sFr�l.l b� inst�l.l.ed.
2. Seven (7) se�s of plan._pr�fi,l.e a.mprnu�mr�r�t cr,nstr�ucti.rri� �1�ns and ane
(1) itemixed cunstructian aast esta.m�te, s��mped hay � r�gisterc�d
riv�.l engineer, detailing ,�11 prap�spd publ.a.c impr�au�nr�nts shall be
submitt�d to the City's �;ngirre�ring Da.ua.si.c�n �for r�vi.ew,
3. Construetior� nf pr�apasec� p�.�blir i,mprr�v�merrEs sha11 not commr�nr.:e uihtil
a�Fter the Engineera.ng Di,ui,5a,�in has issu�d a:pprou�d �ub7.ic i.mprouem�nt
� plans (the i�:iuis�.c,n wil.1 rec�ui.re p�st:ing of a 1t7A '� perf�r�mar�ra_
band), the paym�rrt raf � �ermit fee ar7d a si,gn
installatian/streetlic�ht de�asit. A1sn, the expcut�.r,�n �f � ��r��t
apening pc�r•mi.� ur �unstructi.an comF�li.�nce agre�rncr�t slna].1 aecur �rrirar
to, or cancurrently wi�th thp i�suarrr„E� c�f appr�r�uFyd pub�.a.c 1f11�DY'�U4tITIP.YIt
K!�.0"ll'18.
n, 5treet pl.uqs, ane frarat i.��� w9.dth, shia].]. bc� �ru�id�d �:a th�
satisfacti.on of �Me Fngin�e�ring Divi.sa.r,n an Br�one and M3r.,nd Streets.
5. T'he 81st Auenu� impruvemE�nts sha].l. be r�qwi.r�d �� ��r sr.�uth a5 thE
suutherly swbdiuisir�r� s�tr�et, The r�m�in�.ny p�.,r•ta.�n o�F �hhe
rigM�-..af--way ta [3urharn Raad may b+� vacated.
6. A City of 'T'igard apprr�ued Nan—remanstran�e Agr�em�nt r�±gardinc� �Future
i.mprovem�rits alang th�e purham Raad frUint�g� shwl,]: b� rer.orc�ed wi�hi 1
Washingtran Caunty and re�:urrr�„d tr� •the Pl.anni.ng Dr�par•tment pri��r t4
issuarice af bui.],dir�q p�rmits or charrge in �rop�r�ty c,wn�rshi.p,
7. Necessary survey wurk shall cr�mply with �the fr�l].pwi.r7g:
a. Wertica�. patum shall be Ca.ty �f T'3.gard {N.C.S. 197..9). Al,].
existing arrd est�bl:a.sMpd (tempr�r•ary) bencM marks in �k;he ui.�inity
a�F �he praject shal.]. be shc,wn on the cans:tructian .drawi.n,�..
�
FTNAI. dRp�:R N0, 84 — �P'C SUHI�IV�SION B'Y W.L. & Bk;FtT'TNA �(�WY�R PA�F 1
� _ _ -_ -- __ __
. .• ¢.... . . . � " . . . . .. . . . . .. . .
b, Campl.i.anGe of 18.160.16b '(a11) with `the �ul].awi.ng excepti.r�n:
�� 18, 1bQ,�,6d A,2
Capped Fi/8" X 30" Iran Rr�ds an surf�ce a�F final lift wi.l]. b�
acreptable, ,_.
NOTE
18.16Q,160 8.1
Ci:ty of Ti.gard Primary Cantrol Surveys (CS. # �.9,947 &
2Q,223) Local•-Ground c�ard`inates exa.st far a11
s�a�ions. State p]:an coc,,rcli.nat�s nut required� Ci.ty . ;
can make tr�ansForm�'�ion giuen local caordinates,
c, Chmp].iar�ce of �,8.160.19Q (8)
d. Al.l s��rm ar�d sanitsxry lines shal.l be placpd in pos�:ti;ons �hat DO
No1" interfer� with c:enterl.a.ne manumentati,an.
8. The suladiuisian wxl.l cun�ain a maximwm �f 7.2 lots.
9. Addition�l right-�of-way shal:l b� dedicated ta the Cit� along �h 81st
Auenue. frantage t�, ir�crease tMe right--r�f-way to 25 f�et from
cer�terJ:in�. The d�seription for sa�id dedicatior� shall b� to the
strap� cer�terline. TV�e legal dascriptian sha11 be approv�d by the-
Engi.neering ; pa,ua;sian and record�d with Washingtan Cownty, Alser,
aciditional rigF�t--af-��way sha11 be d�di�:a•t�d as n�Gpss�ry ta
�,_ accommr�dat� h�l.f-street im�aravements alr�ng the ne,rthern bc,��n��ry af
the subdiuisinrr.
1'0. After re�iew and ap�raval by the Planning Da.rectur dnd Gi.ty �ng9:r�eer,
�the fir�al p:lat shall be re�orc�ed with Washing��n C�urr�y �n�i a mylar
capy af tNie recurded pl,�t sMal.l k�e submi�ted tu the Ci.ty Fngin��ring
qivision wi�thin 15 c�a�s of recarding,
li. This apprGVal i,s; v�3:id fcr.� the p�ri.ad af an� yc�ar frnm thc� final
decisian date,
It is further o�dered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED• This .3�`� , day of _��_� 1984, by tl;►e Planning Commission of
the City of Tigard.
�
�
�'��^..a✓CiG�I �-t�—
�(���
A, prrnald Nlaen, Presxd�nt
Ti.gard Plannir�� Commissir�n
(KS�.;bs/c�68�P)
�.
F'IIVAL qRpER N0. 84 -�' a„�PG SUBpTVTSION BY W.l;;; & 9�R1"INA SAWYE�t PAGE; 3
i��'.�i. . � . .
M
!.
':? � . .
. .. �"�i�. . �
�' CITY OF TIGARD PZANlNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER N0. 84-� PC
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE
REQUESTED BY DAVE EMhIETT, FILE NUMBERS S 8-84 and V 11-84, APPROVING TIiE
APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at a special
meeting on July 24, 1984. The applicant's engineer represented the
applicant. Neighhorhood Flanning Organization (NPO 4� 2) also appeared in
support of the application. No one s�,oke in opposition.
The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter:
1. The applicant in this matter, Dave Emmett, requested approval to
subdivide 1.6b acres into 13 5,000 square foot lots in the R-12 zone
(Medium Density Residential - 12 units per acre) and subdivision
variances to reduce flag lot side yards from 10 ft. to S ft. and the
street frontag� width from 25 feet to 20 feet and 15 feet. The
' property is located on the southwest corner of SW 95th Avenue and SW
Noxth Dakota Street (Washington County Tax Map 1S 35CA, Tax Lot
2000). The information supporting the request is found in File
Number S 8-84.
�, 2. The applicant's justification �s presented in the minutes of the July
24, 19$4, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant at that time,
� represented by Engineer Ryan 0'Brien, supported staff's
recommendation and conditions with the exception of condition # 4
which he wanted modified t4 add "tapering into the existing pavement".
3. The xelevant approval criteria in this case are the State°wide
Planning Goals 1, 2, 10, and 11. City of Tigar�i Co��+rehensive Plan
Policies 2.1.1, 6:3.3, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, �.1.3, and Community
Development code Section 18.160.120.
Based on the record in this case9 the Commission ffialce the following FINDINGS
in this matter:
1. st�te-wtae Planning Goal #1 is met because th� City has adopted a
Citizens Involvement program including r�view of all development '��
applicat3ons by the Neigborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In
addition, a11 public notice requirements were met.
2. St�te-wide Planning Goal #2 fs met because the City appli.ed 311 '
applicable State-wide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan
Po�icies and Development code requirements to the application.
3. State-wide Planning Goal # 10 is met because approval of this
�, subdivision wi11 provide for 13 new residential units in the City .
'��.
FINAL ORDER 84-d3 PC Page 1
_
�
� _ -- --- - -._ _J
,
,
E
_ � ��
4. State-wide Goal �� 11 is met because public facilities are available
�� to the site.
5. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because
the Nefghborhood Planning Organization and surrounding properCies
were given notiee of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the
appyicants proposal.
6. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Poliry 6.3.3 is satisfied beaause
the applicant's request of single family residential units is ;
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
7. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because
public facilities and services are adequate to serve the site.
8. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.4.4 is satisfied because
the subdivision development proposal includes plans to coirnect to
sewer in 95th and North Dakota.
9. City of Tigard Plan Policy 7.6.1 is satisfied because there is
adequate Water pressure in existing water lines to service the site.
10. City of Tigard Plan Folicy 8.1.3. is satisfied because the developer
has agreed to make improvements to streets as required in the
conditions of approval recommended by staff and modified by the the
Planning Commission.
�`` 11. City of Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 approval
criteria are met because the property is relatively small for a
subdivision and because of its configurati�n, the creation of a
public street or cul-de-sac is not desirable or particularly
feasible. In addition, the variances will not have a detrimental
effect. Th� frnntage reduction is minimal and proper access to the
lots will be maintained.
The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Based an Findings Number 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Commission has
deternnined th�t the applicant's proposal meets applicable State-wide
Plann3ng Goals.
2. Based on Finding number 6, the Commission has determined that the '��
applicant's psoposal is compatible with the �xisting established
neighbarhood.
3. Based on Findings Number 7, 8, 9, and 10, the Commission has
deterffiined that public facilities and services are adequate to the
eite for the development proposed.
4. Based on Finding number 11, the Commission has determined the the
variances requested will not have a detrimental effect on the public
� health, safety and welfare or be in�urious to the rights of the
owners of property.
FINAL ORDER 84-d.3 PC Page 2
�
�,
�
a
' E�, i
.
,r^ It is, therefoxe, ORbERED that, based on the above findings and conclusions,
�''� , the application� for a subdivision anci Variance in this matter be, and the same
hereby is, APPROVED with conditions as set forth below:
1. Seven {7) sets of plan-�rofile public improvement construction plans
and one (1) itemized construction cost esrimate, �tamped by a
registtered civil engineer, detailing all propoeed public
impr�vements, shall be submitted to the City's En�ineering Division
for review.
2. Gonstruction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until
after said Division has issued approved public improvement plans (th�
Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the
payment of a pezmit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit
and also, the execution of a c�nstruction compliance agreement just
prior to issuance of approved public improvement plans.
3. Half-street improvements shall be required along the 95th Avenue and
North Dakota Street frontage to City standards {ncluding 25-foot
right-of-way from centerline as shown on the preliminary plat,
34-foot pavement width, 5-foot sidewalks, concrete driveway apron for
the private street and streeC lights.
4. The addition of base and asphalt pavement ta provide a 24-foot
roadway width fronting Tax Lots 2100 and 2200 shall be provided,
tapering into the existing pavement.
�'° 5. All driveways shall be consistent with Chapter 18.10$ of the Code.
6. The �ethod of storm water disposal, including roof and footing drains
shall be a.pproved by the Engineering Division.
7. Proper dxiveway curb-cut clearance from the right-of-way intersection
of 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street shall be maintained for Lot 4.
$. The existing public sanitary sewerage main line in SW 95th Avenue
shall be extended to the southern end of the pTat boundary.
9. Joint use/maintenance agreements �hall be recorded for the lots which
are proposed to utilize the common driveway. Said agreement(s) shall
be approved by the Planntng Director prior to recording with �
Washington County.
1U. Each lot shall be connected se�arately to the public sanitary sewer '�
line.
ii. .A demolition germit shall be obtained from the Building Inspection
Office before the existing structures are removed.
��,
FINAL ORDER 84-�PG Page 3
�
�. r
+^
� �•, . -�
rx--, 12. The eubdivision plat shall meet the following standards:
��,
�r...:
a. Vertic�l Datum shall be Gity of Tigaxd (N.G.S. 1929). All
existing and establ�shed (tempbrary) bench marks in the vicinity
of the pro�eet shall be shown on the construction drawing.
b, Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following exceptions:
18.160.160 A.2
Capped 5/8" X :30" Ixon Rods on surface of final lift will
be accegtable.
c. Complfance of 18.1fi0.190 (B)
d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in pnsitions that
DO NOT interfere with eenterline monumentation.
13. Lots 8, 9, and 11 shall have a minimum frontag� of 15 feet on the
private street.
14. Lot 11 shall maini�sin a 10-foot sideyard setback on the sauth side of
the lot.
15. This approval shall be exercised within a period of one year or the
approval shall expire.
16, A sidewalk shall be installed on the north side of the street.
�..:
�
� It is fuxther order that the applicant be notified of tlne entry of this order.
PASSED: Tttis I7�day of s �f 1984, by Planning Commission
of the City of Tigard.
� � !�
President ° Planning Gommission
City of Tigard
�
0563P
dm�
�. y
FINAL ORDER 84�PC Page 4
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.2
APRIL 17, 1984 - 7;30 P.M.
TIGARD PI,ANNING -0OMMISSION
FOWLE�t JUNTOR HTGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. General Information
CASE: Subdivision S 6-84 Cecil Boone Park
REQUEST: To divide a 2.37 and 0.29 acre parcel into 22 lots.
APPLICANT: Bob Boone/Dave Ha11 OWNER: W.L. & Bertina Sawyer
9800 SW Beaverton/Hillsdale 7020 SW Hyland Way
Beaverton, OR 97005 Beave:rton, OR 97Q05
LOCATION; Northwest corner of Durham Road ax�d 81st Avenue
RECOMMENDATION: Apgroval subject to c�nclitionso
2. Background
A subdivision (S 11-81), a conditional use (CU 7-81), and a minor land
partition (MLP 21-81) were proposed for this property. The subdivision
ap,proval was upheld because of the 1�zck of sewer servi
ce and the other
two proposals were approved. Despite the approvals, no development has
taken place.
3, Vicinity Infor�ation
Surrounding properties north of Durham Road consist of small acreage
homesites that are zaned It-12< The U.S.A. Treatment Plant property
which is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and the Durham Elementary School
property are situated on the south side of Durham Road.
aond Park II and I�I has reCeived Preliminary Plat approval on property
immedi�tely east of the 81st Avenue right-of-way. Bond Street is the �
southern east�west streek in this development and it is intended to I�
intersect with $lst Avenue near the northeast rorner of the subject
property.
Durham Road is immediately south Qf Che property. It is under state
jurisdiction and is identified as an arterial route in the Comprehensive
Plan. A bicycle lane is intended as part of the future street
iarprovements.
4. Site Information and Property Description
The property eontains one residence neax Durham Road and the remainder
,
of the property is undeveloped. Boone Street is proposed to extend
STAFF REPORT - S 6-84 - PAGE 1
, _ , ,
� - - - - -_ _ ___.
between 81st Avenue and the �estern property line. A half-street
dedication is also pldnned along the no�thern boundary of the project o
allow for the continuation of Bond 5treet to the west. It is
�nticipated that the 81st Avenue right-of-way will be vacated between
Boone Street 3nd Durham Road.
Detached single family residence are proposed on lots ranging from 3,200
to 4,370 square feet. The applicant is alsa requesting that the
Planning Co►nmission initiate an amendment to the setback provisions of
the R-12 zone to allow single family residences to meet the setback
standards of th� R-7 zone. The Planning staff concurs with this request
and this pro:posal will be presented on April 17 along with other Code '
amendments.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has the following commentst
a. $lst Avenue should not be vacated and the applicant should
make the appropriate right-of-way dedication and half-street
improvements. Pavement widths should not be less than 24
feet.
b. All utilities should be extended to the outer boundaries of
the project to facilitate the future development of adjacent
properties.
c. A temporary turn around should be provided at the west end
of Boone Street.
d. Parking along the half-street on the north end of the
development should be restricted until both sides of the
street are completed. ;
e. A one-foot wide street plug should be provided at the end of
Boone and Bond Streets and north side of the 25-foot Bond
Street right-of-way.
f. Survey work should comply with City standards.
g. A non-remonstrance agreement should be required relating to
future improvements along the Durham Road frontage.
The Building Inspection Office notes that with the narrow 1ol-s and
5-foot side yard setbacks, the house widths will be quite small.
School District 23J notes that the elementary, junior and senior high
schools are operating below capacity. The develo�ment of this property
along with others in the area may result in the modification of
elemenkary school boundaries in order to accomuiodate new students.
State HigYiway Division comments wiil be available for the Public Hearing.
STAFF REPORT - S 6-84 - PAGE 2
l : _ _ __
The Tualatin Fire District and NPO �k5 have not commented on this
proposal.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed development conforms with the applicable requirement of the
R-12 zone. It should be emphasized that detached single family homes
will only be feasible if the Code is amended as suggested by the
a,pplicant and the Pianning staff because of the narrow lot widths that
are proposed. The applicant is eautioized that the proposed 5-foot side
yard set�ack will also necessitate relatively narrow buildings.
Vaxia,nce requests for side yard setbacks of less than five feet will be
viewed unf.avorabl.y. The nee'essary right-of-way dedication along 81st
Avenue frontage will probably require some adjustment to the southern
row of lots in order to provide suitable building sites.
It ap:pears that retaining aecess to Durham Road is desirable because of
the potential for additional residential growth in the area surrounding
by Hall Blvd. , Durham Road, 81st Avenue and Dorburn Place. Because of
the arterial status of Hall and Durham, access points should be kept to
a minimum, particularly neax the intersection of these two streets. The
existing 81st Avenue right-of-way is generally in the appropriate
location for a street entrance to Durham Road.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The P�.anning staff recommends approval of Subdivision S 6-84 subject to
the follow'ing, conditions:
1. Standard half-street improvements including 24-foot pavemsnt
widths, sidewalks, curbs, street lights, and driveway aprons shall
be provided along the 81st Avenue frontage and the Bond Street
extension. Full-street improvements on Boone Street including a
temporary turn around at the west end shall be installed.
2. Seven (7) sets of pl�n-profile public improvement construction
�lans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by
a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvements sha11 be submitted to the City's Enginesring Division
for review.
3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering division has issued approved public
improvement plans (the Division wi,ll require �osting of a J.00%
performance bond) , the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street
opening p�rmit or construction compliance agreement shall occur
prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public
improvement plans.
4. Street plugs, one foot in width, shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division on Boone and Bond Streets.
STAFF REPORT - S b-84 - PAGE 3
� - --
5. The 81st Avenue ri.ght-of-way or alternate access shall provide a
c4nnection to Durham Road. Said access shall be reviewed and
appxoved by the State Highway DivisiQn, Engineering llivision, and
Planning Director�
6. A City of Tigard approved Non-remonstrance Agreement shall be
recorded with Washingtan County and returned to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of building permits or change in
properry ownership.
7. Necessary survey work shall comply with the following:
a. Vertical Datum sha11 be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1929)• All
E-xisting and established (temporary) bench marks in the
vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction
drawing.
b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (ail) with the following excepti�ns:
1$.160.160 A.2
Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift
will be acceptable.
NOTE
18.160.160 B.1
City of Tigard Primary Control Surveys �CS. �� 19,947 &
20,223) Local-Grou�nd coordinates exist for all stations.
State plane coordinates not required. City can make
transformation given locat coordinates.
c. Compliance of 1$.160.190 (B)
d. All storm and sanitary lines shall b�e placed in positions
t�►at DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation.
8. The subdivision will contain a maximum of 22 lotsa
9. If the requested revision to the setback requirements of the R-12
zone is not approved, a revised preliminary pl,at or v�riance
application must be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission prior to submission of the final plak.
10. This approva� is valid far the period of one year from the final
decision date. '
�
PREP ED B : Keit.h Laslen APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning &
Development
(KL:pm/0401P)
STAFF REPORT - S 6-84 - PAGE 4
. ,� . � � . � � �.' .
April 1'0, 198�
Mr. Ot�, Chairma� N.P.O� #1
Mr. Mona;han and Planning Sta�f '
Tigard Planning �ommission
Tigard Gity Council
Tigard, Ore�one 97�23•
Dear Memb�.rss
This let'ter is i.n �e.ference to the Shadowx,Park �ubdivision
off of Omara Street zn Tigard. I like this plan except for the
proposed �ede;strian access to the Fanno Creek �ark.
This access would create a ve�y seriaus; problem for the
established singl.e family residents az�d the new homes to 'be buil�t<.
This single family area would be ov�a^run by s�rangers: traveling
throught low densYty neighborhoods to reach the Park. It would
create litter, noise�poll�ztion, crime, �andalism and parking
problems for this 'quiet area. The Ppli.ce Department stated that
having a residential �c�ess to the Park would create problems and
would be 'di�'ficult to cc►ntrol. The�r prefer t;he accesses to be at
each end of tY�e Pa�k System which would t�e mor� open: and easy to
cor.trol �y �thp l�olice:
Th�.s ac�ess as planned goes between t�uo homes. Wou1d you
like a pedes-�rian access to a public park going byyour ho�e with
crime and vandalism a.s it is today?
Than� yo.0 for your consYderation and uncie•r�tar�d.ix��;.
Sinc$rel:y,
��'G,
Paul E. Johnsori
9300 S. W. Hill Str�et
Tig�rd, Oregon, 9'7223�
,
,
i
,
� -
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5. 3
April 17, 1984 -� 7:3'0 P.M.
TIGAFD PLANNING COMMISSION
FOWLER JUNIOR HTGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNLiT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FIAIDING OF FAGT
1. General Information
CASE: Subdivision S 7-84/Variance V 7-84 Shadow Park
REQUEST: The applieant is requesting preliminary plat approval in
ordex to develop 67 single-family detached units.
COMPREHENSI�7E PLAN AESIGNATION: Low Density Residential/Central
Business District
ZONING DESIGNATIONc R-4.S (PD) and R-12 (FD)
APPLICANT: Century 21 Properties, Inc. OWNER: same
7160 SW Hazelfern Rd.
Tualatin, OR 97062
LOCATION: 9125 S.W. 0°Mara St. �Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2DB, Lots 400
and 500)
LOT AREA: 20.38 acres
RECOMMEN�ATION: Planning staff recommends approval subject � to
conditions.
2. Background
On February 7, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied a
subdivision proposal (S 10-84) to create an 80 lot, single family
residential development. The denial was due ta concerns on the part of
the Commission relating to street design and its impact upon
neighbarhood traffic circulation, the density oE the project and its
relationship to surrounding development, and encroachment upon the Fanno
Creek floodp�ain.
3. Vicinity Information
Single family residential development lies to the west and on the south
side of 0'Mara Street. This area, including the western section of the
subject property (T.L. 400), is designated for Low Density Residential
development (1-5 units/acre) i�a the Plan and is zoned R-4.5
(Residential, 4.5 units/acre). The area north of U'Mara Street,
including the eastern portion of the subject property (T.L. 500), is
STAFF REPORT - S 7-84 & V 7-84 - PAGE 1
designated Central Business District in the Pla�o Witt�in this area, the
Open Space d�signat'ion applies to the Fanno rreek floodplain which lies
to the n�rth. As allowed in the Code, T.L. 500 of the subjeet pro���ty
and the parcels to; t'he east and northwest are zoned R-12 (PD)
(It�sidential, 12 units/acre, planned development).
The Fanno Creek Park Master Plan was adopted in l9$0. This conceptual
plan calls for natural areas, playground, picnic facilities, §occer and
softball fields, and pedestrian/hicycle paths between Hall Blvd. and Ash
Avenne. Access is based upon an eastward extension of Hill Street to
0'Mara Street. A parking lot fox tiae park is shown wiCh a driveway onto
the Hill Street extension.
4. Site Information and Property Description
�he site slopes downward fr�m D'Mara Btreet to Fanno Creek. Two
drainageways, located near khe center and western property line,
traverse the site. Two ponds are located in the central portian of the
property. Except for one xesidence, which is to be removed, the �arcel
is undeveloped.
The basic dPVelopment concept is the same as before, however, the
applicant has modified the subdivision proposal in the following manner:
a. The number of lots has been reduced from 80 to 67 resulting
in a decr�ase in overall density.
bo The street design on the western portion of the development
now features one street beginning on 0'Mara Street near the
southwest corner of the property which connects with Hill
Street.
c. The ravine along the western property line is now proposed
. to remain as open space.
d. The lots in the northwestern portion of the d�velapment have
been moved 10 to 40 feet furkher south from Fanno Creek.
5. A�ency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
�
a. A Sensitive Lands Permit is required to review the street in j
the flaodplsin and the modification or elimination of the
two ponds on the property.
b. The ravine and alder grove should be designated as
floodplain and dedicated in conjunctior► with the Fanno Creek
floodplain.
i
i
c. The curve radii for all streets must meek City standards.
i
STAFF REPORT - S 7-84 & V 7-84 - PAGE 2
•
� '
d. Rightrof-way dedication and half-street improvements to
minor collector street standards including a bicycle lane
W�1i be required along khe 0'Mara Street frontageo Said
im�rovements should be coordinated with the City's
irnprovement plans for 0'Mara St�eet.
H. Survey work shall comply with City standards.
The Building Aivision has no objection to the proposal.
The Tigard School District has reviewed the applicant's School Impact
Statement and feeis that the number of students which could be
anticipated From the Shadow Park development can be accommodated by the
existing school facilities.
NPO �k1 approved the proposed plat subject to the following recommended
conditions:
a. Eliminate the park access between Lots 54 and 55.
b. Elinrinate the park a�cess parking between 91st and 92nd
Avenue.
c. A wall be provided along the 0'Mara Street frontagp.
d. The density transition calculations be re-adjusted to
reflect the original intent of the policy.
Other reviewing agencies have not submitted comments.
B. ANALXSI� AND CONCIUSION
The overall d�nsity of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable zoning designations on the property. The Residential Density I
Transition pro'vision in Secti�n 18.4�.040 of the Code was a point of �
controversy during the previous hearing. Lots 1, l�, and 19 lie within
a density transition area from the properties designated Low Density
Residential on the south side of 0'Mara. The three lots would not
exceed the maximum allowable density for the transition area of 6.25 1�
units/acre. I
The street design for the western side of the developmer►t will only I'
involve one street rather than two and only a connection with Hill
Street is proposed. The initial neighborhaod plans for this area
included a local street connection between 0'Mara Skreet and Ash
Avenue. This is r�eflected in the location of Lake and Ai11 Street. The
align.ment of the one connecting street should discourage ifs use for
through traffic.
A Sensitive Land Permit must be granted prior to submission of the final
plat. Tt3is proposai should be reviewed regarding the sensitive lands
criteria and the project's impact upon the two drainageways, the ponds,
and t:he Fanno Creek floodplain. If the results of this process require
a significant modification of the preliminary plat, an approval of such
changes should be made by the Coinmission.
STAFF REPORT - S 7-84 & V 7-84 - PAGE 3
Z�P variance request is ta allow 5 foat side yard� and 15 f.00t rear
yards for single family residences in the R-12 zone. The requested
�etbacks are the same as the R-7 zone. T�e Commission has granted an
idenkical variance for Bond Park II and �II. It was cancluded that the
R-12 5etback requirements are excessive for single family residences. A
Code amendment to allow these setbacks for single family homes is
proposed by staff and will be reviewed by the Gommission this evening.
The issue related to access for Fanno Creek Park should be discussed at
khe hearing. The preliminary plat coincides with the conceptual park
plan. However, if the Commission feels such access will be detrimental
to the neighborhood, alternative m�ans for park access should be
evaluated.
C. REGOMMENDATION
The Planning sta�ff recommends approval of S 7-84 and V 7-84 subject to
the following conditions. ,
, 1. Standard mi.nor collector hal�-street improvements including a bike
lane, sidewalks, curbs, and street lights shall be provided along
the 0'Mara Street frontage.
2. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction
plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by
a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvemenks shall be submittsd to the City's Engineering Division
for review.
3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering Division has issued approv�d public
improvement plans (the Division wi11 require posting of a 100�
performance bond) , the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street
opening permit or construetion compliance agreement shall occur
prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approed public
improvement plans.
4. An additional 10 fet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the
0'Mara Street frontage to increase the right-of-way width from
centerline to 30 f�et.
S. The undeveloped portion of the property that is within the
100-year fl.00dplain, including the western ravine area, shall be
designated as floodplain and dedicated to the City.
6. A Sensi�ive Lands Permit shall be obtained prior to submission of
the final plat.
7. The setback restrictions of the R-7 zone shall apply to the
portion of the development which is zoned R-12 (PD).
8. The subdivision shall containa maximum of 67 lots.
STAFF REPORT - $ 7-$4 & V 7-84 - PAGE 4
�
9. Necessary survey work sha11 comply with the followingt
a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1979). All
existing, and • estab�.ished (t�mporary) bench rnarks in the
vicinity of the project .shall be shown on the construction '
drawing.
--- -
b. Compliance of 18.160.160 �a11) with the following exceptions:
18.160.160 A.2 '
Capped 5/8" X 30" Iro:n Rods on surface of final liffi
will be accept�able.
NOTE
18.160„160 B.1
City of' Tigard Primazy Control Surveys (CS. �k 19,947 &
20,223) Local-Ground coordinates exist for all stations.
State plane coardinates not required. City can make
transformation given local coordiaates.
c. Compliance o'f 18.160.190 (B)
d. All storm and sanitarN lanes shall be placed in positions
that DCl NOT interfere wzth centerline monumentation.
10. This approval. is valid f�r the period nf one year from the final
deeision date.
r�
.�. �✓,,,- ,.,�--,:i��-- c
� � �r
�REPARE BY: eith i en A PRO D BYs William A. Monahan
Associate Planner D'irec�or of Planning &
Development
(KL:pm/0399P)
STAFF REPORT - S 7-84 & V 7-84 - PA(JE �;> .
r'v
y �.
Apri.l 1'?, 1984
Mr. Frarek Curri e
Di r-ect�r of Publ i c Woc-ks _
Ci ty af Ti qar`dl
F�tdrnham & Ash< Avenue
Tigard;. Or. 97��F
Dear Mr. Curr-i e:
We, the undersigned, would lake to �sk tt�at the bicycl� p��h
'khat is being planned #or tfie CI'M�r� 5tre�t widening and
�mpravement i n f ront o# the Sl�adow �'arl� �evel apmer�t t�e
1a��ted an the south side.
The i n�rease i n traf f i c o�ro O'M�ra Street c��ased by 67 new
homes across the street fr:om us wi11 make it ha�ardo�►s ta
wal k west wi tho��t al w�ys wal k:i ng i n the �ei�ht�or' s t�ard. '
The north si de wi 11 sti l l have a pedestri an si det�al k f or
p�eqpl e wal k i nc� ea�t.
Thi s wa 11 �1 s� c�i ve the 5�utn ��a� � tauf#er be�a�een #ront
y�r-ds and traf#i�.
5choal buses wQUld ha�ve a convenient place to drop children
off and pi�k them �.�p since tlaere would be � sa�#ea- �an� #or
tMem to step an and of f �.o.
Hav�i ng �he ba k:� path on the south si�ie worx3 d r�i ve a more
�onti nuou� f l nw f ar bi cy�l es si nce t9�e �Si !ce path i s bei nc�
Rl anned f or the ea�t si de +�f ❑"Mara an �.t�� ��cta on �ha�t
i r�tersects �ai th McDanal ci 5treet.
�fnur consi dera�tx on a# thi s propos�,Y �ui 11 tae si ncerel�
ap�xreci ated.
�J�ry Tru�y Ya�.9rs,
��� � �� �', ����"�
� � � � �
Wi 11 ene A. Ettestacd r..� , i
91�Ca S. W. Cl"Mlara St. 1 ��_���, ��/t--'
/ �
/ /� �,�
� �.��2�C�� Vv7,2j ��� �-`�'--��, ��:GrJ ���`�'1� G`--
t��.��� ' Z1Y�(:�/�-�- �� + ��''�°ti�-5��
�'a�9� 7��
� ���e,� ����--�'
�;�.r ,.��� �'�oc� �'l�� ��r�.��
�,�,. �� ,� ��o-���� ��c�.. 7�g`�
� �
�'� ���
C���
�
~ ��u. F--�,-n��.., �-..
�c� S�c.� �in�►-�
9t�t
...���� a� qr�aa3
��o--y��U
� �,,� �
�y7"�- ;c , �
�
! '��v S.u�. �.�t,/�� ;
;
�� ��p �� , � 7�.�..� �
y �
��o-����?.
�
� �� ��
��
� � o s�� o.,:,�,�, ;�- �
��,z.,.�� � f�,-��
(� �l.D,,��`7�
���-��. �2�C�����'
�'� :
,-q�!'���GC;�, C� r_`����`�',
� � � � <� �.zz. `
��
�
�
�
�
�`�'`�`�� v� �'���z�
�q �' �
��,�� e.�� ����c .�-
r��� c� d ���a �
�.�.-r-� � , ��
�-�-� �� �'�
,� -
.��� C�'� �`��- ��---� :
�'� � ��ry ,��� ���! �t/�%�'
-� ..,
�
/�� 'J ° J
�,.���t,( •��
� �� � � C�t1 �ti'�ti�,�L�.:
` � G c�u� �7�--�
April 16, 1984
Tigard Planning Commission
c/o Tigard Planning Department
City Hall
� �'igard, OR. 97223
Uear Fellow Commissioners ;
Due to other commitments, I will be unable to at•tend the
April 17th Planning Commission meeting. However, since
I was tl�� Commissioner that expressed �the most concern
about the previous Shadow Park proposal, I woul.d l.ike to
present my thoughts concerning Agenda Itern 5.3 (Shadow
Park) .
I have personally walked this ,property, discussed this
proposal with the developer as well as fhe Publ.ic Works
Director and have reviewed the applicant's sizbmission.
The concerns I expressed previously have been addressed by
� the applicant and have been substantiall:y solved,.
I would encourage the Commission to consider adding the
fol.lowinq two conditions to the approval of this proposal.
. Tn rny convers.ation with the Public Works Director, I
have been led �ko be'li.eve tha.t thE �City is receptive to
discussing the redesign of the southwest corner af
0'Nlara in conjunction with this pro�ect. Therefore; T
would feel more comfortable with this pr_oposal if t}ze
applicant and Public Works Dirertar were �ncouraged t�
jointly exp3:ore the po�sibility of a be:tter alignment
of the southwest corner o� O°mara and the ir�tersection
of Hil:l (appr�ximately 240 ' to the east) .
. The neighbors on the south sid:e of O'Mara have exp,ressed
` a desire to have the bike path be constructed o�. their
side of the stree�. In my conversations with tl�ze Public
Works Birector, I have been informed that changi.ng th:e
bike path i.s possible. I �,rould encourag� the Public
[ao�ks Director to consi.der the �ossibility of redesi,gning
the bike path on O'Mara in conjunction with the Shadow
Park proposal and the overlay of 0'Mara street.
Thank you.
���� ���
Phil �din
13110 S.W. Ash D-r.
Tigard, OR, 97223
ZC 6-84
AGENDA ITEM �� 5•4
April 17, 1984 ,.
Plannin� Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning ,Commission
FROM: Planning Staff �,�/i' 1
SUBJECT: Historic Overlay Designations
Ak your re,gular meeting of February 6, 1984, you voted unanimously to place
the Historic District overlay on 3 parcels of property within the City of
Tigard. Those properties were the John Tigard House, the Durham School site
and the Windmill on SW 12`lst and Kathex�ine. �'he EESE inventory done to meet
LCDC Goal 5 requirements designatecl those sites as hisroricalry significant
sites within the City. The EESE inventory identified four other sites as
potential historic sites. The Washington County Historical Society is
conducting research on tlzese sites and supports a 'l�i�toric district overlay
designation. The four sites r�eommended for designation as Historic pistricts
are: the Upshaw House/Seven Gables, the Tigard Gxange, the Tigard �Farmhouse
and Windmill and Tigard �'eed and Seedt Designation as a Historie District
would require any development on those �ites to conform ko Chap`ter 18.81 of
' the Tigard Municipal Code. At your A�ril 3, 1984 meeting, you considered
placing the Historbc District designation overlay on these sites hut directed
�taff to conkact the owners of the subject sites. The owners were contaated
by mail and informed of the Hearing on this item.
STAFE RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that ths Flanning Commission approve a zone change �dding the II
HD overlay district designation to the Upshaw House/Seven Gables, the Tigard
Grange, the Tigard Farmhouse and Windmil7. and Tigard Fe�d and Seed. ;
Agenda Item �� 5.5
CPA 3-84
Tigard Planning
Commission
' April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0; Planning Commission Apri1 12, 1984
FROMa Planning Staff �W" '
SU$JEGT: Floodplain Overlay CPA 3-84
At the April 3, 19$4 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a proposal
to assign land use designations to property currently designated open space
and place an open space overlay on these properties. The Commission expressed
concern that designation of those properties as other than �pen space would
limit the City's ability to protect open space areas from development. The
Commission asked staff to identify which parcels of land are affected by the
open space designation and to what extent that designation limits development
potential.
There are essenkially three categories which comprise lands designated as open
space within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The first is parks. A11 City
parks have the open space designation Placed on them. Any development on
these properties is park related (i.E. restroom, �rails, benches, etc.) and is
allowed in the parks with no special p�ermit. The second category of lands
designated as open space is greenway. Much of the greenway land is dedicat�d
to the public or is a "tract" of common area platted as part of a subdivision
or condominium development. These areas are usually maintained in their
natural state and, with the exception of trails and possibly some play
equipment, there is no development on greenways.
The third category of land designated open space is the floodplain.
Development within the floodplain is very well regulated by the Sensitive
Lands Ordinance. The SPnsitive Lands Ordinance prohibits buildic►g of any kind
within the floodplain and limits filling to that which can be offset by
excavation.
On the current I.and Use Desi.gnation Plan Map, there are some lots which are
designated either partially or totally open space which do not fit into any of
the three categories mentioned above. Problems arise for the owners of those
properties if they want to develop or seil the property. The open space
designation does not allow them to develop on the property and it is not
necessary for floodplain protection. In addition, the property is noC
publicly owned so the property owners are paying taxes on the property.
-
� — �
Flaodplain O�erlay CPA 3-84 Memo
April 12, 1984
Page 2
ALZ'ERNATiVES;
Staff sees the following alternatives to address Lhis issue:
1. Designate all open ,space land witli a land use designation and place an
open space overlay on the p�roperty as well to limit development.
a. The advantage to this alternative is that a11 land would be
designated with a lanc� use designation which would potentially
allow developmenf if :the land were taken out of the open space
category.
b. The disadvantage to this alternative is 'that a section would have
to be added to the Code outlining approval standards and
regulations for the open spa�e overlay.
2. Modify the open' space area designation to include only lands within the
floodplain, dedicated greenway or park land.
a. The advantage to this alternatzve is that lands which do not fall
inGo one of the three ca.tegories for open space, would be taken
out of the open space designation and would izot be subject to any
regulation af an op�n space overlay,
b. The disadvantages oE this alternative would be the loss of land as
open space. In addition, the floodplain and greenway have been
defined synonymously and remoeal of lands in the future from the
floodplain/greent�ay category may result in the loss of more land
designated as open space.
RECOMMENDATIQN;
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the issue and
alternati�ves and fgrward a recommeadation to the City Council. Staff will be
able to assist the Commission in their deliberations by providing a map which
indicates affected properties.
(EAN:pm/0400P)
CPA 9-84
AGENDA ITEM �� ,�.6
PLANNING COMMI5SION
A�RIL 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
TOt Planning Commissi.on April 10, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �
SUBJECT: Community Dev�lopment Code Definitians
During the process of implementing the Community Development Code, it has
become apparent that some items should be defined in the code to avoid
confusion. In addition, . the Planning Commission at their April 3, 1984,
meeting requested that staff add a definition of compatibility to the
Development Code. Staif is, therefors, suggesting the following �erms and
definitions be incorporated into the Community development Code:
Home Occu ation. A home occu ation exists when a d�wellin unit in a
P
P g
residential zone z.s used for commercial purpose. See Chapter 18.142.
Story� Half. A story under a gable or gamt�rel roof, the wall plates of which
on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than two feet above the
floor of such story. If the finished floor level ciirectly above a basement or
unused under-floor space is not m�re than 6 feet above grade as defined herein
for more than 50;� of the toal perimeter or is not more than 12 feet above
grade as defined here�n at any paint, �uch basemenk or unused under-fioor
space sha11 t�e considered as a half story.
Face. Di.rectly confrmmting.
Window. Any opening constructed in a wall. to admit light or air, framed and
spanned with glass.
Remodel,o An internal modification to an existing building or structure which
does not increase the site coverage.
�
aaa�t�on. A modification to an existing building or structure whi.ch increases
the site coverage.
Campatibility. Shall be interpreked as capable of orderly, efficient
integratiAn of housing types in a harmonious combination. Compability shail
be determined in accordance with the following matrix.
039bP
;
_ _ 1
.F. Detache� S.F. Detached obile .Hm Par,k uplex S.F. Attached Multifamily
(Zero Lot Line)
S.F. Detached YES YES Conditional YES YES 2 units N0
No-ov�er 2
S.F. Detached
(Zero Lot Line) YES YES Conditional YES YES Pt0
Mobile Home Park
Conditional Conditional YES YES YES YES
Duplex �
YES YES YES YES YES YES
S.F. Attached �
Yes 2 units YES YES YES YES YES
Multi-family
NO NO YES YES YES YES
. , ,
; '
�
CPA 10-84
Planning Co�ission
Agenda Item �P S.7
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM .
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission April 11, 1984
FROMs Planning Staff��
SUBJECT: Changes to the Community Development Code �
,
Attached is an erra:ta sheet with proposed changes Co the Aevelopu►ent Code. �'
Some of the changes were suggested by agencies whieh have reviewed the I
Comprehensive Plan. Most of the change�, however, are recommended by staff as '
a resu�t of having implemented the code for the last four months. These
changes are primarily for clarification of sections of the code which are
vague and difficult to administer.
BTAFF REC01+4fENDATZON:
Staff recommends that Che Planning Commission review each item on the errata
sheet and forward recommendation of approval or denial on each item to the
City Council.
{EAN;pm/0381P)
1
III-227 18.120.070 delete #4 add "an increase in the height of the
building by moxe than 20X over that previously specified in the
approved application."
III-162 Change three (3) inches to trao (2) inches and delete "planted no
more than S0 feet apart, and locaCed outside of the street
right-of-way except in cases where there is desi.gnated planting '
area in the right-of-way, and" �
III-20 Tree. change 6 imches ta 2 inches �i
III-2$$ 18.150.A20 add '"E, For the purpose of this Chapter, Tree
Removal Permits shall be required for all trees having a trunk 6 ,
inches or more in diameter, 4 feet above the ground level." '
III-86 18.54.040 C. change to read as follows:
C. The minimum setback requirements are as follows:
1. For multipie family dwellings, the front yard setback
shall be a miniraum of 20 feet. For singl� family
dwellings, the front yard shall be a minimum of 15 feet.
2. For multiple family dwelling units on corner and through
lots, the minimum setback for each side facing a street
shall be 20 feet, however, the provisions of Chapter
18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied. For single
.. . -•- - -- -___. __._-----famY1}�__dw�llr�ng unit-s;rth-�_mirrimum--settracic-for eacfi -side -- -------
facix�g a street shall be 10 feet, however, the
provisions of Chapter 18.102 must be satisfied.
3. For m�altiple family dwellings, the side yard setback
shall be a minimum of 10 feet. For single famiZy
dwellings, the side year setback shall be 5 feet except �
this shall not apply to attached units on the lat line
on which the units are attached.
4. For mul�iple family dwellings, the rear �ard setback
shall be a minimum of 20 feet. For single family
dwellings, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 15 feet.
5. Where the side yard or rear yard of attached, multiple
famil}r or single familq dwel.lings abut a more
restrictive zoning district, such setbacks shall not be
less than 30 feet.
III-65 18.40.02Q C.6.c. add:
c. Automotive and Equipment: Repairs, Heavy EquipmPnt.
Repair of trucks, etc. , as well as the sale, installation,
or servicing of truck or automotive equipment and parts
together with body repairs including weldang, painting, and
steam cleaning. Typical uses include truck transmission
shops, body shops, or motor freight maintenance groups.
,
� _ _ _
,
,
PAG;E
III-65 I8.40.020 e.6od. adds '
d, Automotive and EquipmenG: Repa�irs, _ Light_ Equipm�ent.
Repair of automobiles and the sale, inst'�llation, and '
servicing of automobile equipment and parts but ' excluding
body repairs and painting. Typical uses include muffler
shops, auto or motarcycle repair gara�es, includinA welding,
or auto gl,asx shops. � I
IIT-143 18.84.040 D.4. delete:
4. The land ��/�a//on which the �/�//��{�d► alteration is to !
take place will not be partiCinned, subdivided ar developed
as a' part of this application request.
III-302 18.162 add LAND DTVISiON - MAJOR AND MINOR LAND PARTITIONING,
"LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT" �
III-302 18,162.040 B. add;
B. Any application for a major or minor land parti'tion or lot ,
line adjustment shal,l be in conformi,ty witt► all state
regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92 "Subdivision and
Partitions,".
III-303 18.1620040 F. add:
. F. The Director shall mail notice of any lAnd partitian or lot
`.,...__--- --- _._-- --- ________- - - --- 's
Tine a�justmen� d'ecisiori-Co-the�--persons�who�are �enti-t-le�d to�- -- -----
notice in acco.rdance with Section 18s32.120,
IIII-306 b8.1b2.0$0 A.1. change: "Six" to "T4�►ree" •
III-3U7 18.162.100 second line delete: "major"
III 75 1$.�►4<060 add: "J. Residential Density Transition Section
18,40.040
IIL 77 18.46.060 add: "J. Residential Densiky Transition Section
1$.40.040
III-79 18.48,060 add: "J. Resideuti.al Density Transition Section
18.40.040
III-81 18.5�.060 add: "J. Residential Density Transition Section '
' 18.40.040 1;
III-84 18'.52.060 add; "J. Residential Density Trar►sition Section '
18.40.040
III-87 18.54.U60 add: ''J. Residential Density Transition Section
18.4D.04U
IIT-90 18.56.0(iU add: "J'. Residential Density Transition Section
18.40.040
i
_ 2 '_
� _ - -
1
PAGE
III-93 18.58.060 add: "�. Residential Density Transition Section
' 18.40.040
III-$�� 18.52.060 add: "K. Zero lot line setback standards Chapter
18.148
ITI°81 18.50.060 add: "K. Zero lot line setback standaxds Chapter
18.148
III-87 18.54-Ob0 add; "K. Zero lot line setback standards Chapter
18.148
III-101 18.64.030 C.1. add:
C, Residenti.al Use Types
1. Multiple family residential units as ,a mixed use in
conjunction developed at R-40+ standards with a
commercial development, only in the CP District within
the Tigard Triangle and ths Bull Mountain Road District,
on or above the second floor of the structure.
III-1�F9 18.92.020 add "C. All density calculations shall comply with
the provisions of Section 18.40.040 Residential Density
Transition."
._ ___. -
III=151___ _ . ...---I8.-94�30 �".-I.—secon -"rine-a��-"r�oss" �efore_ areg :- --- ____. __.
III-175 18.106.020 G. add "Multiple Family�� before "Residential"
III°177 18.106.U20 N. change:
N. Designated Parking �or the Handicapped. All parking areas
which contain aver 5 required spaces�/�y14�//]/��/�//�k�(y�({//Q/1
��tkircgl/�t�l��d ll/d�t�X X//l�¢//����b�d¢d//�b��t�//�r(�!/4��d����t���d
t��t�E�dg/l�dalde�!l//s'a��dWW�h��//a�.�s//�!�//�b,�k//�Y►��//Rp//�t���E�
shall be provided with one handicapped parking space for
every 50 stanc�ard parking spaces. The handicapped parking
symbol shall be painted on the parking space or a
handicapped parking sign shall be placed in front of each
space. Each handi�apped pasking space shall measure as
required in the Uniform Building Code.
III-177 18.106.020 P. change:
Bicycle Farking• �'b,�//�1�9�/�'�1�//�7�R��//��/���/1�'k//�Ki��
zgiii����,�ii�,�k,��iii��xxei,a�iia����¢aiir�ii��,�vii���
dub�Eb���►��ik�///�d1��d!///�d�//bb�d��l�k///1��tk���l At least one
secured bicycle rack space shall be provided for each 15 parking
spaces in any development. �1��¢�¢�i¢X!�//�l�d Bicycle parking
areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape
areas, or pedestrian ways.
III-184 18.106.050 B. third line delete: "and diagram." '
III-184 18.106.050 D. second line delete: "6 inche�."
III-192 18.108.080 under Required Parking Spaces change: "1" to "0".
- 3 -
� _- __- ------- --
m
�,
PAGE
III-233 18.120.180 t�.3.a. change:
3. Exterior Elevations:
a. Along the vertical face of �C�(� "sinQie family
attached- and multiple family" structures, offsets shall
occur at a minimum o£ ever� 30 feet by providing any two
of the following:
III-233 18.1200180 A.3.b. omit entirely.
III-23 18.30.030 E. add "4o Be ac�companied by fifteen copies of a
naxrative addr�:ssing the standards in Section 18�.120."
III-54 18.32.310 A.Z. 3rd line insert "by the close of business" before
"within 10 days". s/
)
III-54 18.32.310 B.1. 2nd line insert "by the close of b�siness aay"
before "wiChin 10 days".
III-101 18.64.04Q omit "D. Transient lodging"
III-101 L8.64.040 change "E" to "D"
�'-� - --��IY'I-I58� - ---�'-T8:4S•030 4th" line deTeke: "wirhout loss -of solar�acc-es-s- to--any- - - ---
dwelling un.it".
III-18S 18.1Ob.050 fd. 3rd line delete: "as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of
this Chapter".
III-83 1�.52.050 C. change: "The maximum lot coverage shall be 80
percent including all buildings and z�ervious suxfaces." �
III-86 18.54.050 E. cha�e: 1°Ttie waximum lot coverage shall be 80
percent including"buildings and impervious surfaces."
III-89 18.56.050 E. cha e: "The maximum lot coverage shall be 80
ercent includin p�uildin s and im ervious surfaces."
III-92 18.58.050 E. add: "including buildings and impervious surfaces."
III-96 18.60.U50 E. ac�d: "including'buildings and impervious surfaces." '
III-96 18.60.050 add: "F. The minimum lax�dscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent."
III-99 18.62.OSD E. add: ,"including�buildings and impervious surfaces."
III-99 18.62.050 aaa: "F. The minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent.
IIT-102 18.62.0'S0 E, $aa: "including'�buildings and impervious surface�."
_ 4 -
,
�
PAGE
III-102 18.62.OSQ add: `1F. The minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent. �
III-104 18.65.050 E. add: "including buildings and imperv�ous surfaces."
III-104 18.66.050 add: "G. The minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent."
�
III-105 18.66.052 E. aaa: "including� �uildings and impervious surfaces."
III-L06 18=66.054 E. add: "including buildings and impervious surf'aces."
III°106 18.b6.054 F. change" "15%�" to "20�L"•
"includin buildings and impervious surfaces."
III-109 18.68.050 Ee add: S
III-109 18.6$.050 add:�� "F. 1fie' minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 25 percent. �
III-112
18.70.050 E. add: "including�uildings and impervious surfaces."
III-112 18.70.050 add:�� "F. The minimum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 percent. ,\
��J-
III-115 18.72.050 E. add: "inr.luding buildings and impervious surfaces."
III-11� 18.72.050 add: 1°F. The miniraum landscaping requirement shall
be 15 psrcent."
III-286 18.148.020 � add: "3• An application or partitioning approval
^ ��,,� 1� � under the provisions of Chapter 18.162 (Land Division).
� �--�-"�___..__ _ � __ _
��� ` II-157 18.96.090 omit entirely
--___.__ .__ __.
_ . ._. _..... __._...
_..__. _._______.....__._____ -'
�
III-303 18 162.050 D after zoning district delete "except that w ere a
partitioned lot abuts a lot in a more restrictive district, the
setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall
apply for those yards which have common property lines."
III-279 18.144.040 A second line change "fifteen" to "six".
III-80 18.SOa040 add a niew "G." "Single family attached residential
units." Re-letter the remaining listed uses.
NOTE: Consider adding "Single family attached residential units
as a conditional use in the R-3.5 zone.
ZII-127 18.80.150 change "Conceptual PYan" to "Detailed Plan".
TII-13 18.26.030 add (in alphabetical order) definition for
"Drainag�ways - Any land which requires larger than a 12" pipe
at minimum slope."
III-20 18.26.030 add (in alphabetical order) defin�tion for "wetlands"
=�Unseasonal water above the surface of land.
- 5 -
�
. � . . . y . . . . . . . .
1
l��
PAGE f�� �_Jj �,
�,,,.. �(�o �v,n
,
FI�3DINGS, POLIGIES S IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT POLIGY �,��t'� �
G�''�"`
6.1.2 Changec �� �
F'OR PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY, THE TERM "'SUBSIDIZED HOUSING" SHALL
MEAN ANY HOUSING DEVELOPED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH FINANCIAL
ASSISTAIJCE OF THE U.S. DEPARTMEN`� OF HOUSING OR URBAN
DEVEi.,f)PMENT AND THE STATE OF OREGON OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A
PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
VOLUME 1 page I-22fi 2. Major collectors dslete "Upper Boones Ferry Road
(from I-5 to Durham Road)
(EAN:pm/0381P)
,
_ _. _ --------_--�—�� _
,_ _ __._ _._
.
_ 6 _
Agenda Itein �� 5.8
� CPA 13-84
Tigard Planning
Commiss ion
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM
GITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission April 12, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff �V�
SUBJECT: Building Height Limitations, Exceptions
Some members of the Planx►ing Cou►mission aild NPO ��6 l�ave asked that the
Building Height Limitations, Excepkions sectian of the Community Development
Code be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chapter 18.98 -
Bui.lding �ieight Limitations, Exceptions is attached for your review.
STAFF REGOMMENDATION:
Staff does tiot have a recommendation nn this issue. Staff suggests that the
Commissioxr review the Building Height Limitations, Exceptians section of the
Gode, take public testimony and make a recommendati�n to the City Council.
S�aff will be available to answer questions and address any concerns raised at
the April 17, 1984 meeting.
(EAN:pmI0400P)
f _ _ _
Y
18.96 BUILDING HEIG'tIT LIMtTATIaN5 EXCEPTIONS
18.98.OS0 Pro�ections Not Used' for Human Habitation .
� Projections such as chimneys, spires, domes, e•levator shaft
housings, towers exclwding TV dish receivers, aeriala, flag
poles and other similar objects not used for hurnan occwpancy,
are not subject to the building height limit�tions of this Code. I
18,98.020 Buildinc� Heiqht Exceptions
A. Any buildir�g located in a non—residential zone may be built to a
maximum height of 75 feet provide�l;
1. The total floor area oF the building does not exceed one
and 1 1/2 the area of the site;
2. The yard dimensions in eacfi case are equal tu at least i/2
af the buildang height of the principal structure;
3. The appraval of this exception is a part oF the approval of
khe conditional wse allowed u�der Chapter 16.130; and
4. The s�ructure is not abutting a residential zaning district.
L6 98.030 Buildinq Heiahts and Flaa lots
A, The maximum height Far a single—Family, duplex, attached or
m�l�iple family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot
C having sole access from an accessway, private drive or easem�nt
sfiall b� 1 1/2 stori�s or 25 feet, whichever is less, except
�hat the maximum height rti�,y ba� 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet,
whichever is less, provided:
1. 7he prnposed dwelling otherwnse camplie� with the
applicabla dimensional requirements of the zoning district;
2. A residenEial �tructure on any abu�ting lot either is
located 50 feet or more from the nearest paint of the
subject dwelling, or th� r�sidential. str�ucture exceeds
1 1/2 stories or 25 feet in height on any abutting lot; and
� 3, Windaws �5 feet or morn abave grade shall o�ot face dwelling
u�it windows or �a�ios on any� abutting lot unless the
�roposal includes an �greement to plan� trees capabl� of
mit'xgating direct views without loss of solar acee.ss to any
dwellirdg unit, or L•hat such trees exist and will be
pres�rued.
B. Where an agreement is made to Plant trees c�pable of mitigating
direct vie�s, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of
approval under Lhe pro�isions of Section 18'.32.250 (F) .
;
i.
IIT — 158
;
,.
C. The �ree p�iantir�g agr�eement shatl br a cor�dition of (SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) for 3 or more attached unita or a multiple
Family residential structure, or for single deta�ched� units, 1
� duplex or 2 attached residential units., at ttee issuarrce of
building per•mits.
(.
�
ZII — 159
' ---
. ��� � I',
� �
CITY'OF TIG�G�A R�
WASHINGTON COUN7Y,OREC,ON
T0: Members of the Planning Commisr�ion �
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development /�2iV`�''
DATE: March 23, 1984 II
,
SUBJECT: Building Heights
Recently the City Council received much testimony from citizens adjacent ta
the McDonald Acres subdivision concerning the height of a two stosy dwelling
now under construction. The particular issue dealt witY► the interpretation of
section 18.98.030 of the Community Development Code which relaGes to fl�g
lots. Under the code, a house on a flag l.ot is restricted to 1 1/2 staries or
25 feet in height unless the building qualifies for an exception allowed by
the Code. The purpoae is �o preserve privacy as ne.cessi�ated by the often odd
placement of a home on a flag lot.
During the discussions before the City Gouncil, NPO #6 raised the following
iseues 1) That height limitations on flag lots should be di�cussed and
possibly be made more restrictive and 2) That building height information for
an entire subdivision should come under cloee acrutiny.
You may wish to evaluate the flag lot height limitation issue as well as the '
over�:ll height liwits in the community. Presently the height limit for
residPnti.al dw�llings is as follow�s:
R.1 30
R.2 30
R.3.5 30
R.4.5 30
R.7 35
R.12 35
R.20 45
R.40 60
Single family development is taking place in all zones up to R.12 at this
time. The standard home in the community ranges from 1 to 1 1/2 to 2 stories,
less �han 30 feet. The house which was in question before the City Council is
a two story house.
The provisions of 18.98.030 allow up to 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet on a flag lot
if steps are taken to mitigate the impact un the neighborhood. You may wish
to look at this section of the code to determine if it �hould be revised. A
copy is. attached.
12755 S.W,ASH P.O, BOX 23397 TiGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
The Gouncil felt that the issve of building heighEo shoulfl be studied. I have
stated that i ao nat ���i�ve that we ahould limit all sing,le family homes ko
less than two stories as thia would limit the size of future homes,
particulary in those ar�as with small`er Iot sizes. We may, however, want to
reviae the f7ag lot section of the code so that it does not allow a building
to exceed the height of other units in the area.
If the Planning Commisai,on would like to discus$ this issue, I wouRd suggeefi
that we set aside some time at the April 17, meeting. Please let us know in
advance if you would like to discuss a possible change in our building height
restxictians.
, -- - -
� F .p . . . . . . . . . . .
].2 March 1984
TO: "�IGARD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: NPO #6
SUBJECT: Allowable Buildin� Heights r�n F].ag Lots
Mary Clinton' s Revaew of Construction - 14185 SW 98th Ct.
NPO #6 conv�ned a special m�eting on 7 March �o discuss this
issue wi��h Mrs . Clinton. A city staff report dealing with this
subject was made available to the NPn by Mr. Bill Monahan, Direc�or
of. Planning and Development. The N�O reviewed the staff r�port with
Mrs . Cla.nton and several other interested guests .
A. NPO Analysis of Mr. Monahan's Report
We agreed that the house under construction complies with i
the �irst �wo excep�ians provided f�r by the Community Development
Co��.
1. dimensional requirements of the zoning district
2. a residential structure on any abutting lot either is
located 50 feet or more from the nearest point of the
subjec� dwelling, ar the residential structure exceeds
11 ���ries or 25 f�et in height on any abutting lot;
However, we disagree with Mr. Monahan' s interpretation of condition
#3, '°windows 15 fee� or more above grade shall not face dwelling
unit windows or patios on any abutting lot un'less the proposal in-
cludes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct
wiews without loss of solar �.ccess to any dwelling unit, or that
such trees exist and will be presarved. "
The 'following f�acts �upport tl?� NPO' s position:
� 1. Pha�tographs pravided to the NPO by Mrs. Clinton clearly
show that, even though these are x��indows intended to act
as a passive solar system, a clear and unobstructed view
; of MrS. Clinton' s backyard and patio exists . ,
, �
' `'2. According to the current Development Code mitiga•�ion of
' what the NPO feels is a violation of condition #3 requires °
planting of trees which would not block solar access to
the dw�elling unit.
The NPO feels the planting of �rees is in conflict with
solar access provision of the eode.
� ,
�
° �T;'tgarsd City Couneil - NPO #6 - page two
The house is situated on the north slope oi a substantial
hill. Solar access during the prime winter heating season
will be minimal; at best without trees pla;nted ta anitiga�e
the view of Mrs . Clinton's property..
Therefore, we feel the solar access argument for the two-
story windows in this si�tuation is a moot point.
A structural change in the house design should be investi-
gated. .
B. Oth�r S ecific Concerns,
1. Mrs: C1i�nton related experiences with city procedures
for inspection and enforcem�nt of the Development Code.
Some of these dealt with:
a. Measurement`of building height on a terraced
property ;
b. Determination of final height before construction ';
of the dwelling in question is completed.
The NPO feels specific procedural matters such as this should �
be- addressed and solved or they will surely come up again.
�
C, Summar,v
In a broader sense the NPO feels that an examination of
baailding height limitations may be in order. Current R--7
zoning provides that no building shall. exceed 35 feet in
height. In the situation under discussion tonight, a ;
dwelling 35 feet in height eould be built directly to the
north or east of the dwelling currently under canstruction,
�hus 'blocking any view the ctarrent owne�� sought to gain
with their current house desi�n (see attached map) .
The NPO suggests that the he'ight limitations dealing with
f1.aq lots be made more restrictive.
The NPO also suggests that building height information for
an ex�tire' su?adivision come under close scrutiny during the
established ci�ty process so that height related "ane-up-
manship" is minimized in order to keep the livability we
have worked so hard the last 2 years to preserve.
,
_ ,__ _ _ -- '---- .
_
—
, ` �J� y";,� ° 1`,,�--�
" �P �,�� � A�'R�� ,�
o „�•,.,,...- /'r''
� '�� ""'"""r'._ �`t".
�I� � ser+ v•�c�a3e �W• N� DONALD
5,e. Gor�.��.o. R�crw�.a
�r� •o
t-�•99�5fZ'Sv'�' - N.e1•s�t+M� � jr�'.j7 6�' w� ° '��
t�.ao
I . q7.��' , ,
� � 31,4i
'� `0 ll� .� �9. ro
N•�o �� �a Q "1.3►4 fi � �U���� ��A
g PLA'B' .� o �n
N�OT IN �o � - 2� g.ae•ta'��"�• D�2 • � " C,1-t: 28•93
^ i � N � t 9. � ZO . 4'92�9 3� , „ �
� i 100� � 1 :r� c 750'4'� �' �•�07�� r` a�2'�°..��09 • GH� ��'��' r
b R' � .�� �3�40 . GH. = 23•"i9
�N�r►� �N - N.e0�5`� ; , a R`� '
• o y1r �_�-,>p�� A.r-,�°54 28'� GN= �4'7.G -r�'
/O�Ut�/ititrEmr�wi�+t . � � p-�.90
N.G�°!sl 09 W _ �n �.. � � . .�,9@%4G 27 G.
^ _-157.LZ•yi r7r700 � � �� ' ►7 �� �'�' �s ° p,4n1, G�. - 57,2.'�,
� � -_'N.89'Si�w',� K. 9'M.�2��� •�,: r 7`304 ch � o R:. 50 la =G9 'S
�R �DO. ' r . � � . 3 �
� � s � �• G�.
� \'� �s 3' a � a��, ' ' �s L '`�"• <-3'L
� � 93� 2?' :os r � 2.. �o � .NS.��'Z7 �� ��.° •� � �o A`37 42 19 .31
� . 4. \ �' ��' xy 82b4 • zs• Ly a0 16. r! � 4 p '
1!1 � '75 ys9� Po L� V• �c_ Ke � �,p�'7,50�"�V � uZ.Z R��,: ,37°�1-2� 1�� GI"1 = 32.3)
�' 9 , ' � W � ti 3 '�' p.oe' ,
� 5-Bo��t�eu ��9 � '' '(!� �u� � :P: 1--D""-�----- 67�t , ��� Ct-{, .g5.�`1
�1 0 � �Jz ,eo•W;_ . ,;Q� ��. � s.s.a2`�'w� � � �^5o A� Z • � I GN. = "7.55�
`-�• ; N - .3�� �'_20,� L�.• 1°.4G� 1G�
� �. �5�9 �.�- k.�w N � N .
� � 0 ��� �9��' •W �s•59' ��, S . 3•.vy. z•b�� � LoT 7• � ' ' CN,•7�.��,�
� ���Nh7°J24 � ,L� 7. �a "' `v o _15D t � ��� R=��4' 87•4 "y9 Gti••27."11
� ?' � q� �` _; � f�'
1�7. 75�1 r � � ,
�5.89'58'�"E. � .8 'o ' v�l!� �n N66°l"M�'�. � LO°i' � • 4� G4r'S��'✓q' GFi.a 21.'�B
� PTID•/a`' 1�4.og• Z �-'= ' j4, O �� o ' Q• G.�'.�"'p5" Gf'�•=�'2�
g.i.o b. w.�,i�' z�� . � �; R- 5 ,
, - a Z $ °��jp9 t� \y �
`t� r 7l09? �V ' ��bN.Q8�32 71$�c. �.'U...��� �. 7�-✓' °p��` GY'1'.s GD.SP�
�C„ �,� �i��l" s� �. � °�W. � � x �o�+-•�t�s' �_ -`�aO
19�7C9 -{�iq Wa, CA9Y• n K.Gs�a4� � � 13..h . La� � �}o � ,� G�, .'Z,3.�LL�
_V(v�t+��4� 1! \`� �.� •� GTs 1'�O -j"JQC�4� _� �,a G.n/ Q �! � �
i� s S 0 �' �. �o'SS v ��c�
� ,,�'� t.R. To 6E '� � '� �' ,��5, ��° � d��=� 4Z•o0� G�,=35•84
G': �v ` `''�' : Y �'" �3��3 w R'' � � *
� ;T/��� ',�, >2 sF
'EI�1 O D �I�`� ,0� � '7 P�t-� � 2.
9J � ,��I � �� ' LOT' .�p p" GH. ' �`�•�3
�. �o, p 11. �� 12. � �_ r-p a�Z3
� $ �7< �p7539 m e
�-.5 = 9��o°r",,�,�,a,�:.v� �3 ,
;f?,Rp�/I t.�...E. � o re. • ► ,� ' x � , 1"`J--T--�"� �4Z° 53�If�'� GK•"'�"`'c"
. ��,� g ao tb �, � , f�= '�"a0
� �9 �'o a.c. r,o.} 11 G t.31 GO.�,,p ,
I:�r �b' -�i���ag-- � , �-t- �4-. � Gh R t�-r,.�
\ �5�--•-- 1-1.8°l'S�''`M' ��3 �'O, o.�i w.-,` R=�t� • �'S9'.4�4
� a , pNp� / � �
�J� � r� "1.5��:1�.1�}�co� „_�J'Uk,l�a;�s �..OT ��J • • � � .�i� ' Z�. 0� �
:� .------r-Lj,, g a, 2� �
t.ay�rrr^'� `��i�,���- 20 0, `•q,410" L.Gl•3° �.N ` 5''•'°
��` • -\'1.5� �
T CQ�ISTr�G��Y1 . 1 LO_ 2;�--ri�� : 9�•�c�' 2� crc.�?$..7e,
�G ���N� �Vrr�� D EP�C� 1-dT� �� �� K��?a��7�1'43�3�" LM�:1Pi Gtt. .
�fZ F'��'� �--11.1ES � W,T H r, o ' �ti• • 2Y�.3?�
F�SE/v��-!T P�h��l'' f'cR C� iZ=2G A `qo �7 40
h
�D��p E �R01�1"�" t't�P� L I i�lE S � c.. ; �• �z t'i'S�,�t„
t0� 1'v���, . ��oQ �...�0. Gu►-de -xt 7�v.7G
A L��,, G�c S���I�L T' � N A� I N T -r a p', L.= 23�•*�5�, f.L.' �
;G FOR TN�� 1 t�1STPr�-L..�T1�t l.-1"T��E`-�'�GLV� � : l��z15'37 2 3"
�,.r�5�.�� ftND ���P��"� � � D�a�N��,��U�15� �a• Gvl -d� -�- �.�. • �7. IG'
L.iMlT��17 T[� GjE1/�lEi� � VYi�Tl-- ,�C,,.�p�� L� 2�• ��
G- rta N�= U(U LS •
.,.�,~.-.-.�GP t��1GA-TED T�' Tt-iG GITY �� �.. 0 9t�.�,�f�;�CN G 5�
- _ ,,,,.�� , .. i .,.-� 35� ��
� -- -- -
CPA 14-84
AGENDA ITEM �k 5•9
( April 17, 1984
TTG,ARD PLANNING COI�IMISSION
MEMORANDUiN.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff 4%!iv'" �
�UBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Document Amendments
On March 20, 1984, the Planning Staff mailed Co each one of the Planning
Commissioners a packet of letters from various reviewing agencies commenting
on the Gity's Comprehensive Plan.
On April 5, 1984, Bill Monahan, Liz Newton and Adrianne Brockman met with the
LCDC Staff to review their staff repc�rt on Tigard's request fox
acknowledgement. The LCDC Staff is recommending continuance of the Tigard
Plan on goals 2, 5, 10, 12 and 14. A copy of the LCDC StafE report is
attached. At the end of the LCDC Staff report is a list of orders i.o comply.
These are issues whieh will have to be addressed prior to acknow e gement of
the Ci�y;s Plan if the Co�nmission adopts the LCDC Staff report.
The issues raised by the various reviewing agencies were all considered by
LCDC Staff in preparation of the staff report. Some of the objections raised
by reviewing agencies were substantiaked by LCDC Staff, some were not.
The City's Planning 5taff has prepared a 5 page response sheet which addresses
each order to comply by goal. Since these orders to comply incorporate
comments and objections made by the various reviewing agencies, staff would
like the Commissioners to review these items for the April 17, 1984, Planning
Commission Meeting. Please pay particular atten�ion to the items marked with
an asterisk (*) on pages 2, 3 & 4 as these are items staff would like the
Commission to address at the A�pri1�7, 1984, meeting. Background material for �
the items marked with * is attached and marked with the Goal and Item �� to
correspond with the response sheet.
Also a:ttached to this memo is a list of streets organized by classification.
These streets and corresponding classifications were inadvertently omitted
from page T-226 of the Resource Document. Staff would like the Planning
Commission to forward a recommendation to iche City Council incorporating these
streets and classifications iilto the Resource Document on page I-226 to
conform to the City's adopted Transportation Map.
STAFF RECOMME�IDATION:
Staff recommends that th'e Planning Commz.ssion forward recommendations to the
City Council on the others to comply issues yet to be resolved to City
Council. I� addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission aiso
forward a recommendation to the City Council incorporating the list of sheets
and classifications into the Resource Document.
:
:i
GOAL � •LAND U5E 1'LANNING
1. The City and Washington County must adopt plan designations for all
unplanned areas within the planning area.
The three areas specifically identified b� the LCDC staff report are the
Krueger Triangle, a triangular piece of land consisting of 5 lots in the
Walnut Island arPa and the newly annexed area on 7gth noith of Pfaffle.
The Krueger Triangle and the 7$th annexation area have been designated and
zoned. LCDC has a new map which reflects those actions. The five lots in
the W'alnut Island a-rea will t�e considered at the Council's April 23rd
hearing.
2,. For unincorporated area, Washington County must adopt zoning consistent
with the plan des:ignations.
Washington County has. indicated to the Gity and LCDC that once LCDC staff
xecommends acknowledgement of the City's Plan, the County will adopt
zoning for the unincorporated areas consistent with the City's plan
designations.
3. Correct all plan and zone conflicts as identified under Plan/Zone
Conflicts.
There are several areas listed in the staff report under this item:
A. Land located west of 85th avenue and north of the Tualatin city
limits has no zoning. The area, however, is planned Light Industry,
Open Space, and Low Density Residential.
This has been corrected on the zaning map.
B. Zt,To small parcels located south of Bonita Road along 78th Street are
planned and zoned in the following manner,
1. The eastern parcel is planned Low Density Residential and zoned
R-7, a Medium Density Residential zone.
2. The western parcel is planned, Medium Density Residential and
zon�d R-4.5, a Law Density Residential zone.
These have been corrected on the plan map.
C. A small parcel located south of Durham Road and east of 100th Street
is planned Low Density Residential and zoned R-12 (PD), a medium
residential zon.e intended to be developed as a planned development. I
The eity st,aff does not find a plan map con£lict in this area.
D. Another sma11 parcel locatec3 east of Ghe Pacific Highway and west of
Garrett Street is planned, Low Density Residential and zoned R-12, a
Medium Density Residential zone.
This has been eorrected on the Land Use Map.
- 1 -
E. A pareel located south of Gaarde Street and west of Pacific Highway
is planned, Medium Density Resideritial and zoned C-G, Commercial
General.
City sGaff does not find a plan map conflict im thi� area.
GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
� 1. Amend the plan to determine which wetlands, drainageways, and creeks
identified in the city's resaurce inventory are significant resources.
Gity s�aff believes that this can be resolved at the April 17, 1984,
Plmnning Commission meeting and the April 23, 1984, Gity Gouncil meeting.
� 2. Identify conflicting us�s and analyze the ESEE consequences of these uses
upon significant resources identified in "1" above.
This will be addressed as a result of the resolution of 4� 1 above.
,�3. Based upon the analysis in "2" above, provide plan policies and
implementing measures (i.e. , the sensitive lands sections) as outlined in
the Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-16)� Notec This may require
reviAion of policy 3.1.1.
This too wil.l be addressed during discussion of one and two above.
�4. Amend the Development Code to include setback standards (i.eo , 25 ft.) and
apply to im�ortant open space and water areas and fish and wildlife
habi.tats.
The Planning Comanission and City Council should consider adding this
special setback provision to the Community Development Code at their April
hearings.
�S. Assign the Historic Overlay District to the five remaining important
historic strsctures as identified in the plan.
This issue is on the City Counci�.'s April 23, 1984, agenda.
GOAL 10: HOUSING
1. Coordinate with Washington County for the application of appropriate plan
designations and zoning the unincorporated portion of Tigard's Urban
Growth Boundary consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and the
Metropolitan Housing Rule.
This item will be complied with when the County adopts the City's plan
designations for unincorporated areas.
_ 2 _
2• Amend the plan to include an assessment of additional manufactured homes,
a needed housing type, that are projected for the planning period.
The city staff wi11 include an assessment of manufactured homes when LCDC
provides the City with a methodology for �oing an assessment.
3. Delete the 2Q acres of Low Density Residentia.l land from the buildable
Iands inventory that is adjac�nt to Cook Park and within L-he Tualatin
River floodplain.
The 20 acres mentioned here was never included in the buildable lands
inventory.
4. Gomply with the Metropolitan Housing Rule by �roviding an overall average
density of ten units per acre net residential buildable acre (OAR
660-07-035) or take an exception in the plan to the Housing Rule.
Galculations of overall density �hall include consideration of density
reductions due to transition from established to developing areas.
This is a policy issue which will be decided at the Council level. City
staff is working on some alternatives to the density issue which wi11 be
� presented at the April 23, City Council meetin . There does not seem to
�
, be an reduction in densit due to th
y y e established/developing area
transition.
5. Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housing, or,
provide an analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add
to khe cost of needed assisted housing and more clearl;y define the term
"subsidized housing".
This is a policy issue which should be discussed at the April 23, 1984
,
City Council meeting, City staff will present possible alternatives to
tha.s �oli�y at that meeting.
6. Delete Po].icy 6.3.2. B regarding compatibility tests from the plan or
amend that portion of the Poli�y so that a11 xequirements for developments
abutting existing neighborhoods are spelled out in clear and objective
terms.
i
An amendment to this policy was considered by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has recommended that khe amendment be forwar.ded to
City Council for consicleration at the April 23, 1984, hearing.
�7. �a) Delete the Imp�.ementation Strat�gy 5 under the plan's 6.3 policies;
and delete the reference under the purpose subsection of Established
Area-Devel�ping Area portion of the Development code to the periodic
reclassification of "establi.shed" and "developing" areas
(18.138.O10.B), or
(b) Amend Implementation Strategy 5 to indicate that periodic updating of
the "established area" boundary will not have the impact af reducing
the residential c�ensity below the required ten units per acre average.
City staff eoulcl support (a) above, however, this issue should be
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at the upcoming
meetings.
- 3 -
l _
_-_
__
$. M�dify or eorxect the definition of Aeveloping Areas in the Development
Code (Sec. ' 18.138.020.B.1) by deleting the reference to Subsection
18.13'7-015 or cite the correct subsection.
This correction has been made.
9. Correct erroneous or contradictory citations in subsections
18.80.120.A.3.e(1) and (b) 18.80.12O.A.3og(1) and (2) of the Planned
Development section of the Code.
These corrections have been made.
,
�'10. Amend the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones ta allow manufactured housing as an
outright use or amend the Conditional Use approval standards
18.13:0.040.A.1.b. and 1.8.130.040.:C to be clear and objective, or add a new>
manufactured housing zoning district of sufficient size and density to
meet identified manufactued 'housing needs.
This is a policy issue which shall be, addressed by the Planni.ng Commission '�
and Citg Council. Staff will suggest alternatives at the upcoming
hearings.
11. Amend the 1.andscaping and Screening section of the Development Code to
include a buffer matrix cited under Subsection 18.100.13U• �
The buffer matrix has been incorporated into the code.
� T2. Amend the 8ite Review section of the Development Code to add an additional
�t cat�gory under 18.120.170, Exeeptions to Standards, for granting an
excepCion to the Pravate Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas
requirements for senior multifamily housing or other needed housing
developments thak can demonstrate a reduced demand for private and shared
autdoor recreation area; or demonstrate that the additional aosts for the
required Private Outdoor Araa and Shared Outdoor Recreation Area will not
acld unnecessarily to the cost of affordable housing or have the effect of
discouraging needed housing.
City staff can support the first opitian and wili prApQSe standards to the
Planning Commission and City Council at eapcoming hearings.
GOAZ Z2: TRANSPOF'TATION ,
1. Coordinate with Metro and Washington Gaunty on the deveLopment of ,
consistent tran.sportation plans.
This item should be resolved upon resolution of an Urban Planning Area
Agreemer►t (UPAA) between the City and Washington County.
_ 4 -
GOAL 14s URBANIZATION
1. Amend the 1980 Urban Planning Area Agreement or d'evelog a new
agreement that: �
a. Includes policies and standards to insure that the conversion of
urbanizable lands to urban uses shall occur in a�n orderly and I
efficient manner. Interim development below urban density or j
development must be controllecl through application of
appropriate holding zones to assure full urban development can
- occux consistent with the pian; and
b. Includes a map which clearly shows the approved Metropolitan
Regional Urban Growth Boundary and the Tigard Urban Planning
Area Boundary.
The City and County are negotiating a revised Urban Planning Area
agreement which will address the issues raised above.
.
0395P dmj
_ S _
�
Discrepencies between Transportation Comprehensive Plan Report and
Transportation Map.
MTNOR GOLLECTORS .
Tigard St. from Main to 115th �
115th Avenue from North Dakota St. to Tigard St.
Riverwood Lane (Ficks Lan3ing)
98th Avenue from Greenburg Rd. to Commercial St.
Morning Hill Drive
Falcon Rise Drive
130th from Scholls Ferry Rd. to Morning Hi11
Tech. Center Dr.
MAJOR COLLECTORS
S.W. 69th Avenue �from Pacific Highway to Atlanta
;
_ �
� - --
Department of Land C�rr,s�rvation and Dev�lopment
VIC70R ATIVEH 1175 COU.RT STREET N,E., SALEM, OREGON 973?0-0590 PHONE (503) 376-4926 '
��
D �GI�I��
April 5, 1984 ,
�� APR 91984
The Nanorabl e Wi 1 bur Bi shop CITY OF TIGARD
Mayor, City of Tigard
PO Box 23397 PLANNING DE:�.
Tigard, OR 97�23 �
Dear Mayor Bishop:
Enclosed is the Department's report on the City of Tigard's request for
Acknowledgment of Compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals. The
Depariment's recormnendation to the Commission is that your request be
continued to J uly 1 , 1984 to complete necessary revisions to your plan and
1 and use regul ations for Goal s 2, 5, 10, 12 and 14.
The Commission will consider your acknowledgment cquest on April 26, 1984, at
Hearing Room F, State Capitol in Salem. You and other officials and citizens
are welcome to attend this meeting and participate in the Commission's review
of your acknowledgment request. You have 10 calendar days from the date the
attaehed report was rnailed to file written exceptions to the report with the
Commission at the Salem office (OAR 660-03-025(2)). We would urge you to send
copies of any exceptions to commentors or objectors affected by exceptions.
Pl�ase contact your Field Representatide, Jim Sitzman at 229-6068, if you have
any questions and �or the time when your item will appear on the agenda.
� Sincerely,
..�
,
y _ -
' Ja �s F. Ross
' ector
JFR:TMC:tmc/8276B/66
(G1 0145(i )) �
cc: Washington County Board of Commissioners
City Planning Director �, �
Jim Si tzman, Fiel d Repv�esentati ve .�'����''`; �"�
Robin Harrower, Lead Reviewer File � �`
Mike Byers, Reviewer �� �
J im Kni ght, Su�pervi sor ��<<«��'�����''��'
DLCD Library(2)
Portl and Offi ce
Coordinator
Objectors and Commentors
���� LAND CONSERVA�'ION AND DEVELOFh�NT COMMI SSION
` ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Tigard
DATE RECEIVED: DATE OF COMMISSION ACTION:
November 18, 1983 April 26-27, 1984
I. REQUEST
Acknowledgment of Compliance wit'h the Statewide Planning Goals for the
comprehensive plan and implementing measures.
II . SUMMARY Of RfCOMMENDATIONS
Staff
Re�ommend �
s the Commission continue �he City of Tigard s acknowledgment
re uest to Ju1 1 19�4 to c r '
9 Y , , o rect deficiencies identified in the p�an
and i�nplementing measures under Goals 2, 5, 10, 12, and 14.
Local Coordination Body
�,., Recommends continuance (see attachment).
FIELp REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Sitzman
Phone: 229-6068
LEAD REVIEWER: Robin Marrower (Goals 1, 2-6, 8,
9, and 12)
Mike Byers (Goals 7, 10, 11, 13
and 14)
Phone: 378-297b/378-4096
COORDTNATOR: Kevin Martin
Phone: 648-87i7
Date of Report: April 4, 1984
}�
�F..
City of' Tigard -2- April 4, 1984
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION '
Geographx
Tigard is 1ocated in the southeastern portion of Washington County. �he
City is adjacent to the cit3es of �eaverton, Portlandy Lake Oswego,
Durham, and Tualatin. Tigard also lies witfiin the 7ualatin River Basin.
Governing Body
Mayor and four council members.
Population
2000 - 33,400 (City projection)
1980 - 14,286
1970 - 6,300
Plan and Implementing Measures Date of Adoption
1. Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Volumes I, II, November 9, 1983
and III, including plan and zone maps,
and Development Code, Ordinance
No. 83-52.)
2. Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning March 4, 1980
Area Agreement.
Compliance Status
The Ci�ty received $95,670 in planning assistance grants from 1975 to 1981 .
IV. FINDINGS
General Overview
Tigard has evo1ved from a rural community to a major suburban community
in the last 15 years. Although the City is primarily a residential area,
it also has significant commercial and industrial activity.
The plan provides extensive background information on the natural
resources found in the Tigard area. However, other inventories ( i.e.s
residential needs) are def�cient. The plan contains some very good
policies and innovative imPlementing measures (i.e., Density Transfer, '
Sensitive Lands, etc,).
Primary deficiencies in tfie plan include lack of coordination and
consistency with other local and regional plans and policies ( i.e.,
Washington County and Metro). Other plan deficiencies include lack of
clear identification of the UGB and the provision of affordable housing,
consistent with the Metro Housing Rule.
�
,
City of Tigard -3- April 4, 1984
���� The Department recommends that the City's ac'knowledgment reqwest be
+�: continued to c�rrect deficiencie� in the following Goals:
Goal 2: Lack of adequate City plan designations and Gounty zoning, and
plan to zone conflicts.
Goal 5: In:adequate identification and Goa1 5 analysis of important
Creeks, drainageways, and wetlands; inadequate application of
im�lementing measures for important open space and fish and
wildlife resources, and historic structwres.
Goal 10: Lack af appropriate County residential designations and zoning
for unincorporated portions of the urban growth are:a; lack of
projection f�r manuf actured housing needs; failure to relate
projected buildable land to projected population; failure to
comply wit'h Housing Rule requirement for ten dwelling uni�s per
acre; policies which unnecessarily add to the cast of housing
or reduce allowable densities; contradictory or missing
Development Code sections that relate to housing site
requirements.
Goal 12: Lack of a transportation plan that is coordinated with Metro
and Washington County.
Goal 14: Insufficient standards for the conversion of land to urban
�::.
levels of development.
'`��- �plicable Goals
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Factual Base
Tigard's Co►ranittee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) and Citizen Involvement
Program (CIP) were established in 1975 and approved by LCDC on April 23,
1976. The City adopted a CIP that incorporated the six elements of
Goal 1 (citizen involvement, communication, etc:) . Seven Neighborhood
Planning Organizations (NPOs) were established between 1975 and 1979 to
act as citizen advisory comnittees (CACs). The Tigard CCI membership
consists of the chairperson Af each NPO, one memeber of the City Council,
the Planning Commission Chairperson, and the Park Board Chairperson.
Since the Commission' s adoption of Tigard's CCI and CIP in 1976, the City
has revised and updated the CIP regarding the authorities,
responsibilities and membership structure of the NPOs. The revisions
occurred in 1979, 1980, and 1982: The City, however, did not submit the
adopted revisions for CIAC revi�w until March 22, 1984. Tigard's
revisions to its CIP are now scheduled to be reviewed by CIAC on
Apri 1 13, 1984.
���
�
: ,
Ci ty of Tigard -4- Apri 1 4, 198�4
Department review of the ordinanees revising Tigard's NROs indicates that �
th� City's CIP remains in compliance with Goal 1. The revisinns clarify „
NPO membership responsibilities, length of inembership term (four years),
boundaries, funding, and participation in plan developmer�t, etc.
The plan includes the following policies on citizen involvement:
1. The Ci�,y shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement
program and sh.all assurr� that citizens will be provided an
opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning
process (p. .II-9).
2. The opportunit�es for citizen- involvement provided by the
City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning
effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the
community; _
a. The Committee for Citizen Invol�ement sha31 be
responsible for evaluating the Citizen Involvement
Program and for working witfi t'he Neighborhood Planning
Organizations in recommending changes in the program
(p. II-10);
b. The Neighborhood Planning Organizations shall be the
primary means for carrying out the program;
c. Where appropriate, other involvement techniques will be
used.
Conclusion
The City of Tigard complies with Goal 1.
The City has a CCI and CIP that have been approved by LCDC. Both the GCI
and the CIP ensure wide-range citizen involvement that is consistent with
the six elements of Goal 1. Although the City has adopted revisions to
the CIP regarding the responsibilitie:s ofi` the NPOs, the r�visions are not
contrary to the requirements of Goal 1. The CIP revisions enhance and
clarify the responsibilities of the NPOs. B�sed upon this information,
the Department recommends the Commission acknowledge the City's plan to
be in compliance with Goal 1.
�
GOAL 2t LAND USE PLANNING I
Goal 2 requires "identification of issues and problems, inventories and
other factual information for eac;fi applicable Statewide Planning Go�l ."
The Goal also requires "evaluation of alternative courses of action and
ultimate policy choices" to be made as "the basis for specific
implementation measures. ..consistent with and adequate to carry out the
plan."
City of Tigard -5- April 4, 1984
-a„� The Tigard Plan consists of three parts: the Resource Document
�..� (Volume I), the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document
(Volume II), and the Community Development Code (Volume III) . Volume I
contains background findings for each Goal topic, including issues,
problems and cowrses of action. The plan was derived through an analysis
of planning issues that were all subject to review and input f rom several
Neighborhood Planning Orga,nizations (NP0' s) and tfie City's Committee for
Citizen Involvement (CCI). Some of the information in ttre Resource
Document was extrapolated from various other City documents that were not
inclwded in the City's submittal (i.e., storm wate� management plan,
etc.).
Uolume II includes findings, policies and implementation strategies. The
plan states the findings were derived f rom the factual material in
Volume I . Policies generally reflect the background informationa The
implementation measures "are recommendations and set forth the means for
implementing the pTan° (p. II-12),
Population: The plan states that the City has experienced a population
increase of 173. 7 percent since 1970. In 1970, Tigard's population was
6 300 . I-140 . The 1980 o ulation was 14 855 d h
, (p ) p p , an t e ear 2000
projection is 33,4D0 y
(pp. I-140 and I-186). The plan states that Metro's
year 2000 population projection for Tigard is 31 ,550 (p. I-186).
According to the plan, the Tigard Urban Planning Area (TUPA) includes
4,893.5 acres (p. I-283)o However, it is not known how much of this land
�' is located within the city limits and the unincorporated �artion of the
�"�� UGB (see Goal 14 for further discussion) .
Coordination: The City and Washington County adnpted an Urban Planning
re�a�eement (UPAA) on March 4, 1980. The March 1980 UPAA established
a "site-specific urban planrring area...within which both �he County and
City may formally review and comment on potential land use actions of
mutual interest." A map shnwing the 1nGatian of the urban planning area
is provided under Exl�•ibit A of the agreement. According tn the 1980
UPAA, the County's plan and implementing measures yovern land use aci:ions
in the unincorporated portion of the urban planning area.
The UPAA states that at the time of the agreement, the city and the
County discovered certain inconsistencies between their respective
plans. The UPAA does not identify the nature of the inconsistencies.
Nowever, the UPAA states that th� County's plan for the unincorporated
area is not adequate and that "the County shall consider a legislative
amendment to the County Plan of Development within tfie Urban Planning
Area to reflect the City Comprehensive Plan designations and to include
the City's suppartive data and findings." Such an amendinent was to be
adopted as part of County Ordinance 219 (July9 1980). However, County
Ordinance 219 is not included in the City' s submittal and the plan does
not indicate whether the County Plan of Development was revised to
incorporate the City plan, as stated above. According to the County,
Ordinance 219 was never adopted (personal communcation wit Kevin Martin,
�M Washington County Coordinator, Marcfi 30, 1984).
4
�ifu
City of Tigar�d -6- April 4, 1984
The 1980 UPAA also. requires that the City and the County provide each '
other opportunities to review their res;pective land �use actions in the y
urban planning area. Procedures are also inc,luded regarding the
annexation of land within the UPAA to the City;
Amendments to the U�'AA may occur through the mutual written concurrence
of both p.art i es. In add i t i on, f i ve; years f rom March, 1980, the UPAA i s
to be reviewed by bot.h the City and the Cownty "to evaluate the
effectiveness of the administration of the processes set forth her°ein and
to make amy necessary amendments.°
Policies adopted in the 1980 UPAA require that:
- Annexations to the City within the urban planning area will not be
npposed by Washington County;
- Annexations outside the urban pTanning area will not be supported by
the City or the County;
- Planning for urban facilities wi11 entail the cooper�tion of the City
and the County;`
- Land use proposa1s in the wrban planning area will not be approved by
the County if the City "presents evidence to show that the proposal
would not facilitate an urban level of development in the future upon
i annexation to the City;" and
�
- City approval be required to allow the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) �-
to provide facilities to developments in the urban planning are�.
Ln June of 1983, the City and County adopted another UPAA to supersede
the agreement of `March 1980. The purpose of the second UPAA was to
resolve some issups that had not been addressed in the 1980 agreement. �
The 1983 UPAA was adopted by both the City and Washington County as a
temporary agreement, it expired on January 1, 1984. Since January, the
1980 UPAA has been reinstated.
Policies: The plan includes the fallowing policies regarding Goal 2
-r---�-
isswes•
1.1.1 The City sha11 ensure that:
a. This comprehensive plan and all futur� legislative
changes are consistent with the Statewide Pl anning
Go�als adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Comnission, tfie regional plan adopted by
the Metrbpolitan Service District;
b.' Any neighborhood planning organization plans and
implementation measures adopted by the City of
Tigard after the effective date of this
comprehensive plan- are designed to be consistent
with this plan; and ,
City of Tigard -7- April 4, 1984
c. The Tigard Comprehensive P1an and Community
��; Development Code are kept cwrrent with the needs of
the corrrnunity. I� order to do this:
1. This plan shatl be reviewed and updated at least
every five years (p. II-6).
1.1 .2. The comprehensive plan and each of its elements shall be
- opened for amendments that consider compliance with the
plans of the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) or its
successor on an annual basis, and may be so amended or
revised if deemed necessary by the city council. Annual
amendment and revision for compliance with the above
regional goals, objectives and Plans shall be consistent
with any schedule for re-opening of local plans approved
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
{LCDC; p. Ii-7).
Implementinq Measures: The plan is implemented by the Community
Development ode Vo ume III). The Code includes both the zoning and
subdivision ordinance requirements. The zoning districts within the
Development Code includee Low Density Residential (R-1 , R-2, R-3.5 and
R-4.5), Medium Density Residential (R-7 and R-12), Medium-High Density
Residential {R-20), High Density Residential (R-40), Neighborhood
Commercial (CN), General Commercial (CG), Professiona� Commercial (CP),
�` Centr�l Business District (CBD), Industrial Park (IP), Light Industrial
}�`w�° (I-L) and Heavy Industrial (I-H). The Development Code also includes two
overlay districts: Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Historic District
(HD).
The Development Code also includes subdivision requirements governing the �
approva1 af subdivisions and partitinns.
Plan/Zone Conflicts: Several plan and zone conflicts exist in Tigard.
he con icts inc ude the following:
1. Land located west of 85th Avenue and north of the Tualatin city
limits has no zoning. The area, however, is planned Light Industry,
Open Space, and Law Density Residential .
2. Two sma11 parcels located south of B�onita Road along 78th Street are
planned and zoned in the follov�ing manner.
a. The eastern parcel is planned Low Density Residential and zoned
R-7, � medium density residential zon�.
b. The western parcel is planned, Medium Density Residential and
zoned R-4.5, a low density residential zone.
3. A small parcel located south of Durham Road and e�st of 100th Street
,�. is planned Low Density Residential and zoned R 12 (PD), a medium
l� residential zone intended to be developed as a planned development.
City of Tigard -8- April 4, 1984 �
4. Another small parceT lmcated east of the Pacific Highway and west of �
Garrett Street is planrred, Low Density Residential and zoned R-12, a
medium density residential zone.
5. A parcel located south of Gaarde Street and west of Pacific Highway
is plan��d, Medium Densitty Residential and zoned CG, Commercial
General.
Plan Desi 'gnations and M�; The City does nnt identify the location of
h�e p a ning �rea�oun�Tcary and the regional urban growth boundary in the
plan, UPAA and/or the zone maps (see Gaal 14).
According to tfie plan map, the City has included some County land within
the urban planning area. The City' s plan map shows these areas are
designated for primarily low density residential uses. Other City plan
designations assigned to these areas include medium, medium-high and high
density residential. County plan and zone designatiorrs for the
unincorporated portion of the urban growth planning area were not
included in either the City or the County's submittal materials. As a
result, it is not possible to determine whether the two plans are
consistent and if the conversion process is adequate (see also Goa1 14).
The City has annexed a large area of land (along the northwestern portion
of the City) that is not included on the plan map. No city plan
designations are assigned to the area although several City zone
designations are applied, including R-2D (Medium High Density), R-12
(Medium Density) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial) . The land area is not
khown. � �� ��-� �;
The City's plan map includes a number of designations that are defined in
Volume II (the Policy document; pp. II-7 and II-8, and II-77 through
II-93). However, as noted under �he Goal 5 section of this report, the
plan is not clear as to how �reas designated as Open Space (OS) will be
protected.
Objections
The following parties have objected to th� acknowledgment of the Tigard
plan on the basis of deficiencies in Goals 2 and 10: Metropolitan
Service District, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland,
and the Oregon Housing Division. The Washington County Land Use and
Transportation Department objects on the basis �f deficiencies in the
Tigard Plan regarding Goals 2 and 12. The objec�tions deal with issues
that primarily affect compliance requirements for Goals 10 and 12. As a
result, each of the objections is addressed under either Goal 10 or 12 '
and will not be discussed here.
Conclusion
The City of Tigard does not comply with Goal 2.
The City of Tigard has adopted a plan that addresses a wide range of
issues concerning the city. A good deal of work has been accomplished
and generally speaking, the Tigard �lan is a good working document. "`�
City of Tigard -9- April 4, 1984
�, As noted above, the City has not coordinated with Washington County and
� Metro on sevewal issues, including the location of the ur�an growth
boundary, the transportation network (see also Goal 12), and an urban
growth planning area agreement (UPAA, Washington County onlyj. The
current UPAA is inadequate both in terms of the location of the boundary
and the provisions that address the responsibilities of th� City and the
County in administering developrnent in the unincorporated area (refer to
Goal 14).
Finally, several plan to zone conflicts have been identified that mwst be
resolved.
I
, n order to com 1 i
p w th Goal 2:
Y
1. The City and Washington Cou:nty must adopt plan designations for a11
unplanned areas within the planning area,
2. For unincorporated areas, Washington County must adopt zoning
corrsistent with the plan designations.
3. Correct all plan and zone conflicts as identified under Plan/Zone
Conflicts, above.
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURRL LANDS
�-� Not applicable.
i;,k,
''4Yzar
GOAL 4: FORfST LANDS
According to OAR 660-06-020, forested areas within urban growth
boundaries gnerally satisfy the Goal 4 requirements through compliance
with Goals 5-8. No commercial forest lands are found in the Tigard urban
planning area. Refer tq Goal 5 for further discussion of forestQd areas
in Tigard.
GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTDRIC AREAS, AND NATURA�. RESOURCES
The 6oaT 5 Administrative Rule, OAR 660-16-000 through 660-16-025,
establishes procedures that a local government must follow in dealing
with its Goa1 5 resources.. The phrases listed below refer to sections of
that administrative rule. (Note: The Administrative Rule, as officiall,y
printed by the Secretary of State' s Office, contains different citations
for the various
sections of the Rule. The cit
ations used in this re
are those adopted by LCDC in June 1981, they have the foTlowing meaningsrt
1. "Inventory the resource"--Gather information on the 1ocatian,
quality, and quantity of resource sites, and determine wh�ch of the
three inventory categories in tfie rule--{ 7A), (16), or (1C)--is
j,��y+,
appropriate.
�wsp, /
�
City of Tigard -10- Apri1 4, 1984
2. "Identify conflicting uses'"--Far all res�urce sit�s found to be �
"significant or important" (per the 1C) c�tegory), describe
conflicting uses in accordance with OAR 660-16-000.
3. "Pre'serve the resource site"--If no conflicting uses are found to
exist, preserve the resource site in accordanc� with Section (2A) or
OAR 660-16-000.
4. "Evaluate ESEE consequences"--Evaluate the economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences of conflicts between the
resource site and identified conflicting uses in accordance with
Se�tion {26) of OAR 660-16-000.
5. "Develop a program to achieve the Goal"--If no conflicting uses are
determined to exist, adopt appropriate mandatory policies and
implemer�ting measures to protect the resource (per Section (2R) of
OAR 660-1b-OOQ). If conflicting uses are found to exist, evaluate
the ESEE consequences and develop a program to achieve the Goal (per
Section (26) and (3) of OAR 660-16-000).
Tigard's plan and implementing measures had not been submitted for
acknowledgment review prior to adoption of the Goal 5 Rule by the
Commission. Therefore, the City f alls into Category 1 under
Section 6�0-16-000 of the Goal 5 Administrative Rule. Compliance with
OAR 660-16-000 is required prior to grantin�g acknowledgment of comPliance
to Category 1 jurisdictions.
Factual Base �
The Tigard Flan' s Resource Document (Volume I) and Finding Document
(Volume II) provide a good deal of baekground information on open areas,
mineral and aggregate resources, energy sources, fish and wildlife
habitats, natural areas, scenic views and sites, water areas, and
historic sites and structures (pp. I-24 thorugh I-109; and II-17 through
YI�21) . According to information provided in th� plan, the folTowing
Goal 5 resource categorles do not apply to Tigard: energy sources,
potential and approved Qregon recreation trails, and potential and
appraved federal wild and �cenic waterways and state scenic waterways.
For those Goal resources considered to be important, the plan provides an
extensive discussion including f actual base and locational information,
analysis of conflicts, and environmental, social, energy, and economic
(ESEE) consequences, policies, and implementing measures.
0 ep n Space Areas
Backgroun�d Information: The plan identifies the following import�nt open
space areas in�figard-
1. S�nnmer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest (p. I-97).
2. Krueger Creek (pp. I-97 and I-98).
City of Tigard �11- April 4, 1`984
3. Tualatin River Floodpiain (west of Cook Park; p. I-99).
.�,�:
4. Fanno Creek (this inc1udes three specific sites inside the City;
pp. I-99 through I-102).
5. Tualatin floodplain (referred to as Ravine 108/113; p. I-1D2).
The plan . provides site-specific information (mapping), including a
description of the characteristics of each open space resource listed
above. Because the open space resources listed above are also valued as
either important water areas or fish and wildlife habitats, they are
discussed ir� further detail under the subheading of Water Areas, and Fish
and Wildlife Areas and Habitats.
Mineral and Aggregate Resbwrces
Back�round In�formation: The plan states that two aggregate de�osits are
�oun id n the igT-`ar�rea (p. I-73) . However, only one aggregate site,
the Durham Pits, is located within the Tigard UGB (personal communication
with Elizabeth Newton, Associate Planner for Tigard; March 9, 1983) . The
aggregate site is located on 85th Avenue, south of Durham Road and owned
by Washington County. The site is actively mined and designated Light
Industrial. No onf ' t
c lic s are known for the Dwrham Pits . I-73
�P )•
Fish and Wildlife Areas and Habitats
'`� Background Information: The plan states that many types of w�ldlife are
��` still found in Tigard, incyuding deer (in the wooded area of Little Bull
Mountain), fox ( in open fields), mink, wease�, beaver, raccoon, great
blue herons, belted kingfisher (all generally found in riparian areas;
p. I-40). Fish species ar^e less diverse (p. I-40)a The �lan states that
most of the riverine areas once supported a greater number of fish and
cravdfish (p. I-40). However, urbanization has reduced habitat areas and
the water quality of many creeks and rivers in Tigard (p. I-40). Both
F anno Creek and Tualatin River support warmwater game fish such as bass,
crappie, catfish, and bullhead (p. I-40). Chinook and Coho salmon, and
Cutthroat and Steelhead trout migrate through the Tualatin River
(p. I-40). 1'he plan includes a map of the important fish and wildlife
areas (p. I-109). Background information, conflicts, and an ESEE
analysis of identified conflicts are provided below for the important
fish and wi1dlife resources identified in the plan.
Summer Creek Floodplain arid Riparian �Forest: The plan identifi�s two
separat� pnrtions of Summer Creek as important Goal 5 resource areas
(pp. I-97 and I-98). Both portions of Summer Creek are located in the
northwest portion of the City. The plan describes these two areas as
important water and wetland areas, fish and wildlife habitats, and open
spa,ce/rQCreation sites (p. I-97). The easternmost portion of Summer
Creek has been identified as one of three important wildlife sites in the
area and is composed of "deciduous swamp and coniferous upland
vegetation" (p. I-97). The plan states:
,
��:�
,
City of Tigard -T2- Apri1 4, 1984
Summer Creek is the only major tributary basin of Fanno Creek
wtiich has not neen substantially urbanized. Wetlands such as
this wi11 serv� an even more important function in purifying
water as �he basin is developed (p. I-97).
Both portions of Summer Creek are designated Medium-High Density
Residential (13-20 du/acre). Conflicts identified inc1ude habitat loss
and lower water yuality if residen�ial development is permitted
(p. I-97):�- If no devel;opment is allowed, more open space will be
available; however, loss of bwildable land will :result which may increase
housing costs (I-97). As a result, the Gity has decided to allow
residential development in the area, excluding "the floodplain and
immediately adjacent riparian upland" which are to be "preserved in their
natural condition°' (p. I-97) . A density transfer is permitted up to
25 percent of the density aTlowed on buildable land (excluding
floodplains; p. I-97). Refer to Implementing Measures ahead for further
information.
Krueger Creek; Located south of Summer Creek, this creek flows into
Summer Creek and is considered to be "a significant Goal 5 resource as a
waterway, wildlife habitat, and open space/recrsation site" (p. I-97).
Krueger Creek provides "small-scale" natural features for wildlife
habitat and as a water retention area (p. I-97).
According to the plan, this creek ar�a is �lso designated Medium-High
Density ResidentiaT (13-20 du/acre) . The plari states that conflicts from
residential development may include: loss of habitat, iower water
quality, and "additional costs of development and maintenance for ��
structural drainage management" (p. I-97). Prohibiting residential
development would result in loss of buildable land, fewer dwelling units,
additional development cos�s, but increase the amount of open space in
the community (p. I-97). �ased on this information, the City has decided
to preserve the waterway and �mmeaiately adjacent riparian upland (a
minimum 25 feet on each side), including the topography and vegetation
(p. I-98). The plam states that a density transfer will be permitted and
that parcels containing any portion of this site will be required to
develop under the provisions of the Planned Development sectian of �he
City's Developmer�t Gode (p. I-98; refer to Implementing Measure�� ahead).
Ti ard/Tiedeman Fanno Creek Marsh and Flood lain: This site is located
near e igar treet ie eman venue in ersec ion (p. I-98). The marsh
includes approximately nine acres and was determined by a state field
bialogist to be a sigr�ificant wetland area and fish and wildlife habitat ,
(pp. I-98 and I-99). No development has occurred within the marsh.
Adjacent land uses include single family and dupl�x housing, a junior
high school, and three activity fields (p. I-98). The plan states that
the marsh is a valuable educational resource due to the location of a
fish and wildlife habitat near a school (p. I-99).
The plan shows this area is designated Medium Density Residential
(6-12 du/acre; p. I-99) . The plan states the area is almost all within
the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek (p. I-99). The City has
City of Tigard -13- April 4, 1984
�. determined tv preserve the resourc� in its natural state (excluding the
`� a�ea that is intended for a pedestrian,/bikepath; I-99). The plan further
states that a�y proposed development for the marsh or the floodplain
"would be required to be reviewed in accordance with the standav�ds of the
Sensitive Lands chapter" of the Development Code (p. I-99).
Scenic and Natural Areas
_B��ack_�ro�und= Information: The plan lists the following scenic areas within
h�£-e I'�gard p. -43) ;
1. The summit of Little Bull Mountain.
2. The summit and eastern slope of Bull Mountain (only partially inside
the Tigard UGB) .
3. The view of the Tigard area f rom Little Bull Mountain and Bull
Mountain, which includes views of Mt. Hood.
4. The view of Mt. Hood f rom the Hillview area.
5. The view of Tigard from the Tigard Triangle (looking we�t).
Of the five scenic resources listed above, the City considers only the
first two as important Goal 5 resources (personal communication with
,,,
Elizabeth Newton, March 13, 1984).
�` The plan lists six "special areas" that constitute maj�r natural areas in
��.,.
Tigard. All except the following two natural areas are discussed under
either the Fish and Wildlife Areas and Habitats or Water Areas in this
Goal 5 section (pp. I-96 through I�101) :
1. Forested tdortheast slopes of Bull Mountain. The
heavily-wooded steep slopes contain some large Douglas Fir
which are up to 100 feet tall and three feet in d�ameter.
The site connects with other simi�ar sites outside the plan
ar�a. It was recomm�nded for preservation by the Nature
Conservancy Biologist.
2. Sur►xnit of Little Bull Mountain. This area is heauily-wooded
with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals
including deer, raccoon, & pheasant (p. I-42).
The plan combines its discussion of important scenic and natural areas,
including inventory information, conflict idertification, and ESEE
analysis (pp. I-96, I-97, I-103, I-106). Based on information in the
plan, the following scenic and natural areas are identified as important:
Little Bull Mountain Nat�ral Forest--This forested area, located in the
western portion of the City, includes 25 acres and provides for some
wildlife ha�bitat (p. I-96). The plan states this area is the larg�st
F;,., stand of mature coniferous trees in the Tigard UGB (p. I-96).
�
City of Tigard -14- April 4, 1984
The plan designates this area Low Density Resid�ntial (L�5 du/ac.) with a
Planned Development Over1ay Zone required f�r any type of residential
development (p. I-96). Conflicts identified for this resource include
residential deve1opment which c�uld result in a loss of the vegetation
(p. I-96). The plan states that such conflicts will be limited as
proposed single family housing must be reviewed through the Planned
Development (PD) requirements of the Development Code. Community
recreation development in this area is also to be reviewed through th�
City's conditional use process. Th� plan states that both the PD and the
conditional use standards require a review of vegetation remdval.
Finally, the City's Tree Removal requirements of the Development Code
"protects major vegetation on undeveloped land (p. I-97; see Implementing
Measures) .
Summer Creek/Woodward School Fir Grove: Located in the northwest portion
o thE igar B, this oreste area includes minor wildlife habitat and
some rioarian areas (pp. I-103 and I-�04). The plan states that this
area is "one of a few undisturbed fir stands" in Tigard (p. I-104). The
f�rPs± is considered a good educational resource (p. I-104).
The forested area is designated Low Density Residential (1-5 du/acre).
Conflicts include residential development which could result in °a loss
af a significant visual, natural, and educational resource within the
�orthwest area of Tigard" (p. I-104). However, prohibiting residential
development would al�o create a loss of development potential in the City
(p. I�104). Based on this infarmation, the City decidea to limit
conflicting uses for this forested area to trails and educational uses.
The site is to remain in its natural condition (p. I-104).
Kallstrom Fir Grove; Located near downtown Tigard, this grove was
planted by the original landowners and represents both a natural and
visual area for the City (p. I-106}, A piaque has been located along
SW 100th Street as a marker for the grove.
The plan states the area is designated Low Density Residential
(1-5 du/acre) . The plan notes that the grove could be destroyed due to
development and subsequent tree removal (p. I-106). As a result, the
City has decided to preserve the grove (p. I-106).
Water Areas, Wetlands, Watersheds, and Groundwater Resources
Ba��ck9round Information: The Tigard planning area has 16 ponds and lakes
�p.—�-3-8�.Tab�leTl'I—lists the location and size of �he lakes and ponds
from the largest (4.76 acres) to the smallest (.11 acre) . The plan also
provides a list ( including the loc�tion) of 16 rivers and creeks that
traverse the Tigard planning area, excluding the Fanno Creek and Tualatin
River. The four largest waterways include: Summer Creek, Ash Creek,
Ball Creek, and Redrock Creek (p. I-57 and I-58). All four creeks are
tributaries of Fan�o Creek. Fanno Creek is a large tributary of the
Tualatin River. The remaining tributari�s are actually small
drainageways. Some remain in their natural state (e.g., Willowbrook),
while others are experiencing urbanization (e.g., Pathfinder Creek) .
� . _... �
City of Tigard -15- April 4, 1984
;��. Of the four largest tributaries of Fanno Creek, the pl�n sta�tes that Ash
;� Creek (which ir+cludes the Port1anci, M@tzger, and Garden Home area) is
1�rgely urbaniz�d (p. I-58). The water qu�lity within the Ash Creek
basin is poor and flooding is common (p. I-58).
Summer Creek (the largest tributary of Fanno Creek) , drains the slopes of
Bull Mountain and the surrnunding area (p. I-57). The drainage basin i's
five square miles, largely undeveloped (consisting of farms and
woodland), -and has the best water quality of the four creeks (p. I-57).
Redrock and Ball Creeks drain the northwest and southwest slopes of
Mt. Sylvania {the Portland area), respectively (p. I-58) . The plan
states that very little hydrologic data is available for both of these
creeks (p. I-58).
Wetlands: Much of the Tigard planning area is poorly drained, resulting
in wet�and areas (p. I-24). The plan states that within the Tigard UGB,
soi l s wi th a seasonal water tabl e between the surf ace and 18 i nches i nto
the soil were defined as wetlands (p. I-24). The plan discusses the
importance of wetlands for storr� drainage, flood protection, and
groundwater° recharge areas (p. I-24) . Important wetlands are located on
the City's Floodplain and Wetland map:
Watersheds: The Tigard planning area lies entirely within tfie Tualatin
River watershed (p. I-54). Fanno Creek is a major tributary of the
Tualatin River and includes the most rapidly urbanizing portion of the
� Portland metropolitan area (p, I-54). According to the plan, 82 percent
`�� of the Tigard planning area lies within the Fanno Creek basin (p. T-54).
The genera1 location of the Fanno Creek Drainage basin is described in
the plan text {p. I-54}. The plan states that the City has adopted a
strom water management plan, However, it was not included as part of the
C�ty's submittal. The plan notes that because Tigard is situated in the
lower portion of the Fanno Creek, watershed, that urb•anization� poses a �
serious threat to flood control . As a result, the City is very
interested in maintaining the floodways, floodplains, and wetlands within
the watershed for storm water management (refer a1so to Goals 7 and ll).
Groundwater Resources: According to the plan, the water table in the
�gar area is oca ed about 200 feet below Bull Mauntain and from there
descends toward streams, such as Summer Creek, on the valley floor
(p. I-74). Several geological deposits are listed that are located in
the T'igard area and considered to be water bearing strata (p. I 74). The
most important geolo ical deposit/groundwater resource is the Columbia
River Basalt (p. I-74�. The plan states that we11s in the Columbia River
Basalt deposit "yield enough for large-scale wse (10-1,089 gallons per .
minute; p. I-75).
In 1973, the State Water Resources Division declared Coo�er Mountain and
�ull Mountain as Critical Groundwater Areas (p. I-75). According to the
plan, approximately 50 perce,nt of the Tigard planning area is within the
Critical Groundwater Area (p, I-75). The plan states (p. I 75) :
��
��,.
_ 1
City of Tigard -1�- April 4, 1984
Between 1960 and 1970, wat�r levels declined 70 to 80 fe�t in
the Tigard we�1 field. In the yatter year no raew applications
for ground water permits were accepted by the state engineer
w�if;hin the proposed critical area. Between 1970 and 1973, it is
estimated that ground water withdrawals averaged about
6,000 acre feet per year, of which about one-fourth was f rom the
four Tigard Water District wells. Preliminary estimates show
that recharge is only 2,900 acre feet, or 48% of this figure.
The �i�fference-- 3,100 acre feet --was the amount removed f rom
storage and therefore responsible for the falling water levels.
A continuing decline in wai;er levels in the basalt aquifers
might cause saline water in the deeper marine formations to
migrate into wells.
The fol1owing water resources are discussed in detail according to the
Goal 5 requirements:
Tualatin River Fl�ood l�ain (west of Co�ok F�_a�rk�--Located in the southern
portion o e ity,�Tiis site is consi'dere�to be an important water
area and open space/recreation area (p. I-99). The site contains
33 acres of woodlar�ds and open spaces. A pedestrian/bikepath is planned
and expected to connect with the path in Cook Park (p. I-99).
The plan designation for this area is Low (1-5 du/acre) and Medium
(6-12 du/acre) Density Residential (p. I-99). Conflicting uses would
include residential development. However, the plan states that
Policies 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 prohibit residential development in the
floodplain, eliminating conflicts (p. I-99) . The City has d�cided to
preserv� this water resource and will permit only park and
pedestrian/bike pathways-related uses (p. I-99). The plan states that
the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Development Code will provide review
standards for park-related development in this area.
Fanno Cre�k/Main Street--This water resource is located in Tigard's
entra usiness istrict and is c�nsidered an important water and open
space resource (p. I-99) The site contains 32,5 acres (p. I-99). The
plan states that the �City has adopted park plans for this site
(p. I-100). The park plan, however, was not incluc�ed as part of the
City's submittal.
According to the plan, this resource is designated Central Business
District (CBD), which a1lows parks as outright uses (p. I-100).
Conflicts identified �or this resource include loss of a valuable flood
control device if development occurs (p. I-100). However, according to
the plan, prohibiting development would "retard the economic viability af
the downtown core" (p. I-100) . As a result, the City has decided to
allow conflicting uses such a� parks and, commercial development "in
accordance with Gity Council plans" (p. I-100 .
F anno Creek (north of North Dakota)--This significant water area
�nc u ing we� an s an open space areas is located in the northernmost
portion of the City. The site includes 36 acres and serves as a buffer
-
City �f Tigard -17- April 4, 1984
� be•tween residential and industrial land uses in the area �p. I-100). The
ti.,�, plan designation for the western portion of this resource is Medium
Density Residential (6-12 du/acre; p. I-100). The eastern portion is
designated tight Industrial. Conflicting uses for this resource include
both residential and industrial development. The plan states that
residPntial development will be proh�ibited in the floodplain, but that
some industrial development will be permitted. The plan states that
Policies 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 prohibit residential development in the
floodplain- of Fanno Creek (p. I-100). Industrial development may occur
in the floodplain as long as the requirements of the Sensitive Lands
section of the Development Code are met (p. I-100). Accorciing to the
plan, the City has decided to:
1) limit conflicting uses on the industrial sid� of the creek,
2) provide any pedestrian/bike pathway that may be required with
this section of the floodplain/greenway area, 3) perform any
necessary channel work f'or Fanno Creek to alleviate existing and
potential increased flooding along Fanno Creek (p. I-�O1).
Fanno Creek (Hall, Bonita, and Durham Roads)-�Located in the eastern
portion o t� he City, this site is considere�n important water area and
open space resource (p. I-101). The site includes a forested area and
provides a buffer between residential and industrial uses nearby
(P. I-101�.
The site is designated Medium Density Residential (6-12 du/acre) on th�
'` west and Light Industrial on the west. Conflicting uses include
��- residential and industrial development (p. I-101) . Loss of the resourc�s
at this site would effect the amount of the City' s open space as well as
the natural buffer between residential and industrial uses. However,
prohibiting development would negatively effect the City's industrial
land needs. In this particular area, railroad tracks and collector and
arterial streets are easily accessed (p. I-101). The plan also rrotes
that industrial development on this site may requ�re alteration of the
floodplain (p. I-101). Based on these consideratians, the City decided
to prohibit residential development in the floodplain and limit such
developm�n� elsewhere on the site (pp. I-101 and I-102). Indust►�ial
activities will be allowed subject to plan PoliGies 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 and
the requirements of the Sensitive Land section of the Development �
(P. I-102).
Tualatin River flood lain and ravine � 108/113 --Located in the I
--�.
southwestern portion of the it�, t�his site is�Tci ent�fied as an important
water area, watershed, and wetland area, and open space resource
(p. I-102) . The plan states the site is 35 acres of marsh and deciduous
trees (p. I-1Q2).
The plan designates this area for primarily Low Density Residential
(1-5 du/acre), the remaining portion contains an existing mobile home
park, designated Medium Density Residential (6-12 du/acre; p. I-102).
Conflicting uses for this resource site includes residential development,
�� which could result in a loss of wildlife habitat, and lower the water
�;.x
City of Tigard -18- April 4, 1984
quality of the Tualatin River (p. I-102). However, prohibiting
residential development would result in less buildable 1and �nd fewer _
dwelling units (p. I-102). As a result, the City decided to preserve �he
f1oodplain and the ravine in its entirety below the 150 foot elevation
mark (p. I-102). The plan states that density transfer will be allowin
up to 25 percent of the density allowed on the site (po I-102).
addition, parcels containing any portion of this resource site, will be
required to develop under an approved Sensitive Lands permit as provided
in the City's Development Code (p. I-102).
Historic Areas, Sites, �nd Structures
Background Information: The plan identifies the following historic
structures within the �igard UGB (pp. I-102 through I-108};
1. Du�ham Elementary School
2. John F. Tigard House
3. Windmill (121st and Katherine)
4. Jay Theatr�
5. Upshaw Housing/Seven Gables
6. Tigard Grange
7. F armhsuse and Windmill (on Tigard Street) "
8. Tigard Feed and Seed
The John F. Tigard House is listed on the National Register of Historic
Structures. The Durham Elementary School is not; however, th� City is �
continuing its efforts to have the school placed on the register. The
Windmill has been dedicated to the City.
Of the eight historic structures listed above, only the first three are
identified as important historic resources. According to the plan, the
remaining sites are to be included as part of the City's resource
inventory. However, the Goal 5 process is to be delayed for the five
remaining historic structures until further information can be obtained
(pp. I-105 through I-108) . Although the City has not fully determined
any of these five historic sites to be important (according to the Goal 5
rule) and to require protective measures, the plan states that �he City
intends to preserve the architectural character of the Upshaw House/Seven
Gables, Tigard Grange, Tigard Street F armhouse and Windmill, and the
Tigard Feed and Seed, through the review standards af the Histnric
Overlay Chapter of the City's Development Code (pp. I-105 through
I-108). Based on the information above, it appears that the City
considers at leas� four more of these historic structures to be important
enough to warrant protective measures.Conflicts for all of the historic
City of Tigard -19- Apri1 4, 1984
r�• structures above include major exte�°ior alteration� and demalitions and
�� are addressed under the City's Historic O�:erlay (5ection 18.82 of the
Develapment Code) .
Policies
The plan's policy document includes the following .policies, among others,
regarding important Goal 5 resources:
3.5.3 The City shall des'ignate the 100-year floodplain of Fanno
Creek, its tributaries, and the Tual�atin �iver as
greenway, which wi11 be the backbone of the open-space
system (p. II-18).
3.5. 1 The City shall encourage private enterprise and
intergovernmental agreements which will provide for open
space, recreation lands, f acilities, and preserrre
national, scenic, and historic areas in a manner
consistent with the availability of resources (p. II-18).
3.3.1 The City of Tigard shall support the efforts of
Washington County, Beaverton and the metropolitan service
district to ensure the availability of the rock mineral
res�urces (p. II-16).
3.4.2 The City shall;
t tp,
`�'��- a. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream
corridors by managing the riparian habitat and
' controlling erosian, and by requiring that areas of
standing trees and natural vegetati�n a1ong natural
drainage codarses and waterways be maintained to the
maximum extent possible;
b. Require that development proposals in designated
timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the
planned development process to minimize the number of
trees r�moved; and
c. Require cluster type development in areas having
important wildlife fiabitat value as delineatEd on the
°Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the City
�P. II-17).
3.4.1 The City sha11 designate the following as ar�as of
significant environmental concern:
a. Significant wetlands;
b. Areas having educational research value, such as
geologicaTly and scientifically significant lands; and
�:�
��.�w
City of Tigard -20- Flpril 4, 1984
c. Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats
for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having
endangered plant or animal �peci�s, or specific
natural features, valued for the need to protect
natural areas (pp. II-15 and II-17).
3.1.1 The City shall not allow development in areas having the
following development limitations except where it can be
��shown that established and prc�ven engineering techniques
related to a specific site' plan will make the area
switable for the proposed development:
a. Areas having a high' seasonal water table w�thin
_ rf ace f or three or more week s of the
' hes of the su
D24inc
year �P• II-12). :
3.7.1 The City shall identify and promote the preservation and
protection of historicatly and culturally significant
structure, site, objects, and districts within Tigard
(p. II-2J) .
Two additional policies (numbers 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, pp. II-14 and II-15)
prohibit land from alterations and development in the floodway and
floodplain on all creeks and rivers within the UGB, with the following
exceptions:
- Land form alterations which °preserve or enhance" the normal
functioning of the floodway will be allowed (Policy 3.2.2, p. II-14). �-.
- Land #orm alterations and development will be allowed where one side of
the floodplain is designated for commercial and/or ir�dustrial uses
(subject to additional requirements in Policy 3.2.3 below;
Policy 3.2.2, p. II-15).
- The development must be shown to be reasonable and necessary to better
the economic use of tfie site (PoTicy 3.2.2, (b), p. II-15).
W�nere development or land alterations are permitted in floodplain areas,
the following conditions must be met (Policy 3.2.3, p. II-15) :
- The streamflow capacity of the floodway mwst be maintained.
- Documenta�tion must be provided to show that no detrimental upstream or
downstream changes in the floodplain area exist and that the criteria
within the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Development Code will be met.
- An evergreen buffer must be established on the commercial or industrial
land abutting residential land as a visuaT and audio screen.
City of Tigar•d -21- Apri 1 4, 1984
- Some of tfie floodplain must be dedicated for oper� space �at a "switable
" elevation for the construction of a edestrian/bic cle athwa
�� accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.P �'••in
The plan document includes the following site-specific policy:
The City shall preserve the Kal}strom Fir Grove on N.W. 100th
Avenue•
a. Any deveiopment on or adjacent to the site on which the
trees are located shall incorporate the fir grove into the
development plans,
b. A density transfer shall be permitted in lieu of destroying
the trees (�av l-107).
Impl�menting Measures
Implementing measures adopted by the City to protect the Goal 5 resources
listed above include the following:
Densit Transfer: According to Section 18.92 of the Tigard Development
o e, aT sensitive land areas (including 100-year floodplains, slopes of
25 percent or greater and drainageways) , and land dedicated for public
parks are to be protected from development through the use of � density
transfer. The density transfer is intended for areas planned �nd zoned
�;� for re:sidential development. Griteria used to determine the number of
`�;;�� units that may be transferred are provided in Section 18.92.030(A) and
�B)•
�
Planned Develo ment: Section 18.80 of the Cit s Develo ment Code states
Y P
that a P anned evelopment (PD) is intended to create flexibility of site
development, which incorporates open space, landscaping, and efficient
us� of land. Criteria governing the development of a site in relation to
the natural and physical resources of the site, are found in
Sections 18.80.120(3), 18.80.130(A), and 18.80.170(A) and (B), and
18,80.200(A).
Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 of the D�evelopment Code identifies
sensitive ands as, "lands potentially unsuitable for development because
of their location within a 100-year floodplain, a natural drainageway, on
steep slopes, or on unstable ground." Criteria governing uses which are
permitted, �rohibited, or considered to be nanconformirrg are outlined �n
Section 18.84.015(:A) through (D). Uses permi�ted outright include lawns,
gardens, agriculture (excludi:ng buildings), pedestrian/bicycle pathways,
parks, public and private conservation areas9 removal of noxious weeds,
maintenance of floo�ways (except rechannelization) and fences. Proposed
alterations to, or-development within a 100-yea.r f1oodplain and on sTopes
of 25 percent nr greater, must satisfy the criteria list�d under Approval
Standards, Section 18.84.040 of the Development Code. Some af the
criteria inelude:
f,;�
s��.
��
City of Tigard -22- April 4, 1�84
- Preserving or enhancing the floodplain storage function;
- Developing a pedestrian/bicycle pathway;
- Prohibiting development within floodplains (exc�pt in areas
designated for commercial and/or industrial);
- Preventing erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or
other hazards;
- Ensuring structural stability and proper drainage;
- Replanting vegetation that was removed to allow for development; and
- Ensuring that the �atF-r flow capacity of the drainageway is not
�ecreased.
A site analysis is also required that includes the location of roads,
drainageway, natural hazards resource areas (i.e. , wildlife habi�at,
wetlands, rock outcroppings, trees) and exisitng structures
(Section 18.84.070). A development proposal in areas designated as
Sensitive Lands is also required to include a site plan, grading p�an,
and landscaping plan (Sections 18.84.080, 18.84.090, and 18.84.100).
According to the provisions of the City' s Development Cade, a developer
must go through a pre-application conference with the City
(Sections 18.32.040 and 18.84.020). During the pre-application
conference, the City will identiry any sensitive lands that may exist on
land proposed for development and indicate the type of inf ormation
required of the developer.
According to the City, sensitive lands in Tigard include all of the
important sites listed in the plan (pp. I-94 through I-108) and land
along all of the creeks and the rivers in the Tigard UGB (personal
communiation with Liz Newton) . As noted in the plan, in areas of
sensitive lands, no residential conflicts will be allowed. Although
conflicts f rom cominercial and industrial development will be allowed,
such developmerit must also allow some of its land for use as a
pedestrian/bicycle path (Section 18.84.080(A)4d). In addition, a
vegetative screen must be planted between residentia1 areas and
commercial and industrial development. ,
Tree Removal : Section 18.150 of the Tigard Development Code provides '
standards goyerning tree removal within the City. Section 18.150 applies
to all undeveloped land, and developed commercial and industrial, and
excludes developed residential property and land registered as a West
Coas� tree f arm (and us�ed for commercial logging or the raising of
Christmas trees). The normal care of trees is not prohibited by
Section 18. 150. Criteria are included outlining the circumstance whereby
tree remova� would be permitted (Section 18.150.030). Some of the
criteria include removal of trees that: (1) are diseased or pose a
safety hazard, and (2) interfere with property development or improvement
(Sec. 18.150.030(A)1-6).
City of Tigard -23- April 4, 1984
°4 Historic Overlay District: Section 18.82 0� the Development Cade
'�awa provides a process for designating historic sites or structures under the
Historic Overlay District and criteria for exterior alteratiorrs, new
construction, and demolitions (Sections 18.82.040 and 18.82.050).
According to Section 18.82, the City's Hearings Officer must evaluate a
permit for exterior alteration and new construction against certain
criteria, inclwding:
1. The purpose statement of the Historic Overlay District;
2. The Tigard Plan;
3. The general compatibility of the exterior design arrangement
proportion, detail, scale, materials used, etc.
The review criteria are not intended to interfere with normal maintenance
and repa9r work.
Criteria for demolition also require consideration of the Tigard Plan,
the purpose statement of Section 18.82, the consideration of individual
hardship and whether issuance of a demolition permit would be contrary to
the public welfare and/or the intent of the Code.
The Hearings Officer may approve, approve with conditions, or deny
applications for major exterior alterations, new construction, and
�' demo1ition upon review of the criteria a�bove. The decisions of the
1`�"� Hearings Officer may be appealed to the City Council . In addition, the
Planning Director must provide notice to individuals according to
Section 18.32.130. Section i8.32.130 requires that the following
individuals be prnvided notice of a h�aring before the Hearings Officer:
1 . The applicant and ownsrs,
2. Property owners within 250 feet of the subject property,
3. Affected agencies and NPOs,
4. The appellant and any other individual who requrests notice.
As discussed above, the City has applied th� Historic Overlay District to
only three of the eight identified histc�ric structures listed in the
plan. 7he plan indicates the remaining five historic structures are
important but has not stated why the City has chosen to delay assigning
the Historic Overlay District. DiSCUSSions with the City indicate that
the delay was due, in part, to time needed for gath�ering further
information and notifying property owners (personal corr�nunication with
Elizabeth Newton, April 4, 1984). Application of the Historic Overlay
Zone to the remaining five sites is expected to be adopted at the Tigard
Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1984. The City Council will move
on the same issue at th� April 23, 1984, meeting.
,�f
�a'ih
City of Tigard -24- Apri 1 4, 1984
The Ti ard Pedestrian/Bic cle Pathwa Plan: The Gi�y adopted a pathway
p an for severa areas wit in t e �ty. he plan includes mapping of the
pathway. The pathway plan identifies the City's neecis, proposes certain
routes, and explores funding options.
Conclusion
The City of Tigard does not comply with Goal 5.
The plan includes detai1ed background information on the nat�iral and
historical resources in the Tigard Planning Area. The plan includes
mapping of open space areas, including forested areas and marshes, as
well as the adopted greenway that follows Fanno Creek and the Tualatin
River, and historic structures.
The plan stresses the importance of all of the creeks, .drainageways, and
wetlan�s as areas of open space, fish and wildlife habitat, and as
valuable flood control re�ources. Although the plan identifies certain
areas along Fanno Creek and its tributaries as important resources
according to Goal 5), the plan and four of tf�e policies (3.1.1, 3.4.1,
3.42, and 3.53 above) indicate that all of the creeks and wetlands are
important and require some protection. However, Policy 3.1.1 above
(p. II-12 of the plan) does not protect significant wetlands; rather, it
requires a developer to prove that engineering techniques will make the
wetland suitable for development. The City will need to amend its plan
to state clearly based upon their Goal 5 analysis whether all or part of
the creeks, drainag�ways, and wetlands in the planning area are
significant resources and proceed through the remainder of the Goal 5 �
process as necessary.
The plan states that a 25 foot setback will be required along Krueger
Creek in addition to the density transfer and planned development
requirements (p. I-98). However, there is no policy or implementing
measure to support this statement in the plan' s background inventory.
The plan discusses in detail �he groundwater problems that have developed
in 7igard over recent years. However, the City no longer relies on
groundwater sources for its water supply. All new developments must
connect to the City's public facilities (i.e., water and sewer; refer
also to Goal 11 for furthew discussion) .
�
The City has adopted innovative implementing measures for protecting I
impnrtant Goal 5 resources. In particular, the City's Density Transfer, !
Planned Development, and Sensitive Lands requirements provide a variety '
of inethods for protecting important resources, and at the same time
encourage development. However, a few discrepancies exist that will need
to be corrected.
As previously mentioned, the plan states that a 25-foot setback will b�
required along Krueger Creek in addition to the Density Transfer and
Planned Development requirements. However, the City's Deve'lopment Code
does not contain a setback standard. It is reco►�ronended that a 25 foot
Ci ty of Tigard -25- apri 1 4, 1984
-#; setback standawd be incorporated into the Development Code that is
�� consistent with the plan's identfification of important floodplains, open
space areas, and fish and wildlife habitats along all the creeks in the
Tigard planning area.
The S�nsitive Land section of th'e Development Code states that the
purpose of the sensitive lands include lOQ-year floodplains,
drainageways, steep slopes, and unstable ground. Wetlands are not
included ir� the definition. Although some wetlands in Tigard are part of
the floodplain areas of the creeks, some are not. As a result, it
appears that a few important wetlands may not be protected through any of
the City's implementing measures. Provisions will need to be included in
the City's Development Code to protect important wetlands.'
For that portion of Fanno Creek that runs through downtown Tigard, the
plan states that some conflict�ng uses will be permitted in accordance
with City Co:uncil plans. 1'he plan does not include an analysis of
conflicting uses or a policy framework, and implementation. As a result,
it is not passible to determine the ad�quacy of the City's program to
protect Fanno Creek in downtown Tigard.
Three of the eight important historic structures as identified in the
plan are covered by the Historic Overlay District. The provisions of the
Historic District are adequate to comply with the requirements of
G�oal 5: The remaining five im�ortant historic structures are not covere�i
under the requirements of the Historic Overlay Zone. Although the City
��', is working to assign the Historic Overlay Zone to thes� five structures,
'�� such action has nc�t yet occurred in •time for this acknowledgment review.
As a result, the Department finds the City does not yet comply with
Goal 5 for historic structures.
The City is �o be commended for its excellent inventory work and its
innovative implementing measures for important Goal 5 resources. As
discussed under �Summar� above, a f�w deficiencies exist that, if
corrected, wi11 not only result in compl�ance with Goal 5, but also serve
to eliminate problems in administering tfie plan and Development Code.
In order to comply with Goal 5, th� City of Tigard must:
1 . Amend the plan to determine which wetlands, drainageways, and creeks
identified in the city's resource inventory are significant (1C)
resources.
2. Identify conflicting uses and an�,�l jrz� fhe ES£E consequences of these
uses upon significant resources ider�tif ied in "1" above.
3. Based upon the analysis in "2" above, provide plan policies and
implementing measures (i.e., the sensitive l�nds section) as �utlined
in the Goa1 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-1�). Note: This may
require revision of policy 3. 1.1 .
�
��
� _ _
City of Tigard -26- Apri1 4, 1984
4. Amend the Development Code to include setback standards (i.e.,
25 ft. ) and apply to important open space and water areas and fish
and wildlife habitats (refer to Conclusion above). `
5. Assign the Historic Overlay District to the fiue remainir�g important
historic structures as identified in the plan.
GOAL 6: A�R, WA7ER AND LAND RES011RCES QUALITY
Factual Base
Air �Qua�lit�: The Resource Document of the comprehensive plan pro:vides
extens�- -`ve b-ackground information on air quality within Tigard (pp. I-117
throwgh I-123). Tigard is within the Portland airshed which is a
"designated nonattainment area" (p. I-117). A nonattachment area is an
area that cannot meet EPA air yuality standards. As a result, special
standards (i.e., DEQ vehicle inspections) are established ta try and
- alleviate pollution problems and bring commun�ties closer to EPA
stanndards.
The plan recognizes the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) and the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as th� main agencies
responsible for pollution reduction programs (p. I-ll7). The plan
discusses ambient air standards and types of air pollutants (i.e., total
suspend�d particulates--TSP, sulfur dioxide, hydr�ocarbons, etc.). The
plan also briefly discusses the MSD arod DEQ strategies to control carbon
monoxide and ozone pollution (pp. I-122 and I 123). The plan identifies ��.
pollution from wood heating as "a significant source of uncontrolled
pollutants" in the Portland area (p. I-120). Infor�mation is provided in
the plan to instruct individuals in the effzcienl: use of wood burners
(pp. I-120 through I-123)..
Water Qual t�: According to the plan, Tigard is located within the
uafi-�'la n RTiver and Fanno Creek drainage basins. The Tualatin River is
identified as a slow, warm water river tfi at has historically suffered
with pollution due to erosion and siltation (p. I-129) . The Tualatin
River also experience� serious algae growth during the summer months
(p. I-129) .
In the 1940's and 1950's, Fanno Creek, Rock Creek, and Beaverton Creek
had small inadequate sewage treatment facilities that created serious
water quality problems (p. I-129). The plan states that new fi acilities
in the 1970's improved the water quality within these creeks. However,
continued population growth and urbanization is redueing the gain;s made
in the ' 70's (�. I-129). �
The plan notes that water quality in Fanno Creek, "remains the worst in
Washington County," because it is the most highly urbanized creek
(p. I-129). Unfortunately, the water quality within Fanno Creek is not
expected to improve (p. I-130).
� _ _
Gity of Tigard -27- Apri1 4, 1984
.-�. The plan als:a dis�usses the negative effects to water quality from urban
�;,� storm water runoff (p. I-131j . Point and nonpoint pollutant laads are
a1so included (p. I-131).
Land Resources: The pTan states that much of Tigard is underlain by '
unconsolidated soils and volcanic deposits (p. T-25). In some parts of
Tigard, unstable soils may effect land development (refer to the Goal 7
section for further information).
Policies
The Tigard Plan inc}udes the following policies on air, water, and land
resource quality:
4.2.1 A11 development with.in the Tigard urban planning area
shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional
water quality standards (p. Td-25).
4.2,2 The City shall recognize and assume its responsibility
for operating, planning, and regulating wastewater
systems as designated in MSD' s waste treatment management
I component and 208 CRAG Study (p. II-25).
4
.1.1 The City shall :
a. Maintain and improve the quality of Tigard's air
";` quality and coordinate with other jurisdictions and
�`� agencies to reduce air pollwtions within the
Portland-Vancouver air quality maintenance area
(AQNiA) .
b. Where applicable, require a statement from the
appropriate agency, that all applicable standards� can
be met, prior to the approval of a land use proposal.
c. Apply the measures described in the DEQ handbook for
"Environmental Quality Elements of Oregon Local
Comprehensive Land Use P1ans" to land use decisions
having the potential to affect air quality (p. II-24).
4.3.1 'The City shalt :
a. Require d�velopment prop�sals located in a noise
congested area or a use which creates noise in excess
of the applicable standards to incorporate the
following into the si�te plan:
1. Building placement on the site in an area where
the noise levels will have a minimal impact; or
2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise
impacts to levels compatible with the surrounding
�;� land uses.
� -:
City of Tigard -28- Apri1 4, 1984
b. Coordin;ate with DEQ in its noise regulation program
and �Pply the DEQ land use compatibility program. _,-
c. Where applicable require a statement from the
appropriate agency (prior to the approval of a land
use proposal) that all applicable standards can be
met (pp. Ii-26 and II-27).
'- Implementing Measures
Section 18.90, fnvironmental Performance Standards, of the Tigard
Development Code, includes provisions regarding air, water, and land
resource quality. According to Section 18.90.020, all uses, activities,
and operations within the City must comply "with the applicable State and
Federal stand:ards pertaining to noise, odor, and discharge of matter inta
the atmosphere, ground, sewer system, or stream." Prior to the issuance
of a building permit, the P1anning Director may require �vidence to show
that the proposed development complies with State, Federal, and local
environmental regulations. Sections 18.90.030 through 18.90.080 provide
criteria that must be followed by developments which may creatQ noise,
visible emissions (steam), vibrations, odors, glare or heat, and pest
problems.
Conclusion
The City of Tigard complies with Goal 6.
The Tigard Plan identifies air, water, and land resource quality issues �-
in the City planning area. The plan recognizes MSD and DEQ as the
agencies primarily responsible for pollution reduction programs in T�gard
and the Portland metropolitan area. Plan policies state th� City will
comply with all State and Federal environmental rules and reyuiMtions.
The City's Environmental Performance Standards implement the plan' s
policies.
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS
F actual Base
The City has identified three types of natural hazards or physical
limitations in the Tigard area: ( 1) floodplains and high water table;
(2) earth movement and soil instability; and (3) water runoff and erosion.
Floodplain
The Tigard Urban Plan Area lies entirely within the Tualatin River
watershed. Fanno Creek, the last major tributary of the Tualatin River,
flows north-to-south through Tigard. Major flooding occurs along the
Tualatin River at the south edge of the planning area, along Fanno Creek,
and along Summer, Ash, Ball, and Redrock Creeks which all drain into
Fanno Creek (Resource Document, pp. 54-58) . A description of these and
�
City of Tigard -29- Apri1 4, 1984
r{,,�, 11 other smaller creeks in the area are described in the Resource
�a�, Document. Information on th� acreage in these drainageways, flood levels
on the major creeks, and a list of structures in the 100 year floodplain
is included in the Resource Doeument (pp: 56-56).
A 1979 Corps of Engineers study that mapped and calculated floodplain and
floodway levels along the Tualatin River and Fanno Creek, is the basis for
the federal flood insurance rate maps. The Resource Document notes that
conflicting information exists on flooding along the f anno Creek
tributaries, and the Corps of Engineers is "currently conducting a muc h
more detailed floodplain survey on Fanno Greek, Surnner Creek, and Ash
Creek° (p. 63). The floodplain discussions also recognize that flcod
conditions in Tigard will be affected by future metropolitan development
and statest
Much of Fanno Creek basin (e.g. east side of Cooper Mountain)
has not been urbanized, and as it is developed flood eTevations
will rise. Increased runoff and erosion will mean that areas
not now subject to a 100-year flood 'will be a risk ir� the
f uture. Careful watershed management could minimize the
increase in flood heights. In the absence of good hydrologic
data, future �'lood }evels will be difficult to predict. A joint
U.S. Geological Survey - Army Corps of Engineers rainfall-runoff
study for the Portland Metropolitan area has been developed to
address this issue. Lower Fanno Creek and tbe Tualatin River
w�ll also be affected by proposed flood control works to contrc�l
,_� damages in Tualatin.
��,
Flaod levels in Tigard will be substantially determined by the
controls exercised over development outside the plan area.
Urbanization of two areas in particular, the west slope of
Mt, Sylvania and the east slope of Cooper Mountain, will have
major impact on Sumner Creek and Ball Creek, respectively.
Portland, Beaverton, Multnomah County, Washington County, Lake
Oswego, and Glackamas County all have jwrisdi�tion over portions
of the Fanno Creek basin above Tigard (p. 22).
Wetlands�'Soils
Wetlands are defined as water courses and drainage swales outside the
100-year floodplain and soils with a seasonal water table within
18 inches of the surface (Resource Document, p. 24). The high water
table soils are based on U.So Soil Conservation Service Maps and
corresponding interpretive data. The ciiscussion indicates that the
natural hydrologic functions of flood protection, storm water drainage,
and nuisance considerations necessitates land use controls for these �
wetlands. A large map submitted by the City indicates wetlands within
the planning area,
���.
� -=—----- - -- - ----
City ofi Tigard -30- April 4, 1984
Earthquakes
The Resource Document indicates that Tigard was the epicenter of a 1941
earthquake, and although no direct surf ace evidence of faults exists in
Tigard, well logs suggest that two relatively inactive faults may exist
(p. 69). A map of surface geology which shows the possible location of
thes� two fauTts is inclwded in the Resource Document.
S l o e �-
Slopes generally range between O percent and 20 percent and have varying
characteristics based on soil types and underlying rock. A landslide
rating system based on several factors was developed for Lake Oswego in
1975 and adapted by Tigard staff for the Tigard Urban PTanning Area
(Resource Document, pp. 31-36). The Resource Document notes that
landslide pot�ntial is generally severe for slopes exceeding 12 percent,
and field investigations in the City have identified soil creep on
undisturbed sites exceeding 25 percent slope» The Tigard area slope map
shows slopes of 12-25 percent and 25+ percent which typically occur along:
- Escarpments along Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River;
- Banks and slopes adjacent to watercourses and drainage swales;
- Slopes of Bull Mountain and Little Bull Mountain.
Runoff/Erosion
The discussion in the Resource Document inciicates high water runoff and
erosion can contribute to siltation, flooding, and water pol1ution and is
affected by soil typ�s, slope, vegetation cover, and underlying rock
material (pp. 26-26). The Resource Document also contains a general
discussion (pp. 26-27) on increasing runoff and erosion potential f rom �
continued urbanbzation and lists land use controls such as vegetation
control, erosion controls, and density limitations, which can minimize
the effect of water runoff and erosion.
Policies
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates all lands within the
100-year floodplain as Open Space. This plan designation corresponds to
the boundaries on the adopted Floodplain/Wetlands map.
The three floodplain policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan are
presented be}ow:
3.2.1 The City shali prohibit any l�nd from alterations or
developments in the 100-year floodplain which would
result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year
floodplain (p. 14).
City of Tigard -31- April 4, 1984
,
3.2.2 ThP Ci�y shall:
�
a. Prohibit land form aTterations and development in
the floodways, except alterations may be allowed
which preserve or enhance �he function and
maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway; and
b. Prohibit land form alterations or development in the
�- floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway
except as follows:
1. Land form alterations shall be allowed which
preserve or enhance the function of the zero-foot
rise floodway.
2. Land form alterations arrd development shall be
allowed where both sides of the floo�plain are
designated as eit�ier industrial or commercial on the
comprehensive plan map, and the factors set forth in
Po]icy �.2.3 can be satisfied.
3. Land form alteratiorrs and development shall be
alTowed where one side of the floodplain is planned
for comnercial and industrial use subject to the
following limitations:
� (a) T'he land form alteration or development is on
��� land designated on the comprehensive plan map
for commercial or industrial use;
(b) The applicant can show that alterations or
development into the floodplain is reasonable
and necessary to better the econamic use of the
site;
(c) The f�ctors set forth in Policy 3.2.3 can be
satisfied (p. 14).
3.2.3 Where land form alterations and development are allowed
within the 1p0-y�ar floodpiain outside the zero-foot
rise floodway, the City shall require:
a. The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise
floodway be mai�tained;
b. Engineered dra�wings and documentation showing that
th�re will be no detrimental upstream or downstream
changes in th� floodplain area, and that the
criteria set forth in the sensitive lands section of
the code hav� been met (see FIS September 1971);
��
City of Tigar� �32- Apri1 4, 1984
c. Th� planting of an evergreen buffer on the
commercial or industrial land abutting residential
land which screens the development from view by the
adjoining residential lan�d, and which is of
sufficient width to be noise attenu�ting; and
d. The dedication of sufficient open land area for
greenway adjoining the floodplain including portions
�- at a- suitable elevation for tMe construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway within tMe floodplain in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle
pathway plan (p. 15).
The floodplain and floodway are as defined by the 1981 Flood Insurance
Study for Tigard. The phrase, "zero-foot rise floodway" means
development in the floodplain cannot raise the floodway level.
Other natural hazards are addressed in the following policy:
3.1.1 The City shall not allow development in areas having the
following developmenl; limitations exc�pt where it can be
shown that established and proven engineering techniques
related to a specific site plan will make the area
suitable for the proposed development:
a. Areas havin� a high seasonal water table within
0-24 inches of the surface for three or more weeks of
the year;
b. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential ;
c. Areas subject to slumping, earth slides or movement;
d. Areas having slopes in excess of 25�; or
e. Areas having severe weak foundation soils (p. 12).
Other policies relating to drainage control are described under Goal 11.
Implementation Measures
Development in natural hazard areas are regulated under the Sensitive
L ands, Planned Development, and Site Review Sections of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Community Development Code.
The Sens�itive Lands portion of the Development Code (Sec. 18.84)
regulates land ¢orm alteration or development within the 100-year
floodplain within natural drainageways, on slopes of 25 percent or
greater, and unstable ground. Before issuing a Sensitive Lands permit,
the City's Hearings Officer must find that several criteria for each type
of hazard have been satisfied (Code, Sec. 18.84.040) Floodplain
criteria prohibit development in the floodway and regulate development in
_ --- �
City of Tigard -33- Apri1 4, 1984
��;�;. the floodplain so that no rise ("zero foot rise") in the floodway
'�- results. Criteria under Section 18.84.040 for other identified hazards
include•
B.2 The propnsed land form aJteration or development will not
resuTt in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability,
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property.
6.3 The structures are appropriately sited and designed to
ensure structural stability and proper drainage of
foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of
the following soil conditions: Wet/high water table; high
shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow
depth-to-bedrock; and
6.4 Where natural vegetation has been removed due to l�nd form
alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surf aces wi 11 be repl anted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18.100
(Landscaping and Screening).
To apply for a Sensitive Lan�s Permit, the applicant must submit a site
analysis drawing and site plan which identify natural hazards such as
floodplain areas, steep slopes, high seasonal water table areas, weak
foundation soils, unstable areas, and a grading plan approved by a
��,� registered engineer, and a landscape plan (Code, 38.$4.050-.100J.
The Site Development Review section of �he Code (18.120-) applies to all
new multifamily, commercial, and industrial development. This section
requires submittal of a site analysis plan, site development plan,
grading plan, and landscape plan similar to those required under the
Sensitive Lands s�ctioro.
The Planned Development Overlay Zone (Sec. 18.80-), allows for more
flexible and innov�t�ve use of land and structures and may be used with
any parent zone. Approval of a "Flanned Development Concept Plan" is
based on swbmittal of site �ondition plan showing floodplain, slope and
soil, natural hazard areas, a grading and drainage plan, and a landscape
plan which inclucies erosion controls.
Conclusion �
The Tigard Comprehensive Plar� compli�s with Goal 7.
The plan Resource Document identifies f�oodplains, slopes over
25 percent, wetlands, and high runoff/erosion conditions as natural
hazards and provides a very thorough discussion of land use problems
relating to these hazards. Hazard are�s are described and/or located on
maps in the plan or on file at the City planning office.
�
��
City of Tigard -34- April 4, 1984
Natural hazard policies in the comprehensive plan are mandatory and
provide very clear d�rectian for development in the floodway or
floodpl`ain. Another policy dealing with slopes, wetlands, w�ak
foundation soils, and erosion prohibit� de�elopment in these hazard areas
unless "it can be shown tha� established and proven engineering
techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable
for the ,proposed development."
The City' "s Development Code contains several sections which regulate
development in hazard areas. The Sensitive Lands section of the Code
(Sec. 18.84) most directly addresses haazard areas and requires submittal
of site plans and other evidence to show satisfactory compliance with
many specific standards before apprnval of land form aTteration or
development in hazard areas. The Site Review section of the Code, and to
a lesser extent the Planned Development section of the Code, provide
additional review an� approval of development in natural hazard areas.
These regulations properly implement the plan policies and provide
protection from natwral disasters and hazards consistent with the Goal.
GOAL 8: REGREATIONAL NEEDS
Factual Base
According to the plan, the City currently owns 92.72 acres of park land
within the city limits (p. I-88). A tatal of nine parks �re found in the
City ranging from .5 acres to 46 acres. The plan states that various
other recreational opportunities are available through the use of local .,
school facilities.
Approximately 200 acres of floodplain and wetland area are classified by
the City as Greenway (p. I-88). Currently, only 38 acres have been
acquired by the City for greenway use. The plan states this natural area
is suitable for pathways and "non-intensive recreational uses"
(p. I-88). Combining the amount of land in use as either park or open
space provides the City with a ratio of 12>15 acres per 1,000 Tigard
citizens; approximately 2 acres in excess of �he National Recreation and
Park Standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population (p. I-88).
Policies
The plan incl'udes the following policies regarding park and recreational
facilities (p. II-18) :
3.5.1 The City shall encourage private �enterprise and
intergovernmental agree�nents which wil] provide for open
space, recreation lands, f acilities, and preserve
natural, scenic, and historic area� in a manner
consistent with the availability of resources.
3.5.2 The City shall coordinate with the school districts to
develop recreational facilities.
l
City of Tigard -35- April 4, 1984
� 3.5.3 The City shall designate the 100-year floodplain of
`�� Fanno Creek, its tributaries, and the Tualatin River as
greenway, which wi1T be the backbone of the open-space
system.
3.5.4 The City shall provide an interconnected
pedestrian/bikepath throughout the City.
Additional - plan policies outline the City's priorities for individual
park sites (p. II-20).
Implementing Measures
According to the City's Development Code, recreational facilities and
schools are permitted as conditional uses in all residential zones. The
: Professional Commercial (CP) and the Central 6usiness District (CBD)
zones allow outright, spor�s and recreational facilities. The CBD zone
allows outright community recreation facilities.
Section 18.120, Site Development Review of the Development Code, includes
standards for the provision of private and shared outdoor recreational
areas (Section 18. 120.180(6) and (7)).
As discussed under the Goal 5 section af this report, examples of
implementing measures available for use in areas of important Goal 5
resources may also be useful for some park and open space resources.
� Briefly, such implementing measures include the use of a planned
``�'` development (PD), the Sensitive Lands requirements, and the Density
Transfer standards.
� Conclusion
,The City of Tigard camplies with Goal 8.
The plan includes an ad�qiaate inventory of recreational facilities in
T���ard. Plan policies and implementing measures are adequate to satisfy
�i;h� requirements of Goal 8.
GOAL 9: ECONOMY OF THE STATE
Goal 9 requires that plans be "hased on inventories of acres suitable for
increased economic growth." Under Goal 9, plans must determine future
needs for commercial and industrial developme�t, including lands needs.
Plan policies and implementing ordinances should designate "alternative
sites suitable for economic growth" and provide commercial and industrial
uses in accordance with the needs analysis.
Background Information
' The plan provides information on the City's economic development from
�� 1970-1983 (pp. I-137 through I-146). Over those 13 years, Tigard grew
��. from a rural community to a "suburban community with a strong economic
t _ _.
City of Tigard -36- Aprit 4, 1�84
base" (p. I-143). The major faetors contributing to swch growth include �
the City's location and accessibility to transportation (p. I-143). „
According to the plan, in 1981 the City's total buildable commercial and
industrial land area included 494.5 acres; 270 acres comnercial, and
224.5 acres industrial (pp. I-143 and I-144). Th�e plan states the City
need 19
s 5 acr f
es or commercial
_ uses and 277.5 acres for industrial uses
(p. I-44).
The plan also states the 1980 Washington County Overall Economic
Developmemt PTan identifies that adequate vacant and buildable land is
available in Tigard for corranercial use for the short-term (p. I-143).
The economic element of the plan -describes the transportation network
(i.e., public, railroad, air) and public faci1ities available to the
Tigard area for comnerci:al and industrial development (pp. I-146 th'rough
I-149). The plan identifies some transportation problem areas (i.e.,
congestion on Highway 99W; p. I-147). Other public facilities such as
sewer and water are expected to meet th� C�ty's needs during the plan
period (pp. I-147 through I-149).
The plan also includes a discussion of the City's Action Plan, which is
inte'nded to "create an overall economic development strategy for Tigard°
and to provide the City an opportunity to parti�ip,ate in a regional
strategy for economic development as part of the Regiona1 Task Force on
Economic Development (pp. I-149 through I-15fi) . The plan states that the
City of Tigard wi l l work with Metro, Port of Portland, and other regional
groups on matters effecting Tigard's economic development (p. I-151) , �°�'�
A Downtown Revitalization Flan was adopted by the City in 1981
(p. I-151). The purpose of the plan is to focus on economic development
in th� downtnwn core area to make it a commercial center (p. I-151).
Through the plan, the City hopes to make downtown Tigard "a proper mix of
retail, professional offices9 civic, and resid�rii:ial uses° (p. I-152).
Accnrding ta the "urbanization" el�ment of the plan, approximately
21,350 jobs existed in the Tigard area in 19�u (p. 1-289). An additional
11,510 jobs are projected during the plan period (p. I-289). The plan
indicates that of the 11,510 prajected jobs, 6,390 will be
office-related, 3,360 wi11 be industrial-related, and 1,760 will be
retail-related (p, I-290).
Land area provded to meet the eanployment projections above include
494.5 acres {p., I-290). Out of tMe total �94. 5 acres, 270 are intended
�For comnercial use and: 224.5 acres are intended for industrial use
(p. I-290j. In the "economic° element of the plan, it states that the II
commercial land area (270 acres) is insufficient for the long-term
(p. i-143).
�
, �,ri.
_ .
-
� - --- - i
City of Tigard -37- Apri1 4, 1984
,� Policies
,;;�
The plan includes several policies addressing economic concerns including
the following:
5. 1.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the
diversification of the economic opportunities available
to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on
� the growth of the local job market.
5. 1.2 The City shall work witfi Washington County and adjacent
jurisdictior�s to develop an economic development plan
incorporating a local economic development plan.
5.1 .3 The City shall improve and enhance the portions of the
central business district as the focal point for
commercial, high density residential, business, civic,
and professional activity creating a difersified and
economicall,y viable core area.
5. 1.4 The City sha71 ensure that new commercial and industrial
development shall not encroach into residential areas
that have not been designated for corranercial or
industrial uses.
5. 1 .5 The City shall prohibit residential development in �
�� commercial and industrial zoning districts Pxcept:
Comp�imentary residential development shall be permitted
above the first floor in the central business district,
and above the second fioor in c�mmercial prafessional
districts. (The density of residential development
shall be determined in accordance with the R-40
Districts; p. II-30).
Additional policies require buffering between industrial and residential
uses and proof that lights, noise, and other exter�nal activities of a
development will not interfere with the activities and uses of
' surrounding prop�rties (p. II-86).
Implementing Measures
The City's Community Development Code includes the following commercial
and industrial zones: Neighbarhood Commercial (CN), General Commercial
(CG), Professional Commercial (CP), and Central Business District (CBD),
Industrial Fark (I-P), Light Industrial {IL), and Heavy Industrial (IH).
The CN and CP zones have minimum lot size requirements of 5,000 and
6,000 square feet, respectively. The remaining commercial and industrial
zones have no minimum lot size requirements.
The CN and CG zones allow only c�mmercial and civic-related uses. Civic
�,� uses include public f acilities, libraries, postal services, etc. The CP
;ti zone allows multifamily units in conjunction with commercial development
� _
City of Tigard -38- April 4, 1984
in two areas within the City: the Bull Mountain area and the Tigard
Triangle (Section 18.64.030(C), p. III-101) . The CBD zone a1so allows a
variety of commerc7al and civic uses. Single f amiTy attached and
mu1tifamily units are also permitted. The residential uses in the CBD
zone are intended to be part of an R-40 zone standards, except for one
area that is intended to allow R-12 zon2 standards (Section 18.66.030(C),
p. III-104).
The IP and I-L zones allow several types of commercial and civic land
uses in addition to manufacturin�, packaging, processing, and wholesale
activities. The I-H zone allows basically the same commercial and civic
land uses with more industrial-related uses.
Conclusion
The City of Tigard complies with Goal 9.
The plan projects the number of additional jobs expected during the plan
period, and the amount of vacant and buildable commercial ar�d industrial '
land within the City. I
The City recognizes its limited role in the region regarding industrial
and commercial land use. The plan notes that in the long-term, the City
may not have sufficient industrial land. However, the plan includes a
policy stating that it will Goordinate with the County and Metro, during
the plan period, in an effort to provide for the City's future needs,
particularly for industrial development.
GOAL 10: HOUSING
Factuai Base
Overview
Under OAR 660-07-000, the City of Tigard must allocate sufficient
buildable residential land to provide the opportunity for new residential
construction to take place at a minimum of ten dwelling units per net
buildable acre in order to meet regi�nal hausing objectives for the
year 2000. The City must also allow for at least 50 percent of the new
units to be single family attached and/or multifamily housing. Standards
governing the approval of needed housing must be clear and objective.
Washington County has not adopted plan designations for the majority of
the Tigard urbanizing area west of the city limits. The County's Bu17
Mountain area land use plan does cover about 100 acres of the City' s
urban planning area along Lower Scholls Ferry Road, but inconsistencies
in the City's maps prevent a determination if the Bull Mountain plan land
use designations are consistent with the City's plan (see below for
additional comments on city maps).
�
City of Tigard -39- April 4, 1984
Sever 1 rt' h e b ' t d T' ' I�
a pa �es av o �ec e to �gard s housing analysis and/ar
,,� policies and implementing measures. Due to the number and variety of '
Goal 10 objections, the specific objections are discussed under I
: appropriate parts of the Goal 10 analysis rather than at the end of �he �
section.
Existing Housing Gonditions and Housing Needs II
�
The Compref�ensive Plan Resource Document contains detailed information on
the number and type of dwelling units, age of dwellings, vacancy rate,
ownersh�p patterns, and physical condition of Tigard's housing stock
(Resource Document, pp. 154-162). Tigard's dwelling mix for the last two
census periods are shown below:
City Dwelling Unit Mix
Type 1970 � 1980 %
,
Si ngle Fami ly 1,001 47.9% 3,398 55.6%
Multiple Family 1,040 50,0% 2,608 42. 7X
Mobile Home 51 2.1% 106 1.7%
Totals 2,092 100 6,11� 10 '
The Resource Document includes figures that indicate that in 1980
50.5 ercent of the dwellin units are owner occu ied and 43.04 ercent '
P 9 p P
are renter occupied (pp. 155 and 157). Tigard's housing stock is I
` relatively new with 79 percent of the housing constructed since 1960
�• (Resource Document, pp. 155 and 160). '
The Nousing section also contains an evaltaation of socio-economic factors ,
relating to housing to help determine its housing demand. According to
the 1980 census, Tigard has one af the highest median household income
levels in the state at �23,426 (Resource Document, pp: 162 and � 166) and .
Tigard's average household size is 2.49 persons. The average sales price
for a single family home was over $76,600 in 1980. The Resource Document
includes tables which show estimated cost and incomes necessary to I
purchase a �76,600 or �55,000 home and concludes, '".. .only 15 percent of 'i
Tigard's residents can afford an average priced home of $76,
600...[and]over 55 percent of Tigard's residents could not afford a �
�55,000 single family home" (Resource Document, p. 174). ��
The Housing element also discusses assisted housing and manufactured III
housing. According to information in the Resource Document,
1,900 households in Tigard, or about 31 percent of the 1980 total , are
eligible for assistance based on their income levels (p. 167). The
discussion on rnanufactured housing inventories mobile home park space
inside the City and in the Tigard Urban Planning Area and estimates
average housing costs and required income levels for manufacture housing
living. The conclusion to the manuf actured housing section is, "Since
the average household size for mobile homes is 2.2 persons/unit, it is
clear that mobile homes will provide affordable housing for small
households, but may not provide adequate relief for large households"
4`'M (Resource Document, p. 184).
�..
�
City ofi Tigard -40- Apri1 4, 1984
Metropolitan area jurisdictions are not required to independently '
determine the future need for single family and multifamily housing since
the opport�nity for a 50 percent detached single ' familyl50 percent
multifamily housing mix is established by the Housing Ru1e. Manufactured
howsing needs, however, are not set �t the metropolitan level and must be
determined by the local jurisdiction.
Based on a projected population increase of 19,114 persons from 1980 to
2000, the City .has p1anned for an additional 11,769 dwelling units during
the 20 year planning period (Res�urce Document, pp. 186-189). The C�ity
has not provided information in the Resowrce Document or the supplemental
November 1983 Buildable Land Inventbry report to project how many of the
dwelling units will be manufactured h�mes.
Objections
1000 Friends of Oregon and the Oregon Manwfactured Housing Association
have objected to Tigard's housir�g need analysis because it lacks a
projection for needed munuf actured housing. These similar objections are
best summarized by the 1000 Friends letter which states;
Tigard's Development Gode permits mobile home parks arod
mobile home subdivisions as outright uses in the following
zoning districts: R-7, R=12, R-20 and R-40. However, the
City's planning documents do not contain an analysis of the
extent to which mobile h�mes are a needed housing type. Not
(sic) do tfie materials indicate whether mobile home development
is likely to occur in districts allowing multiple-family �-
development at densities greater than seven units per acre.
Fur�hermore, the plan does not indicate whether the zoned supply
of land for mobile home projects accommodates any need.
Tigard may choase not to rel�� on manufactured housing to
meet its housing needs (Stout �. Multnomah Count , LCDC 79-037
( 1981); Multnomah County cknow edgment Report, 1980). LGDC
nonetheless requires communities to consider the al°�ernative of
manufactured housing in their comprehensive plans (ec�., Salem
Acknowledgment Report, 1980). Communities whicfi choose not to
rely on manufactured housing must specifically demonstrate in
their plans how need for moderate cost home ownership
opportunities can be met in other ways (Beaverton Acknowledgment
Report, 1980). Tigard's plan does not so demonstrate ,
( 1000 Friends letter dated February 24, 198�4, p. 5).
Objection
The Washington County Housing Authority objects to the City's Goal 10
element because it f ails to specify the amount of buildable acreage by
various housing types as well as differen� densities (OAR 660-08-010).
The letter further states:
City of Ti�ard -41- Apri1 :4, 1984
Without such necessary data in' the buildable land inventory, the
?`(�`'� [Land Conservation and Deve1opment] Comnission is unable tn :
review local plans for Goal 10 campliance... . The inv�ntory
must demonstrate that a sufficient amount of buildable land'is
ava�ilable for each "needed housing type° at planr�ed densities
(ORS 197.307).
Response to Objectior�s i
These objections a�re sustained. Tigard has indicated that 'manufactured
housing can provide a meeded 'housing t�pe cbmmensurate with the financiaJ
capabilities of smaller sized households which comprised 62 percent of
the Tigard households in 198U (Resource Document, p. 165, Table II-4, and
p. 184).' Buts as noted in the discussion above, the Tigard Rlan does not
indicate how many of the projected dwelling urrits will be mar�ufactured
housing units.
Buildable Land Inventory and Allocation
Tigard inventoried its buildable land in 1981, and updated this inventory
in 1982 and aga�n i,n November 1983 (Resource Document, p. 286). The City
submitted a su lem nt 1
e a Buildable La d • •
pP n Inventor document summariz
Y � ed in
pages 187-189, 286-287 and 293 of the Re
source ' Do
cum t
en and
) a large
Buildable Land Inventory Map which identifies buildable lands by four
residential densities. The Buildable Land Irtventory Map, however, is not '
corrsistent with the City's L.and Use Map and Development Standards Areas
„� map in that approximately T00 acres of bui1dable land East of Lower
�.,
�:�,� Scha�1 s Fer�ry Road ' i s beyond the urban pl anning area bound:ary shown qn
the Land Use and Development Standards map. In additiore, the Bui ldable
Land Inventory Map shows 20 acres of Low Density Residential Land
atljac�nt to Cook Park which is within the floodplain and therefore not
c�nsidered bwildable 1and.
In accordance with the Metro Housi'ng Rule, Ti,gard excluded public lands,
Goal 5 resource areas, land in the one percent floodplain, amd land over
25 percent slope from its inventory of buildable land. Other factors
considered by the City in its lot-by-lot evalvati�n were parcel size and
configuration, plan de�ignation, zoning desi:gnation, and potential fo.r
redivision of pxisting lots (Resource Document, p. 286). The City's
inventory by 2oning district is presented below.
Residential Bui}dable Land Inventory*
P1an Designation/Zone Net Acreaqe Nn, of Units
. Low Density
t R-1 5.98 6
� R-2 54.23 ` 108
' ' R-3 ` 63.5Q 191'
R-4.5 444.31 2,018
R-4.a (PD) 105.93 477
��
Y
�
�
City of Tigard -42- April 4, 1984
Medium Density
R 7 79.09 554
R-7 (PD) 68.87 482
R-12 200.55 2,407
R 12 (PD) 35.88 431
Medium High Density
R-20 222.17 4,443
R-20 (PD) 11 .32 226
High D'ensity
R-40 10.68 427
Total 1,306.57 11,769
*Resource Document, pages 189 and 293
The number of projected units was de#ermined by multiplying the ne�t
acreage for each zone by the maximum density allowed in that zone. The
1983 Buildable Land Inventory paper states:
The result of this calculation is 11,769 new single family and
multifamily units. The City-wide density will be 9 units per
acre which is 1 unit }ess than the LCDC density requirement of
10 units per acre.
The City's R-1 through R-7 districts are the primary detached single
family dwelling zones. According to the table above, Tigard projects
3,830 dwelling units in these zones out of a total of 11,769 dwelling
units which is equivalent to about a 33 percent single f amily and _
67 percent multifamily housing split.
Tigard has adopted as part of its plan a Development Standard Areas Map
which delineates "established" residential areas and "developing"
residential areas. Most, but not all, of the inventoried �buildable .
residential land is within the "developing" areas. The function of the �
established and developing areas is described in more detail under the
Plan Policies and Implementation Measures sections below.
The Resource Document describes two additional mechanisms that could
increase the number of residential units: density transfer of up to
25 percent from hazard areas; and residential redevelopment in the
Central Business District area (pp. 187-189). The density transfer
allows a developer to receive a "credit" of up to 25 percent of the zone
density of undevelopable ae�eas such as steep slopes and floodplain and
then "transfer" the corresponding number of dwelling units to developable
areas of the project. The Resource Document indicates there is
23.26 acres of land in the downtown area that could redevelop at 12 or I
40 residential units per acre. Although single-family attached and
multifamily residential uses are permitted outright in the downtown
commercial zone, they are competing with commercial uses. No specific
information is included in the Resource Document or Tigard's plan to
indicate what effect this potential residential development could have on
the plan's projected nine dwelling units per acre.
: City of Tigard -43- Apri1 4, 1984
�, Objections
�� : ,
1000 Friends of Or�gon, the Oregon Nousing Division, the Home Builders
Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP), the Washington County '
Housing Autharity, and the Metropolitan Service District have all
objected to Tigard's buildable lands inventory and the projected average
density of nine units per acre. Other specific points ra�sed by these
objectors are outlined below.
1000 Friends: Tigard's derrsity of nine units per acre is contrary to its
"le,gally mandated responsibility to provide its 'fair share' of the
Portland reginn' s need for moderate and low ineome housing° (Letter,
p. 3) . 1000 Friends als�o notes that Tigard has not taken an exception to
the Housing Rule to allow a lower average density.
Howsing Division: The Housing Division letter notes that the average -
density of n`ine dwelling� vnits per acre for new construction also
conflicts with an implementation strategy in the City's plan to comply
with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Housing Division objectiun
furt'her states:
The City �lso expects that a considerable amount of acreage in
the Centr�l Business District will redevelop as fiigh-density
residentia1 develoPment at 40 units per net acre. The Goal 10
Housing Rule defines redevelopment land as - "land zoned for
�
.
residential use on which development has already occurred but on
� which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists I
� the strong likelihood that exis'ting development will be ',
convert��o more intensive residential uses during the planning
period (emphasis added)." Tigard's expectation that the area
wi11 develop at 40 units per acre is based on the assumption
that the higher the density allowed, the more likely the area
will redevelop. (Plan, Vo1 I, p, 189) While this may be true
to a certain extent, there is a point at which the local market
simply will not bear the added cost of a high-rise building in
the GBO. The City has n�t submitted a redevelopment plan and
does not note any Tocal programs to enc�urage redevelopment of
the CBD (p. 2).,
_ HBAMP: 7he Home Builders' letter statess
To reacfi the 10 upa standard, the plan relies heavily on
redevelopment in several areas of the City at residential
densities of 40 �nits per acres. Accordin.g to calcuiations
performed by Metro, Tigard's plan assumes that some
1,300 units--about 17� of the City's potential buildout--wi11
occur at 'densitie� of 40 units per acre.... We content that
this ,assumption is tatally invalid (Letter dated february 23,
1984, p. 1). :
�� �
� _
_ _ --
,
City of Tigard -44- April 4, 1984
Washin ton Count Housin Authorit : The Housin Authorit tt r states:
.Y 9 y
le e
The City of Tigard's housing rePort simply lists the vacant
bwildable acres by zone, but has not further inventoried those
by "type." Furthermore, the ratio of the total number of units
to the total number of net acreage provides for an overall
dens i ty of n i ne un its rather th an f or an overal l dens i ty of ten
or more dwelling units as specifically required by
OAR 660-07-305(3) (Housing Authority letter dated February 21 ,
1984, p. 4).
Metro olitan Service District: MSD has objected to Tigard's Goal 10
e emen ecaus:e�l'$� co�en�s Tigard relies on redevelopment or new
development in the Central BUSiness District and in the "Tigard Triangle"
(an area of mixed commercial, office, and low density residential use
between Highway 99, Highway 217, and I-5), to achieve an average overall
density of ten units per acre. The MSD letter further states:
.. .the City can satisfactorily argue that it has provided for an
overall density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre with a
41 percent single family, 59 percent multi-family housing split
on new construction. However, the City's plan documents do not
contain findings to support the reasonableness of expecting the
sort of residential/commercial mix�d use envisioned in the
plan. Without this documentation, staff cannot attest to the
City's ability to meet the housing ruie (MSD Resolution 84-441,
Exhibit A, p. 4).
Response to Objection
The objections raised by 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Oregon Housing
Division, the Metro Fortland Homebuilders, the Washington County Housing
Authority, and the Metropolitan Service District are wstained. Tigard's
average density of nine dwelling units per acre is contrary to the
Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-035(3)) requirement for 10 du/acre average
density and no exception has been taken. In addition, the Metropolitan
Housing Rule defines °buildable land" and °net buildable acre° as
residential� designated land and "redevelopable land" refers to lands
zone or residential ��se where there exists a strong likelihood that
existing development will be converted to more intense residential use.
Commercially zoned lands which also � allow housing cannot be included in
calculations of the overall residential density.
The Housing Division, HBANP, and MSD objections to Tigard's use of
residential redevelopment in commercial areas to achieve an average
density of ten units/acre are based on an early 1983 housing analysis by
the City which was not included as art of the lan. There is no
indication in the p an that the City is attempting to achieve ten units
per acre density through the use of mixed commercial-residential lands.
_ _ . .__ : -- .,
City of Tigard' =45- April 4, 1984
P1an Policies �
�
Tigard's housing policies address housing needs, housing costs,
established and develo in residential areas and housin conditions. The
p 9 9
plan' s housin� need policies are:
6. 1.1 The City shall provide an oppor�unity for a diversity of
housing densities and residential types at various price
�. and' rent levels.
6. 1.2 Subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable
development stand:ards. To prevent the geog:raphic
concentration of public= housing and insure a balance in
the distribution of such housing, the minimum distance
between subsidized housin units located within an
s .n e ami zonin istrtet s a e ive t mes t e
mim�mum ot wi t on a�� street in the eve o ment. or
purposes of this policy, tMe term °su'bsidize ousing"
sh:all mean an housin ' develo ed' or constructed with'
- inanci`a ass�stance a t e . . e ar men o ousin
�n r an eve o ment an the tate of re on P an,
p. ; emp asis a :e .
The plan contains several nonbinding "implementation strategies° for
these policies which include providing for manufactured housing in
subdivisons and parks, and encouraging housing to meet the needs of low
r��'' and moderate income households and seniors.
��� � � �
The Tigard plan has four policies dealing with "established" and
"developing" areas. Three of these palicies commit the City to
maintaining "established" areas with development that wi11 protect and
enhance the character of housing alrea�y in the area, and encowraging
flexible and efficient development within residential "developing" areas
(Plan, pp. 3:7-38). The remaining policy for "estab1ished" and
"developing" areas states:
6.3,2 In the Tigard Community Development Code the City shall
reqwire a density transition whereby increased
residential densities are adjacent to established areas
in the following manner:'
a, The density within 100 feet of each property line
sha11 not exceed 25� over the density shown on the
comprehensive plan for the adjacent land unless there
is an intervening road (major collector or arterial) �
in which case' 'this provision shall not apply.
b. Where the proposed development abuts an existing
housing development, the housing types shall be
compatible. For example:
�
�,�.
,
�
City of Tigard -46- April 4, 1984
1 . Two hausing units whicfi are attached are '
cor�sidered compatible with a detached single
family unit; but
2. More than two housing units which are attac�ed
are not considered compatible with a single
family detached unit (Plan, p. 37).
Part "a" of this Palicy has the greatest impact on sma11 developing
parcels which are adjacent to "established" areas on two or more sides.
Part "b" of the Policy does not clearJy indicate if compatible fiousing
' must be provided on all of the abutting "developing" area parcel or just
within 100 fe:et of the "established" resi.dential area.
One of the implementation strategies in the plan for this policy
indicates that. upon periodic plar�� review, the City "shall maintain an
updated map showing 'established' and 'develo:ping' areas" (Plan, p. 38).
This strategy sugges�ts that the "established° areas - boun�iaries wi11
expand over time ta encompass new developments in adjacent "developing"
areas. The effect of that action will be an incremental erosion of the
maximum density in deve�oping areas and potential reduction of the
overall average density specified in the Plan.
Other housing policies commit the City to develop clear and concise
regu1ations, to reqa�ire that all housing be of safe and sound
construction, and p�ovide direction for residential buffering and
screening. One policy in the "Special Areas of Concern" element in the
plan allows for medium high and high density residential development in ��r
the "Tigard Triangle" commercial area.
Objections
The following parties have objected to Tigard's housing Policy 6.1.2 (see
previous page) : the Oregon Housing Division, the Housing Authority of
Washington County, 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Home Bwilders Association
of Metropolitan Portland, and Oregon Legal Services Corporation. These
similar objections are described below.
Housing Division: The Oregon Housing Division contends that Tigard has
not coordinat�with the Housing D�vision for the provision of subsidized
housing as one implementation strategy suggests, and further contends
that the vague definition of subsidized housing in Policy 6.1.2 could
include all subsidized housing programs. The Housing Division objection
further states:
The Housing Division does not believe the dispersal policy is
necessary to prevent isolation of State and Federal loan
recipients from the mainstream of the community. The recipients
of State and Federal single-family subsidy programs are
typically indistinguishable from their neighbors....
City of Tigard -47- April 4, 19&4
The dispersal policy places an unwarranted bwrden on both the
�,� eligible households and the State and Federal agencies
administering housing subsidy programs. The policy has not been
coordinated with the State Mousing Division, and as a practical
matter, the Housing Division could not comply with the policy.
The Division is not abYe to screen loan applicants for their
vicinity to other loan recipients.
Finally, the dispersal policy is not implemented in the Tigard
Development Code. We question how the City could implement a
policy that discriminates between home buyers on the source of
their financing (letter dated February 24, 1984, p. 3).
Housin Authorit of Washin ton Count : The Housing Authority submitted
a eng y o �ec ion to 0 o icy 6.1.2 and the City's findings to
support this policy. The Housing Authority's letter, in part, states:
It is the Housing Authority's position that Policy 6.1.2 is
not only a thinly veiled effort to deviate f rom the City of
Tigard's responsibilities in connection with complying with
Goal 1D as to low income persons, but it is also an
unconstitutional effort to place into its comprehensive plan a
built-in bias against governmental subsidized housing. Such a
policy also has the effect Af uiolating the provisions of
ORS 197.295 through ORS 197.313, which statutes were amended by
the 1983 legislature to specifically include "government
�� assisted housing" as "needed housing" as defined therein (Letter
� dated February 21 , 1984, p. 2).
The Housing Authority further argues that:
It is also unclear why the proximity of publicly assisted
housing would serve to isolate its recipients from the
mainstream of the community when a similar effect is not
predicted with other low income households that do not receive
public housing assistance. By any objective standard, a senior
citizen livio�g in his or her own home and having a marginal
social security income would be classified as low income, but
would not be limited by this policy. Given the lack of any
f actual basis for the City of Tigard's policy, as well as its
lack of rationality, it is apparent that the City of Tigard's
policy is to avoid what it has concluded to be the undesirable
effect of having low income people living near one another--and
then further defining low income peaple as those receiving I
certain kinds of pwblicly assisted housing (Letter dated ,
February 21 , 1984, p. 4). '
1000 Friends of Oregon: 1000 Friends recognizes Tigard's attempt to
disperse subsidized housing projects to avoid creation of ghetto
conditions, but feels Policy 6.1.2 goes too far and discourages the
provision of housing needed by a significant segment of Tigard' s
population. 1000 Friends argues that this policy conflicts with the
�.
�
City of Tigard -48- Apri1 4, 1984
Goal 10 requirement to allow for flexibility of housing location, type
and density, and is overly broad in its definition of subsidized
housing. 1000 Friends concludes that any subsidized housing dispersal
policy must com�ly with Goal 10, and that Policy 6.1.2:
�
"Must be deleted or aRrended in a way that achieves its objective
(i.e. , to avoid public housing slums) but still allows for an ;
adequate supply of needed housing and fiexibility in housing II
location, type, and density" (Letter dated f ebruary 24, 1984,
PP. 7-9).
Home Builders Association: The metro home builders association questions
restricting any ousing type based on the financing source and is
particularly concerned about the broad definition of subsidized housing.
On this particular point, tfie Homebuilder's letter states:
"To paint such a broad stroke discriminates against virtually
the entire housing market and could make it very difficult to
obtain financing to build in Tigard. That obviously would
significantly impair housing opportunities. Clarificatson and
refinement of �his restriction is needed" (Letter dated
February 23, 1984, p. b).
_O�rec�on_L�ce al Services: Oregon Legal Services objects to Policy 6.1.2
e� �t is3' coura es rather th i d
g an encourages subs�dized hous ng an
limits hnusing flexibility for approximately one-third of Tigard
households that are eligible for housing assitance. This objector also
argues that this policy violates ORS 197.307 by not allowing developers
economies of scale f rom building on adjacent lots or construction of
subsidized duplex units.
Response to Objections
These objections are sustained. Tigard's housing background material
does indicate that approximately 1,900 households, or about one-third of
its existing households, have income levels at or below the moderate
income level for Tigard, and these groups may need some housing
assistance (Resource Document; p. 167). However, Policy 6.1.2 as it is
written does not encourage needed assisted housing, nor is there
sufficient information in the Plan to justify this policy or to show that
this policy will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed housing.
Objection
1000 Friends of Oregon has objected to Policy 6.3.2(b) in Tigard's plan
because it does not contain sufficient clear and objective standards for
determining compatiblity with abutting residential development (see
pages 45-46). 1000 Friends' letter states:
The policy's compatibility standard is vague, discretionary and
open-ended. Though the "example" given in the policy is clear
and objective (and hence permissible), it is included in the
City of Tigard -49- April 4, 1984
policy only as an example. Housing providers are hence forced
�,��; to play a guessing game regar•ding any other "�examples° or
instances of incompatibility which may exist (Letter dated
February 24, 1984, p. 6).
Response to Objection
This �bjection is sustained. Although standards and criteria for
evaluat�ng�- and approving h:ousing developments are normally �in a
jurisdiction' s zoning or ]and development ordinance, tfie mandatory
direction and format of Policy 6.3.2(b) require its consideration as part '
of a housing land use review, The potentially open-ended test for
compatibility does not give a developer adequate knowledge of compatible
design requirements. Although it could be argued that the City's
pre-application conference with a developer w:ill proyide sufficient
information on compatible construction, the open-ended nature of the
policy leaves an unclear test that could be challenged at the discretion
of both: proponents and opponents of a development.
Comment
The Oregon Manuf actured Housing As�ociation has commented on the
definition of subsidized ho:using in Policy 6.1 .2. OMHA requests that the
policy be clarified to indicate what types • of subsidized housing are
covered by this definition.
r Implementatian Measures
�k�
Tigard relies primarily on its Gort�nunity Development Code to implement
the Tigard Plan. The Community Development Code contains the zoning
districts, land d3vision standards, and related land use regulations.
The City's zoning map was adopted as part of the Development Code.
Three sections o� the Development Code with general application are
Density Computations (18.92), Established/Developing Area Classification
(18.138), and Residential Density Transition (18.40.040). The Density
Gomputation section sets criteria for calculating net buildable land and
density transfer f rom sensitive land areas consistent with policies in
the plan.
The Established/Developing: section of the Code is intended to implement �
the D�velopment Standard Areas map in the plan by defining the terms I
"established° and "developing," and indicating how these designations can
be applied and changed. The "developing" area definition includes
buildable Tands except °as provided by Section 18.137.015(A)(2) of the
Code" but this section is missing from the pevelopment Code.
The Residential Density Transition section regulates density levels '
adjacent to "established" areas to provide a more gradual transition to
greater densities in the developing areas. This section of the Code
states:
��.
City of Tigard -50- April 4, 1984
.. .any property within the one hundred (100) f�et of an
established area sha]1 not be developed at a r�sidentia1 housing
density greater than 125� of the allowed density in �he adjacent
established area{s). For purposes of this limitation only, the
allowed density is as specified in the comprefiensive plan land
use designat�on, not as in tfie zoning district. For example,
the property within 100 feet of an established low density
residential area (1-5dwellings per acre) sha11 not be developed
at residen�ial densities greater than 6.25 dwellings per acre.
(6.2 5 = 5 x 1.25).
The only exception to the requirement is when the "established" and
"developing" areas are separated by an arterial or major collector road.
The Development Code also contains zoning districts, site review, and
conditional use review provisions which deal with specific land use
reqwestso Tigard's Community Development Code permits a variety of
housing ��ypes in several zoning districts to implement the plan's
residerrtial land use categories. The different housing types by zoning
districts are outlined in the table below:
RESIDENTIAL USES
R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-20 R-40
Density D.U./Acre 1.2 1.7 3.5 4.6 7-12 12 20 40
S. F. Detached 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Du lex - _
S.pF. Attached - - C C 0 0 0 0
Multifamily - - - - - 0 0 0
M. H. Sub. - - C C 0 0 0 0
M. H. Park - - C C 0 0 0 0
0 = Permitted Outright C = Permitted Conditionally
Tigard also has a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone which can be
combined with any zoning distwict (Development Code, Sec. 18.80). The PD
overlay allows for more flexible and innovative developments and to
preserve open space and natural resource areas. The PD overlay zone
contains several approval standards dealing with such items as buffering,
private and common outdoor recreation areas, circulation, landscaping,
and parking. Although the PD section is very thorough, some subsections
reference other non-existing sections of the code or are contradictory.
For example, Subsection 18.80.120.A.2.e.(1) requires conformance with a
Subsection (4) which is not in the Code, Subsection 18.50.120.A.2.g( 1)
references a nonexistent subsection and the open space requirement in
this subsection conflicts with requirements of the next subsection.
Several other sections of the Development Code also implement the plan
policies. The Site Development Review portion of the Code applies to all
n�w residential development except single family detached dwellings and
u�plexes which are not a part of a laryer development. The Site Review
�
_
� _ _—- — +-
City of Tigard -51- Apri1 4, 1984
�„�, approval standards (Section 18.120.180) cover a wide range of design
4�,�, r�quirem�nts which are similar to the Planned Development section of the
code.
The above table of residential �uses shows that dup�exes, manuf actured
home subdivisions, and parks are conditional uses in the City's R-3.5 and
R-4.5 zoning districts. The Conditional Use Permit section of the Code
(18.130) establishes approval standards and conditions by which a
Hearings Officer may approve, deny, or modify a conditional use request.
Section 18.130.040.0 allows the Hearings Officer to impose conditions
which "may include, but are not limited to" the twelve conditions listed
ii� the Code (p. 240). Manufactured housing subdivisio� or park
development must also comply with the Manufactured/Mobile Home
Regulations of the Code (18.94) which contain clear and objective
sitandards.
Ohjections
The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and 1000 Friends
have objected to the Density Transition (Section 18.40.040) requirement
in the Code because it has the potential to reduce the allowable density
in a zone and thereby reduce the City' s buildable lands inventory and its
estimate of building units and residential densities. The Home Builders
objection states;
By limiting the buildable density to 125% of the adjacent
{� planned density within 1OO feet, it is clear that the ability to
�:- achieve the planned density on the land in question is
impaired. The extent of that impairment is not explained or
accounted for in the buildable land inventory, a violation of
Goal 10.
This is especially significant since the plan in Policy 6.3 � .
calls fQr regular expansions of the areas classifisd as
established. That is, land cur�^ently classified as developing
will at some point be r�classified as established, placing the
density transition restri�tions on land that is currently
unrestricted and benefiting land that has no reasonable
expectation of continued lower density (Letter dated
February 23, 1984, pp. 4-5).
Response to Objections
This objection is partially sustained. The Density Transition
requirements do not apply to all "developing" lands, but to the edges
adjacent to "established" areas. This requirement will not necessarily
effect larger parcels where there is sufficient space �o recapture the
allowable density beyond the 100 foot transition or when a Planned
Development overlay is in effect. Small "developir►g" parcels that are
adjacent to "established areas" may not have sufficient area to permit a
flexible lot design and could experience reduced densitiese Problems
with map designation inconsistencies and the lack of evaluation of the
�
City of Tigard �52- April 4, 1984
density transition requirements under the buildable lands analysis,
how�ver, do not allow a clear determination of the effect of this
implementat�on measures. The concern about changing "established" area �
boundaries was discussed earlier in Lhe report.
Objection
The Oregon Manufactured Nousing Association has objected to three parts
of Tigard�-s Development Code; first, UMHA contends that manufactured
housing is seldom developed at densities greater than six dwe�ling units
per acre, so it is unlikely that manufactured howsing will be located in
the higher densi-ty R-12, R-20, and R-40 zones; second, OMHA objects to a
statement in each residential zone which indicates that conditional use
approval is "discretionary with the Hearings Officer; and third, OMHA
objects to Sections 18.130.040(A)( 1)(b) and 18.13D.040{B) in the
Conditional Use section of the Code which contain subjective or
open-ended approval standards. The OMHA requests that manufactured
housing be permitted outright in the R-3 and R-4.5 zones or that the
conditional use requirements be amended to make them clear an�bjective.
Response to Objection
This objection is sustained. Since the number of manufactured homes has
not been estimated by the City, it cannot be determined if sufficient
amounts of land for this needed housing type already exists or if
additional land is ne�ded. The conditional use sections cited by OMHA
are not clear and objective and must be changed in order �o comply with
th� Housing Rule. Althowgh the various residential zones refer to the _..
Hearings Officer' s discretionary approval, the real test is in the actual
conditional use section of th� Code which is clear and objective ex�ept
for the two subsections cited by OMNA.
Qbjections
The Oregon Housing Division, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and the Home
Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland abject to the City' s R-40
Zone because the feel that open space, parking, and height limitations in
the Code effectively prohibit densities of 40 units per acre. (Related
objections concerning 40 unit densit,� are discussed under the Buildable
Lands Section of this report.) The Home Builders letter uses an examp}e
of a theoretical .91 acre R-40 parcel to demonstrate the R-40 densities
cannot be achieved (Letter dated February 23, 1984, pp. 2-3 and
attachement).
� Response to Objection
This objection is not sustained. The R-40 area included in the City's
buildable lands inventory is 10.68 net acres adjacent ta arterial and
major collector streets on two sides, other "developing" areas to one
side, and an "established" medium density area to the south. Although
40 unit density cannot be achieved on small parcels, the greater
flexibility ofi larger parcels and careful design do allow densities of
City of Tigard -53- Apri1 4, 1984
��;;��,.
40 units per acre. Tt is also noted that if the Planned Development
x>°�� Overlay zone is used with the R-40 parcels, the height Jimitations of the
'�` base zone do not apply except in the 100-foot "established" area
transition (D:evelapment Code, Sec. 18.80.080.A.3)..
Abject�ion
The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan P�rtland have objected to
landscaping and screening requirements in Section 18.100 of the Code.
Specifically, the Home Builders indicate that the subsection to calculate
required widths of buffers and screening (18,100.130) is incomplete since
the page in the Code which is supposed to contain the "buffer matrix° is
blank. The Home Builders conclude that "without that matrix, it is
impossible to determine how much land has been made unbuildable. Its
absence violates Goals 2 and 10" (tetter dated February 23, 1984, p. 4).
Response to 0bjection
This objection is -sustained. The "buffer matrix" page is blank which
makes compliance with section of Tigard's Code by a developer difficult.
Further, the Landscaping and Screening requirements apply to all new
construction, remodeling, and chamge of use which essentially effects all
housing types and developments. Any bwffer matrix used by the City must
be consistent with the Housing Rule and must not have the effect of
reducing density or adding unreasonable cost to a development.
,.:�- Objection
��„:
The Oregon Housing Division, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Home Builders
Association of Metropolitan Portland have objected to the Residential
open space requirements fior single f amily attached and multifamiTy
developments. The H�using �ivision swmmarizes this objection as follows:
The Tigard Site Development Review process requires all new
multiple-family a�nd single-family attaehed developments to
provide a private outdaor area of at least 48 square feet per
unit and a shared, usable outdoor recreation area of
200-30Q square �eet per unit.
These open space requirem�nts are a special condition imposed on
m�altipie-family and attached housing, which are needed housing
types in Tigard. The requirements have the effect of
discouraging needed multiple-unit housing for low- and
moderate-income households by adding unreasonable costs (Letter
date February 24, 1984, p. 4).
Response to Objection
This objection is sustained. Although it is common to have requirements
for private open space and shared recreation space in multifamily
developments to compensate for reduced personal space, these requirements
do add to the cost of any single family attached and multifamily housing
�"
�
;
� _ -_ .
City of Tigard -54- April 4, 1984
developm�nt. It is recognized that �hese requirements rri�y be desiwable
and appropriate for many housing developments in Tigard. However, ti�ese
private open space and recreation space requirements may not be ,
appropriate for multifamily developments designed for seniors or other
special use groups which do not demand as much private space and shared
recreation area. The application of these Site Review requirements to
a11 multifamily housing de�elopments could add unnecessary cost to needed
a�'{ordab1e housing.
Gor�clusinn
The Tigard Urban Area Plan does not comply with Goal 10.
The City has done' a �ery thorough job compiling background material on
howsing conditions, housing costs, and socio-economic levels of Tigard
residents. The City has also pro�ided a detailed inventory of buildable
lands within the urban planning area. Unfortunately, several
discrepamcies between the City' s Land Use Map, Zoning Map, Buildable
L ands Map, combined with the lack of County planning and appropriat�
zoning fbr most of `the urbani'zing are�, make it impossible to completely
evaluate Tigard's housing element. Tigard's calculations of buildable
lands correctly follows the Administrative Rule definition, but the end
result in an average density of nine units per acre for new
construction--less than the ten dwelling units per acre required by the.
Metro Mowsing Rule.
Housing policies are mandatory and provide clear direction for provid'ing
for diversified densities and residential types. Other housing policies, �K.�
however,'` regulate the location of subsidized housing, establish a
possibly vague compatibility test, and modify the potential residential
density bf some "developing" areas which are adjacent to "established"
areas. Wording in the plan's implementing strategies and the Development
Code indicate the "established" areas will expand as development �occurs. .
The implementation measures in the City's Uevelopment Code are a
combination of general requirements which apply to most residential
developments and speci#ic requirements for land use requests. Some
problems with improper citations, missing information, or unclear
instruci:ions exist in parts of the Code, and these gaps cuuld affect
housing densities and development.
Tigard's zon�ng districts permit all housing types outright in at least
three zoning districts; however the plans lacks sufficient detail on the
number of needed manuf actured homes to adequately determine if sufficient
amounts af zoned land is available to meet this needed housing. The
Conditional Use section of the Code includes two eriteria or standards
which are discretionary and could affect needed housing that area
reviewed as conditional uses fin the zone.
� : �.
City of Tigard -55- April 4, 1984
�y 1n order to c�mply with Goal 1'0, Tigard must:
�;`'`,
1 . Coordinate with Washington County for the ap�lication of appropriate
plan designatior�s and zoning �he the unincorp�rated portion of
Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary c�nsistent with Tigard' s
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Hous�ng Rule.
2. Amend. th� plan to include an assessment of additionaT manufactured
homes; a needed Mousing type, that are projected for the planning
period.
3. Delete the 20 acres of Low Density residential land from the
buildable lands inventory that is adjacent to Cook Park and within
the Tualatin River floodplain,
4. Comply with the Metro,politan Housing Rule by providing an overall
average density of ten units per acre net residential buildable acre
(OAR 660-07-035) or take an exception in the plan to the Housing
Ru1e. Calculations of overall density shall include consideration
of density reductions dwe to transition from established to
developing areas.
5. Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal qf subsidized housing,
or, provide an analysis in the plan why this pol'icy will not
ur�necessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing and more
��
clearly define the term °subsidized housing."
�� 6. Delete Policy 5.3.2�b regarding compatibility tests from the plan or
amend that portion of the Policy so that all requirements for
developments abutting existing neighborhoods are spelled out in
clear and objective terms.
7. (a) Delete the Implementation Strategy 5 under the plan' s
6.3 policies and delete the reference under the purpose
subsection of Established Area-Developing Area portion of the
Development Code to the periodic reclassification of
"established" and "developing" areas (T8.138.010.B); or
(b) Amend Implementation Strategy 5 to indicate tha� periodic i
updating of the "established area" boundary will not have the '
impact of reducing the residential density below the required
ten units per acre average. ,
8. Modify or correct the definition of Developing Areas in th�e
Development Gode (Sec. 18.138.020.6. 1) by deleting the reference to
Subsection 18. 137-015(A)(2) or cite the correct subsection.
9. Correct erroneows or contradictory citations in subsections
18.80.120.A.3.e( 1) and {b) 18.80.120.A.3.g(1) and (2) of the Planned
Development section of the Code..
r''�ti.
City of Tigard -56- Apri1 4, �984
10. Amend the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones to allow manwfactured housing as an
outright use or amend the Conditional Use approval
standards 18.130.O�:A.I.b. and 18.130.04O.0 to be clear and
objeCtive, or add a new manwfa�tured housing zon�ng district of
sufficient s ie and density to meet identified manufactured housing
needs.
11. Amend the Landscaping and Screening section of the Development Code
to inelude a buffer matr�x cited under Swbsection 18.100.130.
12. Amend the Site Review section of the Deve1opment Code to add an
additional category under 18.120.17`0, Exceptions to Standards, for
rantirt
g g an ex:ception to the Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor
_
Rec�eation Areas re uirements for senior m lt'
�I
q u ifamily housing or
other needed housing developments that can demonstrate a reduced
demand for private and shared outdoor recreation areas; or
demonstrate that the additional costs for the required Private
Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Area will not add
unnecessarity to the cost of affordable housing or have the effect
of discouraging needed housing. '�
GOAL U: PUBLIC FACILITTES AND SERVICfS
Factual Base
Water Service
The Tigard planning area is presently served by the Tigard Water District
and the Metzger Water Uistrict. The Tigard Water District serves the
area southwest of Highway 217 or about 80 percent of the Tigard area
(Resource Document, p. 19�).
The major water problem for the Washington County area noted in the
Resource Document is the lack of groundwater sources to meet the
increasing demand. A general discussion of Metropolitan water sources is
included in the Resource Document. Tigard Water District obtains water
f rom the Clackamas River {via City of Lake Oswego), f rom Bull Run
Watershed (via City of Portland) and f rom its own wells. It is estimated
that Lake Oswego can supply all of the Tigard Water District's needs to
1990 after which greater reliance on Portland water will be necessary.
The Metzger Water District receives water f rom Portland, and contracts
with Portland should insure adequate swpply to meet the needs during the
planning period (Resource: Document, pp. 195-199).
The Tigard Water District upgraded its distribution system during the
1970's and provides excellent pressure and fire flows throughout the
system. The district has 20 million gallons of storage and "it is
envisioned that no additional storage will be required prior to
year 2000" (Resource Rocument, �. 198). The Metzger District is
undergoing a program to replace substandard pipe and upgrade its
r
_ _ �
City of Tigard -57- April 4, 1'984
fl ;.,:. distribution systems. A �4.75 million 1980 bond issue is safficient to
� finance these improvements and construction of a new reservoir to meet
� the system's needs to the year 2D00 (Resource Do�ument, pp. 198-199),
Sewer Service
In the 1950's, untreated sewage flowing into Fanno Creek led to a ,i
development moratorium and stimulated thE incorporati�n of Tigard in �
1961. A =continuing sewer crisis in the Fannq Creek Basin led to
formation of the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA} in 1970 to serve
urbanizing areas of Wa�fi�ington County, including all of the Tigard Urban
Planning Area (Resource Document, p. 199). The City of Tigard maintains
its own sewer collection system, which is primarily limited to the city
limits, and has "sufficient capacity in its gravity lines to handle
expec�ed futur,e development in each basin" {Resource Document, p. 200).
Tfie sewer service discussion indicates the City requires new developments
t� be connected to the 5ewer system, and that tbere are legal means to
require existing buildings with septic tank/drainfield systems to connect
to sewer lines when they are available in an ar�a.
Storm Drainage
The major drainage problem in Tigard is the increasing storm-water runoff
and water pollution {f rom streets, parking lots, roofs, etc.) associated
with greater urbanization. "Much of the defici�ncies that currently
exist within the Tigard area are due to the lack of adequate storm
,�� drainage facilities in many areas and stream bank overlfow along the
�:,.. Fanno Creek basin" (Resource Document, pe 192). An engineering
consulting firm deve'loped a °Master Drainage Plan" for Tigard in 1981 ,
which used a computer mod�l of the Fanno Creek Basin to study the impact
. of future land use conditions on ftood and drainage in the basin. The
plan contains storm drainage management strategies, including
comprehensive maintenance, for Fanno Creek and major tributary creeks to
red�ace potential flooding. The Master Drainage Plan also includes
techniques and proce�ures for the design of drainage facilities
throughout Tigard, and guidelines for erosion, sediment, and urban runoff
control that can reduce the impact of development on water quality.
�olid Waste
The Metropolitan Service District (MSD) is responsibile for meeting the
solid waste disposal needs for the metropolitan area, including
Washington County and Tigard. The Resource Document describes MSD's
efforts to develop a resource recovery plant and its plans to locate
� solid waste transfer stations in the metropolitan area (p. 213).
Local solid waste collection is provided by three private businesses
which operate under a f ranchise agreement with the City. The Resource
Document indicates that nPportunities for recycling newspapers,
cardboard, glass, cans and motor oil are very limited in Tigard (p. 212).
�
�
Cit� of Tigard -58- April 4, 1984
PubYic Safety
Law enforcernent services in the Tigard Urban Plann�ng Area are provided
by the Tigard Police Department and the Washington County Sheriff' s
office. Activities "of the Washington County Department of Public Safet�y I
and the Tigard Police Department are coordinated on a daily basis'
(Resource Document, p. ,202). The Tigard Poli`ce Department currently has
22 wniformed officers. The increasing number of crimes due to the area's
rapid growth in population and size and increased business development
has lead the Tigard Police Department to develop a "Growth Impaci
Str�tegy° to deal with personnel needs and work load. �
Fire pro�ection service in the Tigard Urban Planning Area are provided by
the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District (TRFPD) and Washington County
Fire Protection District #1 (WCFFD #1). Most of Tigard is covered by the
TRFPD which has three fire stations, one inside Tigard, to service the
Tigard planning area. WCFPD #1 serves a small northerly portion of the
pTar�ning area and has one station on Scholls Ferry Road to serve the
Tigard area. Both districts have mutual aid agreements with each other
and the Cities of P t
Ar land Beaverton
and L
, ake Oswego. No fire service
problems are identified in the Tigard planning area. The Tualatin Rural
Fire Protection District and Washing�on County Fire Protection
pistrict #1 are considering plans for consolidation of some of their
. services (Resource Document, pp, 202-204).
Schools
The Tigard Urban Planning area is primarily served by Tigard School ��
District 23J wi�th households in the extreme northern area of Tigard
served by Beaverton School District 48. An inventory of the enrollment,
capacity and acrea e for each district's schools are included in the
Resource Document �pp, 206-208). Both districts are near capacity and
additional classrooms or schools will be necessary to meet the expected
population increase for Tigard and Beavertan.
Other Services
The brie�f discussion in the Resource Document of health services
indicates there are no hospitals in the Tigard planning area, although
there is a County health clinic. The neares� hospitals are in Tualatin
and 8eaverton. The Northwest Oregon Health Systems organization has the
primary responsibility for health service planning in the Tigard area
(Resource Docwment, p. 209).
Tigdrd provides library service to the planning area residents plus
people residing in King City, Bull Mountain, Metzger, and Durham
(Resource Document, p. 211) . The library is a participant in the
Washington County Cooperative Library Services Program.
__._: .. __ _ .
:
— — --
► -- _
City of Tigard -59- April 4, 1984
Electricity is provided by Portland General Electric to all of the Tigard
��'4, area, Northwest Natural Gas is the only provider of natural gas in the
planning area. Telecorrnnunication services are mainly provided by General
Telephone with a portion of northeast T'igard served by Pacific Northwest
Bell.
P1an Policies
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan contains several policies re�ating to
public facilities and services. Two overall policies for orderly and
efficient growth are:
7.1.1 The City shall:
a. Prepare and implement a capital improvements
� program in conjunction with Washington County and
the applicable service districts;
b. Work with the service districts to provide a
coordinated system for providing services;
c. Provide urban services in accordance with the
comprehensive plan to the extent of the city's
financial resources;
d. Use the capital improvements program as a means for
, providing for orderly growth and the efficient use
�.,. of 1 and;
e. Develop a comprehensive plan with consideration
being given to the level and capacity of the
existing services; and
f. Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making
decisions about the proper location for pwblic
facilities (p. 42).
7.1.2 The City shall requires as a pre-condition to
development approval that:
a. Development coincide with the availibility of
adequate service capacity including:
1, Public water;
2. Pwblic sewer (new development on septic tanks
shall not be a1lowQd within the City); and
3. . Storm drainage.
b. The f acilities are:
�
�;�
City of Tigard -60- Apri1 4, 1984
: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening
properties �nd the proposed development; and `
2. Designed to City standards.
c. A11 new development utilities to be placed
underground.
Water servi:ce policies relating to domestic service and fire flow needs
state: �
7.3 1 The City of Tigard shall coordinate with the Tigard
Water District and Metzger Water District to p`rovide a
high quality of water service to meet future demands at
all times (p. 45),
7.6. 1 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development
th at:
a. The development be served by a water system having
adeyuate water pressure for fir� protection
purposes;
b. The development shall not reduce the water pressure
in the area below a level adequate for fire
protection purposes; an�
c. The applicable fire district review all �,,-
applications (p, 49).
Sewer service policies commit the City to coordinate an orderly provision
of service to existing and developing areas. Key policies are:
7.4.1 The City shall:
a. Develop a comprehensive sewer plan that identifies
the present and future capacity needs for a sewage
system in the planning area, and probable routes of
future trunklines.
b. Require that future extensions of collector sewer
lines sha11 be consistent with all city ordinances
and agreements be�ween the City of Tigard,
Washington County and the Unified Sewerage Agency
(USA) .
c. Adopt a clear and concise agreement with USA,
implementing tfie City's policies for extending the
availability of sewer services and encouraging the
phasing out of septic tan'ks (P. 46).
e
City of Tigard -61- Apri1 4, 1984 �
7.4.3 In the development of new sewer systems, priority shall:
� a. First, be given to areas having health hazard
problems which w211 be determined by DEQ; and
b. Second, be given to areas where the cost-benefits
are the greatest in terms of number of potential
connections (p. 46).
7.4.� The City shal� require that all new development be
connected to an approved sanitary sewerage system
(p• 46)•
The proyision of adequate storm drainage facilities and water pollution
controls both now and in tfie fwture as urbanization continues was
ide:ntified as a concern in the Resource Docwment. The two detailed storm
drainage policies in the plan are:
7.2.1 The City shall reyuire as a pre-condition to development
that:
a. A site development study be submitted for
development in areas sub,;�ct to poor drainage,
ground-instability or flooding which shows that the
development i's safe and wi11 not create adverse
offsite impacts;
�,
;
�,,.. b. Natural drainage ways be maintained unless
submitt.ed studies show that alternative drainage
solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and
will assure no adverse offsite impacts;
c. All drainage can be handled on-site or there is an
alternative solution which will not increase the
offsite impact;
d. The 100-year floodplain elevation as established by
the 1981 Flood Insurance Study conducted by the
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers be protected; and
e. Erosion control techniques be included as a part of
the site development plan (p. 44).
7.2.2 The City shall:
a. Include in its capital improvements program plans
for solving drainage problems in the existng
developed areas;
b. Recognize and assume its responsibility for
operating, planning and regulating wastewater
systems as designated in the MSD Wastewater
r�,� Treatment Management "208° Plan; and
�i ty of Tigard --b2- ' Apri 1 4, 1984:
c. Rpply a11 applicable federal and state laws and
regulations with respect to wastewater (p. 44).
On solid waste policy provides for the opportunity to establ'ish a solid
waste recycling center in Tigard. A second policy on solid waste
management states:
7. 12.1 The, City shall recognize the Metropolitan Service
�- District's (MSD) responsibility and authority to prepare
and' implement a solid w�ste management plan, and' will'
pa�rticipate in these procedures as appropriate (p. 54).
Othe policies in the plan provide mandatory direction for coordinating
with the school districts, private utility companies', and agencies
responsible for health service and other social services. The plan also
contains policies regarding local police and libra�ry service.
Implementation Measures
Utility standards and regulations are contained in several sections of
Tigard's `Comnunity Uevelopment Code. The Site Development Review section
of the Code (Sec. 18.120) requires submittal of a site analysis drawing
showing various site conditions, i`nciuding drainage patterns, and of a
development plan which shows proposed utility lines. This section of the
Code also re uires that "all draina e lans shall be designed ifl
q 9 p
accordance with the �r�teria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan"
(Code, Sec. 18.120.180).
,.v��
The subdivision section of Tigard's Community Devlopment Code requires
approval of a p'reliminary plat which shows:
11. ?he purpose, location, type and size of all the following
(within and adjacent to the proposed' subdivision) existing
and proposed:
. . .
b. Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines,
domestic water mains, including fire hydrants, gas
mains, major power [transmission lines], telephone �,
transmission lines and watercourses;
. . .
15. The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm
water overflow, and the location, width and direction of
flow of all watercourses and drainageways; ' (Cade,
Sec. fi8.160.070). -
,
City of Tigard -63- April 4, 1984
- Appr�val of a major or minor partition requires demonstration that
� �;
� adequate public facilities are available to serve the propo�al and that
all improvements r�eet City and applicable agency standards (Code,
Sec. 18.162.030).
A third section of the City's Code entitled Street and Utility Service
Standards requires sanitary se�ers to be installed in accordance with
policies in the comprehensive plan and shall be oversized t� serve
additional �development in the ar�a as projected by the Comprehensive Plan
(Code, Sec. 18.1b4.090). Subsection 18.164,1Q0 includes several storm
drainage standards including accomnodation of "upstream" drainage and the
effect on "downstream" drainage in accordance with the Master Storm
Drainage P1an.
The most recent Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
expired on January 1, 1984, and the earlier March 1980 agreement is in
affect again (see Goal 2 for additional informatian). The Marcfi 1980
agreement contains one clause that "The County will request that the
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) prohibit the connection of new
developments...within the Urban Planning Area to USA system facilities
without prior approval of the City of Tigard" (UPAA, Sec. 5.E).
Comments
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Metropolitan
Service District both commented on Tigard' s Goal 11 element by noting
��r there is no discussion in the �lan of the existing and projected service
''�� capacity of the Unified Sewerage Agency treatment plant which services
7 i gard.
Conclusion
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan complies with Goal 11. ' ' �
The plan's background material inventories and describes all major public
facilities and services provided by the City and various other districts
or agencies serving the Tigard Urban Planning Area. Needed ionprovements
to key public services during �the planning period are identified and
expected costs and responsibilities for those improvements are discussed.
Policies provide clear mandatory direction for coordinated and efficient
provision of urban services within the city limits and urban planning
area to meet projected growth. Two detailed policies on storm drainage
management address the City's major urban service problem discussed in
the plan.
The primary implementation measure is the City's Community Developmerot
Code which provides for review and approval of proposed �ublic facilities
and services to insure they are adequate to mee�t planned development
Tigard has an adopted Storm Drainage Master Plan which is used as a
standard for storm water management on new developments. A draft Capital
;�.
Improvements Program document is undergoing City review.
;
�
City of Ti��rd -�4- April 4, 1984
Suggestion for P1an Improvement
The City should coordinate with the Unified Sewerage Agency to include a
discussion of the USA's treatment plant capa�ity in its Comprehensive
Plan during periodic update or in the City°s proposed sewerage system
plan. The City is reminded that the 1983 Legislature enacted HB 2295
which requires jwrisdictions to develop and adopt a public faci}ities
plan for .lands within an urban growth boundary (ORS 197. 712) . The
Commission� will soon begin the process of developing an administrative
rule to determine the components of a public facility ptan. ,
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION
Factual Base
Transportation issues are identified and discussed in the Resource
Document (Volume I, pp. T-2T9 through I-173). The plan contains
extensive backgrownd information on the City's present and future
transportation needs.
Roadways: A description of the City' s street classification system is
provided on pages I-222 tfirough I-224. As stated in the plan, Tigard's
transportati�n system must be coordinated with the Metropolitan Service
District's (Metro) adop�ed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). However,
the plan points out that the Tigard street classification system differs
from Metro's RTF in the following ways: ( 1) Tigard's "Arterial Route°
definition does not distinguish Principal Major and Minor Arterials, and ��-
(2) the City's "major collectors" cross over into the RTP's definition of
"minor arterials" (p. I-223).
The plan describes in detail a number of problem areas within the City
requiring collector street improvements (pp. I-227 through I-236). The
suggested improvements are discussed according to the Neighborhood
Planning Organization (NPO) areas (p. I-233).
The plan identifies that all seven NPOs h�ve significant collector street
problems. The most significant of the seven problem areas includes the
development of a "direct connection" between Murray Blvd. and Pacific
Highway 99. Presently, the City and Washington County do not yet agree
on the locat�on and size of the route in the southwestern portion of the
Tigard UGB. Because of the disagreement over this route, and other
concerns, the City and the County adopted a temporary urban growth
planning area agreement (UPAA) that lasted from June 1983 to January 1,
1984. The purpose of the temporary UPAA was to allow sufficient time to
resolve this transportation issue and other issues as well (Section VI of
the UPAA) When the UPAA expired on January 1, 1984, none of the issues
were resolved, and the City and Washington County agreed to honor the
provisions of a previously adopted UPAA (adopted in March 1980). The
older UPAA does not address this transportation problem between the City
and the County.
� _ _ _ __
. _
City of Tigard -65- Apri1 4, 1984
r� �, In addition, Metro comments that the faUowing inconsistencies exist
, between the RTP and the City's transportation plan:
- The T7gard P'lan does not include or speci:fy regional transitways and
- transit trunk-lines as identified in the RTP;
- The Tigard Plan does not identify other streets switable for
subregional transit tru:nk routes and 1'ocal transit service' as a- guide
to Tri-Met; '
- The p]an does not designate Pacific Highway 'as an RTP-Principal
Arterial, and Minor Arterial designations identified by the City are
• considered p.remature by Metro; and
- The plan does not yet wesoTve the issues "'surrounding the need for an
a1ignment of potential Major Arterial conneetion:s between I-5, Pacific
Highway, and Murray Boulevard.°
Public Trans ortation/Trans ortation Disadvanta edc The- plan states that
four r�-Met us �nes serve the igar ann�ng Area (pp. I-249 and'
I-250)). Although ridership has increased, the plan states that the
percentage of ridership is low (p. I-250). The plan states t'hat Tri-Met
identified Tigard's downtown area as the site of a major new transit
center (p. 254). The new transit eenter is designed to accommoda�e ten
buses. The center would also' inc1ude space for Greyhound buses, taxis,
bicycle racks, shelters, etc.
� In addition to Tri-Met, other services are avai'lable for the
transportation disadvantaged through Mobility Services, Inc., Washington
Coanty Community Action, and Washin,gton County PubJic Welfare Children's
Services (p. I-256). The plan states that approximately 1,OOD people i:n-
Tigard are transit dependent (p. I-256).
Pedestrian/Bic�cle Pathways: The plan states that some 40 miles of
si�ewa�ks�an3-6ikepathes exist in Tigard (p. I-257).. Most of the paths
are in new subdivisions or near schools,
The City adopted a Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan in
1974. Included as part of the City's plan submittal, the pathway plan
iden�ifies prime areas for pathway development. Th� plan states t{�at
lack of funds is the primary problem in developing �he paths.
Other Trans ortation T es: The p1an brief;ly �describes the railroad
service provided to Tigar (p. I-258) . Two private wailroad companies,
Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific, operate trains through Tigard�
Pol`icies
The plan includes the following polici�s on transportation issues in
Tigard.
�
City of Tigard ` -66- Apri1 4, 1984
8.}.2 The City shall provide for efficient management of the
transportation �lanning process within the Ci�y and the
metropolitan area through cnoperation with ather
federal, state, regi:onal and local jurisdictions
�p. II-56).
8.2'.1 The City sh�11 coordinate with Tri-Met to pro�ide for a
public transit system within the planning area which;
a. Meets the needs of both the current and projected,
fo:r the Tigard communit,�;
b. Addresses the specia1 needs of transit dependent �
population;
c. Reduces pollution and traffic; and
d. Reduces energy consumption (p. II-58).
8.3.1 The City shall coordinate with Washington County,
Tri-Met and other regional and state agencies in the
identification and accorr�nodation of individuals with
speciai transportatio:n needs (p. II-60).
8.4.1 The City shall loca�e bicycle/pedestrian corridors in a
manner which provides for pedestrian and bicycle users
, safe and convenient movement in all parts of the City,
by deYeloping the pat:hway system shown on the adopted --�-
pedestrian/bikeway plan (p. II-60).
An additional policy states th� City will encourage the us� of public
transit by: (1) locating urban development near transitw�ys, and
(2) requiring development proposals to provide transit f�acilities .
(p. II-59). Uther polici:es require certain street improvements (R-O-W,
curbs, sidewalks, parking, transit stops, pedestrian/bikepaths, etc.) as
a pre-condition to development approval (pp. II-56 and I-57).
Implementing Me�sures
The Tigard Development Code includes eonstruction standar�s for streets
(Section 18.164) . Section 18,1'64 includ�es standards for street widths,
intersections, curb-cuts, right-of-way, block design, etc. The '
Development Code also inclwdes requia�ements for visuat <clearance,
parking, access and circulation, and signs (Sections 18.1Q2, 18.106,
18.108, and 18.114).
The plan includes a �ransportation map. However, as indicated above the
corridor classification is not consistent with the regional
transportation plan.
■
City of Tigar� -67- Apri4 4, 1984
,.-�, �Ob'ect_i��on: Washington County objects to the acknowledg�nent of the Tigard
�p,� a��n because the transpor�tation plans of the City and the County are
in�consistent. According to the County, the Tigard Plan "calls for
improving and utilizing a number of existing minor collectors," whereas
the County plan identifi�s a major� collector facility to connect Murray
Blvd. tn Pacific Highway 99W.
As stated above, the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) identified
several transportation-related inconsi'stencies in the Tigard Plan,
including the County's eoncerns in its letter of comment to the
Department. However, because the City has stated in writing its
willingness to resolve these d:ifferences, Metro determined that an
objection was not necessary.
Response: The Department supports the objection raised by Washington
Countyo Goal 2 requires that transportation plans "be based upon an
invent�ry of local, regional, and state transportation needs" and
"conform with local and regional comprehensive plans."
Conclusion
The City of Tigard does not compiy with Goal 12.
The Tigard Plan provides a good deal of background information on the
City's existing road network and problem areas. Adequate information is
provided in the plan regarding public transportation and the
�j^ transportation disadvantaged. Plan policies are adequate to satisfy the
� requirements of Goal 12. However, according to information in the plan,
the City has not yet satisfied the Goal 12 requir°ement to insure that the
City's transportation plan conforms with the plans of the local and
region:al comprehensive plans, in this instance Washin�ton County and
Metro. Metro has noted that the Tigard Plan is inconsistent with the
regional transportation plan (RTP) on several counts (refer to Factual
Base discussion) . Metro's RTP has been prepared with input from affected
�urisdictions and represents an important regional strategy for
metropolitan transportation solutions. The City will need to work with
both the County and Metro to establish consistent transportation plans.
In order to comply with Goal 12, the City of Tig:ard must:
1 . Coordinate with Metro and Washington County on the development of
consistent transportation plans.
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION i
Factual Base
The Resource Document contains a brief overview of ways local government
can influence er�ergy conservation. Two basic strategies are identified:
���.
� _ - -- —
City of Tigard -68- April 4, 1984
1. Adoption of an energy efficient land use �lan which wpports mass
transit, other alternative transportation modes, higher residential
densities and mixed wses; and
2. Adoption of ordinances which reqwire such measures as weatherization,
solar design considerations, and solar access.
The high percenta,ge of energy consumption by automobiles and residential
space heating is noted in the Resource Document. Also cited is the
Rortland Energy Conservation Project Study which indicated the
Metropolitan area could save up to 34 percent of its projected energy
consumption in the mid 1990's through conservation programs.
Plan Policies
Tigard has three energy conservation policies:
9.1.1 The City shall encourage a reduction in energy
consumption by increased opportunities for energy
conservation and the production of energy from
alternative sources.
9.1.2 The City shall establish a balanced and efficient
transportation system whicfi complements the land use
plan and is designed to minimize energy impacts.
9.1 .3 The City shall encourage land use development which�
�
emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and ...
con true '
s tion Plan . 63 .
� � R )
Several policy implementation strategies address encouragement of and
coordinatyon with public and private energy conservation programs, and
Development Code provisions to provide for energy efficient building
design and construction, and mixed commercial-residential use.
Implementation Measures
The Tigard Development Code Site Review and Planned Development sections
have identical energy conservation provisions. These provisinns are as
follows:
Approval Standards
�
3.a Relationship to the Natural and Physical environment:
(4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration
for the sun and wind directions, where possible.
3.d Private 0utdoor Area-Residential Use
(2) Whenever possible, private outdoor open spaces should
be oriented toward the sun.
.
City of Tigard -69- April 4, 1984
�� 3.fi Public Transit
(lj Provisions for public transit may be required where
the site abuts a public transit route. The reqwired
facilities shall be :based on;
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the
. area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
The City's Central Business District and Professional Administrative
Office Commercial District both aTlow mixed residential development
consistent with po1icy implementation strategies.
Conclusion
The Tigard Urban Area Plan complies with Goal 13.
TMe City has identified energy conservation strategies availabJe to local
government �nd has developed its land use plan to include higher
residential densities and orientation along mass transit corridors.
Rolicies encourage energy ce,nservation in construction and d�sign, and
commit the City to a balanced and efficient transportation system.
Implemen�tation measures are limited at this time to approval standards in
� the Site Review and Planned De�elopment sections of �he Development Code
��a that encourage solar orientation and public transit amenities.
- GOAL 14o UR'BANIZATION
The City of Tigard is within the Metropolitan Regional Urban Growth
Boundarye The seven factors of need and locational reasons for
establisfiment of an urban growth boundary were addressed by Metro during
formation of the regional boundary and, therefore, Tigard is not required
to address the seven f actors of Goal 14. The Goal 14 compliance
requirements for conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses are
applicable to Tigard.
Factual Base
The Resource Document contains an Urbanization element which describes I
th� role of the Metropolitan Service Distwict in the establisfiment of the
metro urban growth boundary (pp. 282-283). Also included in the d�cument
is a summary of Metro's growth management po1icies for surplus lands
within the regional urban growth boundary. The city limits and the
Tigard Urban Planning Area (TUPA) are completly within Metro's adopted
urban growth boundary (Resource Dacument, p. 283).
�
Cit,y of Tigard -70- Apri1 4, 1984 1
Us�ng the buildable land imventory and other �r�formation in the Resource
Document, the following table provides a breakdown f�r land within
Tigard's urban planning area; `"
Developedl Neededl Vacant2
Acres Acres Buildable Acres Total
Residential 906.23 1,306.57
Commercial�- 195,30 270.01
Industrial 2Z7�57 224.52
Total 4,871 .35 1,379.10 1,801.10
�Resource Document, p. 440
zResource Document, p. 293.
It is noted that pages 44, 283, and 293 in the Resource Document have
confticting figures for the amount of developed acres, buildable acres
and constrained acres.
Plan Policies
The urbanization sectiqn of fiigard's plan inclucies several findings about
the City and County's intent to provide for the orderly and efficient -w.�
development of urbanizing land through the Urban Planning Area
Agreement. Plan policies address annexation and urban service
extension. The key City annexation policy is:
10.1.1 Prior to annexation of land to the City of Tigard:
a. The City sfiaJ 1 review each of the fol lowing
services as to adequate capacity, or such services
to be made available, to serve the parcel if
developed to the most intense u�e allowed, and will
not significantly reduce the level of services
available to developed and undeveloped land within
the City of Tigard. The services are:
1. Water;
2. Sewer;
3. Drainage;
4. Streets;
5. Police; and
6. Fire protection.
_. _ _ ,:
City of Tigard -71- Apri1 4, 1984�
b. If required by an adopted capital improvements
program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and
rec�ord with Washington County a nonremonstrance
agreement rpgarding the following:
1: The formation of a Local Improvement District
(L.I .D.) for any of the following services that
cowld be prov�ded through, such a district. The
" extension, or improvement of the following:
a) Water;
b) Sewer;
c) Drainage; and
d) Streets.
2. The formation of a special district for any of
the above services or the inclusion of the
property into a special service district for
any of the above services.
c. The City shall provide urban services to areas
within the Tigard urban planning area or with the
urban growth boundary upon annexation (p. 67),
�� The City has an Annexation Ordinance (No. 82-29, 6/28/82) which
implements this policy by requiring annexation applications to inctude:
(1) a statement on the availability, capacity and status of urban
services, including police, fire and school faclities; (2) a statement of
the increased demand for public faciTities and services generated by the
proposed development within the annexation area. The ordinance also
indicates the City will refer aTl annexation requests to the Portland
Metropolitan area Local Government Boundary Commission.
Other service extension policies arec
10.2.1 The City shall not approve the extension of City or
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) lines except:
a. Where applications for annexation for those
t the Cit or
properties have been submitted o y;
b. Where a- nonremonstrance agreement to annex those
properties has been signed and recorded with
Washington County and swbmitted to the City; or
c. Where the applicable state or county health ag;ency
has declared tha�t there is a potential imninent
health hazard.
� ,
City of Tigard -72- April 4, T984
10.2.2 1n addition to the requirements of Policy 10.2.1 , the
extension of sewew lines outside of the city limits
shall not reduce the capacity below the required level
for areas within the Gity.
10.2.3 As � precon�ition �o the approval of the extension of
services outside the city limits, the City shall have
. the right of review for all development proposals
� outside the T'igard city limits but within the Tigard
Urban Planning Area (reference Tigard's Urban P�anning
Area Agreements with Washington County). The City shall
require that development will not:
a. Preclude the further development of the properties
to urban densities and standards; or
b. Preclude the subsequent development of surounding
properties.
This review shall include tMe following factors as set
forth in the Tigard comprehensive plan and appropriate
implementing ordinances:
a. Land use;
b. Density;
c. Placement of structures on the site,
d. Street alignment; and
e. Drainage (Plan; p. 68).
Urban Planning Area Agreement
The City and County Urban Planning Area Agreement currently in effect was
adopted in 1980. (A more recent and detailed agreement between the
County �nd City expired on January 1, 1984 and the 1980 agreement again
became the effective agreement.)
The 1980 Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) includes brief sections 'I
which describe planning responsibility, joint referral of land use I�
actions, annexation policies, and amendments to the agreement. The UPAA '
indicates the "County's comprehensive plan and implementing ord�nances '
are the legally binding land use r�gulations in unincorporated Urban
Planning Areas..." (p. 2) . The agreement gaes on to indicate that the
City and County plans for �he area are inconsistent and that the County:
Shall consider a legislative amendment to the County Plan of
Development within the Urban Planning Area to reflect the City
Comprehensive Plan designations and to include the City' s
supportive data and findings (p. 3).
City of Tigard -73� April 4, �984
,..,. In reality, the status of the planning and zoning for the unincorporated
�� urban planning area is that there is old, suburban level Co�nty zoning in
effect, but no Coun�y land use plan or designations. The County intends
to adopt the City's plan designations and update the zoning for the area
upon acknowledgment of Tigard's plan (personal comnunications with
Elizabeth Newton, Tigard Planning Department and Kevin Martin, Washinyton
County Planning Office, 3/20/84).
Since the =1980 agr�?ement does not adopt the City's plan and land use
designations, Tigard's plan palicies and land use designations
technically have no effect on land use decisions within th�
unincorPorated urban planning area.
(Note: This inconsistency is th:e result of the reversion to the 1980
agreement. The 1983 Urban Planning Area Agreement, which expired
January 1, 1984, states the Cit will be responsib1e for comprehensive
planning and the coordination� urban services in the active planning
area.)
The 1980 agreement further states the County will provide the City with
the opportunity to review and comment on comprehensive plan and ordinance
amendments and proposed land use actioms within the urban planning area
such as subdivisions and major partitions, construction and major sewage
collection systems, and major street improvements. The City will
correspondingly refer sim�lar items to the County for review.
�� The last section of the agreement contains five "special policies" that
,:
�::. state:
A. Annexations to the CITY within the Urban Planning Area will
not be opposed by the COUNTY.
B. Annexations to the CITY outside of the Urban Planning Area
will not be supported by the COUNT'Y or CITY.
C. The CITY and COUNTY wi11 cooperate in planning for urban
facilities.
D. The COUNTY will not approve a land use proposal in the Urban
Planning Area if the CITY presents evidence to sh�w that the
proposal would not facilitate an urban level of developoment
in the future upon annexation to the CITY.
E. The COUNTY will request that the Unifired Sewerage Agency
(IJSA) prohibit the connection of new developments (i.e.,
built after adoption of this agreement) within the Urban
Planning Area to USA system f acilities without prior
approval of the City of Tigard.
As noted above, the absence of County plan and appropriate zone ��,
designations for the urbar�izing area makes it difficult to determine if '
these special policies are sufficient to provide for an orderly and
��� efficient conversion of urbanizing land to urban densities.
� _ _ _ __ ---- - --- - �
City of Tigard -74- April 4, 1984
The UPAA includes a map of the T'igard planning area boundary as an
exhibit �o the agreement, The boundary shown on this map is different
than the boundary shown on some of the City's maps and the later (1983)
agreement. This inconsistency is identified as a coordination issue
under Goal 2.
Objeetion
1OOQ Frier�ds of Oregon objects to acknowledgment of Tigard's plan and
Goal 14 element because:
1000 Friends has learned that the City of Tigard and Washington
County are in the process of negotiating an upda�ed Urban
planning Area Agreement. The plan should not be acknowledg�d
until the two bodies adupt an agreement which is consistent with
the Comprehensive P1an (letter dated 2/24/84, p.9).
Response to Objection
This objection is not swstained. The process of negotiating an updated
Urban Planning Area Agreement is not a Goal compliance issue. The
jurisdictions have an agreement in effect which is the basis for this
review.
Comment
The Metropolitan Service District has commented that there are no
acknowledgment issues of major concern under Goal 14. �-
Conclusion
The Tigard Urban Area Plan does not comply with Goal 14.
The Resourc� Document describes the role of the Metropolitan Service
District in developing the regional urban growth boundary. Figures for
buildable, residential, commercial and industrial land are included in
the urbanization element, however, these figures are inconsistent with
other fiigures in the plan Resource Document.
The City has several clear urbanization policies which address annexation
of land within the urban planning area and the timely and orderly
extension o� urban services to developing policies.
The 1980 Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement �
designates the County as the responsible jurisdiction for planning and
zoning of unincorporated land within the City's urban planning area,
Information available to the Department indicates that most '
unincorporated lands are not currently planned by Washington County and
old, inapprc>priate suburban zoning is in effect (see also Goal 2
discussion).
t _ - -
City of Tigard 75- April 4, 1984
The 1980 �greement contains policies for the provision of services in the
�� unincorporated portion of the planning area. However, without consistent
plan designations and zoning in the unincorporated area, and additional
policies in the agreement tha� require large minimum lots (10 acres) or
detailed redivision plans, the orderly and efficient conversion df
urbannizir�g land to urban densities cannot be assured.
In order to comply with Goal 14, the City of Tigard and Washington County
mu st: ��
1. Amend the 1980 Urban Planning Area Agreement or develop a new
agreement that: —
a. Irrcludes policies and standards to inswre that the conversion of
urbanizable lands to urban uses shall occur in an orderly and
efficient manner. Interim development below urban density or
urban development levels must be controlled through application
of appropriate holding zones to assure that full urban
development can occur consistent with the plan; and
b. Includes a map which clearly shows the approved Metropolitan
Regional Urban Growth Boundary and �the Tigard Urban Planning
Area Boundary.
Su estion for Plan U date: As part af the first major plan update the
ity s ou review acreage igures on pages 44, 283, and 293 and provide
�:r consistent fiigures in the Resource Document and Plan for the amount of
�<. vacant buildable land within the urban planning area.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following parties have provided statements on this acknowledgment �
request. Comments wer� due by February 24, 1984. '
Agency/Individual Position Goal Date Rec�ived
1 . Metropolitan Service Objection 2, 10 February 1, 1984
District
2. Oregon Manuf actured Objection 10 February 22, 1984
Nousing
3. Washington County Objection 10 February 22, 1984
Housing Authority
4. 1000 Friends of Oregon Objection 10, 14 February 23, 1984
5. Washington Cownty Land Obj�ction 2, 12 February 23, 1984
Use ar�d Transportation
Department
t::;�,
,
I
City of Tigard -76- April 4, 1984
6. Oregon Legal Services Objection 10 February 24, 1984
7. Home Builders Association Objection 2, 1D February 24, 1984
8. Oregon Housing Division Objection 2, 10 February 24, 1984
9. Orego� Department of Comment 6, 11 February 24, 1984
Environmental Qwality
10. Oregon Department of Cornment --- March 2, 1984
Transportat-ion
OVERALL CONCLUSION ,
The City of Tigard has prePared and adopted a plan which adequately
addresses and fully complies with Goals 1, 6-9, 11, and 13. The plan
, does not comply with Goals 2, 5, 10, 12, and 14.
V. RECQMMENDATION
Staff
Recommends the Commission continue the City of Tigard's request to July
1, 1984, to correct deficiencies identified in the plan and implementing
measures under Goals 2, 5, 10, 12, and 14.
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
1. The City and Washington County must adopt plan designations for all
unplanned areas within the planning area.
2. For unincorporated areas, Washington County must adopt zoning
consisten�t with the plan designations.
3. Correct all plan and zone conflicts as identified under Plan/Zone
Conflicts, above.
GOAL 5: OPEN SPACfS, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Amend the plan to determine which wetlands, drainageways, and creeks
identified in the city's resource inventory are significant (1C)
resources.
2. Identify conflicting uses and analyze the ESEE consequences of these
uses upon signific�nt resources identified in "1" above.
3. Based upon the analysis in "2" above, provide plan policies and
implementing measures (i.e., the sensitive lands section) as outlined
in the Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-16). Note: This may
require revision of policy 3.1.1.
_ _ . _ �
�` City of Tigard -77- Apri1 4, 1984
' � 4. Amend the Develo�ment Code to include setback st�ndards (i.e.,
�� 25 ft.) and apply to important open space and wa�er areas and fish
and wildlife �abitats (refer to Conclwsion above). ,
5. Assign the Historic Overlay District to the five remaining important
historic str�actures as identified in the plan.
GOAL 10: HOUSING
1. Coordinate with Washington County for the application of appropriate
plan designations and zoning the the unincorporated portion of
Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary consistent with Tic�ard's Gomprehensive
Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
2. Amend the plan to incluc9e an assessment of additional manufactured
homes, a needed housing type, that are projected far the planning
period.
3. DeTete the 20 acres of Low Density residential land from the
buildable lands inventory that is adjacent to Cook Park and within
the Tualatin River floodplain.
4. Comply with th� Metropolitan Housing Rule by providing an overall
average density of ten units per acre net residential buildable acre
(OAR 660-07-035) or take an exception in the plan to the Housing
Rule. Calculatioris of overall density shall include consideration of
,�' density reductions due to transition f rom established tn developing
`�.r� areas.
5. Delete Policy 6. 1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housirrg, or,
provide an analysis in the plan why this policy will not
unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing and more
clearly define the term "subsidized housing."
6. Delete Policy 6.3.2.b regarding compatibility tests from the plan or
amend that portion of the Policy so that all requirements for
developments abutting existing neighborhoods are spelled out in clear
and objective terms.
7. (a) Delete the Implementatinn Strategy 5 under the plan's
6.3 policies; and del�te the reference under the purpase
subsection of �ablished Area-Developing Area portion of the
Development Code to the periodic reclassification of !
"established" and "developing" areas (18.138.010.6), or ''
(b) Amend Implementation Strategy 5 to indicate tha� periodic
updating of the "established area" boundary will not have the
impact of reducing the residential density below the required
ten units per acre average.
8. Modify or correct the definition of Developing Areas in the ,
Development Code (Sec. 18.138.020.6. 1) by deleting the reference to
��
Subsection 18.131-015 or cite the correct subsection.
:�
City of Tigard ; -78- ,.Apri1 4, 1984 "`
�
9. Correct erroneous or contradictory citations in subsections
18.80.�20.A.3.e( 1) and (b) 18.8U.120.A.3.g( 1) and (2) of �he P1 anned
Devel�pment section of the Code..
10. Amend the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones to allow manufactured housing as an
outright use or amend the Conditional Use approval
standards 18.130.0�6A.1.b. and 18.130.040.0 to be clear and
objective, or add a new manufactured housing zoning distr�ict of
sufficient size and density to meet identified manufactured housing
needs.
11. :Amend' the landscaping and Screening' section of the Development Code
to i:nclude a buffer matrix cited under Subsection 18.100.130.
T2. Amend the - Site Review section of the Development Code to adtl an
additional category under 18.120.17U, Exceptions to Standards, for
granting an exception to the Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoi�r
Recreation Areas reqwirements for senior multifamily housing or other
needed housing developments that can demomstrate a redu�ed demand for
private and shared outdoor recreation areas; or demonstrate that the
additional costs for the required Private 6u�door Area and Shared
Outdoor Recreation Area will not add unnecessarity to the cost �f
affordable housing or have �tl�e effect of discouraging needed housing:
GOAL 12t TRANSPORTATION
1. Coordinate with Metro and Washington CQUnty on the development of
consistent transportation plans. "'
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION
1. Amend the �980 Urban Flanning Area Agreement or develop a new
agreement th�t: � '
a. Includes policies and standards to insure that the conversion of
urbanizable lands to urban uses shall occwr in an orderly and
efficient manner. Interim development below urban density or
development must be controlled through application of
appropriate holding zones to assure full urban development can
occur consistent with the plan; and
b. Yncludes a map which clearly shows the approved Metropolitan
Regional Urban Growth Boundary and the Tigard Urban Planning
Area Boundary.
Local Coordination Body
Recommends continuance (see attachment).
RH:MBtllt
8034B/502A '
R4/03/84
�
. �
�
u 'TFic�rP is onP �ci;ive mineral ur ac�grsgate rpso�arc� wii;hi.n i:h� 'Tigar•c1
'' F�1r�nning Ar�a, kriown �:� th� nurham Pits, which is c�K>s�r�ai;ed k�y W�zshinc�ton
; (;ounty,
'�� p�L;];CcY.
';x ._
F
3 .3 . ]. l'�HE CIT'Y UF' T'TC;ARfJ SNALL SUPPOttT 'T'HE EF'FORTS OF WASH�:NGTUN COUN"C'Y,
+� HERVEHTQIU FiN� 'T'k�E METROPOI.ITAN SERVIrE pIST'R:I:C;"I" TO EN�l1RF 'TNE
';� AVAIL..AE3II�T'TY OF 7NE. ROCK MTN�'RAI. RESOURCES,
�.p
. . .', .. i����� .. . . . . . .
� .
TMF�L.EMENTATIUN STRATEGY
4� . 1. , 'The Ci�y shall encourage those jurisc�i.ctions reg�alai;ir�g rack extr�actian to
� closel.y monitor the relationship betwesn the demand for the respurce and
r� the amount of land plann�d for rack and gravel extractian and �r�qcessing,
�
.� 3.._A.NATURAL AREAS ,
� ; FTNDINGS
�
0 7here are a variety of plants, animal•s and water fc�wl wit:Ni the "f'igard
ti ; �.l�nria.ng area which ac�d greatly to i:hp qu�lity of life within the
,s,,.
community .
:�
� u Fach species rec�uires a complex and often, a narrowly specific set of
y� , conditions with r•espect to food, wafier, and uegetal:ivc� cav�r or �ther
-� ; natural features necessary for escape and repraduction,
;�Y
' o l"he significant plant communities and animal habita� �reas are the
ripar^ian vege�atiun adjacent ta the water resour�ces in the community, and
uar�iaus stands of ti.mber and brush.
� '. o Develapment adjacer�� tn existing W�1a1�Fe ai^pas can aciversely efrect these
:� areas and in same instances can virtually eliminate these ne�dec� wildlifP
a� habitat areas.
� o V�e��t�tion cor�trib�ates to the aesthetic quality of 1:Fie community .
;, VegPtatiun cantrals erosion, absorbs sound, �nd moderatps temper•atures.
'�,k ]:t; also affects th� fl.ow and moisture content of the air, red�action of air
�t:
K>�1.ldati n� gla�re, and saftens the impact of, the urk�an �nvirunment.
�4�:±� �
� � _ _....._........_.._
' ' 3.4, 1 l"F•IE: C1;TY SNAL.L. DESIGNATE T'HE: FUL.LUWING AS F�RE:AS OF SIGIVI�:T(::AN�"
�NV;CRONMFNTAL (".QNCERN,
'�
;
a, SIGNYF'T.C.;ANT WE'T'LANDS;
�� b, ARF AS NAV:CN(� E'DUCATIONAL IdE4 EAR(.W VAI�UF, SU(,I•� AS (.rE 01_0(aICAI_I_Y f�ND
'� SC:TEN7'TF'I:CAL_L.Y STGNIFTCANT L.ANpS; ANp
n,"`�.ki `
i-��'.
�� ;C I �- 16
;�„i
w, ;c '
( .
�
`. Fff�cttv�. A��pro��ches
F"uture floa<� Xc�sses iri Lhit� 'Tic��arc� �ar•�aa i�i J.l k>�a rk�<iuc:r„ci E�y �a rumk�in,�{:i�ii•� uf'
��
act:i.ons, ir�cluc�ing;
1. MaYntainxng a strict �ity f looc�pY�in nrdi.n�;nce wh►a.ch ,�1so includeK the
i antarti.;cati�n af struc�ur�s in tNie f].00dw�y.
1, WatershPd man�gement (sep R�anoff and Fr�sa.on secti�n) .
n. ^:
3 , Intergoverrim�ntal cooperation in fl.aodp].a:in and w�t�rshed managem�nt
in the Fanno Creek basin,
3�
�# h. Public ed�acation (�.g, informati.ori ak>out fil����l ins�ararice, prominent
�, � �osting oP flo�.�d heights, pt;c, ) ,
�° , . G01� '�'j�
` etlands
_......__ .��
1 Wetlanc�s, watercaurses, and othPr ,paorly cir�ained arpas ou�:side 1:he desi ri4�i:ad
,y, 100�- - . g
year flaod lain ar� i e _
p n xtric�bl c�nn�c
tec� w'
, y a.t h x t. T h e s� a r e a s s�r v e
sev�ral natural hydrolr�gic functions, :includ9ng:
�; ' ]. , Tem�orary flaod w�tFr storage,
�� 2, Mnc�erating flow of water ov�r• L-ime (�,g, higher^ minim�am flcaws) .
{k
:� 3 . Water filtr�tion (e,g, s�di.ment�l:i�n contr•ol) for hi.ghier water q�aality,
.�
Y
., 4. Graund water recharge.
�
` 7he graur�d water r�charge fur�ctiar� is �s�>�ci,�l].y releuar�t 9.n view of tFie fact
that i:he so�athwest�rn half .of the pl�n arcaa is part of khe critir.al gr•c>und
w�ter� ar�a defi.n�d by the state engine�r in i.�/3 , Within this ar•ea, ground
water leuels have been declining for almost: thirty y�ars, Prior to thP s1:at�
restrictions on groundwat�r withdrawals, al.mnst one-�half (4896) of the to�al .'
;, annual pumpage was derived fr^am recharge, �;
f
Much of the Tiga�rd Plan Area i.s �onrly drai.ned, however the Wetlands Map
inclucies on].y the mast severely wet-limit�d areas, Folluwing U,S, Soil �nd �
Wai:er Conservatior� Service practic�, soi.ls with a s�asonal water table c>f 1B
t inch��s �r cloqer tc� the surface wcre defin�d as wetlands , Therefore,
m�rgi,nally wet soils which cover l�rqe areas (e;g. Alaha silt loam with
' seasana], w�ai:er tabl.� bQtw�en 18" and 24") were excl.udecl. Watercourse� �nd
� nai;ur�]. c�rainage swales, a ].arge number caf which have permanent streams, were
1oc�i:ed with the aid of more detailed topogr�phy maps �nd aerial photos, M�ny
oP 1ihe:�� small streams haue sniall fl.�odplains of their awn, �asing associated
isks �o deve�opm�nt.
'� EFf�ci:i.ue Ap�roaches
�' ......._y__.._
`i f�ffE�ci;iv� use of thesP wptlancis for s�arm drainage, flo�d protectian, �nd
- au�ic�anc� of� other nu.i.sances reqwir�es land �asa cantrols cl.as�ly rel.ated tu i:M�e
' n��u►"al c�n�litions of sites. For pxample, i:hp charactprastir,s of the rlat,
`;�
I
{
: 1 -•1_A �
` � 1
i
,
; ,
I
'4 _
j,
and community re�:reation reviewed thraugh the Conditiona� Use '
process . Bo�h of the processes listed in �he Cammunity Development
(:ode have standards which review the remaval of �ny maj�r
� vegetation. In addition, the Trc� Removal chapter of the Community
Gpevelopment Code prntects major v�getati.on on undeveloped la�nd.
+ e. Summer• Creek Floodplain and Riparian_Forest
� 1 The Summer Greek floodplain and riparian forest were determined to be '1
si.gnificant Goal 1#5 resources ag watQr areas and w�tlands, fish and
wildlife habitat, and as an o�Pn space/recreation site. Th4z sizp of
the 100-year floodplain i.s appraximately 2,9 acres . This swamp/marsh
is the only one within the area, and i.s an extensian o�f the simil.ar
� ecosystem west of �cholls Ferry Road, The combinai:ion of d�cid�aous
swamp and coniferous upland vegetai:ic>n is especially valuabl� as
di.verse wildli.fe habitat, accardin� to Mike Ho�ack, the wildlife
biolagist who surveyed sites fut^ Washington County. He callpd the
site an impnrtant wetland," one of i:t�e three mast im�artant wildli.fe
sii:es in„�he area, Summer Creek is the only major tributary basin of
Fanno Creek whi.ch has not bF�n substantially urbar�ized, Wetlands
such as this will serve an even morp import�nt function in purifying
water as the basin is developed .
The Comprehensive Plan designates the s,ite as Medium-High Qensity
Residential (13-20 units per acre) which might conflict in some ways
-� with pr�eservation of the Goal �#4 resaurces. If the resources are
preserved, there may possibly be a ].oss of buildable lar�d, fewer
dwelling units, and additional deuelo�ment costs; an the other h�and,
land and amenity val.ues might be enhanced, dwellings might be
�-` buPferpd f rom road traffic, �nd local open space generated. TT the
��5� confiicting use (Medium-Nigh Density Residential, 13-20 units/acre)
���� is allowed unaltered, there may be loss of wi.ldlife habitat, lower
��; water quality, and additional costs of modifying the floodplain, I
.,;'r �
•�� '
� 1'h� staff recommenda�ion of this Goal �5 site is that the floodplain and
1rnm�diately adjacent riparian upland be preserved in their natural �
� c>nc�ltlon, including topography and vegetatian, Density transfer from the
� � te wi 11 be allowed up to 2576 of the density allowed on bu9.ldable land
(n+,n-floodplain) . Parcels containing any ot= the site will be required to
d��vl�p under Planned pevelopment provisions af the Tigard Community
`►��)uvcrl�pmPnt Code.
Krue Qr Creek
� .. �___9
ChR unnamed stream which flows north across this arp� �and into Summer
- � 1 <:�a!ek was d�termined to be a significant Goal #5 resource as a
�r�.torway, wildlife habitat, and open space/recreation site. Though
�t an especially outstanding resource, the creek provides, with its
�wrro�,� strip of natural vegetation, the kind of small-scale natural
t•.turQS that can markedly soften and buffer the impact of urban
�18�elopment. As wildlife habitat in partieular, it wo�ald k�e retained
�' �� important corridor, and waul.d alsn help minimize the water
p"xl�+� ian impact of urbanizatian, The image is one of small children
��'?'�*� with fr•oc�s along a waterw�y fringec� with shrubs and trees .
L 9/
� 'Tri� Cc�tn��rt�hr�n5i,�rFa Pl�ari c�c�<.;ic�r���t���•; th�� siiF� r��a ME�cii�.nn lii<�ti I')sricily
z�;
I��rsic'liarll .i:�1 (1i IA �inils F��>r� :�rr��. uxr�>�.�1 l� 1 ; ur�itz ��i� 11�ce �,��ill�l
which mi��ht �'t.�n�'1 'tct in ;tumw� w:�yK w.�t.h F�rE>:te�r uc�l tui� ��i tha �.ti.�Ml N'�
;�� r�sour�es , Tf these rpsources ar� preserved, there may �ossibly be
�� l�ss of k�ui.ldable Iand, fewer dwelling units, additional develapment
fi� costs, enhanced amenity values, and local open space. :Lf the
f, canflicting use (Residential) is allowed, there may be loss of
`�:, wildli.fe habitat, lower water quality, and additional c�sts of
develo�ment and maintenance for structural drainage management,
;
; 7hp staff recammendation for this Goal Ii5 site is that the waterway and
imm�diatel,y adjacent riparian upland (a minimum 25' on eacfi site) be
entirely preserueci in their natural condition, including topography and
; vEgetation. Density transfer from the site shall be allowed, Parcels �
�
' containing any oP the site shall. be rpquired to deuelop under the ;
pravisions of Planned pevelopment,
D. Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest East ..of._S.W, 135th Avenue
__ �.._._. __ r..._ _�___._...�. _..__
� t The Summer Creek floodplain and adjacent riparian forest area w�s
determined to be a significant resource as water area and wetlands,
fish and wilcilife habitat, and as ari open space/recreation area. The
� area within the 100–year flaodplain is approximately 9,A3 acres.
This area is a continuation of th� �ummer Creek environment west of
�t S,W, 135th Avenue, and many of the sam� attributes are found in this
area,
_.. _ _ _
- - - --
' The C�mprehensive Plan Map indicat�s L-hat this area is Medium–High
� �ensity Residential (13-20 units to the acre), which might conflict
in some ways wi�ch preservation c�f this area, According to policies
3 .2..?_ and 3 .2.3, resident9.a1 development within the 100–year
- floodpla9.n ar•Pa is not permittpd which creates a possible loss of
'°�}si ` potential k�uS.ldable land, Density transfer, however, is permitted up
�: to 15% af the area within the 100–year floodplain. If the
:;� conflicting use (Medium--H9.gh and Medium Density Residential) is
; a,llowed within L-he resource area, there may be a loss of significant
� vegetation, wildlife habitats, lower water quality and addi.tional
costs of modifying the floodpl�in.
T���� staff recommendation for this resource area is that the land within
t►�n 10o–year floodplain and the immediately adjacent riparian uplanci be
t�r�>yc�rved in their natural candition, including topography and vegetation,
�: � i Tigard/Tiedeman Fanno Creek Marsh and Flaodplain
— —____:___
� � 1he Tigard/Tiedeman marsh and floadplain site is located south of
iigar•d Street and west of Tiedeman Avehue, The size of this marsh
�rpa is approximate].y 8.7 acres. This area was determined to be a
�tgniricant resource originally in 1977 by a Si:�i:e Field Biologist as
�' =�igni.ficant wet].and area, Since that time, no development has
��ccurred wi�hin the marsh area arid the City has continued to consider
�t tO �e a resource, There exists, however, varic�us types of
���?vc�lopmE�nt adjacEant to the area, Directly to the east of Fanna
i:ro�,k a��� �h�� marsh are�, there are single family and duplex
��� idr.nti�l units. Ta the sauthwPSt of the marsh ar^�a lies Fowl�r
;
"""'�r Flic�l7 ;;cf��,�l. Two or 1:hrec� activity fields separate the school
t""m th� marsh �r'�a.
7: –�f3
;_ �
�
� As a fish and wildlife f��bit�i: ar�a, it. c�c�ialci k>e r�:�t�.inc�c� ��� ,ari
educatior�al l:o�i For the caminunity, r�rid scho�l syst:em, �$�E(:1n111y ci�ae
to its close proximity �o fowler Junior Nigh School.
The T'igard Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Mac�ium Density
' Residential (fi-12 units per acre) although it is almost all within I
t - the 100—year floodplain, Policies 3.2,2 and 3.2.3 prohibit ,
a residential deuelopment within the PloodpTain area which facilitate
thie preservation of this marsh site. Density transfer from the site
will be allowed up to 2.5% of Lhe unbuildable area (marsh and
`�b floodplain) .
The stal=f rer.ammendation far this resource site is the marsh area anc!
�� flnodpLain ar�a adjacent to thp marsh bP preserved in their natural state,
5 incl�ading topography and vegetation; excluding a ped�strian/bikepath
� , tr�rough or adjacerit L-o the area. Ariy marsh or floadplain development
� would k�e required ta be reviewec� in acc;�rdanc� wi.th th� standards of the
�,4 S�r�sitive Lands chapter.
r G� F, Tualatin Riuer Floodplain West of Caok Park.
:� � _.__._ _ �_,_, _
; JI � This area of the Tualatin River �loodpl.ain has been determined to be
!� a significant resource as a water area and as open space/recreatian
� area (addition to Cook Park) . The size of this rpsource site is
� approximately 33.4 acres. This wooded and grassy area connects the
r floodplain area with Cook Park as an extended greenway , Segments of
§ the pedestrian/bike path have been constructed to the west of this
area. The path would be continued through the ar^�a as adjacent
� development occurs, connecting to Cook Park.
_s
The Tigard Comprehens:ive Plan designates this area as �ow (1-5 units
� per acre) and Medium (6-12 units per acra) Density Residential ,
< Since residential developmPnt of any type is not permitted within the
�� floodplain (pa].ici.es 3 ,2.2 and 3,2,3), this area can be exempted from
�; corFlicting developmQnt.
1ho staff recomm�ndation for� this resource site is that the floodplain
�����+ should be preserved with limited conflicting uses within the arca.
�����,c� confli.cting uses would include park and �edestrian/bike pathway
�«l<+t:ed uses, 'The Sensitivp Lands sectian of the Cnmmunity De�e�apment
�����+ �st:�blishes the standards by which any �ark rel.ated de�elopment
� withtn the floodplain would be reviewed,
_ �� �� �a�nno Creek Par�k/Main Street
�
� t Tf�i, area within Tigard's Cpntral Business District along Fanno
�-�QQk, within the 100—year floadplain, has b�en determi.ned to be a
�i9nificant resource as a water area arid needed open space for
�aereation purposes . This extends from Main Street on the north ta
►+++11 eivd . on the south and includes approximat�ly 32,5 acres.
ihj� area is needed for open space for �wo reasons; 1) It will
i'rt.>v idt!d for a variety of nepded par�k uses in an area of Tigard where
c�.►�k uses are no� readily available, and 2) It establishea an o�en
'j}n� o bufPer between residential and commercial usFS.
Z __�9
�}� v�..�.w.�....,�....
�
�
�
The park and open space will be developed in two distinct phases.
The active park area is between Ash Avenue right--of--way and Nall
Blvd, The remaining park area will be dev:eloped as passive open
sp�ce in conjwnction with Lhe Main Str^�et developm�nt project, Bath
of these par•k plans and d�velopments have been adopted by tF�� Ci.ty
Council,
_ ! The Comprehensive Plan for the City designates these areas as Central
Business Distrzct; which includes park uses as an allowed use.
� Li.miting the area only to its na�ural condition would retarci the
;' economic viability af the downtown core. :Tn addition, prohibi�ing
i
: conflicting uses could also l.imit thQ City' s ability to alleviate
existing and poten�ial increaseci flaoding problems due t�a the
�j circuitous route af Fanno Creek,
� Thie si:aff recommendation for this resa�arce site is to allow ror
conflicting uses, park and comniercial development in accordance with the
't Co�anc i 1
lans.
i
d C P
;: O� adopte y
�; � �
I�, Fanno Creek North of North Dakota
� _ ._ _.
` � � The Fanno Cre�k fioodpLain north of NorL•h Dakota was determineci fia be
'' a significant wetland and water area and a�en space/recreation
' resource. The resource includes i:he 100—year floodplain area
> directly north of North Daknta north to approximately the Black
Diamond subdivision area, ap�roximately 36-,3 acres in area. This
marshy area serves as a buffer between the residential areas on the
��7, wpst �nd thp industrial areas east of Fanno Creek. Accordirig ta a
n�amber of resi.den�s that live adjac�nt to this area, it also supports
a wide variety of wildlife habitats,
,7
r The Tigard Comprehensiue Plan designates the area to the west of
Y
Fanno Creek as Minimum Density Residential (6-12 unit.s per unit)
�� while i:he area east of the area east of the creek is designat�d as
I..iqht Industrial . Due to the requirements oF policies 3 ,2.2 and
3 .2,3, no residential develapment c�n occur within the 104-year
Floodplain arpa,
Industrial develo�ment may occur within th�e floodplain iP the
requiremenLs of the Sensitive L.ands chapter of the Tigard Community
Development Code are met. These standards are clear and conci�e and
require that the functioning capacity of the floodplain be retained
und no up or dawn stream adverse im�acts occur as a result c�f the
development. In addition, veg�tation must be installecd to resto�^e
the floodplain/greenway characters of the resource as wel.l as visual
�cr�enin for t e esidences or the west side a
f the c
reek ,
g h r
�t is the City' s contenti.on that dua to the irregular shaped
tndustrial land in this ar�a a.t m�y be necQSSary to partially develop
cM7�tions of the floodplain in order to adequately accommodate
i�ciu�trial development. In at�dition, the railroad alrPady traverses
thQ industri�tl. area whieh also d�c�^eases the desir� for the City to
a��uaorve the entire east side of th� crepk ,
� �..1h0
: �
''�'- .,. .
r�.�r::,x a.»:,.se.�•�, .. .�.:. ..,.m-. _ -
r ,���c�,a ��� „�w --' = ..�"°y��n_-��:����,..ti. �..e�xaaa�w:�,�r::..u-, �. .,.._, .,. ., . .,�,�„v+,�="'�" —
:i
.�-�, � � � � .
;
� ,
The staff recomm�nd:a�i�n for i:his G<�al /15 resource ar•�a is t�; 1) limit
conflicting uses on the �.ndustrzaI side of the creek, 2) provide any
pedest�^ian/bike pathway that may be rec�uired with thtis secti�n of the
flaodplain/greenway area, 3)perform any necessary channel work for Fanno
Creek to alleviat� existing and potential increased flooding alung F�nno
Creek.
Residential deuelopment along the west side of the floadplain would be
�rohibited, Twenty-five percent of the density on the unbuildable land
�7 may be transferred to the buildable portion of the land far deve].opment
;G pur�oses.
� i, Fanno Cresk Hall/Bonita - Bonita/Durham
The Fann� Creek floodplain snuth of Hall alvc� , anc� north oP E3onita
`x Road was considerec� to be a significant wal:er arPa anci n�en
;�` ; space/recreation resource. The r��source includss th� land within the
y 100-year floodplain, approximately 50 acres in area. The majority of
the flood�lain area south �f Wall Blvd, to abc�ut the E3onita Firs
cievelopment is heav9.iy woocled and provides an excP.11ent buffer fnr
�a ! the residential areas along the west and south sides of the crec�k,
L_iyht Industrial designated areas borciar the crpek on the north and
` east sides. Besides serving as a buffer, the wooded areas alsa
siapport a wicie variety of small birc�s and animals.
�
� Residential deu�Lopment within the 1q0-year floadplain is prohibited
in accordance with policies 3 .2,2 and 3 .2.3 of 'Tigard' s adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Although i.f additional residential development
does occur adjacent to the fl.00dplain/greenway area, a
pedestrian/bike pathway would be required to the development, in
accordance wii>h the standards set fori:h in the Sensitive Lands �
� chapter of the Communi�y Devel.opment Code,
G
The areas adjacent, and in some cases within, the 100-year floodplain
are;� have been determined to be needed and desired industrial
development sites, which are vital ta mairutain Tigard' s strpng
commercial and industrial ecanomic base, These sites are abutting
railroad tracks and have easy access to collectar and arteri.al
classified streets. The need t�o deuelap these sites may, in some
instances, r�quire a portion of the floodplain area to be altered in
order to �dequately accommodate the developments. Any such pt^oposals
would be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth in the
�ensitive Lands section of the Community Development Code, to ensure
�hat there would not be any adverse impacts as a result of any such
development.
t��` atiN��' recommendation for this resource arpa is to limit conflicting
`"u" <>� all areas within the floodplain that are designated for
'b;�dc�ntial uses , The limitation wnuld include any pedestrian/bik�
�"';'''�j�Y �hat may be r�quired of dEave].opment, plus any necessary chann�l.
`"""� *���g Fanno Creek ta allpviai:e existing �anci potential increased
f��rr�t�j tll�ng Fann� Creek. Actual residential deuala�ment within the
�i�pl��� ��'"� as prahiibitE�d in accordance with policies 3.T.,2 �nd
' ' t �w�nty-five perc�nt of the d�r�si.ty on tMie unk�uildabl� partion af
' '�c t�'"`i m`'y be tr•ansferr•pd to fhe k�uildable portions of i:he lanc� for
3�cfc�s�'t�'�'�t F'��rF>�5�'s; pr•ovided �11 af th� �K�plicable G<�d� r•equirements ar•e
,,,��
I: _.1�].
,
.
„
.
,„.... ::.. 4-,.
. ,:,r; ._„ �,,.., � ... .. �...,..,.. ��.,,
. ,.. � ,.-�-; .. �� . , . .„..„ . .,� ,
,.._.r f"... :-..,, ,,,,,._ ..,:�, r,..., , .. . .:,,;
, _
nn areas designat�d for industrial uses withzn the fla�dplain, �coriflic.l:irtg
us�s wi.l l �� a1low�cl fu11,y in acc<rrd�ar�cP wi tti pnJ.i r,i�s � . 7 , 2 �r�d 9 . 7 . 3 ;artr! '
i.htc� starx�ar't9s s�l. fc�r•lh in t�hs} ,r+i�i�i 1 ivi� 1 ;rr�i�� rirv��1��r u1' t(i�� t:��aiiEUin i t y
� [)cave la�ment Code.
�� J. Ravine 106'�113 Tualatin Floodplain
�i _
� <� This resource �rea is actually part of the 7ualatin Fl.00dplain area,
yet has a se�ting much unlike i:ha normal floodplain area, It has,
therefore, been considered to be a significant open space, water shed
and wetland area; and it inclucies all of the lanci desigr�ai:�d as
floodplai.n, approximate].y 35 acres . This law lying area is primarily
covered with deciduous trees and und�rbrush with a few marshy areas,
7t provides a habitat for a variety of small animals and birds while � ,
provicJing a unique open space resource. In sume of the areas, the
property owners have mainta9.ned the area as lawn, '
This natural area also functi�ns as a drainageway �primarily during ,
the months of higher water concentration, Many of the slopes gning +'i
into the area exceed 15X, and adjacent t� the mobile hume park the '
reinforced slopes are a minimum of 25 percent, The actual floodplain j
area is less area than the entire resource area.
r "fhe Tigard Cnmprehensive Plan indical:es that the areas surroundinc� _ �
� this resource will be developed for Low Density Residential uses (1-5
� ' units per acre), except for the mobile home park which is already
develaped at a Medium Density Residential use (6-12 units per acre) ,
These uses may conflict in some ways with the preseruation of this
resourc�. If the entire resource is preserved, ther� may be a loss
of buildable lands, fewer dwelling units, and additional development
costs, On the other hand, land and amenity values might be enhanced,
dwellings buffered from other dwellings, and local o�en space
generated. Zf the conflicting use is allowed unaltered, there may be
a loss of wildlife habitat, l.ower water qual.ity, and additional costs
of modi.fying the area.
The staff recommendation for this Goal 1�5 is that the fl�odplain and the
eni:ire ravine area below the 150 foot elevation mark be preserved in their
n�i;ur•al conditian, including topography and vegetati�n. Density transfer
f�rum �he site will be �llowed up ta 25X of the density allawed within the
rzasource area. Parcels con�aining any of the resource site will be ;
rec�uired to develop under an approved Sensitive Lands permit and the i;�
st�ndards set forth in the Cammunity Development Code.
K � Durham Elementary Sehool �'f
T'he Durham Elementary School was determined to be a significant ff
histaric structure. The schaol site includes 5�59 acres, Now part ,i
of the Tigard School District ?..3J, the Durham School was erected in 'E
1920, In 1951, an addition was added to the facilxty which now �{
hous�s Cla`14S$�3 to the sixth grade. In addition, this school house is G�
tF�e only r��maining institutional land mark in the southeastern
por�iori of Tig�rd. Efforts are coni;inuing to place the structure on
the National Historic Register.
1: -•-10?_
� Agenaa It�m �� 5. 10
CPA 15-84
Tigard Planning
Commission
April 17, 1984
MEMORAIVDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Planning Commission April 12, 1984
FROM: Planning St:aff�{1�
SUBJECT: Setbacks in the G-G and C-P zones
During the process of implementing and administering the Community Development
Code, it has come to staff's attention that the front yard and corner lot
setb'acks in the C-G and C-P zones are inconsistent and limit flexibility of
development. The setbacks in the C-G zone currently are;
la The front yard setback sha11 be 10 feet.
2. On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be 20 feet on
any side facing a street, however, the provisions of Chapter
18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied,
3�. No side yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be
required where the C-G zone abuts a residentiai zoning district.
4. No rear yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be
required where the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district.
Zfie setbacks in khe C-P zone currently are:
' 1. The front yard setback shall be 10 feet.
2. On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be 15 feet on
any street facing a street, however, the grovisions of Chapter
18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied.
3. No side yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be
required where the C-P zone abuts a residential zoning district.
4. No rear yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be
required where Che C-P zone abuts a residential zoning district.
CPA 15-84 Memo
April 12, 194
Page 2
Tn both cases, the setback requirement on the side abutting a street or aArner
l.ot is greater than the front yard setback. In addition, the dFVeloper is
also required ' to meet Access and Egress Proyisions (Chaptez 18.108),
Landscaping and Screening Provisions (Chapter 18.100), Off-Street Parking and
Loading Requirements (Ch�pter 18.106), and Additional Yard Setback
Requirements (Chapter 18.96). It is staff's opinion lhat these provisions
provide the controls on developers which`will ensure quality development. The
setbacks are an additional requirement which limit design flexibility and
essentially force all commercial development into the same site configuration.
STAFF�RECOMMENDATIONs
- Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the
City Council amending the Community Development Code deleting f.romt yard and
corner lot setbacks in the C-P, C-G and CBD zones. The Visual Clearance Areas
section of the Code should be referenced where no setbacks are required.
(EANspm/0400P)
� . .
Agenda Item #� 5. 11
CPA 16-84
Tigard Planning Commission
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning Commission
FROM; Planning Staff ��
SUBJECT: Amended Deciai�x► process
During the process of implementing and administering the Community Development
Code, the Planning Staff has determined that an amended deciaion process might
be helpful. The amended decision process would be available only on deciaions
made by the Planning Directox. My amendeu decision would have to be filed b,y
ff commends that
I
the Planning Director within the ten day appeal period. Sta re
added into the asi 'udicial section of the Code (Cha ter
a new section be Qu � P
' 18.32) outlining the amended decision procedure.
18.32.375 Amended Decision Process
_
A. The Planning Director may� issue an Amended Decision after the Notice
' of Final Decision has been issued and prior to the end of the 10 day
appeal periode
B. A request for an amended decision shall be in writing and filed with
the Director not more than eight (8) days after the Notice of Final
Decision has been filed.
C. A request for an amended Decision ma}� be filed by
1. The NPO affected by the initial Decision
2. The City Council
3. The Planning Commission
4. An employee of the City's Planning Staff (?)
5. Any party entitled Ca Notice of the original decision.
D. The Director shall make the determination as to issuance of an Amended
Decision based on findings that one or more of the following
conditions exist:
1. M error or omission was made on the original Notice of Fin�l
Deciaion.
2. The original decision wa� based on incorrect information. ;
3. New information becomes available during the appeal period which
alters the facta or conditions in the original decision.
E. An amended deciaion shall be processed in accordance with section
18.32.120 of this code.
(0402P) ,
� _
Agenda Item �� 5.12
CPA 17-84
Tigard Planning Commission
April 17; 1984
MEMORANTIUM
TQ: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff�
SUFlJECT; Density, Transition
5ection 1$.40,040 o.f the Community Development Code setforth a formula for
calculating a density transition where a property being developed abuts an
established residential zone: There has been one instance where the density
in .the established area exceeded the density allowed in the established area
plan designation and the developing'property with tkae 1.25 density transition,
could have developed at a lower density than the abutting established area.
STAFF REGOMMENDATION: '
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation
amending Section 18.40.040 as followss
C. Subsection 18.40.040�A), above shall not apply where the density in
� the established area exceeds the maximum d'ensity allowed under the
Land Use Plan Map designation for the established area.
(0402P)
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development April 16, 1984
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recorder �
SUBJECT: Ethics Commission Filing Requirements
As of this date, the Ethics Commission has not received Statements ,of Economic
Interest from the foilowing Flanning Commissioners:
Deane Leverett
Donald Moen
Dave Peterson
Ghris Vanderwood
The Ethics Commission sent forms to the Commissioners' homes over a month
ago. The filing deadline for statements was April 15, 1984. In case the
Gommissioners have misplaced their forms, I will have sAme available at City
Hall by Wedneaday, A�ril 18, 1984.
Please remind these individuals that public officials who fail to file the
forms could be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 and/or suspension
from performing their official duties.
If I can be of any assistance in this process, please call.
lw/145SA '
.
—_ --
--
_ —�
_
�
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, QREGON
T0: Members of the Planning Commission March 30, 1984
F&OM: William A. Monahan U2��" ' \
Director of Planning & Development
SUBJECT; NPO Appointments
I would like to propose that the three step review process for appoinCment to
an NPO be changed to one involving only two.i.• The change can be made very
easily, however, it will require your cooperation and the devotion of a small
amo,unt of time at each Planning Commission meeting.
Presently the process operates as follows:
1) An application is filed.
� 2) The first review is done by the NPO interview committee. The
' committee is composed. of myself, a Planning Commission member, anc3
an NPO chairman. A fifteen minute interview is conducted at my
office whexe the apglicant is asked about his interests and reason
for applying. The committee then makes a recommeYtdation.
3) 't'he second review is done at the Planning Commission. The
Commission reviews a memo dxafted by me which reports the
Interview Committee's recommendation. The Gommission then makes a
recommendation to the Gity Gouncil.
4) The third review is performed by the City Council which acts on
the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
T am proposing that the NPO Interview Gommittea step be abolished. In place
of this, I would like to invite each NPO applicant to the Planning Commission �
as khe first item on the agenda to be interviewed by tkie Commi.ssion and
staff. Although this sounds like a lot of additional time will be spend at
your meetings, it has some advantages. Following are the disadvantages and
advantages which I seet ,
DISADVANTAGE5
1) Each interview could take 5-10 minutes befor� the Planning
Gommission.
2) The G9mmission would not have the benefit of a staff
recommendation before the meeting.
- - — ' -
� ; — I
NP0 APPOINTM�NT MEMO
MARCH 30, 1984
�AGE 2
ADVANTAGES '
1) The �ime period between appl.ications and Planning Commission
approval will be shortened. Under the system proposed, an
applicant could be before the commission at the next meefiing
following application, The period could be as short as two
weeks. T'he total approval period would be shortened also.
2) The Commission would get an opportunity to be irttroduced to each
new member and examine his or her credentials.
3) The applicant would meet the Commission and become aware of the
' process.
4) The current NPO members present st the meeting would be introduced
to Che prospective members.
5) We would not have to set up a review committee meeting t� review
just one applicant. We would not wait until we have a group of
applicants before beginning the review process.
Basi'cally, if we could speed up the time between application and approval, we
could demonstrate our interest in having an applicant be an NP0 member. We '
hav.e had difficulta,es setting up review sessions in the past which meet the
schedules of everyone.
If you approve of my proposal, we will begin the new process ak your meeting
of May 8, 1984•
(WAM:pm/0385P)
{
, .
L' :