The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 03/06/2000 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. . .4..t;.. . . City of Tigard TIGARD PLAN6dIiVG COMAAISSION ��,�,� MARCI� 6, 200�—7:30 P.M. s��A ae�c�,�cy TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSI�IV COMMUfVICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES ; 5. PUBUC HEARING 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 1999-00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE CENTERS IN ALL INDIJSTRIAL ZONES The applicant is proposing a Zone Ordinance Amendment to change the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow daycare uses outright or conditionally in all Industrial zoned ,properties. LOCATION: All Industrial Zones Citywide. ZONES: Light Industrial, I-L; Industrial Park, !-P; and Heavy Industrial, I-H. APr�ii.iyo�� °��:lE!�! �I�ITERIA: Community Devel�apment Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Polices 5 and 12.3; The Metrc� �040 Plan; and Statewide Pianning Goals 2 and 9. 6. OTH�R F39JSINESS '�. ADJ��I�NMEN�° � � COMMU`NITY NEW�F�APERS, IN�C. Le9a� P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 NOtiCe TT 9 5 7 4 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Wotice Advertising °1City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ' •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ DuplicateAffidavit •Accounts Payable • AFFIDAViT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, �ss. �, Kaf-h�_�+ll.�7�ar being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his prinaipal clerk, of the�arr�—mna.�t.in T,i.mes a newspaper of genecal circulation as defined in ORS 1�3.010 and 193.020; published at T�arr� in the sforesaid county and state; that the P�i h 1 i r. Fia a r 1�/_Z.t�f._l��L�—n 0 Q�3 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entir� issue of said newspaper for n1�r successive and ccan§�cutive in the following issue�; - �� Feb.ruarv 17� 2 O O O ;,� _ DFFICIAL SEAL SUZETT�I. CURR��4 NOTARY PU6i_IC•OREGON � COMNi15SI0N�VU.329400 MY COMMISSION IXPIRFS NOV.28,2003 ~=�.-�� Subscribed and sworn to before me this f �'-e�i�^u�ry, 2 0 0 0 ��,R,'�s..Q . J�O.�v� Notary Public for Oregon ` My Commission Expires: AFEIDAVIT -�-,---q------,� _ „�.�.��:: ,_,-� �.:::,_,_ .; The follo�V��'�1!!!i�q��bY the Tigard Planning Commisswn on Mondwy�,lVtar�cp 9r�+&i''.3�F M.,at the Tigard C�vic Center— Town Ha11; 13125 S'�1��s��1vd.,Tkgard;Oregon.The purpose oi ii-►r Commission's review is to make a recommendation to the Ctty Council ' on the request.The�o�unc'il will also conduct a public hearing on the re- quest prioi to m'aking.a decision. Fublic�cal and written testimony is invited.The public'hearing on this matter wi�l be conducted in accordance with Chapter 18.390.060E of Che Tigard Municipal Code,'and rules and procedures of the Planning Com- mission. ' Further'►nformation may be obtained from Julia Powell Hajduk in the ` City of Tigard Planning Division at13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling G39-4.17 L pUB1LIC HEARING ITEM: ZONE ORDINA..NCE AMENDM'ENT[ZOA)1999-00003 >CODE AMEN�DM'ENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE CENT�itS IN ALL INDUSTRIAL ZONES< The applicant is proposing a Zone Ordinance Amendment to change the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow daycare uses out- right or conditionally in all industrial zoned properties.LOCATION:All Industrial Zones Citywide.ZON',ES:Light Industcial,I=L;'Industrial Park, I-P;and�ic;avy Industrial,I-H.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Deve[opment Code Chapters 18.380�anfl 18.390;Comprehen- sive Plan Policies 5 and 12.3;The Metro 2040 Plan;and Statewide Plan- n,ing Goals,2 and�9. �, , ` , i9 ��e � �� ;�:, i il� � .;.`,� •.� `� �. � :. , ^� s�<'1 ; t;F� i•" �i.,;j); � =—� � TT9574—Publish February 17,2000•` � j:. � � c�� e�a�Q p�.�r��s�� e��eg� Regular Meeting Minutes March 6, 2000 1. CAL_L TO ORDER ' President Wil�on called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Griffith, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Incalcaterra and Mores Staff Presen#: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNINC, GOMMISSION COIVIII�IUNICATIONS The commissioners were reminded of their next TSP task force meeting on March 20th and were given copies of the TSP preliminary draft. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Padgett moved and Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion to approve the February 7, 2000, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was faken and 4he motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Griffith and Scolar abstained. 5. PU�LIC FiEARI�IC 5.1 ZONE ORDIN/�NC�E AM�NDI�9ENT (ZOA) 1999-00003 — CODE AMERIDMEN'T 7A ALLOVU�,AYCARE C�fVl'EIRS Ihl /�LL I�DS,lSTQ�1AL a��lES l"he �pplicar�t is proposing a Zone Ordinance Amendment to �hange the �ity ofi Tigard Community Development Code to allow da�care uses outright or conditionally in all Industrial zaned properties. LOCATI��: All Industrial �ones Citywide. ��N�S: Li�ht Industrial, 8-L; Industrial Park, I-P; and Heavy Ir�dustrial, I-H. A��LIC.a4��.E �I�ViE'4�i �Ft97'Ei�iA; Comra-iunity Q��aa�lo�ment Code Chapiers 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Palices 5 and 12.3; The Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Pla�ning �oals 2 and 9. STAFF REPORT Julia Hajduk presented the staff report on behalf of the City. To clarify the acreage figures reported in the Summary of Fa�:,ts, she submitted a map which takes into account development restrictions due to flood plain and wetland areas that were not shown in the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 1 � • repc�rt. i otai vacanf ir�4usirial land is 147.97 acres and vacant industrial park land is 63.87 acres. Staff s recommendation is for deni�l of the request �ased on the limited ar�ount of vacant industrial land available for development. Numerous recent applications for developm�nt of industrial land show that it is needed and is being used. Additionally, daycare uses are already allowed for up to 20% of development in vacant industrial parks, as well as in existing industrial parks so long as the addition of a daycare facility does not exceed 20% when combined with other existing non-industrial uses. The Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Commissioner Topp asked how the 20% non-industrial usage is monitored. Ms. Hajduk said that they monitor it at the application stage for development revisions or new tenant improvements, but ultimately it is the owner/developer's responsibility to maintain that quota. If it came to staff s attention that 20% is being exceeded, then it becomes a Code enforcement issue. A list of uses showing calculations of the square footage of the various uses is requested with the development application. In the Code there is a list of uses that are allowed in the industrial park zone. In combin�tion, non-ir�dustrial uses cannot exceed 20% of the industrial development. The uses include eating and drinking establishments, daycare, general retail, personal servFCes, and other non-industrial uses. APPLICANT'S PRESENT�4TION John Brosy, 161 High �t. SE, Suite 2Q4, Salem, OR 97301, is a planning consultant. He said this has to do with fin�-tuning the existing City �Code. Unlif<e surrounding jurisdictions, Tigard does not allow commercial daycare us� in light or heavy industrial zones unles� it is included in the 20% tots�! non-industrial uses. Parents want daycare close to their place of employment. In Tigard the industrial zones are mainly�concentrated in the southeast cquadrant where #here is little or no comrrercial, r�:idenfiial, or mixed use zones that do all�w daycare use. The concentration of industrial zoning limits complimentary commercial uses s�ach as daycare in close proximity fio employment in fihe industrial zone and results in a large area with a lot of emplayees who cannot be close to a daycare #�cility. This makes the area less competitive for businesses recruiting family-age employees because it requires employees to trav�l additional rniles in order to take their chil�ren to a daycar�. Mr. Brosy used an overhead projector to point out the different zaning areas and fio comp�re Tig�rd's zoning uses with other citi�s. Portland, Beaverton, Tualatin, Salem, and Gresham aliaw daycare uses either outright or as a conditional u�e in industrial areas. He said �hat daycare facilities are serving other areas of Tigard pretty w�ll, but th�re is currently only one facility (Rocking �iorse Daycare on Boones Ferry t�s�ad) in an indusfiriai-zoned ar�a. This f�cility's long �waifiing list �oints to a need for �ddifion�l d�y�are irs th� are�. Mr. Brosy t�elieves staff is justified in its concern about protecting the supply of indusfirial land. However, c�aycare uses are an efficient land use because they typically �re located on significantly less than an acre and are generally of higher value thari industrial improvements. Th� pre-school age group in a daycare requires more' indoor play space for security reasons, and a relatively small outdoor play area, which results in a good-sized building with adequate parking existing on a parcel of land that is only 30,000 to 40,000 square feet in size. Wh�n a daycare is established, others tend to not locate in the same PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 2 y�XR � � area; therefore, if they were allowed, only a small number of daycare facilities would be added. This is a small, efficient, and�complimentary use for an industrial are��. Mr. Brosy elaborated on the positive effects of allowing daycares, using the Fred Meyer Corparate Center in Portland as an example. He said the applicant would like to see this use allowed outright in the IP and IL zones and as a conditional use in the IH zone. Commissioner Olsen asked how many children are in a dayca�e facility on average. Mr. Brosy said that Mr. Blackwell could answer that question. Mr. Brosy's information is only about the average size of 35,000 to 40,000 square feet for a typical daycare facility. PUBLiC TESTIMONY -sN FAVOR Jim Blackwell, 2838 SW Orchard Hill, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, is the owner of the Wilsonville and Durham Learning Tree daycare facilities. This application results from his approach to an industrial landowner about building a daycare facility, due to the waiting list and demand in his current facilities. His and other facilities in the area are in very high demand. Their experience is that people want daycare close to where they work. He has been looking for a new location for three years and this is the first site he has found thiat combines proximity to both employers and residential areas, ease of access, and a school appearance with a good presentation to parents. Facisities that are built inside industrial improvements have not been successful because they were not intended to be used by both the employees of the area as well as local residents; a freest�nding building that is not part of an industrial improvement is best. The site he is interested in meets these criteria and there are no other daycare facilities in the area. Daycare r,earby is also an advantage to employers and has become a consideration as an employee benefit and a way to recruit new employees because it has become a high priority to employees. A daycare facility adds value to the development of surrounding businesses and their employees. In resp�onse to Commissioner Olsen's earlier question, the number of children enrolled in a daycare is determined by th� squar� foatage and �et forth by the State of Oregon. The fa�ility he is looking at would have 100 children, which is average for the� area. Commi�sioner Olsen inquired a�out Yhe hours of operation and parking requirem�nts. Mr. Biackvuell responded that it chan�es by lacation. Typically it is 6:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. � His aurham facility, with 100 children, has 20 parking spofis and in four years the parking iot r�as never been full. Com�r►is�ione; Tc�pp a�k�d �evhat �� i�al c�ist�nc� is bPtvveen facilitie�. Fie poir�ted out thafi if fihe Durh�m facility has a waiting list, andth�r facili�y could simpiy be built nearby. Mr. Blackwell said it is about five miles or less. An operation cannot become too large because of the level of operational efficiency and because parents prefer a small school to a larger one. Commissioner Topp po�ed a question to s#aff about internal daycare (within an individual company) being considered the same as commercial daycare and included in the 20% allowed for non-industrial uses. Ms. Hajduk said that is correct. The Code does n�t PLANNIN�'r COMMISSIQN MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 3 • � provide for daycare as an accessory to any company and th�r�fic��-e an �n-hause �ay�ar�, whether in the company's building or as a separate building, cannot exceed 20% of non- industrial use in that company's development complex. This is something that c�n be addressed in this applic�tian review process. ' Commissioner Olsen asked for an explanation of how this system evolved and how much of Tigard's industrial land is currently developed. In response, it was noted that the purpose is the protection of industrial land for future development and that approximately two-thirds of available industrial land is already developed. Ms. Hajduk pointed out areas on the map showing land that is considered vacant or underdeveloped. All other industrial zoned land is either developed or has approval for development. In response to a question from Commissioner Topp, Ms. Hajduk said the distance from top to bottom is about 10,000 feet, or 2 miles. Presiden�Wilson pointed out that Tigard has very little industrial land to begin with relative �o other cities. Ms. Hajduk said this is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan, which was developed in the early 1980s. Commissioner Griffith ask�d if daycares are allowed outright in commercial and residential zones. Ms. Hajduk replied that the State mandates that cities cannot prohibit daycares of less than six children in any residential zone. Therefore, daycares of up to six children are permitted outright, and more students are permitted as a conditional use, in all residential zones. It is a permitted use outright in all commercial zones. The only areas it is not permitted outright is in the industrial zones, but are permitted up to 20% in industrial park zones. After a brief discussion it was determined that there are approximately 14 daycare facilities in Tigard, the majority of which are I�cated by Parific Highway (Hwy. 99). Commis�ioner Topp noted that a residence located in an industrial zone is allowed to operate a daycare of up to six children pursuant to �llov�ance by the State. Commissioner Anderson a�ked v►►hat the pF�ifosophy is behind preserving industria! land. Nls. Hajduk said it is to ensure that land is available fior ir�tiustrial uses that cannot be located in ather areas. The City is required to provide � certain amount of cammercial, industrial, and r�sidential land, and to keep a balance of among the areas. This is part af fhe statewide planning goals. Commissioner Topp commented that those �fanc9�rd� for par�i��l�r I�nd use are now Nletro's stand�rds for job creation. Most �ities fir�r to balanc� it based on economic factors. President Wilson asked if industrial land provides more in taxes than they consume in services. After a brief discussion, it was noted that industrial land does provid� more in taxes than residential, but not necessarily more than commercial land. Commissioner Padgett said that from a tax standpoint in general, industrial zoning is considered to be the "best bang for the buck" for the �ity. Despite the lovver industrial tax PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 4 • s rate, the amount of services used (ior i�sia��z, N�li�e and �treet !nain#en�nce) is generall_y much lower in ratio than for residential areas. Commis�ioner Anderson asked if a conditional use request could ae made by this applicant. Ms. Hajduk responded that su�cient conditional use languag� has not been proposed and therefore staff was not in a position to make that recommendation. Dick Bewersdorff commented that the applicant could make that proposal, but he �feels there is no longer value in the conditional use process in Tigard, and that such a proposal wouid not do any good, it would only be an exercise in bureaucracy. Mr. Brosy said this proposal would not be made if there were commercial alternatives for a location in the large sautheast industrial area. He briefly discussed his understanding of � the need to protect industrial land, the lack,of commercial alternatives in the area, and the value of this proposal to the area, PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED . Commissioner Topp said he was concerned that existing industry cannot have in-house daycare considered exclusive of the 20% limit. He believes a business should be able to have intern�l daycare because it is not a commercial use, and he would like to see if that can be r�medied. However, he is only in favor of allowing commercial daycare if there is a restriction on the proximity of facilities to each other and on a facility's site being no more than one acre, thereby limiting the number that can be developed in the area. Gommissioner Scolar feels that daycare would be a complimentary use and would make the ar�a more attractive to businesses that may want to locate there. Commissioner Padgett said he agrees �,vith the stafF recommeridation because thi5 is a I��islative hearing and as �rot meanfi fi� b� project speci�ic. Ti��re has be�n r�o request for thi� use from ci�i��c� or industriai area busine�s own�r�. b'Vhile he agr��s thafi a business should be able to have internal daycare, he does not believe comm�rcial daycar� facilities should be allovued on the limited amount of land available for ind�strial development. Th�re has been n� evidence that companies are not buifding in the area or that people will not work in the area becaus� th�re i� ns� dayc�re. Hawever, he wauld supporf some sort ofi measur� alfavv9ng comp�r�ie� in all indus�rial ze�r�cs ra aper�te an in-hause d��+Gare for employees. Commissioner Olsen thinks daycare is a complimenfiary use and would benefit parents and families. Building a facility, is a major investment and a prudent businessperson would not build a new facility in close proximity to an existing one, so the density would be self- regulating. He is in favor of this request. PLANNING COMMISSI�N MEETING MIN�JTES—March 6,2000—Page 5 • , • President inliison said he is a c�r�:u�r�; �f �a;�carP s�rvices. From where he lives, he must drive past alf the industrial areas and go a fair extra distance to get to the daycare, so he recognizes the strong convenience factor to having daycare ciose to work and home. However, it cannot be said what people will do for convenience, because different people do different things. He said he agrees with Commissioner Padgett that this is a legislative matter and not a quasi judiciai one. The Comprehen5ive Plan states that there is a very serious concern about the amount of industrial land available. For this reasan, he dops not recommend this change to the Code. Even though he does feel it is a compatible use and fihat there is a shortage of this seniice in that area, if it were not for the shortage of industrial land he would support the change. Commi�sioner Anderson said she agrees with President Wilson, and also agrees with Commissioner Padgett that something should be worked out so that existing businesses in fhe area are able to have an on-site facility that does not apply to the 20% limit for non- industrial uses. President Wilson stated that while the Commissioners cannot change the Code at this meeting, they must rule one way or the other for recommenda�ion to the City Council. However, the Planning Commission can encourage the applicant to approach staff to further discuss this matter. Commissioner Topp commented that any resident can bring legislative action to the Planning Commission. This is not a site-specific request, but one with respect to a particular use, so he believes it is an appropriate legislative matter and not a quasi judicial action. This is an opportunity to add this change to the Code and to direct staff to develop .appro�riate langu��e f�r#his and to hold another hearirig. Commissioner Padgett responded that he is not sure h� wants to ask staff to draft new language on allowing businesses that own their own building to be able to provide in- hous� daycare. He believes this should go through the City Attorney because there are som� leg�l issues that need to be addressed. After fi�rther brief discu��ion, Commissioner Padgett moved that#h� Planning Comrnission farvvard a recommendation of denial ta fhe �City Council of ZOA 1999-OOt�p3. Cammissioner Ar�derson secondEd the motiion. Cor�mis�is�ner G�'sffith asked for comments ar�c1 clarificatic�n regardinc� distarsces people tr�vei to daycare �nd what dayc�re �a�ers con�ider � cao�v�niefifi distance. Upon furtf��r discussian, a �oii,e vot� �r�as ta�� and the �r�ti�� p�s�ed by � vc�te of 5-2. Commissioner� Anderson, Gri�th, Pad�ett, Topp, and iNilsan voted yes; Commissioners Qlsen and Scolar voted no. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 6 • • 7. �►�J�i�URFiflfiEFl�' The meeting adjourned at 8:35. erree aynor, Plan ng o ission Secretary ATTEST: reside Nick Wils � . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 6,2000—Page 7 � � TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL C�TY OF�TIGARD orxeooN h1EARINC��DATE: �`G—D � STARTING TIME: 7- 3� P.M. COMiIAISSIONERS: �! NICK WILSON (CHAIRPERSON) �/ JUDITH ANDERSON " JAMES GRIFFITH LISA INCALCATERRA GLENN MORES ✓ JOHN OLSEN � MARK PADGETf v SHEL SCOLAR � STEVEN TOPP ------------------------------------------------�-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ' S'Ti4FF RRES�NT; �� DICK BEWERSDORFF NADIf�E SMITFi � JULIA HAJDUK LAURI� NICHOLSO�a KAREN PIJRL FOX DUANE ROBERTS MATT SCFi�lDEGGER _ JAIViE� H�N��Y.X BRIAN �GEF2 GUS DU��IAS � • TIGARD � PLAlvNINC� COMMI5SION � CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEUPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY I'TEM N[US'�PRINT'I'I�IIt N�►ME ANfu ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM�: ,.�� Page�of DATE OF HEARING: 3/ �l DU CASE NUMBER(S): Z V� ��CJ � v U 003 OWNER/APPLICANT: ��h �5 LOCATION: / ` � PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZYP CODE FROPONIIVT (For the proposai) OPPONENd' (Against the proposal) (P�inJ Namt/Addiess/!ip&A,�4liation) (Print Name/Addr�ss/Lip&Affiliation) Name: �J�rn �LG� �W(...G( Name: Address: �,3� �S'�.1.� �'1'(i�j(��,[�� Address: Citv: �_�4L.Zo" 5T tate: `� Zi�:C/�7b �35 Cicv: State: Zip: Name• Name: Address: Ei�idress: Citv: State: Zip: Citv: State: Zi,p: Name: Name: Address: Address: City; �,�„ State: Zip: Cit�, State: Zip: Name• Narcie: Address• Address• City: State: Zin: Citv: State: Zip: Name: Name: Ad�g�: Address• Cinr� State: ;Zip: Citv: State: Zip: . • • Agenda Item: Hearing Date: Aqril 11.�000 Time: 7:30 PM_ � �ir�+��r��o�p�r��oo��s��oN� � ��`� �� CITIfOFiIOARD � �� '�iRE�'DIY�M�NDATION�' �O�THE�dITY�C"OUNCIL�� cammun=��er�,�nt� � Sfra ABettetCommuni SECTION I APPLICATIOl� SUMMARY CASE NAME: INDUSTRIAL ZONES AMENDIVIENT CASE NO.: Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA1999-00003 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a zone ordinance amendment to allow daycare uses outright or conditionally in all industrial zoned , properties. APPLICANT: John L. Brosy OVIINER: N/A �61 High Street SE, Suite 204 Salem, OR 97301 COIVIPREHENSIdE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial. LOCATION: All industrial zones cit�vvide (I-L, !-P and I-H). AP'PLICA�LE REVIEW CFtIT'ERIA: Gammunity Developmenfi Code S�ctions 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensiv� PI�� olicE�s 5 and 12.3; The Me�:r�.� 2040 Plan; and Stat��vid� F'lanr�or�c� �o�ls 1, �, J, 12 and �4. SECTIOI� IL F'_L��INING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION � `;'"'Y �� R `�'��'1ty nf T�g�rd P��i�rtrn�:Comm"ission;r�comrn'ends`DE�NIAL. �� . � ' �,A ¢ � t��1k��qugst�d�9ne Ortlinar��e�rnendm�nf by.fihe Tigard G�ty Co�ncil. �� i�r f PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 4/11/2000 PUBUC HEARING ZOA1989-00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 1 OF 6 �. • � SECTIOW III B�4CKGRAUND INFORNiATION The applicant has proposed this zone change so his client can develop a daycare center on a parcel of land zoned Light Industrial. The parcel is located in the vicinity of SW Bonita Road and SW 72�dAvenue. This Industrial area is referred to in this report and the applic�nt's statement as the southeastern industrial area. The Industrial area near the � Washington Square Mall area is referred to as the nc�rthern Industriai area. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CI�ITERIA Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendment� shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by �ection 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390.00�OG stat�s that the recomrnendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: • The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; . e4ny federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; . Any applicable Metro regulations; . Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and . Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Summarv and �alicabili#y of Statewide Planning Goals Statewide Planning Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoptian of Comprehensive � Plans and changes ta the Compreher�sive Plan and implernenting dncuments. This goal has been met by �oi�plying with fih� Tigard Development �c�de notice requirements set torth ir �ection 18.390. Notice was mailed to a(i property owners of Industrial Land and notice was published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearinc�. In addition, after the he�ring before the Pl�nnir�g Commission, additional notice will be mail�d and published prior to the Gity Council Hearing. Two Public Hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and th� second befare the Ci�y Cour�Gil) in which public input is w�fcome. Statewide Planning �oal 2— Land Use Pl�nnin�: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as bein� consistent with th� statewide planning goal�. The D�velopment Code im�,lements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consist�nt with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies with which to evaluate a reque�t for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. pLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 4/11/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1999-00UO3 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 2 OF 6 • � � ��atav�rid� °lun.ning �'n�l 9— Economic Development: Th� purpose of goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities throughout ine state far a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Oregon"s citizens. This is accomplished in part by requiring Comprehensive Plans to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable size, location, etc for Industrial anc� Commercial uses and to limit uses or� or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses. Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation: This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. This goal outlines how the transportation plans should be prepared and implemented. The applicant has cited this as a relevant goal because he believes that the permitting of daycare uses in Industrial zones will reduce vehicle miles traveled by allowing par�nts closer access to their children. Stafewide Planning Goal 14— Urbanization: TE�is goal outlines the process in which lands suitable for development are included in the Urban Growth Boundary. This goal requires consideration of, among other things, the maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of th� existing urban area, ord�rly and economic provision of public facilities and services and the compatibility of the propo�ed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. This goal has been addressed with the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. l'he Comprehensive Plan includes locational criteria for the various land uses. The locational criteria are discussed further in this report. Summar� and Ao�alicabili#,y of Com{�rehensove Plan Standards Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 (E'conomy): This section of the Comprehensirre �'lan �ddr�ssey Goal 9 of the 5t�tewide Planning Ge�als. After thorough analysis of the econo�ic conditions, the findings in the Comprehensive Plan conclude that "...The City con�inu�� to exp�rience ��hriving c�mmercial ar�d industrial growth; A c.ure problem facing the Gity is lack of builciabl� land designated for industrial use; and The City's I�rge industrial parks provide an ample supply of leasable space for smaller and younger industries." �o,r�►prehen�ive Pla,�► Policy 1,�.3 (Lc�cafiiana� �rit��i�): This section of the Compr�hensive i'lan ici�ntifies the Incatiar�al criteria for ind�striai uses. The intent of the Industrial land use de�ignation is to provide �or the designation of suitable lands for industrial use, provide for economic growth and development, protect existing and potential lands suitable for industrial de;velopment from encroachment by non-industrial or incompatible uses; provide land for industrial use by type to minimize the impact on surrounding development; and take advantage of existing transportation facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECONIMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 4/11/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1999-00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 3 OF 6 • • The Comprehensive Plan states: "Heavy Industrial Lands are areas intended to provide for manufacturing, processing and assembling a�tivities. Uses within fhis classification are characterized by large buildings and large storage areas and having associated external e1'fects such as smoke, noise, odor or visual pollution. Light Industrial Lands are areas �v�tended to provide for manufacturing, processing, assembling and related office . activities. Uses within this classification are of a size and scale which makes them . generally compatible with othernon-industrial uses and which have no off-site effects." SECTION V. SUMMARY OF FACTS There are no applicable federal or state rsgul�tions that ne�d to be consider�d in th�is request. There are no Alletro regulations that need to be considered in this request. The � Tigard Development Code Section 18.390 outlines the process for reviewing a Development Code Text Amend�nents and 18.530 identifies the uses allowed in the Industrial zones. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been , acknowledged by DLCD. The uses permitted in the industrial zones are in compliance with the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant contends that daycare uses are compatible with Industrial uses because the employees would have a daycare location close to work, thus limiting excessive traffic and making these areas more aftractive to employees with young children. The applicant has provided an analysis showing that several neighboring Cities have provisio�� tha# allow daycare in Industrial zones outright or wi�h re�trictions. in Tigard, daycare �s permitted in every commercial zone, with limitations in residential zor�es, and per�°�'s�i�d in up ta 2n% of fihe development area of a specific development in all lnd�strial Park zones. Industrial F'ark zones are th� largest industrial zone in the City and c�rrently has approximately 64 acres of vac�nt land. The Light Indu�fir�al zone has approximately 84 acres of va�ant land, and there is no vacant Heavy Industri�l iand available. The v�cant lar�� takes into acco�ant develnp�ent restrictians due to incr��sing reg�lation �ia protect stre��s, wetlar�ds and fish and many of the Industrially zoned lots adjacent to t!�e flon�.�pl�in and wetlands. Assuming the 64 vac�nt acr�s zoned I-P are �b(s to be developed, this le�ves 12.� ��cre5 th�� cuEd ,r��ntiaiiy be useca �or dayc�� u��s if assc�ci�ted w�ith an industrial development (a� r��ted in the I-�' z�ne.). There appears to be a �ignificant demand for industr�al land in the t;ity, as eviden�ec� in 8 applications for new construction or expansion in ir�c�ustrial zones in 1999, equa#ing to approximately 35 acres of land. In �ddition, There are 3 �pplicat�ons for development in • industrial zones under review so far in �000. STAFF REPORTTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2/23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1899-OQ003 CODE AMENDMENTTO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 4 OF 6 • . . The applic�nt has requested that the us� be allowed either outright or conditionally, however they have not proposed what paramefiers a conditional use for a daycare in an industrial zone should be reviewed under. The Ci�y could not process a conditional use application for a dayc�are in an industrial zone without ordinance language establishing review criteria. The applicant states that, by allowing daycare in industrial areas, auto vehicle miles traveled will be reduced. The applicant has provi��ed in�Formation on daycare as follows: They tend to occupy less than one acre. Because of the desire to be near places of employment, the use is complimentary. They state that based on the distribution of daycare centers in other cities, only 2 Qr 3 new businesses would be expected to locate in the southeast industrial area if the Code were amended. Typical sizes are 7,000-10,000 � square feet with 2,000-3,000 square foot p�aygrounds and 15-25 parking spaces�. �ECTION YI. STAFF ANA►LYSIS The staff recommendation is .based on several factors. First and foremost, staff is assuming that �he Planners, citizens and City Council members that worked on the original Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Development Code, as well as subsequent updates, had a purpose for allowing and disallowing the uses they did in each zone. Not�n,�;#hstanding that, it is also accepted that omissions are made in use classifications and amendments may be need�d to allow uses that should have been included in a particular zone. In this case, however, the daycare use is permitted in the Industrial Park zone as long as it does not exceed 20% of the development site. Staff agrees, and the fact that day�are and other compatible uses are allowed with some size limitat9ons acknowledge�, thafi this use can be compatible with industrial uses. Just because there is not cur�ently a large amount of daycare centers in the vicinity does not mean the City should ch�ng� all InduS��iaf zones to allow daycare outright, especially since, as inventoried, industrial land is in shorC supply in th� City. The I-P zonP �has the largest � suppiy of vacant land. � i !� a�lditior�, �hil� s#��'�agrees that daycar� centers close to the job site may be in the best ' int�;-�54 �f the ��ar��fi, chald, e��lca��r, and environmer�t, it ws not agreed that it is i compatible with ,�.,I! industria� uses nor�should i� b� pe�r�itted o��°�ght i� a!� inci�a�tri�l zone�. � The surnmary of other n�ighbor cities restrictions {conditianal uses, loc�tion rests-icti��s, and zones in which daycares are not allowed) confirms that they too, do not fsel that all industrial areas are suitable for daycare uses. The I-P zone is a light industrial/office zone fhat is really most suitable for this type of complirrientary use. 'The applicant has not proposed conditional use language for staff to consider supporting allowing this use conditionally in all zones. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 4/11/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1999�10UO3 CIX1E AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAI ZONES PAGE 5 OF 6 • • Staff Recommendation: Because of the limited amount of available vacant indusfirial land and becauss Yhe use is already allnwed within limitation in the 1-P zone, staff is reGOmmending that the requested Cod� change not be approved and the Code remain as is. Other Rossible consideratians Amend the Code the allow the daycare use outright in I-P zones instead of being limited to 20%. A problem with this is that it would still use limited Industria� land for a use that is not inc�ustrial. A Conditional Use process would not provide for disapproving a daycare facility in an industrial zone, it wauld just set standards that would have to be met in order to be approved. SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS �;ity of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this proposal and�that there is very little vacant industrial land left in the Gity. Why is daycare anymore a necessary service than say, a 7-11, a dry cleaners or any other use for the convenience of employees? DLCD, The Oregon Department of Transportation, and Metro Land use and Planning � Growth IlAanagement have all had an oppo�tunity to review this proposal and have offered no comments or objections to the proposed zone change. R�COMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL PASSED: This�h day of March. 2000 by the Planning Commission of fihe City of Tigard, Oregon. (Signature Box Below) ~� ��,- ' � � Nick Wil�on, President �it,y�f Tigard Pl�i•��o�g �orr�missi�� h\curpin\julla�zoa 1999-00003rec.doc ' PLqNNINGCOMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 4/11/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1999�00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE e OF 6 s • Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: March 6.2000 Time: 7:30 PM ; . - . . `°�4 � : STAFF REPORT`T��THE �PLANNING�OMMISS�ON �ITYOFTIOARD �ommunity�Devefopment ° . FOR�TNE�1� � O�TIGARD,0RE6QN s��9A�etterCommunity S�CTION I, �►PPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: INDUSTRIAL ZONES AMENDMENT CASE NO.: Zone Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) ZOA1999-00003 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a zone ordinance amendment to allow daycare uses outright or conditionaily in all industrial zoned properties. APPLICANT: John L. Brosy OWNER: N/A 161 High Street SE, Suite 204 Salem, OR 97301 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: I ndustr�al. LOC�TIOPI: All industrial z�nes citywide (I-L, I-P and I-H). � APPLICi4BLE ' REVIEVV4�► CRl1'E��: Community aevelopment Code Sectoc��s 18.380 ��d 18.390; �arnpr�hensiv� €�lan PolQCi�s 5 anr� 12.3; The Metro 20�� Plan; ar�d �tatewide Pla�nirrg �oals 1, 2, �, 12 ar?d �4. �'PION II. STAFF R�COMMENDATION � StafF recomrnsnds�that the P�anning:commission forward a recommendation of ` pENIAL�af the,req�ested zone ocdinanee amendment to.the City Coun�il. ° � �. .,,� �. t; STAFF REPORT TOTHEPLANNING COMMISSION ?J23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING 20A1989-00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 1 OF 6 • � � SECl°IOIV III BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant has proposed this zone change so his ciient can develap a daycare center on a parcel af land zoned L�g�it Industrial. The parcel is located in the vicinity of SW Bonita Road and SW 72"dAvenue. This Industrial area is r�ferred 4o in this report and the applicant's statement as the southeastern industrial area. The Industrial area near the Washington Square Mall area is referred to as the northern Industrial area. SECTION I�i' SUMMARY l�F APPLICABLE CRITERIA Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: . The Statewide Planning Goal� and Guidelines adopted under OregQn Revised Statutes Chapter 197; . Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; � Any applicable Nletro regulations; . Any appl9calale Comprehensive Plan policies; and . Any applicable provisions of th� City's implementing ordinances. Sumt��r�and At�alicab�iity of Statewide Planning Goals Statewide P/anning Goal 1' — Citizen Involvement: This g�a�l �utlines the citiz�n involvement requir�ment for adoption of Comprehensive F'lans and changes �to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This gaal has been rr�efi by complying with the Tigard L�evelopment Code notice requirements set forth �n Secfiion 18.390. Notice was mailed to all prope�ty awners �f Industrial Land and natice was published irr the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. In addition, after the i hearing before the Planning �Commission, additional notice will be mailed and �ublished ' prior to 7he City Council Hearing. Two Public Hearings are held (one before the Planning �o�rraission an� the second befor� the City Council) in whiGh p�obiic input is welcome. � Statewide f'lanning Goal 2—Land Use �lannirrg: ; Thi� goal outlines the land use planning process and p�ticy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowled�ed by DLCD as beinc� consistent with the statewide planning goals. The D��elopment Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent w6th Goal 2. The City'� plan provides a��alysis and policies with which to evaluate a request for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. STAFF REPORT TOTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ?J23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1888�00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 2 OF 6 • � Sfatewide Planning Goa19—Economic Development: The purpose of goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety c,f economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Qregon's citizens. This is accomplished in part by requiring Comprehensive Plans to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable size, location, etc for Industrial and Commercial uses and to limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial ��nd commercial uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses. Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation: This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. This goal outlines how the transportatian plans should be prepared and implemented. The applicant has cited this as a relevant goal because he believes that the permitting of daycare uses in Industrial zones will reduce vehicle miles traveled by allowing parents closer access to their children. Stafewide Planning Goal 14— Urbanization: This goai outlines the process in which lands suitable for development are included in the Urban Growth Boundary. This goal requires consideration of, among other things, the maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area, orderly and econ�mic provision of public facilities and services and the compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. This goal ha:s been addressed wi#h the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprefien�ive Plan includes locational criteria for the various land uses. The locational criteria are discussed further in this report. Sumrnarv and A�glicabili�y of Com�r�hensive Plan �tandards . Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 (�'conomy): This section of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Goal 9 of the Statewide Planning Goals. After thorough analysis of the economic cGnditions, the findings in the Comprehensive Plan conclud� tl�at "...The City contir�ues to sxperience tliriving commercial and industria�l growth; A core problem facing t4�e Gity is lack of buildable land designated for indust�iaP use; and The Cifiy's large ind�strial park� provide an ample supply of leasabfe space for sm�ller and ycaa�nger industries." Co�r►,�rehert�� Flar� ��dicy 12.3 �Locatian�! Crff�ria): This s�ction of f�1� Cc�mp�ehensive Plan identifiies ti�� lrac�tion�l crite�i� for industrial uses. The intent of the industrial land use designation is to provid� for the designation af suitable lands far industrial use, provide for economic growth and development, protect : existing and potentia9 lands suitable for industrial development from encroachment by non-industrial or incompatible uses; provide land for industrial use by type to minimize the impact on surrounding development; and take advantage of existing transportation facilities. � � � � � �� STAFF REPURT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7J23/2000 PUBUC HEARING ZOA1999-000d3 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 3 OF 6 • • The Comprehensive Plan states: "Heavy Indusfrial Lands are area:> intended to provide for manufacturing, processing and assembling activities. Uses within this classification are characterized by large buildings and large storage areas and having associated external effects such as sm�ke, noise, odor or visual pollution. Light Industrial Lands are areas intended to provide fior manufacturing, processing, asse►nbling and related office acfivifies. Uses within this classi�cation are of a size and sca/e which makes them generally compatible wifh other non-industria/uses and ��ihich have no off-site effects." SECTION V. SUMMARY OF FACTS There are no applicabie federal or state regulations that need to be considered in this request. There are no Metra regulations that need to be considered in this request. The Tigard Development Code Section 18.390 outlines the process for reviewing a Development Cod� Text Amendments and 18.530 identifies the uses allowed in the Industrial z�nes. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by aLCD. The uses permitted in the ir�dustrial zones are in compliance with the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant contends that d�ycare uses are compatible with Industrial uses because the employees would have a daycare location close to work, thus limiting excessive traffic and making these areas more attractive to employees with young children. The applicant has provided an analysis showing that sev�ral neighboring Cities have provisions that allow r�aycare in Industrial zones outright or with restrictions. In Tigard, daycare is permitted in every commercial zone, with limitations in residential zon�s, and permitted i►� up to 20% of the development area of a s�ecific development in a,ll 9ndustrial Park zones. Ind�astrial Park zones are the largest industrial zpne in ±he �ity and currenfly has the most vacant land (approximately 97 acres of I-P and 70 acres of I-L). The vacant land does n�t fully take into account development restrictions due to increasing regulati�n to protect streams, wetlands and fish and many of the Indusfrially zc�ne� I�t� c�n�cder•ed va�ant ar� adja�ent to tl�� floodplain and vir�tl�nds. Asst�ming the � 97 vacant acres zonwd I-�' are able to be deve{c�ped, this leaves �19 a�res that co��d �otentially be used� far daycare us�s if �5so�iated with an indus�rial development (as ' ' permitted in the 1-P zone.). There appear5 to be a signifcant demand fdr indusfiria! land in the City, as evidenced in 8 applications for new construction or expansion in indu5firial zones in 1999, equating to approximately 35 acres of land. In addition, There are 3 applications for development in industrial zones under review so far in 2000. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7J23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA198B-00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 4 OF 6 ��x • • The applicant has requested that tlie use be allowed either outright or conditionally, . however they have not proposed what parameters a conditional us�e. for a daycare in an industrial zone should be reviewed under. The City could not process a conditional use application for a daycare in an industrial zone without ordinar�ce language e�tablishing review criteria. The applicant states that, by allowing daycare in industrial areas, auto vehicle miles traveled will be reduced. The appiicant has provided information on daycare as follows: They tend to occupy less than one acre. Because of the desire to be near places of employment, the use is complimentary. They state that based on the destribution of daycare centers in other cities, only 2 or 3 new businesses would be expected to locate in the southeast industrial area if the Code were amended. Typical sizes are 7,000-10,000 square feet with 2,000-3,000 square foot playgrounds and 15-25 parking spaces. SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS The staff recommendation is based on several factors. First and fnremost, staff is assuming that the Planners, citizens and City Council me�nbers that worked on the original Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Development Code, as well as subsequent updates, had a purpose for allowing and disallowing the uses they did in each zone. Notwithstanding that, it is also accepted that omissions �re made in use classifications and amendments rnay be needed to allow uses that �hould have been included in a p�rticular zone. In this case, however, tf�e daycare use is permitted in the Industrial Park zone as long as it does not exceed 20% of the development sEte. Staff agrees, and the fact that daycare and other compatik�le uses are allowed with some size limitations ackn�wledges, that this u�� can �e �c�mpatible with industrial usE;s. Just because there i� nat curr�ntly � large ar�ount of dajrcare ce�f��s in the vicinity does not mean �he Gity shQUld chang� all Industrial �ones �o allow �aycare outright, especia��y �ince, as inventoried, industrial land is in short supply in the City. The I-P zon� has the largest supply of vacar�t land. !n addition, while �taff agrees fih�t daycar� centers close to th�*i�ab sits rr!ay b� in the best � in�erESi of thP ��ren�, child, err�ployer, arid environrr��, �t �� r�ot ags�e�;d th�ai it i5 � com�atible with �!.( industrial u�es c�or should it be permitt�� a��r:gi�t in ail industri�l zones. The summary of other neighbor cities restrictions (conditional use�, location resfiriction�, and zones in which daycares are not all�wed) confirms that they too, do not feel that all industrial areas are suitable far daycare uses. The I-P zone is a light industrial/office zone that is really most suitabl� for this type of complimentary use. The applicant has not proposed conditional use language for staff to consider supporting allowing this us� conditionally in all zones. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2/23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1999-00003 CODE AMENDMEMT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 5 OF 6 . � Staff Recommendation: Because of the limited amount of available vacant industrial land and because the use is already allowed within limitation in the I-P zone, staff is recommending that the requssted Code chang�e not be approved and the Code remain as is. Other possible considerations Amend the Code the allow the daycare use outright in I-P zones instead of being limited to 20%. A problem with this is that it wo�uld still use Iimited Industrial land for a use that is not industrial, A Conditional Use process would nofi provide for disapproving a daycare facility in an inds�strial zone, it would just set standards that would have to be met on c�rder to be approved. SECYION VII ADDITION�►L CITY STAFF AND OUT5IDE AGENCY COMMENTS City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this proposal and that there is very iittle vacant industrial land left in the City. Why is daycare anymore a necessary service than say, a 7-11, a dry cleaners or any other use for the convenience of employees? DLCD, The Oregon Depart'ment of Transportation, and Metro Land use and Planning Growth Management have all had .an opportunity to review this proposal and have offered no comments c�r objections to the propos�d zone change. . �f F r 23. 2000 PREPAR BY: Ju ' Hajduk DATE Associate Plar�ner �"°^`"> /c.s� February 23. �000 A�'PROVED BY: Richard B rsdorff DATE � Planning anager i:\curpin�julia�zoa 1999-00�03.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2/23/2000 PUBLIC HEARING ZOA1989�00003 CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES PAGE 6 OF 6 . • ' � � � � 161 Hi h St.SE JOI-3N L. BROSY Suite�04 Salem,OR 97301 La:nd Planning�nd Development Services (503)316-1842 Supplementai InCormation City of Tigard File�OA 1999-OO�U3 Legislative Code Ame�dment Request Re: Day Care Centers in Indarstrial Zones The legdslative code change proposal to allow day care center�s as outright or conditional uses in industrial zones in the City of Tigard confarms to pertinent City of Tigard Com�rehensive Plan, and Statewide Planning Goals in the following ways: Tigard Comprenensive Plan Volume II, of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan entitled "Findings, Policies& Implementatic►n Strategies, is a decisian-making consideration under TMC 18.390,060(G). That document includes Section 12.3, Locational Criteria/Industrial. Please note th�t Section 11, Special Areas of Concern does not include any policies or strategies that would�ie af�'ected by the proposed code change. Implementation item 3 under 12.3, Industrial, states: "Protecl exi.stit�g attd pote�tlia/ • � laf�ds srrirabl�for'111C�1/S//�iad dei�elo�nrent,fP0�1 811CYOQCyit11B111 by 1101)-I11C�lISl7•ial or i»comperlible l�ses." Our application explains that the average commercial day care center only occupies less than one acre;and because of the desire to have day care facilities near places of emp(oyment, such land uses are complimentary to industria] areas and should be seen as supporting the viability of the large, existing industrial areas in Tigard by making those industrial areas more attractive�o z►��,�cy�es w:th young children. Many parents of . very young children visit those children during the work day, so proximity o�'day care to employment centers reduces vehicle trip miles. The application material alre�dy submitted indicated that the average day care center business occupies less tkian one acre. They do not pose a significant tl�reat to the supply of industrial land. Please refer to the City of Tigard zoning map. Other than the large amount of I-P, I-H and I-L zoned lands as shown on the City zoning map (portion)included iii the application, there is only one other area of industrial zoning in the entire city limits of Tigard. This is the smaller area running along the SPRR tracks and Tigard Avenue � northwest of Hwy. 99, ar�d including the Koll Business Center on the Tigard side of Scholls F�rry�oad and�tYe ar�a ext�nding to south��'I3wy. 7I7 and west of GrP�nburg Roa.d. Distribution of day care centers in other cities suggest that if the code is amended, the City of Tigard may ultimately expect, at the most, only two or three new day care businesses in � the southeast industria( area as shown on the map included in the code amendment � rec�uest. . • ' ' � • Sup�lement to ZOA 1999-0003 Page 2 ' , Because that other industrial area described above is smaller and narrow�er, and there are . other sites nearby that would also allow day cares as outright or conditional uses, it is not likely that any more day cares wil( be located in that area in the foreseeable future if the • code were changed as proposed. Much of that other industrial area has the added constraint of the Fanno Creek flood plain. Although not specifically noted in the Plan's_policies for industrial lands in Tigard, it seems prudent to encourage complimentary, supportive land uses such as day care centers that � reduce vehic�e trip miles on the transportation network, and that are desired by employees of industrial areas(see Statewide Goals, below). � Metro � , Metro's Region 2040 Plan does not have specific policies,or code issues that relate to the kind of complimentaty land uses that should be permitted or otherwise encouraged by Tigard in its industrial districts. This was confirmed by senior planners of the�ity of Tigard and Metro. Statewide Planning Goals �itatewide Goa19, Economic Development requires Comprehensive plans for urban areas t�: "(3.) P�•vilide,fvr at/easl a�t ac�'eqrrale supply of siJes of s7ritable a�izes, ty��e,s, Iocatroti,s, a»d,se�•►�ice le��els,for a i�ariety�of inc�r�,stricr!c�nd commercrcrl 7rses con,sisteyrt wilh plc�f�po/icies." While the City of Tigard has a very successful and large, competitive �s�utheastern area d�voted to industrial uses, employees with day care-age children must travel outside this large area for day care services. This is because of the large .concentration of industrial aoning that now do not allow day cares as either outright or conditional uses. Day care should be considered a valuable, complimentary land use for �righ q��.lat��ndustrial areas of Tigard. Their(ocations are now unnecessarily restricted by the City of T'igard Zoning Cod�. Another rec�uirernent for Comprehensive plans in Statewide Goal 9 is "�,1.) Limil 7eses oti or•rrear sites zones,fo�•s�eci�c r�rdrrstrial and contmercial trses to �hvse r��hich crre ' com�atible ivilh pi•opo,sec�1�ses." Similar language exists in the Tigard Plan. The highest level of compatible use is one that is actually also complimentary to the primary mission of the area, which is industrial. Day care businesses located suitably close to large employment centers are desired features for the employees of an industrial area, and thus, the com�etitive health of Tigard's industrial areas. , , .. , , � � Supplemt��nt to ZOA 1999-0003. Page 3 Statewide Goal 12 is Transportation. Oregon Administrative Rules(OAR) include Division 012, Transportation Planning, and the Transportation Planning Rule(TPR), which implements Statewide Planning Goal 12. The first sentence of the purpose section of the TPR(OAR 660-012-0000) is: "The ptn�ose of Ihi,s dii�ision is to im�lenrent Sta/ewide PIa�T�iing Goa112 (Ti�anspvrtatron)aitd p��omole �he developmeflt qf scrfe, conrenienf afrd ecot�omic l�afrs,�ortation systems Iha!are desigr�ed to redrice reliance on Ihe crr��cm�vbile so lhcrl the air polltrtivn, 1��af�c crnd vthet•li��ability pr•oblen�s,faced by t�rbar�a�•ecrs itr other parts of 1he corntt�y might be anoidec�..." Later in the same paragraph, the Purpose statement continues: "This porliof�of ihe�rile aims to inrp�•oi�e the livcrbiliry of tirban areas by p��orrroti»g . cha»ges i»land r�se patte�'1lS C11TC�ihe b�cr�ts�ortation system that make it mor•e com�enie�tt for people tv i��crlk, bicycle and rrse t��ansil, a�Fd dri>>e less to n�ee1 their daily treeds. Ghanging land t�se aiid tranel�crtter�ts�vill al.so contplemeitl slate at�d local effort,s tv �meet other objectii�es, 7)1CIllC�llag CO))lp%lllll�?/)•bat�der�e%met�t, reducirrg the cos/qf �ublic set7�rces, prole�titrg,farnr a�rd fore,si lafrd, reducing air, �vater nnd noise po//ution, conse��ing eraergy and reducing ernissions of greenhor�se gases tlzat contribrste to global clininte cltange...." (emphasis added) 0��ia�portant decision-makin�factor for parents choosing day cares is proximity to place of vvork. Allowing day cares as outright or cond"ational uses in Tigard industrial zones that are significantly Iarge concentrations of employrnent wiil�ompliment the purposes of the industrial zones in the City and will enable people to drive less vehicle mile5 an�l Yherefore reduce air pollution, conserve energy and reduce emissions. This effect is particularly evident for parents of very youn�children in day cares, as previously stated in this applicatia¢�. The TPR requires Metro and tr�e City of Tigard to adopt Transportation System Plans � (TSP's), On� measurable objective of the TSP for Metro (of which Tigard is a part) is a " 10% red�uction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for the Metro area within 20 years of adoption of a (TSP) plan. In addition that signif cant objective, ' an additional 5% reduction of VMT within 30 years of adoption of the TSP is required through "subsequent planning ef�'orts° [OAR 660-012-0035 (4)(b) and (c)]. ,� ' , • � ' , Supplement to ZOA 1999-a003 Page 4 This proposed amendment to the City of Tigard Code will help reduce VMT; for the reasons already stated. � JLB • � ; .� • , City Of�ard : Total Industrial Ar�n Acres 5/4/99 ZONING TYPE OVERLAY ACRES I-P COM 184.51 I-P IND 5.77 , I-P IND 53.17 I-P IND 12.54 I-P IND 215.29 I-P IND 79.82 551.10 I-L IND 14.32 I-L • COM 363.71 � 378.03 . C-H IND 58.04 58.04 I'otal Industxial 9�7.17 There are approximately 160 parcels in Zones I-P, I-L,and I-H. ' , ; : � � . . - .. , � . s . .� � - . . • + � . GE06RAPMICINFORMATION SYSTEM � a � � � . Industrial Zonin9 j ; � I � ' I O� � - (-P „ ; ; t . � , � � I I I i i ; 1=L 4 i . �_ ' i _ _ . : .�_ i � i , 1-P � , . , ' I�` N � � ; � ��. � ' o �oo0 2ooa a000 �o �000�ec � � �_p 1-P'' ,,��f� � � i i i . ' I ; City of Tigazd ; ' Uimretioe,u,ais map is for general la�ion oNy ard . shaid be verified v�tlie De�elopmert Serviaes D'nisian. 13125 SW Ffail BA�d � Tgarc�OR 97723 . (50�p9dt71 i ty tttp�lMMw.atigend¢�a ni Developrnertt Plot date:May 4,1939;L'\ I \(�.i e�t.apr a � . • ' ' � � � . � � . . UHN L. B]�OSY �6��St:SE , ' . , ,.. J Suite 2l?4 Salem,OR 97301 Land Planning and Dev�lopment Services (503)316-1842 July 12, 1999 Mark Roberts Asso�ciate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 � , Re: Legislative-Code Amendmen�Request Regarding Iaay Care Centers in ' � � Industrial Zones . . . . : - � Dear Mr. Roberts: � The following information supports a request to amend the City of Tigard 7onyng Code, to allow child day caze centers as outright or conditional uses in the City's three industrial zones(I-P,I-L and I-H). These commercial day centers,known by such business names in the southwest rnetropolitan area as Kindercare,Learning Tree and Tutor Time, are � . allowed in industrial zones in surrounding jurisdictions,which recognize that child care centers ha�e an important reason to be located near placas of industrial employment. ' Despxt�the comrnon practioe of other,bordering cities,Tigard remains the only City that does not all.ow such uses in their three I-zones. � D�scrfpti�n of g7�e Type . In the T'igard Code, these us�s are defined as "Institutional Day Care,"which is a day care facility operated for 13 mr more children [Chapter 18.130, Use Classifications, Section 18.130.020(A)(5)(c). Othzr neighboring cities call them Child Cax•e Facilities �Beaverton), Child Day�a:re Center('I'ualatin),Day Care F'acility(�hTaslungton County) or Daycare�'ortl�a�i). Thes�kind of day care centers typically accupy a building of approximately 7,(300-10,000 square feet with a 2,OQ0-3,000 sq. ft.pl�ryground, approximately 15-25 parking spaces,on a total parcel size of 32,000 sq. ft. to 38,000 sq. ft. In other cities,these uses are very often located on collector or arterial streets in both industrial and commercial zones. One important locational factor is that many parents spend part of th�ir lunch hour or other part of the work day visiting their child, so proximity to place of work is important to parents. Overall trip miles are reduced when the center is located near the place of work. Close proximity to parents'work place is an ' important locational factor in the child care center business. ,� � ' ' � � � � � Mark Roberts July 12, 1999 Page 2 Day Care Centers in Industrial Zones of Neeghboring Cities The zoning codes of the four major cities(not including Durham or King City)which abut the City of Tigard were compared, as they relate to day care centers in industrial zones. Those four cities are Portland,Beaverton,Tualatin and Lake Oswego. Portland In the City of Portland, these uses are called"Daycare." As such, they are allowed as outright uses in Portland's EGl (General Employment 1),EG2 (General Employment 2), and EX(Central Employment) zones. They are permitted as conditional uses in that city's IGl (General Industrial 1),IG2 (General Industrial2), and IH(Heavy Industrial) zones. Daycare uses which ar�3,000 sq. ft. or less in floor area do not require conditional uses in the IG1,IG2 or IH zones. �he condiiierial use approval criteria in the rity of Portland's industrial zones for Daycare uses are intended to promote preservation of land for indushy while allowing other (daycare)uses when they are supportive of the industrial area or not detrimental to the character of the industrial area. The approval criteria are(33.815.125): A. The proposed atse will not have significanx adverse effects on nearby industrial firms; �. The transportation systerrc is capszble of safeXy supporting the proposed, use in additzon to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, access to c�rterials, transit avazlability, on-street parking impcacts, lot access raquzrements neighborhood impacts, and pedestrian safety; C. The proposed use ivill not signifacantly altcr•�`he c�verall indr.�strial character of the area, based on the existing praportion of industrial ar�d non-industrial uses and the effee�s of incremental changes; D. The proposed use needs to be located in the industrial area or building because ir�dustrial firms or their employees constitute the primary market of the proposed use; and E. City-designated scenic resources arepreserved. • ' ' ' � � • Mark Roberts July 12, 1999 Page 3 Beaverton The City of F3eaverton defines nursery, day or child care facility as providing care for compensation for seven or more children(*on Matrix) during a 24-hour period. As such, they are permitted as outright uses in Beaverton's Il', Industrial Park and LI, Light Industrial zones. [20.15.10(A)(17)and 20.15.15(A)(19)]. In the CI, Campus Industrial zone, they are permitted so long as they are use no greater than 60%of the land area in a "development control area." These are the only three industrial zanes?n the City of Beaverton (**on Matrix). In Beaverton's code section 60.40.25, there are special requirements for these facilities, wherever they are located. The outdoor play area must have a minimum of 100 sq. ft. of play area for every 1/3 af the total licensed capacity of children. The play area has fencing requirements. Faci�ities licenses for 40 or more children may be required to have a driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading children. Tualatan The City of Tualatin describes this same use as a Child Day Care Center(zoning code page 31-6,definitions). These uses ar�allowed outright in all three of that city's industrial zones. Those zones are 1VIL,Light Manufacturing,MG, General Manufacturing and MP,Manufacturin�Park. Th�only stipulation is that in the MP and MI,zones, exterior walls and outdoor play areas shall be a minimum.of 400 feet from the exteriar wall and pump islaz�.ds of any automobile service station, irrespective of any structures in between (*'�*on Matrrx). l�ake Oswego The City of Lake Osweg� does not def ne the size and kind of day care centers that are part of this city code comparison. Lake Oswego only defines facilities that regularly accommodate 12 or fewer children. All other day care facilities are considered in the broad category of "institutional uses." Lake Oswego has very little industrial zoning as a percentage of total city area. They have two industrial zones. These are called Industrial (I) and Industrial Park(IP). Institutional uses are not permitted as outright or conditional uses in thes�two zones. . ' ' • • • Mark Roberts Ju1y 9, 1999 Page 4 Other Cities Two other cities are added to the comparison. Because of the large size(by Oregon standards), these cities have several similar facilities. Salem The City of Salem defines Child Day Care Center as a facility which provides ck�.ild care or kindergarten for 13 or more children. Salem has four industrial zone classifications. They are called Industrial Business Campus(IBC),Industrial Park(IP), General Industrial(IG), and Intensive Industrial(II). That City allows Child Day Care Centers as outright(permitted)uses in all four industrial zones. Salem alsa has a"hybrid" zone called Industrial Commercial,which allows a mixture of different uses. Child Day Care Centers are not allowed as outright or conditional uses in that particular zone. Gresham Child Care Facilities are regulated by the City of Gres�am as "Community Services" in Article VIII, "Special Uses" (3.0100)of their Land Development Code. Gresham ha.s three industrial zones. They are called Business P�ark(BP),Light Industi�ial(LI)and Heav}�Industrial�HI). Child care fa�ilities fcr 13 or mare children are allowed in all three i�dustrial zones through that city's Type III, Commuruty Services approval pro�ess. This Type I�I process is essentially a conditional use,but is hsard by Gresham's Planning Commissian rather than their Land ZTsa Heai�ings Offacer. �ay Care Cent�rs as Land iTsers It is recognized that the�ity of Tigazd no longer has a la.rge supply of vacant or under- � utilized land zoned for industrial uses. This is lucally important from a tax base standpoint. The general understanding is that residentially zoned land demands more services than it generates in propsrty taxes, and commercial and industrial land demands , � ♦ � � . + Mark Roberts July 12, 1999 Page 5 less services than are generated in property taxes for those businesses. However, the familiar child day care centers such as KindPrcare,Learning Tree, and Tutor Time typically occupy sites of less than one acre in size. As private businesses, they pay property taxes just like industrial businesses. The improvement component of a property's assessed valuation is dependent upon building cost and value. Since the typical day care penter building is commercial grade constn�ction and details, these businesses often pay more in property taxes on their real property improvements than many industrial uses�ow allowed in Tigard's three industxial zones. Children day care center uses are seen by almost all cities in the metropolitan region as supportive of industrial areas. Typically the sitzs used by children day care centers are efficiently used,bec;ause of high land values and the competitive nature of the child care business. Compatibility Issues Compatibility between children day care centers and other industrial uses,when the centers are allowed to loca�e in industrial zones,is handled extremely well by the aompetition of the private business sector. A center that is located near another use, wheth�r it is in�ompatible or only perceived as incompatible,will not succeed in the mar�ketplace which has other chi��l car�location options for parents. This situation is so obvious to those buszness owners that there are no examples of these kind of incompatible land uses in the sQUthwest Portland metropolitan area. This is not because of�oning cod�s,because as the survey of othex city code shows, day care centers are usuaily a.11owec! in industrial zanes. There are no incompatibility issues be�ause of practical business decisions of day care cen.ter owners. In industrial parks where there may b�many business leases with one land owner, there is an additional protection against incompatible uses, exercised by the property owner to protect his/her existing tenants. � - ' ' ' � � Mark Roberts April July 9, 1999 Page 6 Effect of Excluding Day Care Facilities in Tigard's Industrial Zones Southeastern Tigard is where the majority of industrial land is located in the City of Tigard. In particular, the land bounded by I-5, Highway 217,Fanno Creek and the southern City limits of Tigard is dominated by I-L,I-P and I-H zones. Very little vacant land of any kind in this area has any�ther zonP. The City of Tigard now doe�no+.allow children day care centers as outright or conditional uses in any of these three zones. This is despite the fact that a very large population of persons employed in that area use day care facilities for their children. The most sign.ificant industrial area of the City of Tigard is not and cannot be supported by even one day care use, because of the restrictions now found in the City Code. Because of the limited vacant land in Tigard, the practical effect of changing the zoning code text will probably be the location of onP or possibly two new day care businesses in the large industrial area previously described. It should be noted that The City of Tigard recently completed�rezoning of the"Tigard Triangle"area which is on the north edge of the enclosed zoning map. The"Mixed Use Employment"(MIJE) zone used in the Triangle does allow commercial day care centers. However, this does not solve tk�e problem in the southeast industrial area because in fact the Triamgle area is acxoss the freeway and fairly distant from a travel-time standpoint, from much of the industrial lands in this part of the City. The MUE design.ation helps, but it does r�ot solve the siting prablem for the large majoriry of the southeast industrial arsa. Ona effert of the peculiarity of the Tigard cod�as it relates to commercial day cares is that the cic�sest day care to t1�i� area,whicr�is locatec�near th� City limits of Tigard in the �ity of Durham,has a very high demand. Because of facility capacity anc�gravernm��t requirements concerning staffing ratios and classroom space,that business cannot keep up with demand and a long waiting list must be used. That business is the Learning Tree Day School at 18115 SW Lower Boones Ferry Road,just outside the City of Tigard and south of the zoning map enclosed. According to that school's records, as of June 11, 1999,their waiting list numbered 52. The waitin.g list is updated regularly. Demand generally is greatest at the beginning of the school year. That school's good reputation has helped create the large waiting list,but the lack of other commercial day cares to the north in the industrial part of Yhe Tigard also is believed to create this situation. � � - � . ' ' • • Mark Roberts July 12, 1999 Page 7 � At the City's suggestion, the issue of scarcity of industrial land in Tigard was fu�ther researched. The technical merno from Metro titled Nonresidential Refill(Redevelopment and Infill) of April 12, 1999 was reviewed Among other topics,this report describes the likely results of scarcity of industrial land supply. The memo had limited usefulness to individual jurisdictions. Industrial inventories are inherently subjective because when a property is underutilized from the standpoint of the current allowed zoning,it is sometimes counted as occupied and sometimes not. For example, a rental house that is located in an industrial zone may be counted as occupied land,but it cl�arly is land available for redeveloprr�ent by a higher value industrial use. The fact that Tigard has a small amount of vacant industrial land does not in itself reduce the importance of allowing commercial day cares as allowable uses in industrial zones. Their overall use "footprint" is relatively very small compared to other industrial uses(as described earlier in this letter), and their function actually supports the industrial districts by providing day care opporkunities close to parent's employment. Conclusion The City of�"igard, recogn�zi�eg that children day care centers are supportive of industrial areas, should amend its zoning code to allow�uch uses as outright uses in Tigard's.T-.�,I-H and I-P zonese Sincerely, R Jo L.Brosy,AICP c: Jack Steiger � Jim Blackwell encl: Comparison Matrix �ity of Tigard Zoning Map(portion) . , � • � � � , , � Comparison: I)�y Care Cent�rs* In ��dustrial Zones See text for *'s Zone City nnd Zone Abbreviation A/lmved Outrig�it Coaditional Use� PORTLAND: General Employment EG1 X Genera( Employment EG2 7�C Central Employment EX X General Industrial IC'rl X Genera( Industrial IG2 X Heavy Industrial IH X BEAVERTON: Industrial Park IP X J ight Industrial LI X Campus Industrial CI X** TUALATIN: Light Manufacturin� ML X General Manufacturing MG X Manufacturing Park MP X*** LAKE OSWEGO: Industrial I (IVot specifically defined. General category of Industrial Park IP "Institutional Uses" not allowed in I or IP zones SAI.EIV1: Industrial Business Cam�.pu� II3C X Industrial Park TP X General Industrial ICr 7� Intensive Industrial II X GI�S�M: , Business Park BP X Light Industrial LI X Heavy Industrial HI . X TIGARL�: In�ustrial Park I-P (Da,�Care Centers are not�llofved L��ht Industria/ I-L in any of the three industrial zones as HeRVy In�lustrin/ I-H outright or conditional uses in Tigard) � � � � �/ � �-_.__ _... .. .. . -- .- _ . .. . ----__.__.. ._--- - _ -- -. .._ •.._...,,. _ I f _ -. �� ` � � 7 , _ meu- -- -.�_� -'--�---� ' _., •I �I--_�r �_`...,_ � l� � _�- �- L ;, , i ___�.._.. __._..� �`_ _ ,;:, .__ . � �_=_ � __ � � ,� _:�:... .�.�, {` 1=�� I , .. -�_-- � .� , -----,._ -� ;�/�' + _.____.__.�__._ ` �._-__ I�■I �1 L_ —,.�.._...� .� �- , I � _ �_ : — : , .. V\1 /� �M • ----- i---�` /•%,�G•�, '�I - � JL..._-.. - - - �°°ucn�^"`�w�---? �-' � ~� `�. .�_�- ''Lµi�6�,�a's.-''�~ ' �',�9 �,`Y'.. � .. � � v` !_�� . N�„�' � .� .� ' --�b�r` ° °� `' -"---.._____.._. _�_ _ . � . �., O1 �' � � :; �� r�._� � .r�' — ' �, _. _ ,.._.� � ,� ,i i ., "' � a, J � �cc ° '� �l� ' ,� f — ,, � � �� _ __.-- .---.-.-- _� , �� : /� , r •. � .,._.__ N � � ��- _. __._.__ ` : ��_- _ -- � -- ----- ---_._--_- _ y�,�,� -•_--- - - - - •4_- - - ,_._., _ : ._ z - , _ �.._ . :. �.� i , rJ, � ^� \ _ . � - _ �nvur.c_. ____ aqv_ �rr _ ^ .` ^, �I __I 3nvcwe'ems � Q "` V�' `� !� ''� ' � y _ .' / /. I^ ��'`I,'� � '� / � '"tTl� r _ �^ `\ ^�' ._.� •I� _' �n % � � _ � �Jr \\ 1 ��r�� ' _ '.\ � � . � W � i' . V n \ -'- - --.._._._...._......_- .�� .._.._�._.._.�._..._� � . � �- �.. /.` . _"' � / _' _'._ y_K .__-{', v. / .,y'' � ..� f_ ..;`• __� / . . � I I �� ✓' -f -�.V. a L_ a /'_. ._ � �ti `.1 _ ,.l' -,�( t1_ .`; `_^ � . � : � '^ . _ '^ a'ut -_ -•'._..'-- �/ • � ~�R�J / .......,,M --._. �., �� a�--t'---- �� \I �-�..,. � ` • _ � J . I � l' '� � _ _ �._ ___ :_. -_' _' . •-�-. � .. __ ' � �.� i � �- av�VnroH ouu�T� p e�, i�'. T� � � � ' ' ' . . ' '_ ... ' 7AV " _f4lG �JyO O�" �±i � O Y !��- � y`'� ,`-``� --J/ �I •i '� � � � �\ ^� � --_ ...i�;., �� 7' . / �: �. - r_.__" �. PW+ � �, �. �'�' � � 'I�... . I �\�4` �Y . � .. .//.. i . . N ___ i ��..-'" i ) �` �� `-�t, ��_ I I , . ,�\ / ��q'�� ___.�I � . . / .' � � - � �.._ _ Y I �l. .. ( .• . I ~�" ..�""'f^_.. lb� :.J 'y�f. i . • e �. , � .� Q� ,� . .. .f.,' " r _ _..^.__ E4'' •±��r��._T•� • i li i '1.. . � �. I •_. - ' __.-- . �� '�.\ i �� I I -- �"'� � r--� V 1 �` _ � ` �_�, __ _ '6 - 4 _ � _ _ � ,,• �` -F �' � ....�._:. -r�-- �--� ,��` ,.._. ; , �-,_ i ^�,t r�� . - _ �'- -, � =I �,;� '�L� r� � - _ ��-�_--=�� -- . ' , . �, ��,:, ° i . % �, ..� J ;/' . ( - '� ''' � �.- i, l��NCN�0fi7diil;v,i . � . .� . -. " , V/ v1 • • � 7-'/ i•�----- - �` ' �� .�.� �T' ��if� - - -- \ /� - ' �..' I�-4 - - - J -- �_:..__ - , � . _ i -�_. i � - , '---- —•-.- '.. , . . _ ` __ ----- - -- -�-- ' _ -- ; _ : .- , .- ... - , r � � ._, . � r' /. . u � : :� / - ,3j1� I/ l �, y nvNJg2.'Mk �\_ \�. .� 1 _ i i � ' - �- ' .� __.._ _ _�._..._�.-� _` � . (� � . \ " �_ .-' ..�.' i t i !` " ..-; .�°i_' �vy- � , - � . . -L �'� �� V�- J � j � � ' /'�'^'---�_ \ ------ �/Y'' -� � Pa+ _ "/ ;'/� �- '- - �. «> -] / , i _, � \ �' , ` . � _ ------ - �}� � _ � �� o ° -1 �; _ - � - ` � i �4 I ( � / I y..__ ��. �'`, y� � 2, _ J .y/ � N -}�_,��,�;�'{Y� I I_ 0 � �� ... A-' p� '�'�_' ��'� F�- I I t•_ _ �, _ _ O � i. .J_ tl�. i4""iv'J.ry„^.� � � i � . �....—_�. _ . , . . i� _' '_'__.""�_�f r � `�.._.1��•�� ' L I .�- - i U . I � I�� ) I T/� � ' �• I � V1 �_'-, � � ,'�� i ', -----=-g�=-- � +.---��- -� _._I-�------ � -_� -� �,, _ _ -�--�-_�_,� � --._�...__ ;.`_. � \ ? i_� i �r-{ ,� _ � F. „� .� _ , F �, � f � i �� _�� EI� ��; �9�� , -- -- , _ _.�__ t v�r. , - , � , �� t �;�' /� � I � AQ h � r � a - � �` � � .� %� �� ''`\ ��`� Q� :� i � l, •, i�f �'��u � 1�' - �- — � -�"�s' -""�� _� -� _ �_ � i F ''----�� \ '�� \'- � _ � , : .. o .�� , �� __ _ .� _ � — _ _.�� ._ :� ---___.__ , �� _ � _�— � ^. .�� . - . . / . 1 .Y - -- _��f _.._._ �. � - - --- --� --`` � ` ;' � ,- r ` . tJ .�� I•r��= , n�w �\ � t ;�- `. � �� . � i -- - 7 f. '�Inn ..�rt Icw A' � ' � �^ 4�w�: .. - �\\ ,�' ,y �': / �'` i ..! 1.�� (� - 1 I' ..J � ��' '7' _ _._" _ � .��\� \, i�i� �, ;� r' \.,'' �j ,' I ti`� i - - �-, _. �� (�� r ._ 1 .\ ,� , f . . , � -^� l...L.f.L i � � ';`�-��.L. �� : �,,^ �� ,� c•'' � 1 ' ,_ � r �j ° ._ _ __� L _ ,�, _ ---.__. � � ' s^ , ' r _ %"� ,' �_ __-- ---_ _ ` __ j� ��- �� -- 7��('�_ r=� -----_J � � � � r�Ff ��\ %� . �`.1 (` �-'�+ i' � / "'�� 4� F J� . t--� � �� .` -i.Iri�e \\ � � . �' .�� 1� `�`:: `�/ . ��+r^` ___,i�.' ,� .ILI / \ �I` _._._ _ a _ J _ T�LLLI_I.n .. Q _�� \ \ J � 1 `�:� I' ^ ' `,{� ' ' \ �^ _ q� � \� � •;;` � ,�, �.�` �� f� . �-'� -- ---- -- I - - _ ,,�� rl � _ ,, .�1 ----- ._ - � - .1 �_ ___ � � �\ �� 1 t �.,,, �.1., �.r� ,� � :� - - f /'r _� e.,.-_. I .�� w � � � ,..: \ .,� , , m,�;.� ; . }: --- - . 4 I 's � - � -�``� �� _ i -., _ � + - _��TM�._ �-- � -°— ` � `. �.� y� � ;'' , a r ''' �i' � - _ - �.' i. -� - �-� i -�� - `7`�� _ �• _ � W z �� e � ��` �^' ��ti, --- �' _`----- r A + ,� �f a� 5 � I � a � � -- � f; / '.� / �. 1 ._` ,•S;�- _ -- -_ -1 _ ni' �� \ �y-• - '-�� 1 •� -_ - _ -- - - --�I � � a a I �' � . � 1 �>, � � _ _ L.L. _c..I_I:]._ _1_:Li. :� - � " � ; � , , - - -- j' / ! .<j,; x�m � ...__. 1 �.. �� / / / �i:. - -.._._ _ _ .� _ _ _ --- niyrm9--.—_"_ . - � �( '� �I � _ j-�,•�- L� ,`.L� `�(T, �1.,,� -I•---- .` _ -�'_�� r---•-- v�t � lI v�^ l^_-,�^'�.,.''��•` 'r�� ./�/! i - .� � _ �.l%_�_ �-� -IitFi� I- t I -g Ei,.�•��•. - - � � � �� • �' ; i � /, � ,�, , :; / � ,• , , • -,--- -- � _ - - '� - - % , �� : ,, � �J \ -� [��J ' � . %�-�:�� \� ��' . /•�.^� ._..__.. , �-�---�; : -� _ _ � - ,�"; �� f� ;��-"��I�`� _ =-�� - -\"",---'�, � , + :i j' ` � ��,��i� � �; ti ;j �; � _ ,�_ . __r��' H� �c _ � _.�:��'"�'� _ , + a� f;. ' ;+'> '','y./ �, / I._. 1 � -�a Q W _ �- "�\ ,� _ _ 1 ( ] _�.�: / �,�. ( ;j�� / � I 1 1 Z � J r �J ��-. - - l L�1��tT -- •- - / � ��'�`y� . �i" . j�:, i`�/ �.� ;�C,!'��. j.� f,' h � V --� �� -- _��F'}�-. � ?'if'� � r- T '-`--- -�----^^'�- - - _'� � . , , � � i � ��. .,. ;:, � ,,. .. : b —� � r -. �,. / . , , , ; 1 �r�--,��. - T-� ( �`; .� � ,,, . ... ..0 . ..,. -, -•.,--- -, . ._..._ ._ ---r_._-_� �i",rr�r-r . � I � _ k.�._.��/ -'•• . �_� I '�. :. . i ..i --. 'i� . � . \. � �...i. � ! '�l�i �� , � . 1