11/01/2004 - Packet 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
•
ti
EN D A //Hnntndl
City of Tigard
Comimm�ity Development
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION S helping A Better Commmmity
NOVEMBER 1, 2004 7:00 p.m.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER- RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. COMMUNICATIONS
4. APPROVE MINUTES
5. BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
7. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPDATE
8. OTHER BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT
.min. Apr.
• •
/441*
Ali
CITY OF TIGARD
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
HEARING DATE: I I a14
STARTING TIME: 7 . (S v r
COMMISSIONERS: l/7 MARK PADGETT (PRESIDENT)
MARTY ANDERSON
GRETCHEN BUEHNER
REX CAFFALL
BILL HAACK
JODIE INMAN
z- KATHY MEADS
JUDY MUNRO (VICE-PRESIDENT)
SCOT SUTTON
STAFF PRESENT:
DICK BEWERSDORFF JIM HENDRYX
MORGAN TRACY BARBARA SHIELDS
MATT SCHEIDEGGER JULIA HAJDUK
GARY PAGENSTECHER DUANE ROBERTS
KIM MCMILLAN BETH ST. AMAND
GUS DUENAS
• •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall
Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Anderson, Buehner,
Haack, Inman, Meads, Munro, and Sutton
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Caffall
Staff Present: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager; Julia Hajduk, Associate
Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary
3. COMMUNICATIONS
• In response to a request from the Commission, the secretary passed out
copies of all Planning Commission minutes from 2000-2003 that dealt with
planned developments. The 2004 minutes are on line.
• The next public hearing is scheduled for November 15th
• The next Planned Development Code Review Committee will be November
10th
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the September 20, 2004 meeting minutes
as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Munro
abstained.
5. BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
Associate Planner Julia Hajduk advised that she had come to the Commission in
May to discuss the 2003 Buildable Lands Inventory and explained the
assumptions. At that time, the Commission asked to have it reevaluated slightly,
not changing the assumptions, but differentiating between fully vacant lands and
partially vacant lands. She referred to the memo to the Commission dated
October 25, 2004.
Hajduk noted that both the Urban Services area and the Tigard area have
roughly 50%-50% fully vacant & partially vacant land available. She had the
Commission review the buildable lands map that identifies parcels that are fully
vacant, partially vacant, and those parcels that were identified as buildable in
2002 but have now been removed from the inventory.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November I,2004-Page 1
•
It was noted that it is difficult to make any precise development projections. We
have some general ideas, but it's a moving target. Hajduk advised that the
assumptions are not very detailed —fully vacant is land without a habitable
structure; partially vacant is anything else.
Hajduk said the buildable lands map is used by the building department and
citizens to help make projections. Also, it will be used to see if we are on track
for density goals for Metro.
Planning Manager Barbara Shields said that with the Comprehensive Plan
update, the Planning Commission may address if policies are needed to
stimulate in-fill development.
President Padgett asked if staff is considering the amount of density (density
transfers and density bonuses) that will be given to Planned Developments since
many undeveloped parcels are difficult to develop and will most likely apply for
PD overlays. Staff answered that, for right now, the City is just doing an
inventory of buildable lands.
Shields noted that the City will look specifically at infill and decide if we want to
encourage or discourage infill redevelopment. The number of dwelling units
inside the City created with infill redevelopment will depend on what types of
incentives the City will offer. President Padgett asked if there would be any
consideration given to try to keep density down, e.g., a legislative plan
amendment to convert some of the residential zoning to commercial industrial.
Shields said these are the types of discussions that will be held during the
Comprehensive Plan update.
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Barbara Shields reviewed the proposed timeline for the Comprehensive Plan
update (Exhibit A). She advised that most of her planners are currently working
on the Downtown Improvement Plan. She said she would be going to Council in
November to discuss the public involvement process — how to structure it and
who will be the leading group. She said that public involvement elements are
time consuming and expensive. There will be a joint work session with the
Planning Commission and Council probably in February.
Shields will have 3 planners working exclusively on the update. She would like to
establish a Citywide task force and have a number of review subcommittees in
charge of specific aspects of the program. She believes the Planning
Commission would be in charge of about 70% of update.
Shields went through the elements of the program, noting that it will take 2'/2 to 3
years to finalize the whole Comprehensive Plan update. She believes most of
the staff work for the Downtown Improvement Plan will be complete by April or
May of 2005. Commissioner Buehner said she didn't see how the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 1,2004-Page 2
• •
Comprehensive Plan update can get started until the Downtown Plan is finished.
She noted that most of the current City Councilors do not have a lot of land use
background and she is concerned about presenting anything to them that will
give them an unreasonable expectation that cannot be fulfilled. She suggested
stretching the timelines out to be more realistic. The Commissioners believe
noted that a penalty for being late with completion of the update could be a
reduction in citizen confidence. The consensus of the Commission was to
encourage the Planning Department to come up with as realistic a timeline as
possible for the update without trying to rush through it.
Judy Munro reported on the public involvement process for the Downtown Task
Force.
7. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPDATE
Barbara Shields advised that nothing new is happening; the City is waiting on the
Bull Mountain annexation vote. She said it would be a Council policy decision if
they want to do a cherry stem annexation to go to the UGB expansion area. The
annexation issue will be a part of the Comprehensive Plan update discussions.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
The next meeting is scheduled for November 15tH
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 pm
Aide
• .140
4erree .:ynor, Plann ng Co �%ission Secretary
ATTEST: President i-rk Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -November 1,2004-Page 3
DRAFT -°-" k
Comprehensive Plan Update: Timeline Logistics
`' ainrE�h„ e�T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 t-4 [ 15:` 6 17 :8°{ 2� �2 23- ,- 5 26 27 28
g4 _ s ask-. i ,�> 2
"r T�1e.4..vw�...z... _�.�,..��.x� Y :F' — �7�il,�:'f�c. .,
- — i ..._.n•- :r">+ . rte.... ..- ,
..De elopi tent of-Public
; Participation:
:'Plan%Pragram
Major issues:
•Must have clear message for involven
1.Develop Draft Public Participation @Must provide wide range of options fo; ,.rttctpation
Plan
■Must reflect critical points of overall s, h program(critical path meetings and _
2.Review Draft Plan activities(overall program must be map. • ,mt) _
3.Adopt Public Participation Plan -1 ■Must be adopted by Council before pug,c outreach/involvement begins
—! —
Task Force Appointed
I
rBACKGROUNb REPORT
Part I,Prepare Land Use Inventory
and Trend Anal -is
t.Po.ulation -
2.Buildable Lands Invento ;i Major issues
3.Economic Develo.ment(Goal 9) a Must contain alternatives for land use designana zllo�ation:needs to include discussion on residential,
( ) ,i commercial industrial,natural resources,oi' • space.facilities/transportation elements
4.Residential Develo.ment(Goal 10) a Must balance land inventory with community is..,and realistic implementation options
•
5.Natural Resources/Constraints(Goal 5, 1 ■Must be"quality product": solid foundations ' ommunitywide review and discussion;credible
6,7) . nformation;refined;readable
6.0.en S.ace/Recreation(Goal 8,5) ■ •Must invols e all key City Departments("Techr....i Ads tnory Group')to proves/develop technical reports;
- ,'ublic Works.Public Facilities,Open Space/Rec• ,ion Natural Resource;Engineering:Transportation;
7.Infrastructure(Goal I I) . .■ ance:implementation/funding strategies
8.Trans.ortation (Goal 12) a Information Review Loop:Technical Group dt .rp-report—Internal Staff Review—Planning Commission
9.Annexation and Urbanization Goal 14 . ze.iewi Task Force Review
Part H.Develop Land Use Alternatives 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\CompPlan\Comprehensive Plan Update Timelineoct04.doc 1
DRAFT
1.Prepare Alternatives
2.Review Alternatives
3.Finalize Report
Back round Re ort Published
y
Ta tiOd to Process
I.Conduct Series of Open Houses to
■
introduce alternatives(5-10); Major Issues:
•
II.Conduct Follow up Series of Small uTransition from Vision to Goals/Policies/Implementation
Group Workshops focused on programs
refinements to alternatives(20-30) •Number of open houses needs to be determined as part of
III.Conduct Series of Open Houses to Public Participation Plan;
share preferred alternatives(land use s Time/Resource Intensive process;need for skilled
distribution and policies)(3-5) facilitators ■
•Peak point of Public Participation Program:consensus on
IV.Prepare Draft Recommendations ,preferred alternative
-------■
Draft Recommendations .
Published uuuIiIUU
W xssF' �„! C,7 �
,*"fn .> f X41-^. ,; �,„4-s:.•--�- - - - i
I.Prepare Draft Text Major Issues:
II.Prepare Draft Maps ■Document production phase:assembling all pieces in one
coherent document;
II.Finalize Inventory ■Intensive internal review;edits
III.Finalize Technical Appendices •Graphic presentation;format;readable document
IV.Review of Draft Document I I I , I , I I I i
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\CompPlan\Comprehensive Plan Update Timelineoct04.doc 2
DRAFT
Draft Document Published
I.Prepare Notices(Measure 56,
legislative notices) Major Issue
II.Conduct Public Hearings(PC/CC)
■Adoption must follow land use laws
`III.Finalize Document •Extensive notification required
Plan Ado ted
s
I
3
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\CompPlan\Comprehensive Plan Update Timelineoct04.doc
• 11'41-1 t-encial
;
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julia Hajduky
DATE: October 25, 2004
SUBJECT: 2003 Buildable lands update
This memo provides a brief discussion of the assumptions used for the 2002 and 2003
inventory, a general' overview of the 2003 buildable acres, and projected capacity based on
the remaining buildable lands.
Staff originally presented the 2003 buildable lands inventory in May of 2004. At that time, the
Planning Commission directed staff to revise the inventory to distinguish between partially
vacant (infill) and fully vacant parcels. At the November 1, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting, staff will present the revised 2003 buildable lands inventory map with the partially
vacant and fully vacant parcels distinguished. In addition to presenting the map, the
assumptions used to develop the original (2002 inventory) and the 2003 update will be
reviewed.
Assumptions used for 2002 and 2003 BLI
Based on Planning Commission input previously, the BLI was divided into fully vacant and
partially vacant. At this time, it is assumed that all buildable acres will develop at the
minimum density. Over time, however, it may be more accurate to adjust the capacity
assumptions to reflect that some infill sites may never develop. Fully vacant land is defined
as a tax lot with no structures other than small accessory structures such as a shed and
excluding land with wetlands, floodplains or public or private tracts. Partially vacant is an
conglomeration of land 1/4 of an acre or larger that is not on a parcel designated as fully
vacant.
2003 Buildable Land Inventory
Table 1 shows the identified buildable acres Table 1. 2003 buildable land (acres)
through December 31, 2003. The table Urb Tigard only
shows the acreage in Tigard and in the urban Commercial 0 100.9
services areas2. Attachment A to this memo Residential 320.9 426.7
Industrial 0 72.8
l A detailed breakdown of buildable lands by zone is provided in an attachment to this memo.
2 Includes the Bull Mountain area and the unincorporated area north of the Tualatin River, east of 99W and
south of Durham Road
• •
provides a detailed breakdown of the buildable acreages by zone and identifying the amount
of land by zone that is partially and fully vacant. Of the total acreage, about half is fully
vacant and half partially vacant. The Tigard portion has a higher proportion of fully vacant
parcels. However, the partially vacant parcels in the urban services areas tend to be much
larger lots.
Change from 2002 Buildable Land Inventory
The 2003 Buildable Land data was developed using the 2002 Buildable lands data and
removing parcels that have received final inspections. In addition, some cleaning up of the
2002 data layer was done to remove openspace areas that were required as part of
subdivision approvals (even if still owned by Table 2. Net reduction in the designated
the developer) and modifications were made buildable land acres 2002 to 2003
to more accurately reflect developable areas urb Tigard only
on partially developed parcels. Table 2, to Commercial 0 2.0
the right, shows the difference between the Residential 67.7 54.7
2002 and 2003 buildable lands. Industrial 0 0.1
Remaining capacity (projected at 80%)
The projected capacity, by zone is based on development at 80% of the maximum density.
This is required by the development in compliance with Title 1 of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan. The capacity estimate assumes that all the identified buildable
land will develop at the minimum density. While some of the areas (such as some of the infill
sites) may never develop, others may develop closer to the maximum densities. Data will be
tracked over time to record development trends. For this analysis, the 80% assumption for all
areas is used. Table 3 shows the projected residential capacity for both Tigard and the
Urban Services area.
Table 3 - Projected 2003 capacity (residential
The capacity compared to 2002 was units) based on zone3
reduced by 372 units for Tigard and 517 Tigard alone Urb
units in the Urban Services area. It R-1 1 0
should be noted that the reduction in R-2 3 0
capacity does not directly relate to the R-3.5 69 0
actual number of units built within a R-4.5 1097 25
specific time period because there were R-7 480 2152
several tracts that were removed from the R_92 652 68
inventory because they were required to R-25 1008 14
be maintained as openspace as part of
R-40 0 0
development review. The 2002 inventory z59..•
was a first step and provided a broad tout a 331Q'.;
brush estimate. Each year, the inventory will be reviewed and updated to provide a more
focused look at the remaining buildable lands.
3 Capacity numbers rounded to the nearest whole number
• 0
Attachment A-2003 Buildable land acreage by zone
Urban Services Area Tigard
- Full Part ;� '': y '� `r Full ,
Part '.IOU41': '
CBD 0.0 0.0 1' 1; 0.2 0.6 :Qr.9�.
CC 0.0 0.0 _ ` ,,f.,1;1,4...,,:.:4 0.0 0.0 '.:41.0'
CG 0,0 0.0 a atr d:,,.,
CN 0.0 0.0 �` . f p44,,;':),'
33.4 8.7 42,1,
la,.,,b F g,,, 0.0 0.0 t0
CP 0.0 0.0 = k w " 2.7 3.6 - _it, .'
MUC 0.0 0.0 ? ,. k;r<, 2.3 0.9 ;
MUC-1 0.0 0.0 , '... 6„'p'c 6.9 0.0 'i` . .6:9''.
MUE 0.0 0.0 r la k,; 17.3 9.7
y �. 27.0:
MUE-1 0.0 0.0 ..°P� ' s 7.1 1.6 r.,
MUE-2 0A 0.0 �
P ;!z;'az 0.9 0.0 0 0
MUR-1 0.0 0.0x,;; K '<«, ;' 2.5 1.8 '4:3
MUR-2 0.0 0.0 ' =.v,i t,; ; 0.2 0.5 0.7 .
R-1 0.0 0.0 +`+':' 0.0 0.4 . :0.4'r
R-12 - 1.6 4.3 '`'ti.µ ';s-<;;;; 12.5 44.6 , 671'
R-2 0• .2 0.0 .kk;r .,.,.F,
R-25 . 0• .5 0.1 <m,2. ' 32.9 9.9 ' 4• 21^
R-3.5 0.0 0.0 ':r 0>- t�'J,'i''" 6.4 13.5 ;r=,:;x9,9';,
R-4.5 -1.3 6.8 ' fN;`a k,,(`'f•
79.1 156.9 ".;236 0
R-40 0.0 0.0 ,_...;, , 0.0 0.0 0;0:
R-7 142.0 166.7
y5:t,71, ,',: 50.5 18.4 8• 8:9
I-L 0.0 0.0 = k,=`Frv,,, ,;) '' •;F 20.9 3.9 .. ,24:8,'
s Y .
I-P 0.0 0.0 �a',S . r;!'`.' 43.7 4.3 , °,48:0 .
I-H 0.0 0.0 : '..!- , 0.0 0.0 . ''. 00
Totals 143.0 177.9 �` r4
"` .L.::., 319.5 280.9 '.600:4
Attachment B -Change in buildable acres between 2002 and 2003 by zone
Net Change 2002-2003 Net Change 2002-2003
Urban Services area Tigard only
(net acres removed) (net acres removed)
_CBD 0.0 0.0
CC 0.0 0.0
CG 0.0 0.4
CN 0.0 0.0
CP 0.0 0.8
MUC 0.0 0.1
MUC-1 0.0 0.0
MUE 0.0 0.2
MUE-1 0.0 0.0
MUE-2 0.0 -0.1
MUR-1 0.0 -0.1
MUR-2 0.0 0.0
R-1 0.0 0.0
R-12 3.8 6.7
R-2 0.1 0.0
R-25 2.0 2.2
R-3.5 3.6 -0.7
R-4.5 0.0 31.8
R-40 0.0 0.0
R-7 58.8 14.1
I-L 0.0 0.1
I-P 0.0 0.0
I-H 0.0 0.0
Totals 68.3 ( 56.2