01/24/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2005
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, Bienerth,
Buehner, Caffall, Meads, and Munro. Also present
were Teddi Duling and David Walsh, Commission
alternates.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Haack
Staff Present: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager; Julia Hajduk, Associate
Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Buehner suggested the Commission discuss the subject of term
limits for officers. President Padgett asked the secretary to schedule this
discussion for a future meeting. He said he does not like adding things to the
agenda at the last minute without people knowing about it ahead of time.
Mark Padgett and Jodie Inman were nominated for President; Judy Munro was
nominated for Vice-President. Mark Padgett was re-elected as President of the
Planning Commission; Judy Munro was re-elected as Vice-President.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
The next meeting is scheduled for February 7th to discuss 05/06 CIP projects and
the Comprehensive Plan urbanization and annexation segment. There is a joint
meeting with Council on February 15th
With regard to annexation, President Padgett suggested that Beaverton and
Tigard have a discussion group to talk about annexation, e.g., what has been
tried by each, what works, what doesn't. The County could be involved in some
sort of a phasing down of their urban services provision.
Concerning urbanization and annexation strategy and the Comprehensive Plan
update, Barbara Shields said in terms of developing the overall work program, it's
going to be difficult to be realistic about City resources if we don't account for the
unincorporated area, including the UGB extension areas and Metzger.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 1
President Padgett advised there will be a bill introduced in the Legislature to
eliminate the double majority provision inside the Metro boundary to make it
consistent throughout the entire state. Single majority voting will be the method
used for annexations.
Padgett believes that annexation issues may be the most important part of the
Comprehensive Plan review. Shields advised that Duane Roberts is developing
a policy paper and will be giving a presentation to the Commission on February
7th. She said the City needs to have a good handle on the urbanization and
annexation strategies before the Comprehensive Plan Update program can be
finalized. This will be discussed by the City Council in March. The
recommendation for the program for this year will be to engage the Planning
Commission with the program strategy development and prepare
recommendations for Council.
The Commission expressed their desire to meet with the Council when there is a
significant amount of time available to discuss issues. When Council agendas
are full, the Commission feels they are being rushed.
Commissioner Meads asked about the resignation of one of the Commissioners.
President Padgett advised that Council is considering going back to 7 members
for the Planning Commission. If they do, it will happen by attrition. If they don't,
one of the alternates will be appointed.
5. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the November 1, 2004 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Caffall abstained.
It was moved and seconded to approve the November 15, 2004 meeting minutes
as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
It was moved and seconded to approve the December 20, 2004 meeting minutes
as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. President Padgett abstained.
6. LONG RANGE PLANNING PROGRAM: DISCUSSION OF PRIORITIES
Long Range Planning Manager Barbara Shields talked about current projects in
Long Range Planning. She referred to the binder the Planning Commission used
last year while discussing the program for the Comprehensive Plan update. She
reviewed the work done by the Commission last year on the update program.
Shields noted that before the Commission could develop any recommendations
for Council, they had a number of questions for the Council. The questions were:
• What are program priorities — how does the Council see the priorities for
the Planning Commission for the next year?
• What about the study area for the update?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 2
• What about the public involvement process —what style/type of approach
should the Council recommend for public involvement?
• Who should be in charge of the update process — the Planning
Commission or maybe a task force?
Shields referred to her memo to the Commission (Exhibit A). She reported that
Council determined that the priority for this year for the Long Range Planning
program should be to finalize the Downtown Improvement Plan. Shields said this
is a TGM grant program and Council would like the project to be finalized along
with most of the implementation phase.
Regarding the study area, Shields advised that the Council suggested talking to
the County and see how we should engage them in the planning process and
how they can help us in terms of resources. With regard to the public
involvement process and the task force, Council indicated the best way would be
to discuss this with the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Munro reported that the Downtown Task Force is under a
deadline because of the TGM grant. She said there could be continuing action
after development of the plan. They don't want to create a plan that won't be
implemented. President Padgett asked if there has been a thought that most or
a substantial part of improvements will be paid by the City or has there been a
partnership mentality between the City and the property owners. Munro
answered that the task force hasn't discussed this yet, but subcommittees have
been formed to look into issues. One of the subcommittees is for funding.
Munro advised that it will be a 20 year plan and there is no thought that the City
would bear the costs. There are a lot of property owners in the Downtown area
that are not local. The task force has sent maps and notices to all property
owners in an effort to engage them in the plan.
Shields said the Downtown component would be a strong element in the Long
Range Planning work program. Another element will be urbanization and
annexation policies.
As far as the program development for the Comprehensive Plan update, Shields
advised that Council envisioned our focus mostly on the Downtown issue and
they want to continue meeting with the Planning Commission and discussing
some of the Comprehensive Plan elements throughout this year because they
want to learn more about the Comprehensive Plan component. She is relying on
Commissioners with more experience to come to the Council meetings. She
suggested Commissioners Padgett, Buehner, Munro, and Inman.
Shields advised that another important component of the Long Range Planning
program is natural resource protection (Goal 5). She doesn't want to lose what
the City gained last year in terms of program development. Metro changed their
approach with natural resource protection —the emphasis will be on non-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 3
regulatory changes to the program. Potentially, Metro will be looking at an open
space bond measure next year. Julia Hajduk said staff would like to come back
to the Commission in late February about Goal 5.
The Commission asked about Measure 37 and how it might relate to Goal 5.
Shields advised that Council adopted a special ordinance for Measure 37 claims
and said the Commission could discuss this at the next meeting.
Shields said that another issue is how to deal with economic policies for the City,
including urban renewal discussions. She said this would be another part of the
Long Range Planning program.
President Padgett noted that the Comprehensive Plan is a plan to manage what
happens on the land. The economic portion of the Comprehensive Plan relates
to how we manage our City and the land. He asked if the City would have a
separate economic development plan that would be independent of the
Comprehensive Plan. Shields believes it may focus on all the different economic
development plans, e.g., Washington Square Regional Center, the Downtown
Plan, Tigard Triangle, and look at the implementation phases. The
Comprehensive Plan is the major policy document and there also are
implementation measures.
Shields asked the Commission for their opinion about the Long Range Planning
work program. President Padgett thinks Council should set a policy to determine
how much weight will be given to the economic development of projects. Shields
said the City has a set of land use policies and goals, etc., and under the
Comprehensive Plan, there has to be a sense of implementation measures (how
will the City implement/fund all the policies). Commissioner Buehner suggested
the City look at re-creating an Economic Development Director position.
Shields said Long Range planners will need to focus on the Downtown Plan,
along with looking at urbanization and annexation, natural resource protection,
and continuing discussion on the Comprehensive Plan update program. She
advised there wouldn't be much time devoted to an economic development
component.
Commissioner Buehner believes the City Council does not understand that the
Comprehensive Plan underlies the Downtown Plan and other programs. There
has to be a major update in the Comprehensive Plan first or all the other
programs will not function. She emphasized the need for a long one-on-one
meeting with the Council.
President Padgett agreed, saying that completing other programs before
updating the Comprehensive Plan is backwards. Nothing will be cohesive.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 4
Shields believes the urbanization and annexation components of the
Comprehensive Plan need to be clarified before we start the update.
Commissioner Buehner urged that staff revise the figures on how much land is in
unincorporated Bull Mountain, stating that a lot of land has already been annexed
into the City. She also wants to address the issue about islands that will be
created as annexation occurs.
Shields told the Commission that, with the complexity of all the programs, their
support was needed. Commissioner Buehner again stressed the need to meet
one on one with the Council to educate them.
Shields briefly listed other projects that the Long Range Planning staff is involved
with. She asked how the Planning Commission wants to participate in discussion
with the Council about the Long Range Planning work program. President
Padgett believes it's most important to look at the Comprehensive Plan update —
this is a policy difference with Council.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Barbara Shields began a PowerPoint presentation on the Comprehensive Plan
Update (Exhibit B).
Commissioner Meads asked for clarification about the update process — can the
Commission just go through the Plan section by section and make changes if
needed. She doesn't think the Commission is making any progress on the
update. President Padgett said that Council needs to come up with a goal
statement for the Comprehensive Plan and then get into specifics on how to
make the document conform to the Council goal. Shields noted that the City
does not have the staff resources to get started on the update.
Commissioner Buehner suggested sending a detailed memo to Council that is
very specific about what the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Statewide
Planning Goals state. She doesn't want to just give them generalized
information. If they have the information beforehand, meeting time can be spent
talking about the process.
Commissioner Inman questioned why the Commission is discussing the update if
it's not a priority for Council. President Padgett said he would like the Council to
understand the Commission's point of view. He suggested that staff give Council
an overview of the process to educate them, then set a meeting between the
Council and Planning Commission so the Commission can advocate for moving
the Comp Plan update higher on the priority list.
It was moved and seconded to authorize Commissioner Buehner to speak on
behalf of the Planning Commission at the February 15th City Council meeting on
the presentation of the Comprehensive Plan update. The motion passed
unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 5
Shields asked if the Commission had any comments about the Long Range
Planning work program. Commissioner Buehner thinks that, with the shortage of
staff resources, we should back off on Goal 5 until we get feedback from the
Legislature. With regard to urbanization and annexation policies, the
Commission thinks this is the first decision that has to be made in the whole
Comprehensive Plan update process.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
None
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
111.''
Jerree G.ynor, Pla ing C. mission Secretary
Ede_
ATTEST: esident Mark gett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -January 24,2005-Page 6
14.,? dam.. -171-
Memo
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Barbara Shields,Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Long Range Planning Program 2005
Date: January 10, 2005
This memo contains a summary of the key recommendations for the 2005 Long Range Planning
Program. The proposed program was developed in response to the Council discussion on
November 22, 2004(Exhibit 1).
Please review the proposed program for our discussion at the January 24,2005 Planning
Commission meeting. Our next step will be to finalize the program and present it to the City
Council at the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on February 14,2005 as part
of the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Update Program.
Tier I.Policy Implementation Projects
1. Downtown Redevelopment
Under the TGM grant, the City needs to finalize the Tigard Improvement Plan by June 30,
2005. The grant work will result in the Concept Plan (arrangement of land uses and
transportation)and the implementation program.
The implementation program will consist of regulatory tools(recommendations for ordinance
amendments) and non-regulatory tools (funding). With Measure 37 impacts, the City's focus
should stay on the non-regulatory tools for the next few years.
2. Urbanization and Annexation
At the November 22 meeting, Council indicated that it may consider including the Bull
Mountain unincorporated areas in the Comprehensive Plan update provided that Washington
County contributes its resources to the program.
The"unincorporated Bull Mountain Area"includes the "Bull Mountain Annexation Plan
Area"(approximately 1,400 acres)and the newly added UGB areas(approximately 480
acres).The addition of the Bull Mountain unincorporated area to the Comprehensive Plan
Update program would increase the size of the overall study area by approximately 25%,
which would, in turn, impact the amount of resources needed to work on the Comprehensive
Plan update. Excluding the"unincorporated Bull Mountain area"would impact the trend
analysis element of the Comprehensive Plan, which would, in turn, impact the ultimate shape
of the plan(densities,transportation, etc.)
Under the current City and County Urban Planning Area Agreement,the County is
responsible for long range planning in unincorporated areas
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
At the November 22 meeting,the Council indicated that the Comprehensive Plan update
should be part of the Long Range Planning Program, but not the main focal point in 2005.
Rather,the Planning Commission should continue discussing the program with the Council
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\PC\2005\Memo2005program.doc 1
through 2005 to build a general understating about the Comprehensive Plan program
components and the extent of the public outreach process.Also,the City should not rush into
the program,without any clear understating what type of tools may be applicable in view of
the overall Measure 37 impacts.
4. Natural Resource/Open Space Protection and Development
In the last few years the City dedicated a significant amount of resources to work on the Goal
5 program with the ultimate objective to protect the significant natural areas in Tigard. With
the Measure 37 impacts,there is a need to reassess the significance of the potential non-
regulatory tools,which may be used in Tigard,such as parks and open space acquisition. The
development of the Fanno Creek natural areas is one of the key components of the Downtown
Plan.A preliminary analysis of the overall downtown improvement program indicates that
the amount of improvements may exceed the estimated revenue for urban renewal. Therefore,
there is a need to determine the type of the projects that may be funded outside the urban
renewal funding, such as an open space bond measure.The UGB expansion areas contain a
significant amount of natural open spaces. The Concept Plan for the UGB area needs to
address the protection of natural areas and provision of parkland.
Based on the current survey,there is public support for additional open space acquisition in
Tigard.
5. Economic Development
In the last several years,the City has adopted two significant master plans to lay foundations
for economic redevelopment in the Tigard Triangle area and the Washington Square Regional
Center area.The County has initiated and has been leading a Hwy 217 Corridor Study to
examine the potential for urban renewal along the Commuter Rail/217 corridor.The study
area includes Washington Square, Downtown, and employment areas along Hwy 217.In June
2005,the City is scheduled to finalize the Downtown Improvement Plan and move to the
implementation phase of the program, including funding.
In short,there is a need to analyze/consolidate the approach for the economic development
program for the City to assure that the employment/industrial areas are part of the overall
City's discussion on liveability.
Tier II Ongoing Planning Research,Compliance,and Funding Programs
1. Funding: Grant Research and Funding(Block Grants,MTIP, Enhancement Programs)
2. Transportation: Hwy 217 Study, TriMet MOU implementation
3. Metro Compliance: Regional and Town Centers, Corridors, Goal 5,Residential Densities and
Affordable Housing.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\PC\2005\Memo2005program.doc 2
EXHIBIT 1
Memo:
To: Jim Hendryx
From: Barbara Shields
RE: Long Range Planning Division Program Overview 2005-2006
Date: December 1,2004
CC: Bill Monahan
The objective of this memo is to discuss recommendations for the Long Range Planning Program for
2005-2006 in response to the Council discussion on November 22,2004.
Summary of Recommendations:
This is a summary of the key recommendations for the 2005-2006 Long Range Planning Program
Tier I.Policy Implementation Projects
1. Downtown Redevelopment
2. Urbanization and Annexation
3. Comprehensive Plan Update Refinement
4. Natural Resource/Open Space Protection and Development
5. Economic Development
Tier II Ongoing Planning Research, Compliance,and Funding Implementation Programs
1. Funding: Grant Research and Funding(Block Grants,MTIP, Enhancement Programs)
2. Transportation: Hwy 217 Study, TriMet MOU implementation
3. Metro Compliance: Regional and Town Centers,Corridors, Goal 5,Residential Densities
and Affordable Housing.
The memo consists of two parts:
B. Summary of Council directions; and
C. Recommendations for Long Range Planning Program 2005-2006.
A. Summary of Council's Directions (Attachment 1)
This is a summary of Council's directions in response to the four questions, which were raised during
the presentation:
1. Program Priorities. How should the City prioritize the Long Range Planning projects to assure
that the Comp Plan Update remains a focal point of the planning program in the next three plus
years?
Directions:
• The Downtown program should remain the priority. It should not be jeopardized by any other
major projects. It is a big project by itself. It should not end with the adoption of the TGM
grant products.The next step should be to develop an effective implementation program.
• The Comprehensive Plan update should be part of the program but not the main focal point.
Rather,the Planning Commission should finalize the program after the joint meeting with
Council in February. The City should continue to build a general understating about the
Comprehensive Plan program components and the extent of the public outreach process.
• The City should not rush into the program,without any clear understating what type of tools
may be applicable in view of the overall Measure 37 impacts.
2. Study Area. Should the Comprehensive Plan Update Program include the unincorporated Bull
Mountain area?This area includes both the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan area and the UGB
expansion areas.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memojimDec04.doc 1
Direction:
• Council may consider including the Bull Mountain unincorporated areas in the Comprehensive
Plan update provided that Washington County contributes its resources to the program.
• The City needs to initiate a discussion with the County to assess the level of support that may
be provided by the County for the Comprehensive Plan update.
3. Public Involvement Process. What should be the extent of the public involvement process?
Directions:
• More time is needed to understand the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Update Program.
• The City should continue to build a general understating about the Comprehensive Plan
program components to determine the extent of the public outreach process.
4. Task Force. Should Council appoint a new Task Force to guide the Comprehensive Plan Update
Program?How should the City go about it?Do we need a new committee or some blend of the
existing committees?
Directions:
• More time is needed to evaluate this question.
• As the City progresses with the public outreach program development, it will explore different
options for a committee to guide the Comprehensive Plan Update Program.
B. Proposed Long Range Planning Program 2005-2006
Tier I.Policy Implementation Projects
1. Downtown Redevelopment
Issues:
• Under the TGM,the City needs to finalize the Tigard Improvement Plan by June 30, 2005.
The grant work will result in: Concept Plan(arrangement of land uses and transportation)and
the implementation program.
• The implementation program will consist of regulatory tools(recommendations for ordinance
amendments)and non-regulatory tools(funding).With Measure 37 impacts,the City's focus
should stay on the non-regulatory tools for the next few years.
• A preliminary analysis of the overall downtown improvement program indicates that the
amount of improvements may exceed the estimated revenue for urban renewal. Therefore,
there is a need to determine the type of the projects that may be funded outside the urban
renewal funding.
• As those additional funding mechanisms would need to include local,regional, and state
funding sources,the funding program will address several major funding sources and the
appropriate organizational approaches to build the state,regional,and local support for the
downtown area.
Objective:
In general,the overriding objective in 2005 should be to develop a solid understanding of the
catalyst and signature projects and finalize the ground work needed for the urban renewal ballot
(2005 or 2006)and the inclusion of open space related downtown projects for the open space and
parks bond measure for November 2006 election.
Note: The Washington County Commuter Rail/Hwy 217 Revitalization Corridor study may
include recommendations for the November 2005 urban renewal ballot.
Summary of Major Actions:
• Adopt the Tigard Improvement Plan by June-July 2005 (TGM grant)
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memojimDec04.doe 2
• Develop and finalize the Downtown Implementation Program(identify catalyst and signature
projects)by March-June 2005
• Transition from the Downtown Task Force program to the Downtown
Funding/Implementation Committee program(Urban Renewal)
• Start developing regional and state support for Tigard
2. Urbanization and Annexation
Issues:
• At the November 23 meeting,Council indicated that it may consider including the Bull
Mountain unincorporated areas in the Comprehensive Plan update provided that Washington
County contributes its resources to the program.
• The unincorporated Bull Mountain Area includes the"Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Area"
(approximately 1,400 acres)and the newly added UGB areas(approximately 480 acres). The
addition of the Bull Mountain unincorporated area to the Comprehensive Plan Update
program would increase the size of the overall study area by approximately 25%, which
would,in turn,impact the amount of resources needed to work on the Comprehensive Plan
update.
UGB issues:
• Any planning effort for the UGB expansion area needs to comply with the Metro
requirements ("Concept Plan",Title 12 Functional Plan). The Concept Plan needs to evaluate
a number of planning elements, such as transportation,natural spaces,densities,public
services, and commercial development.
• Under the current City and County Urban Planning Area Agreements,the County is
responsible for long range planning in unincorporated areas. There is a need to amend the
City and County agreements to determine the scope of planning responsibilities for the UGB
expansion areas and to develop a Concept Plan,as required by Metro. Under the current
County regulations,the UGB expansion areas will not develop to urban densities without a
Concept Plan.
Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Study Area Issues:
• The area Bull Mountain Annexation Plan area has been developing at urban densities without
adequate provisions of urban amenities and services, including open spaces, parks, and road
maintenance,The County has not indicated that it would undertake any major planning effort
for the unincorporated Bull Mountain.
• Given the current development rate in Bull Mountain, it is likely that this area will be fully
developed at urban densities in the next few years, with no potential for redevelopment. As a
result, any additional delay in comprehensive planning efforts will reduce any meaningful
impact on the development pattern in this area.
Objective:
Work with Washington County to develop a set of alternatives for Council to consider the
inclusion of the two Bull Mountain unincorporated areas(UGB expansion and the Annexation
Plan area) in the Comprehensive Plan update program.
Summary of Major Actions
• Review Comprehensive Plan Urbanization and Annexation Policies and City/County
agreements and their applicability to both the UGB and Annexation Plan Study Area.
• Develop scope of work and determine resources need to develop UGB Concept Plan
• Develop scope of work and determine resources to include the Bull Mountain Annexation
Plan Study area and the UGB Concept Plan area into the Comprehensive Plan Program
Update
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memojimDec04.doc 3
• Present and discuss alternatives with Washington County
• Finalize the Urbanization Program, including Comprehensive Plan policies and
City/County agreements.
3. Comprehensive Plan Update Refinement
Issues
• The Comprehensive Plan update should be part of the program but not the main focal point in
2005.Rather,the Planning Commission should continue discussing the program with Council
through 2005.
• The City should continue to build a general understating about the Comprehensive Plan program
components and the extent of the public outreach process.
• The City should not rush into the program,without any clear understating what type of tools may
be applicable in view of the overall Measure 37 impacts.
• In order to examine the size of the study area for the Comp Plan update,the City needs to work
with the County to determine the level of support offered by the County to include the
unincorporated Bull Mountain area into the scope of work.
• The overall estimate for the Comprehensive Plan update time line is for over three years. Given
the complexity of the program,there is a need to consider outsourcing some of the program tasks.
In 2004, Council discussed the potential of instituting an application fee that would support long
range planning activities.The surcharge fee could be used to build a fund for the Comprehensive
Plan update process.
Objective
Develop a draft Comprehensive Plan Update Program, including recommendations for (1)Public
Outreach Program; 2) Study Area; 3)Timeline; 4)Resources, including estimate for outsourcing.
Summary of Major Actions
• Work with PC to develop an public outreach program
• Determine the need for a Task Force
• Institute Long Range Planning Surcharge Fees
• Estimate scope of work for outsourcing
4. Natural Resource and Open Space Protection and Development
Issues:
• In the last few years the City dedicated a significant amount of resources to work on the Goal 5
program with the ultimate objective to protect the significant natural areas in Tigard. With the
Measure 37 impacts,there is a need to reassess the significance of the potential non-regulatory
tools,which may be used in Tigard, such as parks and open space acquisition.
• The development of the Fanno Creek natural areas is one of the key components of the
Downtown Plan. A preliminary analysis of the overall downtown improvement program indicates
that the amount of improvements may exceed the estimated revenue for urban renewal.
Therefore,there is a need to determine the type of the projects that may be funded outside the
urban renewal funding, such as an open space bond measure.
• The UGB expansion areas contain a significant amount of natural open spaces. The Concept Plan
for the UGB area needs to address the protection of natural areas and provision of parkland.
• Based on the current survey,there is public support for additional open space acquisition in
Tigard.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memoj imDec04.doc 4
Objective:
The key objective in 2005 should be to determine whether the Downtown open space and park land and
the UGB natural areas should be included into the 2006 open space and parks bond measure for the
November 2006 election.
Summary of Major Actions
• Evaluate a range of potential non-regulatory natural resource protection measures
• Determine appropriate tools for park and open space provisions for Downtown and UGB areas.
5. Comprehensive Plan Update Refinement
Issues
• The Comprehensive Plan update should be part of the program but not the main focal point in
2005.Rather,the Planning Commission should continue discussing the program with Council
through 2005.
• The City should continue to build a general understating about the Comprehensive Plan program
components and the extent of the public outreach process.
• The City should not rush into the program,without any clear understating what type of tools may
be applicable in view of the overall Measure 37 impacts.
• In order to examine the size of the study area for the Comp Plan update,the City needs to work
with the County to determine the level of support offered by the County to include the
unincorporated Bull Mountain area into the scope of work.
• The overall estimate for the Comprehensive Plan update time line is for over three years. Given
the complexity of the program,there is a need to consider outsourcing some of the program tasks.
In 2004, Council discussed the potential of instituting an application fee that would support long
range planning activities.The surcharge fee could be used to build a fund for the Comprehensive
Plan update process.
Objectives
Develop a draft Comprehensive Plan Update Program, including recommendations for (1)Public
Outreach Program; 2) Study Area; 3)Timeline; 4)Resources, including estimate for outsourcing.
Summary of Actions
• Work with PC to develop an public outreach program
• Determine the need for a Task Force
• Institute Long Range Planning Surcharge Fees
• Estimate scope of work for outsourcing
5. Economic Development/"Creative Class"Making
Issues:
• In the last several years,the City has adopted two significant master plans to lay foundations for
economic redevelopment in the Tigard Triangle area and the Washington Square Regional Center
area;
• The County has initiated and has been leading a Hwy 217 Corridor Study to examine the potential
for urban renewal along the Commuter Rail/217 corridor. The study area includes Washington
Square,Downtown,and employment areas along Hwy 217;
• The City will be finalizing the Downtown Improvement Plan(TGM grant)and moving to the
implementation program phase for the downtown area.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memoj imDec04.doc 5
• There is a need to analyze/consolidate the approach for the economic development program for the
City to assure that the employment/industrial areas are part of the overall City's discussion on
liveability and"Creative Class"relationship.
NOTE: The"Creative Class"concept is based on the premise that there is a connection between the
economic health of a city and the appeal of that city to creative individuals; human activity is the
ultimate economic resource and the key dimension of economic competitiveness in the ability to
attract,cultivate, and mobilize this resource.
Objective:
Explore opportunities to create an economic development program to maintain the economic heath of
the City.
Summary of Major Actions:
• Finalize the Downtown Improvement Plan; develop a Downtown Implementation Program;
• Analyze changes in the redevelopment pattern in the Washington Square and Tigard Triangle
areas; assess the relationship between the development standards,regulations, and funding and
the redevelopment potential for the key employment areas;
• Explore urban renewal as a key component of the City's economic development program.
Tier H Ongoing Planning Research,Assistance,and Implementation Programs
1. Funding: Grant Research and Funding(Block Grants,MTIP, Enhancement Programs)
2. Transportation: Hwy 217 Study, TriMet MOU implementation
3. Metro Regional Compliance: Regional and Town Centers, Corridors, Goal 5,Residential Densities
and Affordable Housing.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\LongRangePD\2005\memojimDec04.doc 6
Attachment 1
November 23, 2004—Comp Plan Update Process Page
November 23, 2004
Agenda Item No. 10—Comp Plan Update Process Discussion
Monahan: Barbara is a little bit under the weather, so she has a shorter presentation, and she is
having a little bit difficult time speaking. Unfortunately, Jim Hendryx is on vacation, so she is
pressed into service and needed to be here.
Shields: I have allergies, so I can hardly talk today. I hope to be able to answer your questions.
I wanted to say that,the critical piece in your report today is a chart which identifies
recommendations for the timeline for the comprehensive plan update. The timeline is over 3
years, and is based on the Planning Commission recommendations. The Planning Commission
recognizes in order to finalize the program, there is a need for a joint meeting with the Council to
address the scope of work issues and we looked at a number of issues. We listed a number of
issues based on Planning Commission's recommendations.
One of them is the study area. Should we include the unincorporated Bull Mountain into the
discussion of the study area for the Comprehensive Plan Update. That is one of the major issues
in front of us.
Another one is how do we go about the public involvement process, what should be the extent of
the public information. Should the Council want to establish another task force to guide the
comprehensive plan update process.
Also,there is a priority issue. There are a number of long range planning projects, what is the
Council's priorities. With that, I will open up to questions from the Council.
Monahan: So there are a series of questions that have been raised. What staff is looking for is
some feedback on how they have gone to the Planning Commission on several occasions and
have tried to craft what is the process that should be followed, and as you know, it is a very
extensive process. The other thing I should point out to you is that we are working with our
Committee for Citizens Involvement(CCI), so when Barbara makes reference to do we need
another committee,the question is, do we need another totally separate committee or do we want
to perhaps blend some of the representation from the Planning Commission with the Committee
for Citizens Involvement. We are just looking for direction at this time, are the on the right
track,are you concerned about the timeline, are you concerned about the process and do you
ultimately want to have a meeting with the Planning Commission in the near future to learn more
about what they have been talking about and to make sure we are all thinking in the same way
and how this would proceed.
Wilson: I have some strong feelings that I could express. We have just gone through a very
controversial year. Very taxing, extensive use of city resources and Council time. I think that
the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated and it should be updated soon, but I do not in
anyway what to jeopardize our work on the downtown plan, because that is a big project by
itself. Personally, I think the comp plan needs to take a back seat to that, and especially with
November 23, 2004— Comp Plan Update Process Page 2
Measure 37, we just lost a potentially our major tool in planning. I think some sort of delay to
see what the fallout of that, even if it is only six months, in six months to a year we are going to
know how, what is in our tool box. To charge forward now is futile, it could be just another year
lost in futility, and Ii do not want to do that again.
I am suggesting,think about it, let's plan for it, let's not charge into it yet.
Sherwood: I agree with Nick on the Downtown Plan,the work we are doing down there, and it
has been our policy for the past several years to cutback and not have extra staff hired. I
appreciate what you have gone through this past year with all the stuff we have had going on. Ii
would like us to start planning,but I am with Nick, I do not want to charge head on into this, but
maybe some of the preliminary work and meet with the planning commission.
Woodruff: Ii think it would be a good idea to have some joint meeting with the Planning
Commission and talk about this. They have been reviewing this, and I would like to hear what
they have to say about this. They are our advisory group on this whole thing.
Dirksen: I appreciate your comments,Nick, and Sydney as well, and Tom. I think Nick
prefaced his comments by saying that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed, and soon.
But soon is a relative term. This is certainly not something we want to rush into and attempt to
do as quickly as possible. While there is a certain urgency, because of the consequences of
continued development with an outdated plan,becoming too urgent is you are going to come up
with a product that is not going to be satisfactory, and also, I am as you know,very sympathetic
about the downtown plan, and not wanting to see anything get rid of that. My view of this
comprehensive plan process, is it is not going to happen very quickly, and even if we begin
preliminary stages now, there is not going to be any changes, or even plans or recommendations
for months. The first two things listed on the plan update,the planned updated, the phased
approach is the development of a public participation plan program. The second, after that, is
then to create a background report. If we do have a Citizens Task Force involved, as we have
learned in the recent past, there is a period of time during which that citizen group reviews the
volumes of documents that they must be familiar with before they can have any meaningful
opinion on the issue. I can see where that process can move forward beginning right away, but
there would be no substantive change or recommendation of plan until such time as we move
into that phase of it, until such time as we felt it would be appropriate to begin that.
Sherwood: The only thing I am concerned about, Craig, is the amount of staff time it will take to
get that preliminary step going. Basically it is staff time, and that is my concern, and I think that
is yours too,because we are asking staff to do a lot of the downtown and with development
going on, it is the same staff.
Monahan: Can I add the other point, is that with Measure 37, we have no idea what the impacts
is going to be on staff when claims are filed. So what it sounds like we are hearing is there is no
need to rush, set up a meeting with the Planning Commission,probably sometime after the first
of the year. Can you give us a reality check on what Barbara was saying to, is that the way she
has charted this out, we are talking about a three year process. We want to make sure your
expectations are in line with ours, that is too long of a process,too short of a process, sounds
November 23, 2004—Comp Plan Update Process Page 3
about right, do you have enough, or do you want to not comment on it now,but work through
this with the Planning Commission, and in the discussion with the Planning Commission, get
some more definite about what these pieces are, and then after that meeting, respond. Because if
you are saying don't start up, and we are not going to object to that,just know, we have been
hearing from the Council and the community that the Comprehensive Plan needs to get started,
so that is why Barbara and her staff have put so much work into getting this to this point. It
certainly can be put down again, and we can put quality effort into the other activities, and then
have that discussion.
Woodruff: We have responded to the fourth question that you have listed here, I don't know if
you are needing to have responses to the first three questions about the zoning. I don't know if
we touched on, maybe that can just be put on the back burner while we wait for things to kind of
heat up,but those are three important questions. I don't know if direction needs to be given on
them.
Sherwood: I wouldn't be in favor of having unincorporated Bull Mountain be included in it,
unless the County wanted to pay for it. That is going to create a lot of staff time and a lot of
work in that area. If the County wants to pay us to do it,great, we will do it,but if we are going
to have to use our City of Tigard money to do it, I realize that is not real planning foresight here,
but after this last year, I feel a little bit singed around the edge about using City of Tigard money
to do something that people have resoundly said they have said we do not want to be in your city.
Dirksen: I agree with that.
Monahan: it sounds like the direction is to initiate some discussions with Washington County
to see if there is a contribution we can be able to obtain for planning for the
unincorporated Bull Mountain, and possibly the newly added UGB areas, and come back
to the Council with that information, and that would be able to tell us whether you would
like to include that in the study area. That is Question 1
It sounds like on the Task Force, you are not giving us direction y et, you want to talk to the
Planning Commission to see whether the Planning Commission is up to the task, or if we can
potentially involve the Planning Commission in a future task force. That is Question 2.
Question 3 is the public participation program, and it sounds like there is time for that discussion,
and as I mentioned, we are getting the CCI up and running again.
The Fourth Question, is interesting, because the way Barbara phrased this, "how should the City
prioritize the rest of the ongoing projects to assure that the comprehensive Plan update remains a
focal point of the Long range Planning Program in the next three plus years." It sounds like at
this point, at least in the immediate future, is not the focal point of the Long Range Planning
Program, but Downtown is that focal point, and you want to have a discussion to see where the
comprehensive plan process fits into that, and you can give us a time frame at a later date, as to
whether it is 3-1/2 years,potentially beyond when the comprehensive plan would be completed.
Does that make sense.
November 23, 2004—Comp Plan Update Process Page 4
Woodruff: The downtown task force is on the burner already. They can deal with that, it is on
the table already. The impacts of Measure 37 is going to happen and I want to see how that
plays out a little bit before we move too far down the road.
Wilson: I am also concerned about is, we finish out TGM grant in June, but we are not done
until we start getting that built down there. I think that a,probable urban renewal area is next
and that is a big deal. It is going to take a lot of effort. I see this as lasting several years as a
significant priority.
Dirksen: While I acknowledge the principles of the downtown plan, I would ask Council to not
put a halt on this process, but to begin the planning behind it, right the preliminary setting up the
structure, working with the planning Commission, making the decision, and putting together a
citizen involvement program, and maybe even pulling people into that. That preliminary portion
of it and review of documentation is going to take way beyond after the TGM grant is done and
the downtown plan is done and presented. I would like us to see if we can move forward on that
and not stop all together.
Sherwood: Yes
Woodruff: I think there is a lot of sentiment out there. We heard during the election process and
people's campaigns,there was a lot of interest in making sure we were moving ahead with this
comprehensive plan update.
Dirksen: Okay, do you have a direction to go.
Shields: I think I do. Create some preliminary elements of the public involvement plan, I heard
you say. And the Planning Commission.
Dirksen: Right. We want to talk to the Planning Commission and between us, come up with at
least a beginning to figure out the structure and how we will fold the community involvement
portion in. We are looking at that for January and/or February, and moving forward from there.
Monahan: So, it sounds like January or February might be possible with your discussion with
the Planning Commission.
Shields: Probably will be February. I want to go back to the Planning Commission and report
about what Council discussed and get feedback.
Monahan: Plus,we have committed the January workshop meeting to Council Goal Setting, so
the February workshop would be the logical time for a lengthy discussion which is what it
probably will require. Does that sound okay.
Everybody: Yes.
EtAibi
g
Comprehensive Plan
Update
sco p e of 'Presentation
l�Te plan concept
• CoPrehen5
haseslpro�e55 critical for Tigard
• P-rogam p areas of analysis crl
• specific ar Program
Ins°Dement� Public
0
,, k <) el 5, cd
• � p � p '� � cil
e4 <3 ,esi-k -k . C\')
C dk t n t) -k Z‘;1 ?•0 k kr tt
Vek
0 .5 ' '4k ' lk ?) '.C6*S)
ct 46 c`/ . * P-k -s' tf) °
4) :4 j)e, '1)N ?) Q-*
tii 0 ;-4 '4.°*0, 0
* Cld .° ) tie e 0 0 ek
� t!' v �, cd �
P°44. vel6 1) . v.°4_1 Ct
p � el v p) cd �
0 tP .4 0 ‹) 4)."
0 . , -.A .4 2 4N <:, Cld ,,,k
CI) .4 .‹) Cid 0 0 jk#
ei t.i J t„„1 , •-•7-., _, )..., k.,, .9.,
' ‘c? . kk rd) k '
•lei ‘.-* d cd 0 0 4?„ • 7. 1) e•
qst t)t 4ICItt Cd A tP ti
O cto 4)
flan?
. S a Coovvreb.evstive
fall ilvc11.16e:
l s*Ws land use \ %1S 0v each
• 2 states all issues aid vvobleras
Va-covo-atilovv
�
• Goal °f other �a��al g°al n• IdevOlcatiovv
es and Oavoiog .� a�tlo I��entori tate�,ide �o�rses � sidecation
applicable o.� alte�ativ faking l�tiOd��nomlc
0
�Valuatl awices e�gy a
• a�,e calor �n• �ltiim ential Socal,E�v1z°gym ds
06) nee
tP
cd
0,, ' ,
, r O
tp `(/)' '''.4
'a
?'"'%1 fin ° � � � °' �
alai OW3J v. k . <:, 0
11.‘ cd, 4)... 0 tic, %"ekeA `'?',.
Pl. (14 ( t*k !)4 1 'Cil e..: Cdkk
C? k < '• Sk -4C; °4 .;)k)
0 ° Cd ti) ' ` ?-4 ‘ Ci ° .
C) CA C'4 t.4 t *ZA °
vo"'k Cd • 441 . vo* •
•
be
addressed
at areas to
Ma °Y 5db :, e
exation
• UrbanizationlAnn
� Employment
Development
ton Square
• E • washing
• Downtown Revitalization
*Commuter Rail
• 21'7
• esidtl DeVeb0Pflt
� Densityl�ap
a�ity
• Affordable H°using •
Protection
• ppenspace1N
atural Resource
planning ement ■ water
• Facilities • Traffic manag
• 'Transportation
• sewer ■ Schools ■ etc
o� vvogYara,Vttases f e
a1 YepoYt (VAiase
�lo� , �ti�llze yes, Sum y5
• T cello-kcal
and l�f°�malst�ng data s��� tl�es
$ackgr° from eX al�erna
Vacovoatiov‘
co�d�ctied, etc
etal vvel:10-1.0101
recently o-� ss of a�aly5is
Ident��l�atio axe
a
• f.OT Oevelat
Voduct
• PCvsa ent i factaalbacWotio4 data,
te
iaeticicat ioo iSStleS an d set of
a eYaatives
(covvt,)
oc p Yog 11) ldenticled(V.Ivase
menti do disciass
• Pratt rcevavatioo
ins°�`�e. �ae�VbNic
lies
alt
atives ideoti�i�a l�pleicY►entatlon
4YY p efeYYed at S or p°���jes a
Ba��� �orisen
• ea SuYeS
• YYeferred map
t/1
to
I
O �Ctt
tP W
C)
O
St
Q o
`.4.1 P'k S
0 .0 5,
tei
C ' 'k ti)
1:°`
v° t) t.24 els vt:
C tA t)
cd to
rP'k S'
tP A P°' vrA -''' .4 *0 0
4) o /.t: A
r.r. v o
;•i, tt
Pssk rt,o a
•
P.
0
(cO11t•�
°f vcogyara
VIvases evisi°ns'
1v� Wv base e p .
• ri (p ensiv s
• sdoptilp• 10çtiO ' g
oYdl na �e,
• ç%llt%%
tn
tll
o
C'
tA
,.P ca
cd
o
o '7
ll '?"
1) N
tP
o
' . to
e. fye, , 9,, c
?_,,, '?'',,,,,) -'? 'C) o 0 tf) c--•
S • ci° o r clA C. t 0
S d ?„ '(-k) .v-' <c) t '4
Cark 0 '.`4 - ••4' 7.-• 0 •1..A Cgs) PA
0 0 . - 0 ' • '''
0
o „4, 0 0 •
0 . 3 •
o •
o Q t )
o `' •
■
VOW Otitreacli
of eo\ic
some lei e1 s
1�V°W es Co���11 need
� �ac11 ckvase is picocess`?
e make '�p
caist*Icipatiovv.
• 11 oversee ti11 �ask� °rc each aze
. ono �, decls�on on level of outz
do mak 5 regarding
�e�lsl��
• weeded
V b � lovolveirtent
orals o£ u � to
direct
plan update
Fore rehenSi`'e Hers haying
•• Task Comp ow
entire S and property for public
•Oversees of citizen opportunities• Mad on the development
e tot public with opp
input S open
Meeting Coindividuals
related. to
comment
AdvisonT d interested terests rela lan
Informed and and Comprehensive p
• Nechnical
� Committee of agencies, governments In C
ting agof analysis included Committee
representing
areas members on e better
them through citizen , to becom
update• involvement thr end meetings
• Pua ab 1 y for public to attend and ability
o
ca
0 qi 5., ‹)
tis; by N
4esok tP (.)
% 4 ..4.4S cD'k CQ Llek
ci) ..i, 0 .s
0c- t..4.- p)
0 .v. ::t ,k
oi) t % o
'f'. 4 .6 .5\
II00 P'k St t&i.-ke 1 0 tji6' '?-
?i,k p.k 0 � � d �
%•04, tr) tp, S .;..) e.4-* 0 PA
' ' of) 5+ ° .4t °
4, 4 . k eJ 0 ' ,1. t tp t)
6 et to
0 -i, fr!■' 6 '70 t.4, ur.kcd
..-4, ._1.. o 0.0 _A
tJek ,A.,... .,...k 0...*trA ,c) tel _,4 tt .1), u)
_ a ‘..- •
• k ,, 6 •
IA .6 cy, cd (1'
4)
0
S°11.1
•
.F et Co13t.)
orms of V-ublic
• open hpuSeS$e of the process.ion and get input from large
• At each phase convey information ent phases to
• Intended to le one time• involvement people during key
groups beheld
Feral may lc� anon•
• se public participation.
comment directly �n
ensure p ted to nom
• public ilearings adopted.
for anyone mould be
• Opportunity whether it sh notice to all property
the Phan and at minimum, direct and posted notices
• Will ins legal ads in newspapers
throughout the City .
Participation throughout process
,„.„,zz,.A,,t,, ,vr,.tz,o,tz-j,-mr,;gzizj,zIA,t,zi:.,Z-,,°-4:frnq'AigeflgtAlt.S,W',4UCf,ZVlta,„WF4';,iVik44,e_„'I-te;eil!:lff.,*4:F.-W114„1,A,tf'i„,,f,*„ez,A,A,_;;,i,,,,,V;
.-,,,4"',' ,S,,,,'",.3.,„,.,,nr, ,., .., ® N ® ® e
Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Tech. Report Process Product Adoption
Technical advisory ��� k
committee
Media _ - ,q
s
Small scale
community dialogs
Open houses
♦ 4eA e Y
•
44'4 4,4444,4 2,4,4 44444414:444-4444"4404,iti,
Public Hearings .
(Shaded areas indicate activity, darker shading indicates higher activity level for that form
of public participation)
tp
1-C) `n
et 0
v
C.a oe, <) ' -' v-t3
0 . ,' a) c:' '
0 0
O• � o �'4')o rd Vi-k �
...t)
PA
IU_ , 0 4) 4) (14
• k_,„ 0 •-?w . ,A t)S) t '64s)
C) 4 % t)'?* 0
o k . k . ..., . 1.A
ct . * , tf) ti) tp _A
0 s
4. , .4 cd °
0 '7*, ke, .. ,,° S Z .% kr.1
402* .- \-0 -A 0 ..1 ' ‘p6A 0 ,t.-)
II 0
0 0 0
q°k •
j(e m ust be decisions that ey em f or to puic
. r
� TaSk ?0Tce members
• Ho�'�' many 'Force
011 it? Task F
• WHO will be committees or for new
• Utilize existing nom m
a Scope of plan update
• What areas are included?
• CoMMittnetit
• How much time, resources will be spent by Tigard nd staff and
Force? timeline level of public involvement
Task eline and
• Determines ultimate
VtOdifte
Covacil
• ‘ss-vigs w1t11
�aln
. �e d unty• Co�tln s�iz�gtiO� �mitme"ti' etic IDec and s�ope� �� e�iev`' by C d
• detevdMe
f o'� � lzestablishe� �final yvogavevev
, on elements � tic
2��5 �lpa�� te 2006
• pub �or�' slye plan up
mlttee5
• c°m e11en
•
Begln CoW�