10/31/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 31, 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, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall,
Duling, Haack, Meads, and Vice President Munro.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Inman, and Anderson. Also
Commission alternate David Walsh.
Staff Present: Tom Coffee, Interim Community Development Director;
Duane Roberts, Planning Manager; Gary Firestone, City
Attorney; Bethany Stewart, Interim Planning Commission
Secretary;
3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the September 12, 2005 meeting minutes
as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Meads reported that the Park and Recreation Board have submitted
input on a list of properties to purchase as future park areas to staff.
Commissioner Buehner reported on the PD Committee. Dick Bewersdorff is
stepping in as the staff person replacing Morgan Tracy. They are working on the
rough draft of ordinance changes. Expect to have final draft to go to City Council at
their January workshop meeting.
Commissioner Buehner also reported on the City Center Advisory Committee.
There will be a public open house 11/10 6:30 @ library. There is a notice going out
to all registered voters or property owners. Our recommendation will go to city
council on 11/22.
Commissioner Buehner shared a person success. Her some is involved in 8 man
rowing and went to Japan a couple of months ago as part the USA crew team. The
USA team came home with the gold medal.
Commissioner Duling reported that there was no CCI meeting but Liz Newton did
report that the individuals of the volunteers that reside in three identified pilot
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 1
program areas have been contacted regarding their interest in participating in a
meeting to be on 12/6.
Commissioner Haack reported that the tree board has an upcoming meeting with
City Council in November to go over ordinance re: heritage trees and input on
forestry plan in association with the Community Development Plan that is under
review.
Vice President Munro reported that the next downtown task force November
meeting is postponed until December.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2005-00017 TIGARD CITY CENTER URBAN
RENEWAL PLAN
REQUEST: The City Center Development Agency requests the Planning
Commission to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Tigard City
Center Urban Renewal Plan and requests that the Council approve the Plan,
subject to voter approval, and refer it to the voters. LOCATION: map attached
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD, CBD (PD), C-G, C-P, R-4.5,
R-12, R-12 (PD). ZONE: CBD, CBD (PD), C-G, C-P, R-4.5, R-12, R-12 (PD).
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: ORS 457.095; Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Policies.
STAFF REPORT
No challenge of Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest.
No ex parte contact reported.
No challenge of jurisdiction of Planning Commission.
Planning Manager Duane Roberts summarized staff report on behalf of the city.
Displayed map (Exhibit A) of Proposed Urban Renewal Area Boundary.
Presentation by Applicant
Represented by Jeff Tashman, as consultant to the City of Tigard, 6585 SW Park
Hill drive Portland, 97239
Tashman noted that most commissioners were present for the development
agency and planning commission meeting last week, where a number of issues
around the plan were reviewed. He then gave an abbreviated summary of plan.
Urban Renewal Plan is an implementation process including a financing
mechanism. Noted this particular plan does not authorize condemnation or
immanent domain for any purpose. Condemnation might occur within the area
but would be through a different process.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 2
Tashman commented to the staff report on the following items. On page 8 in
paragraph 6 it indicates that the plan is economically sound and feasible , this
actually is a finding the city council will have to make. Plan proposes twenty-two
million as the maximum amount of indebtedness. There is no allowance for
exceeding this amount without the development agency going through entire
process again. Also there are a couple of references to components of
downtown plan in the staff report that are not part of the Urban Renewal plan. In
paragraph 3 on page 8 the 3`d sentence regarding short term incremental
implementation strategy is not part of urban renewal plan but I believe of the
downtown plan. The last sentence in paragraph 6 on page 8 mentions a Funding
Strategy Technical Memorandum. There is an Urban Renewal Report that
contains information analogous to this but it is not specifically a funding strategy
technical memorandum.
Outlined that this is a part of multi pronged effort to revitalize the downtown. Of
which, the Urban Renewal Plan is only one part of that process, primarily a
financing and implementation tool.
Commissioner Buehner commented that she did not think the plan stresses that
it is a financing tool adequately. People believe plan does projects versus
financial process. Tashman commented that there is one aspect of the plan that
is different is that the plan does propose programs to provide help for land
owners to redevelop both financially & technically, in addition to existing
programs.
Commissioner Buehner asked if we have we proposed enough funds as "carrots"
to businesses? Tashman responded that the plan and report is just a snapshot.
Funding would be an ongoing budget process. Revenues & expenditures are not
expected to be exact, the report is to present the idea. No funds allocated for
acquisition of land at this point. Do not expect total funding of plan to change
going forward but money may be reallocated differently than as outlined in the
report. The plan must be flexible.
Commission Buehner noted it was indicated that the numbers in the report are
not binding. That the report was created as background for the plan and not
necessarily reality. Tashman discussed how the plan can't be as specific as in
past times must be more flexible. The City Council must address issues in
statues, such as the urban renewal area that is "blighted", the report covers
items of this nature. The City Council must also make a finding that the plan is
economically sound and feasible which is why the report includes revenue and
expenditure projections. The report is technical appendix to plan.
Commissioner Meads inquired if other financing had been considered. Tashman
discussed with commission that typically urban renewal uses a combination of
long term debt such as bonds pledging future revenues and property taxes
produced by growth in Urban Renewal district over the value as it is today.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 3
Another form might be The City of Tigard providing funding then Urban Renewal
Agency reimburses the city. All borrowing is included in 22 million cap and is of a
conservative not speculative nature.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
Roger Potthoff, 11710 SW Ann Street, Tigard, OR 97223 also has a business at
11510 SW Pacific Highway in Tigard. Noted he submitted a written memo
(Exhibit B) that was given to commissioners earlier. Would like Planning
Commission to recommend plan to City Council. Noted that properties
recommended to be added to the original plan area by the City Center Advisory
Commission makes the project financially feasible. Hall Blvd. and Highway 99 is
a critical commercial area that is underutilized. States that this area is the
economic engine for this project. Strongly in favor of expanded boundary.
Mike Marr, 4702 Lamont Ct., Lake Grove, OR. Address on sign up sheet is listed
as 12420 SW Main St, Tigard, OR 97223 — one of his properties. He has a
couple businesses in Tigard. Encourages adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan.
Commented that this is a vehicle that would allow downtown to move forward.
Has disagreements with some technical issues but believes these items can be
worked out for the betterment of Tigard.
Suzanne Gallagher — 13547 SW Mountain Ridge Court, Tigard, OR 97224. She
encourages the commission to embrace this plan and recommend it to City
Council. Believes Tigard needs involvement with small, medium & large
developers. Discussed that boundary expansion is very important. The most
visible gateway into Tigard is the intersection of 217 & 99W. Then you cross 217
and enter Tigard at the heart of the city, Main Street. This area is the welcome
mat of Tigard. Has spoken with many citizens that are excited about this area
being improved. Discussed that with the boundary expansion large developers
will be attracted to the area and that such developers want prime, signalized,
high visibility property. These developers will then help to start funding of the
plan.
Commissioner Caffall asked Suzanne if she know if the committee had any input
from specific businesses within boundary about how they see the future.
Suzanne noted that there was very little negative response which was of some
surprise to the committee.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION
None
QUESTIONS OF STAFF/APPLICANT.
Commissioner Meads asked what happens if repayment of bonds etc. falls
short?
Discussion of the process that lenders would go through before approval of
lending and risks of natural disasters or downturn in economy.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 4
President Padgett understands that if this passes then assessed rates in UR
district are frozen. How long do they stay frozen?
Tashman explained the Washington County Assessor will calculate existing
value in entire district for fiscal year 06-07. In subsequent years if property has
increased then property tax increases go to the urban renewal district. This stays
in place until all debt incurred by urban renewal district is paid off.
President Padgett noted increases as noted above would go to the urban
renewal district not service providers. As cost of service provision goes up could
a case be made that those outside the urban renewal district then subsidizes the
services provided to those within the boundary? Tashman noted the charter
speaks to this issue and that is one of the reasons why an election is required.
Discussed positive impact to city of having Urban Renewal District where it is
promoting development and increases in property values within the area.
Further discussion of projections shown in the table on page 31 in the report.
Commissioner Buehner started discussion regarding if the impact to Washington
County is the same by other cities (within the county) with urban renewal
districts.
Tashman explained how school district would be affected by the Urban Renewal
District.
Commissioner Meads questioned why there hasn't been much development in
Tigard? Tashman noted several points including suburban development being
very tied to traffic counts and visibility. Indicated the main reason is traffic having
a lack of visibility of businesses. Another issue would be the size of parcels on
Main Street are generally smaller.
Discussion of how access would change and improve with the urban renewal
district including downtown improvements to Hal1/99W, Hall, Greenburg and
Scoffins. It was noted that the change in the boundary to north of 99 would result
in taking traffic off 99W. Which means some state funding from ODOT may be
available to the county.
Commissioner Duling asked if there are residents in expanded area and how
they would be impacted. Tashman noted that some residents on east side
petitioned to be included. Most of the area is zoned commercial except for
section east of Hall.
Discussion that developers are interested but will not pledge to build until we are
farther along in process.
Commissioner Buehner brought up concern by Russ Chevrolet that they will lose
property to Hall Blvd. and Hwy 99 expansion.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 5
Duane Roberts noted that a meeting was held to answer questions for those
newly included in the expanded boundary. There is some concern from those
along Center Street about displacement because of CIP improvements.
Discussion of wording of motion and adding changes from joint meeting before
going to City Council.
President Padgett asked if there is any one in the audience that would like to
comment on testimony. No response
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Caffall comments that he agrees that we need to make some
changes to the existing city the way it stands. Feels we are heading in the right
direction. Does not have any major concerns. We are at the point we should
move forward.
Commissioner Haack thinks this has been a prolonged process. Has no
appreciable questions or concerns at this time.
Commissioner Duling agrees that this is long overdue. Has been involved since
the 80' and can't believe it has taken this long.
Vice President Munro has found this a thoughtful collaborative process that will
leverage Tigard for the next several decades. Fully supports decision.
Commissioner Buehner notes that she is really excited about possibly of seeing
area rejuvenated for locals and visitors.
Commissioner Meads noted reservations about committing money & resources
of city in current economic climate. Also concerned about interest of developers
with Bridgeport & current Washington Square expansion.
President Padgett discussed proposed Urban Renewal of Lincoln City area.
Does not want to denigrate everyone's effort. However, while he thinks the basic
plan is good but he is not in favor of tax increment funding. Will not vote for
recommending plan to council based on that reason only.
Commissioner Buehner moved to make a recommendation to City Council to
approve the plan case number MIS2005-00017 as presented based on the staff
report, testimony heard this evening, proposed amendments to be included by
the city attorney as discussed this evening and changes discussed at the joint
meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council held on October
18th but not yet included in the text before us this evening. Vice President Munro
seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4 to 2 with one
abstention. Commissioners Buehner, Duling, Haack, and Munro voted in favor;
Commissioners Padgett and Meads voted in opposition; Commissioner Caffall
abstained.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 6
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. t ..
Bethany Stewart, Planning yonmission Secretary
1
ATTESIt:144
Preside t Mark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -October 31,2005-Page 7
1 v
ir
1%7%, .,,'. ,'
4-111111:411110, V
•
r I •.,r. (;,i .. •. : . •.0-- ' . t.. (cipi).4.,.,....1 ' Itit...--5"°
�t , 4 I • " \� � , C
iii - Ay ,-114. .14� :. 1 + A \ - ' . , M1 1 m
� i� L*k:i { `} I ".-•i ,s+ f•' r`.4. , '4,.y. O
! 4 ,.�� i
,'Tf[
i r r •3t, 1, , - � `c a �. y�" Al
3 ,!' _i t) sr it.�p ',4 s ��a c j P C �t +C f r 4 ..i El.., O
' Y P '•-∎— II.• '• i- YYs\ " 'e ! * ti. 4-4 t1O•. � �
0 41i
4 ii % h y
ROGER POTTHOFFExt -
`
P.O. Box 23968
Portland, OR 97281
MEMO (503) 989-3846 office
(503) 213-5878 fax
roger.potthoff @verizon.net
To: Barbara Shields
From: Roger Potthoff
Subject: Tigard Urban Renewal Plan —Additional Questions
Date: October 31, 2005
In follow-up to our discussion on Friday (10/28/05), I am providing you with some
questions that I believe are relevant, if not critical, to the upcoming decision(s)
facing the Planning Commission, the City Council, and ultimately Tigard voters
regarding the Tigard Urban Renewal Plan.
I recognize that I may be raising these questions at an inconvenient point in the
process, but I hope it is not too troubling, as we all want to move forward with this
Urban Renewal Plan. But I believe that critical questions may have escaped the
scrutiny of the CCAC. If critical questions have not been addressed, I think it
is/was because of the compressed time frame in which the CCAC was working to
make its recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Compounding this time factor, an inordinate amount of time was devoted to the
Urban Renewal Area boundary issue. In any case I now raise two other issues
that I believe are no less important than the boundary, i.e (i) the sufficiency of
the Urban Renewal Plan budget to accomplish what the plan calls for in terms of
public improvements and facilitating private investment, and (ii) the opportunity or
necessity of coordinating certain Tigard renewal projects with improvements
planned by other units of government, such as Washington County, Metro and
the ODOT. The issues that I believe we need to bring further clarification to in
recommending this Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning Commission are as
follows:
1. The Urban Renewal Plan, states explicitly (Sec.VII, Subsection "A" appearing
on p. 29 of the draft dated 10/10/2005) that:
"The Plan authorizes the acquisition of any interest in property
within the Area, including fee simple interest, to support private
redevelopment, only in those cases where the property owner
wishes to convey such interests to the Agency. The Plan does not
authorize use of the power of eminent domain to acquire property
for private redevelopment. . . . Property acquisition from willing
sellers may be required to support development of retail, office,
housing and mixed use projects within the Area."
Memo to Barbara Shields
Tigard Urban Renewal Plan
October 31, 2005
Page 2
Furthermore, the "Report Accompanying the Draft City Center Urban
Renewal Plan", prepared by Tashman Johnson LLC, et al, and dated
10/15/2005, makes reference in Section VI, page 24, to "The
Estimated Total Cost of Each Project and the Sources of Moneys
to Pay Such Costs", citing Tables 9 and 10 of the Report , pp. 25-29.
The line item entitled "Property Acquistion — From Willing Sellers"
includes no money (ZERO!).
Thus the Questions on this issue are:
1(a). What conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Table 9 of the
Report on the Plan, which appears to be a part of the overall economic
pro forma for the Plan, includes no funds to facilitate/supplement
negotiations between property owners, as prospective sellers, and
those seeking to develop retail, housing and mixed use projects within
the Area, as prospective buyers?
1(b). If: (i) Tigard does not have "the stick" of eminent domain or even
the threat of its use, as commonly applied by local governments in
Oregon and around the country, to move urban renewal plans forward;
and (ii) Tigard's Urban Renewal Plan pro forma provides no funds for
property acquisition, i.e. "a carrot" or bunch thereof, to induce property
owners to become "willing sellers" and to induce private developers to
become "willing buyers", have we not grossly understated the costs of
successfully implementing this plan?
1(c). Is it accurate to predict that if the City of Tigard fails to induce
property owners to sell or redevelop their own property, leaving the
Plan Area lacking in private investment and re-development, then
there is not going to be a sufficient increase in the tax base to within
the Urban Renewal District to capture a sufficient incremental
difference over the current tax bases to cover the cost of the planned
public projects and make any substantial impact on improving property
and the tax base for Tigard long term?
2. Given that the improvement projects contemplated in Tigard's
proposed Urban Renewal Plan include projects are closely aligned
with, or may be impacted significantly by other public improvement
projects that are controlled and funded by other units of government,
such as Washington County, Metro, ODOT, etc., it would seem
reasonable and prudent to make clear in the Plan the resolve of Tigard
to coordinate (or not) with such other governmental authorities in
regard to the implementation of separate project agendas.
Memo to Barbara Shields
Tigard Urban Renewal Plan
October 31, 2005
Page 3
Thus the questions on this issue are:
2(a). What are the other projects that are scheduled or proposed by
other units of government that reasonably appear to have the potential
to impact on Tigard's Plan?
2(b). Is it possible for Tigard Staff or the consultant(s) to provide a
brief summary description of each of the projects identified in answer
to the above question? (Could that summary include: (i) information as
to purpose, location, funding and timing; (ii) the governmental entity
responsible for the project; (iii) the likely impact of upon the Tigard Plan
and Tigard residents; (iv) what efforts at coordination have been made
or are recommended?)
However inconvenient this memo may be, I hope that it will be helpful to
our overall mission.
Roger Potthoff
CCAC Member at Large