Loading...
04/17/2006 - Packet AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i APRIL 17, 2006 7:00 p.m. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER-RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE-BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY 6. INCORPORATION OF CITIES-DISCUSSION ITEM 7. CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT • • Tigard Planning Commission Roll Call Hearing Date: " 1 -0 Starting Time: COMMISSIONERS: V Jodie Inman (President) Gretchen Buehner Rex Caffall Teddi Duling Bill Haack Kathy Meads Judy Munro (Vice-President) David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee Gary Pagenstecher • Barbara Shields Cheryl Caines Denver Igarta Emily Eng Duane Roberts Kim McMillan .— Beth St. Amand Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar v Dart--ev, Lajss- • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 17,2006 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman 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 Inman; Commissioners Buehner,Duling,Haack,Meads, • Munro, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Caffall Staff Present: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director;Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager;Barbara Shields,Planning Manager;Dan-en Wyss, Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS The Planned Development Review Committee report is going to the Council workshop tomorrow night. There is a CCAC meeting on Thursday to discuss the Downtown. The Secretary briefed the Commission on the new Planning Commissioner and two alternates. They will be appointed by Council on April 25th. The next meeting for the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 15th. The Budget Committee hearing is scheduled on March 8th. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the March 6,2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded to approve the April 3,2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Munro and Walsh abstained. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - BUILDABLE LANDS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 1 • • INVENTORY Darren Wyss,Associate Planner/GIS, gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A) on the Buildable Lands Inventory. The inventory has been completed on a yearly basis since 2002. Buildable land is privately owned land that is vacant or that is developed,but has 1/4 acre or more that is vacant. Wyss indicated that steep slopes were not taken out of the inventory,but there can be an analysis done to see if it's developable. If it's not part of the 100 year floodplain, an identified wetland,or an identified environmental buffer,it is included on the inventory. The Buildable Lands Inventory helps the City in our compliance reporting for the State of Oregon and Metro. The Planning Commissioners would like to know what the requirements are from the State of Oregon and Metro and how Tigard has met the requirements. How many houses are we required by Metro to build and how many have we built? Staff answered that we need to do the buildable lands analysis first. The requirement is 10 units per acre. When the capacity and growth potential are checked,they will look at how many housing units we have and the potential for future housing units. Once that information is known,we will be able to determine whether or not we're in the ballpark. It will be part of the City's residential development analysis. The Metro Functional Plan was adopted in 1997. Title 1 indicated the number of units Tigard was supposed to provide in the following 20 years (to 2017). With the residential analysis the City is doing,we'll be able to go back and find out how many units we have provided since 1997. We'll also have to look at annexations and adjust for boundary changes. The Commission would like to see information on how other communities are doing. It's also important to not lose sight of the big picture. This is not only factor of what we'll look like in Tigard;there are things like affordable housing. We may choose to have greater density or we may choose to have more open space or commit ourselves to public transit. It was pointed out that there has been so much controversy regarding"new" density. No one has been able to defend Tigard since 1997 as to whether we are unfairly dumping density or not. It's important to have this information kept current. Tom Coffee advised that since 1997,there hasn't been any rezoning anywhere. All we've been doing is following the zoning that's been in place since 1983. The Buildable Lands Inventory results indicate that less than 10 percent of the land in the City is considered buildable,predominately residential. For Commercial property,there are 3 districts with buildable land left;there is no I-H land left. The majority of mixed use buildable land is in the Tigard Triangle. For residential,there is very little low,medium-high, and high density land left in the Urban Services area. There is no high density residential (R-40) land available. Half of the available residential lots are less than 10,000 square feet. There are 43 large lots available that are over 2 acres. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 2 • S . Commissioner Walsh said that having these statistics earlier would have helped with the work that was done by the PD Committee,e.g.,should they have focused more on infill.? Wyss advised that there are 2 properties left that are more than 10 acres. One is the Grabhorn property,which is a Measure 37 case, and the other is currently under subdivision review.. 6. INCORPORATION OF CITIES - DISCUSSION ITEM Tom Coffee briefed the Commission on Bull Mountain's efforts to form their own City. He advised that the group from Bull Mountain working for incorporation want to have a meeting of all the neighboring jurisdictions and service districts. Metro Councilor Hosticka will host the meeting. Only the top elected official and administrator from each jurisdiction will be invited. The cities of Tigard,Tualatin,King City,Beaverton,Durham, and Sherwood will be invited, as well as Clean Water Services,TVF&R, and the Tigard Water District. By State law,they have to conduct an economic feasibility study for the proposed city that will look at services to be provided,budgets for the first and third years, and the resulting tax rate. Coffee detailed the steps involved for incorporation. Once they have submitted all required paperwork and petitioned the County,the Board of Commissioners will decide if the issue will go on the ballot. They can decide it's not a viable city and can deny them the election. Cities do not have veto authority. Coffee showed the proposed city limits for the future city. He advised that the study area takes in Areas 63 and 64. The final boundaries will have to be stipulated on the ballot measure. If the County decides this should be put to a vote,the first election date possible will be November 6th. On the ballot will be the question of forming the city,the tax rate, and a slate of 5 Council members. If it passes,the election date would be the effective date of incorporation of the city. There is a potential for commercial zoning if they include the expanded area. The Metro Service District boundary does not include 63 and 64. There may have to be amendments to the service district boundary to include these areas. The new city can contract out for services. The Tigard Water District needs approval of all their members to add service area. Areas 63 and 64 are not in the Water District. Coffee also advised that about 2 weeks ago,the Tigard City Council and the County Board of Commissioners agreed to terminate the urban services intergovernmental agreement,whereby Tigard reviews development and issues building permits for the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. In another matter, Coffee reported that the LUBA hearing for the Sunrise annexation will be held at the Tigard Library Community Room at 10:00 on April 27th. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 3 • • 7. CONTINUATION OF WORKSHOP WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE - Continuation of March 20th meeting. Additional PD Review Committee member present: Alice Ellis Gaut Tom Coffee advised that Council is anxious to move this issue along and is scheduled to have a workshop tomorrow night. Commissioner Walsh reiterated his comment that it would have helped if the PD Committee had had the Buildable Lands Inventory results earlier. He believes it could have been steered differently. It may have been directed for just infill. Coffee said that the City could just rely on the existing code and push it a little further. The Buildable Lands Inventory raises the question if this is the right solution at this time. Not only is the majority of available land in small parcels, but there are no PDs in the pipeline. He asked where the Committee wants to spend the time and emphasis. Walsh noted that the Committee spent a lot of time on open space. It's one of the major focal points of the Committee. He wonders if,with infill of very small lots,they should be negotiating for something else. Some of the more problematic small infill lots will probably come before the Planning Commission as a PD,so this may still be required and only need a tune-up. It was acknowledged that if urban renewal passes,it will generate redevelopment. Also,with the Comp Plan update,there maybe some zoning issues. The PD issue isn't dead. Commissioner Buehner said that a lot of issues they addressed also have application in the subdivision code. Tom Coffee said he has heard that the 2 main issues are open space and trees. Most people will be going to subdivisions and maybe the emphasis should be a tree code amendment and open space requirement amendment that would apply to both subdivisions and PDs. He suggests going to the standards instead of the process to achieve the Committee's objectives. The Committee doesn't want to lose the restructuring of the PD code. Also,their work addressed the issue of density bonuses. Other things,such as minimum lot sizing and placement of lamer lots on the perimeter,could also go into the subdivision code. The Committee doesn't want to implement something that doesn't fit. Alice Ellis Gaut said some of the process amendments that were suggested are still really important, e.g.,shifting the emphasis of the pre-application sections of the code and making it clear that they are after a quality product. She believes that although it looks like a lot of printing for 10 sites,there will be opportunities for using these amendments in next few years. This work can be saved and expanded on. Commissioner Meads stated that if the City of Bull Mountain doesn't go thru,there is a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 4 • • possibility that we will be working up there. It was noted that there are some parcels lamer than 5 acres in that area. President Inman believes that the smaller the lots get,the more applicable the PD is. She would like to see this go forward. There will be consolidation of lots and as more infill is developed with odd-shaped parcels and difficult access,they will require PDs. Commissioner Walsh asked about sending the code back for a tune up with proper staff support so it can be done quickly. He suggests a strict deadline of 60-90 days. Commissioner Buehner thinks the Committee needs to bring Council up to speed. They are out of the loop on this. She suggests taking the concept to Council and then doing some tweaking. Tom Coffee said Council could direct the Planning Commission to work with the PD Review Committee to expedite the process. Things to consider are what will be tweaked,what are the new goals,is there anything significant that the Commission will be doing. If this is done in a joint format,it could help address differing opinions. Coffee suggested having the Committee meet every two weeks and then report to the Commission once a month. The product should be a reworking of the PD with an emphasis on smaller scale development and natural resource issues like trees,open space,steep slopes, and sustainability. The code changes might be transferred to subdivisions as well. This could apply to infill redevelopment, as well as smaller parcels. Commissioner Buehner remarked that with the Comp Plan update,there may be some zone changes. From Greenburg to Commercial and towards the freeway,there are areas that are ready for redevelopment. Buehner said the Committee did focus on small parcels as well as open space. She thinks they will be looking at minor tweaking. Coffee said the Commission and the Committee can report to Council that, based on recent information of real development potential,the PD ordinance as it stands now needs some revision and some additional items to be looked at. The Committee would like to work with the Planning Commission on it for 3 months. This can also be an opportunity for the Council to provide some feedback Commissioner Walsh heard Council say at the last meeting that they would like to hear what other parts of the code might need tweaking. Coffee said the list from Council included a quick fix for Planned Development,lot size averaging,Hearings Officer call-up, radio towers, attached structures, gateway signs,Library commercial signs,tree preservation, and steep slope development. President Inman had the following comments about the draft code revisions: • With regard to the fifth purpose statement,does this imply that if all the neighbors feel they have been negatively impacted that the owner and the developer should also feel PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 5 • • negatively impacted by the PD? Ellis Gaut answered that the sentence needs to be clearer about the PD being mutually beneficial. • She disagrees with the separation of the concept plan from the detailed development plan. She thinks it's an additional step in the process that's going to be timely and cost prohibitive for a developer. Also,she doesn't believe that requiring both plans will provide any additional certainty or clarity. Issues can crop up and all this will do is add another 3-4 months to the review process and additional fees to developers. Ellis Gaut advised that the developer on the PD Committee said it made sense to him to do a concept plan and get feedback before he spent a lot of money doing a detail plan. The other piece is bringing the concept plan into a public process setting. President Inman thinks there may be other ways to get feedback without having to go through a separate hearing. Commissioner Walsh said that if staff is reviewing the concept plan to make sure all criteria are applied properly,then it doesn't need to come to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Buehner said one of the issues is developers who submit applications that had very little relationship to what was presented at the neighborhood meeting. She thinks the planner should review the plan when it's submitted to make sure it was what was presented at the neighborhood meeting. If not,the developer should be required to do a new mailing to the neighbors saying there are significant changes. President Inman agrees this can be a problem, but punishing everyone is not necessarily the way to go. There are other methods to make sure the public is aware and up to date without requiring a second formal application. Ellis Gaut said that the feeling of most neighbors is that by the time the development reaches a hearing at the Planning Commission,it's too late for them. The Committee wanted something that's binding. They decided on a concept plan that is a separate and distinct event in the process. • On page 17,ii- she doesn't think we should tie anything to cost. Commissioner Buehner said that this incentive is already in the code;it's one of the criteria. • On page 17,d- regarding the 20% of the gross site area... , she thinks this should be net,not gross. The Committee agreed. • On page 18,h- under street and utility improvements,she thinks iii should be optional. With the way it's written,developers couldn't do anything creative with the layout of the street pattern unless they also made it porous pavement. She recommends eliminating iii or doing it as an"and/or" to encourage sustainable development. Making iii optional would maintain flexibility. The Committee said the idea was to make sure streets in PDs had a net effect of reducing stormwater runoff and collection and treatment needs. President Inman is in favor of encouraging green streets. The Committee will address this during the rewrite. • On page 22,j.i and ii- provision for public transit maybe required where the site abuts,or is within '4 mile of a public transit route. She said that if a development is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 6 • • within 1/4 mile of a public transit route in a subdivision with all local streets and there's not a likelihood of future transit routes,the developer is not likely to put up a waiting shelter or a turn-out area. This leaves option#3,which is paths. She questions if we can require a developer to build a path 1/4 mile away from their development. They might not have the right-of-way or the costs may preclude their project. Commissioner Buehner said the intent is to build something within the development. Commissioner Munro advised that accessibility and connectivity to public transit is very important to TriMet. TriMet has a program where they've gone back to retrofit a lot of pathways to make sure connectivity is there for the disabled. President Inman wonders if this is something we can actually require. With the way it's worded,it could be quite substantial. The Committee will tweak the language. The Commission talked about their lack of experience with hearings and their level of confidence in the process. They have felt uncomfortable having to make solid decisions on the spot. They would like to know how and when to ask questions. Staff said they could always continue a hearing as long as they don't go against the 120 day rule. Discussion was held on the way hearings have been run. The Commission was encouraged to visit another jurisdiction to observe a Planning Commission hearing. President Inman said that questioning the applicant and proposing changes for something you don't like can lead toward the applicant asking for a continuance if they think you'll deny the application. Tom Coffee said he is familiar with Planning Commissions having an attorney at the meetings,which adds another level of confidence and support. Unfortunately,this is a budget issue in Tigard. It was acknowledged that regular training sessions are needed for the Commission. 8. OTHER BUSINESS With regard to development of a big box at 72nd and Dartmouth, Tom Coffee reported that there's nothing new other than the pre-application meeting. Right now, the applicant is wresting with traffic problems. This may impact anything that goes on in the Tigard Triangle. Dick Bewersdorff said that making a change to the Comp Plan won't make a difference with this project. It could then become a Ballot Measure 37 issue. The issue is not necessarily the size of the building;it's better to deal with the impact of traffic. The only place you can do a big box is in the C-G zone. The Washington Square and Tigard Triangle areas have their own requirements, except for the C-G areas. Whether you have a big building or a bunch of small ones,the same amount of traffic will be generated. Commissioner Buehner said she is concerned about damaging business development in the Downtown area if this big box is built on SW 72nd. Coffee said the Planning Commission needs to require the developer to stick to the criteria. The Commission can be sympathetic to other issues, but they have to stick to the criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 7 • • 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Jerree Le • ,Planning Co • sion Secretary • Al'lEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2006—Page 8 eS, ,-- —/-- \...--) ,.. r, F •• - • - ...' i 7. .-• , ir.r-..,-."111..,-) i ! . -•' At ' . ; t) •-• t) h E k:,-' .. y 9 Z ■ :1,'"''' '11".'•ut 1 ..• ;- .' i1. .. ).'' -, 1, I I 1,,n ..i...au. 7.. C' t. , .1 .,„ r , . .., , ., ,r. E L 4,... • •-• -7 L..,# ',... !., %) , 'f I 1111111,111111111illaillff 1 _ • - c c - • ii,A • r IN II ,,. 11101211,11,101111d 1 = - ......... _ — ,, • 1 , — .•:, .1 ..--2. •11 lz----- .....- .• = c r , = = t. milimilimanill •-c• , ,..„.• .,,L -= -.._„.„.„,‘\\,,,,,,,,,, ..:. J I: ..••• •• ; ,..4; ';.':' Zi > F. ...- •% .114."TK•A T.. 2 -n ..% ,..P' ,-1 . _ illi, ,.. , , 7,..., .7 ,'' —. 0 9 .2. .... , .I.PHAPINITIIIIILI ■-•1 t., ,, , 4 2., --, "E 1:1•.' ita '.1 ily sijiiii '0 p E t. a, 4 .= :; .1".• „ . i E. e a' ,•: --, 4 . . ,. t. , , - .-.,. ._ • , : 1 '-' .-: .c - .1-1.,:r• r• . ' ._, ,, 74" t• E, c.. -.L. 7. _ cc ; • .,;, ; ,. _ E's ''., :.• •-• ..: ' - ---i L. .. r. .....• I • 11 : ..Z —• I ::: E ,..-.. t..-- La t "•41 i.-4-e'- •••......f.' , - - 7 , -. 7'2 = 1 - u 7'; -2, .-: .,-2 a " , = ..a. 3. ...-,' 13, 11111,11 '', 7. ; i': = ,,,., , . .., -,- \ , ,..)...i, i, 1 :4, - . .Sp.,--,A ...„1"..„,27 ., , I./ -Z . 9, 2 L'' ',. .,,:,- '. '2' ,_` A 4,- ..... ' 7 :: - -: a•--. i- 7g' -: f. -= I ii`'.4.1 ..T.4'.' '' ;74,,K 11 . Illitlil •J m.- ..., 7. =. _, • -, ,....) E.u z a 7 .f.; - •ri-• fil , .7. - • 2 ; _I, -i,„,-. ...,--__ 1-----ii- = .11 "11-.2-4: _. ...• . . • . - , 1 co. z ,...7. u .-_-, i 1 E • .., 1 • . . 2 ,s. IC) =IL e■ ,. ,__, 0. , .,_, .-. Ir.----- ... c:, 7,) e• , •d,„, ,.,....: , c — = •i, E i elik— -..7.,"0 ge" ...., 5. .= . 1 LI • 1 •- 141t4 ''- Ill • c ...... 0 L' Id, 4. a.. 2... C.) 77 elSrd,••..1 1: illir WI ffillitti .:.• = _ ""Z = 'z' .t. "1. ..-- tn r,'-',1% , • c c .....• ... c -,-; ,:. ,r, 1 E, IRIt11.`i ,-. E :... . I. 0..... •-. - .--, iii, ; . -, 7 2 , .., - - -2. „, c. I -0 ,-. =,, .-.... _„„ ..2 -1 .1, .. J-1 . ., , < , . .. 4-. = r- 7 Z - F. .7. ;',; 7 1.. .... 2 = ' 1`'"` 1 , •) ... .= - .., . ; -,' tr e to = , :- •-• E. C • — , , C... .1)•• .L. rZ. fi 4 , -3 - . _7 ,.t. ,.. -c• ,',"- -^ - 1 4 4' "E. E : .1 " -.. .-. -4 4; i k, - .7. z.. ,. . _, . 7.. ,-, 7.: . a . . -= ..5 7 . -'' -: -. .7, 1., 2 ••=1 I.: ....:; c ■ M., r A X. '." 0 •.• '` X •••••■ , I,: 5, =' ■0 ..-..• -' ■ 77 '1 •A . ..' r .6. a .■ E E ....4 2 E : P/ . -l'..' >.■ .., .'.. 4-.`..... V < F , ... F iltt,!-IZEI,..:Zr.V4gAREFE@ggg 1 F. IF . . -1 XI .a(;)N i" et= 5- - r.,.'.., _ L (A 5. :-. r. =• .7: 1 t--Istz- 1. ..;•“-,.re•-•,, , ---..r: , V"'4#--- • =4., '. =-- 7' = - §t it:22 oil c . tn:■7,.7:'Z.a4 O.5 .-7 - '*", L1:,..' I. LT fi,-4:!Lii;!,i31;14;:tc'°67..° •i 1 rp - - - . - r: c , ..,•-■ N.) .c.: . ■,-.2, c c . ' *I* "t:. '4.,.':•4 = -... .. ,..• c-'" .5.'itt'I''''',141.11 E-Isj .- 7. IF: -n 17 ' • , ,,, vA '-" 7 '-. '7' :. .. 4.: c. '''. co :7, . • . ... ...„ .7.'1,. C. illf i'il!..S.r.2. I 17. - _-. ,< Z -, e'..: - : (- -F. r: -• cn c• ''', '= — -1 g E- 2 ,17.- I-:• F- * -."'" -....., •-r• r_ 1 t• ' -• a, '3. ..• - F.'I- El- C rt- - 77 7 > - • 1 I. I ;7 . ,- 1. ■ •- ./.. r; •-■ 7. F r. .. ., e'''' F•a • i.,. ... 1. ,.. ...-. ,‘, I , , , _ ., , , — _ . . ,_ . ,,,,, 7 OA c 7: := :^ "4 .• , 4 7.. .C. 2 ,..., ' Al.". •- '."r" yl 4 , .... it tt , = F. '--; ;•,:'4 C. n. .-- .M"N .-:-••-%'-'''''''''. - •-•r-''' i..../ -- 7 '2: , :. [ ' 1141 F EL c. •t a-a- -.. 7 - 2.• -- - IIII , •• ': :•., i ■ t f$i-,' - ,-, ,T. 6 '8 .. ...I ...', a = .n.! E". n: 7, ••:: .... .,..., , ,, • 7.. =. = ft. E et , xi a r: ii 5 c ,;.: 2, 7 • 5 ;„;E ::: i .FT. .5'. u c F r.3 5 . F. • • • • F i7;;.!. F.,,Ifi;A;Ag;x1§%i'gg. / = r1V3:4filAAAA; ,@%2gg 1 E r- ) '.n2.' -z. 70 E . ° M ° ,1 a , - ig .=61:------.-.....,... i. ,... - goer;;;--.-t- .dblo-!060191 iiii C. g-sageolSNVER:M=Mist: 88,,,timul.s.mr:miss 2. t .=. 5. .. . -.- li . . , g.-- - 00.0. 00.000.01p , , g --g-000.00.0.00.00001111 a. ... M i .2-' 1 , tav-; 1 l'az 4, - = c • a= c'Sr•' 5.. ,..... •••• 1 et n"yen,a7U78787UU8 9.1 E - i r: n yen,u778.111.7.USI: a I 11 n 'E E' .1. 7 ".":‘ , t", ,., • c -.:-... c ' ;,• .• - .,... i c ..c, c -I • , 7.: :::. ' I '''' .- I., t... 1 - a . . , • • • g. .= 2 05 • 7.., -c , = - E- . _ = • 7.-. •".1 2, „, 0 ' . ., T. E m F1 > r---. C. '4' rr,_ I'C'_ E- 7 '''' r, ? ''. `:' 2 '§. yt. '',„' c.• a. "::: r ..;'- I c. - .2 g i..• -] •,'. 1 7 ir_ - r e, ;: 4. .1. L 7: ?, E.4. .z. .7.. 7. c 2 l'', 5. .., , I IT :; F•,-4: , 2_4,, N ,:, 4. . T. 5. 4'. E:', C ,..., E F• -I- - - - r c .,,,,. ,T.' Fr .., g -, E F.' - „:..- , ....7. ,,..: ..E• 1 ti, , ,,2, ...-. c.:. tt' 44 E Er r. •ff. ,-. --C.. - 7 7: ::-r r. -3 e) - r . .. ::: F,..- - ,_ ,L, ...1 , , E 2 n.1.-.4 a , := 7 P.• :..., ; t '_ ,L. E E77T = E ,-, - 1 CA i E P, 7 g . .7 .-. .,..._ ,.— ,;.:-... a r; •••• m r-: ;.i. F: Ii. : N t •- r % .,,.. - - - , - r. r. C - , - - .■ $ . . et "., et • r , i .. :,-.. ,.... 5. ...:... , 7 7. -. t ...... • •,.., , - ___,• IV 01 ;... §***1.1111 : 7ijogggte . i - , ris;•12 2 IS 2 2 = 1 c 2 .... ,..‘ ,-- ,- 2 32## # -a.g - -+ t A. a • z222 2 ,-, .-. - -- t. .. , -.1 i t ,, I'4 1 .Y. i E°°°111F 1) al = e :',,,' E': :* = E." 1.■ t • i r x 7 , .2., ... .z = ; 1131..- .1 : ,,, 2.=;;RazAil a , = .; - - '7'. x - 0 2'3 ..., := a f -3 'i: 7:,' ; 7' 7 .. ',..), 1 inEEREEIFREA -. 1,1 = .,.... J.,. ■.-. 222E i l .t. '7 A 3 t t - rL.' ,t • = .. ... A o ..., :5' 04 - 2 7 -. . . . Er . .. . . = f = : ; to 0 ; , _.• :: _ 7.÷ = -. . - -, a I 1 i'fArae .02RVR -.= = .. .77 j :I.... , -1 - .n.r. _, , -, - , 4, u) _ , _ _ . cn - ....= .I = a2= • , . = cq t . a 4 ' i 7, ''. ; •-• U '"/ ' - = '0 C .1. :' = = -= _,. .- `-.• / .2. ^ , Y e &t -, A ; , ; ... ;.' -: :=, .,, 4 5.' Z E ; .: _ c. - IRE.:- ....• . . .., E._ , , - .‘, 0 s ■ 2: `-.7 /".. --...= - ..■ - - —.. "/ = ■L• e _, -a ., .., f., F, 41 ,.) J ..' .4. 1 i i, 7. i 1—` '-; 3 4E ?.. -_1. i 5 - / .4 A "..., .- U , ; = = F. ,-• Jim . . . .g a - • • jedX5 q • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darren Wyss,Associate Planner RE: Buildable Lands Inventory DATE: April 17, 2006 The Planning Commission will be given the opportunity to review,discuss and ask questions regarding the updated buildable lands inventory (BLI) at the April 17th meeting. This review and discussion will provide important information to help commissioners in their role during the Comprehensive Plan update process. The BLI identifies and includes undeveloped land that is available and meets current zoning standards. The Tigard BLI defines buildable land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant or 2) larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with 1/4 acre or greater of the taxlot vacant. Publicly owned land,environmentally sensitive lands,water quality tracts,and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions are not included. Platted,vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable until development has occurred. The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2005 (2005 BLI). Following are some key findings/observations from the 2005 BLI: • Less than 10%of land within the city limits is identified as buildable and the majority lies in residential zones • The majority of commercial land is zoned General Commercial,with no Community or Neighborhood Commercial land included • No Heavy Industrial land is included and the majority of remaining industrial lands lie in three lots under the same ownership • Mixed-Use land is predominately located in the Tigard Triangle • Large lots available for residential development are scarce within the city limits with only 43 (6%) lots greater than 2 acres;meaning smaller partition and infill developments may become the norm or the consolidation of lots will be necessary for future large developments • Vacant lots available are predominately less than 10,000 square feet,while the majority of lots greater than 10,000 square feet are partially vacant; thus increasing the likelihood of minor land partitions,consolidation and infill development becoming more important in the future • Over the past four years, 132 acres have been annexed that were on the BLI at the time • • • Within the city limits over the past four years, 82%of new single-family residential development has occurred upon lands included on the BLI;demonstrating that unexpected infill redevelopment is occurring and that the buildable lands inventory has certain limitations in predicting future growth For more detailed data and analysis,please refer to the attached report and map. • • BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 17, 2006 ic`&!kc[D;I Introduction The purpose of the buildable lands inventory(BLI)is to identify undeveloped land that is available and compatible with development policies and practices. The inventory is useful for informing policy and also as a tool for tracking and analyzing development activity and trends,as well as helping to project future capacity. This identification of buildable lands is completed by the city on a yearly basis (since 2002) and total acreage is reported at the end of a calendar year. The BLI process uses a protocol that employs the same basic structure, but is refined each year for efficiency and to increase accuracy. However, the attributes of buildable land have remained the same over the years. The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2005 (2005 BLI). This report provides information on the 2005 BLI and changes in the inventory • over the past four years. Basic information on residential building permits and annexations are reported to show their relationship to and influence upon the BLI. Finally,a map showing the spatial location of land included on the 2005 BLI is included as Attachments A. Definition of Buildable Land The Tigard BLI defines buildable land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant or 2) larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with 1/4 acre or greater of the taxlot vacant.While Metro uses a '/2 acre minimum for partially developed land,protocol reduced it to reflect higher densities on infill taxlots.Additionally,publicly owned land, sensitive lands,water quality tracts,and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions were not included. Platted,vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable until development has occurred. 2005 BLI Key Findings/Observations Figure 1 displays the relationship between the 2005 BLI and the total area of Tigard. Figure 1. Relationship of 2005 BU to Total area Less than 10%of land within the city commercial BLI Mined-Use BLI limits is currently classified as buildable. "` 1% Industrial BLI This of course does not limit ,Y. Residential BLI development to this less than 10%,but 6% points to the possibility of increased pressure to redevelop properties, to Developed • increase density,and to look for mixed- 91% use areas in absorbing more residential development. Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 1 of 6 • 0 Table 1 displays total acreage for the 2005 BLI, based on four planning designations. The 2005 Table 1.2005 BLI (acres) BLI is separated into two categories: 1.inside Tg Urban City the city limits and 2. unincorporated urban City Services Zoning Limits Area Total services area. The buildable lands inventory Commercial 51.07 0 51.07 has been divided in this manner since 2002 in Industrial 69.14 0 69.14 order to show the relationship that exists Mixed-Use 45.15 0 45.15 between the two areas and also because of the Residential 435.55 235.41 670.96 Urban Planning Area Agreement. It provides a Total 600.91 235.41 836.32 good look at temporal and spatial patterns. Inside the city limits, the breakdown of the 2005 BLI is commercial(8.5%),industrial (11.5%),mixed-use (7.5%), and residential (72.5%).The inventory contains only residential land in the unincorporated urban services area. Table 2 breaks the 2005 totals down into Table 2. 2005 BLI (acres) zoning districts and gives a more complete Tigard Urban look at what is available. City Services Zoning Limits Area Total Commercial Land- Only two of the four C-C 0 0 0 commercial districts contain buildable land and C-G 40.84 0 40.84 83%of that is zoned General Commercial. C-N 0 0 0 The lack of Community and Neighborhood C-P 9.16 0 9.16 Commercial land available limits the ability to CBD 1.07 0 1.07 develop neighborhood markets,restaurants,or -H 0 0 0 coffee shops within walking distance of most I-L 25.55 0 25.55 residences. I-P 43.59 0 43.59 MUC 3.38 0 3.38 Industrial Land-No buildable land remains MUE 28.11 0 28.11 in the Heavy Industrial district and of what MUE-1 8.30 0 8.30 remains in Light Industrial,69% (17.64 acres) MUE-2 0.75 0 0.75 is located on the Fields property. Likewise, MUR-1 3.90 0 3.90 80% (34.7 acres) of the buildable Industrial MUR-2 0.71 0 0.71 Park land is also located on the Fields property. R-1 3.35 0 3.35 This distribution inhibits the possibility of R-2 1.36 0 1.36 developing a large project without redeveloping R-3.5 24.25 0 24.25 property with an existing use. R-4.5 205.45 8.12 213.57 R-7 123.61 220.77 344.38 Mixed-Use Land-Mixed use districts all R-12 44.03 5.66 49.68 contain some buildable land,but the majority is R-25 33.50 0.71 34.21 zoned Mixed Use Employment (63%) and R-40 0 0 0 located in the Tigard Triangle. Total 600.91 235.41 836.32 Residential Land-Buildable land located in residential districts also shows some interesting patterns. Looking at the unincorporated urban services area,94%of buildable land lies in the R-7 zoning district(as mentioned previously,all buildable land located here is zoned residential). This leaves very little low, medium-high,or high density land available outside the city limits. Within the city limits, a large portion of the 2005 BLI is zoned low density(53%is R-3.5 or R-4.5) or medium density(28%is R-7). The remaining low density residential land (R-1 and R-2) comprises only 1%of buildable residential land and all is partially developed. No land zoned R-40 remains on the inventory,within the city limits or urban service area. Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 • 0 2005 BLI and Lot Size Tracking the buildable acres Table 3. Distribution/Number of Lots-2005 BLI is a helpful Tigard City Limits Urban Services Area exercise,but y m y m —taking a look a) m aa. a� .� ? c atafew E = 0 u) 03 E = 0 N ca additional Lot Size U E .2 W i U E re i2 attributes can Less than 5000 sq ft 6 5 12 69 92 0 0 0 57 57 help to paint a 5000 to 10,000 sq ft 9 4 17 241 271 0 0 0 82 82 clearer picture 10,000 sq ft to 1 acre 27 11 50 246 334 0 0 0 93 93 of what lies 1 to 2 acres 7 2 6 79 94 0 0 0 33 33 ahead for the 2 to 5 acres 5 2 2 35 44 0 0 0 24 24 city. Table 3 5 to 10 acres 1 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 8 8 breaks the More than 10 acres 0 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 2005 BLI Total 55 27 87 678 847 0 0 0 297 297 down into the planning designations and distributes the lots based on size (the buildable land inventories for all years are now clipped to taxlot boundaries,as opposed to the previous method of allowing"parcels" of land to cross taxlot and zoning boundaries). In the city limits,a majority of buildable lots lie within residential zoning. However,the more telling story is the size of the residential lots inside the city that are included on the 2005 BLI. 82% of the buildable residential lots are less than one acre in size and 46%are less than 10,000 square feet. Large lots available for residential development are scarce within the city limits with only 43 (6%) lots greater than 2 acres for a total of 260 acres. This distribution shows that consolidation and partitioning of lots may become the primary means of increasing residential capacity. Vacant vs. Partially Vacant Figure 2 expands upon lot size by breaking the numbers into vacant or partially vacant. This distinction gives a sense of the effort needed to develop the lot.According to the BLI definition of buildable land (see page 1),vacant lots in Figure 2 have no development and partially vacant lots have development present,but 1/4 acre or more undeveloped. Looking within the city limits at residential lots on the 2005 BLI,a great majority of lots less than 10,000 square feet are vacant,meaning they are more than likely part of a platted subdivision and cannot be divided further. The opposite is true for lots greater than 10,000 square feet as the majority are partially developed and few(21 lots) remain vacant greater than 2 acres. The future of large Figure 2. Distribution of Residential Lots Within City Limits residential 2005 BLI developments may 250-' i lie in consolidating 212 lots that contain 200 existing homes. 150 Otherwise,partitions 100/' ' and infill 51 development will 50-, 46 jkic 216 19 ^�_3 3 �� become the primary ° _ cr 2 0 N ' "" ' o N 0 2 . means of expanding a om N m m 4 the housing base o to J within n the city limits. ■Vacant 0 Partially Vacant Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 • • Table 4 simply provides a glimpse at all planning designations and how the buildable land is distributed between vacant and partially vacant lots. Table 4. Development Status-2005 Buildable Lands Inventory Tigard City Limits Urban Services Area 2 N f0 .5 ,n f6 To O C E y -6 v E rn -6 a E m uJ ;u E °' y To X -o x N O Lot Size c� c E°- c°� 5 tr 1-- Vacant Lots 38 16 56 403 513 0 0 0 186 186 acres 39.93 62.10 33.14 204.07 339.24 0 0 0 98.30 98.30 Partially Vacant Lots 17 11 31 275 334 0 0 0 111 111 acres 11.14 7.04 12.00 231.49 261.67 0 0 0 137.11 137.11 Changes from 2002 to 2005 We now take a look at the changes in buildable land over time. A comparison of the BLI from 2002 to 2005 is included in Table 5. Within the city limits,there has been minimal loss of commercial buildable land (2.44 acres,4.6%),while the loss of industrial buildable land (1.23 acres, 1.7%) is more than likely a result of data clean-up over the years. Mixed-use losses from the BLI are 8.9 acres (16.5%),while residential losses total 71.91acres (14.2%). This shows that the city is predominately developing properties on the BLI for residential uses. However,residential land on the BLI has increased over the past two years (18.07 acres). This is due to the annexations that have occurred. The annexations and development have combined for a total loss of 41.1%of buildable land in the urban services area. Table 5. Buildable Lands Analysis(acres) Tigard Urban Services Area Zoning 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005 Commercial 53.51 51.87 51.99 51.07 0 0 0 0 Industrial 70.37 70.87 70.04 69.14 0 0 0 0 Mixed-Use 54.05 52.88 53.86 45.15 0 0 0 0 Residential 507.46 417.48 419.75 435.55 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41 Total 685.39 593.09 595.64 600.91 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41 'The increase of buildable land within the city limits is due to annexation,which also removes that land from the urban service area(slight variations between years within zoning districts may be the result of data clean-up) Table 6 (see next page) compares the buildable lands over time by zoning district. There has been a steady decrease in all residential zoning districts,both inside and outside of the city limits,except for the R-7 zoning district. It has seen a 15.1%increase in the amount of buildable land within the city limits and a loss of 41.1%in the urban services area. This is again due to a noteworthy transfer of buildable land into the city limits through annexation. Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 • . Table 6. Buildable Lands Analysis(acres) Tigard Urban Services Area Zoning 2002 2003 2004 2005 _ 2002 2003 2004 2005 C-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-G 42.58 41.79 42.11 40.84 0 0 0 0 C-N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-P 10.05 9.15 9.18 9.16 0 0 0 0 CBD 0.87 0.93 0.70 1.07 0 0 0 0 I-H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I-L 25.33 25.27 25.60 25.55 0 0 0 0 I-P 45.04 45.59 44.44 43.59 0 0 0 0 MUC 10.24 10.08 9.98 3.38 0 0 0 0 MUE 27.96 27.64 28.61 28.11 0 0 0 0 MUE-1 8.58 8.57 8.70 8.30 0 0 0 0 MUE-2 0.76 0.85 0.75 0.75 0 0 0 0 MUR-1 5.09 5.06 5.11 3.90 0 0 0 0 MUR-2 1.41 0.68 0.71 0.71 0 0 0 0 R-1 3.19 3.19 3.35 3.35 0 0 0 0 R-2 1.35 1.35 1.36 1.36 0 0 0 0 R-3.5 30.79 24.97 25.79 24.25 0 0 0 0 R-4.5 256.62 223.32 215.46 205.45 9.20 8.37 8.14 8.12 R-7 107.40 70.27 79.04 123.61 374.52 320.58 284.87 220.77 R-12 65.29 54.20 56.06 44.03 11.67 5.77 5.66 5.66 R-25 42.82 40.17 38.70 33.50 3.99 1.51 0.75 0.71 R-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 685.39 593.09 595.64 600.91 399.57 336.39 299.57 235.41 'The increase of buildable land within the city limits is due to annexation,which also removes that land from the urban service area(slight variations between years within zoning districts may be the result of data clean-up) Annexations and the BLI Table 7 displays the Table 7. Annexation and Buildable Lands Inventory annexations that have Number of Acres Lots Acres on Percentage occurred over the past Year Annexations Annexed Annexed BLI on BLI four years and how 2005 5 71.76 77 63.91 89.1% much of that land was 2004 3 91.8 16 18.51 20.2% included on the BLI. 2003 2 4.24 3 1.94 45.8% The 63.91 acres on the 2002 4 52.91 16 47.48 89.7% BLI that were annexed Total 14 220.71 112 131.84 59.7% in 2005 directly led to the jump in R-7 buildable land within the city. This table shows the majority of land being annexed is considered buildable (59.7%) and that number increases to 75.9%if you remove the 47 acres of land annexed in 2004 that is owned by Clean Water Services and located in the floodplain. Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 . • Residential Permits and the BLI Table 8. Residential Permits(10 Years) To get a sense of the how well the BLI acts as Total Urban a predictor of development capacity,we can Permits Tigard Services look at building permit numbers and Issued City Limits Area locations. First, to get a sense of the 2005 221 209 12 residential building activity taking place in the 2004 284 257 27 city and urban services area,Table 8 shows 2003 422 270 152 the number of permits issued and finalized 2002 335 216 119 over the past 10 years. The total number of 2001 494 253 241 yearly permits has fluctuated and is down over 2000 401 258 143 the past two years,due to the limited activity 1999 273 174 99 in the urban services area. Within the city 1998 375 179 196 limits,2005 saw the fewest permits since 1999. 1997 346 263 83 1996 335 335 0 Predicting future development needs to 3486 2414 1072 account for past trends,but market forces and the composition of available land increases the difficulty. Table 9 makes the connection between the residential permits and the BLI. Although the majority of permits over the four year period were being issued to lots on the BLI, there is still a significant amount (16.9%in the city limits) that is not captured in the buildable lands inventory. This means that the city is experiencing development on lands where it was not anticipated to occur. This can be attributed to a number of reasons,including: the demolition of an existing home and new Table 9. Residential Permits On BLI construction taking its place, the combining of All Urban lots and demolition of homes for new Permits Tigard Services construction, or an oversight of a partially Issued City Limits Area vacant lot that had the attributes to be included 2005 91.7% 92.3% 80.0% on the BLI. 2004 77.0% 75.4% 92.6% 2003 86.0% 84.2% 89.0% Next Steps 2002 76.6% 81.9% 66.9% Total 82.4% 83.1% 80.5% A more in-depth analysis of these statistics will need to be undertaken to create a better understanding of what lies ahead for the city in relation to development,particularly residential. Factors that must be considered include:will annexations continue to occur at the rate they have in the past, the shrinking amount of buildable land in the urban services area,the amount of development not captured on the buildable lands inventory, the size of lots available and whether development is present on them. Once this analysis is complete, the capacity of the city to accept growth will become clearer. Additionally,the 2006 version of the BLI is being updated quarterly to continue the tracking of trends over time. Buildable Lands Report to Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 0000 Buildable Lands Inventory lama) t 1 •, � City Routh. Buildable Lands ' zanbte Lissa Am Total --— - - L.L .!w u6, Inventory - 2005 CM 010 010 COD t.a1 T001 I'i ;4 - • City of Tigard . 14. 2505 23,55 I 1 •; - [�?%`� Oregon 1p 350 3,50 g MUC 3,3a 3aa �I. '3 . PAM 28 07 28 07 MUO.1 030 030 ® a 3r`- MURa 0.11 0,11 ` •.? 1I(^. Buildable Land-2005 ' R•1 3,35 333 I _ - .P .' 1..•. TItle7NbUanO• R.3 1.51 1.01 • • • ' 015 24,23 24,25 12 oaf A Title 7 Ens:onmental Buff«R•4,5 205,4! 0,2 213,51 • / © , 1 - R•1 12301 2]1.12 34532 / Title 7100yr FbOtlpMln R-12 440] Ow 4a 00 \ � r5 . .,R•3! 33.00 0.11 ]4,31 wr n% ®' Slope .o 0 0 0 .- - _ u M/'.� 71tle J 30eam ToW 600,12 23021 M2.a3 '\ '7 ,_ a �- r" Slope at Stream or Greater .. , ' r''.., Tigard CRY Limits j - 1 I ® I Urban Services Boundary t 1 • 1 I "•Y .•.`��'M •1 ' I I _I Ta�OOI BounSarY • / aaByp i' t om.I �� I lf ,Zoning GIBBSIflontion$ ,�,, rrlI k 1 i CG Community Commercial ',/.' � LKl f \�� CG General Commercial•r� + a Q''• ) _ • •-' - - ' . 1 ). C•N Neighborhood Commercial• d 3 ♦ C-0 Professional Commercial •i' :Y., P , wn, - 1• :.;1 `, - CBD Central Business District • ,c -�. - - - J• 4✓^ \;9° - 1-H Heavy Industrial Nrl l / � / "�' '�' Ru H. Light Industrial ' 1 .1 `:. \ ' I-P Industrial Para•1 I.w y. +( • .Jq'' •" i . • •' . T 1 MUC Mixed Use Commercial •• .'...I + �,• , '•• MUE Mixed Use Employment 'R1. ` !' -V�,•19 '; '~ f �1y ®w \ MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1 •��"';',..P'• 7 `•�,. 1 MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2 Y 1 J I l I t •.%` - - ®' t ® MUR•1 Mixed Use Residential 11 (, �/ Yx Y' c MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2 i / ,.... /,fi'1' C4`ti'l•z.r . ",Iw cn t. R \ • R-1 30.000 SG Ft MIn LOI SIZe l i° -�`y 4% ' \.'e - / R-2 20,000 Sq Ft Min Lo1Size• `8 r•-• •':'rC. 't'.: (,�` . 1 M e �—• 'a1� •�, i'+'r Ra.S 10,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Sae _1 A® 0-1.5 7,500 Sq Ft Min Lot Size •I `t • , -,' I , - J R-7 5,000 Sq Ft Min Lot Size 1 1 •�-�:-�� ,I " R-12 3,050 Sq Ft Min Lot Slza R-25 1,000 Sq Ft Min Lot SRe tf}. �� R�0 a0 Units Per Acre • \ _ •\• ':\\ . - - M � � w R-40 40 Unetl Per Acre Development Overlay•'' - ..+++JJJ �B w,. I , . .11 .1111 w (HD) Historic District Overlay ' �. y .'_ r 1ne lmmmr Resented ne...Runs '` 2242., _ . ;�:� , :.,. a„ r "EI -, rl+esmm can 'ry4'nn. - y, �r �.' '•? }d'' - ® , .d••r fomrvlatd a•r a Rua yeas penal The m•an, _ should nor be...red an ealuumve tut of.... s.•/i //lI f Y I 0 p I.. p-. -�' "' .•w.Ner awaopnmL b^wmKrepramt.am Rued ./ r',n.r '1 , 1 S^ eye !; 1 w 't:.- �, m the...bledal.Inclusion don nm'rm.property w•Il • I f S /' 1 R'r I 1 "" .. \ '„,\/ anepprennr..mmMmema.n,r«anwnndnes'm' prtvm.rWm}fim'developrnp'n'Aef um Fr prpuan ,_, , • < ,F ® ', of dm in•en.,buildable land.bert'dmufid u promny �6I •,,,.6.'";;;`' I . , ` - � -- . 1 ,I\ wtude orTnle)I.M.dui ere�� 4 , i \t , tI,FuuY,nv.esnudesh,bR d pnml)pw NryrtAY f 2 Pmul p: elyoxn lane'ol •j. . \ sh111 rrtr mee ofshe prtel root __ \ ; ••The at...on represented on this map is norm u of QFebruary 1,3006 On emm Rabe rode r new decove 0 � #� ere^ 4442 .r I to «dmmAmm�occur m ahne the nouns of the nun Illp,,{ na. �e, �� urn MI 11 ■ _ ': '\..,°/ r 1• • , ■ I\ 1 t • ') -;�. ' '� 2444 ...'._.G.�" I..17:■•