02/04/2013 - Packet
Completeness Review
for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
Date of Meeting
I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
Doreen Laughlin
Print Name
Signature
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2013
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5.1 PUBLIC HEARING [Cont’d for deliberation only - no public testimony will be taken] 7:05 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2012-00004
DURHAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN DISTRICT &
GENERAL PLAN DISTRICT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC)
and Zoning Map in a combined amendment package to adopt two new chapters and clarify the applicable
boundaries of four existing chapters. The City proposes the adoption of Chapter 18.605 (Plan Districts) to
provide a purpose statement and approval standards for the adoption of future plan districts or the
modification of existing and future community plan districts. The City and Clean Water Services jointly
propose the adoption of Chapter 18.650 to create a new plan district to govern future development within the
106 acre Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (Durham Facility). The City also proposes text
amendments to TDC Chapters 18.600, 610, 620, 630, and 640 to create a uniform naming convention and
add boundary maps to provide clarity as to where the regulations apply; boundary maps to be identical to
those adopted with the applicable chapters and are for illustrative and clarifying purposes only. The City also
proposes corresponding changes to the official Zoning Map to add the boundaries of the Durham Facility
Plan District and four other existing plan districts which are not presently shown (Downtown, Tigard
Triangle, Washington Square Regional Center, and Durham Quarry aka Bridgeport Village).
LOCATION: Citywide
5.2 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZON) 2012-00003 PACTRUST ZONE CHANGE 8:05pm
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment for
approximately 12 acres located between SW 72nd Avenue and SW Upper Boones Ferry and Durham Roads
(Parcels II & III of PacTrust Business Center). The zoning designation would be changed from "I-L: Light
Industrial District" to "I-P: Industrial Park District," while the existing comprehensive plan designation of
"Light Industrial" would remain unchanged. LOCATION: 16125 – 16575 SW 72nd Avenue and 16150 -
16290 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, WCTM 2S113AB, Tax Lots 600 and 1201. ZONE: I-L: Light
Industrial District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, & 18.530;
Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 9, and 12.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2013
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2
6. BRIEFING: TIGARD TRIANGLE 8:50 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:20 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Recommended Staff Amendments to DCA2012-00004
Date: January 28, 2013
The purpose of this memorandum is to present staff’s recommended changes to the Plan
District Project Report presented to the Planning Commission on January 14, 2012. For clarity,
this memorandum summarizes these text changes into two sections. The first section is a
summary of three text changes recommended by staff at the January 14 meeting. The second
reflects changes to design standards as directed by the Planning Commission. All changes are
noted in red font with a strikethrough or double underlining.
Summary of Changes Proposed by Staff on January 14, 2013
Change #1: Removes legacy references no longer necessary in proposed Table 18.650.1 (see
page 63 of Project Report).
Table 18.650.1
Use Table
Sub-Districts
Land Use
Administrative
Sub-District
(DA)
Operations Sub-
District
(CT)
Floodplain
Sub-District
(LC)
Waste Related N PN
Office P PN
Basic Utilities P PP
Utility Corridors P PP
Industrial Services C1 PN
General Industrial N R2 N
Community
Recreation
P PP
Wireless
Communication
Facilities
P PP
Change #2: Changes the existing title of 18.600 so it’s consistent with the purpose and new
terminology of the overall project (see page 25 of Project Report).
18.600: COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICT AREA STANDARDS
Change #3: Inserts language into proposed paragraph 18.650.050.A.2 (Buffering and Screening
Standards) to avoid “double-buffering” between the Operations Sub-District and the
Administrative Sub-District (see page 69 of Project Report).
The Operations Sub-District shall meet buffer standards F along all boundaries of the sub-
district, as set forth in Table 18.754.2, with the exception of the boundary between the
Operations Subdistrict and Administrative Subdistrict.
Staff Response to Planning Commission Direction on Design Standards
Change #4: Staff worked with Commissioner Fitzgerald and Clean Water Services to
develop the following changes to proposed design standards (See page 81 of the Project
Report). Proposed text changes respond to the Commission’s concern about glazing and
material standards in the Durham Facility Plan District. In working with the CWS architect,
it was determined that additional clarification over the intent of the standards would benefit
future implementation. As such, clarifying language has also been added.
18.650.090 Additional Standards for Conditional Uses within the Administrative Sub-District
A. Purpose: Conditional Uses are permitted within the administrative sub-district, but have
the potential to create unpleasant aesthetic impacts to nearby land uses and travelers
upon Durham Road and Hall Boulevard. These standards are intended to reduce
off-site impacts and ensure new development associated with these activities presents the
appearance of a high quality office campus regardless of the interior activity a
harmonious appearance to users outside of the plan district or within a public right-of-
way.
B. Standards: Conditional Uses within the Administrative Sub-District shall be subject to
the following development standards in addition to those set forth in 18.330.030 and
18.330.050:
2. Ground-Floor Windows – All street facing elevations along public streets shall
include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows
or glazed doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from
three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street facing
elevation. Up to 50% of the building requirement can be met on an adjoining
elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner.
4 Building Materials – Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood,
sheet press board, fiber-cement products, or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior
finish materials.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Recommended Staff Amendments to DCA2012-00004
Date: January 28, 2013
The purpose of this memorandum is to present staff’s recommended changes to the Plan
District Project Report presented to the Planning Commission on January 14, 2012. For clarity,
this memorandum summarizes these text changes into two sections. The first section is a
summary of three text changes recommended by staff at the January 14 meeting. The second
reflects changes to design standards as directed by the Planning Commission. All changes are
noted in red font with a strikethrough or double underlining.
Summary of Changes Proposed by Staff on January 14, 2013
Change #1: Removes legacy references no longer necessary in proposed Table 18.650.1 (see
page 63 of Project Report).
Table 18.650.1
Use Table
Sub-Districts
Land Use
Administrative
Sub-District
(DA)
Operations Sub-
District
(CT)
Floodplain
Sub-District
(LC)
Waste Related N PN
Office P PN
Basic Utilities P PP
Utility Corridors P PP
Industrial Services C1 PN
General Industrial N R2 N
Community
Recreation
P PP
Wireless
Communication
Facilities
P PP
Change #2: Changes the existing title of 18.600 so it’s consistent with the purpose and new
terminology of the overall project (see page 25 of Project Report).
18.600: COMMUNITY PLAN DISTRICT AREA STANDARDS
Change #3: Inserts language into proposed paragraph 18.650.050.A.2 (Buffering and Screening
Standards) to avoid “double-buffering” between the Operations Sub-District and the
Administrative Sub-District (see page 69 of Project Report).
The Operations Sub-District shall meet buffer standards F along all boundaries of the sub-
district, as set forth in Table 18.754.2, with the exception of the boundary between the
Operations Subdistrict and Administrative Subdistrict.
Staff Response to Planning Commission Direction on Design Standards
Change #4: Staff worked with Commissioner Fitzgerald and Clean Water Services to
develop the following changes to proposed design standards (See page 81 of the Project
Report). Proposed text changes respond to the Commission’s concern about glazing and
material standards in the Durham Facility Plan District. In working with the CWS architect,
it was determined that additional clarification over the intent of the standards would benefit
future implementation. As such, clarifying language has also been added.
18.650.090 Additional Standards for Conditional Uses within the Administrative Sub-District
A. Purpose: Conditional Uses are permitted within the administrative sub-district, but have
the potential to create unpleasant aesthetic impacts to nearby land uses and travelers
upon Durham Road and Hall Boulevard. These standards are intended to reduce
off-site impacts and ensure new development associated with these activities presents the
appearance of a high quality office campus regardless of the interior activity a
harmonious appearance to users outside of the plan district or within a public right-of-
way.
B. Standards: Conditional Uses within the Administrative Sub-District shall be subject to
the following development standards in addition to those set forth in 18.330.030 and
18.330.050:
2. Ground-Floor Windows – All street facing elevations along public streets shall
include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows
or glazed doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from
three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street facing
elevation. Up to 50% of the building requirement can be met on an adjoining
elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner.
4 Building Materials – Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood,
sheet press board, fiber-cement products, or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior
finish materials.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2013
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5.1 PUBLIC HEARING [Cont’d for deliberation only - no public testimony will be taken] 7:05 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2012-00004
DURHAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN DISTRICT &
GENERAL PLAN DISTRICT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC)
and Zoning Map in a combined amendment package to adopt two new chapters and clarify the applicable
boundaries of four existing chapters. The City proposes the adoption of Chapter 18.605 (Plan Districts) to
provide a purpose statement and approval standards for the adoption of future plan districts or the
modification of existing and future community plan districts. The City and Clean Water Services jointly
propose the adoption of Chapter 18.650 to create a new plan district to govern future development within the
106 acre Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (Durham Facility). The City also proposes text
amendments to TDC Chapters 18.600, 610, 620, 630, and 640 to create a uniform naming convention and
add boundary maps to provide clarity as to where the regulations apply; boundary maps to be identical to
those adopted with the applicable chapters and are for illustrative and clarifying purposes only. The City also
proposes corresponding changes to the official Zoning Map to add the boundaries of the Durham Facility
Plan District and four other existing plan districts which are not presently shown (Downtown, Tigard
Triangle, Washington Square Regional Center, and Durham Quarry aka Bridgeport Village).
LOCATION: Citywide
5.2 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZON) 2012-00003 PACTRUST ZONE CHANGE 8:05pm
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment for
approximately 12 acres located between SW 72nd Avenue and SW Upper Boones Ferry and Durham Roads
(Parcels II & III of PacTrust Business Center). The zoning designation would be changed from "I-L: Light
Industrial District" to "I-P: Industrial Park District," while the existing comprehensive plan designation of
"Light Industrial" would remain unchanged. LOCATION: 16125 – 16575 SW 72nd Avenue and 16150 -
16290 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, WCTM 2S113AB, Tax Lots 600 and 1201. ZONE: I-L: Light
Industrial District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, & 18.530;
Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 9, and 12.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2013
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2
6. BRIEFING: TIGARD TRIANGLE 8:50 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:20 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m.
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map (excerpt) - Subject Property is designated Light Industrial (IL)
City of Tigard Zoning Map (excerpt) – PacTrust Business Center is split-zoned I-P and I-L
Request: Re-zone the I-L part of the property so the PacTrust Business Center will be wholly in the I-
P Zone.
Subject Property
Parcel II & III of
PacTrust Business Center
Subject Property
Parcel II & III of
PacTrust Business Center
Detail of Notes from ALTA/ACSM Survey of PacTrust Business Center Property:
1
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan – Applicable Land Use Planning Policies:
Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action
plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard’s land use planning program.
Applicable Policies:
2. The City’s land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and
implement its Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because both
the current (“I-L” Light Industrial) and the proposed (“I-P” Industrial Park) zones are
suitable for implementing the “IL” Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map
designation, which applies to the Subject Property and all City of Tigard lands
surrounding it.
5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and Corridors,
and employment and industrial areas.
Response: The Subject Property is fully developed for urban industrial and office uses,
consistent with this Policy; however, unlike surrounding buildings within the same
development, the different zoning designation of the buildings within the Subject
Property does not allow them to accommodate office uses, for which there has been
increasing market demand in recent years at this specific location. The proposed
change furthers the objective of achieving the highest and best potential use of all the
land designated for light industrial use in this location, which benefits from excellent
access to Interstate 5 and good local connectivity on SW 72nd Avenue, SW Durham
Road and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road.
14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent
with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and
when necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
Response: The Applicant has prepared and submitted materials in this land use application,
providing substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with all applicable approval
criteria.
15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to
Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be
made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map
designation;
Response: Transportation improvements and other public facilities and services for the Subject
Property (as well as others in the vicinity) were constructed in conjunction with the
initial development of the industrial properties in the area. Roads and public utilities
were built to meet City standards and to support anticipated demands for services,
based on the applicable Comprehensive Plan Map designations in the area. Because
the proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map
designation for the Subject Property, no change in “reasonable worst case” vehicle
2
trip generation is anticipated, and no further analysis is warranted to demonstrate
compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012).
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or
planned transportation or other public facilities and services;
Response: The Subject Property has already been completely constructed as part of a larger
office/industrial lease space campus with multiple buildings. In this context, the issue
is not “development” of land uses so much as it is leasing of available space to users
in categories for which there is real market demand. The principal difference the
proposed Zone Change will make will be to allow office uses to locate within the
buildings on the Subject Property, as they currently are able to do on all of the
surrounding properties. Because office uses are allowed in “IL”-designated areas of
the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed Zone Change will not introduce potential for
traffic generation inconsistent with the assumptions on which the City’s
Transportation System Plan is based.
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed
commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties;
Response: The Applicant brings this request to the City of Tigard at this time because the pattern
of demand for lease space within the PacTrust Business Center has shifted in the
years since it was initially developed. Recently, the Applicant has been unable to
lease space to prospective office tenants at the Subject Property because office use is
not permitted in the I-L zone. This is confusing to prospective tenants who would be
allowed in other buildings within the same industrial complex, which look the same
but are in the I-P Zone instead. Materials provided by the Applicant demonstrate
compliance with minimum parking requirements to support the types of land uses
allowed in the I-P Zone, and minimum site landscaping requirements. Thus, the
Subject Property has the capacity to fulfill a community need for more leasable office
space, which has made itself apparent to the Applicant in the form of potential lease
offers that cannot be completed because the proposed uses would conflict with the
existing I-L zoning of the Subject Property (but which would not conflict with I-P
zoning).
Noteworthy in this connection is the fact that there is a substantial inventory of light
industrial lease space in the light industrial area between SW 72nd Avenue and
Interstate 5, immediately east of the Subject Property, as well as on the west side of
SW 72nd Avenue only a few hundred feet to the north (See Zoning Map excerpts in
Exhibit A). For this reason, conversion of the Subject Property from I-L to I-P
zoning will not preclude light industrial uses from locating conveniently close to the
I-5/Carman Drive interchange.
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated,
land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation;
Response: The Applicant has prepared a highlighted version of Table 18.530.1, Use Table:
Industrial Zones (See Exhibit D) that identifies how different land uses would be
affected by the proposed zone change. Summarizing from that Exhibit:
3
Use Categories that would become allowed at the Subject Site:
Commercial Lodging
Eating and Drinking Establishments (Restricted)
Outdoor Entertainment
Indoor Entertainment
Sales-Oriented (Restricted)
Personal Services (Restricted)
Repair-Oriented
Bulk Sales (Restricted)
Office
Detention Facilities (Conditional Use)
Use Categories that would no longer be allowed at the Subject Site:
Outdoor Sales
Industrial Service
General Industrial
Warehouse/Freight Movement
Cemeteries
Use Categories that would be allowed, but with more restrictions:
Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental (Restricted)
Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair (Conditional)
Wholesale Sales (Restricted)
Wireless Communication Facilities (Restricted per Chapter 18.798)
Although the bullet points cited above focus on the differences between the I-L and I-P Zones, in
practice there is broad overlap because “Light Industrial” uses are allowed in both of those
Zones, allowing such employers to locate in either of the two (See Exhibit D). For that reason,
the proposed change will not take the Subject Property’s lease space away from users in the
“Light Industrial” category at all – but it will enable employers in the “Office” category to locate
there.
Employment patterns have shifted over time in the vicinity of the Subject Property, which is
conveniently close to the Carman Drive – Interstate 5 interchange. While a substantial inventory
of light industrial lease space exists in the vicinity – between SW 72nd and Interstate 5, to the east
of the Subject Property, and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue in the area north of the Carman
Drive intersection – the Applicant has observed that the PacTrust Business Center is becoming
increasingly attractive to office employers, based on lease offers the Applicant has received for
available space at the Subject Property. As more office-oriented employers have sought to locate
in the PacTrust Business Center in recent years, the result has been vacant spaces within the
Subject Property that could have been occupied by willing office employers but for a conflict
with its I-L Light Industrial zoning. The practical effect of the proposed zone change will be to
make the existing lease space at the Subject property accessible for those office users that cannot
find other suitable space in the surrounding light-industrial areas in the immediate vicinity.
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in
compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be
fulfilled;
4
Response: The Applicant has presented evidence demonstrating that the Subject Property’s
development is consistent with the applicable standards of the I-P Zone, which
already applies to all of the properties surrounding the Subject Property.
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made
compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and
Response: The proposed zone change will promote compatibility better than the existing zoning,
because the Subject Property is surrounded by land in the I-P Zone.
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City’s natural
systems.
Response: The proposed zone change affects only properties that have been fully developed
consistent with City’s design and construction requirements. No physical changes to
the site or buildings are associated with the zone change request. The change will
therefore have no effect on the viability of the City’s natural systems.
16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development
of a definite land use(s) and per specific design/development requirements.
Response: The City has authority to impose conditions of approval on a zone change request, but
doing so must be based on findings that a compelling public need exists, for which an
approval condition is in fact warranted. As there is no evidence of such a need in this
case, this Policy should not need to come into play.
21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations.
Response: The Applicant has presented evidence demonstrating that the existing conditions at
the Subject Property comply with the I-P Zone’s design/development regulations – in
particular, the applicable minimum parking ratio and landscape area percentage
requirements. Therefore, the proposed zone change will not result in a
nonconforming situation.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the
community’s value, livability, and attractiveness.
Response: The Applicant’s evidence shows that the Subject Property – and the PacTrust
Business Center (in which it is located) as a whole – meets the City’s design
standards for development in the I-P Zone, including a sufficient number of parking
spaces to accommodate office uses and site landscaping that satisfies the minimum
area standard.
Goal 2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic,
ecological, and social benefits of trees.
[detailed policies omitted for brevity]
5
Goal 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed
urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy
for future generations.
[detailed policies omitted for brevity]
Response: These Goals and their implementing policies are not applicable to the proposed zone
change because (1) the affected property is already fully developed with
industrial/office lease space in a landscaped campus setting, so no physical site
changes are proposed, nor are any needed, in conjunction with the zone change; and
(2) the applicable minimum site landscaping area percentage requirements will
actually increase as a result of the proposed zone change. The requested zone change
will have no effect on the City’s achievement of Goals 2.2 and 2.3, and the
corresponding Policies.
Uses for which
I-P is less restrictive
than I-L
Uses for which
I-P is more restrictive
than I-L
Uses for which
I-P is less restrictive
than I-L
Uses for which
I-P is more restrictive
than I-L
PacTrust Business Center
Parking Capacity Analysis 10/5/12
Buildings & Tenants
Parcel Site SF Std.ADA Total Bldg.GLFA
Actual Pkg Ratio
(spaces/KSF)Tenant
Lease
Area (SF)Use
Pkg Std
(sp/KSF)
Min. Req'd
Pkg
Pkg Surplus or
(Deficit)
I 60,176 44 2 46 A 23,112 1.99 Bunce Palmer 1,557 Office 2.7 4.2
Vacant (ground floor)9,722 Light Ind.1.6 15.6
Vacant (#200)11,833 R&D 2.0 23.7
TOTALS 23,112 43.4 2.6
Buildings & Tenants
Parcel Site SF Std.ADA Total Bldg.GLFA
Actual Pkg Ratio
(spaces/KSF)Tenant
Lease
Area (SF)Use
Pkg Std
(sp/KSF)
Min. Req'd
Pkg
Pkg Surplus or
(Deficit)
II 255,080 260 2 262 B+C+D 72,500 3.61
B 20,000 Adv. Neuromod. Syst.11,368 Office 2.7 30.7
"8,632 Light Ind.1.6 13.8
C 27,500 Dow Agro Sciences 17,099 Office 2.7 46.2
"10,401 R&D 2.0 20.8
D 25,000 Option Care Enterprises 11,340 Office 2.7 30.6
"2,604 Light Ind.1.6 4.2
Vacant 5,347 Office 2.7 14.4
"5,709 Light Ind.1.6 9.1
TOTALS 72,500 169.8 92.2
Buildings & Tenants
Parcel Site SF Std.ADA Total Bldg.GLFA
Actual Pkg Ratio
(spaces/KSF)Tenant
Lease
Area (SF)Use
Pkg Std
(sp/KSF)
Min. Req'd
Pkg
Pkg Surplus or
(Deficit)
III 267,131 259 2 261 E+F 83,679 3.12
E 36,127 Consumer Cellular 4,285 Office 2.7 11.6
"5,508 Light Ind.1.6 8.8
Remington's 2,630 Office 2.7 7.1
Dow Agro Sciences 8,281 Office 2.7 22.4
"2,971 R&D 2.0 5.9
Vacant 8,362 Light Ind.1.6 13.4
Synergy Bus. Solutions 3,932 Office 2.7 10.6
"158 Office 2.7 0.4
F 47,552 Safeco Insurance Co.36,116 Office 2.7 97.5
OCE Imagistics Inc.4,904 Office 2.7 13.2
Convergent Technol's 5,273 Office 2.7 14.2
"1,259 Office 2.7 3.4
TOTALS 83,679 208.6 52.4
Parcel Site SF Std.ADA Total GLFA
Actual Pkg Ratio
(spaces/KSF)
VI 241,382 280 4 284 76,325 3.72
Totals:823,769 853 255,616 3.34
Parking
Parking
Parking
I-P is less restrictive
than I-L
I-P is more restrictive
than I-L
(Commercial Lodging is not allowed in I-L)
I-P is less restrictive
than I-L
I-P is more restrictive
than I-L
Impact Study
The following statements address the impact study requirement in Section 18.390.050.B.2.e of the City of
Tigard Community Development Code:
18.390.050 Type III Procedure
B. Application requirements.
2. Content. Type III applications shall:
e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development
on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the
transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the
water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each
public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements
necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on
the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In
situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication
requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real
property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts
of the development.
Transportation System Impact (including bikeways);
Transportation system improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize impact(s):
The proposed Zone Change is from Light Industrial (I-L) to Industrial Park (I-P). Its effect would be to
convert the PacTrust Business Center from split zoning – with 12 acres in the I-L Zone and the remaining
16+ acres in the I-P Zone – into a cohesive 28.27-acre property entirely in the I-P Zone. Together with
numerous larger properties to the north along SW 72nd Avenue, all of the PacTrust Business Center is
designated “Light Industrial” (IL) on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the I-P and I-L Zones are
appropriate for use in implementing the IL Comp Plan designation, which forms the basis for calculating
vehicle trip generation in this part of the City for purposes of Transportation System Plan development.
As a result, the proposed Zone Change does not affect the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Subject
Property and therefore does not require Transportation Planning Rule analysis. The proposed Zone
Change is expected to cause only a minimal difference in traffic volumes attributable to the Subject
Property.
Because the Transportation System Plan was based on the IL Comp Plan designation, which includes
both I-L and I-P Zone land uses, trip generation is expected to be consistent with planning assumptions
and there is limited potential for change in traffic volumes attributable to the Zone Change. Therefore, no
transportation system improvements are warranted by the proposed Zone Change.
Drainage System Impact;
Drainage system improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize impact(s):
The Subject Property is fully developed and in use as light industrial, research and development, and
office lease space. Because physical site changes or redevelopment are neither necessary nor proposed in
conjunction with the Zone Change request, the proposal will have no impact on the drainage system.
Parks System Impact;
Parks system improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize impact(s):
The Subject Property is fully developed and in use as light industrial, research and development, and
office lease space. Because the proposed Zone Change will have only a marginal effect on the number of
persons employed within the Subject Property, and because employment has a much lower correlation
with demand for parks and related services than residential development, any impact on the City’s Parks
System will be minimal and well below a threshold of use for which mitigation actions would be
appropriate.
Water System Impact;
Water system improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize impact(s):
The Subject Property is fully developed and in use as light industrial, research and development, and
office lease space. Differences in water use among the types of activities allowed in the I-L and I-P
Zones are characteristically small. As a result, there is no reason to expect the proposed Zone Change to
increase water system demand or cause other impacts for which mitigation actions are warranted.
Sewer System Impact;
Sewer system improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize impact(s):
The Subject Property is fully developed and in use as light industrial, research and development, and
office lease space. Similar to water utilization, differences in sewer system discharge among the types of
activities allowed in the I-L and I-P Zones are characteristically small. As a result, there is no reason to
expect the proposed Zone Change to increase sewer system demand or cause other impacts for which
mitigation actions are warranted.
Noise Impact;
Improvements necessary to meet City noise standards and to minimize noise impact(s):
The Subject Property is fully developed and in use as light industrial, research and development, and
office lease space. Because I-P Zoning is more restrictive than I-L Zoning with respect to outdoor
operations and other activities associated with noise, the proposal can be reasonably expect to lower,
rather than raise, the noise level in the area. No noise mitigation actions are warranted in conjunction
with this proposal.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8, 2012
TO: City of Tigard (ATTN: Planning Staff)
FROM: Matt Oyen, Construction Manager, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (“PacTrust”)
RE: Neighborhood Meeting Notes for PacTrust Business Center Rezoning Proposal
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012, Matthew Oyen and Dick Krippaehne, representing the Applicant,
were present at the meeting location provided in the public notices (PacTrust Office, 15350 SW Sequoia
Parkway, Suite 300, Tigard, Oregon) at 5:45 p.m. and ensured that the door was open for public entry.
As of 6:30 p.m., no members of the public had arrived, so there was no reason to convene a meeting.
Matt Oyen left the premises at 6:40.
iI
"rq]-
-- G-" ':)(t-==
':-':+
'---=
-llcoB TrTrE
IiI{IURAilCE 850 r 6027
Board o! counti comnrliEi-.rere
Il!E:-
l:;r-\' ' t t
cha I rman
BTRGAIN AND SATJE DEED _.._-.].
i-_---
f,a
I
EE
--:,-=
-:'
I
I
-'-.--...:
il'
I
:,
:
::
\
a,
,.1
K
i-
"\
msrirNcToN cotllTY. a golJ.ilcal uubdlvleion of the gtats of
Oregon, Grautor, conv€yc bo EACIFIC REALU ASgoCr^'rEsr 1..P.;
Graotcc, Ene rea:, proporEl, dercrlbed on attached Erhlblt rA'.
The tsuc and actual conglderatlon for thls ooi,veyance ls
0l, lo0 r o0 o.
'!h18 lnetrurnen! does not guarr::se that ony PartlcuLar,lae nay
be made of Eire proport,y da8crr.bed ln r-hls lnstrument. A buyaE
Bhould check wlth ihe approgrlate clr'-y or county plannlng departmentto verlfy rpproved uses.
IN WIINBSS I{HEREO!" IIASHINGEON cOUNfv haa caueed Ehea€ Pr€aonlsto be e*ecuted by lts Chalrnan oE the Doi:rd of cormtgeloners th18
lLl,^ day of Aprll, 1985, prtrsuant bo an order of sald Eoard
hereEofore entered ol lecord.
ATEES?:::'tShINGtON CCUIiSY, OREGON I
By:
LrnEil a chang€ !,s'requeatedr all tar sto-tenen:s cEe to be sent go'
.the follorring aidreaa: Pacific nealty Aescclat,es, 1.220 s.w.
!{orriaon, 1900, Portland, orcgon 9'1205
DepOE
STA'I'E OF OREGCi{
County of Washlngton
8S
'Tho foEegolng lnstrune4E, rrag. a,qknolle Eed before ne tbLe 1/L -aay or-rpiit, ii6s, av ilts l/a/ianbClK on behatf-6iE-
washlnEfon countyr a pollEtca][ *bdl'vloton of t,he staEe of or€gon.
'-&r
'-- 1:i-0013r
APPBOVE \ WrrSHINCt0lY CCLt!{Tf
BOAn D OP COM Mlsttl g'!-E&s,,
mrNUrE o^o.jbJffi
' ..a_--,ff
-l
'-
.:.,.rjltElits:
'-,..iiE -i=-rcE-
..r,i-r:
ffiElections f,or washlngEon
CounCy, Oregon
Commkilon
*dx{*Iiittw"i ,
uy donunieeion Explres: I"-ln-t(V
-
-----
----
__l
-.---'
:
-:€'':
--.1 -
STATE OF OREGOII,
C-ouaty of ',lashlnstonApril- t6 - ,t9 gS
tr'td'--gqE-.-.--.:::
'G-
.5--_
r,,,pc:---
Personally eppealed the aDore nafiec,rBry i:, liayr.cr
ano acrnowledged the Fovoluntary act ond deed.
fore me:
NOTARY PUBLIC - OR. 'ION co-mrls3tof exgtieii-" Ii_rn -*t
F.--
rt
r .'9..-.-
i ii".i;|.',,:t'#i=:
'."jltxz
"'lI
ti'
''r
---,
-
Fi
ss.
.,rL
A*:, ti;a::l ;:i1....:;,!l:
.-.
-=
i:I!
I
I
..-:
i
I
-,--.1'
A cKret of laill sltuoGo ln the rprtlreoo! qlFlu.rier o! Sectlqr 13. T2S, tUI.l,
lr.i'i., itlshljrstcn (bunq,, Or€go.l, tetng lortleu of tJlosc tract5 o! taD3 c*tvs),od
ta tlashiirgton @r,urEl,r a IpIlI-:.rr ruDdlvislgn of fllc Etat ol Orcacr, Dy dcds
r*.ordod ln B@k 1281 pge 3{l Botc 129. PrJs 3961 Ed: i6rl1 pqe 5?{l anit gcck
10{, pcaa 205r lfrrslrlngtrrn CotgrL)r. orcgon, H REcolds. belrq r,orc partl'cuirrly
dessr.bgi as follors:
EncrELrg at tlre entat of tJp rprtheast q|artcr of aald Sectjo l3l thenca
El 8g"2g.28,i{, lolloulrrg tjre sqrth ltne of t}p nort}rreist, quarter of t}ra rprttrsast
euarts of aald sec'LiJn 13, {r.39 fe.t to a Potnt that ls l0 fpet west, of, wlEn
trc.tsusd rt rlghE, argles, tjre c?Jlte'IiJlo of ouiity It td Ng. 922 (s.H. ?Znd Averue),
aald polnt belry t}le trrrc pzlint ot baqLruril'gl tlrpre E COOOTCBFE, purallel nltir
rdd centeslrne. lt5tl.{{ feet to tns qtrudng of a tangent cur!\re to tJlz legt hrvhg
a radl,us of 25 EeeE: tjrence rprtlr,BBttrly 5?.29 fest, alo(lE sald currre tnrwgh a
entral arigle of IlIolF'.t1" (irrr: long drordbalrg N 65'38159"1{, 45.55 feet ard t}e
radlus lplnt bears N lii'59'52"N, 25 feet) to a polnt ctr tangers:r, cald 9or5i 5.1,"
on tj|e sorrtJrerly rights-ofrray llJ|e of Catnty lbld No. A-I38 (s.l{. UPper B*nes
reary Eaatl , !s tiavel€di Utence s 460{I'53'l{, dierg saful couttrerly tlghts-of{ay
Uro, 5il5.7t leet to an angle polnt ln sal.d rlght-ofrray llrc; thenca S a9'I9'56"1{,
fouei't lg thc 6ou$erly :ilgl)i-e!--rray line o! eolrrty fbd l*r- 536 (S.w. l,tPer Eooriog
Felry lbad) 387.08 feell tlercn S O'O5|O5"E, Pual.r.ol t{ith the s'68t llne of sald
.tErt?tn\Est qurrter o: 'Jle tDf-heast Gluarter of sal{ S:':cLim Il, 620.4: fcct' tn a
tbtnt tlrat ts {2.85 feei.Borch of tjre Bqrt}r tln8 of tlrc northwest qulrter of t}p .'
rDrthillst guar+a oE sald Sectsion 13, tlrence N 89'28'28"E, Surcltel t'ltb sald
ao.:t!i lLne, 535.19,lEsti Urence tl 0'O5IO5"W..parallel wli$ the elct lbe of tJre - -
uegt htlf of the northeast quortcr of sald secclon ll, t12.85 fcet to c' Point on
lle tc[t]r.line of 8!la nort],,esE guarts ol tnE norftreast quarter uf e*G'Se.cuion I3l
!}rercc N 89e:er20"8, foII*In; sald sG^rljr ltno. 205.0 fset to tlre ploci:'of
iiegirrniry, ewruinirrg i5.u5 aecs.
E
=E-e
E!',f':-
I'I
firis ticseipuion pr.c.oarao ly Ulo washfurJton ccunty Srmrcler'-i otficc frlm counl!'
Suwey ilo. l9l2?, drtcr: SelrL<rr$ot' 5. lr00.
R. Or.'n:Icn lciu'sorr
lrtrslr I rrr'.'. on Gurgy
survr,yttt:
,-Jr.ilEr
. r.4Ef.*i'
'--
3
___r---
tlj--
,I
,l
;--'
EEEEi
-
-r_,.:==-
-
i.i ntgtt al tlry liqulrltlcn D.tcrlptlonldrnt. ilo. l2c
A plr.crl of lrnd ln thr ll.ll. l of toc. ll ol L!S.' B.lI.r l.ll.' 9uhlngton
C4ra?y. onoon. E?r lrf,ttlcrlrltv 4:cilhrd rg ?a!!Gl-r!
lrlng ttut portlon of th lrnln docrtbrd prrul lylng rltfiin
proprrty dcaBrl!.d a3 Erltt'olt A ln rn rgnrflrnt bt6..an
Irrhlngton County rnd Prtlflc lr.lty Trurt ncor(h, ln
Fcc Xo. a,-04c9r9 (T.L, ll0l, li.p ll0. tl-l-l3A) Or lrrcrl ls
mr€ plrtlculrrl.v drrcrlbrd rr follorrr
Eaglnnlng !t ! Polnt on ti. f!rE'rtght l?'t':;,' rt ll nff
cxlrts tirt 13 s o0oo'o9r I $8.24 lrrt rnd fi 89c59'5ln L
40.0Q feet frur tlrc polnt of brglnnlng of County Rord
|rirc . 9?? (as cl'r'-": on. Goutlt Suryt, llo. 19.127)i thancc
nortirestcrly olong c 420 fgot rrdlul curvS to ttt laft.
t{rroug:'. r ccntrcl rnglo of !50!5'55' 258.51 fGct (Iong
chord Eears il l?037'48' t 294,45 fcrt! io ! polnt of
corpound curvci thence northrcstsrly llong a 40 foot
radlus curve to tlrc lGft' tnrcugh r ccntral rnglr of
96002'32" 67.05 fcet (long chorrl bearc ll 8!ol?'Ol' L
59.4? fGct) to t ?olnt on Uts southerly :lght-of-Hty of
County Rord A-138'(!e 3hown on County Surssy tlo. 19,127)i
thcnce ll 48o{I'42' E rlong the routherly rlght-of-ray of
County P-ltd llo. A-138 (ea shora on Coirnty Surwy tlo. I9'iZ7)
82.1&! rcet to e pointi iirnrc nott\clsterly llong r 480 foot
raClus curve to the leftr i,hrough t cltrtrul angle of
6o2B'25n 54.23 feet (long chord D!.rr ll 45o27'2g' E
50.20 f:ct) to t polnti ttcncc gouthrcstcrly 9long 6
40 foot radlus curyc to tic llftr tircrqh a eentral rnql:
ilf ?9028'52" 55.49 fr:t (long clro:"J bien S 2d28'51' r
5I.I5 fclt to ! polnt of rrvcrse curve): Uencc south)
Grstcrly along a 080 foot rrdlsg quryc to trc rtghtr thrcugh
r centrrl anglr of 8018'26" 69.59 feet (lon9 chod bccrs
s 33e06'zer,E cg.sr lcitl to r polnr on Eir€ rcrterly rlthned
rlght-of-roy (10 fcct froo Urc crntcrllnc) of Comty Rold
llo. 922 rs shon on GoEty Sunry llo. l9.tzti tirncr S 0000'09' I
23e.38 fcct to tht golnt of Leglnnlng.
a'
a
!
I
I
!EE::.
=
----rE-;t
-'-_:!r
, --L i:'
-
-E-:
I
I
I
i-i5-
:_:____- --
L-
-ni-.-
:,-
u to/lel8l cR!
.l 80.19q.118
t',- l
'-,=1-', t..--:,lI"l"l, I
(ou3 "-
-/\:\ '-
TICOft TITLE,
INSUHANCE
860 l95Bg
GR,A}ITOR
GR,A}{TEE
ETNTU'CBY BENOATIC IllD AANE DEBD
r0
('
t,
(il
DITEDS AFrtl ?, .199€
FROU: PACIFIC REAT,TY AEAOCIATEE, IJ.P.,a Delatrare llultod partnershlp
tBo:PACIFTC REAt.,:t'y }.ESOCIATES, t,.P.,a Delawar€ llnlted partnerehlp
Gratrto: convBya to crantee the property descrlbed 1n
th6 attached Exhlblt -c.
lfhe true conslderatlon for thie conveyance ls g-o-,
ThLs oonveyance is iceuei ',o adJu=)- lct Ll,nee und€r Lot Llne
AdJuetnent, Nunber MIE-85, approvsd by ttre Clty of Tlgard,
orsgon, on ilanuary 10, 1985.
flCOA ,rItE NSUR aICE Clrp^,ay lilS nECOAOEDlH 9 rn6?nuuEhY aY n€ouElr \9 AltaefrMtnliTlN otsl.y ^rn IAa Mr avr.nxlh r-to:r nicur^nfiy lro gurrcrErrct or rc r6'rri
E itcr rfida{ IHE I II !E Is Sr AA^!?rppEnrt T}iAtlt6Y os EccetBE9 THEgta
PACIFTC REALTC ASSOCTAEES, r,.P.a Delaware llrnltad Srartnornhlg
My CohrliEslon Explrea !4/e/L9e8
l_ ,l
|l-_--
%
_ffi
PreEldent and .f,ttorney-ln-Fact
STATE oF oREcoN I --County of t:ultnonah i --'
on thls 7th day of April, 1986, personally appearEd theabove-naned PErER F. BEeIIEN, who halng eworn, statad Lhat he te
Pr.gs{.Eetrt .and Attorney-ln-Fact of, pAciFrc REAr,Ty AssocrATEs,
'Ei.:--,-_
infu.
, ,.,'t'...t' lluirc rj '
j
"' ';{'cii;;ri{"."
!;,L. :r +q #,-. i itJ^.--- I
.i=;-----'@---
PAIICEL i'AiI
. lRovlcod ?.r I.E 101, tt'P zS'l'l3AE). . ;.-. ..
t- rrsci cf lrnd locaccd tn ehc !flf I,/6 cf !!c \/b of saceton 13 T'!s., R.lc. u.H.
w.riingc"" io*,cy. orcton oor. Pcrctcullrly doccrlb'd " folrot;!:
Boglnnlng,aErnlronrrrdonEhov.'!rlShG.of.ray.ofSlfT2nd.Avcnuo
;il; i; -N o arg. oo'09" E 839'821 faai and tr $9-dcg' 59'51'9 41'375 gotr
.fro! r.hc NE ctnCar l,/l6ih cornet of uld SacEt'on 13 r' thofil on C'5' 19,127"
iho*" tl 89 dcg. 59'51i U 255.50 fost to an lron rod; choncc
iqi.d:g. 40,11; V LL6.tt fG.G Eo en tton rod on !h6.orrgbor.trrly_rlot-
of-val it sW uppor Eoonoa Fcrry Boed; lhoncc N,{rE drE' 4L'42'-E 265'97
facC ilong aald-rlghc.og-way tL rn lron rod oar},lng thc end of thc Crrnol'
cton "r,rrl boc*..n-SH Do.tnoi fcrry Ro.d .nd Sg 72nd Avcnua; thcncc 'lonE Ehr
ars of aald 60. radlur cur.rro to che rlghc 67.O5 fccG throu8h a ccnCErI entlc
of,96 deg, o2.!2. Eo an lron rod on lho lforc rlghc-of-uay of eald sl, 72nd
Avcnuc; t-h..r.. along the erc of r 420.0O €oet rndlua cunts to tha rl,hE
258,51 feec chrough-r concrol anglc of 35 dcE,. 15',55' co an lron tod; choncc
eion6 sald rlghc.of'uey S 0 de8. 00'09' u 10'37 fcec to she lron rod 'c' :hs ?3lnt cf b:6ian1;6.
4.-G'
PacTrust Bualncsa Ccnter
BLcgA-PTR0I9I
Exhlblc A
Pcge I
'. rArarr.t F-CrEai--- .
'-:_=
;q-'
E:=-
ffii-F
-:---_---
:l
: (Rcvr'.d t- ilt":b",Blp ts.r.rrea)
A cEecc of lend locrtrd ln chc NL 1,/t of NE 1/4 of SrcGton 13 T.2S' . R;Ill. ll.l{.
Uerhlngeon cohry. Or.Bon, tEorc P.rtlcularly dorertbod rr folloue:
. Daglrurlng aB ro lron rod on th. r.8c al8bt'o8'$ay of SU 72ntt At'onuo
. chrr, tr I O de8,. 00'09' E 222.L2L fret errd ll 89 d.g. 59'5lr H 4L,3?5
. f,rrg froe the lfE crncor 1/l6th conur of ..ld slaclon lt lr rhorn on
C.S.19,127: tlrrnec H 89 dtg,. 59'51'g 237.50 g!6t to rn lron r-u01 thencc
.N 0 dog. 0O'O9. E 68.00 fc6c Eo an troa rcd; thensr tf 89 dog. 59'5!." I
119.20 fcct.co an lron rod; thancc N 0 d.E. 00'09' E 129,0O focc co an. , , !-ioa rod; thoncc H 0 dcg. 00'09" E 106.605 fccc co en tron rod; thonce,,.N4a dcg. O5,13'V 207.39 foot co 6n taon rodon cho Soulh..at.rly rtghr-' of.usI of S.U. Uppor Eoon.r F.rEy Rood: clr.nc. clong ratd rlght-of-vay. H 49 dsg. 19'55' E L38.74 focc Co e brarr acr.v tn thc sld.u6lk rt a rlEhi-
of-noy cn51e polnc; chonco contln[lng :l.ca6 irid ughE-of-erly
. !l 4g dtg. ii'4?r E i53,76 fcet Eo.n lron rod; thenca lccvlng aar.d rtght-
of-nay s 43 d.B. 40'11' E 115.47 feac Eo r:r lron rod; thence
S 89 dcg. 59'51'E 18.00 foct to an lron rod; choncc S 89 dcg. 59'51'E
237.50 EGct Eo tn iron rod on lhc r6.t rl8hc-ot-uey af Sll 72nd AvcnuB;
Ehrnc. S'O deg. 00'09' I 308.00 fGGE .1on8 lho sltd Elthc.of-vsy co chatron rod; Ehcncc I O dcg. 00'09'l, 309.70 fcct along Irld rlght.of r,6y Eo
. 8n lron Eod sc Eh. polnt of beglnnlng.
PscTrust Bustnegs Center ?Bldgs B, C & D - PTR ilo 192, I93 6 194 J
Exhlblt A
Page 2
':-.FliaBqE!.- -+rffi
-r-.6.ffi--s'sl4H#-,+.+{t=I
:=:ffi
___,..-=E
-'-.:*'!:9!i=ffi
dd
+
EErc=:
-r,
E#,-
CEriE=--
44
--_--..]l---}::.,---:-r' - --'-_'
!
I
I
!I
I
I!!il{aEEE=@c'
PA.f,CEL 'rcr
A gr.cG of ltnd loc.Eod l$ th. g l/2 cCll|EL/A of Scctlon 13. t.2S.. R.ltr., tf.t{.
llashlngcon Goustty, Ore8onr bolng eioo Prrg of Br.cE! 20., 29, 30 end 31, Counctl
glcr Aircr No. 2 Eorc parcicullrly dtcrtborl rr follovr:
Boglnntng ac a 3/4' I'ron gtpc ulBh coun:, plug on tho ustE Ettht'of'Hay of' 'SH 72nd l*".ru. Ehrc ta S 89 dc6,. 2E'28' 9 41.39 fcot fro1; Eh. NE Ccnlor
iZfCit cotrrrcr of sietlon 13; thlnco s 69 dca' 2s'3q'! 2O5.oO fcec co !
!-/6r Ltoln pl,pc slth councy Plug; thGnc! S O dcg' 05'05' E 42.85 feec co a
3-14" tron ptpe elEh counEy plug; chancc S 89 dc5. 28'28' l, 279.15 fceE to
an lroo rod .c thr torolnlrt of sho rasE rltlrc'of'naY of slf Durham Road:
thcncr folloutng erld rlthc-of-v.y N 0 deg. 31'32'g 130.92 feac !o an
lrz..n tod: GhGnc. noaEhcrly llong Eh. .rc of a 230.00 fooc rrdlus cuwe co
Eho lcfE through r ccntrol an6,lo of !2 dog- 16'33', r dle.canco of, L29.55
fcot (chord bcarr N 16 do6. 39'48o u L27.857 foct) lo an lron rod; chonce
conclnulnt norchrrly follorlng satd rlghc'of-say of Durhau Road along rhe' arc of r 230-fooB t.dtut curlr. Ec tho l.:E throuS,h a ccnEral rngle of
7 dcg,. 52'0O",. dtsE.ncr of 31.58 fccg (chord bearr N 36 deg. 48'05" !,
31.556 f.GE), co e btrEsr rcrcu c.E tn tho rldevalk; thcnco N 4O dog' 40'05" IJ
247,07 fcc! to r brorr tcr.v DGc tn, thc aldcvrlk; thencc northerly olon6 the
arc of o 320.00-fooc radlut csrlrG to uhr rtghc' through t tttrrr.l 'ngl" nf' lO dog 1l'3I", ! dlaEancr of 56.92 feeg (chord beors N 35 deg. 34'19'u
56.848 foat) co en lron roti; Ehonco ll 30 Jteg. 2A'34'!t 19.54 fsec co an
lron iod; thcnc'c N 0 d:g. 05'05'l, !18'76 Eocc co o brass scree sGE tn the. rldovrlk on thr Eouthoruccrly rlght.of-Ysy of Sll Uppcr Boooer Fcrry Roadi
chcnca folloul.ng orld rlghr-of-vry N 49 dcg' 19'55" E 248.32 fce! co an
tron rod; EhGncc lcavfng rald rtghE.of.se/ .S 44 dGg. 0r'13" E 287.79 feec
to rn lron rodl thoncc S 0 de6. 00'09'l, 235,605 fect Lo on lron rod;
thcnco S 89 dog. 59'51'E 119.20 fecc co rn tron rodi Ehoncc
S O dog; OO'09r U 68.O0 fcac co en lron rod; Ehrncc S 89 dcg. 59'51' E
2!7.50 f..G Bo.n tEon rod on EhG v.!t rtdE-ot-r.y oE St{ 72nd Avenuci
tlroncr rlong erld rlghc-of-uey S O dog. O0'O9' tl 222,50 f!.E Eo th. PotnEof lr3tnntng,
STATE oF OFEOON 1
ccnty ol wartrtngrn I 99
l, Donotd lv. MJJ! q;Srol4$.i!qdr
cnd taratbn ma Erotocb tiac.tdor ot colt.wsEt fot aalrt colJnlr, .lo hfrtatr'.oittl, hn
M $fin hotumaol rf, wrl0m wa'lj.tocoh'od
lrd tooo,led ln boot ot rEcanb ol rdd county'
donrrd w' i'fril'o' Dlirclor ot
dffiffio#'I**""' =''.,..:ir..,-. .r_.:-
': ('tr.l:' -.{'' ' l"rr_a"<r-'
PacTrust BuBloea6 Centrrr
Bl.dgd E & F .- ?TR l/n 195 6 19t1
!9?!inl l2 rlt 3: rrEExhlbr. r A
lage 3
'.'. --/a''i,rlt : -
I
r
O<>
-)\,n
\,
PacTrust Business Center
Zone Change Application
to City of Tigard
November 21, 2012
PacTrust Business Center
Zone Change Application
to City of Tigard
Prepared for:
Matt Oyen
Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (PacTrust)
15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300
Tigard, OR 97224
Phone: (503) 624-6300
Prepared by:
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, Oregon 97224
CONTENTS
Narrative & Findings ............................................................................................. 1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A ............................... Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Excerpts
Exhibit B ............................................ PacTrust Business Center Reference Map
Exhibit C ................................................................. Comprehensive Plan Policies
Exhibit D .................................... Table 18.530.1 – Land Uses in Industrial Zones
Exhibit E ............................................. PacTrust Business Center Parking Ratios
Exhibit F ............. Table 18.350.2 – Development Standards in Industrial Zones
Exhibit G ............................................................................................. Impact Study
Exhibit H ................................................. Neighborhood Meeting Documentation
Exhibit I ................................................................ Pre-Application Meeting Notes
Exhibit J ........................................................... PacTrust Business Center Deeds
Exhibit K ....................................................................... 500-foot Mailing Label Set
1
Description of Proposal
The Applicant, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (“PacTrust”), is the owner of the PacTrust
Business Center, located generally southwest of the Interstate 5 – SW Carman Drive intersection
in the City of Tigard. The property is bordered on the northwest by SW Upper Boones Ferry
Road and on the east by SW 72nd Avenue, with most of the property situated north of SW
Durham Road but part of it on the south side.
Of the 28.27-acre PacTrust Business Center property, more than 16 acres (Parcel I to the north
and Parcels IV, V and VI to the south) are in the Industrial Park (I-P) Zone, but about 12 acres
(Parcels II and III) are in the Light Industrial (I-L) Zone. (See Exhibits A and B.)
This proposal seeks to rezone Parcels II and III so that the entire PacTrust Business Center
property will be Zoned Industrial Park (I-P). This will be more functional – and far less
confusing – for tenants wishing to lease space and locate within the PacTrust Business Center.
The following narrative and findings, together with attached Exhibits, provide evidence in
support of the proposal, demonstrating that all applicable standards are met, and all applicable
approval criteria are satisfied. Exhibits include:
A: Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map, with the Subject
Property noted on both.
B: Reference map of the PacTrust Business Center. It denotes the Parcels (I-VI), the
buildings (A-L), and provides parking space counts. For readability, a separate
enlargement of key statistics from the drawing sheet is included.
C: Applicable Land Use Planning Goals and Policies from the Comprehensive Plan and
responses from the Applicant explaining how the proposed Zone Change complies.
D: Copy of Table 18.530.1 from the Tigard Development Code, with annotations to indicate
the specific land uses for which the I-P Zone is more, or alternatively less, restrictive than
the I-L Zone.
E: Analysis of parking capacity and parking ratio compliance for the Subject Properties as
well as for the whole block bounded by SW Durham Road, SW 72nd Avenue and SW
Upper Boones Ferry Road.
F: Copy of Table 18.530.2, with annotations to highlight the design standards for which I-P
is more, or alternatively less, restrictive than I-L.
G: Impact Study required by Section 18.390.050.B.2.e of the Tigard Development Code.
H: Documentation of the Applicant’s neighborhood meeting process prior to submittal of
this application.
I: Copy of Pre-Application Conference Notes provided by City of Tigard staff, dated June
7, 2012.
J: Copy of 500-foot perimeter mailing list/labels (generated by City of Tigard for
distribution of public notices).
2
18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map
A. Quasi-judicial amendments. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken
by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards
of approval contained in Subsection D below. The approval authority shall be as follows:
1. The Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve
comprehensive plan map amendments;
2. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a
comprehensive plan map amendment; and
3. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change
application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan
map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided
by Section 18.390.
B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to
approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment
shall be based on all of the following standards:
1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
map designations;
Response: The Applicant has listed applicable comprehensive plan Goals and Policies, followed
by recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, in Exhibit C. Based on those
materials, this standard has been satisfied.
2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this
code or other applicable implementing ordinance; [and]
Response: The Subject Property is a developed site in active use within the community,
accommodating a variety of commercial/industrial tenants. Because the property was approved
for development pursuant to the applicable standards in the Light Industrial Zone, it is
appropriate to consider whether the physical development of the property would be considered
“conforming” with respect to the Industrial Park standards. Of particular concern are (1) the
parking ratio, to support higher parking demand typical of offices as compared to light industrial
uses; and (2) site landscape areas.
Parking Ratio Compliance
Exhibit E contains a Parking Capacity Analysis table for the Subject Properties (Parcels II and III
of PacTrust Business Center) as well as the abutting PacTrust Business Center Parcels (I and VI).
Together, these Parcels form the block bounded by SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, SW 72nd
Avenue and SW Durham Road. Because the buildings are situated in a campus-like setting,
parking is distributed around the site in a shared-parking configuration. Based on the building
square footages and existing parking configurations, the following parking ratios are achieved:
Parcel Building SF Parking Spaces Spaces
per 1000 SF
I 23,112 46 1.99
II 72,500 262 3.61
3
Parcel Building SF Parking Spaces Spaces
per 1000 SF
III 83,679 261 3.12
VI 76,325 284 3.72
Whole
Block 255,616 853 3.34
Typical parking ratios for the types of land uses currently located in the PacTrust Business
Center range from 1.6 (Light Industrial) to 2.7 (Office). Because these minimum parking ratio
requirements are substantially lower than the actual parking ratios achieved within the site, the
available on-site parking exceeds minimum requirements. Based on current tenancies (and
assuming typical uses where there are now vacancies), Parcel II has a surplus of 92 parking
spaces and Parcel III has a surplus of 52 spaces in excess of the minimum required parking (See
Exhibit E). For these reasons, it is clear that the change to Industrial Park Zoning for Parcels II
and III would not result in a parking capacity deficiency at the Subject Property.
Site Development Standards, Including Landscaping
Tigard Development Code Table 18.530.2 and associated notes (See Exhibit F) provide
Development Standards in Industrial Zones:
[1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied.
[2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces.
[3] No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a
residential zoning district.
4
[4] Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply
with Policy 11.5.1.
[5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80% if the provisions of Section
18.530.050.B are satisfied.
[6] Except that a reduction to 20% of the site may be approved through the site development
review process.
The sizes of the Parcels, building heights and setbacks all comply with the requirements of Table
18.530.2. The existing site landscaping configuration can be found to comply with standards in
two alternative ways:
(1) Because the purpose of the proposed Zone Change is to eliminate a zone change
boundary that occurs within the PacTrust Business Center site, it is appropriate to look at
Parcels II and III within the context of the larger setting. Using this approach, the major
drive aisle running east-west through the PacTrust Business Center site (generally along
the southern boundary of Parcel III) divides the block into a north portion (Parcels I, II
and III) and a south portion (Parcel VI). In the north portion of the block, site landscape
areas form 25.34% of the total land area, satisfying the basic requirement in the I-P Zone:
Parcel Site SF Landscape SF Landscape
%
I 60,170 28,837 47.93%
II 255,079 49,670 19.47%
III 267,267 69,102 25.86%
North
Portion
of Block
582,516 147,609 25.34%
(2) Alternatively, if the Subject Properties (Parcels II and III) are considered independent of
Parcel I, site landscaping constitutes 22.74% of combined site area.
Parcel Site SF Landscape SF Landscape
%
II 255,079 49,670 19.47%
III 267,267 69,102 25.86%
North
Portion
of Block
522,346 118,772 22.74%
This situation brings the reduction of lot coverage requirements provisions of Subsection
18.530.050.B into play.
5
18.530.050.B. Reduction of lot coverage requirements. Lot coverage may be increased
from 75% to 80% as part of the site development review process, providing the
following requirements are satisfied:
1. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site.
2. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard
to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review
process:
a. Street trees, as required by Section 18.745.040.C.1 are to be
installed with a minimum caliper of three inches rather than the
two inches as measured at four feet in height;
b. The landscaping between a parking lot and street property line
shall have a minimum width of 10 feet;
c. All applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements
contained in Section 18.745.050 shall be satisfied;
d. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-
going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and
maintenance of the landscape area.
The table above shows that the combined 22.74% site landscaping exceeds the minimum
landscaping requirement of 20%. The requirement to install oversized street trees is moot
because there are existing mature street trees along all of the street edges of the Subject
Properties, as well as the adjacent parcels 1 and VI. Perimeter landscape islands within the
PacTrust Business Center meet or exceed the minimum ten-foot standard. The berms and
landscape plantings within all designated landscape areas have been professionally maintained
since their installation, consistent with the initial land use approval. For these reasons, the
Subject Properties (PacTrust Business Center Parcels II and III) comply with the applicable
provisions for landscaping in the I-P Zone, and no nonconformity will result from the proposed
Zone Change.
3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency
in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the
subject of the development application.
Response: Employment patterns have changed in the vicinity of the Subject Property, which is
conveniently close to the Carman Drive interchange with Interstate 5. More particularly, the
Applicant has observed that the area is becoming increasingly attractive to office employers, and
correspondingly less suitable for more traditional industrial users (such as warehousing,
wholesaling, and outdoor sales), based on lease offers the Applicant has received for available
space at the Subject Property as well as other properties it owns in the immediate area. This
predominantly Industrial-Park corridor along SW 72nd Avenue has trended toward more office-
oriented employment over several years; as a result, the area has become less attractive for
traditional industrial activities that typically find less intensive urban locations more beneficial.
The result has been vacant spaces within the Subject Property that could have been occupied by
willing office employers but for a conflict with the present I-L Light Industrial zoning. The
proposed zone change will make this land, and the existing lease space available within it,
6
accessible for office users that cannot find other suitable space in the highly desirable immediate
vicinity. The requested Zone Change responds to this change in the community, which has
altered the profile of potential building tenants that find this location suitable.
C. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval
with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved
or denied.
Response: The Applicant accepts the authority of the decision-making body to impose
conditions of approval, but notes that there is no evidence to indicate that the normal operation of
the I-P Zone will in any way be deficient with respect to regulating land uses at the Subject
Properties. Absent factual evidence of a special need for controls exceeding the I-P Zone
standards, there is no nexus for imposing additional conditions on the Subject Properties.
Impact Study (Section 18.390.050.B.2.e) – Please see Exhibit G.
Summary: The Applicant has presented evidence to demonstrate compliance with all applicable
approval standards, and request that the City of Tigard approve the requested Zone Change.
Exhibit A
Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Excerpts
Exhibit B
PacTrust Business Center Reference Map
Exhibit C
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Exhibit D
Table18.530.1 – Land Uses in Industrial Zones
Exhibit E
PacTrust Business Center Parking Ratios
Exhibit F
Table 18.350.2
Development Standards
in Industrial Zones
Exhibit G
Impact Study
Exhibit H
Neighborhood Meeting Documentation
Exhibit I
Pre-Application Meeting Notes
Exhibit J
PacTrust Business Center Deeds
Exhibit K
500-foot Mailing Label Set
City of Tigard
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner
RE: Tigard Triangle TGM Grant Update
DATE: January 28, 2013
Project Update
The city was awarded a Transportation Growth Management grant from the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) in October 2012. City staff is currently working with our grant manager at
ODOT to finalize a statement of work (SOW) that outlines the project tasks. The draft SOW will
build upon the concept plan developed through the Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan
(Attachment 1). Work will be focused on developing a preferred land use and transportation
option for the Town Center/Main Street area of the Triangle and adopt the necessary policy and
regulations to suppport its development. As shown on the attached timeline (Attachment 2), a final
SOW is anticipated in mid-February. The SOW will involve the tasks outlined below.
Statement of Work
Task 1: Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination (June/July 2013)
Implement a public Involvement plan that includes Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee
meetings and public open houses that will happen throughout the process.
Task 2: Existing Conditions
Consultant will prepare an existing conditions report that looks at physical conditions, market
informaiton, previous planning efforts, current city policies such as Transportation System Plan,
Comprehensive Plan, and Community Development Code.
Task 3: Needs/Opportunities/Constraints and Tools Analysis
Analysis of the information gathered in Task 2 to determine opportunities for improved
transportation and constraints for redeveloment of the Tigard Triangle. The consultant will
identify tools to overcome these constraints (including funding options) and develop criteria to
evaluate the land use and transportation options developed in Task 4.
Task 4: Options Development
The consultant will develop land use and transportation redevelopment options for the study
area considering objectives, opportunities, constraints and public input.
Task 5: Options Evaluation and Refinement
Evaluation of the land use and transportation options developed in Task 4, including costs for
needed infrastructure.
Task 6: Final Preferred Plan and Report (August/September 2014)
The consultant will develop a preferred option, prepare adoptable regulatory implementation
measures (zoning designation, development standards, “floating” zoning requirements, site
design requirements, street layout and cross sections and development phasing and incentives,
etc.) necessary to implement the preferred option, and complete a report that identifies next
steps and issues for further refinement.
How will the Planning Commission be involved?
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will include a representative from the Planning
Commission. This representative will provide project updates to the Commission throughout the
process. The Planning Commission will review and make recommendations to the City C ouncil
regarding adoption of any changes to policies, plans, and standards developed in Task 6.
Tigard Triangle Station Community Concept Plan Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Tigard Triangle Project Timeline
January 31
Draft Scope of Work
to Salem for Final
Review
February 14
Final Scope of Work
April 4
Consultant Selection
Complete
June 2013
SW Corridor Shared
Investment Strategy
July 2013
Triangle Project
Begins
September 2014
Project Complete
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 1 of 7
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
President Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Anderson
Vice President Rogers
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Feeney
Commissioner Fitzgerald
Commissioner Gaschke
Commissioner Muldoon (7:20 pm)
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Commissioner Shavey
Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire,
Interim Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin,
Executive Assistant; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,
Associate Planner; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner
COMMUNICATIONS
Newly appointed Commissioner Tim Gaschke was welcomed and introduced to the
commission. He shared with the commissioners a bit about his background.
CONSIDER MINUTES
January 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes: President Anderson asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the January 14th minutes; there being none, Anderson declared the
minutes approved as submitted.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2012-00004
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FOR DELIBERATION ONLY
DURHAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN DISTRICT &
GENERAL PLAN DISTRICT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 2 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner John Floyd recapped what had happened at the previous month’s public
hearing on this topic. He reminded the commission that staff gave a recommendation on the
project. The Planning Commission invited public testimony; there was none and public
comment was then closed. After some deliberation – staff was directed to work with
Commissioner Fitzgerald on three design issues: screening of rooftop equipment on facilities
near Waverly Estates with the second two relating to design standards for conditional uses in
the sub-district: 1. the list of prohibited materials, and 2. glazing standards in that area. He
referred the commission to a memo dated January 28th that had been included in the
commissioner’s packets in which he had responded to two of the design issues. After
addressing the issues on the memo, John went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Slightly modified from previous recommendation)
Staff recommends the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed amendments
contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report and Memorandum dated January 28, 2013, with
any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and to make a final
recommendation to the Tigard City Council.
John advised the commission that, if approved, this will go before the City Council on
February 26th.
DELIBERATION
Commissioner Fitzgerald said she appreciates the effort staff went through in working with
Clean Water Services and their architect and communicating back to her. She said all the
provisions that they’ve come up with satisfy her concerns and she thinks their architect’s
concerns too. She believes they’ve found a good common ground on that. She wanted a little
more commentary on the last piece – regarding the applied window film.
There was further discussion on the language regarding applied window film.
COMMENT BY CLEAN WATER SERVICES
Nate Cullen, Wastewater Director at Clean Water Services (CWS) – said he was there to assure
the commissioners that CWS shares their desire for this building to be something they can be
proud of. They want the City of Tigard to be proud of it too. This will be CWS’s flagship
building on the site – their “face” to the City on Durham Road, for all the public to see. They
really want it to be something that stands out, has the highest level of architectural standards,
and is something they all can be very proud of.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 3 of 7
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
President Anderson said he likes the changes that were made. After several of the
commissioners spoke, President Anderson said he believed there was consensus on number 2
and that he would entertain a motion.
MOTION
Commissioner Calista Fitzgerald made the motion that was seconded by Commissioner Jason
Rogers:
“I move for approval of application and of Case No. DCA2012-00004, and adoption of
the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and/or based on
the testimony – the four things that are presented in the memo [dated 1/28/13]
including the language that was discussed this evening for the applied window film
which is: “glazing covered with applied window film shall not be considered in the
calculation to meet the standard.”
At this point, John Floyd asked to clarify a point, and suggested that this be put in the motion
for clarity. “The phrase ‘glazing covered with applied window film shall not be
considered in the calculation to meet the standard’ is being placed at the end of
Section 18.650.090.B2.” John said he wanted to make sure the motion is clear about where
this goes.
The commissioners agreed and Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to add what John Floyd had
just clarified to the motion.
The motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZON) 2012-00003
PACTRUST ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment
for approximately 12 acres located between SW 72 nd Avenue and SW Upper Boones Ferry
and Durham Roads (Parcels II & III of PacTrust Business Center). The zoning designation
would be changed from "I-L: Light Industrial District" to "I-P: Industrial Park District," while
the existing comprehensive plan designation of "Light Industrial" would remain unchanged.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Anderson read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. Commissioner Feeney disclosed that he’d worked for PacTrust in the past, but
has no knowledge of this. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict
of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioner Muldoon and
Commissioner Rogers had visited the site. No challenges of the jurisdiction of the
commission; no conflicts of interest.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 4 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, went over the staff report (the staff report is available
to the public one week before the hearing.)
The applicant had distributed additional material (Exhibit B) which Gary went over with the
Commissioners.
Gary noted that he’d handed out an addendum to the Gray Memo, dated February 4, 2013,
(Exhibit C) which provides more specific findings with respect to potential transportation
impacts of the zone change and a comment letter from Marah Danielson, ODOT, (Exhibit
D) also received today, supporting staff’s conclusion in the addendum.
Gary said that based on the analysis, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are satisfied.
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or
other applicable implementing ordinance; and the proposed zone change does not include a
specific development proposal, but instead anticipates new uses in an existing business park.
Future redevelopment will be subject to Site Development Review, in which any proposed
development would be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development
Code standards. The proposed zone change would be in compliance with all applicable
standards of the Tigard Development Code.
Gary summarized: The proposed zone change from I-L to I-P does not reduce lands
designated “Light Industrial” in the City of Tigard, as both zones comprise the land use
designation and provide implementation flexibility. The proposed zone change would use this
implementation flexibility to allow uses permitted in the I-P zone to occur on the subject site
including, primarily, office use. The rezone would allow office employers increased lease
options within the desirable I-5 corridor location where the applicant has demonstrated there
is an increasing market demand. Based on the findings in the staff report, the proposed zone
change complies with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, City of Tigard
Development Code chapters, and provides evidence of change in neighborhood.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF - None
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Lee Leighton, the Director of Planning with Westlake Consultants introduced himself as being
there on behalf of the applicant. With him were, from Pac Trust, Eric Sporre and Matt Oyen.
Mr. Leighton said they are all there to answer any questions the commission may have about
the proposal. He said he didn’t have anything further to submit – that staff had covered it and
that they were there to answer questions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS
One of the commissioners asked, “Was it just because of the market and the way it was that
you guys came for the change - a change in tenants and that kind of thing? There were tenants
in there before. I’m wondering why this wasn’t zoned Industrial Park from the beginning.” We
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 5 of 7
don’t know exactly how that came to be either. It came to light more recently. There had been office tenants in
those buildings but over time different people are in the jobs at the city and so forth – the situations look
different to different people. So the office tenants, perhaps in the past, shouldn’t have gotten the permits they did
but it never came up as a problem. Suddenly, the next day – the lease tenant for this space has difficulty getting
a permit from the City because somebody has looked closely at the zoning and said “Wait a minutes – we don’t
think that’s the right use” and everything stops. The bottom line is – that’s what brought this to the surface. It
may have been what you could call a “latent problem” for quite a while to the extent that there have been
multiple users in those buildings – there have never been complaints about traffic or congestion, or inadequate
parking, or any of those things. It just began coming to light that there was a zoning conflict and we had to
move to resolve it. Why it was zoned differently from the beginning, we don’t understand.
Another commissioner said she’d done the math and it didn’t appear that there were any
issues at all with the parking. She said she would be more than happy to see this go through.
“More office space in Tigard means more businesses in Tigard. That’s a good thing.”
Are the buildings currently vacant? We have currently just one vacancy in one of the buildings.
PUBLIC COMMENT
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
DELIBERATIONS
There was some discussion about light industrial zoning. One of the commissioners said she’d
received information from City staff that assured her that they do indeed have light industrial
lands that will be available down the road if a company wants to come in and utilize it. She
said she would support this. The others agreed and President Anderson said he would
entertain a motion.
MOTION
Commissioner Rogers made the following motion:
“I move for approval of application case number (ZON) 2012-00003 zoning map
amendment Pac Trust Zone change, and adoption of the findings and conditions of
approval contained in the staff report and/or based on testimony received.”
Commissioner Muldoon seconded the motion.
All voted in favor, none opposed, none abstained; the motion passed unanimously.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\020413\tpc 020413 minutes.docx Page 6 of 7
BRIEFING: TIGARD TRIANGLE
Associate Planner, Cheryl Caines, gave an update on the Tigard Triangle project. She
distributed a Concept Plan (Exhibit E). She explained that the project is basically a
Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant that was awarded to the City of Tigard in
October, 2012.
Project Update
Awarded TGM grant October 2012.
staff is currently working with our grant manager at ODOT to finalize a Statement of
Work (SOW) that outlines the project tasks.
Strategic redevelopment plan
will build upon the concept plan developed through the Tigard High Capacity Transit
Land Use Plan
consider information from other plans/studies – don’t want to repeat
develop a preferred land use and transportation option for the Town Center/Main
Street
adopt the necessary policy and regulations to suppport its development.
a final SOW is anticipated in mid-late February.
Key Elements
identify constraints/barriers – how to overcome
current zoning allows a mix of uses – why do we not have that
interview experts in suburban TOD
do we need to change the zoning for preferred land use option
start with blue area and narrow down
improve bike/ped access across Pacific Highway & connectivity within the Triangle
needed infrastructure, review costs, funding, strategies – such as urban renewal
Statement of Work – tasks outlined below
Task 1: Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination (June/July 2013)
Implement a Public Involvement Plan that includes Citizen and Technical Advisory
Committee meetings and public open houses that will happen throughout the process.
Task 2: Existing Conditions
Consultant will prepare an existing conditions report that looks at physical conditions,
market information, previous planning efforts, current city policies such as Transportation
System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Community Development Code.
Task 3: Needs/Opportunities/Constraints and Tools Analysis
Analysis of the information gathered in Task 2 to determine opportunities for improved
transportation and constraints for redeveloment of the Tigard Triangle. The consultant will
identify tools to overcome these constraints (including funding options) and develop
criteria to evaluate the land use and transportation options developed in Task 4.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Re
s
p
e
c
t
an
d
Ca
r
e
|
Do
th
e
Ri
g
h
t
Th
i
n
g
|
Ge
t
it
Do
n
e
DC
A
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
0
0
4
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
4, 2013
Jo
h
n
Fl
o
y
d
,
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
14
,
20
1
3
St
a
f
f
pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
PC
in
v
i
t
e
d
& cl
o
s
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
co
m
m
e
n
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
de
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
st
u
d
y
:
Ro
o
f
t
o
p
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
ne
a
r
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
Es
t
a
t
e
s
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Gl
a
z
i
n
g
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Me
m
o
da
t
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
28
,
20
1
3
Re
s
p
o
n
d
s
to
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Me
m
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
in
tw
o
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
Su
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
ch
a
n
g
e
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
by
st
a
f
f
on
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
14
,
20
1
3
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
s
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
te
x
t
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
14
,
20
1
3
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
Re
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
18
.
6
5
0
.
0
9
0
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Su
b
-
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
A.
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
:
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
s
a
r
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
u
b
-
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
b
u
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
u
n
p
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
ne
a
r
b
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
u
p
o
n
D
u
r
h
a
m
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
r
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
en
s
u
r
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
the
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
h
i
g
h
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
i
c
e
c
a
m
p
u
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
h
a
r
m
o
n
i
o
u
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
t
o
u
s
e
r
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
r
wi
t
h
i
n
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Ro
o
f
t
o
p
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
co
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
ab
o
u
t
ro
o
f
t
o
p
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
vi
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
Wa
v
e
r
l
y
Es
t
a
t
e
s
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
St
a
f
f
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
ag
a
i
n
s
t
ne
w
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
Ho
w
de
f
i
n
e
ro
o
f
t
o
p
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
on
pr
o
c
e
s
s
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
?
Wo
u
l
d
af
f
e
c
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
75
fo
o
t
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
se
t
b
a
c
k
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
f
f
e
r
s
ar
e
wo
r
k
i
n
g
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ex
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
co
n
c
e
r
n
ab
o
u
t
fiber
ce
m
e
n
t
pa
n
e
l
s
.
St
a
f
f
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
fi
b
e
r
ce
m
e
n
t
pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
to
th
e
li
s
t
of
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
in
or
d
e
r
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
i
s
co
n
c
e
r
n
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Gl
a
z
i
n
g
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ex
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
co
n
c
e
r
n
ov
e
r
gl
a
z
i
n
g
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
:
Gl
a
s
s
Bo
x
e
s
at
Co
r
n
e
r
s
Bl
a
n
k
Do
o
r
s
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
Wi
n
d
o
w
Fi
l
m
–
O
p
a
q
u
e
Gl
a
z
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
re
v
i
s
e
d
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
as
se
t
fo
r
t
h
in
me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
da
t
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
28
,
20
1
3
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Gl
a
s
s
Bo
x
e
s
at
Co
r
n
e
r
s
/ Bl
a
n
k
Do
o
r
s
Gr
o
u
n
d
‐Fl
o
o
r
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
–A
l
l
st
r
e
e
t
fa
c
i
n
g
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
al
o
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
st
r
e
e
t
s
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
of
50
%
of
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
wa
l
l
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
wi
n
d
o
w
s
or
gl
a
z
e
d
do
o
r
w
a
y
op
e
n
i
n
g
s
.
T
h
e
gr
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
wa
l
l
ar
e
a
sh
a
l
l
be
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
th
r
e
e
fe
e
t
ab
o
v
e
gr
a
d
e
to
ni
n
e
fe
e
t
ab
o
v
e
gr
a
d
e
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
wi
d
t
h
of the
st
r
e
e
t
fa
c
i
n
g
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Up
to
50
%
of
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
ca
n
be
me
t
on
an
ad
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
as
lo
n
g
as
al
l
of
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
at
a bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
co
r
n
e
r
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
Wi
n
d
o
w
Fi
l
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ex
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
co
n
c
e
r
n
ov
e
r
th
e
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
of
fi
l
m
ap
p
l
i
e
d
po
s
t
‐co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
–
c
o
m
m
o
n
to
sp
e
c
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ti
m
e
to
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
th
i
s
is
s
u
e
an
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
‐
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Memo.
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
wi
n
d
o
w
fi
l
m
s
wi
t
h
a Vi
s
i
b
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
Value of
le
s
s
th
a
n
0.
6
ar
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
on
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
wi
n
d
o
w
s
an
d
do
o
r
w
a
y
op
e
n
i
n
g
s
,
un
l
e
s
s
pa
r
t
of
an
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
ph
o
t
o
v
o
l
t
a
i
c
sy
s
t
e
m
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
Wi
n
d
o
w
Fi
l
m
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
is
cl
e
a
r
& ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
an
d
en
f
o
r
c
e
a
b
l
e
.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
to
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
pl
a
n
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
St
a
f
f
is
ne
u
t
r
a
l
on
th
e
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
be
l
i
e
v
e
s
it
ne
i
t
h
e
r
harms
no
r
fu
r
t
h
e
r
s
th
e
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
of
th
e
pl
a
n
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
gi
v
e
n
:
•
Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
& Ve
g
e
t
a
t
e
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
s
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
•
Un
k
n
o
w
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
ap
p
l
i
e
d
fi
l
m
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
•
Co
n
t
e
x
t
as
fl
a
g
s
h
i
p
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
CW
S
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
St
a
f
f
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
f
f
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
th
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
fi
n
d
in
favor
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
in
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
of
th
e
st
a
f
f
re
p
o
r
t
an
d
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
da
t
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
28,
20
1
3
,
wi
t
h
an
y
al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
the
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
pr
o
c
e
s
s
,
an
d
ma
k
e
a fi
n
a
l
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
I
G
A
R
D
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
Wi
n
d
o
w
Fi
l
m
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
wi
n
d
o
w
fi
l
m
s
wi
t
h
a Vi
s
i
b
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
Va
l
u
e
of
le
s
s
th
a
n
0.
6
ar
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
on
gr
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
wi
n
d
o
w
s
an
d
do
o
r
w
a
y
op
e
n
i
n
g
s
,
un
l
e
s
s
pa
r
t
of
an
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
ph
o
t
o
v
o
l
t
a
i
c
sy
s
t
e
m
.
or Gl
a
z
i
n
g
co
v
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
ap
p
l
i
e
d
wi
n
d
o
w
fi
l
m
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
in
th
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
to
me
e
t
th
i
s
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Marah Danielson, Oregon Department of Transportation
From: Judith Gray, City of Tigard
Re: PacTrust Zone Change -- Addendum to Jan 23, 2013 memorandum
Date: February 4, 2013
Cc: Gary Pagenstacher, City of Tigard
Thank you for your comments in your email (January 31, 2013) regarding PacTrust’s proposed zone
change in Tigard. This memorandum is intended to address your suggestions and provide clarification
regarding findings related to each subsection of TPR 060 (9):
(a). The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation
and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map.
The zoning designation would be changed from “I-L; Light Industrial District” to “I-P:
Industrial Park District” with the existing comprehensive plan designation of “Light Industrial”
remaining the same.
(b). The local government has an acknowledge Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the
proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP.
The Tigard TSP was updated and adopted in 2010. It has not yet been acknowledged, although
it should be occurring very soon, as noted by Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) representative Anne Debbaut in an email on January 31.
The parcels were developed and occupied when Tigard’s TSP was updated (2010); therefore,
traffic from the property is included in the TSP base year (2005) conditions.
The Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) map used in the TSP update is attached. It shows that
the parcel site is located in TAZ 988. The accompanying table shows that the base year (2005)
employment for this TAZ is 7,366 and forecast year (2035) employment is 8,925; with an
increase of 1,559 employees.
The potential increase in employees associated with the proposed zone change is estimated in
the table below. Because the site is fully developed, the potential number of employees is
estimated assuming the current site area (156,179 square feet) remains constant. A representative
use under the existing I-L zone is Light Industrial; a representative use under the proposed I-P
zone is Office.
Estimated Employees, Current and Proposed Zones
Zone Land Use Total Area ft2/Employee* Total Employees
I-P (proposed)
Office
employee 156,179 270 578
I-L (current) Industrial 156,179 485 322
Estimated Potential Increase in Employees 256
*For lack of site specific date, estimates for average space per employee were obtained from the
planning web site “cyburbia.org” for this analysis.
As the table shows, the proposed zone change is expected to result in a potential increase of
approximately 256 employees, which is approximately 16% of the forecast 1,559 additional
employees within the TAZ.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the increased employment resulting from the
proposed zone change is consistent with the TSP.
(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted form this rule at the time
of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020 (1)(d), or the area
was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP
amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area.
The area subject to the zoning map amendment was included in the original UGB established by
Metro and therefore is not exempt.
Conclusion
Base on this addendum along with previously submitted information, the City of Tigard has determined
that the proposed zone change would not significantly affect the transportation system, including state
highways, as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule.
Oregon
John A. Kitzhaber, MD., Governor
Department of Transportation
Region 1 Headquarters
123 NW Flanders Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
(503) 731.8200
FAX (503) 731.8531
ODOT Case #5581
February 4th, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Subject: ZON 2012-0003: Pac Trust ZC
Light Industrial (I-L) to Industrial Park District (I-P)
Dear Commissioners,
We have reviewed the applicant’s proposal to change the zoning on 12 acres (parcels II and III
of the PacTrust Business Center) located between SW 72nd Ave and SW Upper Boones Ferry
Rd and Durham Rd. The zoning designation would change from “I-L: Light Industrial District” to
“I-P: Industrial Park District” which allows more office use with the existing comprehensive plan
designation to remain the same.
ODOT appreciates the coordination effort that city staff has made to ensure that the Oregon
Transportation Planning Rule 660-012-0060 (TPR 060) is addressed as it relates to state
highway facilities. The state highway facilities in the vicinity of the site include: SW Upper
Boones Ferry Rd (from SW Durham Rd to the Tualatin River Bridge) and Interstate 5
interchanges at Carmen Dr and Lower Boones Ferry Rd. ODOT has an interest in assuring that
proposed plan amendments do not significantly affect the existing and planned transportation
function, performance standards and safe operation of state highway facilities. Based on the
Staff Report findings and supporting memorandum (prepared by Judith Gray 1/23/13 and
2/4/13) addressing the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.380 Policy 2.1.15 and TPR 060
section 9, ODOT concurs that the proposed zone change would not significantly affect state
transportation facilities.
Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in this land use review. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 503-731-8258.
Sincerely,
Marah Danielson, Senior Planner
Development Review Program Planning Lead
ODOT Region 1
C: Lainie Smith, Lidwien Rahman, ODOT R1
Anne Debbaut, DLCD
CITY OF TIGARD CONCEPTS FOR POTENTIAL STATION COMMUNITIES | FINAL REPORT | JUNE 2012 23
CONCEPT
PLAN
S TATION T YPOLOGY
Parks, Open Space
and Natural Resources
Study Area Boundary
Rivers and Water Bodies
Railroads
Commuter Rail
The Tigard Triangle concept shows the
FHQWHURILQWHQVLW\HDVWRIQG$YHQXH
EXLOGLQJRQWKHH[LVWLQJSDWWHUQRIVPDOOHU
blocks for a walkable, town center feel.
7KLVDUHDZRXOGKDYHDJURZLQJPL[
of retail, employment and residential
activities.
Y
SW ATLANTA ST
O
R
2
1
7
OR 9
9
W
-
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW DARTMOUTH ST
SW PINE ST
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
01,0002,000 Feet
Proposed Station Types
Town Center/
Main Street
Employment/
Retail
Transit
Corridor
Transit
Neighborhood
Proposed Connections (New and Improved)
Local Multimodal Street
Bike/Ped Route
Proposed Amenities (Not Located)
Conceptual Park/Open
Space Facilities
Conceptual Bike/Ped Amenities
The Tigard Triangle Preferred Concept
VHHNVWREOHQGVPDOOHUVFDOHUHWDLO
restaurants and housing to complement
the current employment center, especially
in the northeast part of Tigard Triangle.
Increased housing options would also be
DOORZHGQRUWKZHVWRI25 :3DFLÀF
Highway.
This potential station community is
GHÀQHGE\VRPHRIWKHPRVWKLJKO\
traveled roads in the state, which can
create major barriers for getting into
and out of Tigard Triangle. Freeway
FURVVLQJVDUHH[SHQVLYHVRLW·VLPSRUWDQW
that any new crossing meets multiple
transportation needs. The concept
includes a new multimodal facility crossing
25WRFRQQHFW7LJDUG7ULDQJOHZLWK
Downtown Tigard.
ACTIVITY
CENTER
COMMUNITY
CHARACTER
GETTING
AROUND
TIGARD
TRIANGLE