The URL can be used to link to this page

04/01/2013 - 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 – APRIL 1, 2013 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: April 1, 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 7:11 p.m. 5 PUBLIC HEARING 7:13 p.m. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2013-00001 - OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales-Oriented Retail, and Personal Services – bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for mixed-use developments (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R-25 & R-40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:15 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m. City of Tigard PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF THE TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on Monday April 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM and Tigard City Council at a Public Hearing on Tuesday May 14, 2013 at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission’s review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-718-2437 or by e-mail to cherylc@tigard-or.gov. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2013-00001 - OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS - REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales-Oriented Retail, and Personal Services – bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for missed use developments (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R-25 & R-40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. OREGONIAN PUBLISH DATE: March 13, 2013 (THERE IS NO MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS LEGAL AD. THANK YOU.) City of Tigard PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF THE TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on Monday April 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM and Tigard City Council at a Public Hearing on Tuesday May 14, 2013 at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission’s review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-718-2437 or by e-mail to cherylc@tigard-or.gov. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2013-00001 - OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS - REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales-Oriented Retail, and Personal Services – bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for missed use developments (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R-25 & R-40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. OREGONIAN PUBLISH DATE: March 13, 2013 (THERE IS NO MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS LEGAL AD. THANK YOU.) LEGAL25444827.1 Text Amendment City of Tigard Minimum Parking Requirements Tigard, Oregon An Application For: Type IV Text Amendment Submitted on: December 27, 2012 Applicant: Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway St, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 Phone: 360-567-0626 Contact: Philip Bretsch Prepared by: Cardno WRG 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: 503-419-2500 Fax: 503-419-2600 Contact: Michael Cerbone Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 2 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 3 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. APPLICANT’S TEAM ............................................................................................. 5 II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 6 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 6 IV. APPLICABLE STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND GOALS ................................................................................................................... 7 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................ 7 GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING ........................................................................... 8 GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY ............................... 8 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 9 GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ................................................. 9 GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................... 10 GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION ................................................................ 10 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION ................................................................................. 11 V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS ............................................ 11 18.380-- ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS ........................................... 11 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map ....................... 11 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure ..................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 18.765-- OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 14 18.765.010 Purpose ...................................................................................... 14 VI. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2007) ........................................... 14 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................... 15 GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING ......................................................................... 15 GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY ............................. 15 SECTION 3: LAND RESOURCES QUALITY ................................................ 15 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 16 GOAL 9.1 ....................................................................................................... 16 GOAL 9.3 ....................................................................................................... 16 Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 4 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................................... 17 GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................... 17 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION ................................................................................ 18 VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 18 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Parking Table Comparison Exhibit B Existing Development Examples Exhibit C Proposed Code Amendments Exhibit D Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Existing Retail Centers in Tigard Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 5 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 I. APPLICANT’S TEAM Applicant: Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway St, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 Phone: (360) 567-0626 Contact: Philip Bretsch Philip@killianpacific.com Applicant’s Representative Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, 10th Floor Portland, Oregon 97209 Phone: (503) 727-2036 Contact: Dana Krawczuk DKrawczuk@perkinscoie.com Planning Consultant Cardno WRG 5415 SW Westgate Drive; Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone: (503) 419-2500 Contact: Michael Cerbone, AICP michael.cerbone@cardno.com Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 6 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 II. INTRODUCTION This proposal has been initiated by Killian Pacific, a community-based and family-owned local commercial real-estate development and investment company located in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. Killian Pacific has offered to partner with the City of Tigard to complete amendments to the parking code (Community Development Code Section 18.765) in order to facilitate development and redevelopment opportunities, specifically within commercial and mixed use zoning designated areas. The current minimum parking standards for commercial retail uses are above standards typically used and successful for many Portland/Vancouver suburban jurisdictions. Moreover, excessive parking minimums are contributing to vacant tenant spaces at existing properties and which limits economic development opportunities. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tigard’s current minimum parking standards reflect a regulation imposed by Metro in 1997 that set an upper limit on the minimum number of parking spaces a city could allow -- i.e., a “maximum minimum.” Cities were allowed to require less parking than the maximum set by Metro, but many jurisdictions, including Tigard, adopted the maximum parking allowed by Metro. Since then, several jurisdictions have reduced the minimum parking standards below the limit set by Metro. See Exhibit A. Since 1997, we have learned that an unintended consequence of Tigard’s parking minimums is that some existing structures cannot be occupied by desirable uses because the existing parking is insufficient to meet the code. The problem is particularly acute in multi-tenant or mixed use developments. An example of an existing development that must keep tenant spaces vacant, despite tenant interest, is Nimbus Center (10115 SW Nimbus Avenue, Tigard). It is noteworthy that this development is not chronically under-parked (meaning the parking lot is rarely near or at capacity) Instead, there is adequate parking for the existing tenants and vacant storefronts; the only parking deficiency is “on paper.” City staff and property owners that are unable to fully tenant existing developments due to the parking standards have met multiple times over the years to discuss the parking-related impediments to economic development. The solution that has been identified is to reduce some of Tigard’s minimum parking standards. Staff is supportive of evaluating and reducing some of the minimum parking standards, but due to budgetary and staffing constraints, is unable to initiate the needed amendments. Killian Pacific has volunteered to lead and pay for much of the costs related to the text amendment process so that the economic development opportunities that are currently limited by parking standards can be realized. Exhibit C includes the proposed code amendments, with deleted language shown in strikethrough, and new language in bold and double-underline. The entirety of Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, is included in Exhibit C. The requested amendments to the minimum parking requirements in Table 18.765.2 include: Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 7 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012  Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for fast food restaurants, a sub-category of Eating and Drinking Establishments, from 9.9 per 1,000 sf to 6.0 per 1,000 sf.  Codifying the City’s long-standing interpretation that “fast food” includes Eating and Drinking Establishments that offer counter-service and are primarily take-out, which may or may not have a drive-through or sit down seating. Examples include Subway, Starbucks or Chipotle.  Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for all other Eating and Drinking Establishments (i.e., sit down restaurants), from 15.3 per 1,000 sf to 8.0 per 1,000 sf.  Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for Sales-Oriented uses (i.e., retail) from 3.7 per 1,000 sf to 3.0 per 1,000 sf.  Reducing the minimum number parking spaces for a bank with drive in, a sub-category of Personal Services, from 4.3 per 1,000 sf to 2.7 per 1,000 sf. The 2.7 spaces per 1,000 sf ratio is the current parking requirement for general office uses, which is not proposed to be changed. The final requested amendment is a modification to the City’s existing methodology in TDC 18.765.030(D) for how the parking standards apply to mixed-use or multiple tenant projects. The percentages of required parking are modified, and a fourth category of uses is introduced. Rather than proposing across-the-board revisions to Tigard’s parking standards, the recommended revisions are the result of extensive research of how other cities regulate parking (Exhibit A) and analysis of the parking ratios of existing successful developments across the region (Exhibit B). Exhibit D includes a list of properties that the City has identified as having potential parking challenges. Based upon Killian Pacific’s analysis, many of the properties listed have unique, property-specific issues, such as compromised or unusable parking spaces or likely non- conforming uses. The proposed amendments will not “legalize” the most severely under-parked properties, which was intentional. The most under-parked developments are not a model that should be replicated elsewhere in the City, so we intentionally avoided suggesting parking standards that would result in an undesirable supply of parking. IV. APPLICABLE STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND GOALS GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Response: The proposed text amendment is subject to a Type IV legislative process, which requires two hearings—one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. Per the notification requirements outlined in the Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.060(D), the notice of hearings shall be sent to any City-recognized groups and the scheduled hearings date shall be posted in a Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 8 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 business days prior to the public hearing. Any interested parties will then have the opportunity to address the Commission or Council at the time of the public hearing. These opportunities for citizen involvement insure that any interested citizen is entitled to present evidence to either support or deny a legislative text amendment. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking requirements within the City of Tigard is subject to a Type IV legislative approvals process. Type IV text amendments must address applicable provisions within the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under ORS Chapter 197, any applicable Metro regulations, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and any applicable provisions of the City’s implementing ordinances. Response to each pertinent provision is provided within this narrative to serve as an adequate factual base for both Planning Commission and City Council determination. GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Response: The request to reduce the required minimum parking requirements for some commercial uses within the City of Tigard represents a more efficient use of land resources. For example, had Killian Pacific’s Grand Central project in Vancouver been developed in accordance with Tigard’s parking standards, 300 more parking stalls would have been required, which translates into approximately 3 acres of additional land needed for the project. See Exhibit B. As observed throughout various Oregon jurisdictions, anti-urban sprawl efforts are directly related to automobile and parking considerations. By reducing the amount of land devoted to impervious parking area, that land will be available for added development or landscaping, contributing to either greater commercial density or pervious surfacing for water quantity and quality processing, which will work to improve the quality of water resources. Also, by creating greater density where existing urban infrastructure is in place, this will limit the extension of utilities and roads to the urban fringe, which is costlier and a greater strain on the infrastructure grid. Finally, by creating opportunities for more dense areas, people will inevitably walk more, reduce their vehicle trips and miles traveled, which will improve the quality of air resources of the state. Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 9 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660-015-015-0000(9) To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Guidelines A. Planning 3. Plans should designate the type and level of public facilities and services appropriate to support the degree of economic development being proposed. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking standard will better support commercial and mixed-use development, while also removing obstacles to re-tenanting existing but vacant properties. This will provide the City a mechanism to more efficiently meet their employment land needs utilizing existing zoning within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). In addition, the proposed changes will facilitate new businesses in Tigard, and thus bolster local jobs and tax basis. The proposed text amendment does not change the zoning designation of any land, or otherwise diminish the City’s ability to meet its economic development objectives, including but not limited to providing adequate sites and facilities for employment purposes, so the Goal 9 rules are not applicable to this application. OAR 660-0090-0010(4). GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660-015-0000(11) To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: Minimum parking requirements are not considered a Public Facility and Service, so Goal 11 is not applicable. Nonetheless, minimum parking requirements may impact the timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of commercial and mixed- use development within an urban/semi-urban context. As such, the text amendment, as proposed, would provide a more efficient allocation of resources to balance economic development with infrastructure needs. By reducing parking requirements to more closely match the needs of the community, we provide the opportunity to fully utilize built but partially vacant structures (and therefore avoid urban blight), increase density within existing developments, redevelop areas Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 10 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 and develop greenfield sites in a more efficient manner. This in turn results in the City’s increased ability to provide for the long-term maintenance and development of infrastructure within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660-015-0000(12) To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Response: The request to reduce the minimum parking standards for the City of Tigard will contribute to a safer, more convenient and economically efficient transportation system both within the area proposed for development/redevelopment and the larger regional system. A reduction in the parking requirement will likely lead to utilization of the existing zoned capacity (i.e., partially vacant structures will be occupied) and will likely put less strain on the transportation network through the reduction of sprawl associated with lower density development as well as through supporting transit opportunities. The proposed amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility, so the Transportation Planning Rule (“TPR”) does not apply. Nonetheless, the proposed amendment will advance the goals of the TPR, which includes encouraging the reduction in parking standards. OAR 660- 12-0045(5)(c). GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660-015-0000(13) To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. Response: The proposed text amendment will support a more efficient use of the existing land within the City and UGB because additional land is not occupied by unneeded excess parking. As noted previously, this can have positive impacts throughout the community by reducing sprawl and providing more tax revenue to support maintenance and development of urban facilities. These outcomes will ultimately result in less energy expended within the transportation system, a more efficient urban infrastructure system and a more efficient pattern of development within the community. Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 11 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660-015-0000(14) To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Response: The proposed text amendment will result in the ability to fully utilize existing developments, redevelop underutilized centers and develop already served and zoned development-ready areas more efficiently. These outcomes will assist the City with providing for the employment needs of the community by first focusing on existing commercial, mixed use and employment land within the community. As noted previously, this will allow the community to provide urban services more efficiently and will reduce the need to add additional land to the UGB to provide for the long term employment options of the community. V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18.380-- ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi-judicial amendments to this title and the zoning district map. These will be referred to as “zoning map and text amendments.” It is recognized that such amendments may be necessary from time to time to reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires; to correct mistakes; and/or to address changes in the law. Response: The applicant is aware of the purpose of the Zoning Map and Text Amendments provision. The proposed text amendment to the minimum off-street parking standards is subject to a Type IV legislative amendment. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum off-street parking standards is subject to a Type IV legislative amendment. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 12 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include the pertinent Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines under ORS Chapter 197. The relevant Statewide Planning Goals include:  Goal 1- Public Involvement;  Goal 2- Land Use Planning;  Goal 6- Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality;  Goal 9- Economic Development;  Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services;  Goal 12- Transportation;  Goal 13- Energy Conservation;  Goal 14- Urbanization 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Response: There are no federal or state statutes found that are directly applicable to this application. 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; Response: Title 4 of Metro’s Regional Transportation Functional Plan (Metro Code (“MC”” 3.08.410) addresses Regional Parking Management, and sets forth both minimums and maximums for city and county parking ratios. Metro establishes a “maximum minimum” parking standard, meaning that Metro’s minimum parking standards are the highest minimum parking standard that a city can require. A city may elect to require a minimum parking standard than is less than Metro’s minimum standard. In other words, Metro’s minimum parking standards are the ceiling for what a local government may require as the minimum parking standard. The proposed text amendment reduces some of the City’s minimum parking standards, which is compliant with Metro’s Transportation Functional Plan and the Metro Code. As noted in Table 3.08-3 of the Transportation Functional Plan and summarized in a parking table included as Exhibit A with this narrative application, Metro’s minimum parking requirements for uses associated with this text amendment are:  General Office—2.7/1,000 SF of gross leasable area (GLA)  Retail/Commercial, including shopping centers—4.1/1,000 SF GLA. Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 13 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012  Fast Food with drive thru—9.9/1,000 SF GLA  Other restaurants—15.3/1,000 SF GLA When Metro first adopted minimum and maximum parking standards in 1997, Tigard (like many other jurisdictions) adopted the highest minimum parking standard allowed by Metro. In the intervening 15 years, some similar suburban Portland area jurisdictions have adopted lower parking minimum standards, which suggests that lower ratios are beneficial. Our analysis of the actual parking standards utilized by successful commercial developments in the region demonstrate that the proposed parking standards are reasonable and contribute to a vibrant commercial use. Exhibit B. 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include the pertinent comprehensive plan policies. The relevant comprehensive plan policies include:  Goal 1- Public Involvement;  Goal 2- Land Use Planning;  Goal 6- Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality;  Goal 9.1, Policy 3 and Goal 9.3, Policies 2 & 3- Economic Development;  Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services;  Goal 12- Transportation;  Goal 13- Energy Conservation;  Goal 14- Urbanization 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response: As provided in the responses included with this narrative, this request for a Type IV text amendment to the City of Tigard parking code does include applicable provisions of the city’s implementing ordinances. The applicable ordinances include TDC 18.380—Zoning Map & Text Amendments; Section 18.390— Decision Making Procedures; and the proposed amendment to Section 18.765— Off-Street Parking & Loading Requirements. Responses to those provisions are provided in this narrative. Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 14 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 Chapter 18.765-- OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. Response: The applicant is aware of the purpose of the Off-Street Parking & Loading provision. The proposed text amendment to the minimum off-street parking standards would provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various commercial and mixed uses affected by the text amendment. The Applicant has provided a comparison of existing parking requirements throughout the metropolitan area as Exhibit A and examples of similar developments throughout the metropolitan area as Exhibit B. These examples demonstrate that it is feasible to amend the City’s code and still maintain vibrant commercial centers. The Applicant has also coordinated with City staff to identify existing centers within Tigard and analyze how those centers could be impacted by this request. This information is included as Exhibit D. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. Response: As supporting evidence provided with this application, there are multiple jurisdictions located within the Portland Metro area that provide lower minimum parking standards for commercial uses than those required under the City of Tigard CDC Section 18.765. A comparative Minimum Parking Standards chart is provided with this application, under Exhibit A. The proposed amendments to the minimum parking standards are consistent with the ratios at other successful commercial centers in the region, which demonstrates that the proposed standards will maintain adequate parking capacity. Exhibit B. The current standards require more capacity than is necessary, which is land intensive and results in some existing structures being partially vacant because minimum parking standards cannot be achieved. This is an issue for multiple tenant buildings, particularly those constructed prior to the adoption of the minimum parking standards allowed by Metro’s Code. VI. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2007) APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 15 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT “To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.” Response: The proposed text amendment is subject to a Type IV legislative process, which requires two hearings—one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. Per the notification requirements outlined in the Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.060(D), the notice of hearings shall be sent to any City-recognized groups and the scheduled hearings date shall be posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 business days prior to the public hearing. Any interested parties will then have the opportunity to address the Commission or Council at the time of the public hearing. These opportunities for citizen involvement insure that any interested citizen is entitled to present evidence to either support or deny a legislative text amendment. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING “To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.” Response: The proposed text amendment to the minimum parking requirements within the City of Tigard is subject to a Type IV legislative approvals process. This proposal is consistent with the City’s land use program, does comply with state and regional requirements, and is in the citizens’ best interest. The text amendment is responsive to community needs and will provide a form of economic development to spur both re-tenanting of existing commercial and mixed-use development, as well as future development. As addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, “In the City’s downtown center, commercial corridors, regional center, and industrial areas, the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations will guide the development of vibrant and compact urban housing and employment/shopping areas.” This goal for compact and vibrant development will be more efficiently achieved through the requested text amendment. The current minimum parking requirement creates unneeded parking areas that limit additional development opportunity within an existing commercial node, which inevitably promotes further development at the city edges, contributing to sprawl and inefficient use of land resources. GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY SECTION 3: LAND RESOURCES QUALITY “To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state.” Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 16 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 Response: The request to reduce the required minimum parking requirements for commercial uses within the City of Tigard represents a more efficient use of land resources. By reducing the amount of land devoted to impervious parking area, that land will be available for added development or landscaping, contributing to either greater commercial density or pervious surfacing for water quantity and quality processing, which will work to improve the quality of water resources. Also, by creating greater density where existing urban infrastructure is in place, this will limit the extension of utilities and roads to the urban fringe, which is costlier and a greater strain on the infrastructure grid. Also, by creating more dense areas, people will inevitably walk more, reduce their vehicle trips and miles traveled, which will improve the quality of air resources of the state. GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT “To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.” GOAL 9.1: Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. POLICIES: 3. The City’s land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. Response: The applicant is requesting the proposed text amendment to provide parking regulations that are more supportive of current development needs and infrastructure devoted to vehicle parking. This request will promote economic development opportunities, both for existing commercial and mixed-use properties, as well as future developments. As a result of lower parking requirements is a more efficient use of the existing urban infrastructure. GOAL 9.3: Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. POLICIES: 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well designed and attractive urban environment that supports/protects public and private sector investments. Response: The existing minimum parking standards are undesirable for multi-tenant businesses because they require an over-supply of parking. The applicant is requesting the proposed text amendment to provide adequate parking regulations that are more supportive of current development needs and Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 17 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 infrastructure devoted to vehicle parking. This request, combined with the existing design standards, will ensure a well-designed and attractive urban environment that supports and protects public and private sector investments. As a result of lower parking requirements, more dense development will occur, which will create a more efficient use of the existing urban infrastructure as well as more vibrant commercial nodes that will likely bring added value to both public and private sector investments. 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. Response: This proposed text amendment will work to create more dense, vibrant commercial and mixed-use areas, which will make more efficient use of the existing infrastructure and create a greater sense of place both for the owners and operators and citizens of Tigard. The proposed reduced minimum parking requirement is more sustainable, as it will focus more dense development within existing commercial and mixed-use designated areas, while limiting sprawl and infrastructure extension to the urban and semi-urban fringe. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES “To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.” Response: Minimum parking requirements are not considered a Public Facility and Service, so Goal 11 is not applicable. Nonetheless, minimum parking requirements may impact the timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of commercial and mixed- use development within an urban/semi-urban context. As such, the text amendment, as proposed, would provide a more efficient allocation of resources to balance economic development with infrastructure needs. By reducing parking requirements to more closely match the needs of the community, we provide the opportunity to increase density within existing developments, redevelop areas and develop greenfield sites in a more efficient manner. This in turn results in the City’s increased ability to provide for the long-term maintenance and development of infrastructure within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION “Transportation which requires local jurisdictions ‘to provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.” Tigard Parking Standards Type IV Text Amendment 18 Cardno WRG December 27, 2012 Response: The request to reduce the minimum parking standards for the City of Tigard will contribute to a safer, more convenient and economically efficient transportation system both within the area proposed for development/redevelopment and the larger regional system. A reduction in the parking requirement will likely lead to higher density development that will likely put less strain on the transportation network through the reduction of sprawl associated with lower density development as well as through supporting transit opportunities. GOAL 14: URBANIZATION “To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.” Response: The proposed text amendment will result in the ability to densify existing developments, redevelop underutilized centers and develop remaining greenfield areas more efficiently. These outcomes will assist the City with providing for the employment needs of the community by first focusing on existing commercial, mixed use and employment land within the community. As noted previously this will allow the community to provide urban services more efficiently and will reduce the need to add additional land to the UGB to provide for the long term employment options of the community. VII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated in this narrative, this proposed Type IV text amendment request to reduce some required parking standard meets all provisions applicable to Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regional goals, as well as City of Tigard code provisions and comprehensive plan policies. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of the text amendment. The amendment will better serve the community, sparking greater economic development and more vibrant commercial and mixed-use areas that fully serve both the residents and visitors to the City of Tigard. Furthermore, as evidenced by the exhibits included with this application, there is a precedent for the requested parking standards to adequately support commercial and mixed- use development. The comparative parking table (Exhibit A) and the assessment of existing development projects (Exhibit B) provides evidence that existing standards and projects that are already built can comply and thrive with the proposed minimum parking requirement. Ex h i b i t A 85 2 2 1 - 0 0 0 1 / L E G A L 2 4 1 1 8 1 4 6 . 1 Ju l y 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 TO : T i g a r d I n v e s t o r s L L C / F a n n o F i l e FR O M : D a n a L . K r a w c z u k RE : Co m p a r i s o n o f M i n i m u m P a r k i n g S t a n d a r d s Ge n e r a l of f i c e Re t a i l , c o m m e r c i a l , i n c l u d i n g sh o p p i n g c e n t e r s Ba n k w i t h d r i v e t h r u F a s t f o o d w / d r i v e th r u Other restaurants Me t r o 1 2. 7 ( g s f ) 4 . 1 4 . 3 9 . 9 1 5 . 3 Ti g a r d 2 2. 7 V a r i o u s s u b - c a t e g o r i e s o f g e n e r a l re t a i l a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t e : Sa l e s o r i e n t e d : 3 . 7 Pe r s o n a l s e r v i c e s : 2 . 5 4. 3 9 . 9 1 5 . 3 Hi l l s b o r o 3 2. 7 4 . 1 So m e r e d u c e d r a t i o s f o r c a t e g o r i e s no t r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t e s u c h a s bu l k y m e r c h a n d i s e , s e r v i c e o r re p a i r e t c . No t l i s t e d . I f re t a i l / c o m m e r c i a l , t h e n 4. 1 . I f p r o f e s s i o n a l of f i c e , t h e n 2 . 7 9. 9 1 5 . 3 1 P e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s l e a s e a b l e a r e a , u n l e s s n o t e d . A l s o , M e t r o ' s s t a n d a r d i s a n o t t o e x c e e d s t a n d a r d – N O T a m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e nt 2 P e r 1 k s f o f f l o o r a r e a , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d . B a s i c a l l y , g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , wh i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g t h a t M e t r o . 3 p e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a e x c l u d i n g re s t r o o m s , h a l l w a y s , m e c h a n i ca l s p a c e s , e l e v a t o r s , s t a i r w e ll s a n d l o a d i n g d o c k s . B a s i c al l y , l e a s e a b l e a r e a , wh i c h i s t h e s a m e a s M e t r o . -2 - 85 2 2 1 - 0 0 0 1 / L E G A L 2 4 1 1 8 1 4 6 . 1 Ge n e r a l of f i c e Re t a i l , c o m m e r c i a l , i n c l u d i n g sh o p p i n g c e n t e r s Ba n k w i t h d r i v e t h r u F a s t f o o d w / d r i v e th r u Other restaurants Be a v e r t o n 4 2. 7 3 . 3 . R e d u c e d r a t i o ( 3 . 0 ) f o r "M u l t i p l e U s e Z o n e s " . Di s t i n g u i s h e s s e r v i c e s b u s i n e s s e s , wh i c h h a s 3 . 0 3. 3 . R e d u c e d r a t i o (3 . 0 ) f o r " M u l t i p l e U s e Zo n e s " . D o e s n o t di s t i n g u i s h b a s e d u p o n dr i v e - t h r u 10 . R e d u c e d ra t i o ( 5 . 0 ) f o r "M u l t i p l e U s e Zo n e s " a n d sp e c i f i e d t r a n s i t or i e n t e d z o n e s 10. Reduced ratio (5.0) for "Multiple Use Zones" and specified transit oriented zones Gr e s h a m 5 2. 7 V a r i o u s s u b - c a t e g o r i e s o f g e n e r a l re t a i l , a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t e : Re t a i l t r a d e : 3 . 6 Co m m e r c i a l , P e r s o n a l , B u s i n e s s se r v i c e s : 3 . 2 Co n v e n i e n c e m a r k e t : 2 . 3 No t l i s t e d . L i k e l y Co m m e r c i a l , P e r s o n a l , Bu s i n e s s s e r v i c e s : 3 . 2 6 8 Mi l w a u k i e 6 2 V a r i o u s s u b - c a t e g o r i e s o f g e n e r a l re t a i l , a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t e : Ge n e r a l r e t a i l : 2 Pe r s o n a l s e r v i c e s : 4 Co m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e s : 2 . 8 2 4 4 La k e 3. 3 V a r i o u s s u b - c a t e g o r i e s o f g e n e r a l 2 . 5 9 . 9 V a r i o u s subcategories, 4 P e r 1 k s f o f f l o o r a r e a , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d . B a s i c a l l y , g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , wh i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g t h a t M e t r o . 5 P e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , w h i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g t h a n M e t r o ' s l e a s e a b l e f l o o r a r e a ( b u t r a t i o s a r e l o w e r ) . 6 P e r 1 k s f . D o e s n o t s p e c i fy i f g r o s s o r l e a s e a b l e . -3 - 85 2 2 1 - 0 0 0 1 / L E G A L 2 4 1 1 8 1 4 6 . 1 Ge n e r a l of f i c e Re t a i l , c o m m e r c i a l , i n c l u d i n g sh o p p i n g c e n t e r s Ba n k w i t h d r i v e t h r u F a s t f o o d w / d r i v e th r u Other restaurants Os w e g o 7 re t a i l , a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t e : Re t a i l s a l e s : 3 . 3 Pe r s o n a l s e r v i c e s : 4 Co n v e n i e n c e f o o d s t o r e : 2 . 2 including: Specialty food store (take out primarily, i.e., coffee): 4 Eating or drinking (i.e, sit down restaurant): 13.3 Or e g o n Ci t y 8 2. 7 4 . 1 4 . 1 4 . 1 4 . 1 Tu a l a t i n 9 2. 7 4 . 0 4 . 3 9 . 9 1 0 7 P e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , w h i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g th a n M e t r o ' s l e a s e a b l e f l o o r a r ea ( b u t s o m e r a t i o s a r e l o w e r ) . 8 P e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , w h i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g t h a n M e t r o ' s l e a s e a b l e f l o o r a r e a ( b u t r a t i o s a r e l o w e r ) . 9 P e r 1 k s f o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , w h i c h y i e l d s m o r e p a r k i n g th a n M e t r o ' s l e a s e a b l e f l o o r a r ea ( b u t s o m e r a t i o s a r e l o w e r ) . 5415 SW Westgate Drive Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 USA Phone (503) 419-2500 Fax (503) 419-2600 www.cardno.com Exhibit B MEMORANDUM Australia ● Belgium ● Indonesia ● Kenya ● New Zealand ● Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates ● United Kingdom ● United States ● Operations in 60 Countries To: Noel Johnson, Vice President Killian Pacific noel@killianpacific.com From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Date: December 27, 2012 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums CardnoWRG#: Re: Parking comparison of existing commercial centers Cardno reviewed a series of successful commercial centers around the Portland Metropolitan region to give a comparative overview of existing parking ratios and the variation between jurisdictions. The goal of the summary is to present a variety of centers and illustrate that excessive parking supplies are not warranted to achieve a successful retail center. Cardno considered the following items when compiling a center list:  Existing parking should be equal to or under 5 stalls per 1,000 sf of total leasable space.  Centers should have little to no vacancies.  Centers should have at least one major anchor tenant.  Two or more separate uses should be present in the center.  Examples should be taken from a variety of jurisdictions. In addition, Cardno provided parking calculations for each center based on the current and proposed parking standards for the City of Tigard. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses in the City of Tigard. Land Use Current Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking quantities for mixed-use projects in the City of Tigard. Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed-Use Projects Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed-Use Projects Percent of Required Quantity Percent of Required Quantity Primary Use 100% Primary Use 100% Secondary Use 90% Secondary Use 85% Subsequent Uses 80% Tertiary Uses 70% Subsequent Uses 60% The Nyberg Woods, Macadam Village, and Millikan Pointe comparisons directly support the requested changes, However, the range of comparisons provided suggests that the proposed December 27, 2012 changes will be beneficial for the community through reducing barriers to economic development and redevelopment of property within the City and by providing the ability to develop a tighter urban form with superior livability and vitality. Cedar Hills Crossing – Beaverton, Oregon Summary: Current Tigard standards would require 297 additional stalls, necessitating approximately 3 acres of additional land to develop this site. Under the proposed amendments the site would have a surplus of 299 stalls. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ce d e r H i l l s C r o s s i n g - B e a v e r t o n , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 3 9 9 , 3 6 1 1 , 4 7 8 1 , 1 9 8 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 4 , 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 6 , 8 6 5 3 0 1 9 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 3 9 , 1 4 0 5 9 9 3 1 3 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 3 , 9 1 7 1 5 1 5 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 5 1 , 5 8 3 7 8 4 7 8 4 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 2, 4 0 9 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 50 4 , 9 4 6 2 , 9 1 5 2 , 3 3 9 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 4. 7 7 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 5 0 6 7 0 No t e : * T h e t h e a t e r i n t h i s p r o j e c t h a s 2 , 3 5 1 s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 3 9 9 , 3 6 1 1 , 4 7 8 1 , 4 7 8 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 5 1 , 5 8 3 7 8 4 7 0 5 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 5 4 , 0 0 2 6 5 4 5 2 3 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 2,706 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -297 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 3 9 9 , 3 6 1 1 , 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 5 1 , 5 8 3 7 8 4 6 6 6 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 3 9 , 1 4 0 3 1 3 2 1 9 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 1 4 , 8 6 2 4 4 2 6 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 2,110 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 299 December 27, 2012 Millikan Pointe - Beaverton, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 90 additional spaces requiring approximately .9 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 80 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .82 acres of additional land. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Mi l l i k a n P o i n t e - B e a v e r t o n , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 5 , 0 0 0 1 9 1 5 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 1 0 , 8 0 0 1 6 5 8 6 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 4 1 , 7 0 0 1 6 3 1 6 3 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 23 6 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 57 , 5 0 0 3 4 6 2 6 4 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 4. 1 0 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 1 1 0 - 2 8 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 4 1 , 7 0 0 1 6 3 1 6 3 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 1 0 , 8 0 0 1 6 5 1 4 9 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 5 , 0 0 0 1 9 1 5 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 326 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -90 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 4 1 , 7 0 0 1 6 3 1 6 3 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 1 0 , 8 0 0 1 6 5 1 4 0 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 5 , 0 0 0 1 9 1 3 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 316 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -80 December 27, 2012 Lake Grove Village - Lake Oswego, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 126 additional spaces requiring approximately 1.3 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 7 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .07 acres of additional land. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 La k e G r o v e V i l l a g e - L a k e O s w e g o , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 2 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 1 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 1 4 , 4 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 5 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 0 0 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 17 2 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 41 , 4 0 0 3 2 0 1 9 6 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 4. 1 5 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 1 4 8 - 2 4 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 1 4 , 4 0 0 2 2 0 1 9 8 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 298 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -126 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 7 , 0 0 0 8 1 8 1 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 1 4 , 4 0 0 1 1 5 9 8 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 179 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -7 December 27, 2012 Tanabourne Market Center - Hillsboro, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 71 additional spaces requiring approximately .73 acre of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 3 stalls would be required. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ta n a s b o u r n e M a r k e t C e n t e r - H i l l s b o r o , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 7 1 , 6 0 0 2 6 5 2 1 5 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 3 , 5 0 0 5 4 2 8 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 0 0 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 24 2 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 75 , 1 0 0 3 1 8 2 4 3 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 2 2 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 7 6 - 1 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 7 1 , 6 0 0 2 6 5 2 6 5 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 3 , 5 0 0 5 4 4 8 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 313 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -71 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 7 1 , 6 0 0 2 1 5 2 1 5 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 3 , 5 0 0 2 8 2 4 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 239 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 3 December 27, 2012 Nyberg Woods - Tualatin, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 202 additional spaces requiring approximately 2.1 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 75 stalls would exist. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ny b e r g W o o d s - T u a l a t i n , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 2 1 1 , 1 0 0 7 8 1 6 3 3 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 5 , 3 5 3 2 3 1 4 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 1 7 , 3 0 0 2 6 5 1 3 8 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 0 0 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 83 6 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 23 3 , 7 5 3 1 , 0 6 9 7 8 6 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 5 8 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 2 3 3 5 0 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 1 1 , 1 0 0 7 8 1 7 8 1 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 1 7 , 3 0 0 2 6 5 2 3 8 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 5 , 3 5 3 2 3 1 8 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 1,038 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -202 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 1 1 , 1 0 0 6 3 3 6 3 3 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 1 7 , 3 0 0 1 3 8 1 1 8 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 5 , 3 5 3 1 4 1 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 761 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 75 December 27, 2012 Uptown Shopping Center - Portland, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 55 additional spaces requiring approximately .57 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 4 stalls would be required. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Up t o w n S h o p p i n g C e n t e r - P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 1 6 , 0 0 0 5 9 4 8 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 5 , 7 0 0 8 7 4 6 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 0 0 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 83 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 21 , 7 0 0 1 4 6 9 4 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 8 2 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 6 3 - 1 1 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 6 , 0 0 0 5 9 5 9 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 5 , 7 0 0 8 7 7 8 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 138 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -55 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 6 , 0 0 0 4 8 4 8 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 5 , 7 0 0 4 6 3 9 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 87 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -4 December 27, 2012 Cascade Station - Portland, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 374 additional spaces requiring approximately 3.9 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards there would be a surplus of 31 stalls. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ca s c a d e S t a t i o n - P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 3 3 3 , 7 3 0 1 , 2 3 5 1 , 0 0 1 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 , 5 0 0 6 6 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 2 4 , 5 0 0 3 7 5 1 9 6 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 0 0 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 1, 2 0 3 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 36 0 , 7 3 0 1 , 6 1 6 1 , 2 0 3 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 3 3 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 4 1 3 0 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 3 3 3 , 7 3 0 1 , 2 3 5 1 , 2 3 5 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 2 4 , 5 0 0 3 7 5 3 3 7 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 2 , 5 0 0 6 5 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 1,577 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -374 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 3 3 3 , 7 3 0 1 , 0 0 1 1 , 0 0 1 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 2 4 , 5 0 0 1 9 6 1 6 7 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 2 , 5 0 0 6 4 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 1,172 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 31 December 27, 2012 Macadam Village - Portland, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 95 additional spaces requiring approximately 1 acre of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards an additional 40 stalls would be required necessitating approximately .4 acres of additional land. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ma c a d a m V i l l a g e - P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 2 7 , 4 3 5 1 0 2 8 2 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 5 , 2 0 0 8 0 4 2 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 6 , 3 0 0 2 5 2 5 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 92 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 38 , 9 3 5 2 0 6 1 4 8 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 2. 3 6 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 1 1 4 - 5 6 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 7 , 4 3 5 1 0 2 1 0 2 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 6 , 3 0 0 2 5 2 2 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 5 , 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 187 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -95 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 2 7 , 4 3 5 8 2 8 2 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 6 , 3 0 0 2 5 2 1 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 5 , 2 0 0 4 2 2 9 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 132 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -40 December 27, 2012 Nimbus Center - Tigard, Oregon Summary: City of Tigard standards would require 35 additional spaces requiring approximately .36 acres of additional land to develop. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 5 stalls would exist. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Ni m b u s C e n t e r - T i g a r d , O r e g o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 1 3 , 6 7 8 5 1 4 1 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 2 , 6 9 2 7 7 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 0 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 7 , 0 6 8 7 0 4 2 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 0 0 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 0 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 2 , 8 8 9 1 1 1 1 Th e a t e r * P e r 3 S e a t s 1 1 0 0 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 93 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 26 , 3 2 7 1 3 9 1 0 2 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 5 3 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 4 6 - 9 No t e : * T h e a t e r p a r k i n g b a s e d o n s e a t s Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 3 , 6 7 8 5 1 5 1 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 7 , 0 6 8 7 0 6 3 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 5 , 5 8 1 1 9 1 5 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 128 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -35 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 3 , 6 7 8 4 1 4 1 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 7 , 0 6 8 4 2 3 6 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 0 0 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 5 , 5 8 1 1 9 1 1 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 88 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 5 December 27, 2012 Grand Central – Vancouver, Washington Summary: City of Tigard standards result in the need for an additional 117 parking stalls which would require an additional 1.2 acres of land. The proposed standards would result in a surplus of 14 stalls.. Pa r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s 12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 Gr a n d C e n t r a l - V a n c o u v e r , W a s h i n g t o n La n d U s e R a t i o U n i t s Cu r r e n t C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Pr o p o s e d C o d e Pa r k i n g R a t i o Si z e (S q - F t ) Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d Pa r k i n g Q u a n t i t y Proposed Required Parking Quantity Sa l e s O r i e n t e d P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 1 4 , 5 8 7 5 4 4 4 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 6 , 1 9 1 1 7 1 7 Ba n k P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 5 2 . 5 3 , 7 0 0 9 9 Ba n k w i t h D r i v e T h r u P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 4 . 3 2 . 7 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( f a s t f o o d ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 9 . 9 6 6 , 5 9 1 6 5 4 0 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t d o w n ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 1 5 . 3 8 1 5 , 2 4 7 2 3 3 1 2 2 Of f i c e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 2 . 7 2 . 7 3 , 8 6 5 1 0 1 0 Of f i c e ( M e d i c a l ) P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 9 3 . 9 5 , 0 7 5 2 0 2 0 Gr o c e r y S t o r e P e r 1 , 0 0 0 s f 3 . 7 3 . 7 1 3 8 , 7 2 9 5 1 3 5 1 3 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g 71 2 Su b T o t a l T o t a l 19 3 , 9 8 5 9 2 2 7 7 5 Ex i s t i n g P a r k i n g R a t i o 3. 6 7 Di f f e r e n c e f r o m E x i s t i n g N/ A - 2 1 0 - 6 3 No t e : * G r o c e r y S t o r e c o n s i d e r e d S a l e s a t 3 . 7 p e r 1 , 0 0 0 Cu r r e n t R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 5 3 , 3 1 6 5 6 7 5 6 7 Se c o n d a r y U s e 9 0 % 1 5 , 2 4 7 2 3 3 2 1 0 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 8 0 % 6 , 5 9 1 6 5 5 2 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 829 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g -117 Pr o p o s e d R e q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y f o r M i x e d - U s e P r o j e c t s Pe r c e n t o f Re q u i r e d Q u a n t i t y To t a l S i z e of U s e ( s ) Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Qu a n t i t y Adjusted Required Parking Quantity Pr i m a r y U s e 1 0 0 % 1 5 3 , 3 1 6 5 5 7 5 5 7 Se c o n d a r y U s e 8 5 % 1 5 , 2 4 7 1 2 2 1 0 4 Te r t i a r y U s e s 7 0 % 6 , 5 9 1 4 0 2 8 Su b s e q u e n t U s e s 6 0 % 6 , 1 9 1 1 7 1 0 Re q u i r e d P a r k i n g Q u a n t i t y 698 Di f f e r e n c e F r o m E x i s t i n g 14 Exhibit C Chapter 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, offstreet vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. B. Expansion of existing use. At the time of an enlargement of a structure which increases the on-site vehicle parking requirements, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070 subject to the following: 1. On the date of adoption of this title, the number of vehicle parking and loading spaces required shall be based only on floor area or capacity of such enlargement; 2. If the minimum vehicle parking spaces required for the enlargement added to the existing onsite space exceed the maximum number of vehicle parking spaces allowed for the whole project per the maximum parking ratios established in 18.765.070, the applicant may reduce the additional number of spaces provided so that the total spaces on the site do not exceed the maximum spaces allowed. C. Change of use. When an existing structure is changed from one use to another use as listed in Section 18.765.070, the following provisions shall apply: 1. If the parking requirements for each use are the same, no additional vehicle parking shall be required; 2. Where a change results in an intensification of use in terms of the number of vehicle parking spaces required, additional vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in an amount equal to the difference between the number of spaces required for the existing use and the number of spaces required for the more intensive use; 3. Where the change results in a decrease in intensity of use, the applicant may eliminate excess vehicle parking spaces in an amount equal to the difference between the number of spaces required for the existing use and the number of spaces required for the less intensive use. D. When site design review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I review, as governed by Section 18.390.030. E. Building permit conditions. The provision and maintenance of off-street vehicle parking and loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner: Exhibit C 1. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Director to show that property is and will remain available for exclusive use as off-street vehicle parking and loading space; and 2. The subsequent use of property for which the building permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of vehicle parking and loading space required by this title. 3. Required vehicle parking shall: a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, patron and employees only; b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conduct of the business or use; and c. Not be rented, leased or assigned to any other person or organization. 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s). 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; b. The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: (1) Disabled-accessible spaces, (2) Short-term spaces, (3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces, (4) Long-term spaces. C. Joint parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: Exhibit C 1. The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. D. Parking in mixed-use and multiple tenant projects. In mixed-use and multiple tenant projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula: 1. Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2. Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 8590% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3. Subsequent use or uses, at 7080% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4. Subsequent use or uses, at 60% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 54. The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in Subsection D.1—3 above. E. Visitor parking in multifamily residential developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. F. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking. Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long- term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least five percent of total long- term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040.N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. G. Disabled-accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. H. DEQ indirect source construction permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: Exhibit C 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. (Ord. 09-13; Ord. 02-13) 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. C. Loading/unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. D. On-site vehicle stacking for drive-in use. 1. All uses providing drive-in services as defined by this title shall provide on the same site a stacking lane for inbound vehicles as noted in Table 18.765.1. TABLE 18.765.1 STACKING LANE REQUIREMENTS FOR USES WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOWS Use Reservoir Requirement Drive-in banks 150 feet/service terminal Automated teller 50 feet/service terminal machines Drive-up telephones 50 feet Drive-in cleaners, repair services 50 feet Exhibit C Drive-in restaurants 200 feet Drive-in theaters 200 feet Gasoline service 75 feet between curb cut and nearest pump Mechanical car washes 75 feet/washing unit Parking facilities: - Free flow entry 25 feet/entry driveway - Ticket dispense entry 50 feet/entry driveway - Manual ticket dispensing 100 feet/entry driveway - Attendant parking 100 feet 2. The Director may reduce the length of the inbound stacking lane by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.g. 3. Stacking lanes must be designed so that they do not interfere with parking and vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Stacking lanes for the purpose of selling food must provide at least one clearly marked parking space per service window for the use of vehicles waiting for an order to be filled. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. H. Parking space surfacing. Exhibit C 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; 2. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an agreement to pave the parking area: (a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or (b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or (c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel-surfaced parking areas may only be permitted consistent with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially- zoned or residentially-developed area, b. Gravel access and/or parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course, c. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right-of- way, and d. A driveway which connects a gravel parking area with any public street shall be paved; and 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel-surfaced parking is warranted: a. The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the temporary use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application per the requirements of Section 18.385.050, b. The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of temporary use requested will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed, and c. Approval of the gravel-surfaced parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe ingress and egress when combined with other uses of the property. I. Parking lot striping. Exhibit C 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the offstreet parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. J. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. K. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) FIGURE 18.765.1 OFF-STREET SURFACE PARKING MATRIX Required Space and Aisle Dimensions in Feet COMPACT STANDARD A B C D E F G B C D E F G 450 7.50 15.5 13.0 10.61 44.0 2.0 8.5 17.5 13.0 12.0 48.0 2.0 7.75 15.5 12.0 10.96 43.0 2.0 9.0 17.5 12.0 12.7 47.2 2.0 7.75 15.5 11.0 10.96 42.0 2.0 9.5 17.5 11.0 13.4 46.0 2.0 8.00 15.5 11.0 11.32 42.0 2.0 10.0 17.5 11.0 14.1 46.0 2.0 600 7.50 17.0 18.0 8.62 48.0 2.5 8.5 19.0 18.0 9.80 56.0 2.5 7.75 17.0 16.0 9.01 46.0 2.5 9.0 19.0 16.0 10.4 54.0 2.5 7.75 17.0 15.0 9.01 54.0 2.5 9.5 19.0 15.0 11.0 53.0 2.5 8.00 17.0 14.0 9.20 44.0 2.5 10.0 19.0 14.0 11.6 52.0 2.5 750 7.50 17.5 25.5 7.73 60.5 2.5 8.5 19.5 25.5 8.80 64.0 2.5 7.75 17.5 23.0 7.99 58.0 2.5 9.0 19.5 23.0 9.30 62.0 2.5 7.75 17.5 22.0 7.99 57.0 2.5 9.5 19.5 22.0 9.80 61.0 2.5 8.00 17.5 21.0 8.25 56.0 2.5 10.0 19.5 21.0 10.3 60.0 2.5 900 7.50 16.5 28.0 7.50 61.0 3.0 8.5 18.5 28.0 8.50 65.0 3.0 7.75 16.5 26.0 7.75 60.0 3.0 9.0 18.5 26.0 9.00 63.0 3.0 7.75 16.5 25.0 7.75 59.0 3.0 9.5 18.5 25.0 9.50 62.0 3.0 8.00 16.5 24.0 8.00 58.0 3.0 10.0 18.5 24.0 10.0 61.0 3.0 Exhibit C 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; b. 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall’s length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. (Ord. 09- 13; Ord. 06-20) FIGURE 18.765.2 PARKING STRUCTURE MATRIX Required Space and Aisle Dimensions in Feet Compact Angle Interlock Reduction Overhang Vehicle Projection Width Module Widths A B C D E F G H I J 45 2.0 1.41 15.25 11.5 26.75 42.0 40.0 38.0 39.16 60 1.41 1.75 16.08 13.33 29.66 46.0 44.58 43.16 42.5 75 0.75 1.91 16.5 16.0 32.5 49.0 48.25 47.5 45.16 90 0.0 2.0 15.5 20.0 35.5 51.0 51.0 51.0 47.0 Standards Angle Interlock Reduction Overhang Vehicle Projection Width Module Widths A B C D E F G H I J 45 2.4 2.08 18.0 13.0 31.0 49.0 46.66 46.33 44.83 60 1.66 2.58 19.5 16.0 35.5 55.0 51.33 51.66 49.16 Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard spaces; 50%compact spaces. All compact spaces shall be labeled as such. A Parking Angle B Stall Width C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) D Aisle Width Between Stall Lines (5) E Stall Width Parallel to Aisle F Module Width (no bumper overhang) G Bumper Overhang Exhibit C 75 0.83 2.91 19.75 20.0 39.75 59.5 58.66 57.83 53.66 90 0.0 3.0 18.66 24.66 43.33 62.0 62.0 62.0 56.0 A Parking angle B Interlock reduction C Overhang clearance D Projected vehicle length measured perpendicular to aisle E Aisle width F Parking module width (wall to wall), single loaded aisle G Parking module width (wall to wall), double loaded aisle H Parking module width (wall to interlock), double loaded aisle I Parking module width (interlock to interlock), double loaded aisle J Parking module width (curb to curb), double loaded aisle SL Stall Length SW Stall Width WP Stall width parallel to aisle 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. B. Covered parking spaces. Exhibit C 1. When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case, the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for longterm (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2½ feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The Director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.5.e. 18.765.060 Parking Structure Design Standards A. Ground-floor windows/wall openings. All parking structures shall provide ground floor windows or wall openings along the street frontages. Blank walls are prohibited. Any wall facing the street shall contain windows, doors or display areas equal to at least 20% of the ground floor wall area facing the street excluding those portions of the face(s) devoted to driveway entrances and exits, stairwells, elevators, and centralized payment booths. Required windows shall have a sill no more than four feet above grade. Where the interior floor level prohibits such placement, the sill may be raised to allow it to be no more than two feet above finished floor wall up to a maximum sill height of six feet above grade. B. Exit warning bell. A warning bell or other signal must be provided for exits from parking structures that cross public sidewalks where a standard vision clearance area cannot be provided. C. Other standards. Parking structures must comply with all standards of the State Building Code as it pertains to structural design, ventilation, lighting and fire/safety requirements and disabled accessibility. Exhibit C D. Parking layout and internal circulation. The layout of parking within a parking structure shall be subject to the requirements contained in Figure 18.765.2. An applicant may request approval of an alternative layout and internal circulation by means of a Type II adjustment, as governed in Section 18.370.010, using the approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.5.f. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements A. Parking requirements for unlisted uses. 1. The Director may rule that a use, not specifically listed in Section 18.765.070.H, is a use similar to a listed use and that the same parking standards shall apply. If the applicant requests that the Director’s decision be rendered in writing, it shall constitute a Director’s Interpretation, as governed by Section 18.340. 2. The Director shall maintain a list of approved unlisted use parking requirements which shall have the same effect as an amendment to this chapter. B. Choice of parking requirements. When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees. Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in Section 18.765.070.H: Exhibit C 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; religious institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use provided that the following criteria have been satisfied: a. The on-street parking is on a street that is designed and physically improved to accommodate parking within the right-of-way; b. The street where on-street parking is proposed is not located on local residential streets. 2. Fleet parking. Required vehicle parking spaces may not be used for storage of fleet vehicles, except when a use can show that employee and fleet parking spaces are used interchangeably, e.g., the employee drives the fleet vehicle from home, or the spaces are used for fleet storage only at night and are available for employee use during the day. For the purposes of this title, space exclusively devoted to the storage of fleet vehicles will be considered as outdoor storage. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. When calculating the maximum vehicle parking allowed as regulated by Section 18.765.080.H, the following exception shall apply: 1. The following types of parking shall not be included: a. Parking contained in a parking structure either incorporated into a building or freestanding; b. Market-rate paid parking; c. Designated carpool and/or vanpool spaces; d. Designated disabled-accessible parking spaces; e. Fleet parking. 2. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than six parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area, the development shall be allowed up to six parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 gross square feet, the development will be allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking. Reductions in the required number of vehicle parking spaces may be permitted as follows: Exhibit C 1. The Director may reduce off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to 20% in new developments for the incorporation of transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-oriented developments and other transit-related development through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.b. Applicants who qualify for this adjustment may also apply for further parking reductions per 18.765.070.F.2. below. 2. The Director may reduce the total required off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to a total of 20% by means of parking adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.a. 3. The Director is authorized to reduce up to 10% of existing required parking spaces at a conversion ratio of one parking space for each 100 square feet of transit facility for developments which incorporate transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-oriented development or other transit-related facilities through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.c. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. The Director may increase the total maximum number of vehicle spaces allowed in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.5.d. H. Specific requirements. (See Table 18.765.2) I. Developments in the MU-CBD zone. Please see Section 18.610.060, off-street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU-CBD zone. (Ord. 10-02 § 2; Ord. 09-13; Ord. 02-13) 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements A. Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. B. Off-street loading dimensions. 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location. 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site. 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710. 4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Ex h i b i t C TA B L E 1 8 . 7 6 5 . 2 MI N I M U M A N D M A X I M U M R E Q U I R E D O F F - S T R E E T VE H I C L E A N D B I C Y C L E P AR K I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S (N A : N o t A d d r e s s e d D U : D w e l l i n g U n i t ( M ) : M e t r o R e q u i r e m e n t ) M A X I M U M [1 ] MI N I M U M [5 } Z O N E A Z O N E B B I C Y C L E [2] RE S I D E N T I A L Ho u s e h o l d L i v i n g Si n g l e U n i t s , A t t a c h e d S e e M u l t i f a m i l y ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e Si n g l e U n i t s , D e t a c h e d 1 . 0 / D U n o n e ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e Ac c e s s o r y U n i t s 1 . 0 / D U n o n e n o n e n o n e Mu l t i f a m i l y U n i t s D U < 5 0 0 s q f t : 1 . 0 / D U ( M ) 1 b e d r o o m : 1 . 2 5 / D U ( M ) 2 b e d r o o m : 1 . 5 / D U ( M ) 3 b e d r o o m : 1 . 7 5 / D U ( M ) [7 ] no n e n o n e 1 . 0 / 2 D U s e x c e p t e l d e r l y , wh i c h is 1 . 0 / 2 0 D U s Ma n u f a c t u r e d U n i t s 1 . 0 / D U ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e Mo b i l e H o m e P a r k s 1 . 0 / D U ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e ( M ) n o n e Gr o u p L i v i n g 1 . 0 / r o o m 1. 0 / 2 . 5 b e d s no n e 2. 7 / 1 , 0 0 0 [3 ] no n e no n e 1. 0 / 5 b e d s Tr a n s i t i o n a l H o u s i n g 1 . 0 / 2 . 5 b e d s n o n e n o n e 1 . 0 / 5 b e d s Ho m e O c c u p a t i o n n o n e n o n e n o n e N o n e CI V I C Ba s i c U t i l i t i e s n o n e n o n e n o n e N o n e Co l l e g e s 0 / 5 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) 1 . 0 / 3 . 3 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) 1 . 0 / 3 . 3 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) 1 . 0 / 3 . 0 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f Co m m u n i t y R e c r e a t i o n 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Cu l t u r a l I n s t i t u t i o n s 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 3 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 Da y C a r e H o m e : n o n e Co m m e r c i a l : 2 . 0 / c l a s s r o o m no n e 2. 7 / 1 , 0 0 0 no n e 3. 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ho m e : n o n e Co m m e r c i a l : 1 . 5 / c l a s s r o o m Em e r g e n c y S e r v i c e s 3 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 3 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 Me d i c a l C e n t e r s 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 [4 ] 2 . 7 / 1 , 0 0 0 [4 ] 3 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 [4 ] 0 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 Po s t a l S e r v i c e s 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 3 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Pu b l i c S u p p o r t F a c i l i t i e s n o n e n o n e n o n e n o n e Re l i g i o u s I n s t i t u t i o n s 1 . 0 / 3 [6 ] se a t s i n m a i n as s e m b l y ar e a ( M ) 1. 0 / 1 . 7 s e a t s i n m a i n as s e m b l y ar e a ( M ) 1. 0 / 1 . 3 s e a t s i n m a i n as s e m b l y ar e a ( M ) 1. 0 / 2 0 s e a t s i n m a i n a s s e m b l y ar e a Sc h o o l s P r e s c h o o l : 5 . 0 + 1 / c l a s s r o o m El e m e n t a r y / J R : 2 . 0 / c l a s s r o o m SR : 1 . 0 / 5 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) Pr e s c h o o l : 7 . 0 + 1 . 0 c l a s s r o o m El e m e n t a r y / J R : 2 . 5 / c l a s s r o o m SR : 1 . 0 / 3 . 3 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) Pr e s c h o o l : 1 0 . 0 + 1 / c l a s s r o o m El e m e n t a r y / J R : 3 . 5 / c l a s s r o o m SR : 1 . 0 / 3 . 3 s t u d e n t s / s t a f f ( M ) Pr e s c h o o l : 1 . 0 / c l a s s r o o m El e m e n t a r y / J R : 6 . 0 / c l a s s r o o m SR : 6 . 0 / c l a s s r o o m So c i a l / F r a t e r n a l Cl u b s / L o d g e s 10 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 m a i n a s s e m b l y ar e a 12 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 m a i n a s s e m b l y ar e a 14 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 m a i n a s s e m b l y ar e a 2. 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 m a i n a s s e m b l y a r e a Ex h i b i t C TA B L E 1 8 . 7 6 5 . 2 MI N I M U M A N D M A X I M U M R E Q U I R E D O F F - S T R E E T VE H I C L E A N D B I C Y C L E P AR K I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S (N A : N o t A d d r e s s e d D U : D w e l l i n g U n i t ( M ) : M e t r o R e q u i r e m e n t ) M A X I M U M [1 ] MI N I M U M [5 } Z O N E A Z O N E B B I C Y C L E [2] CO M M E R C I A L [5 ] Co m m e r c i a l L o d g i n g 1 . 0 / r o o m 1 . 2 / r o o m 1 . 4 / r o o m 1 . 0 / 1 0 r o o m s Ea t i n g a n d D r i n k i n g Es t a b l i s h m e n t s Fa s t f o o d [8 ] : 9. 9 6. 0 /1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) ot h e r : 1 5 . 3 8. 0 /1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 12 . 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 19 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 14 . 9 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 23 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) Al l : 1 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 En t e r t a i n m e n t – O r i e n t e d Ma j o r E v e n t E n t e r t a i n m e n t 1 . 0 / 3 s e a t s o r 1 . 0 / 6 ' b e n c h 1 . 0 / 2 . 5 s e a t s o r 1. 0 / 5 ' b e n c h 1. 0 / 2 s e a t s o r 1. 0 / 4 ' b e n c h 1. 0 / 1 0 s e a t s o r 4 0 ' b e n c h Ou t d o o r E n t e r t a i n m e n t 4 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 5 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 In d o o r E n t e r t a i n m e n t 4 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) Th e a t e r : 1 . 0 / 3 s e a t s ( M ) 5. 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) Th e a t e r : 1 . 0 / 2 . 5 s e a t s ( M ) 6. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) Th e a t e r 1 . 0 / 2 . 0 s e a t s ( M ) 0. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 1 0 s e a t s Ad u l t E n t e r t a i n m e n t 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 3 s e a t s ( M ) 3. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 1 . 2 5 s e a t s ( M ) 4. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 2 . 0 s e a t s ( M ) 0. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 2 0 s e a t s Ge n e r a l R e t a i l Sa l e s - O r i e n t e d 3 . 7 3. 0 /1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 5. 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 6 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Pe r s o n a l S e r v i c e s 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ba n k w i t h d r i v e i n : 4. 3 2. 7 /1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 3. 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 5. 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 4. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 6. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 1. 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 1. 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 Re p a i r - O r i e n t e d 3 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Bu l k S a l e s 1 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 10 . 0 1. 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ou t d o o r S a l e s 1 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 s a l e s a r e a 1 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 s a l e s a r e a 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 s a l e s a r e a 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 s a l e s a r e a An i m a l - R e l a t e d 3 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 4 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 Mo t o r V e h i c l e R e l a t e d Mo t o r V e h i c l e S a l e s / R e n t a l 1 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 1 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 0 . 2 / 1 , 0 00 sales area Mo t o r V e h i c l e Se r v i c i n g / R e p a i r 2. 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 2 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 2 . 6 / 1 , 0 0 0 b u t n o l e s s t h a n 4 . 0 0 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ve h i c l e F u e l S a l e s 3 . 0 + 2 . 0 / s e r v i c e b a y 4 . 0 + 2 . 0 / s e r v i c e b a y 4 . 0 + 2 . 5 / s e r v i c e b a y 0 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 Of f i c e Me d i c a l / D e n t a l O f f i c e 2. 7 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 3. 9 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 3. 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 4. 9 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 4. 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 5. 9 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 0. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 0. 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ex h i b i t C TA B L E 1 8 . 7 6 5 . 2 MI N I M U M A N D M A X I M U M R E Q U I R E D O F F - S T R E E T VE H I C L E A N D B I C Y C L E P AR K I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S (N A : N o t A d d r e s s e d D U : D w e l l i n g U n i t ( M ) : M e t r o R e q u i r e m e n t ) M A X I M U M [1 ] MI N I M U M [5 } Z O N E A Z O N E B B I C Y C L E [2] Se l f - S e r v i c e S t o r a g e 1 . 0 / 4 s t o r a g e u n i t s 1 . 0 / 4 s t o r a g e u n i t s 1 . 0 / 2 s t o r a g e u n i t s 1 . 0 / 4 0 s t o r a g e u n i t s No n - A c c e s s o r y P a r k i n g n o ne n o n e n o n e N o n e IN D U S T R I A L In d u s t r i a l S e r v i c e s 0 . 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ma n u f a c t u r i n g a n d Pr o d u c t i o n Li g h t I n d u s t r i a l 1 . 6 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) n o n e n o n e 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ge n e r a l I n d u s t r i a l 1 . 6 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) n o n e n o n e 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 He a v y I n d u s t r i a l 1 . 6 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) n o n e n o n e 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 Ra i l r o a d Y a r d s n o n e n o n e n o n e n o n e Re s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t 2 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 3 . 0 / 1 , 0 0 0 3 . 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 Wa r e h o u s e / F r e i g h t Mo v e m e n t <1 5 0 , 0 0 0 s q f t : 0 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 >1 5 0 , 0 0 0 s q f t : 0 . 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 0. 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 0. 4 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 1. 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 0. 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 ( M ) 0. 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 Wa s t e - R e l a t e d 5 . 0 7 . 0 1 0 . 0 n o n e Wh o l e s a l e S a l e s 0 . 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 2 / 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 8 / 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 1 / 1 , 0 0 0 OT H E R Ag r i c u l t u r e / H o r t i c u l t u r e 2 . 5 / 1 , 0 0 0 s a l e s a r e a b u t n o le s s t h a n 4 . 0 no n e n o n e n o n e Ce m e t e r i e s E x e m p t E x e m p t E x e m p t n o n e De t e n t i o n F a c i l i t i e s 1 . 0 / 2 . 5 b e d s n o n e n o n e 1 . 0 / 2 . 5 b e d s He l i p o r t s n o n e n o n e n o n e n o n e Mi n i n g < 5 . 0 n o n e n o n e n o n e Wi r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n Fa c i l i t i e s no n e n o n e n o n e n o n e Ra i l L i n e s / U t i l i t y C o r r i d o r s n o n e n o n e n o n e n o n e [1 ] To b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C i t y o f T i g a r d b a s e d o n M e t r o c r i t e r i a . [2 ] Re q u i r e d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g s h a l l b e r e q u i r e d p e r t h e r a t i o s b e l o w e x c e p t i n n o c a s e s h a l l t h e r e b e f e w e r t h a n t w o s p a c e s p r o v i d e d . [3 ] Re f e r s t o 1 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . o f f l o o r a r e a , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d . [4 ] Do e s n o t i n c l u d e o u t p a t i e n t c l i n i c s o r m e di c a l o f f i c e s ; s e e M e d i c a l / D e n t a l O f f i c e s . [5 ] Pl e a s e s e e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 6 1 0 . 0 6 0 , o f f - s t r e e t v e h i c l e p a rk i n g m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t h e M U - C B D z o n e . [6 ] Re l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s m a y p r o v i d e 1 s p a c e f o r e v e r y 4 s e a t s o n s i t e i n t h e m a i n a s s e m b l y a r e a p r ov i d e d t h a t t h e y s u p p l y t h e c i ty w i t h a p a r k i n g p l a n t h a t d e m o n s t r at e s t h a t t h e p e a k p a r k i n g d e m a n d o f 1 s p a c e f o r e v e r y 3 s e a t s i s m e t u t i l i z i n g a n y c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e a lt e r n a t i v e s m e n t i o n e d i n t h i s ch a p t e r . A d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e m i ni m u m p a r k i n g o f 1 s p a c e f o r e v e r y 3 s e a t s m a y b e g r a n t e d p e r a p p l i c a b l e pr o v i s i o n s o f t h e c o d e , b u t s h a l l n o t d e c r e a s e t h e a m o u n t o f r e qu i r e d o n - s i t e p a r k i n g t o l e s s t h a n 1 s p a c e f o r e v e r y 4 s e a t s ( u nl e s s t h e c u m u l a t i v e v a l u e o f a l l a d j u s t me n t s g r a n t e d r e s u l t s i n a n a d j u s t e d re q u i r e m e n t o f l e s s t h a n 1 s p a c e f o r e v e r y 4 s e a t s ) . [7 ] In t h e M U - C B D z o n e t h e m i n i m u m p a r k i n g r e q u i re m e n t s f o r a l l m u l t i a m i l y u n i t s i s 1 . 0 / D U . Ex h i b i t C TA B L E 1 8 . 7 6 5 . 2 MI N I M U M A N D M A X I M U M R E Q U I R E D O F F - S T R E E T VE H I C L E A N D B I C Y C L E P AR K I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S (N A : N o t A d d r e s s e d D U : D w e l l i n g U n i t ( M ) : M e t r o R e q u i r e m e n t ) M A X I M U M [1 ] MI N I M U M [5 } Z O N E A Z O N E B B I C Y C L E [2] [8 ] F a s t F o o d d e s i g n a t i o n i n c l u d e s a l l e a t i n g an d d r i n k i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t s w i t h a “ w a l k up c o u n t e r ” a n d / o r l e s s t h a n 1 0 t a b l e s . E x am p l e s i n c l u d e S u b w a y , S t a r b u c k s , C h i p o t l e , e t c . 5415 SW Westgate Drive Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 USA Phone (503) 419-2500 Fax (503) 419-2600 www.cardno.com Exhibit D MEMORANDUM Australia ● Belgium ● Indonesia ● Kenya ● New Zealand ● Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates ● United Kingdom ● United States ● Operations in 60 Countries To: Noel Johnson, Vice President Killian Pacific noel@killianpacific.com From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Date: December 27, 2012 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums CardnoWRG#: Re: Assessment of Two Properties Historically Deficient on Parking Cardno reviewed a list of properties (see below) that are perceived to be historically deficient on parking when compared to current City of Tigard standards. Cardno analyzed a representative sample of these properties based on the existing and proposed parking standards. This memorandum gives a brief assessment of the parking conditions found so as to illustrate our general conclusions. Cardno understands the City is concerned about how the proposed parking modifications would affect these existing situations, based on our analysis the proposed amendments would not affect these properties as the problems are atypical and unique to each respective property. These properties represent existing deficiencies that would not be remedied with the proposed code amendments. While the extent of the nonconformity of each property with the City’s parking requirements would be lessened, overall each of the sites analyzed would still not meet standards. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses. Land Use Current Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking quantities for mixed-use projects. Current Required Parking Quantity for Mixed-Use Projects Proposed Required Parking Quantity for Mixed-Use Projects Percent of Required Quantity Percent of Required Quantity Primary Use 100% Primary Use 100% Secondary Use 90% Secondary Use 85% Subsequent Uses 80% Tertiary Uses 70% Subsequent Uses 60% December 27, 2012 Property Analysis Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency 11445 Pac Hwy Bounty Hunter Saloon Eating and Drinking Assessment: The property is adjacent to the Regency Inn motel, and thus a defacto shared parking situation complicates this property and its parking functionality. Furthermore, the property is significantly under parked. County records indicate this single tenant restaurant building is 5,446 SF in size, but current observations count only 32 stalls being available (and some stalls are significantly compromised/unusable). Under current Tigard parking minimum standards, the 32 stalls of parking would allow only 2,092SF of restaurant, while under the proposed standards, 4,000 SF of restaurant would be allowed. Conclusion: Even with the proposed standards 44 stalls would be required for this property. The proposed amendments would not make the property in conformance with minimum parking requirements for the City. Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency 12700 North Dakota Scholls Commercial Center Eating and Drinking – Insufficient Ratio Analysis: Key Bank, as well as significant eating and dining users (Starbucks, Quiznos, Pasta Pronto) exist with other users (Dry Cleaners, etc.) to create parking requirements that are significant. Per County records, Key Bank’s 3,593 SF would require 16 stalls. County records do not provide the size nor breakdown of SF for the multi-tenant building; nonetheless, it is estimated to be approximately 11,500SF in size, which equates to a need of between 100 to160 stalls. Observed parking stalls were counted to be approximately 70 in number. Conclusion: The current situation does not meet code, nor would it meet the future code, as proposed. It is unknown how or why this occupancy situation has come to be. Nonetheless, even with the proposed amendments this site would still be nonconforming in terms of minimum parking spaces required. . Address Business Primary Cause of Parking Deficiency City Hall and Tigard Library Public Institutions Analysis: Parking appears to be deficient at these two locations as it relates to accommodating peak demands for the facilities due to special events. High volume events cause atypical needs for parking that realized during short specific timelines. Events such as these are unique to institutional and/or public gathering spaces. Conclusion: The concerns associated with these properties would not be realized within a commercial development and would be specific to public uses and should be addressed within that specific use. December 27, 2012 AREAS (PARCELS) HISTORICALLY SHORT ON PARKING Single Business Address Business Primary Cause 11445 Pac Hwy Bounty Hunter Saloon E&D* 11611 Pac Hwy Teriyaki Bowl/Union Mission E&D/Retail/Insufficient Ratio 11646 Pac Hwy Transmission Repair Insufficient Ratio 11652 Pac Hwy Hookah Bar Insufficient Ratio 13050 Pac Hwy Sanchez Taqueria E&D/FF** 11320 Pac Hwy Martins Auto Detailing Business Expansion 12705 Pac Hwy Hookah Bar Shared w/E&D 12725 Pac Hwy Restaurant E&D Retail Centers Address Development Primary Cause 12100/44 Scholls Retail Strip E&D/FF/Insufficient Ratio 12210 Scholls Greenway Center E&D/FF/Large Retail 13125 Hall Blvd City Hall Insufficient Ratio? 13500 Hall Blvd Tigard Library Insufficient Ratio? 11705 Pac Hwy Pacific Crossing E&D/FF 15917-95 Hall Blvd Strip Development FF/Insufficient Ratio 12700 North Dakota Scholls Commercial Center E&D/FF/Insufficient Ratio 9800 Shady Ln Retail Strip Insufficient Ratio * E&D = Eating and Drinking ** FF = Fast Food FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\11300 - TIGARD SITE REDEVELOPMENT\REPORT\FINAL\PARKING COMPARISON.DOCX March 12, 2013 Project #: 11300 Noel Johnson Killian Pacific 500 East Broadway, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 RE: Review of Parking Proposed Minimums Relative to ITE Parking Generation Dear Noel, This letter provides an overview of select City of Tigard parking standards compared to parking rates prescribed in the reference Parking Generation, 4th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2010. The ITE parking rate data is generally supportive of the proposed revisions to the parking minimums currently under consideration by the City of Tigard. Minimum and maximum code standards are typically established by cities to allow flexibility for site specific needs while at the same time minimizing the potential impact to adjacent neighborhoods and/or the multimodal transportation system. These minimums and maximums typically “bracket” the average anticipated daily peak demand. This relationship is shown in Exhibit 1. Our review of the City of Tigard’s development code identified several retail uses in which the specified parking minimums are equal to or exceed the average values shown in ITE’s Parking Generation. In these instances the City’s current parking minimums are set higher than the expected maximum peak period parking demand measured at other similar sites. Establishing parking minimums in excess of typical peak parking demand levels may have unintended and undesirable consequences in terms of requiring excessive parking, limiting the potential effectiveness of transportation demand management programs, not allowing for a context-specific review of a proposed land use and/or tenant, and the application of shared parking opportunities. Moreover, unnecessarily high minimum parking requirements may not achieve urban design and multimodal transportation system objectives and is also not an efficient use of precious land resources. Parking demand can vary substantially based on individual building uses and practices. From a parking design perspective, it would be appropriate for jurisdictions to set their parking minimums below the Expected Range for Parking Maximum Standard Expected Range for Parking Minimum Standard Average Peak Demand Exhibit 1. Typical Parking Demand Distribution Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Page: 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ITE peak period parking demand while at the same time allowing applicants the flexibility to provide parking levels that meet or exceed ITE typical peak parking demand. City of Tigard code does not currently allow for this flexibility. Killian Pacific is proposing to reduce the City’s current parking minimum for select land uses, with no changes proposed to the current City parking maximums. The proposed changes would allow for reduced parking options, where appropriate and desired, but would also continue to allow projects to build to the code maximum. The flexibility inherent to this approach would allow the City and applicants additional opportunity to assess and implement appropriate parking ratios for individual projects. Table 1 provides a summary of ITE parking data compared with the City’s current parking requirements. The ITE data shown reflects average peak period parking demand and the corresponding range of data1. As shown, the range provides the lowest and the highest peak parking demand rates at the ITE study sites and is substantial given the wide spectrum of uses falling in the broad categories defined by City code. For reference purposes, Appendix 1 provides a more detailed comparison reflecting parking demand at additional land use subcategories documented in ITE Parking Generation. Table 1. Parking Data Comparison Summarized to Current City of Tigard Land Use Categories Land Use Parking Demand/1,000 Square Feet ITE Average Peak Period Demand City of Tigard Current Minimum ITE Peak Period Demand Range City of Tigard Current Maximum Proposed Minimum Eating & Drinking Establishment, Fast-food 12.4 9.9 0.98 – 29.17 12.4 - 14.9 6 Eating & Drinking Establishment, Other 16.4 15.3 2.59 – 37.5 19.1 – 23.0 8 Shopping Center 4.67 3.7 1.33 – 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Drive-in Bank 4.0 4.3 1.44 – 8.0 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 GFA = Gross Floor Area GLA = Gross Leasable Area Light red shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum equals or exceeds ITE Average Peak Period Demand Key findings from the comparison in Table 1 include:  Fast Food with drive-through: There is a wide range of fast-food parking demand (refer to Appendix 1). Some fast-food uses have an average peak parking demand lower than City parking minimums while others are higher. 1 Average peak period parking demand is defined by ITE as the observed peak period number of vehicles parked divided by the building size. Unlike ITE Trip Generation, the average peak parking demand is calculated by taking the maximum observed parking demand ratio for each site over the course of a day and then averaging that maximum value over multiple sites. Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Page: 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon  Eating and drinking establishments (non fast-food): As with fast-food restaurants, the City’s minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand for some uses observed per ITE while the City’s minimum parking ratio is higher than average peak period demand for other ITE sub-categories (refer to Appendix 1). The result is to create parking related barriers to entry for some types of restaurants.  Shopping Center: The City’s minimum parking ratio is higher than typical average weekday peak period demand but lower than December-peak period demand observed per ITE.  Drive-in Bank: The City’s minimum parking ratio exceeds the average peak period demand observed per ITE. This may result in a barrier to entry for banks seeking to locate in Tigard. From a fundamental principles viewpoint, establishing the required parking minimum below average peak parking demand for a given use is desirable. Based on the current City code requirements, applicants designing parking areas to the City code minimum may be constructing more parking than is required to meet average peak parking demand, effectively guaranteeing that more parking is provided than needed. This over-building phenomenon would be especially true for High-turnover Sit-down Restaurants, coffee/donut shops with and without drive through windows, and drive-in banks. In cases where parking minimums align with or exceed the average peak period parking demand, it will be difficult to encourage non-auto travel and there will be more parking spaces provided than needed. Please call me at 503-535-7433 if you have questions regarding the comparison provided in this letter. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Chris Brehmer, P.E. Principal Engineer Appendix 1 Additional ITE Parking Data Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Appendix Page: 1-2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Table 2. Parking Data Comparison Land Use Parking Demand/1,000 Square Feet ITE Average Peak Period Demand City of Tigard Current Minimum ITE Peak Period Demand Range City of Tigard Current Maximum Proposed Minimum Quality Restaurant, Non-Friday Weekday (GFA) 10.6 15.3 5.46 - 15.35 19.1 – 23.0 8 Quality Restaurant, Saturday (GFA) 16.4 15.3 8.77 - 26.56 19.1 – 23.0 8 High-turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (Suburban), Weekday (GFA) 10.6 15.3 2.59 - 21.78 19.1 – 23.0 8 High-turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (Urban), Weekday (GFA) 5.55 15.3 3.13 - 12.41 19.1 – 23.0 8 High-turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (Suburban), Saturday (GFA) 13.5 15.3 6.3 - 26.5 19.1 – 23.0 8 Fast-food with Drive-Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 9.98 9.9 1.45 - 23.26 12.4 - 14.9 6 Fast-food with Drive-Through Window, Saturday (GFA) 8.7 9.9 0.98 - 18.0 12.4 - 14.9 6 Fast-food without Drive-Through Window (Hamburger), Weekday (GFA) 12.4 9.9 7.14 – 14.6 12.4 - 14.9 6 Fast-food w/o Drive-Through Window (Non-Hamburger), Weekday (GFA) 8.2 9.9 1.41 – 29.17 12.4 - 14.9 6 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 10.4 15.3 2.96 – 37.5 19.1 – 23.0 8 Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window, Weekday (GFA) 13.56 15.3 3.49 – 19.31 19.1 – 23.0 8 Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window, Saturday (GFA) 14.44 15.3 14.0 – 14.67 19.1 – 23.0 8 Shopping Center, Non-Friday Weekday in December (GLA) 3.76 3.7 1.44 - 7.37 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Non-Friday Weekday in Non-December (GLA) 2.55 3.7 1.33 - 5.58 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Friday in December (GLA) 3.96 3.7 1.47 – 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Shopping Center, Saturday in December (GLA) 4.67 3.7 2.01 – 7.5 5.1 - 6.2 3 Drive-in Bank, Weekday (GFA) 4.0 4.3 1.5 - 7.91 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 Drive-in Bank, Saturday (GFA) 3.47 4.3 1.44 - 8.0 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 GFA = Gross Floor Area GLA = Gross Leasable Area Light red shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum equals or exceeds ITE Average Peak Period Demand Light blue shading indicates that City of Tigard minimum is less than ITE Average Peak Period Demand by less than 0.1 spaces/1,000 square feet FINDINGS FROM TABLE 2 COMPARISON:  Fast Food with drive-through: The City’s minimum parking ratio is 0.01 spaces/1,000 square feet lower than the average peak period demand observed per ITE. This means the minimum is set at the expected (average) peak parking demand, instead of a reasonable range below it.  Fast Food without drive-through: The City’s minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand observed per ITE for hamburger-based restaurants and higher than ITE observations for non-hamburger restaurants. The result of the City’s current minimum standard is to create additional parking costs (i.e. barriers to entry) for certain restaurants to locate in Tigard.  Eating and drinking establishments (non fast-food): The City’s minimum parking ratio is lower than the average peak period demand for some uses observed per ITE (quality restaurant) while the City’s minimum parking ratio is higher than average peak period demand for other ITE sub-categories such as high-turnover sit-down restaurants and Parking Needs Comparison Project #: 11300 March 12, 2013 Appendix Page: 1-3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon coffee/donut shops. Similar to fast-food restaurants, the result of the City’s current minimum standard is to create parking related barriers to entry for some types of restaurants.  Shopping Center: The City’s minimum parking ratio is higher than typical average weekday peak period demand but lower than December-peak period demand observed per ITE. As a result, the parking minimum is set to a level that meets or exceeds typical peak parking requirements for 11 months of the year.  Drive-in Bank: The City’s minimum parking ratio exceeds the average peak period demand observed per ITE, creating a potential barrier to entry for banks seeking to locate in Tigard. FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\11300 - TIGARD SITE REDEVELOPMENT\PARKING\11300_PARKING RATE_LTR.DOCX March 29, 2013 Project #: 11300 Noel Johnson Killian Pacific 500 E Broadway, Suite 110 Vancouver, WA 98660 RE: Parking Study of Various Sites in Tigard, Oregon Dear Noel, Pursuant to your request and conversations with City of Tigard staff, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. conducted weekday and weekend parking studies of six properties in Tigard. This letter provides a brief summary of the data collection process and the observed parking rates by time of day. The parking counts as well as graphical summaries of parking demand and occupancy rates are provided by time of day for further use by interested parties. Data Collection Parking data were collected at six locations in Tigard during a typical mid-week day and Saturday in March 2013. Parking supply at each parking lot was noted and hourly parking demand was measured throughout the day. Parking data was generally collected between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM, with data collection hours varying by site based on the type of land use, hours of operation, and expected peak parking characteristics. Table 1 below identifies the locations of the six sites studied. Table 1 Parking Demand Study Sites – Tigard, Oregon Study Site Address Total Building Size (square feet) Parking Supply1 (spaces) Scholls Ferry McDonald's 12388 SW Scholls Ferry Road 6,682 66 Greenway Shopping Center 12220 SW Scholls Ferry Road 139,169 452 Buster’s Barbecue 11419 SW Pacific Highway 9,421 116 Pacific Crossroads 11705 SW Pacific Highway 39,340 156 Wells Fargo Bank 11760 SW Hall Boulevard 7,550 32 Nimbus Center 10115 SW Nimbus Avenue 26,281 93 1 Includes handicapped spaces The parking count worksheets are included in Attachment “A.” Tigard Commercial Sites Parking Generation Rates Project #: 11300.10 March 29, 2013 Page: 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Parking Demand Rate Summary Parking demand rates (as a function of building area) were calculated for each site for mid-week and Saturday demand during the morning, mid-day, and afternoon peak hours. The observed peak parking data are summarized in Table 2 by time period. The shaded cells with bold text in Table 2 highlight peak observed parking demand for each site. Table 2 Peak Parking Demand Rates for Various Sites in Tigard1 Study Site Building Size (square feet) Parking Spaces Occupied Parking Rate By Time of Day (Spaces occupied per 1,000 square feet) Mid-week Saturday Mid-week Saturday AM Mid- day PM AM Mid- day PM AM Mid- day PM AM Mid- day PM Scholls Ferry McDonald's 6,682 15 41 23 51 38 49 2.24 6.14 3.44 7.63 5.69 7.33 Greenway Shopping Center 139,169 117 239 229 230 277 232 0.84 1.72 1.65 1.65 1.99 1.67 Buster’s Barbecue 9,421 12 36 41 14 28 48 1.27 3.82 4.35 1.49 2.97 5.10 Pacific Crossroads 39,340 43 71 55 44 98 86 1.09 1.80 1.40 1.12 2.49 2.19 Wells Fargo Bank 7,550 14 15 17 7 11 8 1.85 1.99 2.25 0.93 1.46 1.06 Nimbus Center 26,281 37 2 84 2 56 2 30 49 43 1.41 3.20 2.13 1.14 1.86 1.64 1 For the purposes of Table 2, AM is defined as occurring in the period before 11 AM, mid-day occurs between 11 AM and 2 PM, and PM occurs after 2 PM 2 Represents data collected in October2006 Please call me at (503) 535-7433 if you have any questions about this information. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Chris Brehmer, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments A. Raw Parking Data B. Parking Demand Profiles Attachment A Parking Data Worksheets Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 176 6 144 1 43 4 75 3 Time 7:00 AM 4 0 18 0 14 0 3 0 8:00 AM 9 0 20 0 12 0 9 0 9:00 AM 22 1 33 0 8 0 24 0 10:00 AM 40 0 34 0 8 0 35 0 11:00 AM 59 0 52 0 9 0 43 0 12:00 PM 94 3 57 2 18 0 47 0 1:00 PM 99 4 65 1 21 1 48 0 2:00 PM 78 2 49 0 18 0 37 0 3:00 PM 85 3 54 1 13 1 42 0 4:00 PM 54 1 39 1 18 1 42 0 5:00 PM 110 3 40 0 29 1 44 2 6:00 PM 98 3 40 0 26 0 38 1 7:00 PM 104 1 32 1 26 0 24 0 8:00 PM 57 1 14 0 29 0 21 0 9:00 PM 43 1 12 0 17 0 10 0 Zone 1 Zone 3 Zone 4 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Greenway Shopping Center Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Note: Semi blocking 2 handicapped and 4 regular spaces at 8:00 AM Note: Truck blocking 7 regular spaces at 11:00 AM Note: Truck blocking 6 regular spaces and truck blocking 5 regular spaces at 8:00 AM Note: Truck blocking 7 regular spaces from 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM Note: Truck blocking 5 regular spaces at 12:00 PM Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 62 4 Time 7:00 AM 14 0 8:00 AM 15 0 9:00 AM 15 0 10:00 AM 25 0 11:00 AM 31 0 12:00 PM 40 0 1:00 PM 40 1 2:00 PM 29 1 3:00 PM 17 1 4:00 PM 23 0 5:00 PM 16 0 6:00 PM 23 0 7:00 PM 18 0 8:00 PM 16 0 9:00 PM 9 0 Note: Truck taking up 8 regular stalls and 1 handicapped stall from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Note: Service truck blocked 3 regular stalls at 8:00 PM Portland, OR 97224 Tuesday 3/19/2013 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Scholls Ferry McDonalds Occupied Stalls Parking Utilization Survey Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 113 3 Time 11:00 AM 12 0 12:00 PM 36 0 1:00 PM 30 0 2:00 PM 14 0 3:00 PM 17 0 4:00 PM 19 0 5:00 PM 18 0 6:00 PM 33 1 7:00 PM 40 1 Buster's Barbeque Occupied Stalls 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 120 2 33 1 Time 11:00 AM 37 0 6 0 12:00 PM 47 0 7 0 1:00 PM 60 0 11 0 2:00 PM 45 1 5 0 3:00 PM 47 0 3 0 4:00 PM 34 1 7 0 5:00 PM 43 1 11 0 6:00 PM 41 0 12 0 7:00 PM 37 0 10 0 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Pacific Crossroads Zone 2Zone 1 Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 30 2 Time 9:00 AM 8 0 10:00 AM 10 0 11:00 AM 14 0 12:00 PM 14 1 1:00 PM 13 0 2:00 PM 17 0 3:00 PM 13 1 4:00 PM 10 0 5:00 PM 14 0 6:00 PM 6 0 Occupied Stalls Wells Fargo 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Tuesday 3/19/2013 16 2 8 5 S W 8 5 t h A v e n u e Ti g a r d , O R 9 7 2 2 4 Ph o n e : 5 0 3 - 6 2 0 - 4 2 4 2 Fa x : 5 0 3 6 2 0 - 4 5 4 5 ww w . q u a l i t y c o u n t s . n e t Nu m b u s C e n t e r P a r k i n g To t a l p a r k i n g s u p p l y = ( 8 9 ) 93 9 20 . 3 7 % 3 13 . 8 9 % 32 35 . 4 2 % 33 33 . 3 3 % 16 BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A To t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l 7: 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 9 1 1 3 4 . 3 8 % 8 8 2 4 . 2 4 % 4 4 2 5 . 0 0 % 7: 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 7 9 2 8 . 1 3 % 1 0 1 0 3 0 . 3 0 % 4 4 2 5 . 0 0 % 7: 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 1 0 1 1 3 4 . 3 8 % 1 0 1 0 3 0 . 3 0 % 6 6 3 7 . 5 0 % 7: 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 7 9 2 8 . 1 3 % 9 9 2 7 . 2 7 % 6 6 3 7 . 5 0 % 7: 4 0 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 3 9 1 2 3 7 . 5 0 % 1 0 1 0 3 0 . 3 0 % 6 6 3 7 . 5 0 % 7: 5 0 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 3 7 1 0 3 1 . 2 5 % 9 9 2 7 . 2 7 % 5 5 3 1 . 2 5 % 8: 0 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 % 0 0 . 0 0 % 3 8 1 1 3 4 . 3 8 % 9 9 2 7 . 2 7 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 8: 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 4 7 1 1 3 4 . 3 8 % 1 7 1 7 5 1 . 5 2 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 8: 2 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 7 7 1 4 4 3 . 7 5 % 1 3 1 3 3 9 . 3 9 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 8: 3 0 2 2 2 2 . 2 2 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 5 9 1 4 4 3 . 7 5 % 1 0 1 0 3 0 . 3 0 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 8: 4 0 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 4 7 1 1 3 4 . 3 8 % 1 6 1 6 4 8 . 4 8 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 8: 5 0 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 5 8 1 3 4 0 . 6 3 % 1 1 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 8 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 5 1 7 0 2 2 5 0 0 5 4 1 9 5 0 1 3 6 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 2 0 7 9 0 7 9 3 7 4 88 . 8 9 % 66 . 6 7 % 72 . 9 2 % 72 . 4 7 % BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o ta l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l 11 : 0 0 6 6 6 6 . 6 7 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 1 1 1 5 2 6 8 1 . 2 5 % 2 8 2 8 8 4 . 8 5 % 1 4 1 4 8 7 . 5 0% 11 : 1 0 1 7 8 8 8 . 8 9 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 1 0 1 6 2 6 8 1 . 2 5 % 2 4 2 4 7 2 . 7 3 % 1 6 1 6 1 0 0 .0 0 % 11 : 2 0 1 6 7 7 7 . 7 8 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 5 2 0 2 5 7 8 . 1 3 % 2 7 2 7 8 1 . 8 2 % 1 5 1 5 9 3 . 7 5% 11 : 3 0 7 7 7 7 . 7 8 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 3 2 3 2 6 8 1 . 2 5 % 2 5 2 5 7 5 . 7 6 % 1 7 1 7 1 0 6 . 2 5% 11 : 4 0 9 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 2 2 0 2 2 6 8 . 7 5 % 3 0 3 0 9 0 . 9 1 % 1 8 1 8 1 1 2 . 50 % 11 : 5 0 8 8 8 8 . 8 9 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 1 7 1 7 5 3 . 1 3 % 1 7 1 7 5 1 . 5 2 % 1 5 1 5 9 3 . 7 5 % 12 : 0 0 9 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 2 1 7 1 9 5 9 . 3 8 % 1 9 1 9 5 7 . 5 8 % 1 5 1 5 9 3 . 7 5% 12 : 1 0 9 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 5 1 5 2 0 6 2 . 5 0 % 2 3 2 3 6 9 . 7 0 % 1 3 1 3 8 1 . 2 5% 12 : 2 0 9 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 4 1 6 2 0 6 2 . 5 0 % 2 3 2 3 6 9 . 7 0 % 1 1 1 1 6 8 . 7 5% 12 : 3 0 9 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 6 2 2 2 8 8 7 . 5 0 % 2 4 2 4 7 2 . 7 3 % 1 2 1 2 7 5 . 0 0% 12 : 4 0 8 8 8 8 . 8 9 % 2 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 5 2 3 2 8 8 7 . 5 0 % 2 8 2 8 8 4 . 8 5 % 1 1 1 1 6 8 . 7 5 % 12 : 5 0 7 7 7 7 . 7 8 % 3 3 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 7 1 6 2 3 7 1 . 8 8 % 1 9 1 9 5 7 . 5 8 % 1 1 1 1 6 8 . 7 5% 2 9 4 0 9 6 24 0 0 2 4 6 0 2 2 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 8 7 0 2 8 7 0 1 6 8 1 6 8 8 5 5 61 . 1 1 % 19 . 4 4 % 48 . 9 6 % 42 . 9 3 % BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o ta l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l 4: 0 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 16 5 0 . 0 0 % 11 3 3 . 3 3 % 15 9 3 . 7 5 % 4: 1 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 0. 0 0 % 19 5 9 . 3 8 % 12 3 6 . 3 6 % 15 9 3 . 7 5 % 4: 2 0 6 6 6 . 6 7 % 0. 0 0 % 13 4 0 . 6 3 % 12 3 6 . 3 6 % 14 8 7 . 5 0 % 4: 3 0 6 6 6 . 6 7 % 0. 0 0 % 13 4 0 . 6 3 % 13 3 9 . 3 9 % 14 8 7 . 5 0 % 4: 4 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 0. 0 0 % 16 5 0 . 0 0 % 17 5 1 . 5 2 % 14 8 7 . 5 0 % 4: 5 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 0. 0 0 % 16 5 0 . 0 0 % 19 5 7 . 5 8 % 13 8 1 . 2 5 % 5: 0 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 0. 0 0 % 17 5 3 . 1 3 % 15 4 5 . 4 5 % 13 8 1 . 2 5 % 5: 1 0 6 6 6 . 6 7 % 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 17 5 3 . 1 3 % 15 4 5 . 4 5 % 11 6 8 . 7 5 % 5: 2 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 17 5 3 . 1 3 % 15 4 5 . 4 5 % 8 5 0 . 0 0 % 5: 3 0 7 7 7 . 7 8 % 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 16 5 0 . 0 0 % 16 4 8 . 4 8 % 5 3 1 . 2 5 % 5: 4 0 6 6 6 . 6 7 % 2 6 6 . 6 7 % 15 4 6 . 8 8 % 12 3 6 . 3 6 % 5 3 1 . 2 5 % 5: 5 0 5 5 5 . 5 6 % 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 13 4 0 . 6 3 % 13 3 9 . 3 9 % 4 2 5 . 0 0 % 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 8 8 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 6 2 Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) TI M E Ar e a A ( 9 ) TI M E Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) Ar e a D ( 3 3 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) Ar e a D ( 3 3 ) 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 6 Ar e a D ( 3 3 ) Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) TI M E Ar e a A ( 9 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) Ar e a A ( 9 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) 16 2 8 5 S W 8 5 t h A v e n u e Ti g a r d , O R 9 7 2 2 4 Ph o n e : 5 0 3 - 6 2 0 - 4 2 4 2 Fa x : 5 0 3 6 2 0 - 4 5 4 5 ww w . q u a l i t y c o u n t s . n e t Nu m b u s C e n t e r P a r k i n g To t a l p a r k i n g s u p p l y = ( 8 9 ) 9 0. 9 3 % 3 16 . 6 7 % 32 23 . 9 6 % 33 24 . 2 4 % 16 57 . 8 1 % 9 3 i n d i v i d u a l 2 7 . 4 2 % BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A To t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l % A v e T o ta l % A v e 7: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 0 . 2 1 9 5 5 0 . 1 5 2 4 4 0 . 2 5 1 6 1 7 . 2 0 % 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 0 . 2 1 9 6 6 0 . 1 8 2 4 4 0 . 2 5 1 7 1 8 . 2 8 % 7: 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 0 . 2 1 9 4 4 0 . 1 2 1 4 4 0 . 2 5 1 5 1 6 . 1 3 % 7: 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 0 . 2 5 4 4 0 . 1 2 1 5 5 0 . 3 1 3 1 7 1 8 . 2 8 % 7: 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 . 1 8 8 9 9 0 . 2 7 3 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 2 7 2 9 . 0 3 % 7: 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 . 1 5 6 5 5 0 . 1 5 2 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 2 2 2 3 . 6 6 % 8: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 5 8 0 . 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 . 3 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 3 1 3 3 . 3 3 % 8: 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 2 7 9 0 . 2 8 1 1 0 1 0 0 . 3 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 3 2 3 4 . 4 1 % 8: 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 6 9 0 . 2 8 1 1 3 1 3 0 . 3 9 4 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 3 5 3 7 . 6 3 % 8: 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 2 5 7 0 . 2 1 9 8 8 0 . 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 0 . 7 5 2 8 3 0 . 1 1 % 8: 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 0 0 . 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 . 3 6 4 1 1 1 1 0 . 6 8 8 3 4 3 6 . 5 6 % 8: 5 0 1 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 4 5 9 0 . 2 8 1 1 0 1 0 0 . 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 . 6 8 8 3 2 3 4 . 41 % 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 6 3 0 6 2 0 9 2 0 9 6 0 9 6 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 6 93 . 5 2 % 38 . 8 9 % 79 . 9 5 % 72 . 4 7 % 11 2 . 5 0 % 82 . 8 9 % BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o ta l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e 11 : 0 0 7 7 0 . 7 7 7 8 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 5 2 0 2 5 0 . 7 8 1 2 4 2 4 0 . 7 2 7 1 9 1 9 1 . 1 8 8 7 6 81 . 7 2 % 11 : 1 0 7 7 0 . 7 7 7 8 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 5 0 . 7 8 1 2 4 2 4 0 . 7 2 7 1 9 1 9 1 . 1 8 8 7 6 81 . 7 2 % 11 : 2 0 1 7 8 0 . 8 8 8 9 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 4 1 7 2 1 0 . 6 5 6 2 2 2 2 0 . 6 6 7 1 9 1 9 1 . 1 8 8 7 1 7 6 . 3 4 % 11 : 3 0 2 7 9 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 5 1 5 2 0 0 . 6 2 5 2 0 2 0 0 . 6 0 6 1 8 1 8 1 . 1 2 5 6 8 7 3 . 1 2% 11 : 4 0 1 7 8 0 . 8 8 8 9 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 5 1 8 2 3 0 . 7 1 9 1 2 4 2 5 0 . 7 5 8 1 9 1 9 1 . 1 8 8 76 8 1 . 7 2 % 11 : 5 0 8 8 0 . 8 8 8 9 1 1 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 7 1 9 2 6 0 . 8 1 3 1 2 0 2 1 0 . 6 3 6 1 8 1 8 1 . 1 2 5 75 8 0 . 6 5 % 12 : 0 0 1 8 9 1 1 1 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 6 2 1 2 7 0 . 8 4 4 1 2 2 2 3 0 . 6 9 7 1 8 1 8 1 . 1 2 5 7 9 8 4 .9 5 % 12 : 1 0 2 8 1 0 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 8 1 9 2 7 0 . 8 4 4 1 2 4 1 2 6 0 . 7 8 8 1 8 1 8 1 . 1 25 8 2 8 8 . 1 7 % 12 : 2 0 1 7 8 0 . 8 8 8 9 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 7 2 0 2 7 0 . 8 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 0 . 6 9 7 1 8 1 8 1 . 1 2 5 77 8 2 . 8 0 % 12 : 3 0 1 8 9 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 6 2 2 2 8 0 . 8 7 5 2 3 1 2 4 0 . 7 2 7 1 7 1 7 1 . 0 6 3 7 9 8 4 . 95 % 12 : 4 0 1 8 9 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 1 0 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 5 1 2 8 0 . 8 4 8 1 7 1 7 1 . 0 6 3 8 7 9 3 . 5 5 % 12 : 5 0 1 8 9 1 1 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 8 1 8 2 6 0 . 8 1 3 1 2 5 1 2 7 0 . 8 1 8 1 6 1 6 1 7 9 8 4 . 9 5 % 11 9 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 4 7 5 2 3 2 0 3 0 7 7 2 7 5 5 2 8 7 0 2 1 6 2 1 6 9 2 5 59 . 2 6 % 44 . 4 4 % 55 . 7 3 % 49 . 7 5 % 89 . 5 8 % 59 . 4 1 % BK O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o ta l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e B K O f f i c e A D A T o t a l A v e 16 : 0 0 6 0 . 6 6 6 7 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 16 0 . 5 14 0 . 4 2 4 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 2 5 5 . 9 1 % 16 : 1 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 16 0 . 5 14 0 . 4 2 4 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 2 5 5 . 9 1 % 16 : 2 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 15 0 . 4 6 9 17 0 . 5 1 5 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 3 5 6 . 9 9 % 16 : 3 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 15 0 . 4 6 9 19 0 . 5 7 6 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 5 5 9 . 1 4 % 16 : 4 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 15 0 . 4 6 9 15 0 . 4 5 5 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 1 5 4 . 8 4 % 16 : 5 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 16 0 . 5 18 0 . 5 4 5 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 5 5 9 . 1 4 % 17 : 0 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 19 0 . 5 9 4 16 0 . 4 8 5 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 7 6 1 . 2 9 % 17 : 1 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 20 0 . 6 2 5 13 0 . 3 9 4 15 0 . 9 3 8 5 5 5 9 . 1 4 % 17 : 2 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 1 2 3 0 . 7 1 9 15 0 . 4 5 5 13 0 . 8 1 3 5 8 6 2 . 3 7 % 17 : 3 0 7 0 . 7 7 7 8 2 0 . 6 6 6 7 20 0 . 6 2 5 17 0 . 5 1 5 1 1 2 0 . 7 5 5 8 6 2 . 3 7 % 17 : 4 0 6 0 . 6 6 6 7 1 0 . 3 3 3 3 19 0 . 5 9 4 20 0 . 6 0 6 13 0 . 8 1 3 5 9 6 3 . 4 4 % 17 : 5 0 5 0 . 5 5 5 6 0 0 20 0 . 6 2 5 19 0 . 5 7 6 1 1 4 0 . 8 7 5 5 8 6 2 . 3 7 % 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 1 1 1 7 2 6 6 3 Ar e a D ( 3 3 ) Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) TI M E Ar e a A ( 9 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) TI M E Ar e a A ( 9 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) A r e a D ( 3 3 ) Ar e a E ( 1 6 ) 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 6 TI M E Ar e a A ( 9 ) Ar e a B ( 3 ) Ar e a C ( 3 2 ) A r e a D ( 3 3 ) Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 176 6 144 1 43 4 75 3 Time 10:00 AM 138 2 50 0 19 1 20 0 11:00 AM 170 3 66 0 13 1 23 0 12:00 PM 156 4 66 1 19 0 31 0 1:00 PM 150 4 53 1 19 0 33 0 2:00 PM 126 5 52 0 17 1 30 1 3:00 PM 108 4 40 1 18 1 31 0 4:00 PM 120 3 39 1 27 0 24 0 5:00 PM 100 4 37 0 25 1 12 0 6:00 PM 107 1 48 1 32 2 18 0 7:00 PM 100 2 42 1 35 0 13 0 Occupied Stalls Greenway Shopping Center Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 62 4 Time 10:00 AM 49 2 11:00 AM 34 0 12:00 PM 37 1 1:00 PM 34 0 2:00 PM 44 1 3:00 PM 49 0 4:00 PM 32 0 5:00 PM 29 0 6:00 PM 21 0 7:00 PM 25 0 Note: Tractor occupying 3 regular stalls at 10:00 AM Portland, OR 97224 Saturday 3/16/2013 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Scholls Ferry McDonalds Occupied Stalls Parking Utilization Survey Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 9021320313160 Time 10:00 AM 40001508030 11:00 AM 40101808120 12:00 PM 401022019120 1:00 PM 401019014020 2:00 PM 901017013120 3:00 PM 702018010020 4:00 PM 601118011230 5:00 PM 800016016120 6:00 PM 60001207020 7:00 PM 8000708020 Occupied StallsOccupied Stalls Nimbus Center Zone EZone DZone CZone BZone A 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Occupied StallsOccupied StallsOccupied Stalls Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 113 3 Time 11:00 AM 14 0 12:00 PM 16 0 1:00 PM 27 1 2:00 PM 38 1 3:00 PM 38 2 4:00 PM 34 1 5:00 PM 31 3 6:00 PM 47 1 7:00 PM 41 1 Note: Truck occupying 2 regular stalls at 3:00 PM -- Truck occupying 3 regular stalls at 4:00 PM Buster's Barbeque Occupied Stalls 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 120 2 33 1 Time 11:00 AM 31 0 13 0 12:00 PM 54 0 8 0 1:00 PM 86 1 11 0 2:00 PM 79 1 6 0 3:00 PM 71 1 5 0 4:00 PM 61 1 5 0 5:00 PM 59 0 11 0 6:00 PM 45 1 11 0 7:00 PM 34 0 11 0 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/16/2013 Occupied Stalls Occupied Stalls Pacific Crossroads Zone 2Zone 1 Stall Classification Re g u l a r St a l l s Ha n d i ca p p e d Available Stalls 30 2 Time 9:00 AM 1 0 10:00 AM 7 0 11:00 AM 10 1 12:00 PM 9 0 1:00 PM 9 0 2:00 PM 8 0 3:00 PM 2 0 4:00 PM 2 0 5:00 PM 2 0 6:00 PM 1 0 Occupied Stalls Wells Fargo 7409 SW Tech Center Dr, Ste 150 Portland, OR 97224 Parking Utilization Survey Saturday 3/23/2013 Attachment B Parking Demand Profiles 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Scholls Ferry McDonald's -Tuesday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 2.10 2.242.24 3.74 4.64 5.99 6.14 4.49 2.69 3.44 2.39 3.44 2.69 2.39 1.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Scholls Ferry McDonald's -Tuesday Parking Rate Per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) -Tuesday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 0.28 0.36 0.63 0.84 1.17 1.59 1.72 1.32 1.43 1.12 1.65 1.48 1.35 0.88 0.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) -Tuesday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Pacific Crossroads (all zones) -Tuesday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.09 1.37 1.80 1.30 1.27 1.07 1.40 1.35 1.19 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Pacific Crossroads (all zones) -Tuesday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Buster's Barbecue -Tuesday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.27 3.82 3.18 1.49 1.80 2.02 1.91 3.61 4.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Buster's Barbecue -Tuesday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Wells Fargo -Tuesday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.06 1.32 1.85 1.99 1.72 2.25 1.85 1.32 1.85 0.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Wells Fargo -Tuesday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM % O c c u p a n c y Time of Day Nimbus Center Total Utilization on October 18th, 2006 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM % O c c u p a n c y Time of Day Nimbus Center Total Utilization on October 19th, 2006 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Scholls Ferry McDonald's -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 7.63 5.09 5.69 5.09 6.73 7.33 4.79 4.34 3.14 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Scholls Ferry McDonald's -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.65 1.98 1.99 1.87 1.67 1.46 1.54 1.29 1.50 1.39 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Greenway Shopping Center (all zones) -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Nimbus Center (all zones) -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.14 1.29 1.86 1.52 1.64 1.48 1.60 1.64 1.03 0.95 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Nimbus Center (all zones) -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Pacific Crossroads (all zones) -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.12 1.58 2.49 2.19 1.96 1.70 1.78 1.45 1.14 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Pacific Crossroads (all zones) -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Buster's Barbecue -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 1.49 1.70 2.97 4.14 4.25 3.72 3.61 5.10 4.46 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Buster's Barbecue -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pa r k i n g O c c u p a n c y % Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Time of Day Wells Fargo -Saturday Regular Stalls Occupied Handicapped Stalls Occupied Total Supply Available Parking Occupancy 0.13 0.93 1.46 1.191.19 1.06 0.260.260.26 0.130.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Pa r k i n g R a t e Time of Day Wells Fargo -Saturday Parking Rate per 1,000 Square Feet 5415 SW Westgate Drive Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 USA Phone (503) 419-2500 Fax (503) 419-2600 www.cardno.com MEMORANDUM Australia ● Belgium ● Indonesia ● Kenya ● New Zealand ● Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates ● United Kingdom ● United States ● Operations in 60 Countries To: Noel Johnson, Vice President Killian Pacific noel@killianpacific.com From: Michael Cerbone, AICP Date: February 8, 2013 Project: Text amendment to support reduced parking minimums CardnoWRG#: Re: Supplemental information to support the requested parking minimum text amendment This memo is presented to provide supplemental information to support the text amendment to reduce the minimum parking ratio for specific commercial uses in the City of Tigard. The applicant, Killian Pacific, owns and operates commercial, residential and e mployment properties through the metropolitan region. The applicant’s primary concern when developing and commercial sites is that there is adequate parking to support the tenants and uses within the center. If there is not adequate parking they will not be able to lease storefronts. For reference, the following table summarizes the current and proposed parking ratios for specific uses in the City of Tigard. Land Use Current Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Proposed Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Sales Oriented 3.7 3 Bank with Drive Thru 4.3 2.7 Restaurant (fast food) 9.9 6 Restaurant (sit down) 15.3 8 These ratios are based on two methodologies undertaken—1) a parking comparison of existing commercial centers in the region (provided as Exhibit B in the original submittal) and 2) a comparative analysis of jurisdictional minimum parking standards throughout the Portland Metro region. Based on the analysis conducted under the comparison of existing commercial centers, findings demonstrate that the application of the current Tigard parking ratios would require significant additional acreage, essentially making the project unfeasible . The comparative analysis of jurisdictional standards demonstrates that the requested minimum parking ratios generally fall in the middle of the parking requirement spectrum. As shown in the previously submitted Exhibit A- Comparison of Minimum Parking Standards, jurisdictions requiring lower parking ratios for both fast food and sit-down restaurants include:  Gresham (8/1,000 for sit down; 6/1,000 for fast food with drive-thru),  Beaverton (10/1,000 for sit down),  Milwaukee (4/1,000 for both), and  Oregon City (4.1/1,000 for both). 2011 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS (EOA) The 2011 EOA prepared by Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC summarizes the commercial land needs for the City of Tigard. There are three assumed land need scenarios—efficient, moderate, and high land need scenarios. Under the efficient land need scenario there is a land surplus of 8 acres February 11, 2013 of vacant commercial land, while the medium and high land need scenarios show a deficit of 19 and 45 acres, respectively. As stated in the EOA, “As Tigard’s population and employment levels increase with time, and vacant land diminishes, the City will need to rely more upon redevelopment areas, and productivity increases from existing developed lands to achieve long-term economic strength and diversity.” As demonstrated in the previously submitted Exhibit B—Parking Comparison of Existing Commercial Centers, efficient or even moderate land need scenarios will be better achieved by reducing the minimum parking requirements for commercial development. The successful commercial centers around the Portland Metro region provide parking at a ratio of 5 stalls per 1,000 SF of total leasable space, which does save critical land that can be used for more efficient land uses and intensities. As an example provided in Exhibit B, the Nimbus Center would require 35 additional spaces requiring approximately 0.36 acres of additional land to develop under the current minimum parking requirements. Under the proposed standards a surplus of 5 stalls would exist. This text amendment request will achieve greater productivity from developed lands by reducing the area dedicated to vehicle parking. RESULTS OF THE 2011 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES SURVEY A memo from the 2011 Community Attitudes Survey summarized the key findings from a telephone survey conducted among a representative sample of 400 residents age 18 and older in the City of Tigard. Key findings applicable to commercial development and our requested text amendment include: 1) residents desire more family-friendly restaurants, upscale restaurants, and grocery stores in Tigard and 2) increased dining options were mentioned most frequently as a reason for residents traveling outside Tigard. If this trend continues and Tigard continues to have one of the highest parking requirements in the region for sit down restaurants, these uses will be the most difficult to attract to existing developments. THE STATUS OF THE ELMO STUDD’S SITE REDEVELOPMENT As noted in the memo addressed to Marty Wine and Kenny Asher, attached with this document, Killian Pacific has worked with Kittelson & Associates to maintain the full movement intersection that currently exists at SW Fanno Creek Place and the Elmo Studd’s Building Supplies location. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has rejected the findings made by Kittelson, asserting that redevelopment would necessitate a right-in/right-out intersection. This discrepancy results even after Kittelson completed a study according to a mutually agreed upon scope. SUMMARY This supplemental information provides further evidence to support the text amendment request to reduce the minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\040113\tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 1 of 6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 1, 2013 CALL TO ORDER President Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Anderson Commissioner Feeney Commissioner Fitzgerald Commissioner Gaschke Commissioner Muldoon Vice President Rogers Absent: Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Judith Gray, Sr. Transportation Planner COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Fitzgerald reported that she and Commissioner Shavey had attended the Downtown Public Art Visioning on the 27th of March. She found it very interesting to see what guidance the artist got to work on the new key entrances to Downtown Tigard. She said the artist will come back with some sketches, models, to get the next round of ideas through the committee. She thinks this is a very talented artist and she believes it will be something good. She reported about 20 people showed up; a good turnout. CONSIDER MINUTES March 18th Meeting Minutes: President Anderson asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the March 18th minutes; there being none, Anderson declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - OPENED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2013-00001 - OFF STREET PARKING MODIFICATIONS I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\040113\tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 2 of 6 REQUEST: The applicant has proposed amendments to chapter 18.765 - Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code. These modifications include reducing the minimum parking requirements for specific uses listed in Table 18.765.2 (Eating and Drinking Establishments, Sales-Oriented Retail, and Personal Services – bank with drive through) and modifying the minimum parking requirement percentages for mixed-use developments. (18.765.030.D). LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R-25 & R-40 residential zones, all commercial zones and all industrial zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 6, Environmental Quality; Goal 9, Economic Development; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 9. President Anderson read some required statements. No commissioners wished to abstain or declare a conflict of interest. No one in the audience wished to challenge any member of the Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. It was noted that Commissioners Tim Gaschke and Matt Muldoon had both received public notices on this case as they live within the affected area. Vice President Jason Rogers had made a site visit. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Cheryl Caines introduced herself and went over the staff report. [Staff reports are available one week before the meeting.] She noted that this is a citywide proposal for reduction in minimum parking ratios for restaurants, retail shops and banks with drive- thru. The other part of the proposed code amendment is lowering the percentages for mixed- use or multi-tenant developments such as shopping strip malls and mixed-use development. Cheryl went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A She gave some background ). information regarding the establishment of the minimum parking ratios in table 18.765.2; she noted they were established by Metro in 1998 as regional highest minimums recommended for cities to apply. Tigard adopted those ratios straight from Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan. There’s been no modification to them since that time. Cheryl turned the microphone over to Judith Gray, Sr. Transportation Planner to speak about parking ratios. She referred to a slide to help in her explanation She pointed out (Exhibit B). that the “Shopping Center” portion of the slide was incorrect. It showed staff’s recommendation at 3.7 when, in fact, they are at 3 – which means they are recommending accepting the applicant’s proposal in that area. She said the City appreciates the initiative that the applicant is taking to improve City code. It helps the City move in the general direction they would like to go, and also provides flexibility for other developers. She gave reasons why this is a good thing: She noted this is a minimum ratio – developers would still be able to provide more – they just won’t be required to provide this as a minimum; that’s important and that helps. She said there are a few mitigating factors in this case that give some flexibility, some protection; one is that it is a minimum ratio, another is that it’s fairly limited to just a few land uses. With that in mind – that’s why the staff recommendation moves pretty far and in the right direction. Cheryl added that, as stated in the staff report, this may not be the ideal way of looking at the ratios, as Judith pointed out, but it is the direction that the City has been going and so in the recommendation and the analysis, the thought was that this could be I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\040113\tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 3 of 6 possibly a bridge to where we want to go. It will alleviate some issues and it will encourage some economic development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment as amended by staff and with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. This recommended approval is contingent upon the applicant’s submittal of parking counts showing the amendments will result in adequate on-site parking for the impacted uses and developments and will not adversely impact adjacent streets, residential neighborhoods, or commercial developments. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Commissioner Muldoon: Is there any assumption that there will be improved mass transit? No, it’s strictly looking at the ratios and the percentages for the mixed-use developments. Commissioner Feeney: I understand the recommendations of the City adjusting it; why no change to the drive-in bank? I’m just wondering why we want to keep that in the current City code. It was based upon Exhibit E of the applicant’s materials, the review of parking proposed minimums relative to ITE parking generation. In looking at the range that was shown in that information, we didn’t feel that that data supported lowering the number; that’s why we recommended no change. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION – Noel Johnson, Killian Pacific, 500 East Broadway St., Vancouver, WA introduced himself and his colleague, Phil Bretsch, also of Killian Pacific. Mr. Johnson explained why they were bringing this forward. He noted that he realizes it’s somewhat unusual for an applicant to bring forward a text amendment that is a citywide proposal. He explained the genesis of this decision; essentially it came out of a realization that a retail property they own “Nimbus Center” – is having some challenges and is unable to actually fill up with businesses. Problems occur when people want to locate businesses that may want to expand, or restaurants - and they simply aren’t able to because of the parking problem. They realized it would be worth Killian, partnering with the City, to try to fix this small problem for them (just a few thousand square feet of space) that they’d like to fill up. They recognized that as opposed to spending their money and time on a variance for this property specifically, they’d spend that same money and time to try to fix , not only their problem, but a problem that exists in every other retail, restaurant, or bank establishment in Tigard. He said they looked at four pieces of data: 1. Other cities – Killian develops throughout the whole Portland Metropolitan area. They asked themselves – “What is working there? What’s successful there?” I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\040113\tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 4 of 6 2. See what other good developers that build well have done in the suburban communities that have a similar parking dynamic and transit need. 3. They looked at the ITE averages and data. 4. They looked at specific local parking counts and did a study as to the amount of parking needed during peak times. Mr. Johnson said they don’t completely agree with staff – he believes there is too much conservatism there - they still like their numbers but are willing to be flexible. They just want a good result that they hope helps the City as well. He said they spent a total of $50,000 on this effort – far more than it’s worth just to fill up a few thousand square feet of retail, but he said it seemed like the right thing to do, Killian Pacific is a community focused business, having been here 40 years as a company, and planning to be here a lot longer; that’s their MO and that’s why they’re doing it. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – Gerald Kolve – his business, Canterbury Square Shopping Center, is located at 14389 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard 97214. He thanked them for hearing this. He spoke about an older commercial property that he owned and developed in 1972. He used that as a demonstration of how excessive the parking requirements of today are. He said if they applied the parking requirements of today and applied them back then, they would have had a requirement of 374 parking spaces. There isn’t enough land there, with the buildings, to be able to even come close to being able to provide 374 parking spaces. They’ve had retail tenants and have rarely exceeded 80% of the available parking at the center. He spoke about a vacancy he has at the center now of 7,400 square fee t. He’s had several inquiries by people who would like to go in, spend money, improve the place… but they can’t because they’d like to use it as a restaurant. As a restaurant use for that space, it would require 115 parking places. The space in question is about 9% of the square feet of the total feet of the total shopping center but that 9% would, under the present rules, take out almost 40% of the existing parking – so you have 91% of the tenants left to use what’s available of 60% and, obviously, it doesn’t even come close to being enough. He encouraged the commission to please carefully examine the existing requirements. He hopes they will approve what the applicant is requesting, as it is indeed much more in line with common sense. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – Julie Blume, 6875 SW Pine Street, Tigard 97223 just wanted them to look carefully at the parking – make sure there’s enough parking so there’s not a bunch of problematic overflow parking from the bar there on weekends. Cheryl Caines mentioned that there was an email that had been submitted by Marvin Gerr who’s the liaison of the Tigard Summerfield Civic Association. He’d asked that the email be passed out and considered by the commissioners Basically it spoke about what (Exhibit C). kind of impact this might have on parking at the clubhouse at Summerfield. Cheryl said she’d spoken to him on the telephone that afternoon and told him she wasn’t foreseeing any significant impact on Summerfield due to the distance. Mr. Gerr was present, and there weren’t any questions by the commissioners. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\040113\tpc 040113 minutes.docx Page 5 of 6 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS Commissioner Feeney asked if this would be an interim move. Is the City still doing a full study? Yes – we feel this shouldn’t be the end of that discussion because the TSP says look at the ratios but it also says look at the other items that make up that whole parking management system. So this is just one piece of that. Commissioner Fitzgerald said she didn’t have a problem with the staff ratios, but she didn’t like the language above that. She wanted them to pull the term “residential” out of the equation. Sr. Transportation Planner said she believed this was beyond the scope of this particular study at this time. She thought they could clarify a bit better such as “This is for mixed commercial uses” so it wouldn’t be confused with residential. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mr. Johnson said “We’re more locally focused on where we’re driving our numbers. We put less weight, rightly or wrongly, on the ITE numbers which are a national average. They can be adjusted but you’re taking into consideration cities like Houston or Phoenix, which operate very differently than our Metropolitan area.” PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Anderson asked all the commissioners present to give their ideas on this.  Commissioner Rogers – I was a bit apprehensive originally but I do like what staff presented. More of a slower approach rather than jumping into it and changing it completely. It’s probably better to adopt this slowly.  Commissioner Feeney concurs with this. He thanked the applicant for bringing this forward. He agrees with staff’s recommendations… and would like a “meet in the middle” type of thing.  Commissioner Gaschke – agrees and likes the direction they’re going in. He agrees the parking ratios are extremely conservative and appreciates the applicant “greasing the skids” for Tigard to go in the right direction.  Commissioner Fitzgerald – Would like to go with the staff recommendations.  Commissioner Muldoon – any really big revitalization is dependent on improved mass transit.  Commissioner Anderson – appreciates the applicant bringing this forward. He likes the meet you halfway type of thing. MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Feeney: Off-Street Parking Code Modifications DCA2013-00001 Proposal •Citywide •Reduction in minimum parking ratios restaurants retail shops banks with drive-through •Lower percentages for mixed use or multi- tenant developments Background Information •Metro established minimum ratios (1998) •New development, redevelopment , and change of use •Sometimes limited by parking requirements •Overflow parking creates issues for residents •City Parking Code Review (estimated 2014) Applicant’s Information •Other jurisdictions •Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual •Local Parking Counts Other Jurisdictions Use Tigard Minimums Retail 3.7 2 - 4 Banks w/drive through 4.3 2 - 4.1 Fast Food 9.9 4 – 10 Other Restaurants 15.3 4 – 13.3 Land Use Type ITE Peak COT Min Applicant Staff Eating & Drinking Establishment, Fast Food 12.4 9.9 6 8 Eating & Drinking Establishment, Other 16.4 15.3 8 10 Shopping Center 4.67 3.7 3 3.7 Drive-In Bank 4 4.3 2.7 4.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Eating & Drinking Establishment, Fast Food Eating & Drinking Establishment, Other Shopping Center Drive-In Bank ITE Peak COT Min Applicant Staff Summary •Existing possibly high •Comprehensive review for code amendments •ITE and parking counts support staff recommendation Exhibit C From: Marvin Gerr Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:52 PM To: Cheryl Caines Cc: Darlene Young; Herb Stabenow; Cari Froeber, SCA Administrator Subject: Tonight's Meeting Questions for Submission Hello Ms Caines, Since this is the first time I will be attending a City of Tigard Council meeting as the Summerfield Civic Association Liaison, could you please submit the following questions for discussion: 1. What effect might this proposed change have on SCA increased thru traffic? 2. If the proposed change is enacted what effect could SCA see from increased outsider parking? 3. Can thereby any effect on parking at the SCA clubhouse? Thank you for your help. Marvin Gerr City of Tigard Summerfield Civic AssociationLiaison