Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/15/1989 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on .the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, MAY 15, 1989, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 6:30 0 STUDY SESSION 7:30 1. BUSINESS MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please) 3. APPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM J. SCHEIDERICH TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 89- 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-05 & ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-05; CROW OREGON, INC.; NPO #8 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Professional Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to C-P (Professional Commercial) for 9 parcels totalling approximately 1.84 acres. Also requested is an amendment to the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to revise alignment of Lincoln Street, LOCATION: 9220, 9260, 9330 Locust; 10175 92nd; 9225, 9255 Mapleleaf (WCTM 151 35AB, Tax Lots 700, 701, 702, 500, 501, 600, 900, and parts of 2800, 1002). o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges . o Summation By Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT TO NOISE ORDINANCE 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), & (h) to discuss Police Chief selection, labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT cw/9780D 4 COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 15, 1989 - PAGE 1 COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 TIMES PUBLISHING CONotice 7-6935 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RSC4mt/9 4•10 R • CITY OF TIGARD • 0 Tearsheet Notice MAV n R ip89 PO BOX 23397 • TIGARD, OR 97223 • ElDuplicate Affidavit CM Of MINIS ,'c ',' • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, ELAINE PFTROGFORGF. being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk,of the TIGARD TIMES a newspaper of general curculati,Hmulefined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at in the aforesaid county and state; that the PURT,IC, HEARTNG NC)TTC.R—MAY 15th a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and consecutive in the following issues: MAY 4, 1989 G9U Subsand swam to-. fore me this MAY 5, 1989 otary Public for Oregon My Commission;Expires: 9/20/92 AFFIDAVIT t "+, ,r • .a Q ' ...,42.41..,-4.-.1,...;;-.-44-t �"iY -�^,-, ol..ttY .441 ,''a'st t,41i'-i?r�- �� .464,-'4,,"'i '7..+ , ,: "07.4:▪ --::;it r , -0,_ i ..,_q,',` ar 1, i1 r,-,,,,Zi t. teit,i}p: �! it*A ,- "� — sa-,:-;'44111„.1,4,*4 4 D-1,Y"-P-,77114-1'4 k_ ' �.-,j ':- f_ i' - f� w* at' ..!1e'- t t K f f, •:y, 1 ti ~.t 4C '''xt { i Jt! sgg le i t} !1-t , eY it!lj,yil f Ltd 1-74 • �"' i �oC%.+e i u�`f 1'I L�, 1 T2 i lt. 9t_ 1 = 1. a�-r 4 � r P' . �4,,,1,4,3&r,7. z,NKl6 .} v4�t, ,, " r 9';> n l , ,-.Wsg , 7t`t '4{ .bytti !� `t tlti-1,-,--,)•,-p- ,-!j t 67`. 1.r R oz , S ; P, ',`'',17"�`, '�'"Y.., t. h, I,i c. + ,i-71-r 4t 4if r, ..i[rt- t-,-. o,^t 'PP ,f,,,,',11.1%-4,4„!4,,,', .sr�A^ ^ t "h� ^ 1 J a ,avt' i xa `5', ,d 'C+e i 4-071 9. �V?3ca i• -s f-4-1altif e J ;�p 3";5t 9 t,S. ,�+,i,12x,..^4'.r ,? A 5;C.4'. :, F' ,, L <i `-, L. w re ' {a.,�"\ }Cs.IA I:1 6- -1s4h 4j a., • 1 4� 'ffC ;-i-:.' ".__t:^',' t i t tiS �} Iga t4 .a-Yt `r tit r9J tl , it ,� .:� . ! c G4 ix n {4 ..r,;:.- 4 ` Z ?„,'.r t1 5 ' "4ri Z.,71 tl`i r i > J Z. 4 -i' 3 it �° X11`. •!..:011.,.:-.,,,..,-,••,-,.T., -,..----,----,; 1 tfj' 1� -v4it ti ti4 ''•{ ti-,l! :-- ii ) 4 4 4t} 7,, 1t7;:-,1. ,:,,,-.:..:,'„:1- ,";• r '7 • s4 C TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0380 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Notice 7-6942 Legal Notice Advertising e CITY OF TIGARD • 0 Tearsheet Notice PO BOX 23397 e T I G A R D , O R 97223 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- 1, ELATNF PFTR06FfIRGF being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising C Director, or his principal clerk, of the TIGARD TIMES a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T I G A R D aforesaid county and state; that the CITY CQlINCTl RF( 111 AR MFFTTNG NnTTCE a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 0 N E successive and consecutive in the following issues: MAY 11 , 1989 / a , /���� d.__� /. / Sub= ribed and sworn to . :fore me this MAY 12 , 1989 .;. 104 v �1�_a. Not:7� ublic for Oregon .- 4 ;!. . .,.1.Z n F3F K h , s}r f` r,...4.,,,,-.7.,,......;;_,732;-,-,,,,%;,‘,4.'0. ,, My Commission Expires: 9/2 0/92 •r -' �" ` ' '{..1 a�r��`-�a �-:�g y,r�It L rt st+<{�}r �„�s .1-..25,1.):,1(4,4,$ AFFIDAVIT v i(i , n r' 1; tl {t 1 s'e' !F t 1 Ct �at 3 4 Ili r • Y...:-0.,,A r r +wii'-7.2.as". -± '(y,h r4�,,2 , 'i '.5.',,i''',. yIli-, a+j..,, fk: °7 ,,t-,7.-5,1,-;,:-::: S �l t �"�,--,....;'-'2-%'-',� TL�1�'r,� � !✓'i�rr J ° {1 � q t�aS � f� +F1 1�,,,-,-:;:::,;-r.4FYJ }x,.,'`,-.. ,,I).rlc ti <, ip t -5!;2:.-1Z:,: ", ,,' t.t,.:-1=-A'' Lii jt. x 7} cV t ; T I GAR D CITY COUNCIL r REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 - 6:30 P.M. ` 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz; City Staff: Pat Reilly, City Administrator; Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Jill Monley, Community Services Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. STUDY SESSION a. Volunteer Dinner - Community Services Director reviewed plans for the Volunteer Dinner to be held at Fowler Junior High on May 31st. b. Tree Policy - Community Development Director reviewed his memorandum concerning a "Tree Policy." The draft policy identified objectives for protection of existing trees as well as the question of whether citizens should be allowed to plant in public rights-of-way. Discussion followed. Concern was expressed over a policy of allowing citizens to plant trees on their own initiative -- this raised questions of liability and continued maintenance. Mayor said he thought this question should be researched to determine if property owners could be required to maintain landscaping in rights-of-way. There was discussion on planting of trees on City street projects such as Durham Road. City Engineer reported that placing landscaping islands in the center of streets does sometimes slow down traffic. Consensus was to discuss this topic further during a June Study Agenda. c. City Engineer reviewed the Traffic Safety Bond Project Schedule: - Bonita Road (Hall-83rd) - Scheduled for July bid; 83rd-Fanno Creek 1991 Project Durham Road - signal @ Hall - ODOT agreement approved Street - survey work underway - Gaarde/99W - potential right-of-way acquired - design decision to follow Greenburg Road - Bridge + Tiedeman signal done - Wilsey & Ham designing for 1990 construction Locust Street - Scheduled for July bid. There was Council discussion on this item; staff will be preparing cost differentials between 2/3 and 1/2 street improvements. C Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 Main Street Project - Project selection by Council scheduled for May 22, 1989 - McDonald Street - Signal @ Hall - August bid; Street survey work beginning. Walnut Street - Scheduled for July bid 69th/99W - Scheduled for 1990 121st Avenue - Scheduled for August bid; Scholls intersection scheduled for 1990 (Earlier concerns expressed by neighbors have been addressed.) d. Councilor Kasten reported on status of MSTIP/2 proposal. He advised Beaverton was supportive of the program. Tigard currently has no projects listed in the proposal; however, some projects could be submitted to the technical review committee. Council discussed the need for assurance projects would be completed in the Tigard area; otherwise, they did not feel Tigard should support. e. In response to a request by Community Development Staff, Council consensus was to approve placement of signs on roads during Transportation Safety Bond Project construction. There was no objection to using "Terry the Tiger" on the signs. f. Council discussed the Public Hearing process scheduled for the agenda and asked staff to clarify some issues concerning traffic issues. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Larry G. Newth, 12180 S.W. Merestone, Tigard, Oregon, noted concern over Canadian geese near his home on 121st. He advised the water level in an old beaver dam was low; the geese habitat was threatened and there was a problem with mosquitos and odor. He requested help with dam restoration. Mayor requested staff work with Mr. Newth to determine if the City can be of assistance or if another government agency would be more appropriate. 4. BUDGET COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - WILLIAM J. SCHEIDERICH a. RESOLUTION NO. 89-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE b. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve Resolution No. 89-39. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-05 & ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-05; CROW OREGON, INC. ; NPO #8 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Professional Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to C-P (Professional Commercial) for 9 parcels totalling approximately 1.84 acres. Also requested is an amendment to the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to revise alignment of Lincoln Street. LOCATION: 9220, 9260, 9330 Locust; 10175 92nd; 9225, 9255 Mapleleaf (WCTM 1S1 35AB, Tax Lots 700, 701, 702, 500, 501, 600, 900, and parts of 2800, 1002) . a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Councilor Kasten declared he has had discussion with others concerning the subject of the public hearing; however, he would be able to participate and render an unbiased decision. c. Staff report by Senior Planner Liden: He referred to a map displayed for familiarization with the location. He noted the three components to the applicant's request as contained in the memorandum to the City Council from the Community Development Director dated, May 9, 1989. Staff has reviewed the application and has concluded the request satisfies all policies with the exception of concerns about traffic impacts. d. Public Testimony Proponents o Jack Steiger, 18436 S.W. Sandpiper, Lake Oswego, testified he owns property on Hall Boulevard and was in favor of the proposal. He said he believed Trammel-Crow would construct a good development for the City. o Mike Schrech, 10617 S.W. Windsor Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified in favor of the development because of economic benefits as well as amenities such as improved sidewalks. o Andrew Snyder, 12290 S.W. Foothill Boulevard, (Cedar Hills), Portland, Oregon, testified in favor of the request noting this development would improve the neighborhood. He said he believed Washington Square was the cause of most of the traffic problems and noted an office building would not have as much traffic impact as a retail development. o Doris Klein, 9220 S.W. Locust Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified she has owned property at this location for the last 20 years and was in favor of the project. o Brian Bean, 9225 S.W. Mapleleaf, Tigard, Oregon, testified in favor of the project to accommodate the proposed parking design. o Terri Bean, 9225 S.W. Mapleleaf, Tigard, Oregon, testified she was very much in favor of the proposal by Trammel-Crow. Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 o Brian Halverson, 10180 S.W. 93rd Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified his was the only residence which faces Trammel-Crow 1 at this time. If a large parking structure was built, he said his property value would decrease. He also advised he felt the traffic volume in the area on the weekends was as bad, if not worse, than during the weekdays. o Barry Helm, 9255 S.W. Mapleleaf, Tigard, Oregon, requested Council approve the project as proposed so a large parking structure would not be constructed. Councilor Johnson asked for clarification from Senior Planner Liden concerning the zoning in the area presently. He advised the Code does not specifically address parking structures; however, height of any structure was limited to 45 feet. o Lin Mcatee, 7039 S.W. Pine, Tigard, Oregon testified she has lived at this address for about five years and has observed previous Trammel-Crow development. She enjoys the lighted area and sidewalks. She said she was very much in favor of the development. o Ann Creswell, 8775 S.W. Locust, Tigard, Oregon, testified she agreed with Mr. Steiger in that it was inevitable that the area around Lincoln Center and Washington Square would be developed. She noted she has been impressed with Trammel-Crow's buildings and with their desire to preserve the integrity of the area. She said she was in favor of their request. o Mark Vander Yacht, 9125 S.W. Locust, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was a County resident. He said he also said he can see the development from his front-room window. He advised he was in favor of the request; he stated Trammel-Crow has improved the area. He noted a problem with Washington Square traffic problems. o Marty Presley, 9260 S.W. Locust, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was in favor of the project. o Michael Presley, 9260 S.W. Locust, Tigard, Oregon, said he was in favor of the zone change as well as the relocation of S.W. 93rd Avenue. o Rich Rogers, 9140 S.W. Locust, Tigard, Oregon, said he would live right next to the parking structure if it was built. He noted traffic problems attributable to Washington Square. He advised the street to the school was narrow and hazardous. Trammel-Crow agreed to allow people to park their cars in their parking lot during school functions; this would eliminate some of the traffic problems in the area. Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 o Cathy Chase, 8365 S.W. Steve, Tigard, Oregon, testified she was representing NPO #8 and also was on the School Committee for Metzger School. She reviewed several meetings held on the Trammel-Crow proposal held in the community: C - On April 12, there was discussion on a Local Improvement District which would be paid for by Trammel-Crow, Unisys, & Dr. Davis to complete the 93rd roadway. At this meeting school representatives, including Dr. Joki, voted in favor of the request. - On April 19, NPO #8 met and they, too, voted in favor of the Trammel-Crow LID proposal. She advised this meeting was well attended. - On April 20, Metzger parents met at the school with school representatives. A future meeting was set for May 3. No conclusion was drawn at this time. - On April 26, PFA, the Local School Committee, faculty and interested parents met Mr. Blake from Trammel Crow. Support was expressed by everyone present. - On May 2, the Planning Commission met and approved the changes to the street. - At the May Parent-Faculty Association meeting the subject was opened and everyone present was allowed to vote; everyone voted in favor of the proposed changes. o David Blake, 10260 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon explained the background of the proposal. Initially, they proposed to develop a building on their property which was already zoned for a parking structure up to 45-feet high. The new proposal takes into consideration comments received from the neighbors concerning wat they y would uude like woto see ee happen. A several-story parking out-of-place with its suburban environment. The proposed plan would accommodate both the parking for the building as well as the neighborhood's concerns about a high-rise structure. Mr. Blake referred to drawings on display which illustrated a parking facility consisting of one sub-grade level and parking at ground level. The land proposed for rezoning was initially under County jurisdiction. A portion of the property was being used for parking under a Conditional Use Permit issued by Washington County. The rezone request was made to expand the land area upon which the parking area could be located. If the vote was against this, the parking spaces would not decrease. He said he believed the proposal, if implemented, would help to decrease traffic congestion in the area. Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Blake reviewed the proposed street realignment noting how this would accommodate the area's needs. He referred to comments from Tom Schwab of the Oregon Department of Transportation who was in favor of the realignment. Realignment benefits would include promotion of: o Reduced traffic speeds because of gentle curves. o Better "stacking" of cars onto thoroughfares. o Better traffic flow onto Locust Street because of increased length of street. The realignment of the road was done in an attempt to satisfy the desires of the neighborhood, the school, and the existing tenant base. Opponents o John S. Blomgren, 9460 S.W. Oak Street, Tigard, Oregon, noted he has lived at this location for many years and was there before Washington Square was built. He advised he was on the CPO when the planning for Metzger was done. He noted he was involved with the County traffic circulation study in 1985 which was now being utilized by th City of Tigard. In 1980, a line was drawn between Oak and Locust (designated as 93rd Street) . At that time, Trammel-Crow was building their existing structures and put up a sign for "No Through Traffic." This made it difficult for nine pieces of property to obtain access to major streets. The 93rd Street alignment, now drawn as a straight line on the Transportation Plan, would better accommodate access for private property owners. Mr. Blomgren estimated there would be approximately 1,200 parking stalls in the entire Trammel-Crow development. He noted traffic problems in the area because of increased volumes and speed as well as trucks parking in "No Parking" areas. Mr. Blomgren advised he felt the proposed alignment of 93rd would not slow the traffic. He reiterated a straight, fully-improved street would best serve the needs of the area. Mr. Blomgren submitted a list of residents who were opposed the the Trammel-Crow proposal. o Ron Mills, 10620 S.W. 95th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, noted his basic concern was for the proposed realignment and the curved configuration. While not definitely opposed to the proposal at this time, he advised he was not sure it was necessary. The exit from this area has been a problem and even an extra 200 yards was something he and his neighbors would have to deal with. o Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 S.W. 89th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, referred to the 93rd Local Improvement District which had been proposed in concept to Council, but was not formed. He noted concern with the curved configuration of the Trammel-Crow's proposed 93rd street. Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Davis advised that property owners south of Oak Street had not been notified of the hearing on this proposal. He said that even though the property south of Oak Street was not within 250 feet of the proposal, there was 40 to 50 acres which had access problems and would be affected by the proposed realignment. He requested Council delay action until after a Comprehensive Plan review of the the entire Metzger Community so several traffic issues could be resolved. Dr. Davis said the current proposal would only solve the problems for one piece of property. Dr. Davis further advised there was a substantial amount of property zoned for commercial development. He said more commercial land was not needed until some of the existing area had been developed. Mayor asked if anyone south of Oak Street was ready to develop and pay for a roadway. Dr. Davis responded that his earlier efforts to form an LID to develop 93rd Street had been successfully blocked by Mr. Blomgren and his supporters. He noted he would like to see the community work together in resolving the transportation issues. In response to questions from Councilor Johnson, Dr. Davis noted the proposed curve in the 93rd Street realignment would effectively depreciate the possibility of development of his property. In response to Dr. Davis' objection to notification process, Mayor asked staff if proper notification had been given. Senior Planner Liden advised public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the proposal, the CPO was notified, the NPO was notified, and a publication appeared in the newspaper. Therefore, notice, as required by the Code, was given. o Joel Adamson, 9200 S.W. Oak, Tigard, Oregon, advised he was president of a corporation which owns 3-1/2 acres. He submitted a petition signed by 18 people in the area who opposed the development. The principal reasons for their opposition were the traffic problems and access to the area. Between Oak Street and 217, there was more than 40 acres of land which could be developed commercially. He advised he did not hear about Trammel-Crow's proposal until the after the public meetings were announced. The traffic problem needs to be solved so the area can be developed. If the proposal was adopted, it would hinder access to the area between Oak Street and 217. He recommended Council wait to look at the Comprehensive Plan for the entire development. He said the Trammel-Crow proposal represented piecemeal development. C Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 o Nina Mills, 10620 S.W. 95th, Tigard, Oregon noted she was opposed to the development. In response to her request for clarification of the status of the proposed 93rd Street, Senior Planner Liden advised it would be a public, minor collector street. e. Recommendation by Community Development Staff: Community Development Director summarized staff's concerns as contained in their written staff report which was submitted to Council. Traffic issues needed to be resolved for the entire area along with the review of how the City would like to see the area developed overall. Staff's recommendations were: o Approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning map from R-12 to C-P; o Deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning map from R-4.5 to C-P; o Deny the request to amend the Metzger-Progress Community Plan regarding the realignment of SW 93rd Avenue (Lincoln Street). f. Public Hearing was closed. g. Council consideration. Discussion followed with comments as follows: o Not persuaded that by inhibiting this development, the City would solve the traffic problems in the area. o Consensus to require deed restriction, as recommended by the Planning Commission, which would limit land use of the amended parcel to a parking facilities use only. o The fact that Trammel-Crow had agreed to let the school use the parking facility for overflow parking during school functions would be advantageous to the neighborhood. o Consensus was that proper public notice had been given. In addition, the issue had been given extensive coverage in the press. o Not persuaded there was merit to the argument to curtail development in one area in order to force it somewhere else. o Action on this item should not be taken as signal to the community that the City will discontinue efforts to resolve transportation issues for the entire area. o Consensus was that the Comprehensive Plan requirements had been satisfied. Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to affirm the Planning Commission's decision, as conditioned; the r-. wording for the development proposal was to be drafted by the ( applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON AMEI'DMENT TO NOISE ORDINANCE a. Senior Planner Liden reviewed staff work to date on drafting an amendment to the noise ordinance. Discussion followed on hours that certain noise levels would be allowable, adequate protection of residential areas near commercial uses, and permitting of special events (i.e. , music) . Senior Planner outlined research performed by staff noting a review of standards issued by DEQ as well as standards adopted by other communities. A public hearing on this issue has been scheduled for June 12, 1989. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:54 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a) , (d), (e), & (h) to discuss Police Chief selection, labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. Approved by the Tigard City Council on June 26, 1989. e 1_,AotaikkDeputy Recorder - y of Tiga ATTEST: 6 M r - City of Ti d Council President cw/0071D C Page 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989 • _ AGENDA 'ITEM /t' 2 VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 5/15/89 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED NAME & ADDRESS d S LA) - _ 44 c ‘11`-i-•/}^ C 11/PalT4 /07,/ • • C' DATE 5/15/89 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: ITEM N0. 4; - PUBLIC HEARING. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-05'&>ZONE CHANGE _, ZC 89-05; CROW 'OREGON, NPO #8 ************************************* ***************************************** Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) ************************************* ***************************************** Name, Address and Affiliation ,, Name, Address and Affiliation =` k. S :nit, 2.i(3: ! • ' j ( i7as 3 (0 Sn1-Sc -v t�,.,„ icy Q0 L.(7)1. fgbo s-,,,) 024K, k- Mike 3 kvrec k-- c-' job 19- Sc,,to; SdY e.-r-T -� Jo (7 i✓,S' B1o,c�e,/ --p-77,,A a ✓ a.,2 � � f/229DstiFod t / 7ro� aud 0,./ / g vv, M ; .c l oceg.0 sw9s-`ii o, .e.cet o r,es kl- rN 11 a a,0°"s"r Ni lAe 2>,' J(- .1 . S- sc.I3 g'.74 ✓64(AV\ ;5P, ) 42 2 s sw rviQ7� Loaf Tia2T, I 1 I i i i 9 a s �W 04 k O Terry' ee-a i 2Za i s v eJe 71S . � '� 444) �' 1�c a IN C'C A /Cj/.I `e . . J• ccrr4 /7�' 10 9)..r.-Stz a e/& Q /'Ill 7 1^ � 173f 4 zz.8 �����A� g l2S S w /,L bye7if.� „Q e. s itAlEfici P (1.26,0so C-ctsf tj,. .i -41 :L. ,- 9260 Sect. ocus, 1 ,t 7 o -o „3", 5f.., L0�.,S ,, D D Gal-5 /74, . 1/;2.3 0 rad► CId5� "6 3-i1,-.5 n� +eve Jvt • a 1 Celacy/ /11-/2-e 1 /1"; n1 (N—LY/L)(:(11) Public Hearing -- Crow Oregon % Staff Recommendation by Community Development Director: � 6*C6r4i- Staff reviewed carefully and recommendation was contrary to what the School District and some of the neighbors feel in that recommending for approval on a portion of the request. That portion is that area already covered by a parking lot to correct a situation wherein the use was legal while in the County, but not legal now within the City. Recommending that that portion which is now parking lot should be changed in zoning from residential to commercial. Issue was not whether or not there will be a six--story parking structure or half-buried parking structure. Not talking about heights of parking structure but only the land use itself. Tne question: should the Comprehensive Plan be changed; should the zoning be changed; should the traffic plan be changed. Have conditions changed or were there some other circumstances different than when these Plans were put together. Staff reviewed whether the criteria had been met as outlined to help guide Council determine whether the requests should be granted. Staff found most of criteria were met, including the fact this was a good location and determining whether this was an encroachment into a residential zone. Ordinarily, this would be considered encroaching, but the school acts as a buffer. Noted another criteria, does the council feel this would change would be warranted because the result would be better than the city would achieve under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations. Staff also questioned whether there was a need for more commercial zoning in ( the area. The changes would fit into a larger plan which has been discussed but not started yet (doing a more comprehensive land use/traffic analysis for the "Diamond" area, including the Washington Square. ) Wondering if establishing precedent in changing zone -- would it mean that other lots across the street from this on Locust or down the street on Locust should also be changed to commercial. Staff has lot questions about the proposal. For the record, do like the project and the work Trammel-Crow has done in the area. Will not necessarily get what has been proposed (although probably will) -- when zone is changed, you get whatever zone allows. Trammel--Crow has offered to make the results more certain by placing a deed restriction on the land to say it would only be used for parking. Council could condition the zone change as the Planning Commission was recommending so the zone change would be conditioned upon receipt of a deed restriction which would restrict it to parking only. This is not usual practice, however. Legal counsel had advised earlier that it was legal to condition a zone change so this would be an option Council could consider. Staff thinks that Trammel Crow agreeing to participate in a future LID or whatever to actually construct 93rd which involves the acquisition of at least one house in the area — this would help. They also agreed to participate in the larger traffic and land use analysis that needs to take place -- this will help. There also be certain traffic improvements which will be made on and around the site at the time of development. Staff's main concern is that there's a lot of congestion in that area already and adding another 1,600 new vehicles to an area already at an "F" level of service (which means it's failed) the Greenburg/217 area doesn't service any more sometimes during the day. The question is whether Council should continue to change the zones or allow development in that area. Staff decided a "red caution flag" should be noted that maybe the traffic/land use study and not deny this, but put it on hold until that study is completed so we know where we are going in the future. Mayor: Question -- Where are the 1,600 additional cars coming from? Ed: 1,600 cars is out of the applicant's traffic engineer's report -- one of the conclusions was that the site would generate approximately 1,622 new vehicle trips per day when complete. Mayor: It's already zoned and it's already going to be that way regardless of what we do here tonight --- that picture doesn't change. I'm confused as to how you get additional traffic impacts when it is already zoned for that use. Trammel•-Crow can go out tomorrow morning and put a 350-car parking garage on that spot regardless of what we do tonight, unless I've missed something here. Ed: Again, the question is not what type of parking structure is going to built and frankly, I doubt there will be a parking structure built in this area. Theoretically, it could be built. Public Hearing was closed. Consideration by Council: Councilor Kasten: We have the opportunity to hear this evening two rather diverse points of view: One is from a number of property owners in and about the Trammel--Crow area living between Locust and Oak who were strongly in favor of the three items which Council is considering this evening. They have brought to our attention such subjects as a natural extension of an area that has been attractively developed, tax base considerations, the presence of the school as a buffer and the visual appeal to them of the existing area. On the other side, we have heard concerns about traffic, about the layout of the proposed interconnect on 93rd between Oak and Locust and whether an extra 200 or 400 feet is significant and how that extension may either assist or inhibit the further future development of commercial property between Oak Street and 217. In my opinion the question of congestion versus development is somewhat similar to the chicken or the egg -- which came first? I am not persuaded that by inhibiting development we will hence solve the traffic problem. I will, therefore vote in favor of the three items . Councilor Schwartz: I think I have to agree with Councilor Kasten. On the recommendation from the Planning Commission which included a condition of the deed restriction -•- was that to restrict that portion only a parking structure can be in there. Mayor: yes, that's my understanding. Schwartz — Because somebody else made a comment that they . . .that would stay a parking lot. If you live around any grade school, for school functions, there is a limited amount of parking in the evening. With the agreement that Trammel Crow has for school function for the School District to use that parking for overflow for school functions -- I think it's a real plus and advantageus to the neighborhood. So, I think with the deed restriction, which would eliminate that parcel of land for the zone change to become some C • • kind of 5—story parking garage, I would have to agree with it and will cast my vote for the approval per the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilor Johnson: The testimony in opposition tonight I heard zeroing in on the curb of the extension of 93rd street. I don't recall that I heard opposition to the development or the rezoning of those properties, so I clearly feel they'r supporting the room for the rezoning and I support that. The Planning Commission minutes say that Commissioner Fyre and Barber recommended approval to City Council further recommending that City Council impose a deed restriction limiting the development on the property to a two—story parking structure, top story at grade level. And, staff saying that legal counsel told us that we do have the ability to do that •-- so I would also support that deed restriction. Lastly, on the alignment of 93rd, I'm not persuaded that depreciates the value of the property south of Oak St. It appears if get the connection built, gives those properties a way to connect with Locust and gives a way to get back to Greenburg as opposed to that street not ever being constructed and the only other alternative going to 90th and Hall. I agree the transportation study needs to be begun and Council has advised staff we need to proceed with that. But, I don't see this as a permanent disuasion of development of the property south of Oak Street. I also support the realignment of the street. Councilor Eadon: To clear up some misconceptions heard --- one was in regards to public notices. First of all, there has only actually been one public hearing. We are required to notice public hearings. There has been one and that was the Planning Commission meeting of May 2 and that was noticed as we are required legally to do. Property owners within 250 feet of the property are mailed notices to their homes, it is a public notice in the newspapers, it is also posted here in City Hall. I also know this entire issue has had a lot of media coverage in all of the local papers of late. So, I don't want anyone leaving here thinking something sneaky went on. There were notices sent appropriately for the public hearing that was held. The other things I heard here, the Metzger parents' meeting, the PFA meeting, and other Metzger parents' meetings -- those aren't public hearings that the City is responsibile for •— those were public meetings and I happen to know, again, just from reading the newspaper, I heard mention of at least the majority of these. The only one I did see mentioned would have been the April 12 LID meeting. The rest of them have been covered. I don't think this has been a secret issue •— it's been on the front burner and I'm sorry people feel they may have been left out of the loop. But the information was out there. I heard the opponents saying tonight that they thought that, in their opinion, the development of the road as proposed was going to hamper developer south of Oak. I don't think that that case has been made sufficiently to warrant that weighing into my decision tonight. I don't believe we can curtail development in one area in order to force it somewhere else. I think what I see is actually an enhancement to the entire community; and, when you enhance that area of the community there is going to be a spinoff effect and I believe at some point the property south of Oak is going to feel that spinoff effect. I also agree with Councilor Johnson that the transportation study is something this Council has been aware of and has been asking staff where we are in that process and is something that we still need to do. Any action that is taken here tonight shouldn't in anyway signal that we are not going to look any further at transportation issues, but I don't think that's the case. I think the conditions have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. I think the criteria for a Comp Plan change has been met and I think the results would • • consideration by council with regards to this public hearing this evening on the cpa. Councilor Eadon moved that "we affirm the Planning Commission decision including that portion outlining inclusion of the deed restriction be drafted by the applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval." Councilor Shwartz seconded. Passed by unanimous vote. • ( 45 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 15, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: May 9, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: Board and Committee Appointments / �^ f / REPARED BY: Donna Corbet DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK,' . /// REQUESTED BY: Mayor and Council 40LICY ISSUE Board and Committee Appointment. INFORMATION SUMMARY Gerry McReynolds, who was recently appointed to the Budget Committee, owns and operates a business in the city and serves on another city committee. However, it was determined that he does not live inside the Tigard City limits and that disqualifies him from serving on the Budget Committee because he is a non—elector. [Per ORS 294.336 (2)]. Bill Scheiderich has been recommended to fill the vacant seat. A copy of his interest application is attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Appoint Mr. Scheiderich to complete the vacant term on the Budget Committee. 2. Wait until an Appointments Advisory Committee interview process can be held. FISCAL IMPACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative #1: Appoint Bill Scheiderich to the vacant Budget Committee position that expires June 30, 1989. do/9805D C CITY OF TIQARD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION ORECsOBd NAME: (A-MC-LAIN M J • SCL-t-e- lbt✓ftI C l d• DATE: 'II I `'(.'g� ADDRESS (RES.): I t t S-W• S P2(NGt 0D i't Ge ci. RES. PHONE: (PZAD• ?.M ZO ADDRESS (BUS.): 11 S5 S•w• G eA FFvvva PPce.)..D2. t3.ErWGrcrOoJ BUS. PHONE: C2-6' Z-4 ( S" LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: Z kleu-A-"a me el S 11 SUGGESTED BY: (-tN SCA-4-‘0A-0.-TZ. WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? POr2-T1. o•J D EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 5 •A • C,b W d-D l was+ u4w ; C(1.�ava-t co .so3 tn� t.EwL.S 1t C�i�M� 5ctc , OF Pk_yt3u,C Aloyvvem,sTRATID ) OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: 61-'77-0RNQy 11J- Pcld3t4C A-NO Pato Ai e- peoccrto1 SINGE t1'1 CP. CLT i Oz EA1 t=77rL Oe-et-ozCZ.1 D(%),WO(L1-[AIG w/ Pt#V464/ .4.-j P(. coa v%1-� C-=111-co" A..ACH AStAgo 1 Pc)0 c.t c. wc)/G4 S/ 1 Ni C/:-Gly✓-9� 1v�A-t: itc,fieeittf4vagik-J OW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? (S( $e r2 i�v►,3&ty Li 86 THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: (acr e4-✓t=,2-rail Rf-rS Czoit nit tS'S I ddv Bo a-r3 MEAAM12 SSS t-E2_ GITI e7S NJN ✓uEi E-R. I . ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: - OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): 11 tJ E GcaM,Pt..b t0 6 2 A-0• CO UX-SeS i4 'C,H,JNti G ANO P(J6-4L soacEi 6.1 AND ta+tCETatit.t'c..CT-er PE e2 Qltrvvft t Oso©cTiN_G (Okra-Se 1nr (1'0.1C El. 1-4AA (IVO0c,Veg, ccOditzi 011-1 teJ d.E6(ovA•c. 60 L ✓E5 ' 2T44A 04 kc/VAG F S c:WE2$ 12.1-O coi&S?n.vc T[ov, Frae CIIeA&O Li O Art fW'I 1c v1.l S J BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: c=T t"1T_�=E P n1NiN)6 (-43v'wlV (SS1 E1ni, Date received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City Outside City C 1 'sb/4772A/0002A C'I✓ 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 i- 3(1\7\ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 15, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: May 5, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Crow-Oregon REVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendme earinq on 5/2/89 and Zone Change CPA 89-05/ZC 8 ,�pq� PREPARED BY: Deborah Stuart DEPT HEAD 0 Alk CITY ADMIN 0 � REQUESTED BY: P LICY ISSUE Whether to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning maps to accommodate the Crow-Oregon proposal to construct Lincoln Center Five? INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 2, 1989, the Planning Commission met and considered a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning maps and the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to allow for the realignment of SW 93rd Avenue. The changes included: 1) a request to change .74 acres from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning from R-12 to C-P; and 2) to change 1.37 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning from R-4.5 to C-P. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve these requests based on findings that the additional traffic caused by this development would be minimal and that a deed restriction could legally be imposed on the 1.37 acres to restrict the land use of the amended parcel to a parking facilities use only. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission to include a condition that a deed restriction be drafted by the applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. Also the request should be subject to the review of the City Engineer of the proposed realignment to minor collector standards. 2. Approve the comprehensive planand zone change request from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to Commercial Professsional (C-P). Deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map on 1.47 acres from Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to Commercial Professional (C-P) and also the request to re-align SW 93rd Avenue as originally submitted and as recommended by staff. 3. Approve and/or deny the requests as modified by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None. SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Approve and deny the requests as recommended by staff: A. Approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning map from R-12 to C-P; B. Deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning map from R- 4.5 to C-P. C. Deny the request to amend the Metzger-Progress Community Plan regarding the re-alignment of SW 93rd Avenue (Lincoln Street). das/crow I I f I 7 "•.%._ . .------1 k__ ...i 1---- -1_/__( C._ I I II_ 1___T-iii I 1 __/1 I 1 I / -1 1 s. - il __ _ _i_ . I EXHIBIT "A" . , . - I MEV OM 11= 1 II -1 ft q c, rc IN THE NE 1/4 SECTION OF 1S1 35 AB a M_ -----LLJA • iiillr 1 , 111h"4-1.0.' _ _ j illiOLtial NM :. „R.E.sikfth.,_ ,,- . 1111-MM D'Atet 2111111PIN/ , a, CRESCENT GROVE NO SCALE I 1 "M111111" IFNI mililligit , . • . N. ETARY== i il IT_. _ I II "Mr "1111111111111/ IA --1 :1LOW ,,ilff=amiummil. • . F - i Au., ,m, 1. i, ----: 111 Ilia&IL:WM d DESCRIBED AREA 11111111111 1111":: 1111111 /N 123+56 "lin ANII I S.W. Ills FIVIIIIE ripligirrY :, 3 PRIV - U q ' '' a Br v so •, 6 '414101Iiiiiiid IMONI lip lir tiAiiivELEAF 1 11( .i't ifr . Till grinill • Ihill. 5 .1. II Mill 1[ 1 g t X -"A EMI il lite)ew44fralli :AI'Fiat, zillil__ , .... o 111111111110 OM. N ,i v\\ Elsomp Imo • \\\ -- '\.\ Iiiii 1111 = -maw Lunn' _ , ill • Imo 1 mow =I. . iMiteb. . • - ,..g Aih. im. al AN I. 40 1 MEM m -Lap rl, --. . • --5‘ 41.1 Illia or S.W. ;-.. ii 1111.111kilkik 0 1 7"0" EP Bil E„ ---. Fr .A. g..• .;i--.., mg II ,71;0107D il II% ____I L— ff. °1 IThi !um MI 04, NORTH am =mil 1r 4-4 NS/kflaiiiiii ri- "WEI 6 111111 MEM v, kV: &Mi. ill i 1 ilium saaiiill. mm -112 h.., WIN NIEMEN 41111G ssimme um i 1 MEI NE EL, ... in 1.00 nu rim EE A1BL f rir,..- AR C; MIE Z Mill: 111. 11111111k N VA • III rA3 ' ! 411 aril El- a reinr--me alliwPw. i. NI ii I. | | � / ) IL__ ) � / \` ��- -1 k ^ ' �� / \ / | l ' ' ^ ~' / --- - ^- ^ i \ / CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Edwards and the City Council FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director RE: Crow-Oregon Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change DATE: May 9, 1989 At its regular meeting on May 2, 1989, the Tigard Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to approve a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change request submitted by Crow-Oregon Inc. This request has three components: a) to amend the comprehensive plan on the northeastern corner of the Lincoln Center property (tax lot 900 and a portion of tax lot 1002 totaling about .74 acres) from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Professional and to change the zoning designation from R-12 to C-P; b) to amend the comprehensive plan designation on six residential parcels (totaling 1.37 acres) bordered by SW 93rd and SW 92nd Avenues on the west and east sides and by SW Locust and SW Mapleleaf Streets on the north and south sides from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning designations from R-4.5 to C-P; and c) to amend the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to allow the realignment of SW 93rd Avenue. SW 93rd Avenue is designated as a minor collector street. All of the relevant statewide land use goals could be favorably addressed and all but one City policy could be met. Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1 mandates that "the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development". The Metzger-Progress Community Plan calls for traffic routing through the area which is "sensitive to the residential character of the neighborhood". Staff recommended approval of the first request because this would bring the existing use, a nonconforming parking lot, into compliance with current City zoning regulations. Staff recommended denial of the second and third requests primarily on the basis that the existing road system cannot accommodate additional commercial development which might exacerbate the existing traffic congestion, access and circulation problems in the Metzger School/Washington Square area. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation for approval of all three requests subject to a condition that a deed restriction be drafted by the applicant for City attorney review and approval to limit the use of the 1.37 acres now containing six residences to a parking facilities use only. Should Council decide to follow this recommendation, staff would also suggest a condition which would require the proposed re-alignment to meet minor collector standards. Attached are reference maps showing current land use and zoning designations, the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing, the staff report, the applicant's submittal, a summation of the applicant's traffic impact analysis and the current street classifications for the area and the applicant's proposed realignment of SW 93rd Avenue. o Jack Schwab, Attorney, 9250 SW Tigard Street, representing Edwin & Sharon Mueller who have purchased and designed a home for the site would like access to Benchview Terrace. They feel this is a viable alternative and will minimize the impact to the site. /,)(/ /// PUBLIC TESTIMONY /// iLo No one appeared to speak. �1 / PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED / o Commissioner Peterson and Saporta shared the CPO's concern regarding traffic safety with future development. o Commissioner Newton, Barber, Rosborough, Pyre, and Moen shared the CPO's concerns regarding traffic, however, supported staff's recommendation as being a viable solution. * Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve S 89-05 based on staff's findings and conditions. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Saporta and Peterson voting no. ter 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-05 & ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-05 CROW OREGON, INC. NPO # 8 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Professional Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to C-P (Professional Commercial) for seven parcels and portions of two others totalling approximately 2.21 acres. Also requested is an amendment to the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to revise the alignment of SW 93rd Avenue. LOCATION: 9220, 9260, 9330 iLc,aust; 10175 92nd; 9225, 9255 Mapleleaf (WCTM 1S1 35AB, tax lots 700, 701, 702, 500, 501, 600, 900, and parts of 2800,1002) Assistant Planner Deborah Stuart reviewed the proposal, noted changes in the the staff report, and made staff's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for lots 900 and 1002; denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the six residential lots; and denial of the request to amend the Metzger- Progress Community Plan. Discussion followed regarding the proposed development. Randall Wooley, City Engineer, addressed traffic concerns stating that the proposal could result in major changes to Highway 217. Discussion followed regarding who would bear the cost of a study, alternative accesses to the area, traffic circulation, traffic capacity, surrounding zoning, access to 217, and signalization. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 2, 1989 - PAGE 2 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o David Blake, Partner, Trammell Crow Company, 10260 SW Greenburg Road, Portland, OR 97223, reviewed the existing site and proposed structures which could be constructed without the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He reviewed the layout of existing traffic patterns. He reviewed the proposed structures if the Comprehensive Plan, Zone Change, and Metzger - Progress Community Plan were amended. He reviewed the proposed road alignment, adding that the proposed alignment would provide a better collector street and that the school would benefit by additional parking and better screening. Discussion followed with Commissioners regarding what would be permitted, what is proposed, and the road alignment. Commissioner Newton left 8:35 PM o Cathy Chase, 8365 SW Steve, Tigard, OR 97223, stated she is a member of NPO # 8 and a member of the Parent Facility Association at Metzger School. She read and submitted written testimony regarding meetings she had attended and the results of those meetings. She wanted the Commission to know that she had talked with a number of people in the community and the people favor the applicant's proposal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. o Andrew Snyder, 10175 SW 92nd, Tigard, OR 97223, tax lot 501, has lived in the area for 20 years. He felt the traffic problems were created by the shopping center. He supported the applicant's request. o Ann Creswell, 8775 SW Locust # 13, Tigard, OR 97223, favord the proposal. o Jack Steiger, 18436 SW Sandpiper, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, supported the proposal. o Mrs. Mork, Daughter-in-Law for Doris L. Kleinpell, 9220 SW Locust St., Tigard, OR, 97223 supported the proposal. o Marty Presley, 9260 Sw Locust, Tigard, OR 97223, tax lot 700, favored the proposal. o Michael Presley, 9260 SW Locust, Tigard, OR 97223, favored the proposal stating that he did not want to live next to a six story parking structure. o Brian Bean, 9225 SW Mapleleaf, Tigard, OR 97223, lot 600, supported the proposal for the following reasons: 1) Different group already support the proposal. 2) No one wants to live next to a six story parking structure. 3) The new road being proposed would benefit Metzger School. o Rick Rogers, 9140 SW Locust, lot 202, stated that he is the closest residential property and is in support of the proposed development. He stated that the existing roads are in shabby condition. Also, the additional parking for the school will increase safety. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 2, 1989 - PAGE 3 o Mark Vander Yacht, 9125 SW Locust, Tigard, OR 97223, lives in the County. His basic concern is traffic created by Washington Square. He felt Trammell Crow's project would have a limited impact. o Berry Helm, 9255 SW Mapleleaf, Tigard, OR, 97223, tax lot 702, supported the request. o Brian Halverson, 10180 SW 93rd, Tigard, OR 97223, tax lot 701, has the only home which faces the Trammell Crow project. If the six story parking structure were approved he is close enough to count the bricks. He supported the proposed request with the ground level parking structure. o John S. Blomgren, 9960 SW Oak, Tigard, OR 97223, opposed the proposal. He felt traffic concerns should be taken care prior to development. REBUTTAL o David Blake stated they recognize that there is substantial traffic in the area and support urban renewal; however, improvements will not happen if development is prohibited. o Dicussion followed with staff regarding approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requiring a deed restriction for the residential properties and improvements- to SW 93rd Avenue. PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was to support Trammell Crow's proposal, especially since they have the support of the neighborhood. The Commission also felt a deed restriction should be required for the residential properties limiting development to a parking structure as proposed. They recognize that traffic problems need to be addressed. * Commissioner Eyre moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to forward a recommendation for approval to City Council; further recommending that City Council impose a deed restriction limiting the development on the residential property to a two single story parking structure (top story at grade level). Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. RECESS 9:15 PM 5.3COMPRl3H6I PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-04 HUGHES/POSCO LANDS NPO # 2 A request for a • - ehensive Plan map amendment from Professional Commercial to Medium High • . 'ty Residential and a zone change from C-P (Professional Commercial) to R-25 --=idential, 25 units/acre) for 1.75 acres. Also, a Comprehensive Plan map -+ _ . ent from Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and a --.e change from R- 12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to R-25 for 3.02 acres. subject parcels abut each other. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 2, 1989 - PAGE 4 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 (17 MAY 2, 1989 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 89-05/ZC 89-05 REQUEST: For approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential to Professional Commercial and to change the zoning designation from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to C-P (Commercial Professional) for 6 parcels totaling 1.49 acres. Also for a comprehensive plan amendment to change tax lot 900 and the northeastern portion of tax lot 1002 (about .74 acres) from a Medium Density Residential designation to a Commercial Professional designation and to change the zoning on it from R-12 to C-P. Finally, an amendment has been requested to the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to revise the alignment of Lincoln Street (93rd Avenue). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and R-12 (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre) APPLICANT: Crow-Oregon, Inc. OWNER: several 10260 SW Greenburg Road (see attached exhibit) Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 9220, 9260, 9330 SW Locust Street; 10175 SW 92nd Street; 9225, 9255 SW Mapleleaf Street (WCTM 1S1 35AB, tax lots 700, 701, 702, 500, 501, 600, 900, and parts of 2800 and 1002) 2. Background Information The subject properties were annexed to the City of Tigard in late April, 1987. Prior to the annexation, two land use applications (Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Special Use Permit) were filed with Washington County. Also, it was agreed at that time between the City and County that all applications in process at the County would continue even if the final decision occurred after annexation. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 1 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Case No. 87-73-M) to change the land use designation from R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) and Institutional to O-C (Office Commercial) on parcels located immediately north of Oak Street and west of Lincoln Street extension was approved by the Board of Commissioners on May 19, 1987. A Special Use Permit for a parking lot (Case No. 87-122-SU) was granted by the County on May 13, 1987, for four residentially zoned parcels located at the southwest corner of Locust Street and Lincoln Street. The residences on these properties were removed and a parking area was developed. The conditions of approval imposed by the county remain in effect. Also, since this property has been annexed and the City does not allow commercial parking lots in residential zones, this portion of the Lincoln Center parking lot is a nonconforming use. On May 18, 1987, the Tigard City Council approved the rezoning of the annexed area in Metzger from Washington County designations to City designations which most closely resembled the County zones. This ordinance (No. 87-22) became effective on June 18, 1987. Subsequent reviews utilized the City Community Development Code rather than the County regulations. A Site Development Review (SDR 87-08 and V 87-07) was conducted by City staff in June, 1987 for an approval to construct a 12-story office building. It was approved subject to 16 conditions. In June of 1988, the Hearings Officer for the City of Tigard approved a Conditional Use permit request to allow the construction of a rooftop heliport atop the newly constructed Lincoln Tower office building. This application was approved subject to 13 conditions. In March, 1989, the Director's designee approved with conditions a request for several lot line adjustments and a minor land partition creating a new tax lot at the southwestern corner of the Lincoln Center property (M 89-06/MLP89-05). 3. Vicinity Information Please refer to the zoning map, attached to this report as "Exhibit B". 4. Site Information The Lincoln Center property is presently developed with six office buildings with a gross floor area of approximately 530,000 square feet and two parking structures on a total of seven parcels. Tax lot 900 lies at the northeastern corner of the property and is currently zoned R-12 (Medium Density Residential, 12 units per acre). Immediately north of it is a portion of tax lot 1002 which is also zoned R-12. Both parcels are immediately west of Lincoln Street and the combined area of tax lot 900 STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 2 and the portion of tax lot 1002 (approximately 3250 sq. ft.) is proposed to be redesignated as C-P (Commercial Professional). The applicant also proposes to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designation of six residential parcels (approximately 1.47 acres) immediately to the east of Lincoln Center, consisting of the block bordered by SW Locust Street to the north, SW 92nd Avenue to the east, SW Mapleleaf to the south and SW Lincoln Street to the west. These parcels are all currently zoned and developed as R-4.5 (Low Density Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The applicant states that these changes are needed so that a new, 125,000 square foot office building, called Lincoln Center Five, can be constructed at the northeastern portion of the Lincoln Center property and meet City of Tigard Community Development Code requirements for a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces. It is anticipated that a two-story parking structure will be constructed upon the land bordered by SW Locust, Lincoln, Mapleleaf and 92nd Avenues. Finally, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Metzger Community Plan so that the location of Lincoln Street can be changed so that it would be aligned with 92nd Avenue at Locust Street. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The State of Oregon Highway Division comments that although the Trammel Crow proposal addresses project 2 of the Metzger/Progress Circulation Study (SW Lincoln Street/93rd Avenue proposed extension south), there are other traffic problems, i.e. congestion, that the change in zoning will add to. The Division suggests that Washington County have the opportunity to comment on the impacts (of this' proposal) on SW Greenburg Road and Locust Streets. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Staff notes that an agreement has been signed by the school district and Trammel Crow which authorizes the Metzger school to use the parking structure during evening hours. The Trammel Crow Co. has agreed to construct a security fence along the entire length of the Lincoln Street exposure to Metzger School. In the. agreement, the Tigard School Board supports in principle this comprehensive plan amendment and zone change and the relocation of Lincoln Street. Neighborhood Planning Organization 8 has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has tha following comments: STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 3 a. The primary traffic access to this site is via Greenburg Road. Greenburg Road in this vicinity is experiencing substantial traffic congestion. It is unlikely that the traffic congestion in this vicinity will be resolved merely by adding traffic lanes and signals. Instead, it will likely be necessary to provide new roadways or revise the alignment of existing d theroadways to provide commercial developments along ate apacity between Highway 217 Greenburg Road. b. There currently exists in this vicinity substantial property with C-P and C-G zoning and potential for substantial development or redevelopment. Development or redevelopment of these existing C-P and C-G properties could substantially increase the traffic demands on Greenburg Road near Highway 217. As mentioned above, the street improvements typically required as conditions of development may not be adequate to provide the additional traffic capacity needed for full development under the existing zoning. c. The C-P zone provides the potential for development with much higher traffic demands than the existing R-4.5 zoning. d. Currently, C-P zoned properties between Oak Street and Highway 217 have very poor access to Greenberg Road and Highway 217. Due to conflicts with the nearby freeway ramps, traffic exiting from Oak Street is prohibited from turning left (south) onto Greenburg Road. Therefore, traffic from the C-P properties has no legal access to Highway 217 except by driving through the adjoining residential streets. The Metzger-Progress Circulation Plan adopted by Washington County in 1986 proposes to provide a new access from Oak Street to Greenberg Road by extending 93rd Avenue south from Locust Street to Oak Street. Traffic from Oak Street could then reach the freeway by driving north on 93rd, west on Locust Street, and then south on Greenberg Road. This would still require the Oak Street traffic to go approximately a quarter of a mile out of direction in order to avoid making the illegal left turn from Oak Street onto Greenberg Road. The applicant proposes to realign 93rd Avenue, moving its intersection with Locust Street further east. The proposed realignment would increase the out of direction travel for Oak Street traffic attempting to reach Highway 217 via Greenberg Road. e. It appears that any zone change from low density residential to commercial would further increase existing traffic problems. It further appears thatunder the existing plans, it is unlikely that the usual conditions of development on such property could adequately address the traffic problems. Therefore, the City Engineer recommends that the zone change be denied at this time. f. it appears that the proposed realignment of 93rd Avenue would further increase the difficulty of access between the Oak Street properties currently zoned C-P and Highway 217. The likely result would be increased traffic through the residential areas of Oak Street. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 4 Therefore, the City Engineer recommends that the proposed amendment to the Metzger-Progress Circulation Study be denied at this time. g. The proposed new alignment of 93rd Avenue does not meet City standards, as the curve radii are too short. If a new alignment is approved, it should be required to comply with existing City design standards for a minor collector street. h. Additional Engineering and Planning review is required to resolve the traffic problems of this area which are inherent in the existing street layout. Such a review should go through the normal comprehensive planning prodess and would likely result in adoption of revisions to the existing traffic circulation plan. As a part of such review, the potential for additional C-P zoning and potential street realignment could be investigated. A possible joint funding of such a study has been discussed with major property owners in the area; however, to date, such a review has not been initiated. i. The existing sanitary sewer system in Locust and Mapleleaf Streets appears to be adequate to accommodate the proposed zone change. j. There is currently no storm drainage system to serve the proposed zone change area, except for minor roadside ditches. If the site is redeveloped, it will be necessary to provide an adequate storm drain system extending to Ash Creek. It is likely that the storm drain would be installed in conjunction with the extension and improvement of 93rd Avenue. Recommendation of Engineering Division: 1. Deny the request for Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change until an adequate traffic plan is developed to address increasing traffic problems. 2. Deny the request for a revision to the proposed alignment of 93rd Avenue (Lincoln Street) until a plan has been identified to provide better access between the Oak Street C-P properties and Highway 217. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, and 10 and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2 Implementation Strategy 2, 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.6.1 7.7.1, 8.1.1, and the Locational Criteria for Commercial Professional designated areas (Section 12.2.3.B), and the general design elements of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan. The staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based upon the following findings: STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 5 1 • 1. Goal 1 is met because the City has adopted and follows a citizen involvement program which includes review of development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization. In addition, all public notice requirements have been met for the subject application. 2. Goal 2 is met because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in review of the application. 3. Goal 9 is met because the proposal would foster the City's commercial business community thereby increasing economic opportunities within the City. 4. Goal 10 is satisfied because, although the proposed action would not significantly reduce the amount of residentially designated land in the City, it will not affect the City of Tigard's compliance with OAR Chapter 660, Division 7 - the Metropolitan Housing Rule's requirements for new construction mix and minimum residential density for new construction. This is because the six parcels containing the single family dwellings are presently developed and therefore is not considered buildable land in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff concludes that the proposal is only consistent with the majority of the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the following findings: ( 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2 (also found ,in Code Section 18.22.040) requires that applications of this type be consistent with relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan; not have an adverse affect the health, safety , and welfare of the community; be consistent with statewide planning goals; and show that" there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map. The applicable policies, statewide goals, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community are addressed in the discussion that follows. A number of physical changes in the Metzger School neighborhood, as evidenced by the commercial construction and accelerated commercial activity immediately to the west and on the periphery of the subject area, have occurred since the adoption of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan in 1983. This growth in commercial development has proceeded as envisioned in the Plan, however several changes from residential to commercial zoning designations were approved by the County since 1983. Although recent development has perhaps created a desire for rezoning among the property owners of the six resident;al parcels, it does not appear that sufficient changes circumstar have occurred to justify the proposal. Since the adoption of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan and the development of the Metzger-Progress Circulation Study, few STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/2089-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 6 improvements to •the area's street system have been made. This issue is discussed below. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because NPO #8, CPO #4 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 3. Policy 5.1.1 is satisfied because the additional commercial land area added to the City's land base as a result of this proposal will foster the creation of new employment opportunities for Tigard residents and correspondingly boost the City's economy. } 4. Policy 5.1.4 indicates that commercial and industrial uses should not encroach into residential neighborhoods. This proposal will result in an area zoned C-P which will abut land zoned R-4.5 to the north, east, and south and would represent encroachment. However, in this case, there is only residential development on the north side of Locust Street and the Metzger School property is adjacent on the east and south. As practical matter, this request will not encroach upon any existing residences in any significant way because of the physical separation provided by the school property and Locust Street. The six residential properties east of 93rd Street are uniquely surrounded by commercial and institutional land uses on three sides. The dwellings have already been adversely affected by the adjacent commercial use and are somewhat isolated from the neighborhood by the school property and Locust Street. mr The redesignation of tax lot 900 and the northeastern portion of lot 1002 will basically convert land which is presently being used as a nonconforming parking lot into conforming commercially zoned land. Other comprehensive plan amendment and zone change applications have been approved where a pre-existing use could be identified to exist in the City thereby establishing precedents for this case. 5. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the City's diversified housing stock will not be significantly affected by the loss of six single family residences. The City continues to authorize building permits for single family residences at an average rate of approximately 200 -300 per year. The loss of 4 residences occurred on tax lot 900 and the northeastern portion of tax lot 1002 when this area was still under Washington County jurisdiction. It is now committed to a parking lot use. 6. Policy 6.6.1 is satisfied upon future development of the area. Site development review provisions will require that buffering and screening be provided between any future commercial development on the area to be redesignated and the existing single family residences east of SW 92nd Avenue. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 7 7. Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1 and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate pubic facilities (e.g. sanitary sewer and water) exist to serve the site. Any new development on the Lincoln Center property or on the six residentially zoned properties would be required to connect to those systems as a condition to development. Public agencies providing these facilities will be notified and given the opportunity to comment on any future development proposals on the affected parcels, thereby also satisfying policy 7.7.1. 8. Policy 7.2.1 must be addressed at the time of development because adequate storm drainage facilities do not exist to serve the site. The Engineering Division has commented that storm drains would need to be installed and that the installation could occur at such time wren SW 93rd Avenue is extended south to SW Oak Street. 9. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because it appears unwise and untimely to allow further commercial development in the area without addressing the already existing traffic congestion, circulation and access problems affecting this neighborhood. The Engineering Division has commented that an improved traffic circulation plan be adopted before additional commercial development is allowed to occur. This plan would then satisfy policy 8.1.1 which requires the City to plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future development. 10.The applicable locational criteria for Commercial Professional development are satisfied for the following reasons: a. Spacing and Location The locational criteria state that a commercial professional area may not be bordered by residential properties on more than two sides. The affected parcels are adjacent to other residentially zoned parcels on one side only -- to the north. The six residentially zoned parcels are already surrounded by commercial professional and Tigard School District land on three sides. The proposed redesignation would not alter this situation. Moreover, it would result in a more even and consistent boundary between the commercial and institutional zones to the south and the residential properties to the north. Jigsaw puzzle-configured zoning boundaries, as is now the case in north Tigard and in this specific case, results in an inadequate buffering between use types and could result in variances to buffering requirements. A clear and straight demarcation between the commercial and institutional areas to the south and the residential properties on the north side of SW Locust Street might ultimately involve less land used only for buffering and fewer variances to these requirements. Therefore, this criteria has been met. Ar- STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 8 b. Access The traffic study submitted by the applicant assumes that the property which is the subject of this application will only be used for parking to accommodate a proposed 125,000 square foot office building on the Crow-Oregon property that is presently zoned C-P. The report indicates that this proposal is necessary to provide for a preferred parking arrangement but that the office project could proceed without the zone change. The staff agrees with the traffic study conclusion relating to the projected amount ofi traffic which will be generated by the proposed 125,000 square foot office development. However, it does not address the potential for additional traffic being generated as a result of the rezoning. Although not currently envisioned, further redevelopment of the property would be possible with subsequent traffic impacts which have not been analyzed. Commercial development on both of the sites is likely to further exacerbate the already strained traffic system in the area. The specific impacts created by the proposed office building must be evaluated during the Site Development Review process. The Metzger-Progress Circulation Study recommends a number of street improvements that would help solve the present traffic problems. Four projects affecting traffic circulation near this property are: Ar 1) The southern extension of 93rd (Lincoln) Avenue to Oak Street 2) Improvement of Locust Street east of 93rd Avenue to 80th Avenue to full major collector street standards 3) Improve Greenburg Road to five lanes north of Locust Street 4) Provide an additional northbound lane on the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 overpass None of these projects have been completed or fully funded. However, this year, the City will construct a portion of the Locust Street project with the provision of half-street improvements, including sidewalk, on the south side of the street between Lincoln Avenue and Hall Blvd.. The concern of the staff regarding this request centers around the adequacy of the street system to accommodate the traffic generated from existing commercial developments_ as well as future projects on undeveloped, commercially-zoned properties in the immediate vicinity. While access to the subject parcels can be found directly on Locust Street, a major collector street, necessary improvements have not been made to address existing transportation issues. It is the opinion of staff that solutions must be found to the traffic access, congestion, and circulation problems not only affecting Locust Street, but for the entire Hall Blvd./Washington Square area before additional rezoning requests are approved which would cause further adverse traffic impacts. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 9 7 With respect to the realignment of Lincoln Street (a minor collector), an area-wide traffic plan should be adopted prior to determining whether this modification to the proposed extension, identified in the Metzger-Progress Circulation Study, is appropriate. It is inadvisible to change this alignment prior to analyzing its possible affects upon traffic circulation. c. Site Characteristics The site characteristics criteria require that the affected sites be of a size which can accommodate present and projected needs and that the site have high visibility. The northeastern corner of tax lot 1002 and tax lot 900 have already been committed to a parking lot up°. However, the Tigard Community Development Code does not consider parking lots as a permitted use in the R-12 zone or any of the residential zones. This area of approximately 3250 sq. ft. is large enough to accommodate a very small commercial development; however, the lot size would be nonconforming. It is more likely that this area will continue to be used as a parking lot or even as a building setback area for a larger development in conjunction with the Lincoln Center. The size of the six residentially zoned parcels is large enough to accommodate a commercial professional development (1.47 acres). d. Impact Assessment Without an actual detailed development proposal, it is difficult to assess whether the scale of development on a property will be compatible with adjacent uses. Both of the subject areas of this report are small enough to prohibit some extremely large scale development and during development review it can be required that the northern property lines of both areas be screened with tall vegetation or trees such that the privacy of residential properties can be maintained. There are no unique site features of either site which could be incorporated into a development plan. However, adjacent land uses such as the school and nearby residential properties could be well served by adequate buffering and screening. The site development review process can best address related off- site impacts of any commercial development on these parcels such as noise, glare, and lights. The City is also in the process of drafting new noise provisions for commercial development that is to abut residential areas. 11. The Metzger-Progress Community Plan The Metzger - Progress Community Plan contains general and specific guidelines for the area bordered by SW Hall blvd. to the east and north, SW Greenburg Road to the west and Highway 217 to the south. The plan states that "Office Commercial Uses (now designated as Commercial Professional uses) are planned mainly at Hall Blvd. and Oleson Road and along the east side of Greenburg Road to serve both in support of and as STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 10 a transition from the major retail uses to the west." General design C elements mentioned in the plan which are relevant to this proposal, including bicycle parking facilities, limited hours of operation of noise and light-generating commercial development, and pedestrian pathways can all be implemented at the time of site development review. It is important to note that the plan states that "transportation planning shall be sensitive to the integrity of the Metzger residential community." "Truck traffic and non-local traffic to and from commercial development shall be routed onto the arterial road system and not through the residential neighborhood." The planning and engineering staff think that these policies to conserve the residential integrity of the neighborhood and routing of traffic onto arterial streets are sufficient mandates to postpone this comprehensive plan amendment and zone change until further planning for improved traffic circulation can be undertaken. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for the portion of tax lot 1002 and all of tax lot 900 to change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Professional and the zoning from R-12 to C-P. Staff recommends denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change affecting the six residentially zoned parcels until a revised traffic circulation plan has been adopted for the area. Finally, staff recommends denial of the request to amend the Metzger - progress Community Plan to allow for the realignment of SW Lincoln Street (93rd Avenue) at this time for the same reason. / / 9'�//I /'D'// PREPARE' :Y.:/ Deb art, Asst. Planner DATE 2 APPROVED BY: Keith Liden, Senior Planner DATE STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-05/ZC89-05 - CROW OREGON - PAGE 11 EAl1tBe7" l3 SECTION 35 NE — NO SCALE -.- _.r ST 3 ----- -- -- ---- ---i .. It A ... 2 C Di oh.,11111 414 = �J 33 =min 3 ---Fs. i . ' . MN �� HINGTON Eni ''�� a n,,O�vo� Mr i .tilib:'74 �' C I ,- � . BORDERS,� rl fit. IARE ,- - 11111 / • ■ ■' 'a ( CRESCENT GROVE , 1 l,= =CEMETARY-==_ o Il 4 LI:73-,, i ',; "4_5 - 11 L I X11■11� . -,-;_ h � � lUUY : . :. - 11 111 _ 26 25 ti L41I .l iáffIi r.II■-I� -.35 36 I jiiil I1I.'= .l' VII f' ti al-L i 3:S„� i�� ii: t FAI 11111 Ira..'• •5; AP•ELEaF ST ' n litignif Rivm . .. ,- - \Y' 4- Hu A • NW ir ..., iris I t 4: !.� II.. I __ I■ ■ SHADY LN. _in ci i . _ SW ® W �� — a �■.. -1■ ■ 411ei vo. ``` 1 -� - A pr, S.W. m THORN S■i i — NIL ., ,(4, . ,a.: 11•76h, imiti ...,. . • •. ./fal,„ .... �■_ Ell . ,,,,4r. !Iii°1'11* WI I 1 ilth... 4111 NORTH ■ DAKOTA . lila u"iIUYI �� 'Mr 11.1 • alma 4,41 Svsfit t 1'fi0` C I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL This is a proposal to amend the Metzger-Progress Community Plan, and to change the corresponding zoning, for eight (9) parcels next to the Lincoln Center office project. The subject parcels are currently designated "Residential" ; the proposed designation is "Commercial Professional". The total area affected is approximately 1.84 acres, and includes Tax Lots 700, 701, 702, 500, 501, 600, part of 2800; 8,000 s.f. of tax lot 1002, and lot 900 are included as a housekeeping measure to align the current use with the current City of Tigard comprehensive plan. This submittal also proposes to modify the Metzger-Progress Community Plan to allow Lincoln Street to be modified according to the attached Exhibit A. The owners of the properties in question have authorized Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change for their property (see attached Exhibit B) . This proposal will address the Comprehensive Plan and zoning issues with respect to the proposed change. A subsequent Development Review process will address the specified site design issues and the relationship of the project to existing development in the area. At this time, specific plans for the project have not been completed. However, it is anticipated that Five Lincoln Center will include approximately 100,000 feet of office space with a single story parking structure. It should be noted that, although the property under consideration in this proposal will enhance the development of Five Lincoln Center, it is only a portion of the actual land needed, as indicated by accompanying vicinity maps. Several adjacent parcels, also owned by the Trammell Crow Company, and designated office commercial, will also be included in the development of this phase of the project. This proposal will also address the rerouting of Lincoln Street to show why the relocation of the street will not only facilitate the construction of Lincoln V but also enhance the ultimate purpose of. Lincoln Street, i.e. to enhance the traffic access from the currently undeveloped lands south of Oak Street. The following narrative will address the criteria for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and will show that the proposal is consistent with the applicable standards for approval. II. COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK PLAN A. Plan Amendment Criteria The Community Development Code provides three criteria, one of which must be met by a proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment. In this case, the criteria must be reviewed both with respect to the property currently designated Residential, and with respect to the adjoining Institutional portion. With respect to the parcels currently designated Residential (Tax Lots 500, 501, 600, 700, 701, 702) , both criteria i and ii apply. i) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies. ii) A change of physical_ circumstances has occurred since the original designation. Criteria i) is applicable given that the proposed changes are necessary to allow the continued development of already zoned property namely Lincoln Center. In view of these criteria, it- is most important to recognize that the suitability of the site is a function of its relationship to the existing Lincoln Center project and the other parcels currently designated Office Commercial, which will be part of Five Lincoln Center. This is particularly important, since these properties will be combined with abutting parcels currently designated Office Commercial that will be redeveloped for Five Lincoln Center. The land under consideration would be used as parking for the proposed 100,000 square foot building to be built on properly zoned land. Criteria ii) is applicable given the natural growth of the Lincoln Center development. Originally all of the land east of Greenburg Road was zoned Residential. The office community known as Lincoln Center has grown as a natural result of the economic growth of the Tigard area. The area's proximity to Washington Square, Highway 217 and most importantly, the critical mass of other office tenants has made Lincoln Center the heart of the office market for the suburbs of Portland. The change in zoning for the area has been accomplished in a piece meal fashion, one building at a time. Therefore, the criteria of a =change in physical circumstance, i.e. that the area is now the heart of office development versus the original residential nature of the area when the Residential designation was applied is applicable. The proposed area is one of the last commercially viable pieces of property remaining in the City of Tigard for Class A office development and the expansion of its parking lot is necessary to accommodate the building's construction. B. The Comprehensive Framework Plan of Washington County provides the following statement to describe the character of Office Commercial areas: "Characterization: The purpose of this district is to provide for office complex development to house professional, institutional, medical, dental, governmental space needs in organized complexes, ranging in size and intensity from small to high rise development, depending on site characteristics. Office Commercial developments are employee intensive. Certain accessory commercial uses to serve the employees of the complex and high density residential uses may be permitted through a Planned Development process." The Lincoln Center project meets this parameter, based upon its overall master plan, character and size. The inclusion of the subject parcels will allow the implementation of the next phase to fully take advantage of the positive atmosphere which has been created. - .' The Framework Plan provides the following locational criteria for Office Commercial areas: "Location Criteria: This district may be used to buffer commercial and residential, commercial and industrial or residential and industrial uses. The precise location of these uses should be determined by the community planning process taking into account the population and employment projections. Generally, Office. Commercial uses should be located at Collector and Arterial intersections for visibility and auto access. The availability of pedestrian and transit access also of great importance." As noted above, Lincoln Center, as a whole, meets these criteria due to its size, proximity to S.W. Greenburg Road and Highway 217, and location between Washington Square and the Metzger residential area. The subject parcels, being west of the future revised extension of Lincoln Street, complied in the past to the Washington County provisions as mentioned above and will continue to comply under the City of Tigard Commercial-Professional designation. C C. Policies The City of Tigard has identified a number of Plan policies which may be applicable to this proposal. Each is addressed as follows: 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. Trammell Crow Company has consulted with each of the affected parties involved with the change and has received their support. Trammell Crow Company will continue to work with the affected parties to insure that citizene✓• will bYo pr^Y 3a.1c\aA an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 5.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO TIGARD RESIDENTS WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE GROWTH OF THE LOCAL JOB MARKET. The inclusion of the subject parcels in the Commercial-Professional area will facilitate the fifth phase of Lincoln Center, thereby reinforcing the viability of the entire project and the business activity in the area. One hundred plus jobs will be created by the construction of the building. When completed the building will serve asa work place for 350 people. 5.1.4 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES. The subject parcels zoned residential are surrounded on three sides by Commercial-Professional and Institutional properties. The change in zoning of these properties will be consistent with the transitional phase the area is experiencing. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. The subject parcels that are currently designated for up to 5 units per acre total 1.37 acres in size. Therefore, the opportunity for approximately 6 units will be lost with this change. This is insignificant in terms of the overall housing stock in Tigard. 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: 1. Public water; 2. Public sewer (new development on septic tanks shall not be allowed within the City) ; and 3. Storm Drainage b. The facilities are: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and 2. Designed to City standards. c. All new development utilities to be placed underground. The development shall comply with all service requirements. 7.6.1. THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. The development be served by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes; b. The development shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level adequate for fire protection purposes; and c. The applicable fire district review all applications. Letters of service availability will be requested from the Metzger Water District, Fire District No. 1, Unified Sewage Agency, Tri-Met, Washington County Sheriff's Office and the Washington County • Department of Land Use and Transportation (Traffic Impact Statement) . All necessary services are currently available or will be provided as determined through the Developmental Review process. 8.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. The relationship of the proposal to the Metzger .� Circulation Study, and overall transportation impacts is addressed below. A detailed traffic study will be completed as part of the Development Review process. IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. Traffic Issues The Metzger-Progress Circulation Study was adopted by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners in May, 1986, as a part of the overall Metzger-Progress Community Plan which was adopted in 1983. The purpose of the Metzger-Progress Circulation Study was to . address specific traffic and pedestrian problems identified during Plan adoption, including a traffic circulation study of the Greenburg Road, Oak Street, and Highway 217 intersection area. The proposed projects, programs, plans and policies recommended in the study, as a result of an area-wide transportation survey questionnaire and public meetings, include three major elements: *Neighborhood traffic management projects and • Programs, designed to reduce through traffic on local residential streets, improve north-south auto circulation and improve traffic safety. *Access and Capacity improvement projects and . policies, designed to alleviate existing traffic • congestion and provide for increased capacity on existing arterials and collectors; and *Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit improvement projects, plans and recommendations, designed to provide viable alternatives to auto travel as well as to increase the safety and convenience- of these alternatives." Four Neighborhood Traffic Management Projects are identified in the study which are proposed in the vicinity of the subject •(- site. Projects #2 and #3 are proposed to reduce through traffic on local streets, improve north-south circulation and improve traffic safety. Projects #9 and #13 are proposed to alleviate existing traffic congestion and provide for increased capacity on existing arterials and collectors: "2. Lincoln Street (93rd Avenue) revised extension Improve traffic circulation in the vicinity of Greenberg Road, Oak Street and Highway 217 by extending Lincoln Street (93rd Avenue) from Locust Street south to Oak Street." "3. Reduce traffic on Oak street by improve Locust Street to County major collector standards between Greenberg Road and 80th Avenue and signalizing the intersection of Locust Street and Greenburg Road. " "9. Greenburg Road improvements Increase capacity on Greenburg Road by adding 2 lanes from Washington Square entrance #5 to Washington Square entrance #6." (- "13. Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Interchange Improvement Increase traffic capacity and alleviate traffic congestion at the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 interchange by providing an additional northbound lane (restriping existing lanes or widening the Greenburg Road structure over Highway 217) ." Specific to the subject request, the study recommends that Lincoln Street (93rd Avenue) be reclassified between Locust Street and Oak Street from a local street to a minor collector by rerouting, extending and improving Lincoln Street. The purpose of the reclassification and extension is to reduce through traffic on neighborhood streets, in addition to increasing pedestrian and bicycle (i.e. , sidewalk/pathway) • systems. “m, a� L•. av a. INLJIL�I I LI I'J. LI Itx. JVJ 'I/%. JJ•JL I •� Exhibit A LOCUST Nair -60' ROW -- -44' STREET 50'R 30'R 100'R 34' STREET MAPLELEAF 100'R 50' R 30'R • LU ,-NEW ROW LINE OLD ROW UNE • LTJ Q � 0 CIr 00) TRAM M ELL CROW 93RD REALIGNMENT EXHIBIT B C • Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall BlvA P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. L���titir l r 5iUi £4 - - Owner Address ( ri Oto/ Cl.�� c 7 7Z? 5 /e Dee/ • • Location: 10175 S.W. 92nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. 41/ad • i `� xi)a / �� Address Da- e I Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. Owner 972,20 942.23 Address _ lx /l9 Date • C Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, 9722:3 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. Owner /Z ✓� Address ,?/ /e5'7-; Date C C i Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. Aa;v4y Owner R .)-• 64 A/7‘.7A Address J Date • 4 C Mr. Ed Murphy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is my authorization for the Trammell Crow Company to submit an application for a zone change on my property from residential to professional commercial. Thank you very much. er Address s7cc`2Cr 62, 4-7,f -3 3/7 A Date oa . it Ji- EXHIBIT C - t t -° "'In ao D Y k• In O ON 0- co - O In (D N 03 O P V Os M Q 2tt b n 0h n T N °, CV °-cot _ -d-• Os �- OS .4.. — 001 _v� _ 001 — OS OS Os O£ M ' GCS/Ile O3IVOVA O1 _�� 94£/92£ O31VOVAss: `` 2 (OGI) t ..3.� 1.1 1.tii .n 4 .. �: % i o 'til °- M wool - 1 oc ofl - Mt - -I °- - 071 - os �' os -r os -r oa -O • o O (,! — o �- ` / n N A .n O n n — 7 0 • Li •• o- Ci 4 N — sh -O o- -4 o N — O Q1'o o 0TV n 0 (may N iD 0) n n N W V •• N • • o (041) v (ow ° o- H r•- c, + + 1 ` ♦ 4 O ♦ n to n ._ 0 M 144 o• Q o- -4 to co f- -o co- i; .¢ij (D N lD 0 2 O Q O� T N 0Ob d N n on o o d ' 4 cal M 001 b ac A Os s 001 i _ 0_01 — 1OIOG• 4_ os Os , os - ° (HM,OG-$691 "i3'O) ° 0 6G£/£9b O.31VOVA n3fN3AV PU 6 MS 1On .l.�3... •�.•1. .i'�= I.A. .L. s".9691 'MO•93a . . ."; 9691-83 •IM1131 r.• tr • o ti "Ti.:,:.,,1•.;.001 t,; 4 02 .• '04 4 . ' 001 ...o , ci°- - 001 �� os 04 -7' os os c'M • 2' — o o n n _ • L1•-' • `� Q 4 p �' o o- / O A ° o Y" o- 4o = _ O — _ Q • O N' a OM nW 0N 1n . SOZ (O en " N f (OG1ll � T T yyr , Q • n o v ° v ° `001 001 W ti (,00£) Z � o M oon • CO 2 n°KM a 4"t Q -vg t cS (O oo- t,i -o .' N .001 lLl oo GO ao o v. :O Q NQ - o0ti o O '") Or`) ti o •� oOQ � n oo OOQ 101, 10£ Q'.'"*".......7 001 ° Os b'="o9'•.a 001 '. f.:°1 .os ° N •001 Os b OS 8 OL a Os 6 M 01 __'. .. 3f1N3AV (IS N100NI1) Pa26 MS n la ; N 91 kr .C7r. -09 ---�'�oz4 •,os "1,::.0g wY_sz I o cl i sz z1 o01 I os I os I os I 0�• � 001 a — 1 _ I °- nI , In — 0 1 z .10 o-: �N of ›.-.,- I o 00 ¢-• ��-¢ N _ O 0)• 2 J n _ Oto ' ( r I o \ Ai 03'A m 21 In N • O lrra�K�r.r.�.• 4. _ _ N \ .lTl_�.Via.::•� _ _..i.4 I .. 9£• �-+" + n • K/ N •• n M: ' C onI I. W M I t 1 N. N Kfo • ar— -� to co 4- -¢ `-1-, , .4 In co P' co 21 t. o qt 1,- 211- i v N — — • o- _ oot - -b- oc -d- os _b._ - o01 - ...1 0 . - oot _ �- oz N oc os c£ 1 os_ %n N. • • n =.s. :3: 3 CLL. .: .+I< 'v Li • n ii o OE9/9LZ a31VOWA cvi LZ9/9LZ 03.1,1011A969 �� — -- • °-�— ool — 'Y os Y' o�c�\)-�' - 001 — m P' 001 — oG -1- �s nz �.os I( — o" — 0 nl ^ In W'•- w �`°i• I Ni.1' O a � ° N 1 N 10 N m fv Y I ` a (i V N Q O Q co0 RI . 1» co eI Q\ Yn N` ,F Q I -c.11, t s ion or 417I'L.i eir .✓7's TizArre FACTS AND FINDINGS Based on field review and the above analysis the following conclusions can be made: CONCLUSIONS 1. The site will generate approximately 1, 622 new vehicle trips per day when complete. 2. The intersections along Greenburg Road in the area of the Hwy 217 interchange experience congestion and considerable delay during the existing pm peak hour. 3. The site distribution indicates that this development will increase the saturation levels on Greenburg Road approximately three (3) percent. This small percentage will not adversely affect the surrounding street system. 4. The intersection of Greenburg Road and Locust Ave. meets one of the warrants required for the installation of a traffic signal and should be investigated in the future by additional warrant studies. 5. The existing ramp signals on Greenburg Road and Hwy 217 are currently interconnected and operate on a 82 second cycle during the pm peak hour. 6. Passer II-84 runs indicate that by connecting the Mapleleaf intersection to the Hwy 217 signals, Greenburg Road could reduce the delay created at the off-ramps. 7. ODOT is currently reviewing several lane use changes on Greenburg Road at Hwy 217 which should help eliminate some of the congestion created at the Hwy 217 off-ramps. (67 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING (ATEP) PAGE 24 c(- ow- (- ' RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the traffic access analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the property as proposed can be constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding street system. To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians within the area, the following traffic operational improvements are recommended. 1) The existing signal at the Greenburg Road and Mapleleaf intersection remain a four (4) phase operation. 2) The proposed 93rd L.I.D. construction will provide additional access to the site from the south and should include the realignment of 93rd St. at Locust to accommodate the proposed parking areas. 3) The existing signal at Greenburg Road and Mapleleaf be reviewed for interconnection with Hwy 217 traffic signals. 4) The intersection of Locust and Greenburg Road be restriped to provide a left and right turn lane for Locust Street traffic. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING (ATEP) PAGE 25 METZGER-PROGRESS CIRCULATION STUDY WASHINGTON COUNTY PROPOSED STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECLASSIFICATIONS. FIGURE 3 SOURCE: WASHINGTON COUNTY.DEPARTMENT OF • LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION. 1985 WASHINGTON COUNTY .«0.0.0eo..«.c:.*Or••04.040.0.c....I•' ()EPAFT.•.:LNT Of LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION e.• :C •o•.o.c neT.ns•ac•x 01•C0 P 1 A\\I C: DIVISION • NOVEMBER. 1985 EXISTING PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL •••••••• EXISTING LOCAL STREET- ® . CHANGE TO MAJOR COLLECTOR EXISTING LOCAL STREET- - munmuu)n)uc EXISTING MINOR ARTERIAL 000000 CHANGE TO MINOR COLLECTOR • EXISTING MAJOR inammtessmon EXISTING MAJOR COLLECTOR ' IiaaViala \ CHANGE TO LOCALOSTREET0R •••.: A _ 0 1000 4000 FEET j 1:: 0 1/2 1 MILE •r I V • • • 1 �. TAYLORS FERRY v cN , .^•~T•-• k. �. -;: `ROAD:::::•<:; s' i h• j • mo f <O i . 0 1 a= O 1 1 p-0 I .Ov I e' O I } 0 G 0 _ TA ,� LOAUST f:, 0 I •..+ •••••D•••o••o•••• •••o••••••t'f000 I 00 ZO . cc �•� Of 0 = ti0 OAK. .1_.I OAK ,• .-.. . w�- •\ t- PINE;;.: • ti%p • I L. I I' -;r1" - ? P -F- L OO l� T. i- • QA • •-•-•- PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY - 10 - Exhibit A - LOCUST STREET • Yl/ -6(Y ROW 1..44° STREET 50'R NN 30'R 100°R 34' STREET MAPLELEAF • 100°R 3Q R 50' R W • NEW ROW UNE OLD ROW UNE LU 0 • CL r) TRAM M ELL CROW 93RD REALIGNMENT . Trammell Crow ompany Post Office Box 5396 10260 SW Greenburg Road Portland, Oregon 97228 Portland, Oregon 97223 503/245-9400 April 25, 1989 Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: Enclosed please find a draft of a deed restriction which upon the closing and purchase of tax lots 35AB700, 35AB500, 35AB701, 35AB501, 35AB702, and 35AB600, will be voluntarily placed upon the deed of the properties. This deed restriction will insure that the property shall be used only for parking. The effect of the deed restriction will be a reduction of the potential traffic volume versus if the property is left as residential and the parking for Lincoln Center Five is self-contained on the property that is currently zoned Commercial-Professional. I trust that this assurance will mitigate any concerns about the effects on the local traffic systems because there will be a net decrease in traffic if the zone change is made with the deed restrictions. Thank you for your assistance. - Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY David C. Blake Partner DCB/ac Enclosures • DEED RESTRICTION WHEREAS Trammell Crow Company ("Owner") has acquired a parcel of property ("Property") more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; WHEREAS Owner wishes to use the Property for parking purposes to service adjacent property also owned by Owner; and WHEREAS the City of Tigard ("City") has agreed to allow such use of the Property upon certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE it is agreed as follows: Owner agrees to limit use of the Property to parking in support of Owner's adjacent property until such time as all other property bordering the Property, including property bordering any road, street, or highway separating the Property from other property, is zoned for commercial or other non-residential use, or until such time as City may otherwise specifically permit other use of the Property, whichever occurs first. TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY � C Trammell Cro« ompany Post Office Box 5396 10260 SW Greenburg Road Portland, Oregon 97228 Portland,Oregon 97223 503/245-9400 April 25, 1989 RECEIVED Mr. Ed Murphy APR 27 1989 Community Development Director City of Tigardu'.• sizor"mc-t 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: Trammell Crow Company, represented by Crow-Oregon, Inc. , hereby agrees to participate with the City of Tigard and Wi-imar Corporation in a study to evaluate ways to enhance the traffic systems in the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard area. We look forward to working together with the City of Tigard in this endeavor. _ Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY David C. Blake Partner DCB/ac C TrammellCros ompany Post Office Box 5396 10260 SW Greenburg Road Portland, Oregon 97228 Portland,Oregon 97223 503/245-9400 April 25, 1989 RECEIVED Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director APR 27 1989 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. _ amend C:meocn,,., P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: Please find enclosed a copy of the agreement between the Tigard School District and Trammell Crow Company, confirming the school's support of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan change, for your information. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, C TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY David C. Blake Partner DCB/ac Enclosure ( C AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT AND TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY March 14, 1989 Trammell Crow Company is currently in the process of requesting a change in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan to change the location of Lincoln Street. The proposed Lincoln Street is shown on the attached Exhibit A. Trammell Crow Company is also attempting to change the Tigard _ Comprehensive Plan to allow the construction of a parking lot on the land immediately to the west of the relocated Lincoln Street. Trammell Crow Company hereby agrees that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed to allow the use as proposed and the parking lot is constructed, then Trammel Crow Company will allow evening use of the parking lot to Metzger School. Trammell Crow Company also agrees to include in the specifications for the proposed Lincoln Street a security fence along the entire length of the Lincoln Street exposure to Metzger School. The fence shall be included as a cost of the street improvement and shall be included in the Local Improvement District that will be formed for the construction of the road. The Tigard School Board hereby supports, without obligating itself to any financial responsibility, the necessary change in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan that would allow the relocation of Lincoln Street and the use of the property west of Lincoln Street as a parking lot. Agreed and Accepted this (41 day of March, 1989. David C. Blake Dr. Russ Joki arzner uperi endent Trammell Crow Company Tigard School District '111 -— 7 .1 7---.... ., ••, i „,•-•-, ,...-- , ,c. (... , ,...., , N\ ----: • ,-• , - . . .. : ;• ., .• . ./ -1. l'i: ;`)..:-,-. i ir,, t ; ,,,..-..: ;•,=.,- • , _.,. 2 -15-g9 A. ,... r,-..ri .t iLA-11t t_ILL .. ,..,rc1i1 i-TI-rnpirill11119111111.T151119111111111.111p-V1Iiii9iifirplipp)ipar11rpl1vrip1Ili1itiqn9ifili1lpillifpitpft illilifllifililitili11111141111111111111111Itrtilli'' .., . . , , 1 E: IF THIS MICROFILMED t----—., -. 1, • 2 . 3 4 ,_.• 5 . 6 7 . 8 9 NOT : , - — • DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN I ' , - . , THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO , • ' . TIE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL -- .._._ .: Oe 62 82 L2 92 SZ-- 92 ez zz 12 02 et 81 LI el 21 11 01 6 9 4 9 S Ilt 2 2 1 I • • ' •. .._,,, •• ' - . ..'p' ::.1'i11l-t.;!;i, .. . . , . MARCH . ... .. j- . '- ;,......1.„............:9..-_. u—u •,Fid l'.',',N,'4-',. ..•..-'.1.'' 1,•''.'...„.' ' - ,':-•-,... •,•'..••••.-•--.---,,•.: . 1i _ . • .,...,,,,,,.. .._. ...._ Jim ''.; '''''::'-';-.'".;',--'..--:',',4-';. :.'•X.:'....•,,t3k.,.-4;', ..:•••..-••-'.-'• '' . . - • .--..-. . . . . . , • -.4 -.1 • __ ---- T-1; , --- ----,-,--....- : Li_ •-_-.7., .7 / .... .-. ... . t"'"'"" ,-. 1- , . I if -,27-ZI- -'5 -----",... i 4•, ,...ZpI.Naia.:2-45ose . fit 9 hi/ i / ,. ...... ...A...A.. -.A.AA-..........„.., /7?... A A ... A \‘, . -ea' • g g- ..e ..x.';-......,. d , 4- 44% ,... , ..._ / 7/ / • e-. CST-- --,,.... tit `,. ----__ i ( ; ____ __ li • " -4f9 /, 1 : 4.4.• ''r= f 5". I 1.-4 — i 1 '. i.117.4 1 ti'''C / --•-• ' 7 11 i• ' , ,./ , Ili 't i do f \ _,,-/-- ------ .„,.... ---- ,„---_-- It 41 I ----- f:„--, L f. ; I. 4 r,24.1142-ti.- Z-4.1;y1"4 6,--Ewt.711Pit. ---, ..e„, 1 „, 1 -4.• I i , <r—r—l__ r___ r_-I__I 1 L iit'J I 1 I ,,---—-\ — Aiew i -.. 7 • . 1 ,________ , -•••• ' - r------- I 1-- -_: ii (--- \....___ 1 I _____________ - 1--180_------ ...----- . --____,------ •-____. o \ ---------/ v tg ) 1; / RECEIVED I / / ..,.. or,------- MAY 1 0 1989 : / • S.W. 3RD. DAVOVEMEM15- 1 / i . \ ......,.,.. _ , . . . NE WESTECH ENC101,29010,INC. b. N-___-•-_____•-- ;;-7.„--., CONSULTING ENGINEERS&FLANF ; .•'''-'- 7;.,..n7,--'4''''''''''''''Vk'-2" "-''V.t'''''::7'-'-'''-t,:-'-: ':.---,,,' w--1.-...,'-'-‘ --:' '`"'.--'. '"'''' '''': "'-'--e''-' - --"' .'''':L'"'''17:1-7777 "7".1'7'*'' '7-2---- -:***-':---- ''''''''-___.-- ':'''''''''-- -- .- '-- ' ""'n',!",.- :-.,t--..--,,, r--vA,..: . 't":--° '''',,,,.-"'-:,‘,:•,,'-. ---,----.,.!. -:--:,--7:",:=q. :.,',',,.--,:,:',.?"'S-t-D-47.??:4 ::,-;:.-i-,-,,,:--T '.-- • -'. -'-' '-''-'''-`7:---- '''-''''C----' '4LiZi• .:4-. :7,C7iii pit filplitilifillillililipliplipitillii111111-1111111111iiiiillikplippriptirliT191111111-1111111111-1911111111101-1011111111111111p1111111111111i111111.0111111111111111111111/111111ik 1 . NOTEIF THIS MICROFILMED Fm..............aa......................1."..................L....................4..... 5 - 6 , 7 8 9 lb ii : DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN , THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL 1 i _ • ' . .. I i DRAPING. , OS—64- iZ --"Atz-z------1Z—bi—OI-01-11---41---s7--if -el—il----ir—of—is— a - i---i-i--- - othmlimimilm!hudaalaalail 1,1 •.-.......:::, ,.. ''---..,--- ..,,...:,,.-:,..,.- ....,, lital.li,:.,I•11 11,11411,,.111,,,,_•'I1—I,,,,,,, :. .11,''.' ,I,I e.. . . ,,/ . , iL I I t `,. MARCH , ' t :8k , 1990 — ' Tigard City Council We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the application by Trammell Crow or any other entity to change the existing traffic plan for Lincoln Street. Our opposition is based on the following arguments: 1. A Metzger-Progress traffic study was done in 1985 by Washington County with a traffic plan that considered the needs of the whole affected area not just the property owned by Trammell Crow. This study went through an observation phase, as well as a citizen review and input process. The conclusion of the study specifically singles out Lincoln Street as a major part of the traffic flow pattern needed for existing and future local area growth. Our opposition is: a. Trammell Crow's application to change Lincoln Street so that it would have an "around the block" configuration would have a major negative impact and negate the use off Lincoln Street as a to the current ffic needs on Oak Street. b. A summary changing of solution!incoln without deferenceandfuture to traprevious studies and plans that considered the whole area's needs in its scope, and making such a change without sufficient restudy of its impact on the total area is not prudent government. If a change were to be considered, it should only be after additional study of comparative scope with its impact to the total neighborhood assessed. c. The highest and best use for Tigard, its tax base, and the neighborhood is not to displace densely developed jesidential housing' of Oak, but to first consider the sparsely developed area ` of Oak Street. Not only is this area more undeveloped, but it is more suitable to commercial development due to its proximity to Highway 217, which is concurrently less desirable for housing. Changing Lincoln so that it is no longer a straight street will have a severely negative impact on the neighborhood. d. Changing Linclon would set a bad precedent for the citizen process of government since it would change previous citizen planning. e. The decision on Lincoln Street should be based on its impact on the whole community and should not be tempered or distracted by issues related to the future of the school. f. Giving up street property to Trammell Crow for their use, and in exchange getting improvements on only$0%o of the remaining adjacent streets is irresponsible. If street footage is to be given up, the developer should be responsible for 100% improvements of the adjacent street that is being designed for their own use. or SIGNED ADDRESS DATE --7764,.."A140? 67,5 3 c ,-•;I..(J a 7[4: 5 7- y_ /5-- "'a/ , 7,-,=:,- - . 7A-2,-)_._s-- SL,) 04,4- (---/- Y ,(-..-- /i? .7 /: 777---cf- -- - /47/ir-2 i''' / / /-/Z. "1-•-• ,),,.. ,_ Szi /S-,- /i67 i,.., -iTA-51-Ye 2 77 ) c-- /'-' ', _c ,_.-,1 ) ---.' Ti ,-(-._ , _.--.'---PNq 1 ,:5 if 'Lr----c ---- ----. ..--- (-7r\ i —I0 c-c 7---- 4:0<w, tfr-7- ,_,5 (14 r G:)(7 .:) C'Cl Cl( \ -,,t .-----,%-? -/:_.`,7--- ,,--/:„--__ _c.,:-.. .4 (:)A 4- , ,c- c- _ .__ / _7 - 27 ) _ / ,./ y .....4-2,..._ - rS-C--: 73 s s,LO - a 0-AQ__, J-/-/- 7i‘ _______ , -,-f-?-,• 5---,,,/ F-(--;"1// / 51/ / / / q -47,,, ,,,,,,,,,_ / ( o_r-,(.3 . • 37/,i-7- - , 1 „ / , , 4r74 ci-2er 0 3 1,12 oa • • . .- N---. ; Ij`kc'e r.--(...„..4..,...a 40 e.....----(.. Tigard City Council c We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the application by Trammell Crow or any other entity to change the existing traffic plan for Lincoln Street. Our opposition is based on the following arguments: 1. A Metzger-Progress traffic study was done in 1985 by Washington County with a traffic plan that considered the needs of the whole affected area not just the property owned by Trammell Crow. This study went through an observation phase, as well as a citizen review and input process. The conclusion of the study specifically singles out Lincoln Street as a major part of the traffic flow pattern needed for existing and future local area growth. Our opposition is: a. Trammell Crow's application to change Lincoln Street so that it would have an 'around the block' configuration would have a major negative impact and negate the use off Lincoln Street as a solution to the current and future traffic needs on Oak Street. b. A summary changing of Lincoln without deference to previous studies and plans that considered the whole area's needs in its scope, and making such a change without sufficient restudy of its impact on the total area is not prudent government. If a change were to be considered, it should only be after additional study of comparative scope with its impact to the total neighborhood assessed. c. The highest and best use for Tigard, its tax base, and the neighborhood is not to displace densely developed esidential housing of Oak, but to first consider the sparsely developed area s'� of Oak Street Not only is this area more undeveloped, but it is more suitable to commercial development due to its proximity to Highway 217, which is concurrently less desirable for housing. Changing Lincoln so that it is no longer a straight street will have a severely negative impact on the neighborhood. d. Changing Linclon would set a bad precedent for the citizen process of government since it would change previous citizen planning. e. The decision on Lincoln Street should be based on its impact on the whole community and should not be tempered or distracted by issues related to the future of the school. f. Giving up street property to Trammell Crow for their use, and in exchange getting improvements on only 50%of the remaining adjacent streets is irresponsible. If street footage is to be given up,the developer should be responsible for 100%improvements of the adjacent street that is being designed for their own use. C SIGNED _., - I ADDRESS DATE /0 (/c-c-- 56--) 7( . n--7-a--,c-/ 61,1X.c.,-.L.L.,--1,— (.1,1' t_'.1:.,li I-enA...: `73/,' •,.' 5,cc.,1 Ckx.:...(< ,4 elz/:-.7 3 77 a C: hi/I( ,9 VZ7 -----5c< •-•.---, 2.4'—'),4_ .--) (7-V6)c, c(A. C:I/X- .-2LA/ E,-7 !„27 // el . „:),<,- :y- , -, r._ '<-0-Y\ 07)-jbl 'j /0 6D.C) S4,/ C C _........--- l <? / / Fes„ 11 ci� naeL 090� '-�L1t ‘ 5l/..7 / i . /YiL /2 /72 c /S /#z- - -c- ,- -1/26) ,t_5 vis 1 c z 7e--.5-20/0)-2/ .'-),-- A5' 34 e -;-. - 71%e- /3/7f..)/90,...;,7e. ct /Q/70/ rCc O/7/.r2c 7e'e G /7-2 117<'i? C//c c .ZL Z 21 ). 1)I eft' -- _ re) _,.) ,._. /, c. _ /e7 / //?/c r-r s /� A ez )1V/7 e) y� S e e- c.5"e--)-; -;6z/ o-y-c.. r .sit 00 ��a - - c /c /7c) 1,/cy 7 fiX e /J2 C, ea . �1/ 7r .7/ =e- ,e,:::)/-7i e- </'n,-,_ s u /X( e . ,,(-e /.//,-i2 9 S ).--- i"/ ' . )/ / ' //-J ioi.2-) . AJU / /moo _ /CA4-iel-,, Ad Ca,k4 ill ,y-.. . 752,/clGi'f'<-,S . :. 1,1,,, // lkf e ,-/ / /i7 QCCo, o /a/`c: Z�:,/)-)-, 01 O /20/1 . A1"'o% GL2 a./ /iv--a/-r.),)-7 / Q. 0.Gfx(t_o ' e-ck te) 0././c.Li'l.6.4-<:./ ..1 `J .I ric.d. _ o - c- °Leaa eS1)U 1. ,t5 -/ ea/7 'i _ • `S(,-c 77(2/ ,,,7z ---_ - - 6 c ha i _ ) _ Q.I .6.1 0/ /////1-c- --I ,e Ccs_ .`-_ - `�..\t S. f t'I �`\c ()NAND c.� _ .:s__ _bee - e.._, il,\_e_.- O'c+ic e_ \o,LA I(VI \ \r� �' ' -C' r U. -ire _._k S �,... . -- _ _ i ci c_<-_____mact l _1_ I —Cc-el— 121s— — -- — f2) U-S e'C/ /2/ G7 e/2(2,,- , �. .. CA.7i// - .- _ 7274.), / G>AG G5", .)j/ a4,-, y 72 �- % 1,1:- ; >_-()c:/ /7C%/ �4' W' / 1� ��-'/j //,,,--,5c G> ,�. - , , Gni i S L,-,)ei I 0 s. h eci..4.--z_A‘L _ `if 0 x\c.-)-1 (-:i vyt,. 1 - `fie )Ne...U1 (1-0\ -V,)-- c----t \ v\c C - VV<-c c O, a OLc - �u� . _ (�cam-. _ _l b� -,� � fi . .Lu� S �Z.ci S �rl ID_ . b_e_ .. __ _ \ .)\pv.-(:_ 6 ct,e6 S-4 p ?,__8 _ ri_c: ,_\, , -1-- c / __ -74-. , 1 _ v_-s---6,)--,- .? / f'1//// &''>?.S/C'k 5. _. C cLO aq-re 7f6 - a'► K,o74--e - - . __ -- ALL 5 d 1 (. -Lc.' --i• e__ _ . :CO-L.Q./ . . -1-- f%at YY) ./2 9 _" -,-- . dik 0_0 \ A d v . .CZE. 1 S. _ - - . CkAkA l'AcI s .bei PuYce_c b __. ____� . 're) 0 aoit e-cl . L)3\,...e/y\ a „r,_ a ._ _i..,.)\\\ \( ,•\ _-, \,E , ...\._ v ve ss ...€_ cl . ._ _ - e-e_ . _ -VD -\ )x J to„vtAa _ . etjuoaki . __ ._ _._ ._...._ - _ . ac-J-i3.0\1,s . __ _ cii\%\i ,e,s .— _ _ .. __ _ . _________r 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 5-15-89 DATE SUBMITTED: r 9 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Noise PREVIOUS ACTION: -- Ordinance Revision •ARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT. HEAD OK ail. CITY ADMIN O' S/ • QUESTED BY; ' - PO CY ISSUE Should the noise ordinance be amended to better address noise related impacts with emphasis on protection of residential uses. INFORMATION SUMMARY Because of the problems encountered with the Tigard Market Place Shopping Center, the Council expressed an interest in revising the existing noise ordinance standards in the TMC. The attached draft retains the maximum allowable noise level and adds average maximums that vary in accordance with the type of land use affected. Attached is a copy of the draft and the existing Code provisions. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL IMPACT == SUGGESTED ACTION Review revisions and set a public hearing date on June 12, 1989. /br ccsum.mst C ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE DRAFT 3/22/89 7.40.130 Noise - Definitions. For purposes of this Section and Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.200, the following shall mean: (a) Ambient noise - means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually being a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of one hour at specific location without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources. (b) Noise-receiving land use - means any portion of a property which is the recipient of sounds that are generated from beyond the property boundary. This definition applies to noise-sensitive and commercial-industrial land uses defined below. (c) Noise-sensitive land use - means any portion of a church, children day care, hospital, residential group care, school, single or multi-family dwelling unit, and mobile home that is intended for living, sleeping, or eating. This definition excludes accessory areas or structures such as yard areas and garages. (d) Commercial-industrial land use - means any use which is a permitted or conditional use in the C-P, C-G, CBD, C-N, I-P, I-L, and I-H zoning \ districts, as identified in Title 18. 7.40.140 Motor vehicle noises. No person shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to cause the noise created by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-receiving land use to exceed the levels specified in Section 7.40.160 and as measured in Section 7.40.170 below. 7.40.150 Noise emanating from certain property. Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisior cf Sections 7.40.180 and 7.40.190, no person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-receiving land use to exceed the levels indicated in Sections 7.40.160 and 7.40.170 below. 7.40.160 Allowable noise limits. Two noise standards shall apply when measuring noise levels at the noise-receiving land use as measured in accordance with Section 7.40.170 below: (a) Maximum noise levels. The following maximum noise decibel levels shall not be exceeded over 1% of the time (L1 dBA) averaged over a 15 minute period: Time of Day Maximum Noise Level, Li dBA 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 60 C10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 55 (b) Average maximum noise levels. The following average noise decibel levels shall not be exceeded over 50% (L50 dBA) of the time averaged over a 15 minute period: Time of Day Maximum Noise Level, L50 dBA 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 50 - Noise-sensitive land use 55 - Commercial/Industrial land use 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 45 - Noise-sensitive land use 50 - Commercial/Industrial land use 7.40.170 Standard for measurement. (a) Measurements shall be made with a calibrated sound level meter in good operating condition, meeting the requirements of a Type I or Type II meter, as specified in ANSI Standards 1.4.-1971. For purposes of this ordinance, a sound level meter shall contain at least an "A" weighing network, and both fast and slow meter response capability. (b) Persons conducting sound level measurements shall have received training in the techniques of sound measurement and the operation of sound measuring instruments from the Department of Environmental Quality or other competent body prior to engaging in any enforcement activity. (c) Noise measurements shall be taken at a height of 5 feet and a distance of 25 feet from the noise-receiving land use in the direction of the noise ( source. If the noise source and noise-receiving land use are less than 25 feet apart, the measurement shall be taken at the property line. 7.40.180 Noise - Exemptions to restrictions. The restrictions imposed by Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.170 shall not apply to the following: (a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; (b) Noise emanating from Pacific Highway, Highway 217, and Interstate 5; (c) Sounds originating on construction sites and reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction work may be carried out between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM, except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or which a special permit, granted by the City Council, has been first obtained. Any such special permit may be granted by the City Council only after first having held a pr.blic hearing and having otherwise followed the administrative procedures contained in Chapter 18.32 of this Code; (d) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair, upkeep, or maintenance of property. 7.40.190 Permits required for events using amplified sound. (a) The use of amplified voice and music at levels which would otherwise exceed those permissible under Section 7.40.130 through 7.40.180 may be allowed upon application to the City Administrator. Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the City Administrator on forms prepared by the City. The applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event. (b) In the case of a series of similar events to be conducted at the same location, the City Administrator may, at his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover the entire series. In that event, the permit shall be subject to the Administrator's withdrawal at any time. (c) The City Administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the surrounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for which the application is made. (d) The City Administrator may submit any question arising with respect to this Section to the City Council, and if any member of the City Council requests its submission to the Council, any such question shall be heard by the Council. In either event, the decision of the City Council shall be final. (e) No permit authorized by this Section shall give the applicant the right to cause or permit sound to emanate from the property on which the event is held as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed 55 dBA after 11:00 PM. 7.40.200 Penalty for chapter violations. (a) A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed according to the procedures established in the civil infractions ordinance, set out in Chapter 1.16 of this Code. Notice to abate the nuisance shall be a prior contract. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. (c) A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. (d) If a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this Chapter. dj/NOISE-OR.RL 7.40.110--7.40. 140 o any one automobile, truck, bus, trailer or piece of ve- h ular equipment; (c) Used or dismantled household appliances, furniture, other •iscards or junk, for more than five days. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhi• 't C(5) (4) ) , 1986) . 7.40.1 Attractive nuisances. (a) No owner or re- sponsible par', shall permit on the property: (1) Un• . arded machinery, equipment or other devices which are attracte, dangerous, and accessible to children; (2) Lumber logs, building material or piling placed or stored in a manner o as to be attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children; (3) An open pit,- .uarry, cistern, or other excava- tion without safeguards or . .rriers to prevent such places from being used by children; (4) An exposed foundat •n or portion of foundation, any residue, debris or other buil• 'ng or structural remains, for more than thirty days after the •estruction, demolition or removal of any building or portion •f the building. (b) This section shall not apply • • authorized con- struction projects with reasonable safegu. ds to prevent injury or death to playing children. (Ord. : 6-20 §4 (Exhibit C(5) (5) ) , 1986) . . 7.40. 120 Scattering rubbish. No person sh- ,1 deposit upon public or private property any kind of rubbis trash, debris, refuse, or any substance that would mar the - ••ear- ance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract from the lean- liness or safety of the property, or would be likely to injure a person, animal, or vehicle traveling upon a publ1. way. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(5) (6) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7.40. 130 Noise--Definitions. For purposes of this section and Sections 7. 40.130 through 7.40.200, the following mean: (a) "Ambient noise" means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a com- posite of sounds from many sources, near and far. (b) "Noise-sensitive property" means real property on which people normally sleep and, in addition, schools, churches, hospitals and public libraries. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (a) ) , 1986) . 7.40. 140 Motor vehicle noises. No person shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to cause the noise created by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to ex- ceed the levels specified in Section 7.40. 160, as measured 87-1 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40. 150--7. 40. 180 at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (b) ) , 1986) . 7 . 40. 150 Noise emanating from certain property. Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.40. 220, no person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed the levels set forth in Section 7.40. 160, as measured at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (c) ) , 1986) . 7.40. 160 Allowable noise limits. Allowable noise limits are as follows: Time Maximum Noise Level, DBA 7:00 a.m. -- 10: 00 p.m. 60 10:00 p.m. -- 7: 00 a.m. 55 (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (d) ) , 1986) . 7. 40. 170 Noise--Exemptions to restrictions. The re- strictions imposed by Sections 7. 40. 140 through 7 . 40. 160 of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; (b) Noise emanating from the Pacific Highway, Highway I-217 and Highway I-5; (c) Sounds originating on construction sites and rea- sonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction work may be carried on between the hours of nine p.m. and seven a.m. , except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or which a special permit, granted by the city council, has been first obtained. Any such special permit may be granted by the city council only after first having held a hearing and having otherwise followed the administra- tive procedures contained in Chapter 18 .32 of this code; (d) Emergency repair equipment not operated on a regu- lar or scheduled basis; (e) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair, upkeep or maintenance of property. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (e) ) , 1986) . 7. 40. 180 Jake brakes prohibited. No person shall operate within the city limits of the city of Tigard a motor vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly known as a "jake brake. " For the purposes of this section, the exceptions set forth in Section 7 .40. 170 shall not apply, and this 87-2 (Tigard 1/15/87) 7. 40. 190--7 . 40.210 section shall be read as an absolute prohibition of the • operation of such motor vehicle braking systems within the city of Tigard. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (f) ) , 1986) . 7.40.190 Sound-amplifying equipment restrictions. No person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from sound- amplifying equipment under their control so as to cause the ambient noise level to exceed sixty DBA at any distance one hundred feet or more from the sources between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. , and fifty-five DBA one hundred feet from the source between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (g) ) , 1986) . 7.40.200 Violation--Penalty. Failure to abate the nuisance within the time allowed for abatement shall consti- tute a Class 1 civil infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures established in Chapter 1. 16 of this code, Civil Infractions. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of Sections 7.40. 130 through 7.40.200 shall constitute a separate in- fraction, and each day that a violation of such sections is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a sep- arate violation. (c) A finding of a violation of Sections 7.40 .130 through 7.40.200 and imposition of a civil penalty shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio- lation, except where the city has acted to abate the nuisance. In such a situation, the responsible party shall be liable for the costs pursuant to Section 1.16.340 of the civil in- fractions ordinance codified in Chapter 1.16 of this code. (d) If a provision of Sections 7.40 .130 through 7.40- .200 is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this section. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (h) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE V. EVENTS USING AMPLIFIED SOUND 7.40.210 Permits required for certain events. (a) The use of amplified voice and music at levels which would otherwise exceed those permissible under Sections 7.40.130 • -through 7 . 40.200 may be allowed upon application to the city administrator. Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the city administrator on forms prepared by the city. The applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event. (b) In the case of a series of similar events (for example, a season' s high school football games) , to be con- ducted at the same location, the city administrator may, in his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover 87-3 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40 .220 the entire series. In that event, the permit shall be sub- ject to the administrator' s withdrawal at any time. (c) The city administrator shall grant a permitin any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise ll not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the sur- rounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for which the application is made. uesti (d) The city administrator may submit any question on council,on arising with respect to this section to the city and if any member of the city council requests its submission to the council, any such question shall be heard by the council. In either event, the decision of the city council shall be final. this section shall give (e) No permit authorized by the applicant the right to cause or permit sound to emanate from the property on which the event is held so as to cause the ambient noise level atitthe e DnneA arest trnoise_sens fiveeven property to exceed fifty- hour p.m. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(4) (7) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY 7 .40 .220 Penalt for cha ter violation . (a) A vio- lation of this chapter shall constitute a Class civilroce- iinfraction,, which shall be processed according to the dures established in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1.16 of this code. Notice to abate the nui- sance shall be a prior contract. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of this chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this chapter is committed or permitted to continueA shall c000ftatviolationseparate thisinfraction. shall not relieve the responsible A reses dpofindingof p arty of the duty to abate the vio- lation. The penalties imposed by -this section are in addi- tion to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the city. (d) If a provision of this chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation ion.sh lldbl e8subject ct to the penalties imposed by this (Exhibit C(8) ) ; • 87-4 (Tigard 8/15/86)