The URL can be used to link to this page

07/18/2011 - Packet , II Completeness TIGARD Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Name of Board, Commission or Committee July 18,2011 Date of Meeting Signature Doreen Laughlin 11/6/14 Date 114 " City of Tigard TIGARD Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: July 18, 2011; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m. 5. BRIEFING—7:10 p.m. SECOND HCT LAND USE PLAN UPDATE 6. BRIEFING— 7:55 p.m. URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS UPDATE 7. OTHER BUSINESS —8:40 p.m. STAFF LIAISON UPDATE 8. ADJOURNMENT—8:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JULY 18, 2011 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 111 City of Tigard T I GARD Memorandum To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions, Project Update Date: June 27, 2011 Summary Staff and the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee have discussed and developed draft code language for all of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project topic areas. Prior to consolidating the code into a comprehensive package for adoption in early 2012, staff would like to update Planning Commission on the draft code language and receive any preliminary feedback. Background The city's first Urban Forest section as part of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2008 which contains broad 20 year goals and policies for the city's urban forestry program, including a directive to develop a more detailed Urban Forestry Master Plan. In 2009, the city's first Urban Forestry Master Plan was accepted which contains a list of detailed action items to be implemented over a seven year timeframe. At the top of the list of action items are detailed recommendations for revising the code consistent with the urban forest goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. Council directed staff to pursue a comprehensive update of the urban forestry code in February of 2010 and a citizen advisory committee was appointed by council to ensure representation of a broad set of viewpoints during the update process. Commissioners Walsh and Schmidt both serve on the citizen advisory committee. A technical advisory committee comprised of city staff and representatives from outside agencies was formed as well to advise the project management team on the technical aspects of the code during the update process. A public involvement plan was developed specifically for the project to provide enhanced opportunities for participation for the overall community throughout the process. 1 The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project is entering the final phase which will involve a comprehensive review of the draft code by the citizen and technical advisory committees, a peer review by outside development and urban forestry experts, and a public review by citizens prior to the adoption process beginning in early 2012. Main Components of the Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions The draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions are grouped into four topic areas: • Urban Forestry Standards for Development; • Tree Grove Preservation Incentives; • Tree Permit Requirements; and • Hazard Trees. The main components of each topic area are summarized below. Urban Forestry Standards for Development The draft urban forestry standards for development are intended to provide equitable treatment of all major development projects by requiring outcomes that will result in a reasonable amount of trees post development. The current mitigation standards based solely on tree removal are recommended to be eliminated from the code. The following are the highlights of the draft revisions: • Tiered canopy requirements based on zoning are required to be met through any combination of planting new trees, preserving existing trees (which receive bonus credits), or paying a fee in lieu of planting or preservation. The tiers are based on intensity of development, so for example, low density residential development is required to have more trees than development in downtown Tigard. • The bonus credit for preservation puts property owners that have existing trees at an advantage because they can more easily meet the tiered canopy requirements. This is a shift from the existing code where certain standards such as mitigation apply only to properties with trees, and properties without trees are exempt from the standards. • Where space provides, there is an incentive for planting trees that will be large stature at maturity. The tiered canopy requirements are based on the projected growth of trees at maturity so it will be less expensive to plant fewer large stature trees rather than many small stature trees. This is shift from the existing code's mitigation standards which incentivize the planting of many, closely spaced, small stature trees which is inconsistent with sound urban forest science. 2 • There is an incentive for maximizing street tree canopy since street trees will receive full credit towards the tiered canopy requirements. This is consistent with sound urban forest science because street trees are proven to have high benefit to cost ratios. This represents a shift from the existing code because currently street trees are not granted credit for mitigation so there are often as few street trees as possible planted with development. • Tree planting standards for streets and parking lots require adequate soil volumes to support tree growth to maturity and achieve significant canopy cover over impervious surfaces. The city's current standards require 3 foot by 3 foot minimum islands for parking lots trees, and scientific studies have demonstrated this is not sufficient to support healthy growth to maturity. Staff is working with a consultant and the advisory committees to revise the street and parking lot tree design standards consistent with sound urban forest science. • A discretionary review track will allow applicants to propose alternate green building or development techniques such as meeting LEED or Earth Advantage standards instead of planting or preserving trees, or paying the required fee in lieu. The Planning Commission or Hearings Officer would be authorized to use their discretion in determining whether the alternate proposal is equivalent to planting, preserving, or paying a fee in lieu. This provides additional flexibility in meeting the code standards, particularly for unique or constrained situations. Tree Grove Preservation Incentives The draft flexible standards and incentives for tree grove preservation "focus on preserving large groves of native trees...while allowing for the full development of property under current zoning" as recommended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Seventy native tree groves covering 544 acres have been identified as significant through the statewide goal 5 rule requirements and would be eligible for the draft flexible standards and incentives. The following are the highlights of the draft flexible standards and incentives: • Allowed waiver of minimum density requirements. This would allow for less dense development where there are tree groves. Home builders have commented that this could be a marketable product. • Allowed density transfer from the tree grove portion to the non-tree grove portion of a site. To facilitate this, reductions in dimensional standards such as lot size and setbacks are allowed. Attached units are also allowed, except multifamily condo or apartment buildings are not allowed. Compatibility standards are required when abutting residential development with the same or lower density. • For commercial and industrial development, the main incentive for tree grove 3 preservation is an allowed increase in building height. All of the draft incentives and flexible standards are contingent on permanent protection of the grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. Tree Permit Requirements The draft tree permit requirements would apply to the currently regulated tree types of: • Street and median trees; • Native trees in sensitive lands (as opposed to all trees in sensitive lands which is the current standard); • Trees that were required by a land use permit (such as parking lot trees); • Heritage Trees; and • Trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund. The purpose of the draft tree permit requirements are not to regulate any more tree situations than the city currently does, but rather to improve the clarity, consistency, and scientific basis for decision making. Currently, the requirements for these tree types are scattered throughout the code, and the recommendation is to consolidate them into a new Title 8 to increase clarity and consistency. Decisions regarding draft tree permit decisions would fall into one of the following two categories: • The City Manager Decision Making Procedures would be implemented administratively by staff without public review for simple situations such as trees that are in poor or hazardous condition, nuisance trees, trees causing damage, or trees that would prevent allowed development to occur. This would cover the vast majority of cases for tree removal. • The City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures would be implemented through a public review process by a designated board or commission for more complex and unique situations where the reasons for removal are unclear. The designated board or commission would be authorized to use their discretion to weigh the tree benefits and reasons for removal when making their decision. 4 Hazard Trees The hazard trees portion of the project is intended to correct issues with the existing code which include an unclear definition of what constitutes a hazard, and a lack of clarity about the city's role in hazard tree situations on private property. Staff has worked particularly closely with the city's risk division and attorney to limit legal exposure associated with the draft code amendments regarding hazard trees. Following are the highlights of the draft hazard tree code amendments: • The definition of hazard tree is revised for consistency with the standardized numerical rating system developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. • When there are hazard tree disputes between private property owners, complainants would have to present clear evidence that they tried to work the issues out themselves before involving the city in the dispute. • When the city does become involved in hazard tree disputes, a third party arborist would conduct the evaluation to limit the city's legal exposure. • If the third party arborist does determine there is a hazard, abatement would be ordered to be completed according to a specified timeframe. 5 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 18,2011 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Ryan Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Absent: Commissioner Hasman; Commissioner Muldoon Staff Present: Caren Frykland, Sr. Administrative Specialist;Judith Gray, Sr. Transportation Planner; Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist COMMUNICATIONS -None CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES June 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the June 20 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. BRIEFING— SECOND HCT LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner, was present to provide an update on the second HCT land use plan. The PowerPoint presentation is included as Attachment A. The main points covered were: • Regional SW Corridor Plan Context o Planning for HCT is in progress, hoping to finalize in 2012 o Cities of Portland and Tualatin just getting started o Looking at alternative mobility standards for Pacific Highway as well as transit modes and alignments I:\LRPLN\Planning Cnmmissian\2011 PC Packets\718-11\3-TPC Minutes 7-18-11.doc Page 1 of 6 • Major Tasks Completed o Establish CAC o Existing conditions report o Stakeholder interviews o Develop Tigard typology o May 25 Design Sessions - applied typology to seven potential station communities • Schedule Update o Alternatives evaluation (on-going) o Presentation to CAC & TAC (Aug 3/4) o "Bonus" CAC & TAC meetings (Sep 7/8) o Open House (September 28) QUESTIONS FOR STAFF President Walsh asked why Tigard was ahead of the other agencies in planning. Gray said that it mainly had to do with funding. Commissioner Shavey asked when the Planning Commission would get to see some of the results of the work they had done. Gray said that they would present to the CAC and TAC in early August and September, and that those meetings would be open to the public, and that she planned to give the Planning Commission another update in late fall. BRIEFING —URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS UPDATE Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist, was present to provide an update on the Urban Forestry Code revision project. The PowerPoint presentation is included as Attachment B. Points covered in this update are listed below. • Brief history of Urban Forestry Code • Main objectives of the urban forestry code revisions project: o Create clear standards so both the city and the public understand the intent and expectations of the code. o Create equitable standards so that the code applies as evenly as possible. o Ensure the code is consistent with sound scientific principles. • Urban forest is a central piece of the city's green infrastructure and, when properly managed, can provide tangible economic and ecological benefits. • The draft code revisions can be grouped into four main categories: o urban forestry standards for development; o tree grove preservation incentives; o tree permit requirements; and o hazard trees. • Draft urban forestry standards for development include the following: o tiered canopy requirements based on zoning, o bonus credit for tree preservation, C I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\7-18-11\3-TPC..Minutes"-1A-11doc Page 2 of 6 o incentive for planting trees that will grow to be large at maturity, o incentives for maximizing street trees, o requirement for adequate soil volume to properly support trees, and o creation of discretionary review track for development. • Tree grove preservation incentives: o 70 large groves of native trees covering 544 acres of land area have been identified including 131 acres of buildable land o allow waiver of minimum density requirements o allow density transfer from the tree grove portion to the non-tree grove portion of a site o allow increase in building height for commercial and industrial development o incentives contingent upon permanent protection of the grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. • Tree permit requirements: o would apply to the already regulated tree types of street and median trees, native trees in sensitive lands, trees that were required by a land use permit, Heritage Trees, and trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund o consolidate them under a single title to increase clarity and consistency o two major categories of decisions regarding tree permits • City Manager Decision Making Procedures -implemented administratively by staff without public review for simple situations • City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures - implemented through a public review process by a designated board or commission for more complex and unique situations o potential permit costs will be discussed and decided upon by City Council • Hazard Trees o Revise the definition of"hazard tree" to be consistent with the standardized. rating system developed by the International Society of Arboriculture o Require property owners to present clear evidence that they tried to work out disputes themselves before involving the city. o Hire third party arborist to conduct the evaluation which would limit the city's legal exposure. o Require abatement in a specified timeframe if the arborist determines there is a hazard. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF Commissioner Doherty asked about the definition of hazard trees, and who determines what a hazard tree is. Prager said that the code revisions used the standards developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. He said that these standards gave numerical ratings to specific characteristics of trees and allowed the city to set a specific level to identify hazard trees. Commissioner Shavey asked what the definition of heritage tree is. Prager said that this is a special city program that identified trees that are of certain species, have historical value, particularly attractive trees as nominated by property owners and confirmed by the City I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\7-18-11\3-TPC Minutex 7-18-11.doc Page 3 of 6 Council. He said that the property owner then assigns a deed restriction to protect the tree in the future. Commissioner Shavey asked about soil volume to support tree growth and the potential tradeoff between parking spaces and soil volume in parking lots. Prager said that that was why the proposed code revisions allowed some flexible standards for property owners. President Walsh asked about the schedule for moving forward on the revisions. Prager said that he would be working with the CAC to determine the guiding principles to help the Planning Commission evaluate the revision, and staff would complete the technical editing. He said that there would be an open house in the fall, and then it would go to the Planning Commission. OTHER BUSINESS — STAFF LIAISON UPDATE Susan Hartnett gave several updates to the Planning Commission. • Pre-notice of absences were received for Commissioners Muldoon and Hasman. • 2011-2012 FY budget included funding for the position of principal planner, a management level position to help with current planning and permit center work. Recruitment began recently, and the position should be filled by September. • Update on Land Use Decision for CUP 2010-00002/SLR 2010-00004/VAR 2010- 00012 Wall Street Extension—Pivot Bridge Alignment o The Hearings Officer approved the request with 35 conditions of approval. Of note were conditions 1, 2 and 8. • Condition #1 —it will be up to the City Council whether to sign the application. • Condition #2 — to implement the pivot bridge option, some of the land near the library that contains arsenic will have to be disturbed, so new DEQ permitting will be required. • Condition #8 —requires that authorization be given from all partner agencies that have jurisdiction over the wetlands and sensitive land areas before any work begins. o The decision is appealable until 5:00 on 7/19, no appeals have yet been filed. o President Walsh asked for clarification of the difference between first application and approved application. Hartnett said that this alternative allowed the property owners to pivot the bridge around the wetlands which minimizes impact on the sensitive lands. o Commissioner Doherty asked who could appeal the decision. Hartnett said any party who had standing in the case, which includes applicants or someone who presented written or oral testimony at either of the two hearings. o President Walsh asked about City Council's participation in condition #1. Hartnett said that council would contemplate whether to sign the project application form in executive session because there is the possibility of litigation. • River Terrace Annexation (Attachment C) L\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\7-18-31\3-TPC Alinutes 7-1R-11.doc Page 4 of 6 o In October 2010,Washington County completed and accepted the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan which included UGB Expansion Area 63, UGB Expansion Area 64 and the Rural Element and that Tigard was the presumptive governance body for this area. o In June 2011, annexation petitions were received from 80% of the property owners representing 90% of the land area in Area 64. It was determined that the only way to achieve a contiguous boundary with the city of Tigard and accommodate the property owners' requests was to annex a utility and services corridor from the city of Beaverton along Barrows Road, Old Barrows Road and Scholls Ferry Road. o Area 64 will be known as River Terrace;Area 63 and the Rural Element may be included at a later date. o On July 12, Beaverton City Council had first hearing on de-annexation of the utility and service corridor, with a second hearing scheduled for August 9 and a second reading of the ordinance on August 16. o Tigard City Council will have a hearing on the annexation on August 23. Both cities' ordinances will have effective dates of September 30. o This annexation will not include a zone change at this time. The property owners have requested to maintain the Washington County FD-20 zoning until the city applies an appropriate urban level zone through legislative process. o A series of intergovernmental agreements are in the works related to this. o The community plan created by Tigard will include the work done in the Washington County concept plan,with some additional work including transportation analysis. o A commissioner asked about the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Rural Element. Hartnett said that it was an area that was outside the Urban Growth Boundary but is included in the Urban Reserves, and is expected to be urbanized over time. o President Walsh asked how quickly development could begin in this area. Hartnett said that the next step in preparing the area for urban level development is the community plan, starting with full analysis of transportation, sewer, water, natural resources, parks, schools, etc. She said that it was not likely that the community plan would begin before July 2012, and estimated that the budget would be between $800,000 and $1.3 million. She said that it would probably be a two year process. • Tigard Triangle o City Council was updated on the Planning Commission's workshop regarding the Tigard Triangle and HCT visioning activity. o It is likely that the Tigard Triangle visioning exercise would be pushed out to fall. o Pre-visioning activities may include site visits. • Upcoming meeting dates o Nothing currently on calendar for August 1 meeting—meeting cancelled. o Nothing currently on calendar for August 15 meeting—keep on calendar for now I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\7-18-11\3-TPC Minutes 7-18-11.do.: Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Rogers asked about status of the search for a new city manager. Hartnett said that they expect to have a finalist list by August 8, with interviews tentatively set for September. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 43-1..._. Caren Frykland,Plan '• : o ssion Secretary ATTES : Presi.• - s ave Walsh 1:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\7-18-11\TPC Minutes 7-18-11.doc Page 6 of 6 9/21/2011 w ✓ rt- . ,�.,_,it h; * Presentation Summary lor.,:„. ...114 , • Regional SW Corridor Plan Context ,s t�>' • Major Tasks Completed HCT Land Use Plan Project Update r .. • Schedule Update 1 Planning Commission BriefingHigh FaA July 18,2011 111 IN. " � ~`- SW Corridor Plan Update "- Major Tasks Completed xv vEstablish Groundwork - ' • Regional coordination structure « 0 1-N. 4? • Proposed SW Corridor charter : Develop • Portland getting started "Tigard Typology' I -di. _ • Other plans in scope ro,w, .I Develop Station development •'''" Community Alternatives 100 - Evaluate Alternatives Miff • Finalize Preferred Plan — Major Tasks Completed Station Community Alternatives • Tigard Typology Review • Potential Station Communities Town Center/Main Street ,; '1. C Will inform the alignment choices in the v. k Employment/Retail , ,2 c? Alternatives Analysis Transit Corridor ^.I, �jj. it, • Location Selection Criteria ." Transit Nei hborhood — ' ., 3-` ` g � • Community Assets Mr �, ,,.,1 _ °br Development Potential . IT • Transit Ridership F A.I) _ ,- _ �, . Transit Location Factors 1 9/21/2011 - . Station Community Alternatives Vis VisStation Community Alternatives r • Step 1—Sketch level screening • 7 potential a locations iExisting conditions ` Rt• 1-mile diameter Agency interviews areas „_. � • Step 2—Quantitative ranking • Triangle& _`Q Existing community assets Downtown Development potential F°A "double bubbles" Transit ridership potential High f - p �� ~ Design Workshops &Open House " Design Workshops &Open House ig'v., w dam: -, --- • • Two workshop sessions • Afternoon:34 TAC/staff(afternoon) ;;I � participants OP r I. 4312'1,_� CAC/public(evening) • Interactive 4,y-�' Evening also had"drop in"open house - !: mapping t001 • ..,-7 ..-= • Small groups with .r (INDEX) design professional •- „f • Applied typology iiii 14d 't`o« -jar gPi • Identified transportation improvements ""'°° 'k_ .• Design Workshops &Open House �4 ig . Station Community Alternatives 11',..---:-.A'!.': • Evening:36 , �, °""`. • Three concepts developed for each `, participants ° ,Nftk, : of the seven station communities: 6 'a k • Concepts drawn si c_ is c? ` Afternoon session concept _.1:1b„ on maps �/ e Evening session concept t*,- -:4.`,- Consultant concept M11411411111$ • Resulting alternatives carrying forward for evaluation 2 9/21/2011 Station Community Alternatives Next Steps • Key Themes 1' • Alternatives evaluation(on-going) In many cases,current land use patterns : • Presentation to CAC&TAC(Aug 3/4) are retained but with increased intensities • "Bonus"CAC&TAC meetings(Sep 7/8) Increased activity depends on getting the " o • Open House(September 28) - -` right connections Attention was drawn repeatedly to the barriers that make connections difficult Every station area had new pedestrian/multi-useon area hadI,Plan • t HCT Land Use Plan Project Update Planning Commission Briefing July 18,2011 1111. 3 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD ae:pert and care I D^the flight Thing I Get it Done r Com pre hensii * Urban Forestry y Urban Forestry Plan MasterPlan Code Revisions Urban Forestry Code Revisions •20 Year •7Year Urban •Clear Urban Forest Forest Standards Progress Update Goals and Action Items •Equitable ft; Policies •Revising Standards 40'. i •Directive to Code at the •Sound . Develop Top of the Science Urban List Forestry Master Plan CITY - • OF T I G A R D C I T Y O F T I G A II D Benefits of Treesl'2 Urban Forestry Aesthetic One Tree Adds$8,870 To A Portland Home Sales Price Standards for Development Stormwater One Tree Can Intercept Over 400 Gal./Year Carbon One Tree Can Remove Over 250 lb.of CO2/Year Air Quality One Tree Can Remove Over 2 lb.Air Pollutants/Year i Tree Permit Tree Grove Annual Net Benefits of Trees2 , ^ (N.Part°� w m , Small Stature Medium Stature Large Stature 4 . (Up to 25'Canopy) (Up to 31'Canopy) (Up to 41'Canopy) ,iil Up to$1173 per tree Up to$2916 per tree Up to$51.46 per tree - a CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Urban Forestry Standards for Development Urban Forestry Standards for Development ..,..r• •Tiered canopy targets based on zoning •Tiered canopy targets based on zoning ,,,. ;,iy0' < tt • Bonus credits for preserving healthy,mature trees 1 Tier 1-16%to 40%canopy • Incentives for planting large stature trees Tier 2-13%to 33%canopy °, ' /Tier 3-10%to 25%canopy - -a, • Incentives for maximizing street trees •Standards for tree planting in parking lots - • Flexibility for alternative proposals ,.-; '0--- ` — M 1 9/21/2011 Rec., WEND) PECER)111 i , - .. Itrailaie" 1,6,n Raywood Psi. • .." .. . 706 5 sq it I i A IIKT.: .il- ,_., -'`— —•___ II' , ' lot*' ism „ , . -lir- .7,.. . 1 I Alternative Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Requirement Requirement by Street Tree Planting ( I T \ () I T 1 (i \ IL 1) 1 1 I 1 1) I 110 \ It I) I. 00 a ::::: . , ._...._s_— I 1 1 I 1 oo . -_ , propmed jaw Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Requirement by CC)) Combination of Planting and Preservation Example of Meeting Tier 2 Canopy Requirement for Pacific Hwy Drive-Thru. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Examine(Red Rock Center) 1 k.'T Canopy Requirement ,T --1 aF, ' ' PAM Soil Volume Standards for -6 T j). i 1.111,1 1 1 ll 1 1 Street and Parking Lot Tre ,_ CC 1 -1 ' • ..' . w I ri •L,. ... MIN.: , A, 95 I `..., *Xl-q.Jexi 7.,Vh.•-4Pt..... W.:•.4.A x...-7,-.7.4 . xt,.."IMO ---. W IN 7:_ - •, „,_-_,, - _ Example of Meeting Tier 3 Canopy Requirement for 4.lia,--TIVn3,;_7,%i, The Knoll in Downtown Tigard 2 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD iiI Before 5? x IhbeaLl,.�s .,. ,,�.rr,.1 •s After K .SG. - :-,11k- - -- - O- 0411"----..-Alii Parking Lot Tree Canopy — -, CITY OP TIGARO ( II ) OF T I G A II D Tree Grove Preservation Incentives - ,_F �A""F1 ° • Reduction in minimum density requirements a 7F . 01, ,_A '""' ,} "F AR7 ,74,,,,,,43.,:._ • Density transfer within a lot t 4,11-it. / - /Reduction in dimensions(lot size,setback,etc.) - , /Attached units(not multifamily) to •Additional building height for commercial/industrial s i•' —.at; ' ...-Ir -41C: _.rf , .aoaf10 11118.. I �r —ii .• 1P - sl Example Site CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD 1 .,� �� _.. .. - ..7 -------: • Pg i i T� /•� Option 1-Standard Lot Subdivision Option I Standard Lot Subdivision NO Free Gave Preserved MEI Average lot Sue=75-85DISF•28!fouls Et on3 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD I rte- m .-: 1 rr 7 xw Opiion2-Standard Lot Subdivision All Tree rove Preserved ophon_2-standard Letsubdrvlsmn - MIAverageiotSae 75 ,nd;mm 35005!-15 hots nmaearsS me Els MI Tree Erose Presenred OM CITY 01 T I G A R D I I "I' . ,, I "1' I ,, `, I: IJ 'mi:—. t"- �' m'`-n ` ..e 1 � °prin+,3 StooderdpndSOeafl fOrL,bdlvfrlan:0,0fi,ee 6rore Prerer.W Opton 3-Standard and Small Lot Subdivision ' p,� Average Et,riire-Standard 75.85005311 i;SnrOA 13,15-45003r I l e; _® 40%of Tree Grove Preserved ti.`� LEI CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Tree Permit Requirements Hazard Trees , 40 , ' •Consolidate existing requirements into new Title 8 • Define hazard trees according to International".r :',''' •Two track decision making process Society of Arboriculture point system ►City Manager decisions are for simple situations and • Require evidence that claimant and respondent made at a staff level without public notice have tried to work out issues before involving city ►City Board or Commission decisions are for more •When city becomes involved,a third party arborist , complex situations and require public notice completes evaluation to limit city liability •Council decision regarding cost recovery •Abatement required for verified hazards •Council decision regarding cost recovery 4 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD Discussion 5 . a Y , : River Terrace Vicinity - Beaverton•, a-'- .. M x�;w RiverTerrace R - e F e r r_yI�'_ '� l Urban Growth Boundary k-' Y �; '* L.__.i City of Tigard t . Y4.: +' 'rte 4 � ate` ` � y. iRver Terrace - _ • *` ra.: � . . a, • •_Vi • * d , ,wL y(UGB Area 64) , jr R `t a . 2 ..t;i +f, ,,. _' Tig�a rd 4 N f 44 4} 4 1 y{^fid L E3 rt. I I M t R d ' r it 0 3 Ir i y y� } I: Fes; � -- " , Urban Growth Boundary . Expansion Area 63 ,;,, ' * 1 4 " I r . • I L-^-_-_ —, `' x " r--'= West Bull Mt. Plan ' 4" ti tY. ConceptI , �'�.'% - , Rural Element i' _Y e ° B e nd R d 0 0 125 0 25 .N 0.5 c I r I I I I I Miles ,. ! 1 \ ; 1 1 f Signed Petitions - River Terrace (L GB Expansion Area 64) j EB EB __ _ _..! --1'<:, �� ►` 1 ....._ i 1 __ _____ 0 1 7.C140 ._'_ -----. -------—------ i Z1 iiiii .,111111.111,044.. F. r_ �____ 1 -._ 251060000100 — SW 'N IILL�CT • C= ,___________.. a $ 2S1060001400 N = C;p _y_______I i „10.01,0 ,7) _iis.,, ,.._ , cT . , ,,, 1 •, 201060001800 '41 MIN rl_itiP ..._,..... �, 2510600014011111 1. — -_ zslo6oaal000 s I 11o c, S N ‘"I'-6, .+ o m I GE� G� ', o l oS$ o �� c' 201060003500 .1I •14,0:4111 t oo 2S706000180, \ ''.%), �\ f SVJ H• G7 • Oil _ I! 141P' . 2S10600016DD \ —--- 7' ilifilAfil 2slos0003301 �R _-- II (� �1�r, -- i 11111111 111 ,T -->111111111 �_sift Tr- =vim xir ..� I 1 I ---1%11%% ST�6 a r_. I __ 231060003300 ! . ._ ,i 281060003200 I LCL, T •a- -- � 2S1060003100 L____ -� �.»�.�.,.� _ 111 shy an i I I ; -- •• �/ . ' 25,070D00103 I _. _-_.---.—_�-__-- 4 I 251070000100 -_- 5'JJ US alk --- 111*. . I __..__- , -.J a ' •W -n ,Nr,i I N #4410.7 LI i L .;',.LL 1.1O141AIN _ 10 ' t_i L Ii I I I I I '` 3 r RiverTerrace o N Y 1 x c (IFPIP If 1 Signed Petition I o - , / L J Taxlot Boundary _ _ 1 o s,fIRA ,%'' is 251070002000 I i 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 ; -. A : 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 �1�� -MIM Miles i1 �1� ��1t� III L _I al I_- -4 F.r. �� ■. P".rs�1� �l��H/ � 1. ain s" V �ir�r�� Irlni,_____Amti,efrtiiiiim �.,,. �4 LI f fi :/ �i �1i ■�;,,,, �7.� Cil! , �, miummil ' ).n -/: zit �� •■rs ♦ jillinii.. LID "- S a ! N , •� ,aiim+r. + �� AV .4.111111a ratIP'E- pt.,, liNh * 7 -4-44., 1•111111 itiniTH p• ,PWIP �r11: ` E oil ��I ��♦ r-. < t -,� �/�Frr� �i -� i fly im - `ii\k M��,��rrnnr`i►rrrmrtn, � �. z O �i� 1 �■ 4i' {i Q *NI n/1//1114= liii d1fHf►MUM c` Cd41; 1_111/7U o Ity.-,\ '.. 11,„ „..4,.,,„ !.., swallow: Ira Ie.. r..._ el .il., .:. WI X11111=1I / aO .r0 riNinimumumm ` Z. 9® r1111I Illift �� U; 1/f! r ��iii iii w a.�f -.1111111 . - siri�r�+l trlhiriMr - - i� rill• imp-'WA& 1111 110118 _ _ _ EJ lie ��■\� <I♦�1� IIIFI �>r .. .�.�. n.Sr” .rte Ill It��a"IsTtaz as aull in,--, Ur ��`r�r.'r��iti 'minim �•�!� ' _� - BLit --Min 111111101 rrrrrrrrl/��13 N*Amp �., mglora ntIlliii!�siir��1, nnp* Nov mattirti lit #4. 1,','-• #--46.- ''.':''MLR ... a az '''' -11.__.–litimciiiitii,4 sr,' ni"-1101.49 millua01111,11mil wow lig 11 I It- - ct Nii,Euxo ri az a caranik 4 Ai ..,_0 gm'II Wil LI* ' ,m i lc ir ■ ■ I p b S __\Illif";.77 cm: zi_u fr.•Au In _ ,..,:16 En Ear fa.-0 I* 111 --.7.__:.--1 ::::- BEI gm sivir . BEI93 cel ` er 1. -I*tlIwiJ - C ■.■■'i lill V July 12, 2011 TIGARD Dear Property Owner(s), City of Tigard I want to take this opportunity to contact you directly about a current property owner-initiated annexation petition to become part of the City of Tigard. More than 80 percent of the landowners in a 200-acre area directly west of unincorporated Bull Mountain and south of Scholls Ferry Road have applied for annexation to Tigard. These property owners account for more than 90 percent of the land area formerly known as Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area 64, now known as River Terrace. The city is reviewing the applications and expects to take action on them by late summer. Given the high number of annexation requests and the significant land area included in those requests,the city will consider annexing River Terrace in its entirety to avoid creating unincorporated islands and allow for the orderly provision of urban services. We are processing this request because it was initiated by property owners. Since 2006,Tigard has observed a neutral policy towards annexation,neither actively promoting annexation nor discouraging it. The city is still following this policy. Small, owner-initiated annexations have occurred in the past,but this larger annexation would significantly change the size and shape of Tigard's boundary,which is why I am communicating with you today. As the attached map shows,River Terrace is not contiguous to current Tigard boundaries. Tigard and Beaverton are creating a plan that allows cost-effective service delivery to this undeveloped area.The plan involves Tigard annexing a utility right-of-way corridor along the south side of Barrows Road,the south side of the pedestrian trail on old Barrows Road, and Scholls Ferry Road. While the utility corridor does include the Clean Water Services storm-water detention ponds south of Barrows Road, none of the area being considered for annexation contains any private property within existing urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. Landowners applied for annexation to Tigard after Washington County approved the concept land use and transportation plan for the area (which includes River Terrace) that was created by the county working with stakeholder groups and local residents.There was general agreement that Tigard is the most practical provider of urban services and community planning for the area. Following annexation of River Terrace,Tigard will develop a community plan for the entire area included in the county's recently approved concept plan. This will ensure that the vision expressed in the concept plan is realized. That vision includes a mix of low,medium and high-density residential housing and pedestrian- oriented commercial uses to serve this new community. Other important values will be addressed in the community plan,including parks, street connectivity and compatibility with existing neighborhoods and land uses. Appropriate zoning will reflect the community plan. This community planning effort will not get underway until after River Terrace is annexed. You can learn more about this annexation;its process and hearing dates,by visiting the city's website at www.tigard-or.gov/RiverTerrace. Sincerely, 4:1 .d/ '2QA--- Craig E. Dirksen,Mayor City of Tigard 9/21/2011 w ✓ rt- . ,�.,_,it h; * Presentation Summary lor.,:„. ...114 , • Regional SW Corridor Plan Context ,s t�>' • Major Tasks Completed HCT Land Use Plan Project Update r .. • Schedule Update 1 Planning Commission BriefingHigh FaA July 18,2011 111 IN. " � ~`- SW Corridor Plan Update "- Major Tasks Completed xv vEstablish Groundwork - ' • Regional coordination structure « 0 1-N. 4? • Proposed SW Corridor charter : Develop • Portland getting started "Tigard Typology' I -di. _ • Other plans in scope ro,w, .I Develop Station development •'''" Community Alternatives 100 - Evaluate Alternatives Miff • Finalize Preferred Plan — Major Tasks Completed Station Community Alternatives • Tigard Typology Review • Potential Station Communities Town Center/Main Street ,; '1. C Will inform the alignment choices in the v. k Employment/Retail , ,2 c? Alternatives Analysis Transit Corridor ^.I, �jj. it, • Location Selection Criteria ." Transit Nei hborhood — ' ., 3-` ` g � • Community Assets Mr �, ,,.,1 _ °br Development Potential . IT • Transit Ridership F A.I) _ ,- _ �, . Transit Location Factors 1 9/21/2011 - . Station Community Alternatives Vis VisStation Community Alternatives r • Step 1—Sketch level screening • 7 potential a locations iExisting conditions ` Rt• 1-mile diameter Agency interviews areas „_. � • Step 2—Quantitative ranking • Triangle& _`Q Existing community assets Downtown Development potential F°A "double bubbles" Transit ridership potential High f - p �� ~ Design Workshops &Open House " Design Workshops &Open House ig'v., w dam: -, --- • • Two workshop sessions • Afternoon:34 TAC/staff(afternoon) ;;I � participants OP r I. 4312'1,_� CAC/public(evening) • Interactive 4,y-�' Evening also had"drop in"open house - !: mapping t001 • ..,-7 ..-= • Small groups with .r (INDEX) design professional •- „f • Applied typology iiii 14d 't`o« -jar gPi • Identified transportation improvements ""'°° 'k_ .• Design Workshops &Open House �4 ig . Station Community Alternatives 11',..---:-.A'!.': • Evening:36 , �, °""`. • Three concepts developed for each `, participants ° ,Nftk, : of the seven station communities: 6 'a k • Concepts drawn si c_ is c? ` Afternoon session concept _.1:1b„ on maps �/ e Evening session concept t*,- -:4.`,- Consultant concept M11411411111$ • Resulting alternatives carrying forward for evaluation 2 9/21/2011 Station Community Alternatives Next Steps • Key Themes 1' • Alternatives evaluation(on-going) In many cases,current land use patterns : • Presentation to CAC&TAC(Aug 3/4) are retained but with increased intensities • "Bonus"CAC&TAC meetings(Sep 7/8) Increased activity depends on getting the " o • Open House(September 28) - -` right connections Attention was drawn repeatedly to the barriers that make connections difficult Every station area had new pedestrian/multi-useon area hadI,Plan • t HCT Land Use Plan Project Update Planning Commission Briefing July 18,2011 1111. 3 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD ae:pert and care I D^the flight Thing I Get it Done r Com pre hensii * Urban Forestry y Urban Forestry Plan MasterPlan Code Revisions Urban Forestry Code Revisions •20 Year •7Year Urban •Clear Urban Forest Forest Standards Progress Update Goals and Action Items •Equitable ft; Policies •Revising Standards 40'. i •Directive to Code at the •Sound . Develop Top of the Science Urban List Forestry Master Plan CITY - • OF T I G A R D C I T Y O F T I G A II D Benefits of Treesl'2 Urban Forestry Aesthetic One Tree Adds$8,870 To A Portland Home Sales Price Standards for Development Stormwater One Tree Can Intercept Over 400 Gal./Year Carbon One Tree Can Remove Over 250 lb.of CO2/Year Air Quality One Tree Can Remove Over 2 lb.Air Pollutants/Year i Tree Permit Tree Grove Annual Net Benefits of Trees2 , ^ (N.Part°� w m , Small Stature Medium Stature Large Stature 4 . (Up to 25'Canopy) (Up to 31'Canopy) (Up to 41'Canopy) ,iil Up to$1173 per tree Up to$2916 per tree Up to$51.46 per tree - a CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Urban Forestry Standards for Development Urban Forestry Standards for Development ..,..r• •Tiered canopy targets based on zoning •Tiered canopy targets based on zoning ,,,. ;,iy0' < tt • Bonus credits for preserving healthy,mature trees 1 Tier 1-16%to 40%canopy • Incentives for planting large stature trees Tier 2-13%to 33%canopy °, ' /Tier 3-10%to 25%canopy - -a, • Incentives for maximizing street trees •Standards for tree planting in parking lots - • Flexibility for alternative proposals ,.-; '0--- ` — M 1 9/21/2011 Rec., WEND) PECER)111 i , - .. Itrailaie" 1,6,n Raywood Psi. • .." .. . 706 5 sq it I i A IIKT.: .il- ,_., -'`— —•___ II' , ' lot*' ism „ , . -lir- .7,.. . 1 I Alternative Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Requirement Requirement by Street Tree Planting ( I T \ () I T 1 (i \ IL 1) 1 1 I 1 1) I 110 \ It I) I. 00 a ::::: . , ._...._s_— I 1 1 I 1 oo . -_ , propmed jaw Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Requirement by CC)) Combination of Planting and Preservation Example of Meeting Tier 2 Canopy Requirement for Pacific Hwy Drive-Thru. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Examine(Red Rock Center) 1 k.'T Canopy Requirement ,T --1 aF, ' ' PAM Soil Volume Standards for -6 T j). i 1.111,1 1 1 ll 1 1 Street and Parking Lot Tre ,_ CC 1 -1 ' • ..' . w I ri •L,. ... MIN.: , A, 95 I `..., *Xl-q.Jexi 7.,Vh.•-4Pt..... W.:•.4.A x...-7,-.7.4 . xt,.."IMO ---. W IN 7:_ - •, „,_-_,, - _ Example of Meeting Tier 3 Canopy Requirement for 4.lia,--TIVn3,;_7,%i, The Knoll in Downtown Tigard 2 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD iiI Before 5? x IhbeaLl,.�s .,. ,,�.rr,.1 •s After K .SG. - :-,11k- - -- - O- 0411"----..-Alii Parking Lot Tree Canopy — -, CITY OP TIGARO ( II ) OF T I G A II D Tree Grove Preservation Incentives - ,_F �A""F1 ° • Reduction in minimum density requirements a 7F . 01, ,_A '""' ,} "F AR7 ,74,,,,,,43.,:._ • Density transfer within a lot t 4,11-it. / - /Reduction in dimensions(lot size,setback,etc.) - , /Attached units(not multifamily) to •Additional building height for commercial/industrial s i•' —.at; ' ...-Ir -41C: _.rf , .aoaf10 11118.. I �r —ii .• 1P - sl Example Site CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD 1 .,� �� _.. .. - ..7 -------: • Pg i i T� /•� Option 1-Standard Lot Subdivision Option I Standard Lot Subdivision NO Free Gave Preserved MEI Average lot Sue=75-85DISF•28!fouls Et on3 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD I rte- m .-: 1 rr 7 xw Opiion2-Standard Lot Subdivision All Tree rove Preserved ophon_2-standard Letsubdrvlsmn - MIAverageiotSae 75 ,nd;mm 35005!-15 hots nmaearsS me Els MI Tree Erose Presenred OM CITY 01 T I G A R D I I "I' . ,, I "1' I ,, `, I: IJ 'mi:—. t"- �' m'`-n ` ..e 1 � °prin+,3 StooderdpndSOeafl fOrL,bdlvfrlan:0,0fi,ee 6rore Prerer.W Opton 3-Standard and Small Lot Subdivision ' p,� Average Et,riire-Standard 75.85005311 i;SnrOA 13,15-45003r I l e; _® 40%of Tree Grove Preserved ti.`� LEI CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Tree Permit Requirements Hazard Trees , 40 , ' •Consolidate existing requirements into new Title 8 • Define hazard trees according to International".r :',''' •Two track decision making process Society of Arboriculture point system ►City Manager decisions are for simple situations and • Require evidence that claimant and respondent made at a staff level without public notice have tried to work out issues before involving city ►City Board or Commission decisions are for more •When city becomes involved,a third party arborist , complex situations and require public notice completes evaluation to limit city liability •Council decision regarding cost recovery •Abatement required for verified hazards •Council decision regarding cost recovery 4 9/21/2011 CITY OF TIGARD Discussion 5 I .. Y•isi Lb', -tar,..6 ..i ., r-•+ River Terrace Vicinity �� _ Beaverton — - fie + ,,, lel i �� RiverTerrace Jo f e r r Y I ' Urban Growth Boundary r _=: City of Tigard ' ---- y, w • ' ram . ,'K11 ,T. [L... River Terrace e�7 � "� '"4,�t=� , ' Lr. ".�� (UGB Area 64 . g } �` t'l'`�*�7� \ �-.3 a `�� • Ti B ' ' - ard - ... _ gam_- r .13 6. y I $' _.,,, - . _ ....4 q, F I i - , 6. If ' 9 4, ' N T a., l i.. 1 '-• L LI 1 .t... ,Ni .,y _ .^ F. ;p... 4tAV- F . ft ,1,-...per,",-..p.,-"Ai.4 !Ao _ X I ..f�F ` ',-----,- .-�, � � r y 1111“- �. t d. yc f•yj• . ' 0 I • i.,4 ; f a Y ' �Y I c . S A 314 Le7 I ro Urban Growth Boundary ' '�` AV d f ; Expansion Area 63 �~ ' -R 3 R ->• j p 0/ I ,; �'. I M . yd. f r . I I_--'-----_,I }}e. .'+ 7,,, . . :' , N/1West Bull Mt. Concept Plan x` 14 '' , , I � Rural Element ' ` Nip- B E e f Ben0 0125 025 N 05 I , I I I I I I I Miles ! 1 \ ; 1 1 f Signed Petitions - River Terrace (L GB Expansion Area 64) j EB EB __ _ _..! --1'<:, �� ►` 1 ....._ i 1 __ _____ 0 1 7.C140 ._'_ -----. -------—------ i Z1 iiiii .,111111.111,044.. F. r_ �____ 1 -._ 251060000100 — SW 'N IILL�CT • C= ,___________.. a $ 2S1060001400 N = C;p _y_______I i „10.01,0 ,7) _iis.,, ,.._ , cT . , ,,, 1 •, 201060001800 '41 MIN rl_itiP ..._,..... �, 2510600014011111 1. — -_ zslo6oaal000 s I 11o c, S N ‘"I'-6, .+ o m I GE� G� ', o l oS$ o �� c' 201060003500 .1I •14,0:4111 t oo 2S706000180, \ ''.%), �\ f SVJ H• G7 • Oil _ I! 141P' . 2S10600016DD \ —--- 7' ilifilAfil 2slos0003301 �R _-- II (� �1�r, -- i 11111111 111 ,T -->111111111 �_sift Tr- =vim xir ..� I 1 I ---1%11%% ST�6 a r_. I __ 231060003300 ! . ._ ,i 281060003200 I LCL, T •a- -- � 2S1060003100 L____ -� �.»�.�.,.� _ 111 shy an i I I ; -- •• �/ . ' 25,070D00103 I _. _-_.---.—_�-__-- 4 I 251070000100 -_- 5'JJ US alk --- 111*. . I __..__- , -.J a ' •W -n ,Nr,i I N #4410.7 LI i L .;',.LL 1.1O141AIN _ 10 ' t_i L Ii I I I I I '` 3 r RiverTerrace o N Y 1 x c (IFPIP If 1 Signed Petition I o - , / L J Taxlot Boundary _ _ 1 o s,fIRA ,%'' is 251070002000 I i 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 ; -. A : 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 �1�� -MIM Miles i1 �1� ��1t� III L _I al I_- -4 F.r. �� ■. P".rs�1� �l��H/ � 1. ain s" V �ir�r�� Irlni,_____Amti,efrtiiiiim �.,,. �4 LI f fi :/ �i �1i ■�;,,,, �7.� Cil! , �, miummil ' ).n -/: zit �� •■rs ♦ jillinii.. LID "- S a ! N , •� ,aiim+r. + �� AV .4.111111a ratIP'E- pt.,, liNh * 7 -4-44., 1•111111 itiniTH p• ,PWIP �r11: ` E oil ��I ��♦ r-. < t -,� �/�Frr� �i -� i fly im - `ii\k M��,��rrnnr`i►rrrmrtn, � �. z O �i� 1 �■ 4i' {i Q *NI n/1//1114= liii d1fHf►MUM c` Cd41; 1_111/7U o Ity.-,\ '.. 11,„ „..4,.,,„ !.., swallow: Ira Ie.. r..._ el .il., .:. WI X11111=1I / aO .r0 riNinimumumm ` Z. 9® r1111I Illift �� U; 1/f! r ��iii iii w a.�f -.1111111 . - siri�r�+l trlhiriMr - - i� rill• imp-'WA& 1111 110118 _ _ _ EJ lie ��■\� <I♦�1� IIIFI �>r .. .�.�. n.Sr” .rte Ill It��a"IsTtaz as aull in,--, Ur ��`r�r.'r��iti 'minim �•�!� ' _� - BLit --Min 111111101 rrrrrrrrl/��13 N*Amp �., mglora ntIlliii!�siir��1, nnp* Nov mattirti lit #4. 1,','-• #--46.- ''.':''MLR ... a az '''' -11.__.–litimciiiitii,4 sr,' ni"-1101.49 millua01111,11mil wow lig 11 I It- - ct Nii,Euxo ri az a caranik 4 Ai ..,_0 gm'II Wil LI* ' ,m i lc ir ■ ■ I p b S __\Illif";.77 cm: zi_u fr.•Au In _ ,..,:16 En Ear fa.-0 I* 111 --.7.__:.--1 ::::- BEI gm sivir . BEI93 cel ` er 1. -I*tlIwiJ - C ■.■■'i lill V July 12, 2011 TIGARD Dear Property Owner(s), City of Tigard I want to take this opportunity to contact you directly about a current property owner-initiated annexation petition to become part of the City of Tigard. More than 80 percent of the landowners in a 200-acre area directly west of unincorporated Bull Mountain and south of Scholls Ferry Road have applied for annexation to Tigard. These property owners account for more than 90 percent of the land area formerly known as Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area 64, now known as River Terrace. The city is reviewing the applications and expects to take action on them by late summer. Given the high number of annexation requests and the significant land area included in those requests,the city will consider annexing River Terrace in its entirety to avoid creating unincorporated islands and allow for the orderly provision of urban services. We are processing this request because it was initiated by property owners. Since 2006,Tigard has observed a neutral policy towards annexation,neither actively promoting annexation nor discouraging it. The city is still following this policy. Small, owner-initiated annexations have occurred in the past,but this larger annexation would significantly change the size and shape of Tigard's boundary,which is why I am communicating with you today. As the attached map shows,River Terrace is not contiguous to current Tigard boundaries. Tigard and Beaverton are creating a plan that allows cost-effective service delivery to this undeveloped area.The plan involves Tigard annexing a utility right-of-way corridor along the south side of Barrows Road,the south side of the pedestrian trail on old Barrows Road, and Scholls Ferry Road. While the utility corridor does include the Clean Water Services storm-water detention ponds south of Barrows Road, none of the area being considered for annexation contains any private property within existing urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. Landowners applied for annexation to Tigard after Washington County approved the concept land use and transportation plan for the area (which includes River Terrace) that was created by the county working with stakeholder groups and local residents.There was general agreement that Tigard is the most practical provider of urban services and community planning for the area. Following annexation of River Terrace,Tigard will develop a community plan for the entire area included in the county's recently approved concept plan. This will ensure that the vision expressed in the concept plan is realized. That vision includes a mix of low,medium and high-density residential housing and pedestrian- oriented commercial uses to serve this new community. Other important values will be addressed in the community plan,including parks, street connectivity and compatibility with existing neighborhoods and land uses. Appropriate zoning will reflect the community plan. This community planning effort will not get underway until after River Terrace is annexed. You can learn more about this annexation;its process and hearing dates,by visiting the city's website at www.tigard-or.gov/RiverTerrace. Sincerely, 4:1 .d/ '2QA--- Craig E. Dirksen,Mayor City of Tigard