Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/07/2011 - Packet
, II Completeness TIGARD Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Name of Board, Commission or Committee March 7,2011 Date of Meeting Signature Doreen Laughlin 11/6/14 Date " City of Tigard sd TI+GARD 14 Planning Commission Revised Agenda MEETING DATE: March 7, 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 7:04 p.m. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING—7:05 p.m. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 -WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. 6. WORK SESSION—7:35 p.m. PROGRESS REPORT—TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 7. WORK SESSION—8:35 p.m. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS COMMITTEE MEETING 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9:00 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MARCH 7, 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 1114 II City of Tigard PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGALS TIGARD SECTION OF THE TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday March 7, 2011 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,by calling 503-718-2434, or by email to garyp@tigard-or.gov. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 - WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION - REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) IS136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R- 12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. TIGARD TIMES PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 17,2011 (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 2 OF THIS E-MAIL FOR THE VICINITY MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS LEGAL PUBLICATION.) PLEASH SIGN IN HE * Tigard l nin Commission Agenda Item # Page of Date of Hearing Case Number(s) C Case Name °\.< 'A- \4t st.. �` biC3d'Af ., Paysk- Location �,c s t ►� �t C' yL () S7 If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEA Y PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the pro.osal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: -ausiAh - Name: Address:j2A Vk Address: City, State, Zip: " -- City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: - 1..1'—- -j—J- r -- — � L---'I �I1 _7_ , I — 5 ° VICINITY MAP - m 0 1 PDR2011-00001 L SPRUCE ST J I F I �a I WHITE OAK VILLAGE — - '. SUBDIVISION MINOR + t \ @_ @ --; g o ® MODIFICATION e _ L— L I � % o 0 0 0 'd o o ---li- \ 0 0 o 0 0 7 0 0 0 -_ - T , ; Subject Site k : 4in z_ 1I 1 L / 411. • • '217 R...,....17 q iL ,-'<:":; Mili:."-^dr __, _ 1 .- l , „ .. , i. .:r,',--- .. _ ____ f _ — -<H j _ ,. ,. _ _ ' o . i 5 - r'r - - f rA F F L E . 1 — {Y I Information on this map is for general location I - '~ only and should be verified with the "' Development Services Division. ¢'s' t-,... I I Approx.Scale 1:4,000-1 in=333 ft Map printed at 01:25 PM on 08-Feb-11 r ,'i'` DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD I _ MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE amCONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO J _.''/`# LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE --x - INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. b .--- — City of Tigard ADD 13125 SW Hall Blvd FBBt c —, I TIGAn■�APS Tigard,OR 97223 IIIIC 0 .0 0 _ -� IR 503 639-4171 _ www.tigard-or.gov TIGARD AIJ - Sr I I Witilln amu. r Ilk �`�� ity of Tig rd awoi k { Memorandum s -1,4 r .,=_su;T o-'riv ' _ -.nr. ::. ,7,17,7:,`"al,v.l'vwc>>rT "V .;:.. M..rn7Z,;,). r _i. z. I .. To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner "e: White Oak Village Planned Development Modification/PDR2011-00001 (March 7, 2011 PC Hearing) Date: December 28, 2011 Please find attached the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the proposed Modification to the approved White Oak Village PD (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). Two additional attachments (3 &4) are included to supplement the applicant's submittal materials to provide reference to the narrative in the Staff Report. Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission, February 28, 2011 Attachment 2: Vicinity Map Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes, April 2, 2007 Attachment 4: Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) Attachment 5: Applicant's Application Materials ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: March 7,2011 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF PCS P11 Til T l PLANNING C • ,_3:7:14 Fl ' T. IE CITY AF TIG'\ t 11)I' I . 1-TI be - , 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 SECTION L APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUB IIVISION MODIFICATION CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) P I1R2011-00001 (Modification of Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003) APPLICANT/ Hawthorne Block LLC OWNER: c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide a tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary Instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1 S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. ZONE/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12,Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. [Applies to majority of the site} Planned Development Overlay (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space,innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a. planningprocedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. WI 11'1,1 OAK VII_LACI SUBDIVISION MODI1'ICATION S"I'AF RI (SUB2011-00001) PAG!,1 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I II /\12.11\1G 3/7/2011 The applicant notes that no changes to conditions of approval of the PDR or Subdivision are requested. In addition, no changes to the streets or lots are requested as shown in the Site Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet C2.1) and Subdivision Final Plat (4/1/8 Survey, Sheets 1 and 2 of 3). Detached or Attached Units on Lots of Choice: During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the applicant described the proposed housing type: "The units will be duet homes — there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all 'end units'." [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 3]. There was some discussion whether duets could qualify as an innovative "building grouping" within the context of earning a density bonus. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 9]. However, the project did not pursue the bonus based on that criterion. During the April 16, 2007 Commission hearing, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan titled Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing), which is the approved site plan in the Final Order. The plan shows one single-family detached unit on the stand alone lot 26 with all other units paired as duets. The applicant's request to build either detached or attached housing unit types housing type on the approved lots is a modification of the conditionally approved site plan. However, detached and attached housing unit types are allowed in the R-12 zone and there are no specific development code standards or conditions of approval relating to housing type or this proposed modification. The applicant further requests that as a consequence of the modification, the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) will be voided. The Commission may consider whether the proposed modification to allow either housing type and without any architectural plans, meets the applicable Purposes and Concept Approval Criteria of the Planned Development Chapter, as reviewed below on Pages 4/5 of this Staff Report. Revised Landscaping and Screening: The applicant has proposed substituting some combination of Bamboo, Leyland Cypress, Magnolia, Ash, and Maple for the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry wall on the west property line adjacent to the RAZ Transportation site. The proposed modification to the approved Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3) would provide a higher screen than the six-foot wall and potentially improve screening of the adjacent commercial use. During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the issue of higher screening was discussed but did not resolve in a motion to amend the proposed landscape plan. The proposed modification in this application is supported by the Commission's previous deliberation. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Pages 5/8] SECTION V. ECISION MAKING PR•}CEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CATEGORIES: SECTION 18.130 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking modifications to the approved attached "duet" housing type to additionally provide single- family detached units. The lots are proposed to be developed with either attached or detached single-family homes without specifying which units will be developed on which lots. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Household living, which includes both detached and attached single-family housing types, is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The original Subdivision/Planned Development was a Type III-PC Application. No procedure is identified for modifications of a planned development. As such, modifications to the decision are also processed as a Type III-PC application to ensure any changes are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision and to provide notice to potentially affected parties. DECISION MA!QNG PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. WI 11'111 OAK VILI.AGNsSUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF RIik)IiI (SUB2011-00001) PAG IS3Olt PLANNING COMMISSION I IIsARING 3/7/2011 pocket parks in Tracts C and D. Is the Commission. satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision, will build a housing product that will achieve a unique neighborhood and integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision? 18.350.060 Conn pliancewith Specific development Standards: This section requires compliance with base zone development standards, with the following modifications allowed with discretion by the Commission: The applicant's proposed modification is consistent with the approved subdivision and planned development base zone development standards, s?ecifically the setback standards as summarized in Table 18.510.2, below. However, without building envelopes and architectural plans specified, lot coverage, landscaping, and building heights would need to be verified at the time of building permit review. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The approved lot sizes are between 1,836 and 2,748 square feet, averaging 1,926 square-feet per lot. The Commission approved a density bonus and 27 total lots. The applicant does not propose any changes to approved lots. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%, including all impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. wilding height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet, but does not apply to planned development applications, giving the Commission discretion in determining building height. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application, which showed units 30 feet to the peak. Without Commission review of the height standard, consistency with this standard would be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and be subject to the base standard maximum of 35 feet. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on theerimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The original decision approved building envelopes on each lot within the development consistent with this standard. For this application, the applicant's narrative includes a Setback Table, which shows the required perimeter setbacks at 15 feet, but proposes to delete the reference to the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative indicates 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to compliance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard A,s ,a clear and_objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the irtterior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided WI Ili Ii OAK VII,LACN.SUBDIVISION MODII�ICA"1'ION STAFF RC.PORI (SUB2011-00001) PACK 5 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I IIiARINC 3/7/2011 T . LE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STAN}A l'DS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD Proposed Approved SF IIU* Minimum Lot Size NA/ -Detached unit 1,926 sq. ft. 1,926 sq. ft. 3,050 sq. ft. Consistent -Attached unit Avg./unit Avg./unit per unit with density -Duplexes in 18.715 -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width Approx.28 ft. Approx. 28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 10/15 (P) 10/14/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side facing street on corner&through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -Side yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC -Rear yard 13/15 (P) 13/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft[3] Maximum Height None shown 30 ft. (to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage [2] None shown 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None shown 20% 20% 20% [1]Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. ': Single-family dwelling unit(attached or detached) (P) Perimeter FINDING: The applicant proposes to void the White Oak Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1), which shows building height and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing, which shows budding envelopes. The applicant's narrative Setback Table shows continued compliance with setbacks approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC or required in the base zone. However, if the Commission grants the request, then the height, lot coverage, and minimum landscaping will not be specified for the subdivision. Consistency with these standards will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.745— LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING *PD Guideline Charter k.._...:. ,.._a . „ _.:.. _z _ er,._._. ;.. :..- . r, _.._ _. 44 Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Buffering and Screening- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 1745.1 and 18.745.2). FINDING: Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south, west and east. The Commission approved buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L2/3). The applicant's proposal to modify the approved landscape plan replacing firethorn espalier with a selection of trees along the west boundary would potentially increase screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot and benefit the White Oak Village residents. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. WI 11'11 OAK V11,1 AGII SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF RI TORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGI's 7 01,8 PLANNING COMMISSION I[['BARING 3/7/2011 18.390® DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUD : SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. FINDING: Impacts to City systems were adequately addressed in the original land use decision. No further impact study is required for the proposed housing type and landscaping modifications. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS No other staff comments were received on the subject application. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS No agencies were notified of the proposed modification as none have jurisdiction over the proposed changes. February 28, 2011 PREPARED BY: ZAT Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner February 28 , 2011 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director WI 111 K OAK VII LAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICA'T'ION SI AFI,RF,PORI'(SUB2011-00001) PAGI8 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I II TARING 3/7/2011 — . o — V M MAPk-- PDR2OI1-0800 r . mR , :E I • IrI I ' H-fl➢�E AK V9LLAGEW1 sutDovtS0.N �0O IIB I ao�o���Q ►ILf c — I I '—'-- 1 m . . ,. ; o 7 • J - — / ; Subject Site k .,. 1_✓ 7-1--- -1---j— ▪ :______1 ----- . . ,1.,----: . ' ' (--- rr t.. H 1 ., ____ .. .„.....____. ... ...., , . ,.... \ ,./ 1 i 1 1 �s aI f II111.11 , E r 41 _ I I ---— — f _' I f I _—_ -- _ r l ( tntormaUon on tms map rs Tor general Bocallon r 'y only and should be varifi d writh the 11 II, I - Development Services Division. i k ( , Approx.scale 1:R,VUU-T>n=AUG TI 7S y I map pnnten at UT:GO i-m on MD-Deo-11 5��; , I It 1, DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARO I �.� l MAK NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE I pw" '' SJ II 'tI —� I_ VV TCNT,AOGVRAGY 7MCLINESS OR OONAPLETCNCSS Or ANT Or 6-y �, i I 7ME DATA PROV UEU HERE N TME CI Y OM1 Tit'AAQ SHALL ASSUME NO C 1 4 LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OMISSIONS OI'.INACCURACIES IN THE 1 t4,1 , =`'y II.eURMA7,U, n, GRE .LE,>liWAA ry or I Baro ui p� 13125 SW Halt Blvd Feet SI -11GARD kr? Tigard,OR 97223 t 0 C©Q 4 — 503 639-4171 s p I ' — www.hgard-or.gov — f �I � � �t . ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COM\I ISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2007 The Planning Commission met at 6:00 p.m. in Red Rock Creek Conference Room to greet new Planning Commissioners and to discuss meeting protocol. 1. CALL TO OR 1E11; President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. '*LL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager;Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COM',1ISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND C‘•MMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch invited the Commissioners and the public to open houses on the Comprehensive Plan on April 18th and April 21st. The open houses will provide the public an opportunity to become familiar with the Comp Plan Update process, provide input on the Tiprd 2007 Resourre Report, confirm community values, review draft goals, and sign up to participate further. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the March 19, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Fishel, Muldoon, and Vermilyea abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 11717. ebAY:X.7"Ar .A TPF^IrxiTcirr)INT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 1 Pagenstecher referred to a memo from Dorothy Cofield dated March 30th and a memo from Clean Water Services dated Match 22nd (Exhibits A and B). The Co field memo includes a revised density calculation which has increased from what was in the staff report. Pagenstecher has not had a chance to review the new calculations; however, he agrees with the basis of the calculations. Staff is in agreement with the second scenario (without the flagpole in net area); so 25 lots would be appropriate with the revised numbers. Pagenstecher noted that parking on the 20'wide private street would not be allowed. �.ilk LIC/S1NT'S P1'ESE iATIO.LV Dorothy Cofield, 12725 SW Millikan Way, S-300, Beaverton, OR 97005 and Kirsten Van Loo,Alpha Planning, 9200 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008 spoke for the applicant. Cofield advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for the density issue. She presented a new density analysis (Exhibit C). She referred to the 1994 Dolan case about whether or not the company could be made to constitutionally give a bike path to allow the public to go on their property and not use that property for development. The U.S. Supreme Court said there must be rough proportionality. In this case, the developer is being asked to dedicate open space, easements, and right-of-way. About 50% of the land that the developer owns is being given to the public. The developer agrees to do all of this, but in exchange, he would like to develop it with 27 lots. The development will be innovative and should be allowed to develop at maximum density (27 lots). Kirsten Van Loo provided details of the proposed development (Exhibit D). She noted that the long pathway to Hwy. 99W was the original access point to the property. She advised that the applicant has been granted an easement from an adjacent property owner for an access point to SW 74th Ave. The proposed public street would also connect to the property to the west. It could provide access to that property if it ever redevelops. The units will be duet homes —there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all"end units". The plan shows extra head-in parking spaces along the public street; however code standards do not allow them so they will have to be removed. Van Loo said that once they build the public right-of-way, the project is no longer a flag lot. Approximately 25% of the property will be in open space tracts. The circulation system adds up to another 25% of the site. A planned development allows flexibility in exchange for benefits for the City. The applicant believes the duet units provide an affordable ownership opportunity. Protecting the existing oak tree is a mandate and the park space in tract C is a good size piece of land for this zoning district. It's designed so that when the adjoining property develops, the park can continue. Van Loo reviewed the newest density analysis (Exhibit C) and advised that staff believes the flag pole cannot be counted for density. Their attorney does not agree, saying that all the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 3 standards. If they argue proportionality on that basis, the only option the Commission has is to deny the application because they have not met the standards. Cofield disagreed, saying that the developer can say he believes it's unconstitutional, but go ahead and make a dedication and then make a claim for just compensation. This applicant agrees with the dedication and is asking for 27 lots as compensation. Van Loo referred to a memo from their traffic engineer (Exhibit E) that substantiates a 46' ROW. The ROW dedication is based on the vehicle trips that will be carried on a portion of a public street. They believe that this project plus the potential development of the adjacent property will generate less than 500 vehicle trips per day. Having less ROW will give the applicant a little more land for their density calculations. Kim McMillan disagreed with the 46'.ROW. The City also takes the existing neighborhood into account. The adjacent parcels have 32 dwelling units and this development is proposing 27. Added together,it is already over 500 trips. Having 54' for the public street will absorb the head-in parking, but will allow for some parallel parking. Commissioner Muldoon asked about the net gain and loss for parking and if there was a gain in green space. Van Loo said there is a potential total loss of 9 spaces and a potential gain of maybe 5. She advised that the Development Code requires 1 parking space per unit. The applicant is proposing 2 spaces per unit. Over the long term, the public street will build out to full development which will allow for more parking. Commissioner Walsh said that the parking spaces are not realistic for this development. It was also noted that there will be no parking allowed on the private street. Van Loo said that reciprocal parking arrangements with neighboring properties have not been considered. Also, eliminating some of the units to put in more parking is not feasible. The Commissioners expressed major concern about the lack of parking. Van Loo suggested that people could park in neighboring businesses. Going back to the number of units recommended by staff, it was advised that staff is agreeable to 25 units. With regard to the access on 74th Street, Van Loo said that it will be repaved to 24'wide to a section that meets City standards —approximately 500 lineal feet to Spruce Street. Len Dalton,White Oak Village, LLC, 7955 SW hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, owner of the property,reported that he is following the recommendations in the arborist's report to care for the Oak tee. Screening and buffering were discussed. It was advised that there will be a 6'wall between the development and the bus storage lot. Commissioner Muldoon doesn't think this will be enough screening. He asked if the developer would consider planting higher vegetation. Van Loo said that a final landscaping plan would be submitted as part of the final development plan. If the Commission wants, the developer will put in higher vegetation. It was advised that the tree is probably over 200 years old and in very healthy condition. The homeowner's association will maintain the park and protect the tree. Also, the developer will comply with the Police Department's request for lied-Irina qlnner nathwav_ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIND IES-April 2,2007-Page 5 believes that because the adjacent parcels are not part of this application, the City cannot mandate offsite conditions. The Planning Commission advised that this is beyond the scope of this application. PU LIC TESTIM•NY— IN OPPSSITION Ken Zsoka, 10945 SW 74th Ave., Tigard 97223 spoke about the impact on 74th Ave. with overflow parking from the development. He asked if there are any provisions for the construction equipment and contractor vehicles. He does not want to see their dead end street flooded. He also asked who will be responsible for the sidewalks, curb, and gutters. Staff answered that the applicant has to provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for the project. They will come down 74th and will be expected to park on their site to do all their work for the bulk of development. There will only be street paving on 74th; no curbs and sidewalks will be put in. The homeowners won't be tagged for any improvements. Anyone can park along a public street, but they can't block driveways. Neighbors can call the Engineering inspector if there are problems with construction vehicles. Sandi Moxley, 11005 SW 74th, Tigard 97223, is concerned about lighting in the park area. She thinks that it will become a high crime rate because it will be boxed in with a fence. People could congregate there after dark and cause problems. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Kirsten Van Loo advised the following: o Regarding the 200 year old tree, the client is not opposed to putting the tree on the historic register in order to provide maximum protection. © There currently is poor connectivity on 74th; the continuation of 74th will provide the next link to eventually connect to 78th. o Parking and construction management concerns were answered by staff. o The 24'wide paving on 74th will be an improvement to the street. It will provide more encouragement for people to park on the street rather than on people's yards. a Issues about fencing were discussed; the client will do the best he can to restrict unauthorized passage on private property while maintaining balance with the community. The new pedestrian pathway may be longer, but will be a more pleasant experience. O Regarding lighting in park—if places are lighted at night, they become attractive nuisances and people tend to congregate there. The client will defer to the Police Department and follow their recommendations to the best of his ability. a The two lots next to the park will be fenced. Dorothy Cofield said that they would like to conclude tonight if possible, or to have some inclination as to what the decision will be. She feels they have met the burden of proof for 27 lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 7 Dorothy Cofield asked to either 1) continue the meeting for 2 weeks so the applicant can return with design drawings, or 2) get approval for 25 lots with the ability to get 1 additional lot with a plan showing that it is feasible to meet the design bonus. For #2,the Commission would make a finding there is enough evidence in the record,in terms of the stonework and type of design that could be done, that the density bonus could be met. Commissioner Doherty still had concerns about lack of parking and lighting in the park. Cofield noted that the parking standards have been met and that transit is also available. Len Dalton said that,with either 24 units or 27 units,the parking issue won't change. Vice-President Walsh noted that the applicant is requesting to put a lot of units on the site, using the Planned Development process. The PD process allows the Planning Commission to use their discretion about granting density bonuses. The Commission wants to have a livable neighborhood. Commissioner Muldoon asked staff if diagonal parking could be allowed on the far southeast corner lot or if the lot was too small. Staff responded that all the cars would have to back out, which doesn't work on that lot. Kim McMillan said that if the 2 homes by the oak tree were taken out,the applicant might be able to gain a couple of spaces. Dick Bewersdorff noted that it's also possible to take out the 2 units by the horseshoe and put in angled parking. The cars would still have to back out onto the private street. Cofield asked the keep the record open for 2 weeks so the applicant can come back. The Commission said that they would like to see something unique. The applicant noted that one of the standards the Commission could consider is building grouping. He feels that having duet units could qualify as a unique grouping of homes. Staff agreed that innovative building grouping is one of the standards listed in the code. If the Commission determines that duet homes satisfy that language,they could award the additional 3%. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty moved again to recommend approval of the application as submitted, with the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Fishel seconded the motion. Staff advised that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to show that the original 23 units recommended should be changed. Two additional units would be consistent with the findings;however, that number would be subject to additional information which would verify that the calculation was accurate. Dick Bewersdorff recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to re-compute the numbers and provide the evidence to the Commission along with evidence to warrant more density bonuses. The Commission could then make their decision. Commissioner Doherty withdrew her motion. Commissioner Caffall moved to continue the hearing to April 1641. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice-President Walsh asked staff to check the records to see how density bonuses have been applied in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 9 APPLICATION TO MODIFY PDR 2006-00001 Final Order No. 2007-02PO Case Name: White Oak Village Subdivision Applicant: Hawthorne Block LLC %Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests two modifications to an approved 27 lot subdivision and planned development known as "White Oak Village" subdivision. The development was approved on April 16, 2007 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. The two requests are: 1. To allow detached or attached units on lots of choice and 2. Changes to landscape screening details. PROPOSAL: The applicant does not request any change of conditions of approval for the PDR or Subdivision. The subdivision improvements have been completed with the exception of final items of work, i.e. fencing, landscaping, signage and final lift of asphalt on the private street. In fact, by the time of the Planning Commission Hearing on this modification request all improvements and City acceptance may be completed. There are no changes to the lots and streets that were approved. Again, in fact the Final Subdivision Plat may be recorded by the time of the Planning Commission consideration of this modification request. So why this request? The case file includes certain material the Planning Commission considered in their decision that suggest this modification request should be reviewed by the Commission. The material previously presented by the previous owner/applicant for the case file included: 1. Presentation of attached units (duets) detailed plans and a lot level plot plan, and 2. Presentation of landscape plans that included detailed buffer screening. It is the current development owner/applicant desire to expand the opportunity to allow detached and attached units and not be limited to just attached duets. Attached units present issues such as: reciprocal insurance; exterior maintenance covenants, restrictions and conditions; limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot line; and disaster (fire, etc.) recovery. The above issues have implications to costs and loan availability to buyers since they result in HOA monthly dues up to 21/2 to 3 times a detached unit. This modification, to allow attached and detached units on lots of choices responds to the economic conditions which will stimulate construction activity. It is also desired to improve the buffer screening along the south and west to provide planting that will result in higher vegetation. The specific landscape plan change is to eliminate the firethorn espaliered on the sound wall since the wall has a architectural finish that should not be covered. More importantly the espaliered firethorn will not provide a desired taller screen. The substitution plantings will be trees that will provide a desired higher visual buffer. Trees under consideration are: • Bamboo • Leyland Cypress • Magnolia • Ash • Maple FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST: 1. To allow detached or attached units on lots of choice: a. The applicable criteria in the Development Cope is found in Section 18.510-030. Single- family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 Zone. The previous case file had building envelopes, plans (C6.1 and C2.1) for attached units and Exhibit C which will be voided with this request. As Previously As Requested Approved Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 10/14/15 ft.* 10/15 (P) - Side facing street on corner &through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. - Side yard 3ft. [1] 3ft. [1] - Rear yard 13/15 ft.* 13/15 (P) - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA - Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line when the units are attached (P) Perimeter .. ' . - - : a - • — DELETE 2. Changes to landscape screening details. a. The applicable criteria in the Development Code is found in Section 18.745.050. The Landscape Plans were considered in the previous PRD application. The only requested change is the plantings adjacent to RAZ Transportation to the west. This change achieves a taller buffer screening. b. The requested modification more adequately meets the Code standards by providing bettering screening. EXH I BITS Vicinity Map Existing Conditions - Constructed Improvements Site Plan As Approved Subdivision Final Plat Landscape Plan Modification Request tid FFJ.--Zi t an x aYkqi4.+.--.444.'44'," ° it•v ti ir �t� i „,,,,,44.4Y6'�to q� ;�„ v.; ".30,,,,,-$4 iA ' r asp t; 4.‘ • � 9 ` w6�A 0 :n 5 �svr<se GIr1Ceue1G -->" " . W 61st Avtt _. i env=;$l4M$ r , - '�! kaol /� I fd: trt9 MS ei q . 81 tits !-6 ' _ V �.. _¢ -. _ 6w4U,Avg % _._ , a \ Shingto -45 .+ ,.a'.u�� 7 e-,,-y v9Ms nes c, svT:681H Pk+`v` ' �pj t - y 1 eD Ai AV tlfe a r. --'.N._ W _ 4. ' � I 5; &. in c . i , a , tip 1. }. j of � th, ,per .. ---i \\\�� 4%• , 6 a4..„.„, f x Svr Pi f a, "SW Y. i :�,. . , t ...$JAC aitA ,-, _.r; ms' '}}}Thar } [(r . LI, Vo �l�Y �••V l i. }(fin ' C"., I —Sw. Ave , �r tSs" " It - 1 F' as J t ndA a j ti a 1 1 �Y P, Atg , _ ti t Uf � s � f, ' SWi„ ... _ . arv� 'r ' t q g. } }y 34 6` /�y� � i_g 'afi hey Vitt , i1-11 M P►P XRE�UqT Mrole:1 LEGEND P. I _ _ �,-7oGo'� D L Resolved `, fy I -SVD FACILITY PROPOSEDCLEANOUT E JS- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE I -T1I AALOO7C1-TO g - - -- �- - - - - g - - • WATER METER STORM SEWER MANHOLE I 711-6 LMLO07CX40 .• 57 _~ -_1 -_-. - OA;pp7CC6O ..'Ts=aaK.#v�A Y - _ i -W x r� IOL DITCH TIS . CONTROL POINT N V• V DESIGN GROUP INC DALO07CX7D �> '.IE•., _, 231 a .p '!�n.y y -_ _ -PROP WATER 1M$ L_ WATER BASIN 0 \ 0�. • � �_� - , _ �� �. _ - � 9� '' F�-. - _-�v �"''a -55-PROP SANITARY SEWER CATCH BASIN o \ 0 • 14025 SW FARMINGTON RD 0AL007,01 •E ,. - O-:oo _ _ .. SPRINKLER READ DLO-Loch - �.. - - _ - PROP STORM TWAIN + Suite 270 u.. .'�.. : N ': N W �-� L.+ - �' T" _ _ .-_ --..� EAST SMAIMTY SEWER I _ srAMP6w �-� _ -- - _ _ 1 ' NI LIGHT POE --EXIST WATER UNE I BEAVERTON,OR 97005 U rosohtd ♦.klk ,L � •. ® �me•:C-i•�EAST STORM GRAIN t -J _ (503)644-4628 DRAINAGE CHANNEL -I I-20_00' ® �— - F20.00' `. \ SITE PLAN - 1" = 20' I - y 441:,'Z'4:@.,s'r i. 1 4 OREGON 6'HIGH MASONREY SOUND © , o'• c-Y, NO+G 1:1WHEELCHAIR RAMP WALL PER DETAIL --- _ a Q TrKEYSTONE RETAIAYNG WALL I I o '4RY't.-01,9•\> MrQV I PER DETAIL _ _ - V-----.V I %PIRES Tz] 1 lir E, n ,a \ ..._ - _ _ ' _ _ ___. —I— - - 4- iimp�J � pp • © "E `1iftLhY �� to ..€t,r =� -". N D UTILITY EASEMENT a, �A� r. • 'OtY' - `. ., .. +------,--',--J-'-•---'dv „ctESs'unftruFiL"Tr-€.asEMENr--1-' -�s .__ ,_ ...___._� ;i I o TRACT A . a, ._f ;i x` ` . _ -:�: - I �7 N __I z F lO.00T - • i S i%© .: - _..I.f - - - �`a n n� . — i.�` Rd \ E I:.,..,,,,.... �, n I o t\\p0�t� o V 1 ✓f. 0c. - i I I I I ( I ;® I i. ,01,111=1.114s,I01i�� , I II I I I I9 I MOUNT BLE(aURB I :� I I © - 3Z'v0 ii • I , LOT 24 1._. I HC WHE£LC IR RAMP I NS/ON !ANGLE 7111 I ® L \I I I N O rIoI1_LI ) I 1--7aoD'—� f I j CO �{ri I N N N I W^--� - I 0 I ~ I ~ 1- I ~ i 0;% I ~ l J 1�.i o l o 0 o I o o ; I o i '' — TRACT C JRNING DIAGRAM DIMENTIONS 691D� - , LOT 25 i.l I I I 54.0 II fZ Z _..". I _ F-PUE I W 0• ' II - - - - - - I I I QU' pEL 1• ..I 30.68' -I - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1 oa n MOUNTABLE C S , 2. I I - -- - - - .-.-! W '-- --my--�•� =I1 I .... I I I [ '! 1.1 r - r _ �� 6'.HIGH MASONRY ! '` • ill—PUE I �! tSS7lr ( I I 1 f--PER 0£7AILQ - j- III - ISOUND WALL I I I ✓ I I •T • v , 'I , �. I „0,a I I ® • I I W 1 . ` -\ I I MOUN1TABLE CURi ® I • I i I I FU R/RE I H • N. I WSION TRIANGLE 3,i 44• ' I ��s//Cl/T OF Wilt. 1I- 1I; I (-'--o\-•( - - -- - -I� 1 m I 76011• I I I I f = _ _ :� NI -`a w . e+ t N. i - r 1 •s'--; >Gr, -! - Ge+ , TfcACf-f - (} it 2: oDkrD I I I I r P - 5.0D' - - - - - - -- - - —'35ff3• I ,I - �^ '" 16.00--'- -,.-; It iT y I I i I,.'.` t - REV. DATE BY a -` _ I I I I I I I I f I _ 411,,, 3' TL 71005 I 11 10975 I I - IL 10915 -Cij I I I I I I ,Ill__ I I IL 1094.5 /1J 3/03/071.�'M (Ni • - 1 - 1 E I I I I I 1 �_8/30/07 JEM o 0. o ^1 v 1\'�- 1 s € E)cInVcii ©J 9/14/07 1 LHP v ml � m N e m, N '[ I U 1 O I Q I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 2 I 0 1 /I fir' 1 7 �_ ! 1 I I: C2.2 1]0/30/071 JEM N I I I I I I I �` f' I ,c + tl• t 1 11/79/071:JEM N I "WH/7E OAK VILLAGE"SIGN , k I a(� 'a lib I-. 71_ 77030 ?...._ 1 \ • III - - IJail L.1. J, - PROJECT 6•HIGH FENCE .; - - - • ...__. -.. _ .--..__. �� DAL007 rn 2 ? 1 -1-- G AII' -- 3 I r, I: , - -L- I____ -7-- -_j JI! - , / ale S27N7 \ ;• t1� -.----:1, r+- -- ---------- ,z I 11 .71615 T I ,,:e 1 _ y.:A- _ ?- _I-__i....,, .-_1..M n_. 1;.V: - .__ - - -.._ -- .. - - _-- --�,, -E%- - -C= Scale: P=20' • 20' 10" 0 20' •� I '• / I • .•, I ..N I __ Drawn By. JEM v ,1 Q SW 74TH AVE' j C) _� ,, Q - I SCALE: 1" 70' �- ,U y- -- -- Designed By. LHP - L — _ I,� 1L 17000 11 1D970 a� IL 10940 _ 0 1.9910 1 Y Checked B. GID . I I� EO o 6 Ili SITE PLAN a z " . T = 20' - N l, ` r* i �5/P� D .n�G /0 5// ,1 7631-� 0 '70. •Q. 9- CJ � 'itil i 20 �-cleC [. s' G -mss c. d //6/% ��� ,A0-44li (,,- C-''''''.--:2' 6"1 6 4 S��3z c> - come)/6 es-y.7 �.Yl<� WNWis la ■vimAiirt� iiiiiiir . r \\0\10 e 1 ,; t ^riosic_:. _,. Water Quality c , sz- ru .1. _ z!"w i.i Swale_ _ i. iia 6'Mas Wall Solid ��,,��,,�� ry F 6 .j..... Air' Ire r �i` nn �;VO �„ `".T- ->...r�...,r...—�....r.- .- - •r- - ._. TTT i,* s..!cry,4�__ `dlFeI a • r 7 c .da � __� Baa 7....,-i.,t14•i1�C,ler .•.a 'A �1 .Ai 't'F Tom_ s p";-7:',-f '- 74.12,1" _V'• �{, - '°"'r 5'Wide Tr,ark \ 26 Pedestrian Path V _� .4tr) -1411 $ �• ,..,,.... .....110 (01E �� r� _� 0 - ® �..• rl ( l Park 24 21 20 16 ( _ ■ I I I8s- 23 4 22 I 19 I I8 17014 '•\ II ° L. 3 en y vi,-.,:. i - {" i ,. it ''Y-' - + I 11; n M1,. . v e., Nig 1 25 I - . ..,, t/� !1 _ .. — - -- -- - --- ) Existing Oak I. t 1 .- .. -� 6'Masonry i _ _ - — t: Wall 11. • Itetaio . _ ...N I:I 4 r` 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 I 5 :., . ` IIIb • .� i . N---rillioll .. . _ . 511 , 0 -*M.* 4, 4., .,. . , ..... I1. r� ., .., , „, ,:, , 1....r-I.,...:.'•:.9-:!..'41 ' Nile e . . . gr rx.14-444 iil 1. 4- .. ii ,. ,.i , 0., ,..,.s..._ . 4._,Iit. ; .;1- .. 1, Z"..l• / ie. •'10.,.. ` w 0,4:" .. '- l -1 - , .'L.s f:.11 ,..-: -, , . . i.. TO .,;s,.W i 'M'-c t,k °..-,.•: I - Y { - \- 1; r 0 , , .. . .. :.....4-.4i kt0 0 44 tittAti: 6'Solid -. ..... Wood Fence _ SW 74th Avenue ;4 , "" .,.... %Ili 10 4 ' it , . Tigard,OR 4 ..„...-..t, ' White Oak Village ,�y' � 44011011r40.`" I __ SITE rill.tbrije AgAfile471IZIC:) WI IITE `•� AK VII d 1 1A G j RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. DATE OF SURVEY : APRIL 1, 2008 LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4, AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ' • CURVE DATA TABLE END, 3/4"IRON BAR, B£NI; WOODS, 30 0 30 60 90 MST-WEST,S 1 "END. BY(1)(3)(4)W am; HELD "nGARD OM�NIUM CDlaMUN�� 00'2EST A D 00lNORTHC O � �em CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING E-W 6'WOOD FENCE ON UNE, A COO - OF THESE CORNER OF"TTG4RO WOODS - 1N0. 2 1/2"BRASS DISK 1 28.06' 40.00' 40'11'15" 27.48' N71'01.57"E_ TRUE POINT FELL IN CONCRETE -A CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY STATION DESIGNATION GC 022-065 SCALE: 1"=30' FOR FENCE POST NOT SET / INSCRIBED SEA INC.; (2) PUBLISHED STATE PLANE COORDINATES 2 35.27' 40.00' 50'31'26" 34.14' N25'40'37"E $89'07'12£ 100.80' NORTHING: 655,391.693 3 63.33' 40.00' 90'42'41" 56.92' N45'46'15"E EASTINC 7,621,]05.564 4 77.74' 46.00' 96'49'45" 68.81' 546'48'08"W SEE DETAIL 'A" EAS fACTOR. 0.99990594 19 9.47 15.00' 3610'26" 9.31' 1470'47'12"W /T \ 22 25.76' 46.00' 32'05'01" 25.42' N68'44'29"W / I 3 I FND. •5/8"l.R. WITH Y.P.C. S 8.24:f6...,5 ' 25 1.58' 1.00' 9019'56" 1.42' N45'20'58"E / J / INSCRIBED fOS1ER LS 1934" y>� `(S 76'S6ZT" 3795. i 26 2.69' 1.50' 10;55'22" 2.35'_ N38'01'23"W (0 ?$? `J-2.".1 am\ = g5 (A✓EgSORED 19. LEGEND -a- "7NITIIL POINT ~ S 843129 E �o O SET 5/8"X 30"IRON ROD. WITH YELLOW TRACT C -o py Z _ 775.05' Y 12,031 SQ FT 0"13 / PLASTIC CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934 " 2ppa' END. 2 1/2"BRASS DISK ON APRIL 1, 2008 200' N0• W STATION DESIGNATION GC 022-028 I PUBLISHED STATE PLANE COORDINATES 1@E SET 5/8"X 30"IRON-ROD WITH 1-1/2" 58852'25 E DOC: CFT ALUMINIUM CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934 " �Q NORTHING. 654,647.083 ON APRIL 1, 2008 32.00' - \0� ¢I EASING: 7,624,315.384 . / • 0 GRID FACTOR:0.99990579 0 SET 1.05"BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CURB O. c...1 o MARKED 'FOSTER LS 1934" ON APRIL 1, 2008 I IN • FND 5/8"IRON ROD MTH WI I OW PLASTIC A I` v^ vt z CAP MARKED "FOSTER PLS 1934"AS SET $ "vai 1„ N / 1683 I IN 5N 30,539 '0 o o b NO 9 0,6 I la SET 5/8"X 30"IRON ROD WITH YELLOW O,0 0 n 1W/i/AL POINT" ,/ OOG 30 00 .PLASTIC CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934 " ry o o END. 5/8 I.R. WITH Y.P.C. ON APRIL 1, 2008 IN MONUMENT BOX 2.00' Z -" INSCRIBED "FOSTER LS' 1934" _ END. 1/2"IRON PIPE 20 DD p14191 2.00' FWD. FOUND n^j 32.00' • - 5157'39046 f'IP. DOWN 0.10: HELD0.67'IN(1) (0.W)DESTROYED Q N•2�0� . \ -333' SN SURVEY NUMBER, WASHINGTON COUNTY 3 0 SURVEYOR'S OFFICE 61190' BY CONSTRUCTION,- 00 o o DESTROYED BY CONSTRUCTION L=63.33'1 co o 588'5225E 100.90' 1 I /NOT RESET •I- NOT RESET 11 0 CURVE NUMBER - SEE CURVE DATA TABLE rRAC1 C" �' ik, �• 1 oi- 5$83225'£ 159.0$' 5.43' / ti�I r.P.G DENOTES YELLOW PLASTIC CAP -' N -- - 0 `-- - ii 4994' V.GE. DENOTES VISION CLEARANCE EASEMENT SW TORCHWOOD STREET D.ss } 58852'25 E DEraL n" 1\ SCALE 1=5" FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 588'5225 E 2333Ti P.O.E. DENOTES PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT O oo o N4539'12 E� Oa 1 , /VW 26.66' V. 2.00' 16,58' ,T'''' S885225E 19.01' o I 3h RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION P.E. DENOTES PARKING EASEMENT FOR 71-E BENEFIT 1'0 120.:0 227.37 76.90' 79 1 PER DOCUMENT NO:q , / /aaQ ID.00' ►37.18'=b-97�j ' ��C� 2008-83162OF THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 27 _- 1 r.,`�'�16.52'-73.01'_ p _ 7301' �� 20�R�R00' IGS�P_u£. O a' DOC.NO. DENOTES DOCUMENT NUMBER R 4.17" 4'� 544'11 b6't- `n C z N4533'31 E } \ 1 > ________/- Z:2, SO FT DENOTES SQUARE FEET I 1 14.16' 650 `75 DELTA =9649'45" .. 23.22' o I SPU-£ �' RADIUS= 45.00' oi m 03 LOT 18 w LOT 16 17.00' • SEE 19.01' TRACT18SQ LENGTH= 7774' SW TORCHWOOD STREET EP. DENOTES IRON PIPE "t 2,406 SQ FT F'1L 4H 2,349 SQ FT , Qv[S a 11.318 FT CNORO = 68.81' 296' >- '`� �• a ,a x20.50'. N89'19041V a p CHORD BEARING = N8852251Y LW. DENOTES IRON ROD S89:29041- 73.00' 0 589'29 04 E 73.00' I 69.68' "' N 47 N 4G48'08"E _ o o a o i� o - pc. 3a q LOT 19 o a LOT 15 " LOT 1 �^ � `0a 26 L=269 (O.U.) DENOTES ORIGIN UNKNOWN TRACT A o N n 1,971 SQ FT o N 1,971 SQ FT T ry I L ryI 2°°1 N1326'18""E m 0/ NB9'29'04iN 9,267 SO FT ],880 SQ FT 8.12' o 0 TRACT (2) DENOTES SURVEY REFERENCE NUMBER >~ j 5692904E 7300" 0 589'2904 E 73.00' ti a o I U 21.46 0- D P.SE. DENOTES PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT O ¢ co z OO 77.50'P.U.E& I ¢ N8979'04 tit 69.63' h o od w G9 ~ LOT 20 P.S.E. a oI o-p �o a y 1,971 SQ FT LOT 14 0 LOT 2 n 25 589'29'04'£ o N 1,971 SQ FT > N 1879 SO Fr ry o L=1.58' . 2300' o SURVEY REFERENCES 1 t I 589'29`04£ 7300'Xf O 589'29'04'E 73.00" 3 I¢ .50'P.U.£ o I (T) SN 30,539 3 9,0660$4 4.(n ' I 17.50'P U.E& Io o I N8979 041; 6958' - LOT 1 (2)SN 28,174 3 B o P.S.E. o LOr 13 0 0 o I (3) SN 19,519 N0. LOT 3 o DETAIL 0" 014 . o ^ N 71 21 0^ 1,971 SQ FT o > I---- 0:1 1,877 SQ FT00C �^ NO'62k SCALE 7=20' I (4) SN 15,467 B I 58979 04"E 73.00' ©SQ FT N N8979041Y 73.00' W ly FI I O 20 7,115 N89'29'04"W 69.53' NOTE SURVEYED BY: ' o LOT 22 3 I o Y: x. FOSTER&MAODUX SURVEYING,INC. A'.'; I 1,971 SQ FT I n 1,9 SQ FT o 1 NI LOT 4 1 BASIS OF BEARING AND / REGISTERED 708 N.E.238TH PLACE N 1,876 $Q FT ry \I I \ N ry I I BOUNDAR RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL 1 . WOOD VILLAGE,OREGON 97060 20.00" S89'29'047- 73.00' N8979'041N 7300'- IIS PER S.N. 30,539. !I \°O >t b r I g LAND SURVEYO" \\\A S J 503667-8307 N89.29 041V 69.48' _ l Sss is o4E T70.17' � � _______,,,..„.e..,., - ry'/� MATCH TO SHEET 2 OF 3 ORE . 0EC_10, 1980 \,.. DAVID A. FOSTER .SHEET 1 OF 3 "THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PACKARD PRODUCT 1934 NUMBER C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYS),11th FILM JPC-4M2." RENEWED THRU 12/31/2011 WHITE OAK VILLAGE RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4, AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, DATE OF SURVEY: APRIL 1, 2008 RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY; OREGON SET MONUMENT FD 5/8"IRON ROD WO�a -FO 3/4"I.E. (0.U) N 89'49'00"W 0.50' NO CAP. HELD, (2) ED 5/8"I.R. (2), DN. 0.06' S 89'49 DO"E C,bb 10 ON. 01, HELD FROM TRUE POSITION DESTROYED BY _ DESTROYED BY CONSTRUCTION 90 9 O DESTROYED BY S 54'1225"W 19.77'(CHORD) NOT RESET 11.00 N0071'001- 944.37' 95 1=6.65' CONSTRUCTION, 4.17' CONSTRUCTION, RESET AS SHOWN - 604.29' NOT RESET 91.46' - 01758'o - 82.44 105.00' 120.00' o - ' 05y 14'RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION N 00'/1'00"E 120,00' TRACT A N2974271' 16.11_1' ,3945 4 0 0 9,267 SO FT •\ I 1 1750' PER DOCUMENT N0. 2008-701252d . �5 g 4R -NOCII b0'E 199,84' q4. 0 r o s'/ - 19967r -' 55k/ 50 �ED I/2"IRON PIPE 500'1100”W 418.76 _ '` O '• • o 21 - SO0'11'00'W 19951' `/'p �554'00'22W 0.55' •S 89'49'00"E •1 200' �• ��" • TRUE CORNER FALLS IN •'� 0.00 2700 0 200' FO 5/8"IRON ROD / 529/427W 16.47' O• m M13 a2 7. ' 7 CORNER OF CATCH BASIN S 89'49'00"£ HELD NORTH-SOUTH 2 ! =6.39' L% 58.16' m_ 9.00' m •/ 18 L=1.12__ • _ 4.16, 6060' 4 0. 6) 589'05'02 E 0.1T `o ' \-vim q `� P.b (0D) 0, e-NO0'08'47'f 6874' 17 •L=70.00 0r ,tihQt m S \II A� �to �.It' TRACT F Na m L=8.88' do • n �' e m m OD R. e "�' 9� 0 WATER DUALITY FACILITY LOT 26 0. m N,ro : ,a e \c %` �. 6a 1.320 SO FT CON 5/8"1R HELD, (O.U.), DESTROYED BY `? 7,975 SO FT a 0.01' �' �. -� Amp 00'Zi CONSTRUCTION,E NOT RESET,'END 3/4"LP 66.73" • O o rt;' r. p N H"1 < ` o� N 979'34"E 220'(an), DESTROYED BY NO0'08'47T 68.13' I,o i, L. R) " � w y \gy N� `✓ CONSTRUCTION, NOT RESET,. END 1/2°LP. U 6.50-y m o 0, - 0 0,w „ 'i o ,, , CURVE DATA TABLE (au)54'22'25'E 0.40' w LOT 27 PUE. o 8 � �, T 0 1°979 SO FT SEE Iq n Pc' ~ NO0'11OOT - 6833' DETAIL C" 071.56'. 3201_0 17.00; 0 2700; 0 \ CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING END. MONUMENT 61 t 3201' 2700 2700 09 6 75.68' 48.00' 90'19'54" _68.08' 54520'57"W DESTROYED BY " 1 500'0847W 64.12' 1 to H-- d.00'P.¢E. & y 59' 7 ---" - CONSTRUCTION SEE DETAIL B" 7 n 1 N eSE. 2 '0 10.00' 48.00' 11'56'09' 9.98' N83'31'01"W LOT 27 N00'08'47f NOT RESET ED 1 7 LP 0 U 4.21' -'� 0 r- m m " m m 8 6.39' 5.00' 7312'36" 5.96' 565'50'45"W7 (- ) ,o m ti m LEANING WEST, HELD 11:0 'o I 0 m m m J 0 m o 9 18.06' 68.00' 15'12'53" 18.01' N6152'23"W S 4'7275"E N 939'34"E 40.82" 0-i v'� o _ o Nl 10 aM10' 1,20' NORTH - SOUTH TRACT E n '� a I 0 oQ o 0 o v o y 6.65' 5.00' 76'08'52" 6.1T - N8'49$8"W DESTROYED BY u 'N I o 01 11 39.45' 48.00' 47'05'24" 38.35' N23'21'42"W 0 9 327 SO FT a �I . g 0- 0 - - v V Sti CONSTRUCTION / 0 m o >, 12 44.15' 28.00' 90'19'54" 39.72' N4520'S7'E �`L9 NOT RESET 0 • 1 ,6, -4 "me -4 2, 13 43.82' 28.00' 89'40'06" 39.49' S44'39'03"E END. MONUMENT 065' k`\65 • ((2 �2.2 1" 14 DESTROYED 8Y ' Ot'S ti Q J R. �7 21.13' 48.00' 25'13'32" 20.96' 572'47'46"W _ DETAIL B' CONSTRUCTION, �b'� i6 1s w 'r\384'- 2 I 15 28.96' 48..00' 34'33'53" 28.52' _ S42'41'29"W NOT TO SCALE "'- -'-- NOT RESET O 8 i,, \ T 6041' 1 16 25.59' 48.00' 30'32'29'- -25.29' _575'14'40"W_ L=2559' �p Po O 2780' __27.00' 17 8.88' 48.00 70'35'43" 8.87 N841114"W r Coy''9 ••"'- • 18 1.12' 48.00' 1'20'26" 1.12' N78'13'10"W l� y2.. 12,949 SOFT. I N0,87'b0 f \mea /..,-, am- 0/7 00 - _ 20 59.92' 38.00' 90'19'54" 53.90' 545'20'57"W S 's. S 500' 00 10.87 O 26g- 1 !' '2'V 21 59.48' 38.00' 89'40'06" 53.59' N44'3903'W -- 23 25.82' 16.50' 89'40'06' 23.27' N4439'03"W . I I �o T .IJ�• 2700' 2700' ~ __ _ __...__ LOT 27 LOT 25 h 6 i4 _ __ ____ _ 24 26.01' 16.50' _ 90'19'54" 23.40' N45'20'STE__ Icc, bQ 6.51' n N00'08'47f Q I v w N a, 2 41/' s� I 4o 2 2 e 6.50,_ 3.00'EX 800"PANCHOR 4 m O m -• m je NI 9 O PUE • GENERAL 010 TRIC N0 _ , a co a W r o "Jr.O o (I'O o � 500 0S 47 W 64.12 0 20.01o ,, ,, A m LEGEND I To I \ � o-' 4 om 4 o0, 4 -i • END. MONUMENT O.OP' " LOT 9 6.50'P.U.E. - w V DESTROYED BY _ ; ` _ v "' L N SET 5/8"X 30"IRON ROD WITH YELLOW 7 m ti e 7 m w PLASTIC CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934" CONSTRUCTION, NOT o 15'x 20'SANITARY SEWER \ r N 00'06'00'w e00' m ON ON APRIL 1, 2008 Y EASEMENT PER BOOK 550. RESET DUE TO 6.0 ¢p h PAGE 610. (4/30/1965) l4.00'�� 3200' 0 2700' 0 2700' 0 27.00' o U SET 1 i/2"BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CURB FOOT CONCRETE WALL MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934" ON APRIL i, 2008 FOOTING TRACT E- U (to � 11 173.00 IM SET 5 8"X 30"IRON ROD WITH 1-1/2" J I \ _/ / 500'1705"W 285.49' p ED 1/2"IRON PIPE J JJl / DOWN 0.80" HELD 348' ALUMINIUM CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934 " (OW ON APRIL 1, 2008 _ _ `LZ_ _ DETAIL "C" FD 5/8"I.R. WHN �i3 btia • FD 5/8" IRON HOD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC Cl SCALE 1"=30" 4J051b Y.P.C. INSCRIBED `SN5 CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934" AS SET °0(' 09� PELSER PLS 2801" „p3� IN SURVEY REFERENCE (1) OR AS NOTED "�9' (5A HELD;END 3/4"LP 'L END. FOUND 30 0 30 60 90 3. (au.)5 80'13'/7 W 075' SN SURVEY NUMBER, WASHINGTON COUNTY 30 __ '11418 SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PACKARD PRODUCT „ONIt a SURVEYOR'S OFFICE NUMBER C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYESTER FILM JPC'4M2" -... !!! 10 CURVE NUMBER - SEE CURVE DATA TABLE SCALE: 1"=30' (O.U) ORIGIN UNKNOWN REGISTERED PILE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PROFESSIONA SURVEYED BY: LAND SURV •R LR DENOTES IRON ROD 9/�` _t- FOSTER&MADDUX SURVEYING,INC. 1P. DENOTES IRON PIPE _- ' 708 N.E 238TH PLACE SURVEY REFERENCESd%� q^ ` WOOD VILLAGE,OREGON 97060 (2) DENOTES SURVEY REFERENCE NO. - •T• •N - I I VP I 603-667-8307 DOC. N0 DENOTES DOCUMENT NUMBER (2) SN 15,46] ' DAVID�. FOSTER (5) SN 25,721 1934 P.O 6. DENOTES POINT ON SPIRAL (6) SN 19,735 RENEWED THRU 12/31/2011 SHEET EET 2 OF 3 P.SL DENOTES PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT N T _HITE OAK VILLAGE RECORDEDT AS DOCUMENT P. \\VIS\ill UVJ DATE OF SURVEY: APRIL 1, 2008 LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4 AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVALS DECLARATION APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC I DAVID A.FOSTER,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MARKED WITH PROPER MONUMENTS THE LAND CRY ENGINEER REPRESENTED ON THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION PLAT,THE BOUNDARIES BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND REPRESENTED ON THE ANNEXED MAP AND MORE PMTTCULMLY DESCRIBED THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED TO HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC,AN OREGON UMITED LIABILIN COMPANY,RECORDED BY: IN THE ACCOMPANYING SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE;AND DOES HEREBY IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2010-096164,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS,SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWESTONE-OUARTER, DECLARE THE ANNEXED MAP TO BE A CORRECT MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 36,TOWNSHIP 1,SOUTH,RANGE 1 WEST, OF SAID PROPERTY;AND HAS CAUSED THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE WILLAME1 it MERIDIAN,CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON,BONG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APPROVED THIS _- DAY OF 2010 PREPARED AND THE PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE FOLLOWS: WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 92 OF OREGON REVISED STATUTES; CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND DOES HEREBY GRANT ALL EASEMENTS AS SHOWN OR NOTED BEGINNING AT THE INITIAL POINT,BEING A FOUND 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED'FOSTER ON SAID PLAT:AND DOES IIEREBY DEDICATE TO THE PUBUC PLS 1934"BEING SOUTH 8980712"EAST A DISTANCE OF 333 FEET AND SOUTH 00'0047"WEST A DISTANCE OF 162.47 FEET FROM BY: FOR PUBLIC USE THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAYAS SHOWN. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF'TIGARD WOODS,A CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY':THENCE FROM SAID INITIAL POINT TRACT"PIS HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD.TRACTS SOUTH 88'52'25"EAST A DISTANCE OF 159.08 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID WHITE OAK A.B.C,D,AND E ARE HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE VILLAGE,LLC TRACT;THENCE SOUTH 0017'05"WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WHITE OAK VILLAGE,LLC TRACT.A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. DISTANCE OF 285.49 TO A FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE;THENCE NORTH 89°29'06"WEST A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET TO A FOUND WASHINGTON COUNTY APPROVALS ' 5/6 INCH IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED'FOSTER PLS 1934";THENCE SOUTH 00°06'47 WEST A DISTANCE OF 64.12 FEET,TO A FOUND 5/8 INCH IRON ROD:THENCE NORTH 89'05'02"WEST A DISTANCE OF 05,13 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 11'00"WEST A DISTANCE OF 418.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF S.W.PACIFIC HIGHWAY BARRY MENASHE.MANAGER (NO.99);THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE ALONG A50.00 FOOT OFFSET TO A25000 FOOT HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC CENTERLINE SPIRAL CURVE(a=0.2.s=00°37'308,THE CHORD OF SAID OFFSET SPIRAL CURVE BEARS SOUTH 54'01'49'WESTA DISTANCE OF 19.82 FEET:THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID WHITE OAK VILLAGE,LLC,TRACT NORTH 0011'00"EAST A DISTANCE OF 944.37 FEET TO APOINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OPT WOODS,A CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY";THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 09°07'12"EAST DISTANCE OF 100.80 FEET; ACKNOWLEDGMENT THENCE SOUTH 00°08'47"WEST A DISTANCE OF 16247 FEET TO TI-IF INITIAL POINT. CONTAINING 104,104 SQUARE FEET. STATE OF OREGON APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )SS PLAT NOTES WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON 1. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PER CITY OF TIGARD CASE FILE NO, DY: BY BARRY MENASHE AS A MANAGER OF HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC. SUB 2006-00010. 2. TRACT"B°.A PRIVATE STREET AND PARKING AREA,SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE 'WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION".SAID TRACT"B"IS SUBJECT TO A PUBUC WATER LINE EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT"B'IS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER APPROVED THIS___ DAY OF ,2010 ITS ENTIRETY FOR PRIVATE FRANCHISE UTILITIES.SAID TRACT°B°IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC STORM NOTARY SIGNATURE SEWER AND PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY.SAID TRACT"B"IS SUBJECT WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT'EP IS SUBJECT TO AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. BY: _ -- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 3. TRACT"B°IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS I COMMISSION NUMBER: THROUGH 27,TRACTS"A'AND"E'AND TI1E CITY OF TIGARD. • 4. TRACT'A'SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE°WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS MY COMMISSION IXPIRES: ASSOCIATION".SAID TRACT'A'IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER,PUBLIC STORM SEWER. APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2010 PUBLIC SURFACE WATER AND PUBUC DRAINAGE AND DETENTION EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT"A"IS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT"A"IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY (WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSESSOR) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD. BY: — 5, TRACT"F"IS A WATER QUALITY FACILITY AND SHALL BE OWNED BY THE CINOF TIGARD. SAID TRACT SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A MAINTAINCE AGREEMENT RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. _____—,WASHINGTON COUNTYDEED RECORDS. "THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PACKARD PRODUCT 6. THERE SHALL BE NO DIRECT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS TO OR FROM TRACT°A°ONTO SW.PACIFIC ATTEST THIS DAY OF _ _2010 NUMBER C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYESTER FILM JPC-4M2,' HIGHWAY NO.99 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY HAVING JURISDICTION OF SAID - ROAD. - DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION EX-OFFICIO COUNTY CLERK r REGISTERED 7. THIS SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO COVENANTS,CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED AS \ DOCUMENT NO. ,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. PROFESSIONAL LAPLO SURVEY?' 1\\ BY: __ -_- I ^y�j �� 8. TRACTS°C""D"AND"E°ME PARK AREAS AND SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE'WHITE DEPUTY .. OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION". DEC 16, 980 DAVID A. FOSTER 9, WHEN THE SIDEYARD DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON ABUTTING LOTS WITHIN THIS 1934 .1 SUBDIVISION IS LESS THAN TEN(10)FEEL A SIX(6)FOOT WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS AND STATE OF OREGON ) SS RENEWED THRU 12/31/2011 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT BENEFITTING THE ADJOINING LOT SHALLFXISTBETWEEN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) BUILDINGS ON SAID LOTS. SAID EASEMENT SHALL ABUT AND RUN THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING ON THE BENEFITTING LOT. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS 10. THE'WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION"SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIVED FOR RECORD ON THIS DAY OF 2010 _ SURVEYED BY: MAINTENANCE OF THE SOUND WALLS IN TRACTS°A',"C",AND"E',LOTS 8,17 AND 27,AS SET FORTH AT O'CLOCIC,__M.,AND RECORDED IN THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS. I. FOSTER&MADOUX SURVEYING,INC. IN THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 708 N.E.238TH PLACE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. SHEET 3 OF 3 1� WOOD VILLAGE,OREGON 97060 ft )1i 503.667-8307 U. LOT1SOTRACT WN,SAID°E ARESUBJECTAREO CLEARANCE Y OF1TGAR TO THE CLDEPUTY COUNTY CLERK TIGARDREA AS DARDS(SND EASEMENTS E ARE ECH TO THE 8.78 TIGARD VISUAL CLEARANCE AREA STANDARDS(BEARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.]95). ,. D L .., ,. . .„ , .. •_••• --- cit,,,,.,...:::: .,‘.: .„.,,,,,•-,,,, • , , - r, DESIGN GROUP INC. 't t'•- 9045 SW Barbur Blvd. ,.3--. Suite 101 • •+; -- Portland,OR 97219 • P""s% r (503)225-1679 i '•^",C s n KEY MAP - NTS R GISTS$ 1 O -is 599 �d A I - ,-1141, 3106 0 E �r TCH WALL WITH MASONRY q..•,s�OREGON E.7 04,13106 �w 9 j��/���- 0 At, E ARG \\ .r,adQEO,$. 5,artw -_ - ' ! •ririiii is-��riiii�a:et\.-1tio�. �-�-- ..- gq.......9:........ --- �..,.z - ---- \� �,./ 4IMP-18114'1114., A. ., !L .-C Ac. 't: \oi .. •� .;� .. _. :��.►l��►f�41•nW �- �i.►��.,dlbi �r1vr4-1,1-r.:,,,,,`Iiilyo o4n�n`-=_fir �.+�1, aE77a� '_• ��/L//_//.//!/�Q\\\\\�.,!\\\\\\�\\\//////////�.► Gc. 1 L=. i i��,a� ice 'i^` r. -� atli> -. �,Y/l � - - �- ���� '•� ®,�,• ArAf- i.'\ -r�J' _ �1 .IS1r.v.:�l.•.Jav'9.v- -tl hll [r�►:'� _ n�1lys w �jwi- i • • , - �.�a11111{g1'dd' ��1 � 01,�����������40.4.��j °�O,fO. 3 �. It 4I��ir ♦��,`- �oli���11,-- ,5,,,,,, ' o ba 4.Q 7 `IIly • i ; (7/. 0 LOT 24 i I I C] 411.* m CI a. TREES m q TE NM BRAC. AMANCAL Num 30.....NAYOUR N TRACT c.1370 MX Arab.a m. P. .dom...laroaun))i ;t, __ 40 I LOT 23 I LOT 22 I `1 11% Mee*Tract c.Re Pm.it.mo-of no.st..ara taw - - - I ✓ v eOTANIr••NAM GOIIION NOME /(� a z GU- 0.e Waal .CER cWu1uTW+ V.NAP. x + N ........,1.• s a r)A..a 40 MASONRY WALL 0 ...V) V I r�I Z �j u,Iru .germ o a4° RwdrF�u-r9u. A o LOT 25 (/1 _ W LL 2....- A5 MOM A..N10 RAI. R4 AILVA r F.• IdR.oaW. I.Na 37 ..L O • LwWCAwF el�Tmn N T Ilk • S Y Gal N 4.IiTlr. COR.tl t>7GEy OEM IN K swiss WOG WADER POffY00D % pv vR,.cwwnLJa s - �Z . -r . I 'f R, ar. j/ 1 X .4D Y GC 0.e° P4RI101euG.S rB.tEN4 pgv.LaN 304 X - •.!L.5' -- I l\'C ----- - Y�4 1 cq J < 0 LL, HERBACEOUS PLANTS for TREATMENT AREA TT .Ilk. T r Cal AS eNwA. Mann - _ �10*408 eARGR.r tREgyE *000. OM r u4 WE WADNG eara104/y_ATO 11071104 NAM ^ Ct ill a ,,.1 y . Wel AT.EOM EYE. Y ma x IT A P4.A SRA,s.aeAa GJ o. • - e 5',.4. A511N1 OWA PLICATA FA5TIGIATG.' 404111 RFD cep. k r'8IE aPE' I 1 \I I ,.• I 1 Tw ^ l Iii CI 'rqe�• � e59 J.5.03 pg rm x71- Toa u..,ew Rewe z. 00 of,I1 ' I !.OT d I LOT 9 I ^ �, U`t ' weds As 44003 Tnr.A cawroFxeu ca.Aow...raocx x HERBACEOUS PLANTS For SWALE BOTTOM N Cn IC• CRY PLUG Ntt97.10410 POrANV AA.m C0910.NAM Rmsix I J i '. I�� I id O O Wzea,eor gl.r CRmUupleWoof,Soda., it V, Z 0 o9roYTN£to NEM. �z as s- wR. AvuRpm... ARe.m a Ku. -_ TRACT E -_ {nen.eMln MCA. PLYR WAG.WAR., J 1 \` SHREW m MN N.acWG mOTANGAL NAME .fA++Gr+NAM N .1� -� )9 I GAL. Ae 0.4014* A NM' CP O80f1 PYGMY.MBW8Y PAmr a Ai. _ _ I GAL .e Nl.au.I c0w.16 ela,r>.w�A R�mR GarAllooa N MET/110151.AREA eRn RIx A„rAA..M.N..q Mw e...s,12e6a14-v3A - . ® IN 1 GAL A4 ONO-- GALLTEWA EHALLON eAIAL x •: PA14) a. �- [•..•p r•�.M.a•Y Ao.cea d+vr.W uvroat M<aY.twtVaa ad aaero...v.l 0'.031 ��� \ 'a� ��_-- a�d6lmcea 4•aPJ fr11y,M Wmu,mod INE ape,cbaElraga. I • TO 1 GAL A9 DROWN s 41 c0RAu xY PVCn. no.PEx 1.1Wat0Ne Maus Nam saw,. �r Nu1E ca,wN NAre s..03.03. \ /�-- �. I `s 6 19 1 SAL. ea 31401M MARLS AAPa10CA LITRE 334130 LIME,EAfI Penn 0 Mem elvvote y g.41 5atl35 ((''`".1 5 1 r-a AS 6.10,04 PYIOA00 IT,1A,p0001H, TOM09AN 7400111Gr04 Moen.pa.Iv4 1003^7°41000333 0....p. 6Maw EWE 1,2 •��.` 39 I EEL AN tlG. MEM SANCAm . 581 - 45o.G 100.92 x.30 yyp,r y faupr srl,Nl.a 0..0 290:1 L O M 1 AAI- 0.e 51.PI7. POeA PIC dIAPA NATIVE WEE Ooeriev,Seed yOar7."*''''' •Roe. - IG 1 SAL A5 010403 SPINAE.00561.0141,08-44 004....• . el 5. O I GAL AN MON 0THIIXCARt 06 ALAMO 300B6RT 6uk,.l 10 poaev 13 I GAL .AS 34 014 0V5TMA EY RGREEN,)FXLIDHU( % reSS.OR.N®T4% •0 014,aE.Ion M4 a Mak N.MN 1286}14-133) r 0 xA�an 0._....d v4..e.Naas or Tram..51.5.580•a a paaro.d ova REV. DATE BY 1301.8.4.5.NAM COMM NAME W- Pwv,4 a...aC•. 0...,a.TO P.u. 3,0 s°r °'a b'MASONRY WALL COROUNOCOVER GIT a>E EPACNG 001.,0.-,3.NAr70 ca•,LN*Ant 0EIL.AENA ��:� w�,V<aPvm.v P..M4 RW 300 1/ I94 I GAL. 0.004 AR:IOSTAPNr10003A+Am1 1x00/4,.3.40 0 9�4 Aya.u,,..nA cm.Ne O.Aga.•� ,0 LO P!' l N r I 1 r /.- T,.d).Paa.. RelGtevar TO r a ,t Ea 10)1 • L,GFTde..a� I ,MR / _ oil 5IA0ADb/4r10FC GRASSES Orr BILE WAGING e0rarnaA3.NAME c0rno01 ra.rS RBI.. J.ESIEABUi1My/T Is ALL PROPOSED PLINr0145 w ME WAl£R wku0ua SIMne wnID w R I `\\1 W 7T7' '`' • F I I co, AN baaW Kua FOPRei 0 ACu1YtARA KARL WASP 7GEREer0R SSA..RNID x $APSPACMY.01 RE 04MR5OCSYMA4 flEMSEEATAM3.AND 140 cm v. 1041 - $ 2 hie CDNINACIal Is r0 RAWrAW vol Sr0R1 W Ma N0 3010 01107 FM r.0 WARS char Ml -_ I ii�-�, r0-f - I/4S ` Y! i I 00.1E OF ME WSIALLAIKW ACCEPTANCE or CtEal WARM MRNUS. OA. ^- A ▪14,04 • i HADES ACCEPTANCE> CE EDDN E W N/M a oMn1E '� !Ill III\\\ IfirlF 'in l ltll\ ' - 01.EA's MM.P.1 717704 AAS)AT XO Amara AL COST ro DE 0WHR. 6'WOOD FENCE -OJECT Sip NUMBER DAL007 Dela 09/14/07 SCALE s®1.: As SHOWN 20 0 10 20 40 Drava,By. Designed By: IN=20 FT Checked By YY --AIIV-alpha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L2 Ph9ns:503-452003 M 9200 SW m3 7 Ave: Fac:503452-0�043 Beaverton,OregonS7008 vAw,ephacommueityzem N;\pr0�247-011\chug\Landscape\Cbr24701 I4AND.dwg-SHEET:PINE(1) Dec.19.07•i:39 PM cN r� I v ;� a J —// j' �r>;.I 'bye a � ' �" �"�'� DESIGN GROUP INC. D L TREES Au ,E Hu H,w�w� �,.Pu, - KS — 9t � � . z� mx.„ A�cww, ...nu.. F k F X12 90455W earfiur 8lvtl. Suite 101 �; P*p Portland,OR 9'!218 LLtk kl 503)2251619 ea® .»o.., �.,a�..,mrvna x To C (t WE� .� KEY MAP - NTS O F �Gts7'gk4w ►�" f (,WfJd icu. maux rmueawawAro..exwe swx.n ec¢ert ovfx. + FIRETHORN ESPALIER ON CABLE � �{�?w.- su�nM_.,ro�. mwrnen�cna ����H� CT �ilp F " x KEYSTONE MASONRY b'USD FENCE 2 U s ve0 ndvw" TN.4ICAu em.wut.' wvxt�[m.w ,,,,,, in TRELLISATiACHFLIEHON A W/Il/U6 wAu. WALL WITH 5'SOUND OREGON CV� '.,.n•= WALL _ �J' t ..w.,w MG.o we ...�.D„x Ha.� x vele REISINGER RIGS CgpE Atc 909 364-410S fly i . j 00511 N4 MEE.o la.nw SS SS ".S .]S_ .411 " • /MU ill SHRUB - con.,„,„,E �,..� I iI t Q fa is, *alums cogebuSarn,...a zm,.m„ ,,a" . � � 1� - _�i.M� vw yy W 0® , II — 0CIW y . W x ,. .". ,.Par .nE�... � mn NW W o �r,— m _ .. awlw ► W w w wy w w m . 7� . x• Z w . 0 ° o.. ,min LOT 21 LOT 20 LOT 19 LOT,9 LOT 17 Gor l6 z 0-—u — x mAGrC-P¢K Vv W < �V D GRcu0 OVER m. 51.E �.C» �.�..x..a m..„.x..a Rowan. , w w w� W fx r Ww4, 4, ww wr, w tr.-D-1 w o www ww wO Q I 1 : 4. 4. 4. 4.GRASSES mr s. wmixc wuw -J � < �J 0 X hi a,_...a �.m �� �� m.a...�,� x I LOT ro LOT rr Gor,z- LOT u I tu I I I Q Q U t LOT I4 tor,s -- I w . iI l J n — H . ; i z HERBACEOUS PLANTS fa TREATMENT AREA oat 1 II I wA - �f HERB PLANTS fa YllALE BOTTOM 'n'�{ •x'I^: 1—_ �L.3f r ,W "Mil II H. mc cam ooraucAL rave Hsru,saw ' Cin anq. ua9.'vaA _ rI uA ewfw� t�.Cnnsunp ✓ro.W.. V�W.°rm •� REY. HATE BY I I I ® I .,",.w.>o. I macro�ra u i II i I __ °^*'„^a °E'"°""'¢"®"x I Gar 4 I Gor 4 Gar z mr, I tm v S 'I a,.....,�.,.......av„;.„....---aa— tau.e.. Ha Sege m a.a".w.w,rn. .--de a.+,,,,,, 0 1 i r vua HH, ma.rou. n p /,r. ail `.\1 f `\r .ISO i »n21='"- '�O:C = - -ems nA t IN I w^^`.w ee x'/u u ` xqn folno` ` - P"q n % a a M"t ) A - . 0 0` I✓ - — .cua..x..w..m..a...w...a.+... 6'WOOD FENCE II r M �„,,mc .„rue.. NUMBER DALOW PROJECT ,� .ww. o..rr..ar..a. w IL 006/5 nate T3B% 0 . w„.4 o..M.a. _ _jCOI at .ara,.P..,. .�� To �->SW 74TH AVE SCALE Scale 1,20' ro,w„ry z9 o Io 10 or..59 PAc n...oa. \'I. ,, .mm — r DesiOneDy m arxv.v.. "a IIN=20 FT - .175r. 9*b s .am.rzo sEw'��0 mND ac arz Checked By: 9Y omy or 12,2 WSFAIIABOY„CLEO...a BY CIE.Al MA RP WES o A, 9 n.4e,m,�ro al p h a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pince �� 503 452-80113 OUSWNimW9Fre. Fax 0°94524M43 ¢ervewrtpepon9rgre wx.aynammmunry.mm N\pai\1410I I\A.'9\Land,cage\CDs\40DII LANDOWg -SKEET:PWI IRI Dec.19.05.139 PM CN 1,0...0 C.1.2.51....., . :,! USClIk: I , ATTACHMENT 4 PsItacole: 1 , . ' Resohad , 114L007x01 . = -- tAD-LOCO : i i E4WIETEITTEETV - i I i SFAMPCID1 I • DESIGN GROUP INC., • . ..._.__.................... ; . ,,,:.. ; 9045 SW Barbur Blvd, CIALOOVX.50 , . i 1 , 0A1.0070X70 : . 1 I - I 1 Suite 101 . db1007x10 , tI M57,:':',.:r 7.1, i . _11 Portland,OR 97219 --itl' i 'I- • [ 1 — ...,. (503)225-1679 1 ' 11 m ,, ' ETE,' 1 t'LY i • - 4 ...e... 2-,...1.___[ 1 i 1 _,„ , . ., y , 1 1 '111 -1-12- ,------tt 1 5 : , . , , ,, , . , , I 1, - 1 --77- .-‘, il 1 , , , I , .. c---,'--; :1, ‘. 11111! • - . i .-, - 71 =•11E7.77,.7.7.74: c.., ,,,,,,0 i N ..„'",-. !? FEU /,,, ,.,, i , Illir -''' !... !=p11 R: ,..... 19160 ..,, ,- .,,,• : 11--- ,, i7!---!!!•••-i a ii hi 1-- - • .. . i V", i i \ . ri ,,..:01.0,.,,s,.. --. . . . 1 autfl.,L 1 1 ! i-_--...14,101 -,!=,,,,._•:-Jsu:1:_ria --- ---- , ,l '.'› ,,,---,,,- -1,-,1,,,,,nu Jo,- I !,... • I : . II! •-- !! N't.L!---,-1,! ! !!Iff!,in; ',7.7....',. . — -:, ,.,, • i i EXPinES i2-3+-0T , IT,ii ,,.•,' 1 b• . . : i i i 1 .•\•. r Nips"--on d =I r : :x iffq .' 11 • ii,!,t H:-uu;,.'LiorD15 .----„,„,,, y G!1 . wi, ....,,,, --2.• . ! . -.-----,,,,,,,, tanc-i-,„,;-- • , \ II , . I to- ' - 1 i .,•. J...,,.:-.,....,, ,-,, ! ... .,. A .:!:, i 413NE, ,9SY ! 0 Vr ii '0,1 I i . I I ......................_______: ! i 1 ! .• I I ! ! I i• I , ; • • iil CO — .• • -- Z . • • 0 1 L. • J it ...1 CL. . Q D H O2 (...) . . H. . H . 1 . . I U : < ; I ; : ,•• ., , r I , , r 1 , , ,.• r ;•• . ; 1 .• ;1 r ,,_.„,,,,L,_.. I ''•rili i hal Il i, II i„,•-::::„,. 1F--,'d ::,- „ , . . . . . . ff, ibl ,• ' ,-,‘, li I ib„, b -i,Lihr .,„! . nr:/,jiito,I.PJ27-......j . . . . . , • . , . ---- -.., rii i i ,.....,•\:,„,„ .c.; 1 ,„, ,k-... 'I I ,•r ',1 , REV. DATE BY , • , . Z i . : . . g4741 (T - 1-1-1-1-1,'-'1-1-11 1'irritT-F-7.7r,--, , - ,, ,:il , I -7 i•-,:,, 1 i i ir • == ',I 1 I V'rf[I' 1',,,> 1 , C,I ,- ' i T , • — .1.„_,,, . i Id 'AR L---=j1 , , „ ,111: ill . ...... . . :•• . '1;/::0; ..,.,,, ::, : Ili I. .7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . -4:i..„.,, r 1i1"-"-'r r r r-rrrrrrr r'r r r ;,,,,,,I, ...:, .', . i . ,.:„.....4...4 , i1,0-(/ R .-7 .. ...„... 1'...,„..' '1:----,,--ii . . . . 0., rrril.::::::::ril, ,,H,,•:-.,----, „ ,..,..„ . ., , . , . : , 11 - -1, - "' i , ,,, . „I , . ----,..,, . , . ... „ , .. , „, :',.:..--,..:•::7• !........r.PIED0---Eilit:1 1 I_A...,,,,,,,L1 ''• 1 „, . . ., • <, H iff-tkel „,,,,13,6-61 1 i , .. ... .. , „ 1 .„ . ,, „„ , , . „..........,.„.Efft=: ! . ............ N 4 [,,,,,,,,„„,„ , : ,„ ,, .„-,-„„ . .. ,, Il 1 i„,firrHil r-:,--L-:•::-,-,T.•,c271 ------ritfil:::_„„,,,•,,,„,,,,,,,_,,,.,,, r 1; ; ;1 --• , .. h,•DDI P.,1 : . hiN ; !, )1 <1 i i.-,,',.' .. .. . .. r• ‘f, i' ... , co ,i ! ,:i• -•,,-••• : i.-• . • . i e..144:::::::::::::„..,:it:IppQ ii, ....... i.. ! 11AP1-- --.•.Tql .. . ....._----:24 "-'71::::''',-:..'''ff''i- o="311'.=_ ._, - 1 ' ! . . . . DAL007 LL i ,'i 1,,n,,,,,,,,,.,r•,-.,.',ir,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1 . . : ••• ,, Lu atm DRArhyL, 1 i II . 1 1 ,1”. 1._0.1Nr.E1.4"A4 . ..... : . . - . . . NPROJECTumBER , I... , , . , • 1 1 11 r, 1 I I I ,IJJ ' r r'-rrrrr rr I , . , , , , , Q , ',7 • ' ... , . , . , ;• Da le, It/06/06 i : . . i . . . : : . : !• : : ..: • . . i 1 , : L . . i . . „ . . . . . . E.w.ire: AS SI ETEMY !' , (...) . . , I ! 1 1 1 E.. : : :• , 0 • . ! : 0 Drawn By. MRC --.1 . ,E &TEE&.10>70 0>>> :;!....E7'!!!!!g >°>.7W... I,I.7,,,..,MVR„PLA,2! . , .-„, DesIgned By. MRC et . tFtttt, ttt;1 Qi Checked By: GO R 0 0 QI • (5 . C601 , . .. z , 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 DATE OF FILING: 3/14/2011 111 41 DATE MAILED: 3/15/2011 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 Case Name: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 Owner's Name/Address: Same as Applicant Address of Property: North of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co. Tax Assessor's Map No. 1S136DB,Tax Lot 01000 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 7, 2011 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL ORDER. Request: > The applicant requested modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site(Final Order No.2007-02 PC). The proposed modification will allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition,revised landscaping details will provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. Zone: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District with PD: Planned Development Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. Action: > 0 Approval as Requested ❑x Approval with Conditions 0 Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: ❑D Owners of Record within the Required Distance ❑x Affected Government Agencies ❑x Interested Parties ❑x The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 15,2011 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 30,2011 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MARCH 29,2011. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC PLANNING COMMISSION 111111 119 FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T I GARD A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DETAILED PLANS FOR THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/PDR2006- 00003 (COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER NO. 2007-02 PC). THE MODIFICATIONS ALLOW DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS ON LOTS OF CHOICE INSTEAD OF THE APPROVED ATTACHED "DUET" SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND PROVIDE A TALL EVERGREEN TREE SCREENING ALONG THE PROPERTY'S WEST BOUNDARY. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MODIFICATION, THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (PROPOSED AT 4/16/07 PC HEARING) AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (SHEET C6.1) ARE VOID. THE COMMISSION HEARD AND APPROVED THE REQUEST AT ITS MARCH 7, 2011 HEARING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (APPLICATION TO MODIFY PDR2006-00003,WHITE OAK VILLAGE),AND THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2011-00001 (Modification of Planned Development Review(PDR) 2006-00003) APPLICANT/ Hawthorne Block LLC OWNER: c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide a tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) IS136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. ZONE/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12,Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. [Applies to majority of the site] Planned Development Overlay (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 1 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC use of open space,innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Planned Development Modification meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore,the Planning Commission APPROVES the proposed Planned Development Modification subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The White Oak Village subdivision was approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC. The planned development process was requested by the applicant to accommodate a private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet, when the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable standards under the PD process, the applicant offered public benefits which include two open space pocket parks, a landscaped pedestrian pathway connection to Pacific Hwy, and retention of a significant oak tree. Most subdivision improvements have been made with the exception of some fencing, landscaping, signage, and the second lift of pavement on the private street. The applicant states that recording of the final plat is imminent. Vicinity Information: The site is located within a massive block bounded by Pacific Hwy, SW 78th Avenue, SW Spruce Street, and SW 71' Avenue and, specifically, at the terminus of SW 74th Avenue south of Spruce Street. The subject site is bordered by developed land zoned R-25 and R-4.5 to the north and C-G to the south. The site is approached from SW Spruce Street on SW 74th Avenue through a single-family detached neighborhood built from the mid-1940s through the 1950s. More recent multi-family housing borders the site to the north but is fenced off and buffered by Tract C containing the preserved White Oak tree. The RAZ Transportation bus depot extends the full length of the subject property on the west. Continuation of SW 74th Avenue through the subject site will eventually access the adjacent portion of the RAZ property zoned R-12. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 2 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION ISSUES Proposal: The applicant requests two modifications of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes as shown on the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). In addition, revised landscaping details would provide higher screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall as shown in the Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08,Sheet L3). The applicant notes that no changes to conditions of approval of the PDR or Subdivision are requested. In addition, no changes to the streets or lots are requested as shown in the Site Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet C2.1) and Subdivision Final Plat (4/1/8 Survey, Sheets 1 and 2 of 3). Detached or Attached Units on Lots of Choice: During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the applicant described the proposed housing type: "The units will be duet homes — there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all 'end units'." [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 3]. There was some discussion whether duets could qualify as an innovative "building grouping" within the context of earning a density bonus. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 9]. However, the project did not pursue the bonus based on that criterion. During the April 16, 2007 Commission hearing, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan titled Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing), which is the approved site plan in the Final Order. The plan shows one single-family detached unit on the stand alone lot 26 with all other units paired as duets. The applicant's request to build either detached or attached housing unit types housing type on the approved lots is a modification of the conditionally approved site plan. However, detached and attached housing unit types are allowed in the R-12 zone and there are no specific development code standards or conditions of approval relating to housing type or this proposed modification. The applicant further requests that as a consequence of the modification, the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) will be voided. The Commission may consider whether the proposed modification to allow either housing type and without any architectural plans, meets the applicable Purposes and Concept Approval Criteria of the Planned Development Chapter, as reviewed below on Pages 4/5 of this Staff Report. Revised Landscaping and Screening: The applicant has proposed substituting some combination of Bamboo, Leyland Cypress, Magnolia, Ash, and Maple for the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry wall on the west property line adjacent to the RAZ Transportation site. The proposed modification to the approved Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3) would provide a higher screen than the six-foot wall and potentially improve screening of the adjacent commercial use. During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the issue of higher screening was discussed but did not resolve in a motion to amend the proposed landscape plan. The proposed modification in this application is supported by the Commission's previous deliberation. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Pages 5/8] SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CATEGORIES: SECTION 18.130 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking modifications to the approved attached "duet" housing type to additionally provide single- family detached units. The lots are proposed to be developed with either attached or detached single-family homes without specifying which units will be developed on which lots. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Household living,which includes both detached and attached single-family housing types, is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 3 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The original Subdivision/Planned Development was a Type III-PC Application. No procedure is identified for modifications of a planned development.As such, modifications to the decision are also processed as a Type III-PC application to ensure any changes are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision and to provide notice to potentially affected parties. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION VI. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. Notice was mailed to property owners within 500 on February 14, 2011; the site was posted with a hearing notice on February 15, 2011; and notice was published in the Times on February 17, 2011. Staff received no comments regarding this application. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745* (Landscaping and Screening) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilized as guidelines, and strict compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. 18.350 — (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS The following Purpose Statement and Concept Plan Approval Criterion are similar and provide some guidance in considering the proposed modification: 18.350.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone include: To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met: The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. The applicant's narrative does not address this purpose of the Planned Development Chapter or this Concept Plan Approval Criterion. However, the applicant specifically requests the Commission to void the previously approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing),which shows building envelopes. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 4 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC In support of this request, the applicant seeks expanded opportunity to additionally provide single-family detached units to avoid complicating issues associated with shared-wall duets such as: reciprocal insurance; exterior maintenance covenants restrictions, and conditions, limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot lines; and disaster recovery(fire, etc.). Analysis: The applicant requests the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to provide more flexibility of housing type and architectural style. On the one hand, the uniform duet housing type creates a distinctive neighborhood. However, detached units would be more compatible with the existing dwelling types along SW 74th Avenue. Giving the developer flexibility to build either type may help the development of White Oak Village in a timely manner given the current challenges in the housing market. Other values in the purpose and concept approval criterion continue to be met with the compatible street layout and transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with open space buffers associated with the pocket parks in Tracts C and D. Is the Commission satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will achieve a unique neighborhood and integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision? 18.350.060 Compliance with Specific Development Standards: This section requires compliance with base zone development standards, with the following modifications allowed with discretion by the Commission: The applicant's proposed modification is consistent with the approved subdivision and planned development base zone development standards, s-Decifically the setback standards as summarized in Table 18.510.2, below. However, without building envelopes anc architectural plans specified, lot coverage, landscaping, and building heights would need to be verified at the time of building permit review. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The approved lot sizes are between 1,836 and 2,748 square feet, averaging 1,926 square-feet per lot. The Commission approved a density bonus and 27 total lots. The applicant does not propose any changes to approved lots. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%, including all impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet, but does not apply to planned development applications, giving the Commission discretion in determining building height. The applicant iaas proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application, which showed units 30 feet to the peak. Without Commission review of the height standard, consistency with this standard would be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and be subject to the base standard maximum of 35 feet. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 5 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC The original decision approved building envelopes on each lot within the development consistent with this standard. For this application, the applicant's narrative includes a Setback Table, which shows the required perimeter setbacks at 15 feet, but proposes to delete the reference to the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative indicates 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to compliance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2)A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes interior front and rear yard setbacks of 10 and 13 feet respectively, and a 20-foot minimum garage setback for all lots, consistent with these standards. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes street side yard setbacks of 8 feet, consistent with the Commission's approval of a two-foot reduction of the 10-foot street side yard standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to allow greater flexibility of housing type and architectural style, without providing any alternative plans. If the Commission is satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision, then the Commission may approve the applicant's proposal. However, the Commission may wish to place parameters on the modification, which both allows flexibility for the applicant and provides some specificity as to the mix of attached and detached units and/or minimum architectural style. The base zone standards, as varied by the Commission, continue to be met with the proposed modification. However, without Commission stipulation of the height of buildings, height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.510— RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Single-family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 zone. The Commission approved an average lot size of 1,926 square feet. The applicant does not propose any changes to the lot size. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050.B states that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: The lots created with the subdivision are designated R-12, Medium-Density Residential. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 6 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 PD STANDARD Proposed Approved SF DU* Minimum Lot Size NA/ -Detached unit 1,926 sq.ft. 1,926 sq. ft. 3,050 sq.ft. Consistent -Attached unit Avg./unit Avg./unit per unit with density -Duplexes in 18.715 -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width r Approx.28 ft. Approx.28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 10/15 (P) 10/14/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone (P) -Side facing street on corner&through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -Side yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC -Rear yard 13/15 (P) 13/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone (P) -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft.[3] Maximum Height None shown 30 ft. (to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage [2] None shown 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None shown 20% 20% 20% [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. * Single-family dwelling unit(attached or detached) (P)Perimeter FINDING: The applicant proposes to void the White Oak Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1), which shows building height and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing, which shows building envelopes. The applicant's narrative Setback Table shows continued compliance with setbacks approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC or required in the base zone. However, if the Commission grants the request, then the height, lot coverage, and minimum landscaping will not be specified for the subdivision. Consistency with these standards will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.745— (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Buffering and Screening,- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). FINDING: Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south,west and east. The Commission approved buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L2/3). The applicant's proposal to modify the approved landscape plan replacing firethorn espalier with a selection of trees along the west boundary would potentially increase screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot and benefit the White Oak Village residents. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 7 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC 18.390— DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUD : �. a - SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. FINDING: Impacts to City systems were adecuately addressed in the original land use decision. No further impact study is required for the proposed_lousing type and landscaping modifications. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS No other staff comments were received on the subject application. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS No agencies were notified of the proposed modification as none have jurisdiction over the proposed changes. SECTION X. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED, Planned Development Review (PDR2011- 00001) —WHITE OAK VILLAGE MODIFICATIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. CI - 4,4) David Walsh,Plann' re ssion President Dated this iq' day of March, 2011. I:ACURPLN\GaryASubdivision and Y1)\PDR2011-00001(White Oak Village Modification)\PIR2011-00001 PC hinal Order.docy WIII'I'1 OAh VILI,AGh,SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(P1)R2011-00001) PAGE 8 Oh 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDIR NO. 2011-01 PC .9.Ec ‘2:7:,•sil ba.:,,,,, 9 r. Q. mr18? 3=4 1--s-JA '0 E>-1 -,1 '5 2.65<vrzF' a. LL1 D a3c1...62 _,),,r- .,--)----: ,,-t,-,e, 5 Sg.?62 Z \,--,=:,{f 1 ),-- -1 f ----4,,' , Lrc2Fita- v. =1. Z ---1 .--,3 ---r ,..' 1 , 6'648.; 3'4 aL9 1 -.'`'k3,:---J > Z 0 ,.... c) a.) x . ‘ ._„....L.„. 1 5 ,---1 J Z c. 0 P +.> .— H1 T, < (7) < cyo °2-6" L,` E. . ? () , o — (, ,..., ._ ,, Inci. 9: a ----IL , r__,..,_ e.,t4 M 0 -a ,- I.,..,----- __Th ,, I c I I i I \ ------ ----- \ \ ..- i 1 I ) r"------1 „. , , , , ,, , ......, \z..., ,../... \,....... \, 7 .„.. \ „ \ \ _ _ _ .... ._, r ..., , , \ Tr-1_ 1 \ , ___ I 1_,. I I . , • 4 ---'--- >.. ,':‹'''`'C;'''' ''‹ - ,.,/,',.,',e'/'''''',' C,-, /, ,::',,,,,,„ r IT ,.1 r.t.''.A.'''''',' ',,Z.'...-''..'./.....'.,..'..,,,'..,..A.• n 0 MB ..) .. ' ‘ ) ',<\)///),...\ \ --"'''''- ,,_, IIII ' HOD --,?:::;-..,,-,-,::',..„--..;>-,,„ ,,, ,, , \-.-.-- __---- \ — 'my CUOMO ' ', \ i I [IMO {f-Mg ' — — ,—.-- ,. , , , .no '----:-:,. _ mu .,. ,,,,Hinuarin . , —1' moo I 1 _ __,.. \, ____ I ___ _ .., .6 1 . L _ ( I 1 TIi —TII) 1 \ I I I I, I ---- I4,.,I I 1 1 L 1 1 \ I I I 1 ) , CZ; - yr iII I I ---tI \ 1 _ I -'' -'1 1 1---1--Tir-- 1 ft- , - . H \ 1 I I 0'2 l7PI $` Zqo la yW''''' 9B wo = m NV-Id 3.11S HO NOISUO8flS 8J'd11!A)WO 81IHM � o, 1Ia \ ww 1©© g. x IF U 3LZO-LOOZ ll 1 ti �1 (� Z � i I 70 CIO 1 l ,9o.w•b 10 zaoo•i- r .�, ea IL I I CZ �! I 1v ; -% t 1 2, 4 *-e. ' I 2 _._4,__._co _____,_ _____- ..--;--- lut, iii-- I L I 79.50• I + —I 1-.90.00 -I �- bac 1 I cp ' c • ta I i € fgg� iii- 0 di_ ... y d d d ; I '' - "" I t e. Ili , W 1 1 �'u i I Io J8 �ggg __— _ __--_ -_ _ fr ' Q s`asil 4 1 , ( ill r----- 4 go..¢ 1 '� y I : 'I 9Z 107 ,_._ .-...... �.....�, .� .1 - 11; Ci- (� ..I LlJ w I j �i Gs �7a� 114iI a` I J 1SD I .I VJ j 1' 11 ! � " i , I i (;i- 1 I t. ,• 1�r 1 I y, N .� 1 „ _ -.�.� i0`.�i. ..., Aa :° .-r/ �s I . .~v _At I }y 1 .L 4.3 ::::::Tho _ ___ ____,___W471',:._0 , ;-----,,:'!''''','",.:,,:4:;,_.......................................__,f::_Jii 1 i��ax I a I et 107 St 107P I I i 1010Va1� h 0 ! 1h� 1 Fr 13 _I' EI �I ,t".. I I te , I • F. z �, s ....j....._.._ �.., -1,--r-j_ �. I � .�.. ,..;. II 1 ' _ .p. I.,_ LZ 107 1 1_I`,.. �tl07 , >stllo7` I, I 11 n - I i.. 4..-w- (n ' I i J`L ( —_ rs b9 —_ -,t .. 1 L— � I a T I, v' h bi i1� 8f 107 T1° 1I1 :iii1T ' K u m ka i 1—TI—.01-1 - i 1 1 61 107 —el 1107 1 11 j Z 107 Iw I • - ,,Z'b9 l § _:_' . I 1 120 i 1 OZ 107 1 111107 1! ; ! I I F 107 1 N O, 1 1 -I I 1 ��I i .t £yy� ( i I 1 1I () e IZ 107 i 01 107 I � I4999 D 107 P I 11 X I i ' .�.1,01,------,. Coal,I I F }, i t Z,00 107 6.07 (' I a 1 5 107 I, --- `'- a ' gi; TM� .iI (I �' l -• 1 -- -- I lll�fh���553 VVV\\\ Z F � �-'1,1 " � i j.�\` FZ 107 i n 8!07 / �1 '•-� 3 107 7 i ,i I F_ 1 1 � I "k� s _ �Lf 1 t. -_... _ +.__ _.. illy�0i$—` .em -'---A.i_ -4-.mss { ")\ - ! ----s ._._L fp`�,•10- /i� L 107 -_ -� �'/..„-----::i---.-4-:-..._,.,' .<. I 1, -... �+trrrirr�zr rrxt:r �.. �G _ 1 ` +,5990 J --.J 1, \ i ~ 1. , N4I O O 'Igo G I _f `• I,via 5 11 1 Wild 1 n3d3aF;3i iYd t&Z-3W11800Z'ZZ N%f31V0 "P"1ZOL007VOiOJI0007V01'J3ri'YN City of Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan January 2011 e �S FER , a ' ‘ ` ` faf ,) OAK j GNO� — - CA l �.. PINE EmminmO �—� I , = - - ,AI-111811111"41 (' CO I ) 1r I} tbA illtig Q PFAFFLE !/-1'-' 111 .1. 4 appr_ :441 Z HAI FS lig _ 1 �q��OT Ili , 'fs� ©� �e&4'- OP � 0, DA'TMOUTH 4 co - \ d r t 1111 i j '4 pl rib I • 'W. . IA ct 'SI 4, 1 .,,.- _ __ a..tiG © , ,\O 6G " -- --�-� �� � _._ 111111.° � , � oe '� \ HAMPTONco i ° " , L i-, 4,. .- ,, , , ,._ g 0 �----; 1 e / Ji ' ' '. ►T, , - ,z , J * ,. ....A..--\ <,:j- l - I _ GAARDE MCDONALD --L- \ - il Ir t rte ,- .. _ .� \, BULL MOUNTAIN I y—� 7 `` N - IallI_ 7 _ I-- -- �� L =�30NITA BONIT" rm I a __ _�� _, ni Q t1H od Iminim" . '\ • 4 It Jam1 .__ CO 0 i r- j ___ _ ... r 11 \` 41 ' BEND ;' IllH B BEEF DURHAM- , J �, 1 W '` .! m - i / a, Recommended Trail Alignments > Existing Greenway Trails J , 1' f High Priority `, , [ of Planned Trails '=� co �� z m c )High Priority (Non-CIP Eligible) School Property �41r' � •i1 Medium Priority Bike Lanes m -t �` li � 41 NLow Priority _ : Wetland - o x--x x Not Recommended Trail Alignment Parks EXISITNG & RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAILS TIGARD, OR. -12- Greenway Triol System Master Pan The development of the City's first-ever Greenway Trail System Master Plan (GTSMP) has been underway since July 2010 and is scheduled to wrap up in April 2011. Financed by an Oregon Department of Transportation grant, a combined citizens and technical committee working with a three- firm consultant team (Kittelson &Associates, Alta Planning+ Design, and Mason, Bruce &Girard) has been gathering information and conducting research for the new master plan. On March 8, members of the trail master plan citizen advisory committee will share their views and impressions with Council on the development of the master plan and answer any questions Council may have. This joint meeting is intended to be an unscripted advisory committee to elected officials, or citizen to citizen meeting. On April 19,the consultant team will give a technical presentation on the salient features of the draft plan. The focus of the master plan effort has been on practical considerations for improving and completing the trail system, such as possible routes for filling trail gaps and improvements to existing trails. The work scope is organized around a long list of trail-specific questions. An example is: "Up and down stream Fanno Creek Trail segments connecting to Tiedeman Avenue are off-set by some 200 feet. In place of the present jog along a busy road, evaluate a potential long term solution that brings the two sides of the trail to a common crossing point." The answers to this and the many other questions included in the project work scope are intended to provide a better picture of potential alignments, improvement needs, costs, and community priorities. Why Prepare a Greenway Trails Master Plan? The GTSMP builds on a number of past planning efforts. The greenway trail network was first delineated in 1974 in the Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Plan, which identified proposed on-and off-street bike/ped facilities. The off-street trails followed the Greenway System proposed in the 1971 Tigard Community Plan. Later, Tigard's first park system master plan, adopted in 1987 as the Tigard Park Plan, identified a network of proposed greenway trails within the City as did the updated Tigard Park System Master Plan adopted in 1999. The current park system master plan, adopted in 2009, contains the now official map of the greenway trail system, upon which the GTSMP is based. The network includes eight trails: Fanno Creek Trail,Tualatin River Trail, the Westside Trail, Washington Square Loop Trail, Summer Creek Trail, Pathfinder-Genesis trail, Krueger Creek Trail, and the "Tigard Street"Trail (see map attached). The current and earlier greenway trail plans all provide a macro-level analysis of the trails network and a conceptual map of trail alignments. The almost finished GTSMP builds off the latest parks master plan and provides the micro-level detail and analysis needed to , . ..vadds-o5.d,<:i.,,rL#e a _,.._: :...�..r�,.a, ,..�..;::..,,s y..Ec.n t i. ...i:-�C� .,c.�.i vti a+�",`i�Cii.iLi ihL on -the-groundUetdYi iiCC`CACti V : move ahead with building the trails identified in the 2009 Park System Master Plan. I:\LRPLN\Duane\DUANE\TGM II_Greenway Trail Study\SAC-Council Meeting-Rev.docx Page 1 of 4 In addition to providing a more focused look at the trail portion of the Park System Master Plan, The GTSMP fulfills Action Measure 8.2.i. of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan: "Complete a trail system master plan to guide the development of the trail system and facilitate progress toward its completion." Who's on the Citizen's Advisory Committee? The citizen advisory group overseeing the development of the GTSMP brings diverse experiences, ideas, and perspectives to their work on the committee. They represent a variety of different community- based organizations and groups: the Parks and Recreation Board,the Tualatin Riverkeepers,Trail Count/Survey volunteers, and Neighborhood Trail Study Citizen Advisory Committee members. A separate technical committee, which meets jointly with the CAC, is composed of a member of the Bike- Pedestrian Subcommittee of the Transportation Advisory Committee,the Tigard-Tualatin School District, a trail advocate and former chair of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Trails Committee, and a Metro trail planner. Following are brief biographies of the six citizen committee members anticipated to participate in the joint meeting with Council: Scott Bernhard, DC, is a chiropractor and eight-year member of the Park and Recreation Board. John Bucsek is a computer aided design technician and trail count/survey volunteer. Dave Leinberger is a packaging engineer and member of the former Neighborhood Trail Plan citizen advisory committee. Eric LindstrOm, EdD, is a retired academic dean of the Art Institute of Portland and recent trail count/survey volunteer. Paul Whitney, PhD, is a retired consultant ecologist and current member of the Tualatin Riverkeepers. Doug Vorwaller is a retired computer systems manager, a City volunteer photographer, and a member of the former Neighborhood Study Plan citizen advisory committee. How Has the Community Been Involved? In addition to the citizen steering committee, development of the master plan has included several other public involvement opportunities. ..,. - far,.lre ,7.,f-ail?,!-!e o.> .._ page, www.tigardgreenways.com. The website is interactive, and includes comment and map marking features. In April, a draft of the new master plan will be available for public viewing on the website. I:\LRPLN\Duane\DUANE\TGM II_Greenway Trail Study\SAC-Council Meeting-Rev.docx Page 2 of 4 As another part of information gathering activities, the City conducted a survey of people living within a quarter mile, or walking distance, of the City's "community" level trails: Summer Creek, Pathfinder- Genesis, and Krueger. These are defined as trails that begin and end inside the City and are distinguished from "regional" trails that extend beyond the City. The three are in various stages of development, with the Krueger Creek Trail being the least developed. Some 1,500 of the 5,000 residents who are, or would be, most served by these trails were sent trail-specific survey questionnaires. The purpose was to determine the level of neighborhood interest in, and support for, trail improvements. The data collected on neighborhood attitudes and preferences will be used to help set priorities for completing segments of these trails. As another engagement activity, two open houses took place in January, one at the library and one at the Bonita Villa Apartments. The goal of each was to present maps of possible routes for filling trail gaps and to discuss people's concerns about the trail system. An estimated 45 people attended the first open house. They provided a wide variety of comments, most supportive of closing trail gaps and finishing the trail system. In addition, many attendees expressed opposition to the extension of a trail through the Summer Creek greenway for environmental and a variety of other reasons. In the interest of inclusion, the second open house was bilingual, and was aimed at Spanish-speaking residents. Latinos are the largest and fastest growing cultural group in the City and account for 50%of county-wide population growth. According to the statewide Recreation Plan, walking for pleasure is the most popular outdoor recreation activity among Latinos. This open house drew some 25 people. The proposed Brown segment of the Fanno Creek Trail elicited the most comments. This segment connects to the northern end of Milton Court and will provide a short cut to the library for the residents of the concentration of apartments located along Bonita Road and surrounding single family residences. At the same time, this segment will travel through a somewhat isolated area, where some homeless people now camp, and safety is a major concern. The annual Neighborhood Network Open House held in February included a GTSMP table operated by City staff, along with handouts and information regarding the master plan effort. Among the open house attendees, some 15 or so stopped by to ask questions and made comments and suggestions regarding the trail system. Also informing the development of the master plan has been the extensive trail user data collected during the September 2010 manual trail count and user survey along the greenway trail system. The count/survey was conducted as part of the third annual National Count/Survey Days. Over one thousand trail users were counted at three data collection points during the five day, two-hour-a-day event, and some 235 of these users completed survey questionnaires. How are Environmental Concerns being Addressed? To ensure the trail segments under consideration are routed and designed to be sensitive to the natural environment, an environmental consultant (Mason, Bruce &Girard) was included on the project team. I:\LRPLN\Duane\DUANE\TGM II_Greenway Trail Study\SAC-Council Meeting-Rev.docx Page 3 of 4 This consultant has provided an assessment of the potential environmental impact of the various alignments under consideration for filling trail gaps. The consultant also looked at environmental permitting and regulations. The reason for this emphasis is that the Tigard greenway corridors contain the City's major streams, along with most of its wetlands and wildlife habitat. Although conflicts are inevitable in a highly developed area like Tigard, habitat-friendliness is an important criterion in the siting and design of trails. Natural areas and greenways are for people, plants, and animals too. In some cases,where environmental impacts and construction costs are high, on-street trail segments may be the preferred route. And in other cases, elevated boardwalk may be recommended as an alternative to filling wetlands. Conversely, trail development can provide an opportunity to create or enhance wildlife habitat. This is especially true in the many areas where privately-owned riparian areas are in poor or degraded condition and a trail easement agreement gives the City the right to restore "all other portions of the easement [meaning riparian] area not used for the trail." The same is true of streamside parcels purchased for trail. In many cases, the net effect of a trail project can be to improve the overall biological condition of the riparian area. What's Next? As already mentioned, on April 19,the three-firm consultant team is scheduled to give Council a presentation on the draft GTSMP. As emphasized,the plan is intended to define priorities for the investment of public dollars and set the course for completing the greenway trail system. Finally, in May, Council will be asked to review and approve additions and deletions to relevant portions of the existing Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and ordinance text as recommended in the final GTSMP. This step will meet the City's obligations under the ODOT-City agreement funding the development of the GTSMP. I:\LRPLN\Duane\DUANE\TGM II_Greenway Trail Study\SAC-Council Meeting-Rev.docx Page 4 of 4 m It e ., rte'" ' z '3. i ged r ' z f3 ' ' v " -s ,:v ir r 1 � ' ,_ 2- a € ' € " ! Jj (,} ^a . # i `mo ` U .F Iqi , j rs' .., � i3 e _ W < .,f ,n -1 obme r x� j _ a 4 1 II .4 4 X 3 W 4 i r~c „a ii. ,� I)• n .= 2 l� - _ cit g n n',:-d *CI to MI t;9 ji, u , t C '*4.. (1 1 ,„4.). 1.: '; _ j1,+ ;,/f c ei J! T 0 `%- P i s-.-aac^ac.aFm e:a€-; 2.�e�za cam'.' ..,Q y f ,semm- t Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Tigard Greernmay Traffs Master [ [an DRAFT Task 5 Project and Prioritization Report Date: February 17, 2011 Project #: 10622 To: Duane Roberts and Steve Martin, City of Tigard From: Jamie Parks, Erin Ferguson, and Jessica Horning, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. cc: Hannah Kapell and Mike Tresidder,Alta Planning+ Design Introduction This memorandum evaluates potential greenway trail alignments and improvements to existing greenway trails and recommends priority trail projects for inclusion in future Tigard City Capital Improvement Plan updates. Anticipated development time frame, cost estimate, and potential funding sources are identified for each priority project. The potential projects evaluated in this report are currently unfunded. Trail projects that are currently partially or completely funded, such as the Woodard Park/Grant Avenue and the Grant Avenue/Main Street segments of the Fanno Creek Trail, and projects that are sponsored by agencies other than the City of Tigard, such as the Metro-sponsored Westside Trail, are not addressed in this memorandum. The initial list of potential greenway trail alignments was identified and refined by the City of Tigard, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), and Tigard residents through two public open houses and a project website. All parties assessed each potential trail alignment using the evaluation criteria identified in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum. These criteria consider: network connectivity; safety and security; user experience; topography; environmental impacts; cost; right-of-way availability; and public input. The assessment rates each trail alignment as to whether it "satisfies", "somewhat satisfies", or "does not satisfy" each evaluation criteria. The project team then assigned an overall High, Medium, Low, or Not Recommended priority ranking based on the individual evaluation criteria and a qualitative assessrnentof potential benefits and challenges associated with the trail location. The remainder of this technical memorandum describes the evaluation criteria, methodology, and prioritization results in detail. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project #: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 2 TrA oB [ v [ tn'o l Planning Process, Public Acienccy Involvement City staff, trail experts, stakeholder groups, and Tigard residents helped guide the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of trails addressed in this Plan. Public involvement included the following key components: o Project Website Interactive Map & Comment Tool: During the data collection phase of the project, the project team created a website featuring an interactive map that allowed users to provide comments on existing trails, potential new trail alignments, and other locations where a trail may be feasible and would benefit the community. o Greenway Trail System Neighborhood Surveys: During the summer of 2010, City staff distributed a neighborhood survey to 1,500 residents within 1/4 mile of potential Kruger Creek, Pathfinder-Genesis, and Summer Creek Trail alignments. City staff performed the survey to assess neighborhood reception to potential improvements, in-fills, and extensions of these trails. • Open Houses: Two public open houses—one including Spanish language materials and interpreters - were held in January 2011, enabling residents and other interested individuals to provide feedback on potential trail alignments, express concerns, and share ideas for improvements. • Stakeholder Advisory Committee:A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) identified bicycle/pedestrian, community, environmental, and other issues related to trails from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. The SAC included private citizens and representatives from coordinating agencies, and met regularly over the course of the planning process. The input received from each of these sources and venues was included in the evaluation and prioritization of trail alternatives. Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the public comments received through the project website and open houses. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Multiple alternative alignments were evaluated for the majority of the potential trail segments addressed in this plan. Where feasible, both greenway and upland or on-street alternative alignments were considered. Table 1 describes the primary criteria taken into account to evaluate and prioritize alignment options. For the evaluation, each potential trail alignment was ranked based on whether it fully satisfies the criteria (Tier 1), somewhat satisfied the criteria (Tier 2), or does not meet the criteria (Tier 3). Most of the evaluation criteria are based on qualitative assessments conducted during site visits and feedback obtained from stakeholders. Many of these criteria do not use a quantitative scoring or weighting systems; however, where possible, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other readily obtainable information was used to inform the evaluation for each tri to a. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 3 Appendix B provides a detailed summary of the evaluation and prioritization results for each potential trail alignment. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 5 Recommended Greenway Trao[s The project team evaluated each potential trail alignment using the criteria described above and assigned a High, Medium, Low, or Not Recommended priority ranking based on overall satisfaction of evaluation criteria. This evaluation resulted in 22 recommended trail projects that are feasible and would provide benefits (e.g., transportation, nature education, safe routes to school) to Tigard residents. The priority ranking of each recommended trail was further informed by a qualitative assessment of potential benefits and challenges associated with the trail location and information obtained from field work, City of Tigard staff, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the public. Through this process, the project team grouped the 22 recommended projects into five categories: • High-priority projects — have a significant amount of demand or public support, provide public benefits, have limited challenges, and are the most feasible projects for construction in the short term (one to five years). High-priority projects are recommended for inclusion in the 2012-2017 City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update) • High-priority (non-CIP eligible) projects — are small, feasible projects that do not meet the $50,000 minimum cost threshold for inclusion in the CIP. These projects primarily involve bicycle boulevard treatments, sidewalk infill, or crossing improvements to develop bicycle and pedestrian friendly on-street connections where a trail is not feasible or is not a short-term priority. These small projects could be funded individually in the short term (one to five years) as funding becomes available or grouped together and included in the CIP as a larger "Tigard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements" project. ® Medium-priority projects — are good candidates for filling gaps in the trail network or providing connections to destinations in the medium term (five to 10 years), but do not currently have adequate demand or public support. o Low-priority projects — are recommended projects that fill gaps in the trail network, provide connections to destinations, and/or contribute to regional trail connectivity, but may be more difficult to construct due to right-of-way, slopes, environmental considerations, or community support. These projects are feasible for construction in the long term (10 to 15 years). Note that the priority ranking of projects are subject to change based on available funding; changing priorities; public support; opportunities to develop trails coincidental with new development/redevelopment, roadway or other infrastructure improvements; and other factors. The purpose of this prioritization exercise is to assist the City of Tigard in apportioning 'The City of Tigard defines a CIP project as"any public facility project that unproves or adds value to Tigard's infrastructure,costs $50,000 or more,and has a useful life or extends the useful life of a facility for five years or more." Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 6 available funding to the highest priority projects and to inform the City of other priority projects that may be positioned for future funding as it becomes available. Project identification (ID) numbers shown do not indicate the relative rank or importance of individual projects within their priority category. P 1 i SECT LIST Figure 1 shows the locations of all recommended trail alignments and trail alignments that were evaluated, but not recommended. Table 2 shows the summary results of the project evaluation and prioritization process. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 17, 2011 Page 7 Table 2. Prioritized Project List Alignments Cost Opinion Priority ID. -Trail Name , Description ,($1,000) 1 Tigard Street Fanno Creek/Tigard Street to Tigard 1 B, 2A $498-$770 High Transit Center 2 Fanno Creek Tiedeman Avenue Crossing 5C $21 -$36 High Improvements 3 Fanno Creek Tigard Public Library to Milton 2B $992-$1,759 High Court/Bonita Road 4 Fanno Creek 74th Avenue Sidepath, Bonita Road to 3E $1,140-$2,255 High Durham Road 5 Pathfinder-Genesis Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Court 1C $16-$233 High Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements 6 Summer Creek Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street 2E, 3C,4C $256-$709 High Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements 7 Fanno Creek Fanno Creek Drive Bikeway 2D $4-$5 High Improvements (non-CIP) 8 Krueger Creek Summer Creek to Walnut Street 1B $8 High Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements (non-CIP) 9 Summer Creek Hawks Beard Bicycle Boulevard 1B $6 High (non-CIP) 10 Tigard Street Fanno Creek/North Dakota Street to 1B $278 Medium Tiedeman Street 11 Fanno Creek 791h Avenue Sidewalk and Bikeway 3D $16-$1,393 Medium Improvements, Bonita Road to Durham Road 12 Fanno Creek Tiedeman Avenue Crossing 5B $139-$274 Medium Realignment 13 Summer Creek North Dakota Street Sidewalk and 2D, 3B,4D $15-$646 Medium Bikeway Improvements 14 Tualatin River 108`h Avenue Grading and Existing n/a $26-$254 Medium Trail Improvements 15 Tualatin River 108th Avenue to Pacific Highway 2A $1,746-$2,345 Medium Extension 16 Washington Square Fanno Creek to Highway 217 1B $25 Medium Loop Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements 17 Fanno Creek Durham Road to 85th Avenue Bikeway 4C $105-$106 Medium Improvements 18 Krueger Creek Walnut Street to Ascension Trail 2B, 3B $211 -$228 Low Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements 19 Ascension Ascension Trail Improvements 4 $293-$491 Low 20 Washington Square Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard 2B $666 Low 1 Loop Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements 21 I Pathfinder Gienesis 1 Fanno Creek to PathfinrdPr(Hurt Trail 1 R I $715 Low 22 Fanno Creek _____ Durham Road to Tualatin River Trail 4D $1,320-$1,943 Low Alternative alignments were identified and evaluated in Special Issues Reports 1 and 2. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project February 9, 2011 Page 4 Table 1. Evaluation Criteria • v 0 Criteria Definition Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Connectivity The number/quality of connections to GIS—parks, schools, open Alignment provides the most direct access Alignment provides connections to Alignment does not provide existing trails, sidewalks, or bike space,trails, and transit to destinations, such as major employers existing trails, sidewalks, or connections to existing trails, lanes and access to residential, layers; field visit and commercial centers and minimizes out destinations, but may require out of sidewalks, or destinations. commercial, or employment areas of direction travel. direction travel. and schools. Safety and Security Addresses the safety concerns of Field visit, public input Area surrounding alignment is open and Portions of the alignment have poor Majority of the alignment has trail users traveling along the trail. visible from all angles.Trail users have sight lines or obscured views. poor sight lines or obscured The better the sightlines,the higher good lines of sight along the trail and views. the score. immediate adjacent surrounding areas. No buildings or large structures obscure views of the trail. User Experience The quality of the users'experience Field visit, aerial maps Alignment minimizes noise levels from Portions of alignment are impacted Majority of alignment is impacted on the trail. Considers potential surrounding land uses(e.g., by noise, undesirable views, or by noise, undesirable views,or views, aesthetics, comfort, and roads/railroads), limits views of industrial/ other characteristics of surrounding other characteristics of characteristics such as noise and air commercial activity,and has potential to land uses. surrounding land uses. quality. For this criterion, priority is include amenities(e.g.,directional signage). given to off-street, greenway alignments. Topographical The ease of constructing a trail and GIS—slope layer;field Alignment does not include slopes greater Alignment may include a slope Alignment includes slopes Constraints providing for ADA accessibility in an verification than 15%.Ample room is available to grade greater than 15%, but earth moving greater than 15%. Earth moving, area, given existing slopes. trail to meet ADA accessibility. and ramp lengths are minimized. retaining walls and long ramps are needed. Environmental The impact of a trail alignment on GIS—floodplain,wetlands, Alignment is not located within floodplain, Portions of alignment are located in Majority of alignment is located Impacts environmental resources(e.g., significant habitat;field wetlands,or sensitive areas.Alignment is floodplain or wetlands. in wetlands or sensitive areas. floodplains, wetlands, Clean Water verification; Environmental environmentally-preferred option identified Services designated Sensitive Areas, Report conducted by MBG in the Environmental Report. and Goal 5 habitat). Cost The cost of design, engineering, GIS—length of trail, design Alignment minimizes cost of easements, Alignment involves some additional Alignment involves significant and/or construction of a trail costs outlined in Technical acquisition, design, engineering, costs related to acquisition, design, additional costs related to alignment, based on the minimum Memo#2 construction, and maintenance. engineering, construction, and/or acquisition, design,engineering, (low design option)cost estimates. maintenance. construction, and/or maintenance. Right-of-Way The number of property owners that GIS—land ownership, RLIS Alignment is on land owned by the City of Alignment is not entirely on land The majority of the alignment is the City will need to work with to tax lots; aerial maps; field Tigard, Metro, or another public body. that is owned by a public body, but on private property. construct a trail alignment. verification minimizes impacts on private property. Public Input Public support for a trail alignment, Feedback received through Majority of public feedback received is Public feedback received does not Majority of public feedback particularly among residents in the open houses, project website, supportive of trail alignment. show clear support for or against a received is not supportive of trail immediate area served by the trail. neighborhood surveys, SAC, trail alignment. alignment. and other communications. or No feedback received on alignment. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Re: Economic Opportunities Analysis Advisory Committee Date: February 28, 2011 At the March 7th meeting, the Planning Commission will act in its role as the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) Advisory Committee and provide final feedback on the draft EOA. The Commission finished its review of the tasks to complete the EOA and the consultant team has compiled that information and findings from the six tasks,incorporated Commission recommendations, and completed a draft EOA for the Commission to review and discuss one last time before holding a public hearing. The draft EOA recommends the "efficient land need" scenario is appropriate for Tigard's future employment, commercial, and industrial land needs. This scenario will not require any rezoning of property at this time. This scenario is consistent with the City's limited supply of vacant land and its strategy for the redevelopment of Downtown Tigard, the Tigard Triangle, and the Pacific Highway Corridor. During your review of the draft EOA, please focus on the following: 1. Areas that need further clarification 2. Information or requests that were overlooked To ensure the most efficient use of Commission time, staff asks that you come prepared with specific requests for changes to the document. Staff suggests each request be proposed as a motion at the meeting,which will allow the Commission to vote on its inclusion in the EOA. This will benefit staff and the consultant team by having clear direction for any changes that need made before the public hearing scheduled for: April 4, 2011 Public Hearing on draft Economic Opportunities Analysis Steve Faust, Senior Planner for the Cogan Owens Cogan,will join us for the discussion. As always, if you have any questions that you would like to discuss before the meeting, please feel free to contact me at darren@tigard-or.gov or 503-718-2442. 1 City of Tigard Economic Opportunities Analysis February 22, 2011 Prepared By Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC FCS GROUP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction— 1 Economic Development Vision and Goals— 1 Economic Trends Analysis—2 Business Clusters Analysis—9 Targeted Business Clusters— 12 Site Suitability Analysis (Land Demand) — 13 Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land Supply) — 16 Short-Term Land Supply Determination— 18 Assessment of Potential (Reconciliation of Demand and Supply) — 19 Short-Term Land Need Determination— 19 Long-Term Land Need Determination— 19 Planning Market, Cost and Risk Factors-21 Implementation Policies and Action Measures—22 Policies—22 Recommended Action Measures—23 Appendices A. Office Leasing Activity Summary,Mid-Year Report—25 B. Industrial Leasing Activity,Mid-Year 2010 Report—26 C.Analysis of Employment and Space Needs—27 D. Analysis of Retail Inflow/Outflow—31 E. Summary of Tigard Employment Zones and Regulations—32 F. Typical Site Requirements for Development Types—37 G. Buildable Land Inventory—38 H. Redevelopment Land Inventory—39 I. Summary of Stakeholder Interviews—40 INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard has conducted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as required by its Periodic Review work program. The City received grant funds from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for technical consultant assistance to complete this task. The EOA was developed in compliance with OAR 660 Division 9 (Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development) and is a technical study that compares projected demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. The purpose of the EOA is to improve opportunities for Tigard to attract and maintain the type and quality of employment desired by its citizens,grow its economy, and maintain its quality of life. Goal 9 emphasizes the preservation and protection of vacant land for industrial and employment uses. This will happen by adopting policies that ensure an adequate supply of industrial and other employment lands within the City of Tigard. The Tigard Planning Commission acted as the advisory committee for the project,reviewing each task during the process to complete the EOA. The anticipated outcomes of the project are: 1. An understanding of the characteristics of Tigard's employment lands and their adequacy to accommodate future economic activity; 2. Updated economic development policies and action measures as a basis to plan for a supply of appropriately zoned land necessary for existing businesses to expand and to accommodate future economic activities. The six tasks reviewed by the Planning Commission included: 1. Economic Development Vision and Goals 2. Economic Trends Analysis 3. Site Suitability Analysis (Land Demand) 4. Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land Supply) 5. Assessment of Potential (Reconciliation of Demand and Supply) 6. Implementation Policies and Action Measures The process and findings of these tasks are outlined in detail throughout the remainder of the EOA. This includes examining key demographic and employment opportunities and trends to assess Tigard's economic development potential,projecting employment growth, and determining short- and long- term demand for employment land. This demand is compared to an inventory of suitable commercial and industrial properties (supply) to assess the sufficiency of immediate and longer term (20-year) supply of commercial and industrial employment land in the City's Urban Planning Area (UPA). Finally, economic development policies and action measures are recommended for inclusion in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION AND GOALS In March 2008, as part of a robust public process, the City of Tigard updated the Economic Development chapter of its Comprehensive Plan. The chapter included the City's vision and goals for economic development: 1 Vision The City shall have a strong and resilient local economy with a diverse portfolio of economic activity: retail,professional service and industrial jobs. Goals 1. Develop and maintain a strong, diversified and sustainable local economy. 2. Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses including those that focus on environmental sustainability. 3. Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Community Economic Development Objectives Community Economic Development Objectives were developed through interviews with City staff and a review of Tigard's economic development vision,goals and recommended action measures. These objectives were refined based on comments from the Planning Commission and the results of interviews with key stakeholders,including state and regional agencies, the Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Central Business District Association, and local employers and developers. • Encourage businesses that provide family-wage jobs to start-up, expand, or locate in Tigard. • Develop industry clusters, and preserve jobs,through the retention, expansion, and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. • Promote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. • Ensure the City's land use and other regulatory practices are flexible and adaptive and that adequate public facilities and infrastructure exist to support a diverse and stable economic base. • Focus significant employment growth in Tigard's designated centers and corridors and support the development of efficient regional multi-modal transportation systems. • Limit the development of retail and service uses in Tigard's designated industrial areas to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs. Support neighborhood commercial uses to meet smart growth goals. • Encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable. ECONOMIC TRENDS ANALYSIS The consultant team conducted an economic overview for the City of Tigard,including a review of national, state,regional, county, and local economic trend data and real estate market analysis of office, commercial retail,industrial, and public government space development for the Tigard Urban Service Boundary. The analysis focuses on the expected level of demand for new commercial,industrial, and public development and related gross buildable land needs over the next 20 years (2011-2031). Both the U.S. and Oregon economies are currently mired in the aftermath of a national economic recession that began in December 2007. The current economic slowdown is now the longest on record since the Great Depression;however, some economic expansion is beginning to occur.According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP is the measure of value of all goods and services in the U.S.) increased at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first quarter of 2010, and increased by 2.4 percent during the second quarter of 2010. Consumers are still very cautious as unemployment rates remain high and high levels of home foreclosures continue. Oregon posted a year-over-year overall job loss of 16,000 jobs between June 2 2009 and June 2010. At the same time, the state's unemployment rate decreased to 10.5 percent in June 2010, compared to 11.6 percent in June 2009. It should be noted that Oregon's employment levels have declined over the past year in spite of the drop in unemployment rate. This trend likely reflects a decline in the number of people who are actively seeking employment. The U.S. and Oregon economies are now poised for a slow economic recovery. The July 2010 survey of the National Association of Business Economists reported expectations of slow growth in GDP during the second half of 2010 in the U.S. as industry demand,profit margins, employment, capital spending and credit conditions improve. Despite job losses,population levels continue to increase in both Oregon and Tigard due to population migration patterns,increases in immigrant population levels and natural population increases.As indicated in Table 1, according to the Portland State University Population Research Center,the population in Tigard increased to 47,460 residents in 2009, up from 42,260 residents in 2000. The average annual growth rate (AAGR) for population in Tigard was 1.3%between 2000 and 2009,which was below the level of population growth recorded for Washington County,but above the Oregon and national growth rates. Table 1. Population Trends, 2000 to 2009 Annual 2000 2009 Change 2000-2009 Tigard 42,260 47,460 1.3% Washington County 449,250 527,140 1.8% Oregon 3,421,399 3,823,465 1.2% USA 282,171,957 i 307,006,550 0.9% Source:Portland State University, Population Research Center. Metro (the regional government) has prepared forecasts for households and employment for all local jurisdictions in the Metro Urban Growth Planning Area. The most recently adopted Metro growth forecasts are referred to as the Metroscope Generation 2.3 model, and include a forecast period from 2005 to 2030. FCS GROUP extrapolated the Metro forecasts to year 2035 using Metro's forecasted growth rate from the 2005-2030. While Metro is currently in the process of preparing updated growth forecasts for the region,the Metroscope Generation 2.3 forecasts are being used for this EOA since they are the only set of officially adopted forecasts at this time. As indicated in Table 2, the 2005 to 2035 forecasts anticipate that Tigard will add approximately 3,185 households and 24,167 jobs over the 25-year period. As noted in Table 2, the Metro job growth forecasts reflect the fact that Tigard currently is relatively "jobs rich"with a positive ratio of 2.3 jobs per household,which is well above the tri-county Metro regional average of 1.5 jobs per household. This is no surprise given Tigard's concentration of regional employment centers,including Washington Square Mall, the "Tigard Triangle" employment area near the confluence of I-5/Hwy. 217, and pockets of industrial uses along the Hwy. 217 corridor. 3 Table 2. Metro Growth Forecasts for Households and Employment, 2005 to 2035 Households Projected Projected. Avg. Change Annual Change 2005 2030 2035 2005-2035 (%) Tigard 17,724 20,341 20,909 3,185 0.6% Clackamas County 140,415 241,821 269,594 129,179 2.2% Multnomah County 288,926 372,913 392,439 103,513 1.0% Washington County 189,925 272,998 293,545 103,620 1.5% Total 3 County Region 619,266 887,732 955,578 336,312 1.5% Employment Projected. Change Avg. Annual 2005 2030 2035 2005-2035 Change (/°) Tigard 41,308 60,637 65,475 24,167 1.5% Clackamas County 145,581 251,286 280,273 134,692 2.2% Multnomah County 493,671 705,721 758,005 264,334 1.4% Washington County 269,660 450,970 499,820 230,160 2.1% Total 3 County Region 908,912 1,407,977 1,538,098 629,186 1.8% Projected. Projected Tigard Jobs Per Household Ratio Tigard Capture of Capture of 2005 2030 2035 Region HHs Region Jobs Tigard 2.3 3.0 3.1 0.9% 3.8% Clackamas County 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A Multnomah County 1.7 1.9 1.9 N/A N/A Washington County 1.4 1.7 1.7 N/A N/A Total 3 County Region 1.5 1.6 1.6 N/A N/A Source:Metro adopted housing and employment growth forecasts, 2007;Metroscope Gen. 2.3;extrapolated to 2035 by FCS GROUP. Washington Square Mall already functions as a regional commercial center that draws shoppers and patrons from over a 30-mile radius. With 1,458,734 square feet (sf) of retail and entertainment space, the mall has five anchor stores including JC Penny, Macy's,Nordstrom, Sears, and Dick's Sporting Goods and 170 specialty stores. The mall added 28 new stores and restaurants in 2005, along with a new multi-level parking structure. In addition to large retail employers,Tigard is also home to several large high-tech manufacturing, construction contractors, professional, business operations and state and local government operations. Table 3 provides a list of Tigard employers with more than 250 jobs per establishment. 4 Table 3. Large Employers in Tigard with More Than 250 Employees, 2008 Firm Name Specialty Employment Range Retail/Gen. Nordstrom Merchandise 500 — 999 Tigard-Tualatin School District Local Government 500 — 999 AEROTEK, Inc. Temp. Emp. Agency 250 — 499 City of Tigard Local Government 250 — 499 COSTCO Corp. Retail. Merchandise 250 — 499 Health Insurance Health Net Health Plan of Oregon Carrier 250 — 499 JC Penny Retail Merchandise 250 — 499 MACYS Retail Merchandise 250 — 499 Performance Contracting, Inc. Industrial Contractors 250 — 499 PERS Headquarters Pension Fund Mgmt. 250 — 499 Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. Temp. Emp. Agency 250 — 499 Rockwell Collins Aerospace Aero. & Tech. Part Mfg. 250 — 499 STARPLEX Corp. Temp. Emp. Agency 250 — 499 Bldg. Interior Western Patricians, Inc. Contractors 250 — 499 Source: Oregon Employment Department. According to regional commercial and industrial real estate brokers,Tigard is a well-defined submarket within the suburban Metro region. Tigard's office market is especially competitive within the inner southwest portion of the region,with businesses considering locations among several areas including Tigard; 217 Corridor/Beaverton; Kruse Way;Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy;Tualatin and Wilsonville. Recent office leasing market statistics indicate that office vacancy rates in the Metro region have been increasing since 2008 as many businesses have shed jobs and scaled back on required space needs. As indicated in Appendix A, negative absorption levels have been occurring during the first six months of the year,particularly in Class A Office space,where Tigard experienced a net loss of 13,097 sf during the first half of this year. As of July 1, 2010 Tigard had total Class A vacancy rates of 151,900 sf and another 66,000 sf in vacant Class B and C space. Tigard's Class B inventory has experienced positive absorption this year,with 12,800 sf of net absorption. Since July 2010,Tigard has recorded several positive lease transactions,which rank among the largest in the region, such as Bridgewell Resources (32,088 gsf); Comsys into the Lincoln Center; State Farm Mutual Insurance (23,712 gsf) into Fanno Creek Place; and CAN Insurance (17,843 gsf) into the Pacific Parkway Center. Industrial leasing activity and vacancy rates were also significantly impacted by the recent economic recession. As indicated in Appendix B,Tigard had approximately 170,000 sf of vacant flex space (13.4%vacancy rate), and 339,000 sf of vacant warehouse space (7.7%vacancy rate) as of July 1, 2010. Overall industrial lease rates in the Tigard submarket averaged $7.68 per sf/year, and were among the highest in the Metro suburbs. The City of Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are taking steps to enhance the Downtown Tigard area to make it a more viable place to live and work. At a cost of$12 5 million,intersection improvements along Pacific Highway at Hall Blvd. and Greenburg Rd. are being paid for by ODOT,Washington County and the City of Tigard. This project is slated for completion by Spring 2011 and will include a third through-lane on the highway, turn lanes on side streets, an extended median,wider sidewalks,new bike lanes,improved pedestrian crossings, and wider corners for truck turning movements. This effort will also enhance access into and from Downtown Tigard. Tigard's recently completed Downtown Plan is setting the regulatory stage and establishing a new vision for renovating downtown. The vision is intended to be a 50-year look at how the downtown could change into a "mixed-use urban village"with a wide range of housing and commercial opportunities that optimize natural features, such as Fanno Creek and Fanno Creek Park, transportation facilities, such as Pacific Hwy. and the Westside Express Commuter Rail system, and even light rail or bus rapid transit service to/from Portland. To estimate future development potential for Tigard employment, FCS GROUP evaluated the 10-year employment growth forecasts prepared by the Oregon Employment Department for the Metro Tri- County region, and Metro growth forecasts for Tigard. As shown in Figure 1, the 10-year job growth forecasts for the Metro Tri-County Region portend a positive trend towards job growth for all industry sectors, except federal government and the manufacturing sector. The sectors that are expected to grow the fastest in the Tri-County Metro Region include: educational and health services;professional and business services;leisure and hospitality;local government; retail; and wholesale trade. 6 Figure 1 Non-Farm Employment, Tri-County Metro Region, 2008-2018 Forecast Local government 8,040 State government 1,890 Federal government )270) Other services 2,210 Leisure and hospitality 10,590 Educational and health services 23,910 Professional and business services 19,780 Financial activities 2,730 Information , 800 Transportation,warehousing, and utilities • 1,520 Retail trade 6,670 Wholesale trade 4,960 Manufacturing (2,270) Construction • 1,090 Natural resources and mining 1,190 Source: Oregon Employment Department includes Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties. To estimate future development potential for Tigard,FCS GROUP evaluated the 10-year employment growth forecasts prepared by the Oregon Employment Department as well as the extrapolated employment growth forecasts from Metro. As indicated in Appendix C, the 20-year job growth forecasts for Tigard indicate a more positive trend towards job growth for all industry sectors. According to Metro (and FCS GROUP interpretation of Metro data), the general sectors that are expected to grow the fastest in Tigard over the next 20 years include: services (+10,092 jobs);retail (+3,810 jobs),industrial/other (+1,324 jobs), and government (+882 jobs). The job growth projections indicate that Tigard should expect to experience significant redevelopment opportunities over the next 20-years. A range in employment forecasts is provided to take into account current weak market conditions and national economic expectations that expect lower-rates of job growth over the next several years. As indicated in Table 4, there is a great level of uncertainty regarding potential job growth for Tigard in light of weak regional and national employment growth predictions. 7 Table 4. Forecasted 20-Year Employment Growth and Building Space Needs in Tigard Employment Growth Forecast Slow Moderate High Retail Trades 2,286 3,048 3,810 Services 6,055 8,073 10,092 Industrial/Other* 794 1,059 1,324 Government* 529 706 882 Total 9,665 12,886 16,108 Notes: See supporting analysis in Appendix C. *Metro employment growth forecasts for"Other"were allocated to 60%industrial/other and 40%government by FCS GROUP based on local observations and assumptions. Tigard is expected to add between 9,665 and 16,108 new jobs over the next 20 years. As indicated in Table 5, this amount of employment growth translates into approximately 4.2 to 7.1 million of new or renovated building square footage (floor area). Table 5. Forecasted 20-Year Total Building Space Needs in Tigard for Employment Employment Type Slow Moderate High Office 1,499,000 1,998,000 2,497,000 Institutional 170,000 227,000 285,000 Flex/Business Park 451,000 602,000 752,000 General Industrial 257,000 342,000 428,000 Warehouse 374,000 499,000 624,000 Retail 1,498,000 1,997,000 2,497,000 Total 4,249,000 5,665,000 7,083,000 Notes: See supporting analysis in Appendix C. Source:FCS GROUP. A large portion of this demand will need to be met by redevelopment and utilization of vacant buildings since large vacant undeveloped tracts of land are becoming increasingly scarce. It is estimated that redevelopment and utilization of vacant buildings is expected to accommodate 70% of the retail space demand, 50% of the service/office demand, 40% of the industrial demand, and 40% of the government facilities demand. Table 6 shows the expected level of redevelopment and refill in the Tigard USB over the next 20 years. As the existing vacant land supply in Tigard gets developed, the level of redevelopment activity is expected to rise. Prime redevelopment locations in Tigard include Downtown and the Tigard Triangle, and future planned high capacity transit stations along Pacific Hwy. The City's Downtown Plan envisions 2,500 dwelling units and over one million square feet of commercial office and retail space being added over the next few decades. Table 6. Redevelopment and Refill Assumptions (2011 to 2031) Tigard USB Employment Type Slow Moderate High Office 1,004,000 1,339,000 1,673,000 8 Institutional 114,000 152,000 191,000 Flex/Business Park 203,000 271,000 338,000 General Industrial 116,000 154,000 193,000 Warehouse 168,000 225,000 281,000 Retail 899,000 1,198,000 1,498,000 Total 2,504,000 3,339,000 4,174,000 Source: FCS GROUP; derived from Appendix C, based primarily on Metro 2009-2035 Urban Growth Report(December 2009 draft) and local assumptions. After accounting for the levels of redevelopment activity identified in Table 6, the amount of vacant land demand in Tigard for employment uses over the next 20-years is expected to range from 126 to 210 acres. Preliminary estimates for vacant lands needs in Tigard by general building type are provided in Table 7, and supporting assumptions are reflected in Appendix D and Appendix E. Table 7. Vacant Land Needs by General Land Use Zoning Classification (2011 to 2031) Tigard USB (gross buildable acres) Land Use Zoning Classification Slow Moderate High _ Commercial 51 68 85 Mixed Use 27 36 45 Industrial 48 64 80 Total 126 168 210 Source:FCS GROUP;derived from Appendix C, based primarily on Metro 2009-2035 Urban Growth Report(December 2009 draft) and local assumptions. To help validate these assumptions, FCS GROUP conducted an additional analysis of retail sales inflow/outflow within Tigard. The retail analysis provided in Appendix D indicates that the amount of local retail trade in Tigard over the next 20 years could support an additional 1.4 million square feet of redevelopment or new development activity, even if current levels of retail sales inflow were cut by 50%. Hence,it appears that the "slow" or"land efficient"vacant land demand scenario is the best match with respect to the retail market potential for the Tigard USB. The actual amount and timing of new development will vary from year to year. The wide range in development forecasts reflects current uncertainty regarding the region's ability to retain and attract major employers,the City's desire to stimulate redevelopment in downtown, and limited ability to accommodate new commercial and industrial development on vacant lands. Business Clusters Analysis It is a widely accepted theory among economic development professionals that"business clusters" are the primary force driving local economic currents and business location decisions. Clusters of business activity go well beyond mere concentrations of industry or employment types. They represent unique competitive market advantages with regard to employment,work force, creativity, entrepreneurship, business costs, and supporting natural resources. 9 The clusters analysis prepared by FCS Group is intended to identify potential employment sectors that are most compatible with local economic policy objectives. The process entailed: 1. Obtaining Employment Security (ES202) wage and salary employment data from the Oregon Employment Department (OED) for the Tigard Urban Service Boundary (USB),Washington County,Multnomah County and Clackamas County (tri-county region) for the year 2008. 2. Conducting a location-quotient (LQ) analysis to evaluate business and industrial clusters in the Tigard UGB relative to the tri-county region. 3. Evaluating business clusters within the Tigard UGB with regard to the LQ,projected growth rates, economic size of each cluster, and average wage rates. 4. Classifying each business cluster with regard to one of four classifications,including: I. STARS: Businesses with large LQ (propensity to locate in the Tigard USB) and higher than average projected growth rate compared to the tri-county region. II. EMERGING: Businesses with small LQ and high average growth rate (possible pent up demand or competitive market disadvantage relative to other locations). III.MATURE: Businesses with large LQ but lower than average growth rate. IV. CHALLENGED: Businesses with small LQ and lower than average growth rate. The business cluster analysis summarized in Figure 2 identifies the business sectors within the Tigard USB by their LQ, size and growth potential. Each sector has been analyzed by their North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code. This code is used by the federal government to classify types of businesses for tax accounting and economic research purposes. The data was derived from the OED ES202 wage and salary employment statistics for the year ending in 2008. 10 Figure 2 Existing Business Clusters in Tigard USB, 2008 27% Emerging: (High Growth! Stars hh Gam 25 m Small Cluster) (High Growth/ - Prof.&Tech. 1 Large Cluster) Services 23% 21% 0 19% Educational Services 1796 Prof.Admin.& Wee mt. 411 15% Entertainment. Food-&Drinking &Recd. Pla 13% - l- �II Wh le Trade 11% . JI 9% ig IMvernment la c. ivies* u7rade Average 10-year m Job Growth-10% E, Information o. Lodging 9 TralIort& 11111 3% kuWarehousing ta.en.let i Activities 1% O – w action – .. ,. w -1% i.- Compute o 0 S.Nondurableade - b Metals Mfg. .9%, 41% -13% Transport Equip. '" Challenged: • — Mature: I (Low Growth/ (Low Growth/ 47% Small Cluster) — Large Cluster) Note:X-axis denotes the Location Quotient(LQ) average set at 1. All sectors to right of the yellow line have an LQ greater than 1; all sectors to the left of the yellow line have an LQ less than 1. Source: Oregon Employment Department; data compiled by FCS GROUP. The clusters analysis classifies the existing business sectors in the Tigard USB into four general categories: Industry Sectors with Large LQ/High Growth Potential ("Stars") • Educational Services (private or non-profit) • Professional and Technical Services • Professional Administration and Waste Management Services • Wholesale Trade 11 Industry Sectors with Small LQ/High Growth Potential ("Emerging") • Health Care and Social Services • Food Service and Drinking Places • Arts,Entertainment and Recreation Industry Sectors with Large LQ/Low Growth Potential ("Mature") • Retail Trade • Information Services • Financial Activities and Services • Construction • Nondurable Goods Manufacturing Industry Sectors with Small LQ/Low Growth Potential ("Challenged") • Transportation, and Warehousing • Miscellaneous Services • Metals Manufacturing • Computer Parts and Equipment Manufacturing • Lodging • Transportation Equipment Manufacturing • Government In addition to evaluating existing local business clusters, the City may also consider the expected regional growth in business sectors and emerging clusters.According to the Oregon Employment Department, the job sectors with the highest potential for new growth in the greater Portland metropolitan region include: • Business administration and waste management • Finance and insurance • Health care • Hotel/motel accommodations and food services • Professional • Retail trade • Scientific and technical service (computer science, engineering) • State and local government • Transportation and utilities (warehousing, distribution and energy research,private utilities) • Wholesale trade' While manufacturing of durable goods does not make the list of the top growth sectors, there are certain subsectors within manufacturing that are growing faster than others. The manufacturing sectors with the greatest net new job growth potential in the greater Portland metropolitan region include: computer-related parts manufacturing,transportation equipment, other miscellaneous durable goods (such as solar panels), and miscellaneous non-durable goods (such as apparel research and design). 1 These emerging business clusters are documented in the Regional Wired Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development, Global Development Strategy, prepared by FCS GROUP et al, 2008. The greater Portland metropolitan region is now considered an epicenter within the United States for sustainable technology. According to Global Insight, the greater Portland metropolitan region employs 6,700 people in"green jobs"which is more than Denver,Austin, Seattle and San Jose. The number of workers in green jobs (such as solar panel manufacturing,wind energy, bio energy research and manufacturing) is expected to increase to 53,000 over the next two decades. Portland General Electric and Pacific Power are ranked in the top three among the nation's top utility companies for Green Energy sales, and the greater Portland region has more LEED-certified buildings than any other U.S. metropolitan area. With the Portland metropolitan region,recent federal and state tax policies have helped spur major investments in green technology and energy by firms such as: SolarWorld, SunEdison,Vestas and Portland General Electric—creating a major new industrial cluster in clean technology. Additional investments in advanced manufacturing are being made by Intel, Flir Systems (producer of night vision and thermal imaging systems),Precision Castparts (maker of parts used in Vestas wind turbines,Boeing aircraft and other products), Genentech, and other firms. These are examples of manufacturing companies that are finding success within the greater Portland metropolitan region, even in challenging economic times. Focused marketing and business recruitment efforts are being made by the State of Oregon and regional economic development stakeholders to attract certain established and emerging business clusters. The business and industry clusters that are currently being targeted by the Oregon Business Development Department, Portland Business Alliance and the Portland Development Commission include advanced manufacturing, clean technology (with sustainability sub-clusters in green building, solar&wind power), active wear/outdoor gear, and software. Targeted Business Clusters According to its Community Economic Development Objectives, the City of Tigard may target businesses that generally offer above average wages and provide health care and retirement benefits that support families. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the occupations that had the fastest growth and highest pay over the past 10 years nationally included: computer systems analysts, registered nurses, computer support specialists, teachers, social workers, college faculty, computer programmers, engineering sciences,police officers, securities and financial services,physicians, advertising,marketing, management analysts, electrical engineers,paralegals,writers/editors, commercial artists, medical and health service managers. It is interesting to note that almost two-thirds of the jobs filled in these fast growing occupations required some level of on-the-job training in addition to high school and a college degree.' In light of these findings, the consultant team and City staff recommend that Tigard focus on retaining and attracting a mix of existing and emerging business clusters that pay above average wages. This includes existing, established clusters, such as durable goods manufacturing (includes metals and machinery), education (private and non-profits), financial services,information (including software development),professional and technical services, and wholesale trade. They also recommend that the City focus on emerging clusters,including health care and advanced technology (i.e.,green energy) manufacturing and research operations. As indicated in Table 8, these recommended business clusters (with the exception of educational services) pay above average wage rates. 2 Based on findings contained in publications provided by JIST Works, including the Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009; and America's Fastest Growing Jobs by Michael Farr. Table 8. Summary of Existing Businesses in Tigard USB, 2008 Number Average Average Entities Employment of APayal Total Private 2,914 41,032 $43,542 Natural resources and mining 6 21 $38,742 Construction 272 3,329 $56,080 Manufacturing 117 2,743 $54,300 Durable goods 53 1,814 $58,229 Metals and machinery manufacturing 36 897 $51,425 Computer and electronic product mfg. 15 774 $65,308 Transportation equipment manufacturing 2 143 $62,594 Nondurable goods 64 929 $46,628 Trade, transportation, and utilities 704 11,375 $36,742 Wholesale trade 333 2,987 $64,284 Retail trade 329 7,621 $25,407 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 42 767 $42,114 Information 69 1,206 $66,469 Financial services 405 5,037 $58,459 Professional and business services 638 8,146 $45,971 Professional and technical services 449 3,858 $62,851 Administrative and waste services 189 4,288 $30,784 Educational and health services 269 5,037 $38,133 Educational services 55 2,912 $36,384 Health care and social assistance 214 2,125 $40,531 Leisure and hospitality 204 3,018 $16,579 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 23 184 $16,241 Accommodations and food services 181 2,834 $16,601 Accommodations 10 131 $20,072 Food services and drinking places 171 2,703 $16,433 Other services 230 1,120 $36,618 Government 5 390 $49,275 Total 2,919 41,422 $43,596 Notes: Shading indicates targeted business cluster. Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2008. Average payroll reflects Washington and Multnomah counties. SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (LAND DEMAND) The majority of the targeted businesses that consider expanding or relocating into Tigard will consist of small business operations (less than 50 employees) that can locate within existing professional office or industrial buildings, or within new office or flex/industrial buildings that are developed on vacant sites of less than five acres in size. It is also likely that there will be larger potential business and high-tech industrial operations that consider Tigard as a potential location for new campus-style developments. Certain opportunities may emerge as regional businesses expand and desire to remain within the tri-county region. Other opportunities may occur as global and national businesses desire to establish a presence in the Pacific Northwest. In any event,it is likely that Tigard could attract three to four large professional service, health care, education, and/or high tech industrial businesses over the next 20 years. As indicated in Table 9,Tigard is already home to 41 large private business operations (with between 70-250 employees). Tigard could continue to retain and attract large businesses if adequate sites are available. These types of large private operations usually require surplus adjacent land areas to accommodate future business expansion. Table 9. Existing Private Businesses by Size Class, Tigard USB, 2008 Total Large Small/Medium Sector Establishments Establishments Establishments Number Jobs Number Jobs Number Jobs Natural resources and mining 6 21 -- -- 6 21 Construction 272 3,329 4 571 268 2,758 Manufacturing 117 2,743 10 1,300 107 1,443 Durable goods 53 1,814 10 1,300 43 514 Nondurable goods 64 929 -- -- 64 929 Trade, transport., utilities & 704 11,375 20 3,997 684 7,378 communications Wholesale trade 333 2,987 1 125 332 2,862 Retail trade 329 7,621 16 3,517 313 4,104 Transport., warehousing and 42 767 3 355 39 412 communications Information 69 1,206 2 376 67 830 Financial, professional & tech. 1,043 13,183 4 1,426 1,039 11,757 services Educational and health services 269 5,037 -- -- 269 5,037 Educational services 55 2,912 -- -- 55 2,912 Health care and social assistance 214 2,125 -- -- 214 2,125 Leisure and hospitality 204 3,018 -- -- 204 3,018 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 23 184 -- -- 23 184 Accommodations and food services 181 2,834 -- 181 2,834 _Other services 230 1,120 1 99 229 1,021 Total 2,914 41,032 41 7,769 2,873 33,263 Notes:green shading indicates targeted business cluster. Source:Oregon Employment Department,2008. Note:large establishments are those with at least 70 employees. The consultant/staff team recommends that Tigard provide a variety of small, medium and large vacant sites that meet the targeted business and industrial requirements. As indicated in Table 10, the existing businesses within Tigard can generally be grouped into three general land use categories: industrial, commercial and office. Table 10. Existing Private Businesses by Size Class and General Land Use or Building Type, Tigard USB, 2008 Primary LandTotal Entities Large Entities4 Small/Medium Use/Building Type Entities Firms Jobs Firms Jobs Firms Jobs Industrial 1 770 9,847 18 2,351 752 7,496 Commerciale 763 11,759 17 3,616 746 8,143 Office 3 1,381 19,426 6 1,802 1,375 17,624 Total 2,914 41,032 41 7,769 2,873 33,263 Notes: 1 Reflects natural resources, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, warehousing, utilities, and communications sectors. 2 Reflects retail trades, lodging, accommodations, and misc. service sectors. 3 Reflects information, financial, professional and technical service, health care and educational service sectors. 4 Large establishments reflect establishments with at least 70 employees. Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2008. Compiled by FCS GROUP. Most small and medium business establishments prefer to lease space in office or commercial buildings, and/or could locate into redevelopment sites in downtown or in selected redevelopment locations (e.g., near planned high capacity transit stations or within the Tigard Triangle). No special vacant land requirements are identified for future small or medium businesses. However, the City should pursue more proactive redevelopment strategies to accommodate small and medium sized businesses. Larger business establishments that are included within the targeted business clusters will likely have minimum site size and infrastructure service requirements. Typical site requirements for the larger targeted business sectors are described in Table 11 and described in more detail in Appendix F. Based on the site requirements described in Table 11 and Appendix F, the recommended targeted business clusters will need sites ranging from one to twenty-five acres,with a majority of the need falling in the five to ten-acre range. Table 11. Typical Site Size Requirements for Targeted Business Types Small Users Medium Users Large Users Less than 50 jobs 50 to 70 jobs 70 to 200+jobs per business per business per business Industrial 6 to 20 acres per • Advanced Technology Building tenants or 4 to 6 acres per user user Manufacturing infill redevelopment • Metals/Machinery sites in established Prefers industrial or Prefers industrial or Manufacturing industrial locations business park settings business park • Wholesale Trade campus settings Office 2 to 4 acres per • Education Building tenants or 1 to 2 acres per user user* • Professional and infill redevelopment Technology. Services sites in town center, Prefers town center, Prefers business • Information regional center, or corridors or transit park campus setting • Financial Services transit station areas station areas with transit service • Health Care* Retail Not in Targeted Clusters Notes:Assumes site development requirements shown in Appendix F. *Larger medical facility campus could require 15 to 30 acres. INVENTORY OF SUITABLE SITES (LAND SUPPLY) Consistent with the employment land demand forecast, the buildable land inventory (BLI) for the Tigard EOA documents industrial and commercial inventory that currently exists within the Tigard Urban Planning Area (UPA).This analysis documents existing land use inventories and compares industrial and commercial land use needs required for addressing the slow, moderate and high growth forecast scenarios. Employment Land Inventory The Tigard EOA includes a recent buildable land inventory completed by the City of Tigard Planning staff using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data that is consistent with the current Draft 2009- 2035 Urban Growth Report (accepted by Metro Council in December 2009). The City's BLI included an analysis of existing vacant and partially vacant (sub-dividable) tax lots by current zoning classification and deducted all significant environmental constraints to estimate buildable land area within the Tigard USB.The land supply analysis focused on the land use classifications that support employment uses,including commercial, mixed-use, and industrial zones. The City has 10 commercial zones to account for a wide variety of uses ranging from retail to medical centers to mixed use centers. Tigard has three zones which accommodate industrial uses. Please refer to Appendix E for a detailed description of the allowed, conditional, and permitted uses within each of the City's zone classifications. The buildable land area for each tax lot was derived by analyzing GIS data pertaining to environmental features that would constrain the amount of potential site development on vacant and partially vacant areas. For purposes of this analysis, the environmental constraints were calculated for each site using estimates for land area that is constrained by the following: Metro Title 3 designation (waterways, wetlands,riparian buffers, 100 year floodplain). The vacant and partially vacant land inventory for the Tigard UPA includes 125 tax lots with a total buildable land area of 136.1 acres, as indicated in Table 12. Tigard's vacant land supply primarily consists of small (less than one acre) tax lots and tax lots between one and five acres in size. As indicated in Table 12,the tax lots of less than five acres in size comprise 79.3 acres or nearly sixty percent of the total vacant land supply. The larger tax lots include three lots of five to ten acres (22.1 acres total), and two contiguous tax lots more than ten acres in size (34.7 acres total). Please refer to Appendix G for additional detail. Table 12. Distribution of Vacant and Part Vacant Lands by General Land Use Zone Classification, Tigard USB Vacant and Partially Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11.2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 39.0 19 40.3 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.1 Source: City of Tigard. As mentioned in the Site Suitability Analysis,the recommended targeted business clusters will need sites ranging from one to twenty-five acres to expand or locate within the Tigard UPA,with a majority of the need falling in the five to ten-acre range. The City appears to have a range of sites available to accommodate the targeted business clusters. However redevelopment sites may be needed to accommodate development needing five to ten-acre parcels. In light of the importance of redevelopment to the City's ability to grow and diversify its economic base, the City and consultant team also evaluated the relative level of high,medium and low redevelopment potential for each developed tax lot in the Tigard UPA. While this is not a stated requirement within OAR 660, Division 9,it is considered an important factor in deciding which land use growth scenario to target. The analysis of redevelopment opportunities is based on the ratio of assessed improvement value to land value for each tax lot using 2010 Washington County Assessor data. The results provided in Table 13 indicate that there are significant amounts of high and moderate redevelopment potential within the Tigard USB. The redevelopment analysis identifies 169 tax lots with a total of 115.6 acres as having"high"redevelopment potential, and 180 tax lots with 166.6 acres as having"moderate" redevelopment potential. Table 13. Analysis of Redevelopment Tax Lots by General Land Use Zone Classification, Tigard USB City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)* High (< 0.33) Moderate Low (> 1.00) (0.33 to 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 Notes:improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data (Sept 2010). 2 196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here. Source: City of Tigard. Short-Term Land Supply Determination In addition to the long-term land supply, OAR 660-009-0005 also requires the identification of a short- term supply of land meaning"suitable land that is ready for construction within one year of an application of a building permit or request for a service extension." OAR 660-009-0025 also requires that cities must provide "at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary designated for industrial and other employment uses as short-term supply." In Tigard's case, all of the land supply currently included within the Tigard UPA is deemed by the City to be within the short-term supply category. Hence, there are existing roads,water, sewer, and other infrastructure facilities that are sized appropriately to handle some level of new development on the remaining vacant tax lots. 18 One issue the City has been dealing with is that of highway capacity. This will continue to be an issue until a regional solution is found. This constraint was the cause of a maximum floor-to-area ratio of 0.4 being applied to the Tigard Triangle when a portion of it was rezoned to mixed-use employment. This severely limits the ability to maximize the development potential of available sites. It also causes proposed developments to provide mitigating measures when it is determined the increased vehicle trips will not meet ODOT performance measures. This can be financially constraining to a project if additional lanes, medians, or intersection improvements are required to be paid for by the development. Additionally, the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-0600) and related ODOT performance standards for the state highways have presented a barrier to Tigard achieving its aspirations. This includes amending existing zoning to allow higher density developments that are consistent with the Region 2040 land use designations. The TPR requires an amendment to an adopted plan not cause an affected roadway to fail to meet performance standards, or if the forecast roadway operations are already failing to meet performance standards, the plan amendment must not further degrade performance. This is a known issue in Downtown,Washington Square Regional Center, along Pacific Highway, and in the Tigard Triangle, and may also arise in other areas near state highways or freeway interchanges. These issues are being addressed at the state and regional levels and could be somewhat mitigated as the City,Metro, and ODOT work to develop alternative performance standards through a corridor refinement plan for Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway corridor is also being studied for potential high-capacity transit service in the future. The presence of high-capacity transit could also alleviate some of the issues associated with ODOT performance measures by allowing new development to allocate additional trips to transit and reduce automobile trip demand. Strategies to promote transit- oriented development and address ODOT capacity issues are recommended as part of the implementation plan policies for the Tigard EOA. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL (RECONCILIATION OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY) Short-Term Land Need Determination Commercial and industrial properties appear to clearly meet the statutory requirements for short-term land supply, as all of the long-term land supply can be classified as short-term as well as long-term supply. Industrial and commercial properties appear to be well served with adequate infrastructure, and there is an abundant supply of vacant industrial, office and retail building floor area being actively marketed in the Tigard USB today. Long-Term Land Need Determination Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis of land needs scenarios and the business clusters analysis indicates that the Tigard UPA can add approximately 794 net new industrial jobs without needing to add additional industrial-zoned land over the next 20 years. In light of current downward trends in industrial business activity,the land efficient need scenario appears to be most consistent with regional growth forecasts and anticipated market realities. Industrial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 13, the land efficient need scenario assumes 48 acres of net new industrial vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant industrial land supply of 50 acres. If the City 19 opts to pursue a more aggressive economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land need scenario, the City would need to identify another 14 to 30 acres of vacant industrial land area to meet the level of industrial demand associated with adding another 1,059 to 1,324 industrial jobs. In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant industrial land supply of tax lots in excess of five acres, the consultant/staff team recommends that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous industrial sites for large industrial employment users.A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 14, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant industrial land supply within the Tigard UPA will be absorbed over the next 20 years. Table 14. 20-Year Industrial Demand Forecast and Vacant Land Supply, Tigard USB Land Demand and Supply Efficient Land Moderate Land High Land Need Scenario Need Scenario Need Scenario Demand for Vacant Industrial Land 48 64 80 Supply of Vacant Industrial Land 50 50 50 Land Surplus or (Deficit) 2 (14) (30) Existing Forecast of Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Unconstrained Parcel Size Surplus Efficient Land Need Forecast ' Supply (tax Demand (tax lots) lots) (tax lots) Less than 1 acre 12 10 2 1 to 5 acres 5 5 0 5 to 10 acres 0 0 0 10 to 20 acres 2 2 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 19 17 2 Notes: ' Tax lot demand forecast expected to meet or exceed supply in 20 years. Source: Based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. Commercial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 15, the land efficient needs scenario assumes 78 acres of net new commercial and mixed-use vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant land supply of 86 acres. As with the industrial land needs, an economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land needs scenario would require the City to identify an additional 19 to 45 acres of vacant commercial and mixed-use land to meet the demand. . In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant commercial and mixed-use land supply of lots in excess of five acres, the consultant/staff team recommends that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous commercial sites for strategic commercial retail and office employment users, and allow housing in these areas, only as part of a mixed-use development. A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 15, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant commercial land supply over one acre in size within the Tigard UPA will be absorbed over the next 20 years. The City also anticipates the development of high-capacity transit along the Pacific Highway corridor. The region has made a commitment to high-capacity transit and this corridor is the next to be studied. 20 Any development of high-capacity transit would trigger the City to identify station areas to accept higher, transit supportive mixed-use densities. The logical locations for station areas would more than likely result in the rezoning of general commercial lands to mixed-use zoning. As both commercial and mixed-use zoned lands are included in this analysis, any rezoning would not decrease the amount of vacant or partially vacant land available. The range of allowed uses, from retail to multi-story office buildings,would not be affected. Table 15. Reconciliation of Long-term Land Demand and Supply Commercial and Mixed Use 20-Year Land Use Forecast (gross buildable acres), Tigard USB Low Land Need Medium Land High Land Land Demand and Supply Need Need Scenario Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Commercial 78 105 131 Land Commercial Demand 51 68 85 Mixed-Use Demand 27 36 45 Supply of Vacant Commercial Land 86 86 86 Commercial Zoned Supply 46 46 46 Mixed-Use Zoned Supply 40 40 40 Land Surplus or (Deficit) 8 (19) (45) Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Existing Supply Forecast of Surplus Efficient Need Forecast (tax lots) Demand (tax lots) (tax lots) Less Than 1 acre 89 30 59 1 to 5 acres 14 14 0 5 to 10 acres 3 3 0 10 to 20 acres 0 0 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 106 47 59 Source: FCS GROUP, based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. Planning, Market, Cost and Risk Factors Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis, stakeholder interviews and business clusters analyses indicate that the Tigard USB is uniquely positioned within the greater Portland metropolitan region to experience continued success in retaining and attracting businesses and economic development. Risk of Losing Large Commercial and Industrial Sites As Tigard's vacant land supply of large parcels (more than five acres) becomes diminished, the City could risk losing economic growth potential if remaining larger industrial and commercial sites allow non-employment uses that displace prospective business opportunities. While the current short-term employment market is sluggish at best, the future long-term job growth trends bode well for Tigard if it preserves large commercial and industrial zoned parcels for intended business activity. These risks can be mitigated in part by adopting new economic development objectives that preserve large commercial and industrial areas for desired commercial and industrial business activities. Risk of Not Adequately Preparing for Targeted Area Redevelopment As Tigard's population and employment levels increase with time, and vacant land diminishes, the City will need to rely more upon redevelopment areas, and productivity increases from existing developed lands and businesses to achieve long-term economic strength and diversity. New economic development objectives should be formulated to enable the City to leverage desired redevelopment in targeted locations such as downtown, and within planned transit-station communities. Risk of Expanding the USB in the Future Beyond the 20-year forecast time horizon the City should consider the need to grow into urban reserve locations,if the City's investment in infrastructure extensions yields a favorable return to its residents and businesses.An Urban Planning Area expansion is not necessary at this time to accommodate industrial and other employment land needs for the next 20 years,unless the City opts to pursue the moderate or high land needs scenario to accommodate additional commercial and industrial job growth. Planning and Permitting Risks The City should review its land use development code to ensure that it preserves sites for their intended use,yet is flexible enough to accommodate a full diversity of commercial and light industrial uses consistent with public safety,public facilities, and positive urban design characteristics. The ability to provide a streamlined and predictable permitting process can be a challenge as the City relies more on smaller infill and redevelopment sites to accommodate business growth. Non-Local Regulatory Risks The City is dependent upon ODOT to achieve higher trip caps in targeted redevelopment areas. As the City and Metro pursue high capacity transit facilities and assessed service levels, these regulatory risks may be addressed by assuming higher non-vehicle mode shares that result in reduced traffic impacts from new development. Most of the risk factors described above may be addressed by the City of Tigard. Others will require partnerships with regional and state regulatory agencies, such as Metro,Washington County and ODOT. The City can take a leadership position by providing a local planning and permitting environment that is favorable to business investment and more proactive economic marketing to raise awareness of Tigard's strengths as a preferred location for over 2,900 existing business establishments. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES OAR 660-009-0020 stipulates that comprehensive plans must provide community economic development objectives, a commitment to providing a competitive short-term land supply, and identification and provision of adequate sites and public facilities to serve economic development demand. Since the City of Tigard updated the economic development chapter of its Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the document contains a fairly complete set of economic development goals,policies and action measures. The following is a list of topics and recommended policy updates to comply with state statutes and/or implement the City's economic goals. Policies Community Economic Development Objectives (CEDOs) 22 The majority of these objectives are already embedded in existing policies. Two new policies are recommended: 'The City shall encourage neighborhood commercial uses that support economic opportunities, multi-modal transportation options, neighborhood vitality, and the goals of efficient land use patterns." 'The City shall encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable." Commitment to Provide Adequate Sites and Facilities and Commitment to Provide a Short-Term Land Supply of Land The commitment to provide adequate public facilities is embedded in existing Policy 9.1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. One new policy is recommended to describe the commitment to provide adequate sites and a short-term land supply: 'The City shall monitor and update its Buildable Lands Inventory to ensure adequate short and long-term supplies of buildable employment land" Provide for Prime Industrial Land Development on Large Lots Existing Policy 9.1.7 addresses the need to protect prime industrial land but does not address the need for large lots. It is recommended the policy be revised as follows: "The City shall limit the development of retail and service land uses in Metro-designated industrial areas, and especially on lots of 10 or more acres, to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs." Promote Targeted Redevelopment in Downtown and other areas This issue is addressed by several existing policies and recommended action measures,but most directly by Policy 9.3.1: "The City shall focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high- density housing development in its Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown); Regional Center (Washington Square);High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99W); and the Tigard Triangle." No new language is proposed. Recommended Action Measures Assist_property owners with the Oregon Industrial Site Certification Process A new recommended action measure is suggested: "Assistproperly owners with the Oregon Industrial Site Certification Process to help preserve and market the City's inventory of industrial lands." Economic Development Marketing and Incentives Directed Towards Strategic Clusters This issue is addressed indirectly by several recommended action measures,but could benefit from more concise language. A new recommended action measure is suggested: `Explore an economic development marketing and incentives program targeting strategic business clusters." Work with ODOT to address mobility standards Capacity issues on state highways (particularly Pacific Highway,Hwy. 217, and Interstate 5) impact economic development opportunities through trip caps,limited floor-to-area ratios, and required road improvements that are expensive. The conversation is just getting started at the regional level. A new recommended action measure is suggested: 23 'Work with state and regional partners to develop alternative mobility standards that will benefit the community and its economic development fforts." Monitor Local and Regional Economic Development Initiatives This request from the Planning Commission led to a suggested new recommended action measure: "Monitor local and regional economic development initiatives to assess their effectiveness related to cost and outcome." Metro Designated Centers and Corridors Based on a resolution passed by the Tigard City Council,Metro recently amended its Growth Concept Map expanding the Tigard Town Center Boundary to include the entire Tigard Urban Renewal District and the Tigard Triangle. The City is required to adopt this change into its Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends adopting a definition that will refer to the Metro Growth Concept Map, thus eliminating the need to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan each time the Metro Growth Concept Map is amended. 24 APPENDIX A - OFFICE LEASING ACTIVITY SUMMARY, MID-YEAR REPORT OFFICE Leasing Activity,Mid-Year 2010(as of June 30,2010) Class A Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 41 11,389,435 1,412,066 12.4% (135,590) 368,800 62,200 $24.42 Suburban 141 17,234,745 2,225,626 12.9% (130,126) - - $23.74 Tigard 6 509,087 151,931 29.8% (13,097) - - $23.93 217 Corridor/Beaverton 12 1,142,430 303,750 26.6% (15,550) - - $21.77 Kruse Way 19 1,961,855 495,615 25.3% (26,228) - - $26.05 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy - - - - - - $0.00 Tulalatin 4 361,270 154,503 42.8% 5,604 - - $24.31 Wilsonville 4 325,501 55,071 16.9% - - - $24.77 Total 182 28,624,180 3,637,692 12.7%� (265,716) 368,800 62,200 $24.01 Class B Market Statistics Mid Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds_ Total RBA Total SF Vac%_Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 130 9,423,902 927,523 9.8% 61,787 - - $20.18 Suburban 1,155 30,095,314 4,345,461 14.4% (62,639) 14,000 268,854 $17.82 Tigard 83 1,979,955 277,469 14.0% 12,806 - - $20.88 217 Corridor/Beaverton 72 1,719,571 314,759 18.3% 5,148 - - $16.40 Kruse Way 26 728,262 93,241 12.8% (14,059) - - $20.76 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 42 890,672 121,398 13.6% 2,337 - - $16.79 Tulalatin 30 704,815 105,798 15.0% (7,289) - - $19.36 Wilsonville 17 622,051 30,169 4.8% (10,369) - - $16.71 Total 1,285 39,519,216 5,272,984 13.3%p (852) 14,000 268,854 $18.38 Class C Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 177 4,093,913 489,486 12.0% 11,201 - - $17.49 Suburban 2,815 18,283,763 129,081 0.7% 68,665 - - $14.36 Tigard 97 662,182 66,493 10.0% (3,199) - - $15.60 217 Corridor/Beaverton 82 609,431 70,635 11.6% 1,202 - - $14.50 Kruse Way 19 133,044 2,452 1.8% - - - $18.00 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 120 846,865 99,822 11.8% (5,090) - - $15.60 Tulalatin 20 119,561 29,278 24.5% (5,598) - - $14.73 Wilsonville 21 103,496 2,681 2.6% 5,609 - - $17.21 Total 2,992 22,377,676 618,567 2.8% 79,866 - - $14.93 Class B and C Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 307 13,517,815 1,417,009 10.5% 72,988 - - $19.37 Suburban 3,970 48,379,077 4,474,542 9.2% 6,026 14,000 268,854 $16.51 Tigard 180 2,642,137 343,962 13.0% 9,607 - - $19.56 217 Corridor/Beaverton 154 2,329,002 385,394 16.5% 6,350 - - $15.90 Kruse Way 45 861,306 95,693 11.1% (14,059) - - $20.33 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 162 1,737,537 221,220 12.7% (2,753) - - $16.21 Tulalatin 50 824,376 135,076 16.4% (12,887) - - $18.69 Wilsonville 38 725,547 32,850 4.5% (4,760) - - $16.78 Total 4,277 61,896,892 5,891,551 9.5% 79,014 14,000 268,854 $17.14 Quoted Rates for Class B and C table are weighted average of individual B and C markets according to the total RBA inventory Source:CoStar Office Report Mid-Year 2010;Capacity Commercial Group. 1.9 26 APPENDIX B: INDUSTRIAL LEASING ACTIVITY, MID-YEAR 2010 REPORT Flex Building Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 3 45,000 10,000 22.2% - - - $16.50 Suburban 741 18,956,577 2,268,793 12.0% (336,814) 70,020 - $10.23 Tigard 50 1,277,751 170,855 13.4% (12,799) - - $12.30 217 Corridor/Beaverton 87 2,204,502 419,258 19.0% (69,237) - - $11.77 Kruse Way 2 88,928 - 0.0% - - - $0.00 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 7 53,681 6,771 12.6% 5,100 - - $10.35 Tulalatin 14 430,840 23,229 5.4% (2,531) - - $7.54 Wilsonville 29 1,661,734 201,334 12.1% (18,316) 7,020 - $9.31 Total 744 19,001,577 2,278,793 • 12.0% (336,814) 70,020 P - $10.24 Warehouse Building Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 41 1,616,833 141,090 8.7% (1,843) - - $5.78 Suburban 4,694 167,214,476 13,813,643 8.3% 91,337 119,723 415,000 $5.55 Tigard 119 4,394,617 339,683 7.7% 57,333 - - $6.38 217 Corridor/Beaverton 75 3,332,391 471,805 14.2% 31,770 - - $6.30 Kruse Way 13 301,069 3,378 1.1% 10,240 - - $7.20 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 17 209,963 5,000 2.4% 8,000 - - $6.16 Tulalatin 221 8,453,141 675,494 8.0% (39,805) - - $5.20 Wilsonville 83 6,155,906 1,268,475 20.6% 47,351 - - $5.95 Total 4,735 168,831,309 13,954,733 8.3% 89,494 119,723 415,000 $5.55 Total Industrial Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 44 1,661,833 151,090 • 9.1% (1,843) - - $7.16 Suburban 5,435 186,171,053 16,082,436 F 8.6% (245,477) 189,743 415,000 $6.19 Tigard 169 5,672,368 510,538 F 9.0% 44,534 - - $7.68 217 Corridor/Beaverton 162 5,536,893 891,063 • 16.1% (37,467) - - $8.07 Kruse Way 15 389,997 3,378 • 0.9% 10,240 - - $7.20 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 24 263,644 11,771 • 4.5% 13,100 - - $8.01 Tulalatin 235 8,883,981 698,723 • 7.9% (42,336) - - $5.29 Wilsonville 112 7,817,640 1,469,809 • 18.8% 29,035 7,020 - $6.72 Total 5,479 187,832,886 16,233,526 P 8.6% (247,320) 189,743 415,000 $6.20 Source:CoStar Office Report Mid-Year 2010;Capacity Commercial Group. 27 APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS Tigard Employment Growth Forecast, 2005-2035 Change 2005 Proj. 2035 Jobs 0/0 Retail Trades 9,854 14,426 4,572 46% Services 11,372 23,482 12,110 106% Industrial/Other* 12,049 13,637 1,588 13% Government* 8,033 9,092 1,059 13% Total 41,308 60,637 19,329 47% Source:Metro adopted housing and employment growth forecasts,2007;Metroscope Gen.2.3;extrapolated to 2035 by FCS GROUP;assumes allocation of"Other"jobs at 60%industrial,and 40%government. 20,082 22,729 Proj. Tigard Net New Average Annual Employment Forecast(1 Year Forecast) Low Medium High Retail Trades 114 152 191 Services 303 404 505 Industrial/Other* 40 53 66 Government* 26 35 44 Total 483 644 805 Proj. Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast Low Medium High Retail Trades 2,286 3,048 3,810 Services 6,055 8,073 10,092 Industrial/Other* 794 1,059 1,324_ Government* 529 706 882 Total 9,665 12,886 16,108 APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Job Sectors and Building Type Assumptions Flex/Bus. Gen. Employment Sectors Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 5% 1% 6% 0% 12% 76% 100% Services 72% 1% 5% 1% 1% 20% 100% Industrial/Other 8% 0% 50% 40% 2% 0% 100% Government 43% 37% 5% 0% 0% 15% 100% Source:Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observations. Proj. Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, Low Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 114 23 137 - 274 1,737 2,286 Services 4,360 61 303 61 61 1,211 6,055 Industrial/Other* 64 - 397 318 16 - 794 Government' 228 196 26 - - 79 529 Total 4,765 279 863 378 351 3,028 9,665 Proj. Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, Medium Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 152 30 183 - 366 2,316 3,048 Services 5,813 81 404 81 81 1,615 8,073 Industrial/Other` 85 - 529 424 21 - 1,059 Government* 304 261 35 - - 106 706 Total 6,353 372 1,151 504 468 4,037 12,886 Proj. Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, High Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 191 38 229 - 457 2,896 3,810 Services 7,266 101 505 101 101 ' 2,018 10,092 Industrial/Other' 106 - 662 529 26 - 1,324 Government* 379 326 44 - - 132_ 882 Total 7,942 465 1,439 630 585 5,046 16,108 Source:FCS GROUP based on Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observations. APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Building Type to Land Needs Assumptions* Flex/Bus. Gen. _ Office Institutional Park _ Industrial Warehouse_ Retail Refill/Redevelopment Rate 1 67% 67% 45% 45% 45% 60% Jobs Needing Vacant Land Rate 2 33% 33% 55% 55% 55% 40% Building SF Per Job 2 370 630 550 700 1,100 510 Floor-Area-Ratio 2 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 Public Facility Net:Gross Adjustment 3 1.10 1.05 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.10 Work at Home Adjustment° 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 *assumptions are intended to reflect a long-term average over 20 years, some"ramp up"is expected to attain these density levels. 1/Adjusts for building refill&vacancy allowances. 2/Building density derived from Metro UGR assumptions. 3/Allowances take into account land dedicated to public/utility easements. 4/Allowance based on national statistics by US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of of Labor Statistics, Technical information: "Work at Home i Source:assumptions are generally consistent with the Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observatio Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Redevelopment Building Space Needs(Floor Area) Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Low 1,004,000 114,000 203,000 116,000 168,000 899,000 2,504,000 Medium 1,339,000 152,000 271,000 154,000 225,000 1,198,000 3,339,000 High 1,673,000 191,000 338,000 193,000 281,000 1,498,000 4,174,000 Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Building Floor Area on Vacant Lands(Floor Area) Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Low 495,000 56,000 248,000 141,000 206,000 599,000 1,745,000 Medium 659,000 75,000 331,000 188,000 274,000 799,000 2,326,000 High 824,000 94,000 414,000 235,000 343,000 999,000 2,909,000 Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Lands(gross buildable acres) Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Low 25 3 20 11 17 50 126 Medium 33 4 27 15 22 67 168 High 42 5 34 19 28 84 210 APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Land Use Assignment Assumptions Flex/Bus. Gen. Local Zoning Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Commercial 50% 60% 20% 10% 10% 60% Mixed Use 40% 20% 5% 5% 0% 30% Industrial 10% 20% 75% 85% 90% 10% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Assumptions by FCS GROUP and Tigard based on local observations. Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Land Needs Forecast by Zoning Classification, Low Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial 13 2 4 1 2 30 51 Mixed Use 10 1 1 1 - 15 27 Industrial 3 1 15 10 15 5 48 Total 25 3 20 11 17 50 126 Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Land Needs Forecast by Zoning Classification, Medium Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial _ 17 2 5_ 2 2_ 40_ 68 Mixed Use 13 1 1 1 - 20 36 Industrial 3 1 20 13 20 7 64 Total 33 4 27 15 22 67 168 Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Land Needs Forecast by Zoning Classification, High Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial 21 3 7 2 3 50 85 Mixed Use 17 1 2 1 - 25 45 Industrial 4 1 25 16 25 8 80 Total 42 5 34 19 28 84 210 Summary of 20-Year Vacant Land Demand Forecast by Zoning Classification,Tigard USB(with current zoning regulations) Land Use Classification _ Low Medium High Commercial _ 51 68 85 Mixed Use 27 36 45 Industrial 48 64 80 Total 126 168 210 Assumptions by FCS GROUP based on Dec. 2009 Metro 2009-2035 Urban Growth Report assumptions and local observations. APPENDIX D: ANALYSIS OF RETAIL INFLOW/OUTFLOW Analysis of Retail Development Potential Tigard Area 2010 to 2030 Est.2010 Papulation in City 48,100 Proj.2030 Population in City 62,278 Analysis of Effective Buying Income(EBI) Est.2010 Per Capita Income 1/ $33,000 Proj.2030 Per Capita Income 1/ $36,462 Est.2010 Aggregate EBI(000) $1,587,300 Proj.2030 Aggregate EBI(000) $2,270,749 Change in Aggregate EBI(000) $683,449 Future 2030 Supportable Retail Development Analysis of Existing&Future Retail Sales Potential 2010 2030 Retail Retail Distributi Buying Buying Total on of Power Power Change Sales Sales Support Supportable Local from from in Retail Attributed Attibuted able Sq.Ft.of New Income by Local Local Buying to Local to Retail Retail Retail Store Residents Residents Power Residents Inflow Sales Development Store Group Group 2/ (000)2/ (000)2/ (000) (000) (000)4/ (000) 5/ Food Stores 8.3% $131,746 $188,472 $56,726 $51,054 $12,763 $63,817 236,000 Eating&Drinking 5.0% $79,365 $113,537 $34,172 $30,755 $13,181 $43,936 162,000 Gen.Merchandise 5.5% $87,302 $124,891 $37,590 $33,831 $27,680 $61,510 227,000 Furniture,Fixtures&Appliances 2.2% $34,921 $49,956 $15,036 $13,532 $11,072 $24,604 91,000 Automotive Services 9.6% $152,381 $217,992 $65,611 $52,489 $42,945 $95,434 352,000 Other/Misc. 11.3% $179,365 $256,595 $77,230 $54,061 $23,169 $77,230 285,000 Total 41.9% $665,079 $951,444 $286,365 $235,722 $130,810 $366,532 1,353,000 Notes: 1/Derived from US Census estimates;assumes.05%annual real income growth. 2/Store group sales allocations from U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis,Consumer Expendure Survey,Western United States. 3/Based upon employment estimates:assumes 500 sq.ft.per job,5%vacancy allowance,and avg.sales of$275/sq.ft. 4/Future retail inflow assumed to account for 30%to 45%of total retail sales. 5/Building area assumes$285/per sq.ft.annual sales,and 5%vacancy allowance. Source:analysis by FCS GROUP. APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF TIGARD EMPLOYMENT ZONES AND REGULATIONS The following is an overview of regulations related employment lands and zones for the City of Tigard. A general description of each zone is provided along with common and specific development standards when applicable. A summary table highlights specific regulations, such as building height, lot size, setbacks, landscaping and lot coverage. COMMERCIAL ZONES Neighborhood Commercial District(C-N) Provide convenience goods and services (those purchased frequently) within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. A limited number of other uses such as restaurants, gas stations and medical centers are permitted conditionally. Community Commercial District(C-C) Provide convenience shopping facilities to meet regular needs of nearby (1.5 miles) residential neighborhoods. Typically range in size from 30,000-100,000 sf on 2 to 8-acre sites. Separated from other commercial zones by at least one half-mile. Housing is permitted on the second floor at densities not to exceed 12 units/net acre. Limited other uses are allowed conditionally. Mandatory site development review. General Commercial District(C-G) Accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Residential uses limited to single family residences on same site as permitted use. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Professional Administrative Commercial District(C-P) Accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/net acre are permitted in conjunction with commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more intensive commercial and industrial areas. Mixed Use-Central Business District(MU-CBD) Provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed-use, multi-family and attached single family residences are permitted. All uses are allowed in all areas. Specific Development Standards (18.610): Four sub-areas (see MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix) have different setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. • Pacific Hwy. and Hall Boulevard Corridor: designed to create a "pulse-point" along the Pacific Hwy. corridor. Regional retail draw and potential future high capacity transit. • Main Street— Center Street: pedestrian-oriented with smaller scale development. • Scoffins Street— Commercial Street: higher density residential and employment base of civic, office and commercial uses. • Fanno— Burnham Street: medium scale residential or mixed use development. Mixed Use Employment(MUE) Designed to apply to a majority of land within the Tigard Triangle, it permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing (multi-family at a max density of 25 units/acre. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Acknowledges a majority of trips by automobile, but supports alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible and encourages a mix of uses. Includes special design standards for Tigard Triangle (18.620). Mixed Use Employment Districts (MUE-1 and MUE-2) Apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but limited, and residential uses are permitted when compatible with employment character of the area. MUE-1 example is Lincoln Center (high density). MUE-2 example is Nimbus area (more moderate densities). Mixed Use Commercial District(MUC) Includes land around Washington Square Mall and immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses include office buildings, retail, and service areas. Also permits mixed0use developments and housing at 50 units/acre. Large buildings encouraged with parking under behind or to sides. Includes special design standards for Washington Square Regional Center (18.630). Mixed Use Commercial(MUC-1) Applies to portion of the Durham Quarry site. Subject to IGA agreement between Tigard and Tualatin. Permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general retail, offices and housing at min density of 25 units/acre and max of 50 units/acre. Includes special design standards for Durham Quarry (18.640). Mixed Use Residential Districts (MUR) Applies to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with residential use. INDUSTRIAL/INSTITUTIONAL ZONES Industrial Park District(l-P) Provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses (restaurants, personal services and fitness centers) in a campus-like setting. Only those uses with no off-site impacts are permitted. Mandatory site development review and specific design standards (18.530). Light Industrial District(I-L) Provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses, including manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics. Heavy Industrial District(I-H) Provides appropriate locations for intensive industrial uses including I-L uses as well as railroad yards and waste-related activities. Uses include those which involve the use of raw materials, require significant outdoor storage and generate heavy truck and/or rail traffic. Properties are carefully located to minimize impacts on established residential, commercial and light industrial areas. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MUE R-25 STANDARD C-N C-C'[ C-G C-P MU- C-G MI'DU' MUC-1 MUC MUE1 MUE2 MUR1 MUR2 CBD** [17][18] [17][]8] 071[181 [17][r°] [07][18] Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq 5,000 sqft None 6,000 sq ft None None - None None None None None None -Detached unit ft - - - - - 1,480 sq ft - - - - - - - - - - - -Boarding,lodging, - - - - - - 6,100 sq - rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft None 50 ft None None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 20 ft 0/20 ft 1101 Oft 1111 O 114"i ❑ oft1111 20 ft V O ft[l'i o fth'l O ft[21] O ft["] 10 ft[z q -Side facing street on 20 ft - - - ❑ - 20 ft V O ftt 51 O ft[21] O el] 5 ft[c] l O ft[c 0 corner&through lots[m] -Side yard 0/20 ft[1 0/20 ft[5] 0/20 ft[5] 0/20 ft[5] ❑ 0/20 ft 10 ft V 0 0 ft[20] 0 ft[20] 0 f]20] 0 ft" -Side or rear yard abutting - - - - - [a] 30 ft V ft]m s][a°] more restrictive zoning - - district -Rear yard 0/20 ft[1 0/20 ft Er] 0/20 ft[5] 0/20 ft[°] ❑ 20 ft v o ft[z°] 0 ft[20] 0 0 -Distance between front - - - - - 0/20 ft0 20ft V 0 N/A N/A 1 1[zz] ft]mrt]ral of garage&property [a] ft0v][zp] N/A N/A - line abutting a public or N/A private street. Minimum Building Height N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 2 stories 2 stories None 2 stories None Maximum Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft 45 ft 0 45 ft 45 ft 70 ft 200 ft 200 ft 60 ft 75 ft 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage Er] 85% 80% 85% 85% 0 85% 80%[1d 90% 85% 85% 85% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape 15% 20% 15% 15% 0 15% 20% 10% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20% Requirement Minimum FAR[]l N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 1.25 1.25 0.6 0.6 0.3 Minimum Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 50 50 25 50 25 Density]41151[5] unit/acre unit/acre un it/acre unit/acre unit/acre Maximum Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A None None 50 None 50 Density[41[51[r][tl unit/acre unit/acre o Multiple-family dwelling unit. on See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. V=See 18.640.050.B. ❑=See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. [1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] Applies to all nonresidential building development and mixed use development which includes a residential component.In mixed use development,residential floor area is included in the calculations of floor area ratio to determine conformance with minimum FAR. [4] Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 18.715.020,minimum and maximum density shall be determined for residential only projects using the number of residential units per acre shown in the above table.The provisions for density transfer described in Section 18.715.030.B apply,using the minimum and maximum density shown in the above table.Any mixed-use or commercial only development does not have a minimum density requirement. [5] For purposes of determining floor area ratio and residential densities,the net development area shall be uses to establish the lot area,determined per Section 18.715.020.A. [6] Adjustments to minimum density in the Washington Square Regional center area subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.630.020.E. [7] The maximum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay district Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.020.D. [8] No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [9] See Section 18.520.050.B for site and building design standards. [10] No front yard setback shall be required,except a 20-foot front yard setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district. [11] There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirement;however,conditions in Chapters 18.745 and 18.795 must be met. [12] There are no setback requirements,except 30 feet where a commercial use within a district abuts a residential zoning district. [13] The maximum height of any building in the CBD zone within 100 feet of any residential zoning district shall not exceed 40 feet. [14] Where the side or rear yard of attached or multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district,such setbacks shall not be less than 35 feet. [15] Landscaped areas on existing developed property in the CBD shall be retained.Buffering and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 shall be met for existing and new development. [16] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [17]Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.040.F. [18] The requirements contained in the Buffer Matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses in the MUC,MUE and MUR zones within the Washington Square Regional Center(WSRC)and abutting zoning districts not included within the WSRC,or zoning districts within the WSRC which are not mixed-use.For MUC and MUE zones,the requirements for Commercial Zones apply.For MUR zones,the requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone apply. [19]For Commercial and Mixed-use developments,the maximum front and street side yard setback is 10 feet.For Residential only developments,the maximum front and street side yard setback is 20 feet. [20] Side and rear yard setbacks shall be 20 feet when the zone abuts residential districts shown in Section 18.510.020 except R-25 and R-40. [21] The maximum setback is 20 feet. [22] The maximum setback is 10 feet. C-N-Neighborhood Commercial District MUC 1—Mixed Use Commercial C-C-Community Commercial District MUC—Mixed Use Commercial C-G-General Commercial District MUE 1—Mixed Use Employment/High Density C-P -Professional/Administrative Office Commercial MUE 2—Mixed Use Employment/Medium Density MU-CBD—Mixed Use Central Business District MUR 1—Mixed Use Residential/High Density MUR 2—Mixed Use Residential/Medium Density 35 MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix 1'2,3 STANDARD SUB-AREAS Main Street 99W/Hall Corridor Scoffins/Commercial Fanno/Burnham (MS) (99H) (SC) (FB) Front setback 0/5 ft. Minimum 0 ft. (5 ft.for frontage on 0 ft. 0 ft. 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner and through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard Minimum/maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Rear setback Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Building height Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum(stories/feet) 3 stories(45 ft.) 3 stories(45 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.)7 Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping 0%5 10% 10% 20% Minimum building frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential density(units per acre) Minimum8 25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 506 506 This table does not apply to existing development.All new buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. z For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040,Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045,Exceptions to Standards in the MU-CBD zone. ' In the MU-CBD zone,required landscaping can be provided on roofs. 5 Landscaping/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre(see Map 18.610A). 7 3 stories/45 feet within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park boundary(see Map 610.A)or within 50 feet of low or medium density residential district. 8 Minimum density applies to residential-only development(not mixed use). DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P I-L I-H Minimum Lot Size None None None Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. -Side facing street on corner& through lots[1] 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. -Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] 0/50 ft. [3] 0/50 ft. [3] -Rear yard 0/50 ft. [3][4] 0/50 ft. [3] 0/50 ft. [3] -Distance between front of garage &property line abutting a public or private street -- -- -- Maximum Height 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[5] 85% 85% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[6] 15% 15% [1]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4]Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. I-P-Industrial Park District I-L-Light Industrial I-H-Heavy Industrial 37 APPENDIX F: TYPICAL SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT TYPES Typical Criteria For Specific Development Sites c Campus E a, Industrial/ 0. > Heavy Hi-Tech Electronic and Call Center/ Commercial ✓ Industrial/ General Food Manufacturing Computer Warehouse/ Business Office Shopping O I Manufacturing Manufacturing Processing &Processing Assembly Distribution Services (Class A) Center Hotel I u 01 a in v 5to25 5to10 5to10 10to25 5to25 10to25 3to5 1to5 5to10 3to5 z a, c Interstate, a, Interstate,state Interstate, Interstate,state Interstate,state Interstate or Along arterial Arterial Arterial or state highway highway or state highway highway or highway or limited access Along or streets or street interstate a` principle or principle or principle principle principle four-lane arterial or in down town visibility, visibility or o arterial within arterial within arterial arterial within arterial within highway within streets centers and prefers downtown 7o within 1-30 LI 1-10 miles 1-20 miles miles 1-15 miles 1-10 miles 1-15 miles transit areas transit areas centers J •Water flow •Water flow •Water flow •Water flow •Water flow a' 65,300 GPD •Water flow>_ >_4,600 GPD 3,500 GPD >_4,000 GPD >_10,000 GPD = •Water flow>_ •Water flow> •Water flow> •Water flow >_ t; •Sewer flow>_ 74,300 GPD •Sewer flow •Sewer flow>_ •Sewer flow •Sewer flow 36,100 GPD 17,000 GPD 24,900 GPD 11,700 GPD 58,800 GPD •Sewer flow>_ >_4,600 GPD 3,500 GPD >_4,000 GPD >_10,000 GPD •Sewer flow •>_ •Sewer flow •>_ •Sewer flow m >_ >_ •2.0 MW 74,300 GPD •Sewer flow •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW c 32,500 GPD 15,300 GPD 22,400 GPD 11,700 GPD Electricity •0.5 MW Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity a • 1.0MW ••0.5MW •• 1.0MW •0.5 MW • Fiber-telecom Electricity • Broadband • Broadband • Broadband • Broadband T Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity and route • Fiber-telecom Internet Internet Internet Internet diversity access access access access NCDA-Net Contiguous Developable Acres Source:Compiled by FCS Group based on Business Oregon Industrial Site Certification requirements and industry standards. APPENDIX G: BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY City of Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory (as of January 1, 2010) Vacant and Part-Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-G 19 6.8 6 14.0 2 16.4 0 0.0 27 37.3 C-N 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-P 7 2.7 2 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 8.9 Mixed Use MU-CBD 3 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.1 MUC 3 1.4 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8 MUE 35 13.9 4 6.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 19.9 MUE-1 10 3.8 1 1.5 1 5.7 0 0.0 12 11.0 MUE-2 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 MUR-1 9 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 3.2 MUR-2 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 Industrial I-H 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 I-L 7 2.2 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.7 I-P 5 2.0 3 6.7 0 0.0 2 34.7 10 43.4 Total 101 38.9 19 40.4 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Summary of Vacant Land by General Land Use Zoning Classification Vacant and Part-Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11.2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 38.9 19 40.4 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Source: City of Tigard. APPENDIX H: REDEVELOPMENT LAND INVENTORY City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)' High (< 0.33) Moderate Low (> 1.00) (0.33 to 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 8.5 C-G 8 3.4 13 6.8 158 255.0 C-N 0 0.0 1 0.2 2 2.8 C-P 11 3.8 17 10.9 35 33.6 MU-CBD 24 10.5 50 38.4 86 59.0 MUC 7 12.6 11 24.2 35 155.0 MUE 70 40.5 22 12.3 59 61.8 MUE-1 15 11.5 10 6.9 24 30.9 MUE-2 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 29.4 MUR-1 10 3.9 23 5.6 16 5.3 MUR-2 6 2.4 8 2.6 6 3.0 I-H 2 3.4 4 5.5 9 41.3 I-L 3 11.0 8 25.1 61 203.5 I-P 13 12.5 13 28.2 76 193.1 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 Summary of Redevelopable Potential City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)2 High (< 0.33) Moderate Low (> 1.00) (0.33 to 1.00) _ Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1082.0 Notes: 'Improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data (Sept 2010). 2196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here. Source: City of Tigard. APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In support of the City of Tigard's statewide planning Goal 9 Economic Opportunity Analysis, consulting staff interviewed twelve business leaders, employers and economic experts to gather perspectives on the City's current position and future economic opportunities. Summary of interview responses are included after each question, shown in italics. The list of respondents is included at the end of the summary. 1. What is Tigard's primary market advantage within the state and region with regard to attracting population and jobs? What do you feel are its greatest assets? Stakeholders consistently reported that Tigard's location is its primary asset, particularly its proximity to 1-5 and other major transportation corridors such as Highway 217 and Highway 99W. Other factors frequently cited included Tigard's position relative to Portland, an educated, affluent population, and open spaces. Four respondents mentioned that the size of Tigard and its suburban setting are attractive. Other named assets include the variety of housing options, diversity of office and industrial buildings and availability of land. 2. I'm going to read you a list of seven (7) items. From the list, please identify Tigard's primary strengths as a place to do business. The list below is organized in order of frequency of response, shown in parentheses. • Proximity to I-5 and other transportation corridors (11) • Quality of life (10) • Available, skilled workforce (10) • Adequate public infrastructure (transportation, utilities, etc.) (5) • Access to local markets and customers (5) • General business climate (4) • Interaction with firms in the same and/or related industries (2) 3. (Optional- for employers) Do you have plans to maintain or expand your business in Tigard? If not, will you relocate within the region or elsewhere? Why or why not? Most employers who were interviewed said they plan to maintain their current location but are unlikely to expand. Two others said they hope to expand as the economy improves. Reasons for not moving include preferred location, access, and property ownership. One employer said a recent employee survey showed that most of their employees live near the business. One business owner said they may relocate when the current lease expires and relocate to a more thriving business district. 4. What geographic area(s) do you think best define(s) Tigard's competitive market region for commercial office, retail and industrial development? Most interviewees responded to this question by identifying areas in the City that are thriving or successful employment districts. Four respondents felt that the Tigard Triangle is a particularly competitive market area within the city, especially for industrial and retail uses. One person felt strongly that the Triangle was not as competitive as the Hunziker area. Washington Square and the surrounding area were cited twice as being competitive for retail. Other areas mentioned by one person included Oregon Business Park, PacCorp and the area between Highway 99W and Scholls Ferry Road. 5. The City is interested in redevelopment in its downtown and along the Highway 99W corridor, developing a mixed-use district in the triangle south of Highway 99W and north of Highway 217, and adding more neighborhood commercial uses to meet local needs. Do you agree with these priorities? Why or why not? Are there other areas or corridors the City should focus on? Most respondents agreed with these priorities, though several cautioned against development that would compound existing transportation problems (particularly along Highway 99W). There was support for revitalizing downtown by adding new businesses and destinations; including mixed uses, parks and housing that contribute to a unique identity for the City. There was also a good deal of support expressed for improving the Triangle by adding services and diversifying the types of businesses there with available land. Other ideas for focused efforts included the Tiedeman/Greenburg area, the area north of Highway 99W and in the Oak Street or Locust Street areas by Washington Square. 6. What can Tigard do locally to complement the regional and state economy? Several respondents felt that improvements to the transportation network are important to support the Tigard economy. This included improving conditions for vehicle traffic, providing access to alternative transportation facilities such as bike lanes and light rail, and working with regional agencies (e.g., JPACT) to solve transportation problems. Two respondents suggested that the City needs an economic development department and/or active business recruitment by the mayor, city manager and economic development staff. Other ideas included lower taxes, incentives to start a business or re-locate in Tigard, and grants for small businesses. Two respondents recommended continuing to improve upon the current level of service and responsiveness of City building and planning staff. One suggested retaining large industrial tracts to attract potential employers. 7. What types of land and/or economic development actions or incentives are most needed in the City to nurture job growth and private investment? Respondents' most common suggestion was for the City to improve infrastructure — particularly transportation. Others suggested lowering taxes and strategically reducing system development charges (SDCs) for small businesses or other potential employers. Another suggested using enterprise zones or urban renewal areas to capture future tax revenues. Two others emphasized the importance of diversifying local businesses and professional services, particularly downtown. 8. What actions should be taken by the City to create a more balanced and sustainable community? Interview respondents had several ideas about how to create a balanced and sustainable community. These include diversifying the types of business in the city, adding more transportation options and creating mixed-use districts. Two people said that the City needs to focus its efforts and build a distinct identity and greater sense of community, including supporting local business and adding more commercial services to residential areas. Others suggested creating affordable housing and mixed-use districts near commuter rail and future light rail. Two respondents noted that they thought the City is doing well with its current efforts. 9. Along those lines, the City wishes to better balance jobs and housing. What types of housing do you think are most needed? While three interviewees responded that the current mix of housing is adequate, others suggested the need for a more diverse housing stock. Specific needs include moderate to low-income housing in or near downtown and commercial services, second-floor residential, condominiums and small lot or zero lot line homes. A few respondents suggested siting mixed-income housing near transit routes. 10. What business clusters exist or should exist in Tigard? What can the City do to build and strengthen these clusters? Most interview respondents said that Tigard does not have business clusters other than some collection of general services and industry. One identified a cluster of finance and professional services. Several felt that Tigard has a good diversity of businesses and does not need to build clusters. Others suggested that the City could encourage clusters by recruiting a large company so that supporting organizations follow, or by acquiring and consolidating large parcels to sell to a major employer. One respondent recommended the City find a niche such as specialty medical, technical or manufacturing that does not compete with existing retail establishments including Washington Square. 11. What opportunities and challenges are there to expanding the traded sector in Tigard? What goods and services could be produced locally rather than imported, and what could be exported? Most respondents did not have an answer for this question. One suggested that all services are imported and another suggested polling the manufacturing sector to identify existing goods and services offered in Tigard. Another interviewee pointed out that there is a great deal of vacant Class A and B office and industrial space, which is both a challenge and an opportunity for the City to attract new industry and business. 12. Are there certain goods or services that you think are missing in the City of Tigard today? Goods and services that interviewees said were missing from Tigard include downtown grocery and retail, upscale restaurants and neighborhood commercial services. Others suggested that Tigard needs light rail or bus rapid transit as well as more parks and trails. One recommended that Tigard develop a unique identity based on neighborhood and housing design in order to compete with the large surrounding retail and cited Sierra Madre, CA as a successful example. 13. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Interview respondents offered the following closing comments: • One person stated that he is frustrated with the lack of economic development activity on the part of the City. • Tigard has the opportunity to be a good example for a small city. Improve transportation options and get people off the freeways while maintaining mobility in and between towns. • The City needs to be efficient to support businesses. Be prepared for the economic upturn. Keep an eye on the planning department and have a contingency plan to respond to an increase in business activity (e.g., hire contractors or new staff). • Be sure to "over-communicate" this and other City projects. Explore and use a variety of communication media, including mail and social media. • It is great that the City is doing this type of outreach and planning. • Tigard's city council members toured Vancouver, BC a few years ago to look at urban planning and transportation issues. The trip, hosted by Metro, was very beneficial in generating ideas on how to meet these challenges. List of Interviewees 1. Kirsten Alvares, Gerber Legendary Blades 2. Jonae Armstrong, Washington Square 3. Mark Ellsworth, Economic Revitalization Team 4. Donald Fox, Fox Chiropractic Clinic 5. Mike Marr, Tigard Central Business District 6. Debi Mollahan, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 7. Bonnie Nakashimada, George Fox University 8. Jonathan Schlueter, Westside Economic Alliance 9. George Specht, Specht Properties 10. Eric Sporre, PACTrust/Oregon Business Park 11. Mike Stevensen, B&B Printing 12. Eric Turner, GVA/Kidder Matthews CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 7,2011 CALL TO 0 1 ER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Hasman Commissioner Muldoon - late Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Absent: Commissioner Ryan Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Duane Roberts, Project Planner; and Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Others Present: Applicant: Foster Finch;Jerry Palmer Stakeholder Advisory Committee Members: Scott Bernhard;John Bucsek; Dave Leinberger; Eric Lindstrom; Doug Vorwaller; and Paul Whitney COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES February 7 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 7 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,GOA Mtg,'frail System MP Progress Report\'IPC Minutes 3-7-1 Ldoc Page 1 of 7 PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None Site visitations: Commissioner Anderson— 6 months ago. No challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, went over the staff report (the staff report is available to the public one week before the hearing.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development Modification will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends approval, subject to the recommended Condition of Approval and Findings within the staff report. QUESTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS Did the ownership change since the last time this was brought before us? Yes— the current applicant is the owner. So, just to be clear, the only thing they're requesting in this case is to change the height and style from the attached to detached, or to do either. And, in doing so, are we opening up anything else that we approved? Or is this opening everything up for fair game when we look at this one issue? No. The subdivision itself- the design and all the features— evegthing will remain the same. So we're just talking house style. That's it? Right. We're just talking the building type and the architectural style. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-II PII White Oak Village,EOA Mtg,frail System MP Progress Report\TI'C Minutes 3-7-11 dor Page 2 of 7 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Jerry Palmer, a civil engineer and technical consultant to the LLC, noted this is a finished subdivision. He explained to the commissioners what was already done. He said they are dealing with the market now as it is versus what it was in 2007, [when this was first approved]. The request is to allow the attached or detached out of choice - so there will open up a variety of housing for this development and not just have the attached duets. That variety is important in that it offers some flexibility in the marketplace —which is very important today. He explained the financial implications of owners choosing attached or detached. When the Planning Commission considered in '07 —they had a plot plan that had them all attached and,with the approval, that plot plan became a part of the record. So what they're asking is to remove that plot plan so they can have that variety of housing. Palmer went on to say "The second one is—and I have pictures of it (Exhibit A) — adjoining us on the west side is RAZ buses. At the time the Planning Commission originally considered this, there was quite a bit of discussion that there needed to be higher vegetation to have visual screening for that west side, particularly. We wish to do that. With a beautiful wall we want to get height above it so we can block the view of those buses. We want to create that visual barrier. So, in summary, we concur with the staff report, their findings and their proposed condition of approval. Times are very different. The financing—the price point— and the loan qualifications are most important these days and we need to open up the marketplace to get these lots on market with homes being built on them." Foster Finch, the applicant, spoke at this point- saying the main thing they're after is having a more saleable product and, by having the units detached, believes they will sell more quickly. The driving force behind this request is to get them sold. He is about 99% sure they will be all detached, not attached—because that would simplify the HOA. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS So will you build this yourself? I'll probably build it myself:But, potentially, you could sell a few lots here or there— so you want the flexibility for a builder to come in and have some say? Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR City Councilor, Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard, said the 2007 hearing on White Oak was the very last hearing she participated in as a Planning Commissioner. She said she was there to be available to the commission if anyone had questions. There were no questions. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION: None. I:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-1 Ldoc Page 3 of 7 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING At this point, President Walsh opened the meeting up for deliberations. DELIBERATIONS There was no further discussion and a motion was made. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt: "I move for approval of application PDR2011-00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report that was received. This motion includes the landscaping plan." The motion was approved unanimously. WORK SESSION—PROGRESS REPORT —TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Duane Roberts, Project Planner, told the commissioners that the Parks Manager, Steve Martin, and he, are co-managing the development of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan. He said he brought with him 6 of the 8 citizens who had devoted considerable volunteer time and effort to providing oversight of the plan's preparation. He gave a brief overview of the planning work done to date. For the record, and as pointed out in the packet material the commissioners had received already, the purpose of developing the trails master plan was to give some direction for completing the Greenway Trail network identified in the Park System Master Plan,which was adopted in 2009. Referring to the project list that had been included in the commissioners packets, he said it's a work in progress. In final form, the project list will be revised to include committed Fanno Creek Trail projects and also to include a placeholder for future Westside Trail projects as well as any other changes that Council directs. He gave some information on the next steps: o April 11th Steve Martin and Duane Roberts will give a presentation on the draft plan to the Parks Board. o April 19th—Planning Commission is invited to a presentation of the draft plan in a joint Council and Planning Commission workshop —which will include opportunities for Planning Commission and City Council input. o In May— as required by the IGA with ODOT for grant funding, staff returns to the Planning Commission, and later Council—with Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Planning (TSP) amendments related to the Trails Master Plan. 7:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-741 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-11.doc Page 4 of 7 These will be minor amendments, such as "the City shall develop guidelines for trails roadway crossing improvements" — that kind of generic language. ® Steps after that are under review and will be decided later on. Roberts noted that the purpose for bringing the group of citizens there before them was to give the commission an idea of the process used to develop the trails plan and the views and impressions of the citizen committee that helped put it together. In addition, the citizen committee wanted to be available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have about the plan and process. Roberts introduced the following SAC (Stakeholder Advisory Committee) panel who are 6 of the 8 members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Before that, he thanked them on behalf of the City for all the tremendous work they put into this, and told them that their efforts are greatly appreciated. The following SAC members were introduced: Paul Whitney, Dave Leinberger, Scott Bernhard, Doug Vorwaller,John Buscek, and Eric Lindstrom. They each gave a short talk explaining their various reasons for interest in this, and for getting involved. COMMENTS/QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS The commissioners thanked the committee for all their hard work and passion. There were some questions regarding how the priority items came to be. Roberts said there are combinations of factors —the consultant will talk about those on the 19th of April at the Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop. WORK SESSION—ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS (EOA) COMMITTEE MEETING Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, thanked the Commission for all the time and effort they'd put into going through this process. He noted there'd been some very productive conversations, and he knew it wasn't always easy to maintain the narrow focus of the EOA, given the Commission's interest in the larger topic of economic development. He told the commissioners that staff really appreciates their dedication to focusing on the task at hand. He said the purpose of the meeting was to have this final review of the draft EOA before the scheduled April 4th public hearing. Wyss gave a short recap of recommended changes and then went over a few changes that had been made to the recommendations based on the last meeting. He noted one of the new policies based on CEDOs is the removal of the term "smart growth"—_which_is replaced with some descriptive elements of"smart growth" development. In addition, there is an added recommended action measure regarding the monitoring of economic developmental efforts of other jurisdictions for risk/reward. He I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-11.dot Page 5 of 7 reminded them that they'd had a conversation regarding high speed rail and the need for Tigard to be engaged in the conversation. He hoped everyone had sufficient time to review the draft EOA and that staff was looking for final feedback. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS One of the commissioners said "I think this is well written." Another noted: "We've seen all the components; it's now been nicely put together." At this point, Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, said they're talking about a 10 year horizon. She encouraged the commissioners to look ahead and ask themselves "What's coming 8 or 10 years from now that maybe we ought to be paying attention to?" The first bell that gets rung for her is high capacity transit. She said that was addressed at the previous week's presentation on Economic Development- how high capacity transit and the redevelopment opportunities that we have are as much a part of the future as any of the other economic development strategies that were laid out for them. She encouraged the commissioners, telling them that if they have thoughts on work-plan items, the Council is interested in hearing what their thoughts are. President Walsh spoke a bit about the previous week's Economic Development presentation. He noted Downtown Tigard was a major topic and that he would have liked to have also heard more about—given the location, what is the most productive use of land. Hartnett said part the Council goals for this year addresses the Tigard Triangle. She noted the commissioners can make a recommendation on that or simply show their support of that goal. One of the commissioners suggested that the economic development focus should be on other areas and not just Downtown. He said Downtown is important; however, there are other areas in Tigard that are also important—particularly Washington Square. He noted most people, when at Washington Square, don't even know it's in Tigard. He said more people frequent areas such as that than the downtown area. Another commissioner mentioned Multnomah Village as being a place to look at to get ideas for Downtown. Darren Wyss went over the upcoming EOA schedule: April 4th—EOA Public Hearing May 10th—It goes to Council The commissioners would like Sheila Martin back for a more focused conversation. They felt the previous week's discussion was more broad-brushed and introductory. Hartnett agreed. I:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mfg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-11.doc Page 6 of 7 OTHER BUSINESS Susan Hartnett told the commissioners that the Planning Commission "matrix" is being updated and she will be sharing that with them soon. She said on May 17th there is a joint meeting with Council scheduled. She said the commissioners will want to share the Planning Commission goals for the year (that will have been worked on the month before) — and also the regulatory improvement initiative. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning mmission Secretary /0_ ATTEST: President Dave Walsh I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-11.doc Page 7 of 7 w Y .,' �Y , ti �Y, + itt a' x� pk • �1P- i. 'm..,,v ^m..+A:.. ..', 7. �., :'-'•-• 1 .. ..+a. r - Faywn r v , { �! e 9rl � r ' x CC y" r , _ 9 �' ."rtts +€$r 'r.' +°++, �S 5 r � 4' rt' ,C a; r?k 1 �", t;:., ., �,, . M' -�:�� x:.<. +?r S,tfic e.a" � t r-„ t' I���' i�, t, ' yam?. � -i*" n 3 '��*, ..,:- ,,r�:. ,..9..._ ,� ;a; -7:1,4._ .. a7 .n;~*4 :,, .4.:' �r3: „,,'''z-,Q.,:=',,4,',,,..,. , riz r 'n „'. ..ti ,ae a', "TM's,. r a 2`..YKti �” 1�*r. k ':;v",i 1;4'4'6 9'6'7-r '";n a?'. ti `'""-c ;�i: 1 C'ri?u, C RI.4 i' a.1" h . .... .,,.. ,., ... • +. :r t. �`` �':.; m .r^:,,_.I- s ..'r." �.,, , :t :t �-wf +,. 4 a, ,.,:-. M-, r ��' '�� :€;',� ''s v� ,�,u., .�`•� ,i. y ;�:` i _ F f ,§':.�t '',1'.''''I''''7 .,:-,,,, ws w c *;�,,:`4 �,.,. P.:;,...,, ,�.: .� :,,. . _.., r ': +n ar ;.s M ,.�s-.` a ;: 5• rz.�z _, , ffi om s.• :a,. '"''''''-'1,;;;,' .�,. , x at' + It,.ua, z',., a 4 ., ,'• ..y :e. „a: ; ,a z '.„�; q _ u S ,1,,"z°i'r,li. " ,,:,,-4.,:1;•,..,.,...'•�, �- fi 1. at . r "�# • `tee as"* ' =it:41q': �' '' .,;-,,,,..:-!'-'.0:':.•-::.,.'„ :•:.,_,:j'0:'", •" �. -.,':i',..”-: +• "k, ,,,,,..-",„,0,,,,, .j�c.' ':,'t's '! °� «�P • gym, •t .z .:40• �,y • Si._ _ - 4 fi • F' �^ � J r ntL l ! k .d d , av& �f fi �; �r }� C . . rca,.. � -�.�r,n: �` �� ", '�F3. ;�, °r,..., ., .:�.,,„, .. „ ..t. � x.. as :^; .' ,.:.-„ ,+�� ¢e +,._::r.. ... . .may. y .=h.. 4. `.....s',+ . .., `w A . .:. - w ,", "°'... :,,s�.., ..,,..:.. 4 -s� .�-.',� �. €*” :;'!. �.-:: -4 ,.,gym 5.gi 4:,1 ', ..r rn_ 53 t4& .r s '• y„ - ,.�; ^'° '„- .+.. .y M.t .x "3w �+ ``” �y`�"_,,, a Vit _ .,. meg, ,,. �� mss. � ' a . a4t«u `"" '":. a-., +„.,�a �, . . . � .:: '''?',,,t.'41•44.1•,!'• k,,, � s �'''',4f;17,..-1':.4.;:-•'-'f'4"'"..,„; 'Sr ,� 4 sw .„; ; � -..::-',.0,,,,/,-.,..--,-7„,'•,--,,,,..��-.=.-,-;•'-•;..,-,‘,':„.,-.,-.1,"4,',51-,";'' -` ,. �^cn�„ ,rNt � '�,���� 'y'e "" `� 7� a r y 1�� ry ,�; �ua �� � >�-v. ; .. ''T ''''-','''''',1•04-r•----,,,----- , ,5, a "°n -t",'=1.1, ,` yM-w+�C+;" s h;' " 'ra ;t �.- m z e +,x M1::k ! ,mow em §'13 *•- „7 rl "�'•• °..'"` a.. r •..:»:- .;rte �, fi ,. ," .. .� � ,s� °'rte o r :;. t + , 'r-� r aps d :^'4 . M, ,�" ;, k y ,{ g `•• a. 4 • ..rte,... . a µ Ytt4dM1 iitflie i a`+ .FI y .isX ' "'„._;.71:''•;741H),:" . Wa tY y:1 ^ b _" '• " ' .kms a € t ' ,� .,:.4,.. t. -,„.,.::‘,,„,,-1. • G1i: T ' ,. , \i''.,:', i }M1d U' 2 ` a` '''''''.',"41;;;41.''' "y4 s . ��'A v k <x� S 4� fR` yr Yw�'" S,'�� „ 4 � W Y• P r ay! A d ti ',i it = 4 �x b _ ,w P .T P yd fiw ''''o 1.;.. ka }h• ,r' * , 6 � ,"1 i 4 '':,'- 1:-.1..- '-'-''''''' .,'''''',qi$7;.''''', ..‘ * ' ' .! a u4 � `Se, r #r _` � �4 , . yk, .- u € 1.,,,,:-.,:: .� ,, N.1 � , , � .� viM --..'"•-,. ..-.,,,,4,,-. � .,, y u ' , ,�" ria � 5 - ^q, .b : €d )�+AAs 47,1....)..„.k t as , � ; �'a�.. � d �'9 � A +. , iB 4 ' �4 '14.1.°T,-,, ,h _,a �f $ �M ., :....,'Iii;',„:".- " N"� b� y i +,,:,i 40. �a tayt 1 � " fir " ' P .< , � 'ttl „- ,4,;',"P••_',3‹,-.:.*:"-!' ?- , ,-;,-- '•::t..41,,#,,.,,,,-11°•,,-,... . -_ ,,, -,,kf.--:',-„,.,- -- - ,- n ,./.,"...--1.r,4. .,,;,,4 s . -' 7—,,,-_, ,nye� _;:p.,,,,. ° t .y ` € (' , py ' bt.:;;; i "\s F ',, i 'b.. �';:msec ', :�� -4.4.'''',.s. t > '' '' ',,,,, Ir'' ',.,..,.-- '''''''''''''''''''''''',;:..4i0.------,!,-.,.."-...t'l.,- 1”- - � -a"- "aD'7Ft fi � � '''.:r,-. ..;,'"'•` � 'ger �9 i a��° ,�E 1,;'4' m .'-.*:...- -.,....i.-,,,-;.1,:',,,,,,,,.;-.,- qq h �/ke"fiF � ye - 4;Y^,'. '141 . v ..-:,41,A.,- ` • is ;< & ;'i!^f y ..x' ': " wy` d �F. ` € ! .,, ^ -77:7' -- ..0)„,,,,, , ry .,"�"` y m t )r r., , D d I 1 i'. Y d f � :'!�' �&' 4`..".--„,,,'. Rpt 9 y; }_ > -�' Pf'.hKi Ike $ ,"pfrU�,. ��!� t`"x ¢ `6 ' ,. ' _., x.. ., o � '' .. u.e6.sy'.x ^ mom`" L� -