Loading...
PC Packet 5-5-25PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – May 5, 2025 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 MEETING DATE: May 5, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. HYBRID MEETING IN-PERSON: City of Tigard – Town Hall SW HALL BLVD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 MS TEAMS: https://www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:01 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES 7:10 p.m. a. February 3, 2025 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING – FEMA Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Amendments DCA2025-00001 7:15 p.m. Senior Planner Agnes Lindor 6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:15 p.m. 7. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m. City of Tigard P lanning Commission Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – February 3, 2025 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov MEETING DATE: Monday, February 3, 2025 - 7:00 p.m. HYBRID MEETING IN-PERSON: City of Tigard – Town Hall SW HALL BLVD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 MS TEAMS: https://www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC CALL TO ORDER President Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Jackson, Vice-President Miranda, Commissioner Bowerman, Commissioner Brandt, Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Schuck, Commissioner Sabbe, Alt. Commissioner Sprague. City Councilor Jake Schlack attended as the Planning Commission liaison. Excused: Commissioner Choudhury, Commissioner Tiruvallur. Staff Present: Schuyler Warren, Asst. Community Development Director, Jenny McGinnis Associate Planner, Buck Smith Principal Engineer and Joanne Bengtson, Confidential Executive Assistant. COMMUNICATIONS No communications to report. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES December 16, 2024, January 6, 2025 Both minutes were approved with minor corrections for attendance and clarity. PUBLIC HEARING (continuation)- Planned Development/Subdivision OVERLOOK AT RIVER TERRACE Case Number PDR2024-00001/SUB2024-00001/SLR2024- 00006/TUP2024-00010-00012 Associate Planner Jenny McGinnis, Principal Engineer Buck Smith OPEN PUBLIC HEARING: President Jackson opened the public hearing – a continuation for the Overlook at River Terrace and introduced Associate Planner McGinnis to provide a brief recap of the proposal and an update on the comments received since Part I of the hearing on January 6, 2025. STAFF REPORT Planner McGinnis stated the 18-acre site is located north of Beef Bend Road off SW April Lane, within the River Terrace Plan District. The proposal is for an 81-lot consolidated plan development for small form residential and row house development and includes a concept plan, detailed plan subdivision, sensitive lands review and temporary use permits. City of Tigard P lanning Commission Minutes 2 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 At the January 6, 2025, public hearing, Andrew Stamp of VF Law, on behalf of the adjacent property owner to the north, Cindi Peterson, requested the record remain open to allow Ms. Peterson more time to work with the applicant regarding concerns about tree removal and improvements along the northern boundary of the proposed development. In a letter from VF Law dated January 20, 2025, Ms. Peterson requested compensation for privacy impacts to her property created by development, a fence along the dividing property line, and metal gates operated by key fob at the intersection of the roundabout and April Lane and at the intersection of Woodhue Street with Ms. Peterson’s property, and the potential for purchase or an easement of the southeast corner of Miss Peterson's property in order to build the proposed extension of SW Woodhue St.at full width. The applicant responded on January 27, 2025, stating they met with Miss Peterson and will continue to coordinate to reach a mutually agreed upon mitigation and improvement plan. The applicant proposed two additional conditions of approval. The first is the applicant is to coordinate with the northern property owner to reach a mutual agreement regarding the shared edge treatment of their properties and the second proposed condition is if the northern property lot agrees to grant right-of-way dedication for Woodhue St., the construction document shall include full improvements for SW Woodhue St. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planner McGinnis noted staff’s appreciation for both Miss Peterson and the applicant for continued work with each other. Planner McGinnis said if the property owner sells to facilitate development of an extension at the southeast corner of the land, it would require a minor modification application to allow staff to fully assess the redesign of Woodhue Street to its full width to make sure the street meets standards. We are supportive of that potential extension. Staff find that the concerns raised during the extended public comment period are not related to the land use application approval criteria and are best handled through private negotiations as they have been doing thus far. Planner McGinnis asked the Commission if they had any questions and hearing none, she said staff finds the development meets all approval criteria as proposed and therefore recommends that the application be approved by the Planning Commission without additional conditions of approval. 3 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 Planner McGinnis then asked the Commission to: 1. Approve the proposed concept plan 2. Approve the detailed case numbers PDR2024-00001, SUB2024-00001, SLR2024-00006, and TUP2024-00010-00012. At the conclusion of Ms. McGinnis’ presentation, Asst. Director Warren shared a point of procedure with the commission. He said the applicant and the respondent were both in attendance and the commission has the ability under the law, to reopen the hearing for additional testimony. This would potentially reopen the record to allow new testimony or a request for an extension of the record for people to submit new testimony if it would be helpful for the commission’s deliberations. The other option is for the commission to proceed to deliberations. President Jackson asked Commissioners if there was support for continuation or reopening the public comment section of the hearing? Hearing no support, he gaveled to deliberation and asked to hear from each Commissioner. DELIBERATION Vice President Miranda supports the density coming to the area in this well thought out plan and appreciates the ownership of the roundabout creating ease for the future. She stated disappointment around the lack of pedestrian connectivity that designers find impossible to mitigate. She’s looking forward to the project moving forward and then asked staff if future development connecting Woodhue at the normal width required a sliver of the property to acquired, would the city make it a condition of approval and finish the street to connect to the east? Commissioner Brandt stated the sliver Vice President Miranda mentioned allows access for sidewalks at the full width of the standard improvements and would be part of the minor modification Planner McGinnis said would be required to make sure improvements are done to standard. He likes the idea, the density is good for the area with the number of expected residents, water and infrastructure will be good. The trail system is going to be key to getting people to move around without cars and get kids to the school, and he’s happy to support this application. He stated his appreciation for the willingness of the applicant to negotiate with the landowner. Commissioner Sabbe would like to see a stronger plan for connections to the school and to the west – but perhaps that could be worked on later. She too, is pleased to see the developer working with the property owner to negotiate an agreement. Happy to see the mixed density coming in the middle housing and plans for connectivity. Commissioner Bowerman said the overall concerns she had (school connectivity, social congregating areas) have been addressed and doesn’t think they should stop the project. She’s supportive of the project and had no additional comments about conditions. The fact that the builder is working with the property owner is excellent. Commissioner Murphy asked if either of the properties to the west or northwest are currently in the process of securing an application for development? Planner McGinnis said no, not to her knowledge. He asked how much on-street parking will be required; how many cars do we expect/predict to use on-street parking for houses in this price range. Is parking allowed on both sides of the road? Asst. Director Warren said the townhouses have a 2-car garage and each small form residential home has a 2-car garage and 2-space driveway. On-street parking is public space and usable by anyone so it’s not attributable to a single home. Also, there are no longer minimum parking requirements by state law, but River Terrace has on-street standards. The closest we’ve come to a study was ITE, which is based on trips, and we can model where they originate and terminate. Asst. Director Warren said there’s not a good local study of vehicle ownership in new developments. It’s not data that we have available or considered as part of this application. President Jackson asked Commissioner Murphy for his overall thoughts, and he said his comment is about 4 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 parking and he’s sympathetic to planning’s challenge to predict the future without parking data. There’s likely to be an HOA in the development and they generally regulate parking for units – he’d like the planning department to regulate the bylaws or look at the CCNRs. Commissioner Schuck said he thinks it’s a nice project, and it looks like the lots are good sized. It’s excellent to see the developer working with neighbors – and noted his appreciation for all the work done to include the trail system. He supports the work presented and has no recommendations for conditions to the application or approval. Alt. Commissioner Sprague said she appreciates efforts to preserve as much of the tree grove as possible, otherwise, everything’s been said. President Jackson asked if anyone had comments about the conditions and heard none. He noted that he would first ask for approval of the concept plan (the overall idea of what will be build; general density) and secondly, approval of the detailed plan development (actual lot sizes, layout of development). MOTION & VOTE | PDR2024-00001 and SUB2024-00001 Commissioner Schuck motioned for approval of the concept plan PDR2024-00001 and SUB2024-00001 and that we adopt the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. President Jackson asked if there were any additional amendments? Seeing none, he called for a vote of the commission; all voted “Aye”, and the concept plan was approved unanimously. MOTION & VOTE | Detailed plan PDR2024-00001, SUB2024-00001 and SLR2024-00006, TUP2024- 00010-00012 Vice President Miranda motioned to approve the application of the detailed plan for PDR2024-00001 and SUB2024-00001, including temporary use permits for SLR2024-00006 and TUP2024-00010 – 00012 and adopt the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony received. Commissioner Schuck seconded the motion. President Jackson asked for a vote, and the Commission expressed unanimous approval. President Jackson addressed the audience by stating that anyone who wished to appeal this item should contact the city’s planning division for an explanation of requirements. PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Sensitive Lands/Minor Modification TIGARD STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Case Number: CPA2024-00001/ SLR2024-00002/ MMD2024-00002 Associate Planner Jenny McGinnis, Principal Engineer Buck Smith President Jackson introduced the next item on the agenda, the Tigard Street Bridge Replacement. He read required statements and noted the order of presentation and testimony for the hearing. Since the city is also the applicant, staff from Public Works will present that information. President Jackson asked if any commission members wished to abstain or declare a conflict of interest. None were offered. Then he asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge any member of the commission for bias or conflict of interest; none offered. When the President asked whether any commission member wished to report ex parte contacts in the case, Commissioner Brandt shared that he uses the bridge and trail daily. When asking whether any commissioner had visited the site of the proposal, Commissioner Murphy indicated he’d visited the location. No challenges were raised by the public contesting the jurisdiction of the Commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Jenny McGinnis gave the staff report. The bridge replacement is a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment across multiple properties totaling approximately 3.76 acres. Located west of the Tigard St. and Tiedeman Ave. intersection, it includes a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to remove Goal 5 Safe Harbor 5 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 protection from areas designated Significant Wetland (0.59 acre) and Fanno Creek vegetated corridor (0.14 acre); a Sensitive Lands Review for work done within a FEMA floodway; and a Minor Modification for a stormwater facility in Dirksen Nature Park. The project was identified in a 2016 ODOT bridge inspection, with emergency repairs done in 2017. With critical structural deficiencies identified by staff, plans for a full replacement were added to the city’s CIP. The bridge experiences frequent flooding, has narrow vehicle lanes, no shoulders and limited pedestrian amenities. The application would replace the bridge with a durable precast concrete slab bridge and elevate the finished roadway seven feet higher than it is today. To bring it above the 100-year floodplain, the project also includes construction of a stormwater facility in Dirksen Nature Park and lighting improvements at the Fanno Creek Trail crossing of Tigard Street, west of the bridge. Assoc. Planner McGinnis shared images from the wetlands and stream corridors map. What appears to be wetland removal from our inventory is actually removing Goal 5 Safe Harbor protection from this specific area in order to construct improvements that include 12-foot-wide travel lanes, paved shoulders, sidewalks and curbed sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. She said the city completed an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESSE) analysis with the application, a requirement of the comprehensive plan map amendment process to justify an amendment or demonstrate the wetlands are not significant. The conclusion of the ESSE analysis was that limiting the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use and more importantly, allow us to realize community benefits like improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, prevent bridge closures due to flooding and ongoing maintenance to avoid the possibility of bridge failure, more reliable emergency response time, construction jobs and services related to the project build and surplus mitigation for impacts to resource areas. Mitigation will take place at Englewood Park because no feasible sites were identified within the project area. While only 34,824 sq ft of mitigation is required to counteract the 27,859 sq ft of permanent impact area, 6 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 37,943 sq ft of vegetated corridor will be created. This provides additional benefit in advance of future encroachments on these resource areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposal provides detailed information on how the development complies with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, statewide planning goals and Metro titles no. 3 and no. 8. It meets all applicable development code and conditions of approval and staff finds there are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed development. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment, sensitive lands review and minor modification, (CPA2024- 00001/SLR2024-00002/MMD2024-00002) subject to conditions of approval in the staff report. QUESTIONS Commissioner Brandt asked for confirmation – the application won’t include complete sidewalks from Tiedeman to the apartment complex or from Tiedemann to the current walking trail in Dirksen Nature Park? Assoc. Planner McGinnis confirmed the sidewalk will be limited to the project area, and not connect all the way to the apartments. That's one reason why the paved shoulders will not be striped as bike lanes. They’ll be there to serve as pedestrian and bike space and as things redevelop that they can be turned into fully functioning and striped bike lanes and pedestrian improvements. The bridge will include a curbed sidewalk for improved pedestrian safety when walking across the bridge. A Commissioner asked if the Englewood Park green space is creating new greenspace or setting aside existing space for protection. Jenny said she would ask the applicant (Tigard Public Works Zach Morris) to answer that. Vice President Miranda asked what staff means by Goal 5. Asst. CD Director Warren stated that its one of 14 Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 5 applies to our resource areas (natural resources, historic resources, etc.) and the purpose of any analysis under Goal 5 is to assure we’re balancing community needs with preservation of those resources. Commissioner Sabbe saw a memo from the DLCD in the materials and asked for clarification about the state’s wetland concerns. Assoc. Planner McGinnis said she spoke with the DLCD and cleared up their confusion about the language in our code. The DLCD staff though we were removing actual wetland from our inventory instead of removing the Goal 5 Safe Harbor protection from that site. We are retaining the wetland and removing protection only for this specific project. Asst. Director Warren said under Goal 5 certain wetlands are afforded the highest level of protection against all development in and around the wetland and its buffer. Any exception requires and ESSE analysis which looks at the proposed impacts to the wetland in balance with the needs of the community. The wetland remains, but this removes the local significance of a specific site for a specific activity to occur. Commissioner Brandt asked whether a floodplain permit is coming or if this temporarily removes restrictions to do the work. Assoc. Planner McGinnis said the Sensitive Lands Review with this application is related to work in the floodplain. A no-rise analysis was conducted as part of the application and showed that raising the bridge up, also means the water behind it will be less likely to pool behind the bridge like it does at now and at N. Dakota. She recommended asking the applicant for more detail. Commissioner Murphy asked how long it will take for the wetlands to recover from construction? Assoc. Planner McGinnis said the technical experts on the applicant side could answer that. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION The application was submitted by Zach Morris on behalf of Tigard Public Works as project manager for the bridge replacement project. He introduced representatives from DOWL, the consultant, with lead civil engineer Nick Robertson joining the meeting remotely and James Stupfel present and leading the project’s environmental 7 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 permitting and compliance. Mr. Robertson said the existing bridge was constructed in 1958 and in 2016 ODOT identified deficiencies, allowing emergency repairs in 2017 with the understanding we would be replacing the bridge. Mr. Morris stated that even though it’s a city project, we have to apply for permits like any applicant and shared a timeline that will continue through 2025. Zach reported we’re at 90% design completion and procuring other permits. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, it would go to Council later in the spring. Once Council gives approval for ROW acquisition, the project will be at 100%. The construction window for this work is restricted to July 15 to September 30. We won’t be able to make that window so we expect construction will begin in 2026. Zach noted that the project includes Rapid Flashing Beacons as one of the pedestrian safety features for crossing Tigard St. to the Fanno Creek trail. The minor modification request is to install a stormwater facility within the Dirksen Nature Park boundary. The stormwater facility does not impact any park facilities and isn’t sited within any sensitive lands. QUESTIONS Commissioner Murphy asked how much wetland will be removed from the Fanno Creek corridor and how long will it take to get the wetland back? James said 31,000 sq ft will be removed and the vegetative corridor will be enhanced at Englewood Park with the goal of protecting the existing natural areas. There are some grassy areas that will come up to a good corridor condition according to Clean Water Services (CWS). We expect 21,000 sq ft will return and we’re obligated to plant at least 8,200 sq ft of those to demonstrate public benefit for CWS and we estimate another 13,000 sq ft of replanting onsite in areas that were vegetated corridor but unfortunately can’t be considered temporary because we have grading at the site. o What is the useful lifespan of the bridge? Nick said 75 years. o Have you included seismic considerations? Yes, the bridge will be designed to modern standards and would survive a Cascadia subduction zone 9.0 magnitude quake. Commissioner Schuck asked what would happen if it’s not approved? Zach said ODOT identified the deficiencies, and they’re aware our emergency repairs were deemed temporary. The bridge could collapse in a flood, and as it further deteriorates, we would be forced to apply vehicle weight limits. Because the project is identified as part of Tigard’s Capital Improvement Plan, it’s a key infrastructure project in our transportation system. Vice President Miranda asked about elevation. Zach stated the floodplain would be above the 100-year floodplain upstream and downstream, hydrology and grading will prevent future flooding along the creek. Commissioner Brandt: getting the bridge up, heavy rains wouldn’t flood, Zach said even with grading, there would be more room under the bridge to get it elevated. o Bio retention facility – where will it be and what is it for? Jenny shared the natural resource areas in the west SW portion of the map, within Dirksen Nature Park. Zach said it will help meet water quality standards and handle additional stormwater runoff from the bridge construction. It will be a permanent structure and handle runoff from the bridge once constructed. o To the west by the apartments, the sidewalk flares out without pedestrian elements. What is the plan for that? Zach said west to the apartments will get a sidewalk, which makes sense within reason of the footprint. A year ago, engineering staff conducted a study of the Tiedeman Ave. corridor and found costs prohibitive to install changes that would be discarded with future infrastructure development. We want to guide pedestrians to the new RFP crossing to get to the north side to N. Dakota. The sidewalk we build on the northside will connect to the existing sidewalk by the apartments, improving gaps in connectivity. No other questions were asked, and President Jackson moved to the next phase: 8 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one signed up to speak in the room or online, at which point a resident expressed a desire to testify as a late sign up. Leann Bowker, 11496 SW Cornell Place, shared her support for widening the bridge area. She asked if the proposal includes removing the hedge on the right side from the bridge to the Tiedeman Ave. intersection that blocks visibility for cars and pedestrians.  Mr. Morris said the vegetation on the SW corner isn’t part of this application since the project doesn’t extend all the way to the intersection. We propose removing only what we impact from the actual work of building the curb and gutter and widening in that area. Mr. Morris finds this to be an appropriate request to share with Tigard’s Traffic Engineer and Streets Supervisor for review. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Jackson closed the public portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION Commissioner Schuck: shared his appreciation for Oregon’s wetland protections. He supported this as the right kind of project to keep traffic and people flowing and the thoughtfulness that went into the design is remarkable. Commissioner Bowerman: shared her concern about public safety and that the bridge hasn’t been replaced yet. She stated the project should be a priority for getting underway before disaster could strike. While vegetation is important, she supports public safety ahead of the wetland. Commissioner Brandt: said he supports the project and has been watching it since 2015. Replacing the Tigard St. Bridge will help repair the riparian zone and although complicated by Goal 5, he’s happy to get this to council because it’s of major importance. Replacement will assuage his concerns about east – west connectivity, bus and fire district vehicles getting across the bridge safely and he expects it will help with flooding farther up the Fanno Creek Trail and restore access to neighbors in locations that have been unusable. Vice President Miranda: said she agreed with the commission’s comments and hope the sooner work starts, the better for the community. President Jackson noted that this hearing is a bit different. It’s quasi-judicial but the Planning Commission’s decision tonight for a recommendation to City Council for their decision. Unlike most of the commission’s quasi-judicial hearings, tonight we are looking for a motion to make our recommendation to Council. MOTION | CPA2024-00001/SLR2024-00002/MMD2024-00002 Commissioner Bowerman: Motioned to recommend the Tigard City Council approve applications CPA2024- 00001/SLR2024-00002/MMD2024-00002. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. President Jackson asked for a vote by the commission, members voted “aye” unanimously for approval. President Jackson shared that ordinarily we would have date certain that council is hearing the item, but we don’t have that meeting date now. If anyone has concerns, please contact Tigard Planning staff. OTHER BUSINESS  Asst. Director Warren reminded members about the Oregon Govt. Ethics mandatory training on March 25, 2025 in town hall. Thanks for those of you who completed the training online.  President Jackson asked Mr. Warren if he’s aware of any federally funded projects the Planning Commission should be concerned about in the midst of broad federal cuts occurring in D.C.? Asst. Director Warren noted the pace of changes underway are too unpredictable to have a clear answer. While the Planning division doesn’t have anything directly funded from federal sources, most of our transportation projects that 9 Tigard Planning Commission Minutes – February 3, 2025 receive federal funds come to us through ODOT, so we feel marginally better about funding. There are some federal considerations that are giving us pause – one is a (appx) $119,000 grant from the Dept. of Energy to promote energy efficiency in the River Terrace 2.0 climate work. We don’t know what will happen and may need to find alternate ways to fund the work. Another unknown is Infrastructure and Jobs Act funding that was available to communities for solar installation & tax credits. Though not available for non-profits and governments because we don’t pay taxes, it creates a reimbursable tax credit that would cover 30 percent of the installation of solar, or batteries. Changes to that program would create a substantial impact to the planning side of community development and result in a real-world impact to our current and future work.  Mr. Warren offered to provide the Commission with an overview of the relevant bills and legislative issues since the Oregon legislature is now in session.  Commissioners asked for a poster or handout referencing Oregon land use goals. Joanne will send.  Councilor Sabbe asked how close we are to meeting the metrics of land use goals – are they 5-year? 10-year goals – for instance, middle housing. How close are we to meeting them? Asst. Director Warren said the challenge to measuring success is that statewide planning goals are written as aspirational around big ideas and outcomes and not results. The success of the system would be measured differently depending on who you ask. Schuyler said the best he could do would be to highlight some of the tension that affects outcomes. One example is Goal 1(Community Involvement in land use decisions) and Goal 10 (Housing). We want to meet the need for more housing and involve community members. Conflicts arise between people in an established neighborhood who don’t want disruption from new development, but say housing is important - just not by them. The contradictions don’t always provide a way to measure/meet everyone’s needs. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Brandt made a motion for adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Murphy. President Jackson declared the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Joanne Bengtson, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Nathan Jackson, Planning Commission President