01/04/2005 - Packet PD REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
January 4, 2005
Tigard Permit Center
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Agenda
1 . Roll Call 7:00-7:05
2. Discussion: Proposed Code Changes 7:05-9:00
3. Additional Agenda Items 9:00-9:15
Short HistoryI I
1w
.00P 1
pp
�r .� �.,��. �r ., �f �~�tis • _-: �'d f ,•� ..,..
'r
�i
'••qY _ i. may''\. r - ' ,-'..j, ����.1
5
A� .► _ aA ti �
r � �. 41C-
4c
" f
Planned Development Review Committee
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CO]VIlVi1=E MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 2004
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
1. Roll Call
Staff Liaison, Morgan Tracy welcomed the group and opened the meeting at 7:10
p.m. Mr. Tracy called roll.
2. Update: City Council Meeting
The committee was apprised of the City Council Status Update Meeting held on
November 16, 2004. In attendance at that meeting were: Gretchen Buehner, Charles
Schwarz, John Frewing, Alice Ellis Gaut, and Sue Beilke. The committee sought
input from council on three issues: open space preservation, size thresholds for PD
eligibility, and public involvement in evaluating the proposed changes. The council
had a fairly diverse range of opinion on each of the topics, but the overall consensus
was that the committee should examine all options, prepare a recommendation and
send it up. The council liked the idea of conducting charettes to test the language,
but as for general public comment, the planning commission hearings will provide
suitable opportunity to comment. There was also a consistent agreement that open
space was a key component of Planned Developments in terms of mitigating
impacts. The council did not agree on the PD size threshold, with some arguing that
small lots should not be developed if they are difficult, and others were more
interested in ensuring that PD's were compatible regardless of lot size. Staff offered
that draft code language would probably be ready by March, and the Council noted
that it was likely to take much longer to address these issues. The committee spent
some time discussing the merits of a minimum lot size threshold, and ultimately
agreed that these smaller lots require the greater flexibility, provided that such
flexibility is used to promote livability within the development and surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Discussion: Proposed Purpose Statement
The balance of the meeting, the committee discussed staff's compilation of
committee members' suggestions for altering the purpose statement. By and large,
the general spirit of the purpose was accepted by the committee, but specific word
choices were discussed. In most cases, minor revisions were all that were necessary
to address agreed upon. The discussion of the purpose statement also led to spirited
discussion of what "open space" constituted (i.e. active human use or passive
viewing), and who the benefactors of the open space are. Generally there was
agreement that the amount of open space should be commensurate with the lot sizes
proposed, i.e. the smaller the lots, the greater the open space. A fee in lieu of open
space could be offered if there is unsuitable area for recreational open space.
Other amenities were discussed in context of developing a toolbox of ideas for
planning commissioners and applicants. Among these were school bus stops for
children internal to the neighborhood, an interpretive signage program for natural
resource education, and tot lots or other neighborhood specific facilities to benefit the
1
Planned Development Review Committee
residents within the development. Also, the notion of lot size transitioning to buffer
PD's from conventional development neighbors was introduced.
Staff distributed the proposed purpose statement along with a copy of staffs draft
code changes. The remainder of the code text will be the subject of the following
meetings.
5. Next meeting is scheduled for January 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Staff adjourned the
meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Meeting Attendees:
Committee Members: David Walsh, Charles Schwarz, Sue Beilke, Alice Ellis-
Gaut,John Frewing, Bill McMonagle, Gretchen Buehner,
Absent: Scott Sutton, Ron Ellis-Gaut.
Staff: Morgan Tracy, Dick Bewersdorff
Distributed: 1/04/05
2
The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
1. To provide an alternate means for property development which result in
development more closely approaching the goals of Tigard's Comprehensive
Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider a broader range
of impacts to the city, and
REVISED:
1. To provide a means for property development which results in development
that is consistent with Tigard's Compr sive Plan through the application of
flexible standards which consider a roader range of impacts to the city; and
2. To provide alternate benefits (such as increased open space, commitment to
alternative building design, promotion of walkable communities, preservation of
significant natural resources, greater aesthetic appeal, etc.) to the city in lieu of
strict adherence to all other rules of the Tigard Community Development Code,
and t�4
REVISED: ',
2. To provide benefits increased natural areas or open space', alternative
building design, walka le communities, pres rvation of significant natural
resources, aesthetic appeal, etc) to the cit lieu of strict adherence to all other r' ✓ Jia
rules of the Tigard Community Development Code, and
3. To encourage unique and differentiated neighborhoods (housing styles, use of l
open space, transportation facilities, etc.) in Tigard, which will retain their
character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing
neighborhoods through appropriate buffering, and
REVISED:
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; and
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features
and amenities (trees, water resources, views, etc.) though 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, and
The committee had a lengthy discussion as to what was"active"vs. "passive"open space and who the
intended users were(wildlife or people). Rather than incorporate this distinction in the purpose statement,
staff is recommending that these terms be defined in Chapter 18.120.
REVISED:
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; and
5. To allow an amount of development on a site which will provide some
economic return to the owner and developer consistent with the degree of
negative impact or perceived benefit to neighbors and the general public
resources of Tigard, and
REVISED: aail5khlr
5. To an amount of development on a site which will provide a benefit to the
owner and developer consistent with the degree of positive or negative impact to
neighbors and to public resources and facilities of Tigard; and
6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural
environment through green building, low impact construction techniques, and an
emphasis on sustainability.
REVISED:
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.2
Proposed Defini
Natural Area. area of land and/or water that has a predominantly undeveloped character.
Natural areas may be pristine, or may have been previously affected by human activity such as
vegetation removal, agriculture, grading or drainage if such areas retain significant natural
characteristics, or have recovered or been restored to the extent that they contribute to the City's
natural systems including hydrology,vegetation, or wildlife habitat.
Open Space. Land to remain in natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a
scenic, aesthetic appearance and/or protecting natural processes,providing passive or active
recreational uses, and/or maintaining natural ve etation. Open space sha e permanen y
reserved by common ownership among the owners of a development, dedicated to the public,or
by other appropriate means committed to use for the general public.
Active Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses that tend to be more organized
and/or that require a greater degree of site development and conversion of natural area,including
sports fields,playground equipment,group picnic shelters, hard surfaced pathways,permanent
restrooms, accessory parking lots and similar facilities.
Passive Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses related to the functions and
values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site improvement, including soft-
surface trails, signs,pedestrian bridges, seating,viewing blinds, observation decks,handicapped
facilities, drinking fountains,picnic tables,interpretive facilities, and similar facilities.
Z Staff recommends that terms of art(i.e."green streets"or"green building")not be included as these terms
tend to fall out of favor over rather short periods of time or are supplanted by other trends. "Innovative"is
inclusive of current innovations,and allows for future trends as well.
mmittee Name � &i�f Al 60MfY71 *e
01, 2405 we 700- 9:0
VOLUNTEER SIGN-IN SHEET
Date Volunteer Name HOURS Comments
k-4 o 5
I,)� e�-5 1 JDPN
ZC4_., Z
._t�el t 'Z
.1 �VY (
l 7
Aof I pion 7�ra 2
1 Aadmisusank\smarttr.doc