Loading...
05/18/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 18, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL President Inman; Vice President Walsh; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Hasman and Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director (amended on 6/1 /09); Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineering Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 5-4-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or additions to the minutes. There was one amendment. The amendment was that V.P. Walsh opened the 5-4-09 meeting, not President Inman. All agreed to the amendment and President Inman declared the minutes approved as amended. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Tigard Retail Center — PDR2008-00001 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman opened the hearing and read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. When the commission was asked whether there were any ex parte contacts or site visits, Commissioner Muldoon noted that he'd made a site visit and had asked general questions without specific application to Energy Trust of Oregon and Oregon Department of Energy — both without project specificity. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 1 of 8 No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. No conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, distributed a memo from Officer Jim Wolf, of the Tigard Police Dept., commenting on Tigard Retail Center (Target) and lack of defensible space (Exhibit A). He also distributed an email from Commissioner Muldoon and an article from the Oregonian (Exhibit B). He then gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review one week before scheduled public hearings] Pagenstecher briefly reviewed the direction given to the applicant at the earlier hearing. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS Can we waive the dock requirement? The requirement is for a loading space, not a dock, so it doesn't necessarily mean the building has to incorporate a dock area. To address your specific question, the standard requirement - loading "space" - for a building 10,000 sq ft or larger - can be achieved in the parking field adjacent to the building with a space that's large enough. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION Eric Sporre — Vice President with Pac Trust, distributed a packet for the Commissioners to refer to while they were giving their presentation (Exhibit C). He said he was assuming that no one wanted to hear the history of the site and that they'd move forward. No one objected. He noted that they'd been there last on December 1st and there were a series of questions that they'd spent a considerable amount of time researching the answers to. He said Marc Butorac with Kittelson would be here to discuss traffic. Hal Beighley of Beighley and Associates will discuss landscape. Ken Grimes will touch on design and sustainability issues. He noted they'd received the staff report a week earlier and that they take exception to a number of things in the report. First and foremost is the 50% tree canopy. He said that goes far beyond what the direction of the Planning Commission was. It goes way beyond any code requirements and any recent land use decisions. It's just not feasible and far too costly. They also take exception to the landscape in the median on 99W. He said, especially in light of the current retail economy, they are very happy to be here. He added that they'd like to have a decision tonight. Mark Butorac with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 6210 SW Alder St., Suite 700, Portland, summarized offsite improvements decided upon in the past. They will work with council on a reimbursement due to "past sins". Regarding the landscaping — he noted their proposal would be to put a financial cap of $50,000 for the landscape median. He said that's within reason for an adequate landscaping. It would be aesthetically pleasing with a cap of 50K. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 2 of 8 He said he wanted to bring into the record official exhibits so that everyone is on the same page (Exhibit D). Hal Beighley of Beighley and Associates, 12840 NW Cornell, Portland, first spoke about condition number 3. He believes the tree size should be 2 '/a" rather than 3 1/2" caliper trees along the parking lot edge and gave the reasons why. He spoke about the differences in canopy coverage at 10, 20, & 30 years. He said they'd met with the tree committee in January. Kenneth Grimes, representing Pac Trust, discussed the Target building and some of the low impact development items in the program. He spoke about "green roofs." He said they are extremely expensive. He spoke about solar options. He read a statement that was presented in March by the national president of the American Institute of Architects: "Target Corporation received an AIA Presidential Citation in recognition of its excellent work in elevating the importance of design to the public." He noted that Target is really thought of as a premier retailer. He went through other low impact development items and examples. Matt Oyen, representing Pac Trust, in conjunction with Tanner Creek Engineering, and Energy Trust of Oregon — said the biggest impacts they have from their side is the tax liability where they're not able to fully utilize the 30% federal tax credit or the 50% Betsy [Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC / "Betsy"] . What they have is a 45% tax liability due to their partnership. He went on to talk about a spreadsheet he had for a 16 panel system. He went through it line by line. He spoke about tax credits and energy savings. Eric Sporre came back up and summarized: Condition 1 — canopy should be 30% not 50%. Condition 3 — 2 1/2 inch vs 3 '/2 Condition 10 — put a cap at $50,000. Condition 17 — contingent upon getting a reimbursement district Condition 18 — reference exhibits (Exhibit D) They went back and added Condition 13 — frequency of reporting from the project arborist. They would like their arborist to have to go out only every two weeks during a site work construction in the vicinity of impacted trees. [There was some discussion as to it simply stating "or by arrangement with the Project Arborist and the City Forester."] COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT & STAFF With regard to seeking a 50K cap on the landscaping on the median - What do we get for 50K? Traditionally we put in low ground cover, small trees in a bark type treatment versus more ornamental type features such as metals or bricks and such. That's where the cost escalates. It'd be similar to what, in layman's terms, you believe is low vegetation landscaping. $5.00 per sq ft is what we're estimating. That includes irrigation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 3 of 8 Staff— what is your take on that? (Kim McMillan answered): I don't think 50K would cover it. We need street trees, low maintenance shrubs, clustering with lower level. . . I think we would like to work together for something reasonable. I don't have a figure that I can put to that. Eric Sporre said they don't have more money to throw at it. They believe 50K is reasonable. They have no frontage on Hwy 99W. Kim McMillan suggested a reasonable approach. Put infrastructure. (Put just trees and let others put in bushes, etc.) They all agreed that was reasonable. Why do we need a median? Marc Butorac answered: A raised median is an ODOT requirement to prevent left turn movement. When does the signal on 72/1d go in? McMillan answered that it goes in with this project. It's up to how they structure their construction schedule. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION None APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL None needed PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:00 PM DELIBERATION President Inman summarized the list of conditions of approval that she believed were what they all had tentatively agreed upon: • Revision to condition of approval No. 1 to revise: the parking lot canopy coverage from 50% to 30%. • Revision to condition of approval No. 4 — the condition will now read: "Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 3- z 2 % inch caliper. [Remove the wording that had included "and spaced no greater than 28' apart.] They have to come back for a variance. • Revision to condition of approval No. 10 to insert: The applicant shall revise their plan to incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians. Landscaping is to include the installation of proper soil and street trees at the equivalent separation of one tree every 28 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 4 of 8 • Revision to condition of approval No. 13 to insert: "the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, or as by arrangement with the Project Arborist and the City Arborist. " • Revision to condition of approval No. 17 to insert: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper) contingent upon successful adoption of a reimbursement district. This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. • Revision to condition of approval No. 18: (ace attached conceptual layout) will read (refer to exhibits — offsite transportation improvements- Exhibit D). • New condition of approval: The applicant shall incorporate safety measures to address the defensible space issues raised in the City of Tigard Police Department comment letter dated May 15, 2009 (Exhibit A). President Inman thanked the applicant for working so diligently and doing so well in addressing the commission's concerns. One of the commissioners asked about a possible timeline for the store being built. The applicant said it would most likely be done in the summer of 2011 . MOTION: 9:06 PM The motion: "To approve PDR2008-00001 Tigard Retail Center as stipulated and with the amended stipulations provided and recited just prior, and with the findings derived from the hearing tonight" was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Caffall. The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman and Commissioner Vermilyea (2) 5.2 Downtown Collector Street Standards — CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 9:08 PM STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Cheryl Gaines, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review one week before scheduled public hearings.] Gaines said the proposal is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to amend the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 5 of 8 Comprehensive Plan, (Policy 12.1 .2c), which is Transportation, Transportation System Plan, Chapter 8, regarding motor vehicles, the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards, and the Municipal Code Chapter 10, which is motor vehicle parking. Gaines wanted to make one correction to the staff report proposal. It currently reads "The proposed amendments will allow vehicle parking and remove the requirement for bike lanes on collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District." The word "separate," before "bike lanes," was omitted. So the wording should actually be "and remove the requirement for separate bike lanes on collector streets . . . " Gaines said she pointed out that clarification in that the proposal could be a little misleading in that they're not saying "no bicycle lanes at all" — they're just saying that what they want to do is look at either having separate bicycle lanes or having the bicycles share a lane with a wider vehicle traveling. So it would be a little bit wider — maybe 14 feet instead of the typical 12 feet. So they would accommodate different types of modes of traffic on the same lane. Also — the collectors in the downtown would have a lower posted speed. Gaines distributed an email dated May 18 (Exhibit E) from a transportation planner from Metro, John Mermin, who had a comment about the proposed amendment. She noted he's in favor, and Metro's in favor, of the proposed vehicle parking on streets and also mostly okay with the removal of the bike lane requirement except for Main Street. On the bottom of the email are his comments and, on the top, Caine's response to him. Gaines noted it's kind of ironic in that in our current Transportation System Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan calls for bike lanes on all the downtown collectors except Main Street. So we currently don't even have anything that would require them on Main Street. Therefore, we're not actually removing that requirement for Main Street. Until these plans are finalized, the proposed amendment will give flexibility when designing downtown streets. Gaines noted that staff is recommending approval as proposed. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS Why are we changing it? Is there a pending application. . . or. . . ? Kim McMillan answered "The main reason we're changing it is because Burnham Street is a collector. Burnham will use TIF dollars as a collector. If it doesn't meet the standards of a collector, we can't use the TIF dollars. We need to do housekeeping to allow our collectors in the downtown to have parking. It serves several purposes. One is to clean up our design. When we design things, I believe we need to meet our standards. Main Street also has parking and it's a collector. We need to either change the standard to allow parking on a collector in the downtown, or re- designate those streets. And we don't want to re-designate those if we want to use certain funding mechanisms. Is there signage letting people know they 're in a speadal area with biycles, pedestrians, etc. ? I'm not sure that's something we could consider - especially if we do the Main Street/Green Street — but as Cheryl pointed out, the ORS allows for several design options for bicycles to share the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 6 of 8 road. One is its own bike lane separated from the roadway completely and you could stretch that to say Fanno Creek trail — to have a striped bike lane adjacent to travel lane and then to share the travel lane. And at the speeds we have downtown, you could go down to an 11 ft travel lane and share the lane safely. We're going to hopefully have wider lanes to do that. Burnham will also have an 18 foot sidewalk on each side, which is huge. (A travel lane for cars is 12'.) So we're going to have this 18 foot, what we call a multi-modal pedestrian path — so you can have the bicycles on that as well. So Burnham is well equipped to take care of bicycles and then Main Street — we are working with Metro. They help facilitate the funding — the federal grant. The second one says `Remove the requirement to construct bike lanes in accordance with the Biycle Master Plan along collector streets. "And so you're just dealing basically with those streets that are listed here? It's not thatyou're going to get rid of the bike lanes —you're just going to make them better. Is that what the idea is? I just don 't want to send the message that they're getting rid of a bike master plan and that we're going to have everyone stay in our cars and get rid of our bikes. I think it's the idea that. . . from the way I understand you've got this written is that it would be up to the City Engineer to see how best bike lanes fit into the collector streets now that the collector streets have vehicles parked on them. Is that correct? Yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR - none PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION - none APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL — N/A PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED @ 9:25 PM DELIBERATIONS — No further discussion MOTION Commissioner Caffall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty: "I move to make a final recommendation for approval [of CPA2009-00002/DCA2009- 00002 — Downtown Collector Street Standards] to City Council." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman and Commissioner Vermilyea (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 7 of 8 President Inman noted that this would go to City Council on June 23rd. 6. OTHER BUSINESS — The Commissioners were reminded that the next meeting will be June 1st and will be a double workshop — a buildable lands presentation and an omnibus Code Amendment — a housekeeping item — both led by Darren Wyss. In addition, a meeting will be held June 16th (a Tuesday) and would be a combined meeting with Council. Consultants will give a presentation regarding the Neighborhood Trail Study Results. This meeting would be in lieu of the regularly scheduled second meeting of the month. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. mot C ( - ° Doreen Laughlin, Planning Co i 's .ion Secretary ch.) 0 ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — May 18, 2009 — Page 8 of 8