08/17/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
August 17, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Vice President Walsh; Commissioners Anderson,
Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Vermilyea, and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon
Staff Present:
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Susan Hartnett, Assistant CD Director;
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Darren Wyss,
Senior Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
3. COMMUNICATIONS —
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, introduced the new Assistant CD Director,
Susan Hartnett, to the Commissioners.
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
7-6-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or
additions to the minutes; there were none, and President Inman declared the minutes
approved.
5. PUBLIC HEARING [Judicial]
5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2008-00004 - THE VILLAGE
AT KNOLL
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval of a Planned
Development Concept Plan for development of a 2.74-acre site with a 15 lot subdivision including
one common tract featuring landscaped paths and water features throughout, as well as visitor
parking for the site.
President Inman read from the Quasi Judicial Hearing Guide. No commissioner wished to
abstain or declare a conflict of interest. No one in the audience wished to challenge any
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 1 of 10
member of the commission or the jurisdiction of the commission. There were no ex parte
contacts reported. Commissioner Walsh reported a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff
reports are available one week before each meeting.] He distributed the applicant's amended
review of the proposal (Exhibit A). After giving the staff report, he introduced the applicants
who were present: Bill Reed, Mark Reed, Derrick Aragon, and Jason Hess (the CEO of Elite
Care).
QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics)
There was a question as to whether Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue is okay with approving the
project. Pagenstecher answered: Irrespective of the discussion areas I mentioned, based on their
applicant's proposal, they 're satisfied with that
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Mark Reed of NW Ventures Group, Inc. gave a background regarding the project. He noted
the first facility was opened in Milwaukee in 2000. He said they also have a project on SW
Grant St. in Tigard which was completed in 2008. It's currently 90% occupied. In June of
this year it received the LEED Platinum designation, and is the first LEED Platinum
Assisted Living project in the U.S. at this time. He said their concept is to create at the core
of a community the assisted living building with additional housing units created in order to
facilitate the community feel of that building — which is where the Village at Knoll concept
came from.
At this point Reed went over his PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). He went over the
project objectives: Platinum LEED certified post assisted living community; 15 lots — 8
attached single family, 6 detached (stand alone) single family homes, & one residential care
(assisted living); sustainability through architecture, minimization of "hardscape"
(asphalt/paving) and community and common designs. He went over the work completed
to date: 2 pre-application conferences; 2 neighborhood meetings; preliminary engineering
including streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water; grading & site plan. He said a traffic
study had been done, a complete arborist survey, a complete landscape plan, approval of
garbage company as well as two meetings with TVF&R — one two years ago and another
meeting last week, hence the 2nd letter from TVF&R.
Reed stated they were looking for Planning Commission assistance on the following:
• Density Bonus of less than 2% to increase from 14 allowable lots to 15 lots (14.74 to
15.00) combined with lot sizes that are smaller than typical in R4.5 Zoning.
• Use of alternative street designs to minimize hard surfaces (asphalt, paving) and allow
for narrower alleys, roads, combined with one way driving directions.
• Phased Development Timeline due to current market constraints and planning
timeline.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 2 of 10
• Site grading, slope and potential grading problems.
• Easement vs. Street Frontage on Lots 2-5
• Preliminary understanding of the RCF that is the key component of this development
(Conditional Use).
Jason Hess, CEO of Elite Care, explained about Elite Care — the philosophy, the building
design, and the technology. (Slide 5 of PowerPoint presentation). He said the results are
phenomenal and that they're getting in front of a lot of people in DC because of what
they're doing. He noted in the last year of life their elders are staying in the hospital less than
one overnight stay where, in typical facilities, it's 20+ stays overnight in hospitals. There's
less than one 911 call in the last 6 months of life, where the typical community sees 10 to 15.
They believe this is due to the design of their building and the sense of community. They've
been featured on NBC nightly news for their innovative ways. He said that people visiting
don't worry about trying to find the caregiver to identify how Mom or Dad are being cared
for, but rather they tend to what's important — and that's spending time with Mom and Dad.
Hess said they're happy to be in Tigard and are happy that Mark and Bill Hess are part of the
design team. He believes they've done a fabulous job with the site plan and he's happy
they're part of the Elite Care team.
Mark Reed continued his presentation. He showed photos of the Craftsman style residential
living in Milwaukee (Oatfield Estates). He said it doesn't look like a traditional facility with
sheer walls and flat roofs and some of those kinds of things. He said it's, rather, a very
residential feel. He showed wheelchair accessible flowerbeds that encourage residents to get
out and be part of their community. He showed photos of the Tigard facility off of SW
Grant Street (Elite Care at Fanno Creek). He said it has community gardens with residents
working in the gardens, as well as nice open areas. He also went over their responses to the
staff report (see slides 7, 8 & 10). He said they're open to making changes to the start date.
QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT (answers in italics)
When you were talking about responding to the Arborist's comments, are you okay with
removing the invasive trees mentioned in the arborist's report? Absolutely. We're fine with all
those.
Why are you going for a subdivision instead of — like a common plat? A Ample of reasons from a
condo standpoint - condos are difficult from a construction and longterm sales standpoint. Our company has
been able to build all of our own projects. As soonyou go to a condo — many times you have to go to an
outside contractor andyou lose a lot of the ability to keep your details whereyou need to.
About Elite care — what are the demographics? Jason Ness answered: Average age is 88 or
earlier with Alzheimer's or dementia. So if you are working with some Alzheimer's/dementia
residents - then is the facility secure? No. That's not part of our philosophy. We leverage technology in
terms of identining where they 're at, and we also build a sense of community. We have one of the highest staff
ratios in the state. By the design of the building, technology, and excellent team members — we don 't believe in
locking people up.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 3 of 10
So the parking — you have 24 residents — you mentioned 6 staff. How many parking spaces?
Mark Hess answered: I want to say 13 or 14 parking spaces. Andyou've also got all the staff parking
underneath, on the backside of the building. And residents? We allow couples to maintain cars. On rare
occasions perhaps the wife is able to drive and the husband isn 't. They may have a vehicle. So 14 parking
spaces for any residents plus visitors? Correct. Okay. That seems a little light. Fanno Creek only
has 12 parking spaces — 17 total including the staff.
Is your Milwaukee facility based on the same concept - residential care facility and single
dwellings? The facility in Milwaukee is a little over 6 acres and is smack dab in the middle of a full
residential neighborhood. It's bordered on all sides by single family homes much like this is. The concept is the
same. It is absolutely critical that we build around neighborhoods. You talk about community. Many of the
neighbors volunteer their time — go to barbeques, and/or have folks that live there. For us, we see it as an
essential part of getting our philosophy of belonging, influence, and puipose.
What will be the building height on the back? . . . there 's the potential from the base of the parking
area to the top of the building to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 — 45 feet. That's from lowest point
on grade to midway at the peak of the roof.
Where do visitors to single family and attached homes park? A lot of them will be in the parking
spaces that are also used for the assisted living facility.
The homes are not age restricted at all? They're not age-restricted at all. No.
How are the lots going to be graded? Are they going to follow the road slope or how's that
work? We cut them into the slope and that helps retain the slope. Daylight basements.
How are the soakage trenches going to work on a 15% slope? There's a bio-swale at the bottom.
In looking at the plan - 3200 sq ft of open space? That's half of my lot size and I live on a
small lot. The scale of this is really small. For instance, what are your side yard setbacks? It's
hard to tell what is this really going to look like. It looks nice when you spread it all out at
30 scale — or 20 . . . The building itself is fairly large — f you go to Fanno Creek and take a look at it.
Fanno Creek is 3 stories high and this place will be 2 storks high. The housing is designed so that the
building is symmetrical so that there's a house on each side — that looks like a ski chalet — each one of those
has 12 units in it. So it is fairly large, nothing compared to some of the fairly close by apartment buildings
but it's a way of gaining density — and also a way of allowing the elders to have a place of communiy.
There was more discussion between the applicant and commissioners about the density
issue.
William Reed, Owner, commented regarding size. We an about sustainabiliy and a bigpart of
T .F,EDS is — how do you create more densiy and still make it do-able? I went to school back east. I'm
used to more densely populated areas. I thinkyou have certain vitaliy when the area isn 't too big for the
number of people you 're going to have. From the perspective of sustainabiliy — we going down that mad
where you're not going to have as much square footage —you're going to have to be able to share with your
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 4 of 10
neighbors. Ifyou don 't do that — we're going to run out of land. So,from ourperspective, it's not so much
about the size of the area as much as how you create community within that area so you have this cohesive
unit working together. That's what we're trying to achieve with the design.
You've asked for a density bonus to get you up to 15 lots. What happens if you don't get it?
Bill Reed answered. It makes the project not as economical. We 'll have to skimp someplace else to make
it work. We're trying to create the sustainability part of it. We all believe bigger lots are probably better but
in the future the bigger lots aren 't necessarily going to be there. I believe that the way the City of Tigard is
going is more density. Ifyou don 't give us the extra lot then we'll have to figure out how to move a house.
That's not necessarily good, either for the City, or for the environment.
Do you have any alternative layouts? No. This was expensive enough to do once. We 'd just take a
house out somewhere.
There were a few other questions and then the meeting was opened up to public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR: No one had signed up and no one in the
audience wished to testify.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION: No one had signed up and no one in the
audience wished to testify.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL: [Not necessary.]
President Inman said that before moving forward she would like to sum up the
Commission's options:
• Approve, as presented, the concept plan — meaning that they would come back
before us with the detailed development plan which we could condition to require
some of these additional information components.
• Approve the concept plan, denying the density bonus.
• Deny the application.
• Continue, if need be.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:23pm
DELIBERATIONS
Commissioner Vermilyea wanted to go on record as being in favor of approving the concept
plan and approving the density bonus. He stated that he's impressed with the idea; he's
impressed with the use of space, impressed with the desire to achieve the density and the
sustainable approach. He said with the small site that they have (2 1/2 acres or so) they've
done quite a bit to both try to achieve high density and create some gaps where there's an
opportunity for useable open space. He stated it's important to remember that this site is
relatively close to Downtown and a Downtown Plan is coming into play in the next several
years that's going to develop a lot more useable open and park space — common space in the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August l7, 2009 — Page 5 of 10
Downtown area; notwithstanding the fact that many of the residents will be able to literally
walk over to some of the park space that will be developed in the Downtown area. He went
on to say that that's what we want. This will be nice and close to Downtown — the fact that
it's close and dense is a very positive thing. "With respect to the character and quality of
open space, I'm satisfied with what's been presented, moreover, to the extent that we feel
that there's more detail - and we can certainly request that in the detailed plan and evaluate
what those details are at that time. I believe, as I was going through, tracking the comments
and concerns raised by staff and others, that all of those things were addressed - with the
possible exception of the open space issue and, again, given that we can condition the
consequent approval on further detail being provided, to address the issues staff raised, if we
feel that is appropriate, we can certainly do that. My suggestion, however, is to approve the
concept plan with the density bonus, as proposed, with no conditions."
Commissioner Doherty: Agrees with Vermilyea. She likes the multi-generational idea. It's
unique. She's impressed with the philosophy. She believes the open space should be
addressed in more detail.
Commissioner Walsh: Likes the concept. It's a challenging lot. Would like detail to help
visualize better. Would like to see a different variation. Would like to see the open space
more centralized. He said he's hung up on parking. Just 14 shared spaces. He has a hard
time supporting the density bonus because he believes that lot should be used as additional
parking.
Commissioner Fishel: "I was feeling good about it until that parking issue came up. I think
that using one of the lots wouldn't necessarily make the project any better."
President Inman: "I'm personally on the fence — which is good because I wasn't on the fence
when I got here. I am excited about moving forward with sustainable development. It's hard
to do. It's expensive to do. It's hard to find. I like the way you've transitioned from the
neighborhood with the single family up front and then back towards the residential care
facility (RCF). I think where I have the greatest heartache is the single family homes. If you
own one of those homes — how would you have a party? Friends for your 15 year old — for
your graduation party. . . where would people park? And then, particularly in the attached
houses in the back — some of those units have 4 foot side yards and 8 feet to the next
building. They look out at a garage in the back of another house. I am on the fence and I
don't know what I'm going to do at this point because I have concerns about what this will
really look like when it gets on the ground and what it will really look like when you get
through all the processes."
Commissioner Doherty: "I like the concept but two things need to be addressed - open
spaces & parking. I would strongly recommend that those be dealt with before a final vote
in the detail plan process would be forthcoming."
Commissioner Hasman: "I have a question for staff [and one for the applicant] . I agree with
everything Commissioner Vermilyea said and I also understand the parking issue. What is
your take as staff? Do you feel it's adequate parking?" Pagenstecher: "I haven 't really addessed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 6 of 10
that issue in the concept review criterion. I do know that 2.5 spaces per bed is required. 24 beds, 10 spaces,
plus 6 staff— so 16 is about what the minimum would be. I think the point's well taken how the residents
will park their.. " Hasman: "And the other question is — Is it possible — you weren't sure if it
was 12 or 14 spots . . . maybe it was 16 or 18? Or are you absolutely sure that there's just that
number?" Applicant: "We have 16 proposed right now plus each house has a two car garage on it so
that'd be 28 parking spaces, including the houses, plus the 16 common spaces. So 16 common, single family
— each have two — and then you 've got — I think it's 5 staff spaces currently on the plan - underneath the
building. We originally had more parking but Clean Water Services made us have a 50 foot vegetated
corridor down on the bottom of the site. So we did have more parking, but CWS has a stiff arm. "
Commissioner Anderson: "I like the project. You know, we like to experiment and this is a
great lot to do it at — because it's not big. I just think that the one-way streets — I think if we
reconfigure it with 14 houses, I think you'll be happier with it."
Commissioner Caffall: "I like the concept. I like the plan. I have a few reservations about
parking. I'd like, on the detailed plan, to be able to see a little bit more about the open space
but I think we can live with where we are now and look at it in more detail when the plan
comes back."
President Inman: "When you talk about conditions, one of the things we could condition
would be for specific items to be addressed so we could require the detailed development to
include detailed plans on the uses for the open space; how the grading would affect the open
space; how the parking, particularly for the single family homes, would be addressed and any
other concerns the Planning Commission has as an option."
Commissioner Vermilyea: "We have to address the density bonus issue tonight. If there's
ever a project when the density bonus is appropriate — this is it. It is a very, very small
variance in what they're allowed to do anyway. 14.7 lots vs. 15 lots — this size. We're not
talking about a very large variance and, to me, this is the kind of program we want to provide
an incentive to. We've approved a lot of things that I've just kind of gone along with. This is
the kind of program that we ought to be approving and we ought to be providing incentives
to - and the density bonus, in my view, is exactly the right kind of incentive and this is the
kind of development that deserves that kind of consideration. So I think it's critical that we
approve that and that we deal with the rest of the conditions."
Commissioner Walsh: "I like the project. I'm hung up on parking and the layout and that, in
effect, whether it's 14 or 15 lots. So I would like to ask them to come back with alternatives.
I'd like to see some alternatives and I realize that the concept plan wouldn't [inaudible] the
expense of that but the detail yes. We should see some alternatives. I would like to see some
movement around the open space, possibly, and the parking."
Commissioner Vermilyea: "What's important to us given all our constraints? A well thought
out plan? Meet the density requirements?"
Pagenstecher: "You can provide them the opportunity to come back with either a 14 or 15
unit plan, depending on how they handle the density. You could decide then."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTE'S — August 17, 2009 — Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Doherty: "I'm a bit confused — so we could go through and say "Yes, we
grant you the density bonus but we want you to come back with a plan for 14 or 15?"
Bewersdorff: "No. You would approve the concept with the proviso that that concept will
be approved with either 14 or 15 depending upon what you've reviewed in your detailed
plan."
Commissioner Doherty: "So say they come back with something fantastic with open spaces,
parking, and 15 drawings — then we have the opportunity to go through and say — 15. So
we're basically not granting a density bonus?"
Bewersdorff: "You're giving them the opportunity to convince you based on the parking
and your open space issues."
Commissioner Vermilyea: "Here's my problem with that. We're asking the proponent to go
out and begin detailed design work and go down a path — let's assume that they choose to
design this on a 15 lot proposal, and they attempt to meet all the conditions that I assume
we're going to [inaudible] regarding the open space and parking — and they come back to us
after having poured a bunch of resources into detailed planning. And we say "no"? I don't
think that's fair to the proponent. I think we need to give them clear guidance tonight or we
continue this for a month or so and let them come back and give some more detail before
we make the decision — so that at that point we can maybe address the issues that have been
raised here tonight. I don't think it's fair to say we conditionally approve your concept plan —
we're going to withhold the bonus until you prove to us that you deserve it and, by the way,
if you spend all the money trying to prove to us that you deserve it, and we don't like it, now
you're going to go back to square one? I don't think that's equitable."
Commissioner Caffall: "I agree."
Commissioner Walsh: "The bonus is not a gimmie. People have to work for it. They have
to show us why. I think we have to have the ability to grant the bonus or deny the bonus
based upon the merits. It's that simple."
Commissioner Vermilyea: "But you also have to give the proponent some clarity upon
which to rely in developing a detailed plan."
President Inman: "I think the problem is the concept plan is where we look at alternatives
so that we can avoid the situation where we're [inaudible] because the applicant has put so
much time and effort into developing this plan that it seemed very onerous and expensive to
make them go backwards. However. . . "
Commissioner Walsh: "Cost of doing business."
President Inman: "So. That being said - we are in this situation. Jeremy (Vermilyea) has a
valid point that it would be unfair to ask them to forward two detailed development plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION MI EJ ING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 8 of 10
Density bonuses haven't been granted by the Planning Commission in years. They're hard-
fought here. I agree with Jeremy's assessment that we either grant it or not or continue the
hearing to allow the applicant to address those two. They could specifically address those
items without forwarding two entire plans."
MOTION
A motion was made by Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Caffall as
follows:
"I move that we continue the hearing for one month [to September 211 with the
proviso that the proponent will address within their concept plan the issues that were
raised tonight — specifically regarding use of open spaces within the project, and the
parking issue — and try to allay some of the concerns that have been raised."
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner
Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Vermilyea, and
Commissioner Walsh (8)
NAYS: Commissioner
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Muldoon (1)
6. WORKSHOP Transportation System Plan Briefing
Senior Planner, Darren Wyss, gave a brief update on the Transportation System Plan. He said
he will come on a bi-monthly basis to update the commissioners.
Wyss made the following points regarding the TSP:
• Phase one of the project is complete and consisted of gathering background materials
and the development of draft goals and policies for the TSP
• Goals and policies will be adopted into the Comp Plan at same time the TSP is
adopted.
• Background materials consisted of current conditions and a review of relevant
planning documents (ODOT, County and Metro, for example) and whether City
policy and code is in compliance.
• Materials can be found on TSP webpage.
• Phase one also included TAC, CAC (Commissioner Hasman is the Planning
Commission representative), and Public Forum 1, where feedback was collected and
incorporated as necessary.
• Kittelson is now working on Phase 2 which includes a Needs and Deficiencies
Report, Systems Solutions Report, Draft Facilities Plan, and a Financial Review.
• Needs and deficiencies will look at problem areas in the City for all modes of
transportation (bike, ped, transit, and motor vehicle).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 9 of 10
• Systems Solutions will look at alternative solutions, such as demand management,
paid parking, parking reductions, etc.
• Draft Facilities plan will identify future projects to make the system more efficient.
• This is part of process where potential future projects and programs get identified.
• To help, Wyss has been meeting with Councilors individually to get feedback and
would like to extend the invitation to Planning Commissioners if they are interested.
If Commissioners could provide feedback to questions in Attachment 1 (of Darren's
memo) that would be helpful. (Email Darren Wyss or Doreen Laughlin with
feedback.)
• The next opportunity for community feedback is Sept 12th at Family Fest. Staff will
have maps and surveys for community members to review/comment upon.
• Community feedback is an important component that will hopefully make the decision-
making run smoothly during the legislative process
• Lastly, the contract with Kittelson was due to expire at end of year, but has been
extended thru March 2010.
• This will allow more time to develop the draft document and have the consultants
present to both Planning Commission and City Council in the spring.
Wyss ended saying if the commissioners have any questions about the process or materials
being formulated, to give him a call.
7. OTHER BUSINESS None
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
t , 8
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Co ' sitn Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — August 17, 2009 — Page 10 of 10
Exhibit A
Gary Pagenstecher
From: Dolby, John K. [John.Dalby @tvfr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:46 PM
To: Gary Pagenstecher
Cc: BREED @ELITECARE.COM
Subject: The Village at Knoll (T) (Amended)
Attachments: The Village at Knoll (T) (Amended).doc
Gary,
This is our amended review of this proposal. The applicant met with us this afternoon and we were able to
resolve our previous concerns. As such, we have no objections to them presenting this proposal at the Planning
Commission meeting on Monday August 17, 2009.
«The Village at Knoll (T) (Amended).doc»
1
A
Tualatin Valley
Fire & Rescue
July 2, 2009
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: (PDR) 2009-00004 The Village at Knoll
Dear Gary,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development
project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions
of approval:
1 ) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION : When
buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire
apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. (IFC 503. 1 . 1 )
2) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (12 feet for up to two dwelling units and accessory
buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus
roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway
and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 26 feet wide but less than 32
feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed .
Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (IFC 503.2. 1 )
The fire district does not endorse the design concept wherein twenty feet of unobstructed roadway
width is not provided.
The proposed access roadway around the perimeter of the project is 15 feet with no parking allowed.
We find this proposal acceptable.
3) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked
vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both
sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed.
4) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is
easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds
point load (wheel load) and 60,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide
documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (IFC
D102. 1 )
5) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and
48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (IFC 503.2.4 & D103. 3)
The fire district will accept a drivable sidewalk on the northwest and southeast outside corners of the
perimeter roadway so long as they are constructed to our surface loading requirements.
North Division Office
14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton, OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com
)
Tualatin Valley
Fire & Rescue
We trust this letter will be helpful with the final design of this proposal insofar as fire apparatus access and
firefighting water supplies are concerned. If there is anything about this letter you do not understand, disagree
with, or wish to discuss further, please call me.
Sincerely,
Jot SC. Oak
John K. Dalby, Deputy Fire Marshal II
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, North Division
14480 SW Jenkins Road
Beaverton, OR 97005-1152
(503) 356-4723
North Division Office
14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton, OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com
Exhibit B
The Village at Knoll Concept Plan
City of Tigard Planning Commission August 17 , 2009
Project Objectives
• Elite Care Community — State of the art Platinum LEED
Certified Post Assisted Living Community
• "A Community within a Community"
• 15 Lots
• 8 Attached Single Family
• 6 Detached (Stand Alone) Single Family
• I Residential Care (Assisted Living)
• SustainabilityThrough :
• Architecture/LEED Certification
• Minimization of hardscape (Asphalt/Paving)
• Community and Common Designs
Work Completed To Date
• 2 Pre-Application Conferences
• 2 Neighborhood Meetings
• Preliminary Engineering Including:
• Streets including full profile for SW Knoll Drive
• Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Water
• Grading, Site Plan
• Complete Traffic Study
• Complete Arborist Survey
• Complete Landscape Plan
• Approval of Garbage Company
• 2 Meetings with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
Concept Plan Not Detail Plan
• Looking for PC assistance on the following:
o Density Bonus of less than 2% to increase from 14 allowable lots to 15
lots ( 14 74 to 1 5 .00) combined with lot sizes that are smaller than
typical in R4.5 Zoning
o Use of alternative street designs to minimize hard surfaces (asphalt,
paving) , and allow for narrower alleys, roads, combined with one way
driving directions (current SW Knoll is already one way)
o Phased Development Timeline due to current market constraints and
PlanningTimeline
o Site Grading, Slope and potential grading problems
o Easement vs. Street Frontage on Lots 2-5
o Preliminary understanding of the RCF that is the key component of this
development (Conditional Use)
10
The Elite Care Story
o Philosophy
o Belonging , Influence & Purpose
o Simple , Consistent & Routine
o Presence, Empathy & Technique
o Building Design
o Small Intimate Communities
o 12 Resident Rooms per house
o No Hall Ways
o Open Residential Kitchen
o Community Focused
o Sustainable Platinum LEED Certified
o Technology
o Family Connector
o Delivers Transparency
o Supports Independence & Safety
o Proactive Responses
i*
Elite Care at Oatfield Estates
Elite Care at Fanno Creek
Elite Care at Fanno Creek
Responses to Staff Report - I
■ Proposed Dates for Site Development May Be Off
■ We understand and have a flexible starting point for development to be
determined by planning commission approval process and market
conditions
■ Planning Objectives ( I 8 . 350 . 0 I 0)
■ Quick overview was provided in the Narrative — walk through items.
■ Open Space
■ We have provided the minimum 20% open space, and are only requesting
density bonuses in the amount of 25 lots (or less than 2 %) The BBQ area,
Gazebo, etc. would be used by residents of the development, the RCF and
neighborhood
Responses to Staff Report - II
■ Craftsman Style , Innovation and LEED buildings
■ Craftsman Styles allow for each building to be individual while maintaining
a community feel by incorporating the following:
■ Rear Loaded Garages offAlley f'Alley allow front porches to be seen from SW Knoll
instead of garages
■ Front Porches and Larger Windows allow for greater connectivity between buildings
■ Streets with Rolled-Curb Sidewalks allow for the elderly residents of the RCF to
safely walk through the neighborhood
■ LEED and Innovation allow for higher sustainability including:
■ Rain water collection used for Irrigation and Toilet Flushing
■ Solar Panels allow for less electricity
■ Retention and Planting of healthy trees allows long term benefits
■ Reduced pavement for lower heat-island effects & reduced rain-water runoff
■ High density allows for "community within a community"
Typical Craftsman Style Just Completed
Responses to Staff Report - III
■ Open Space Requirements ( Part 2)
■ Open Spaces including the walking paths, gazebos, natural areas would be
utilized by community much like Oatfield Estates (Pictures)
■ Slopes on Interior Spaces are mainly towards corners of site and not towards
main interior open spaces
► Arborist Comments
■ Extensive review of CityArborist, agree with comments, willing to make minor
changes to plan depending on requirements
■ Frontage
■ Was designed in accordance with Washington county "Eyebrow" Corner
according to Z-Tec Engineers (Drawing)
► Trimet Ridership
■ I4 Additional Single Family Houses Only, minimal impact compared to
apartments.
44
LOOZ `LDW woad Zugaaua 8uivaa#Jn-a8 `canal MaN — }I'g3 ji 4
luawuaa►nbaa paw no! aagio Iit1 •Ajuo S-z sioj
ao] paalnbaa iooj 5Z )o uopnpaa pun ivawasn3 — a2'nfuoa3 4
passnsid Ajsnopla4, — 2ulpao 4
ispogay tiimn aaa.gy — saaanosad /nan1DN 4
Aigpgj sp42 I fM SD uanu fnld 0331 pa►1i2aap
wog aaaa pun!Iaod ui aural Aaaagan18 pun pJDQ,1 u! jaaa' OUUDJ 4
•Ai►unuauaoo aagua azivaixnua !gm am amp
sainsua ug32 anal 2uoj 7sa3Daa2 sap/aid q)►qM Jo digsaauMQ
stAsaa unuslizo puE 4331 4
I - sEadv uotssn.asTQ TBUORtppV
Responses to Staff Report - I
■ Proposed Dates for Site Development May Be Off
■ We understand and have a flexible starting point for development to be
determined by planning commission approval process and market
conditions
■ Planning Objectives ( I 8 . 350 . 0 I 0)
■ Quick overview was provided in the Narrative — walk through items.
■ Open Space
■ We have provided the minimum 20% open space, and are only requesting
density bonuses in the amount of 25 lots (or less than 2 %) The BBQ area,
Gazebo, etc. would be used by residents of the development, the RCF and
neighborhood
Responses to Staff Report - II
■ Craftsman Style , Innovation and LEED buildings
■ Craftsman Styles allow for each building to be individual while maintaining
a community feel by incorporating the following:
■ Rear Loaded Garages offAlley f'Alley allow front porches to be seen from SW Knoll
instead of garages
■ Front Porches and Larger Windows allow for greater connectivity between buildings
■ Streets with Rolled-Curb Sidewalks allow for the elderly residents of the RCF to
safely walk through the neighborhood
■ LEED and Innovation allow for higher sustainability including:
■ Rain water collection used for Irrigation and Toilet Flushing
■ Solar Panels allow for less electricity
■ Retention and Planting of healthy trees allows long term benefits
■ Reduced pavement for lower heat-island effects & reduced rain-water runoff
■ High density allows for "community within a community"
Typical Craftsman Style Just Completed
Responses to Staff Report - III
■ Open Space Requirements ( Part 2)
■ Open Spaces including the walking paths, gazebos, natural areas would be
utilized by community much like Oatfield Estates (Pictures)
■ Slopes on Interior Spaces are mainly towards corners of site and not towards
main interior open spaces
► Arborist Comments
■ Extensive review of CityArborist, agree with comments, willing to make minor
changes to plan depending on requirements
■ Frontage
■ Was designed in accordance with Washington county "Eyebrow" Corner
according to Z-Tec Engineers (Drawing)
► Trimet Ridership
■ I4 Additional Single Family Houses Only, minimal impact compared to
apartments.
44
LOOZ `LDW woad Zugaaua 8uivaa#Jn-a8 `canal MaN — }I'g3 ji 4
luawuaa►nbaa paw no! aagio Iit1 •Ajuo S-z sioj
ao] paalnbaa iooj 5Z )o uopnpaa pun ivawasn3 — a2'nfuoa3 4
passnsid Ajsnopla4, — 2ulpao 4
ispogay tiimn aaa.gy — saaanosad /nan1DN 4
Aigpgj sp42 I fM SD uanu fnld 0331 pa►1i2aap
wog aaaa pun!Iaod ui aural Aaaagan18 pun pJDQ,1 u! jaaa' OUUDJ 4
•Ai►unuauaoo aagua azivaixnua !gm am amp
sainsua ug32 anal 2uoj 7sa3Daa2 sap/aid q)►qM Jo digsaauMQ
stAsaa unuslizo puE 4331 4
I - sEadv uotssn.asTQ TBUORtppV