Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes September 21, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea (arrived- after roll call), & Walsh Absent: Commissioner Fishel, Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Staff Present: Community Development Director Ron Bunch Asst. CD Director Susan Hartnett Senior Planner Sean Family Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher Senior Administrative Specialist Doreen Laughlin 3. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner boherty announced that she'd been appointed to State Legislature and that she prefers to stay on the Planning Commission if she can, and if her schedule allows it. If not, she will give notice in plenty of time to appoint someone else. Commissioner Walsh reminded the commissioners that the Urban Forestry Master Plan would be arriving a bit earlier than normal and he urged the commissioners to take some time to read through it prior to meeting on the 5th. President Inman reminded them that they had an email from Doreen Laughlin earlier with a link to that document - should they want to look at it on- line. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 8-17-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or additions to the minutes; there being none, President Inman declared the minutes approved as submitted. - 5. PUBLIC HEARING Cont'd [Judicial] 5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2008-00004 - THE VILLAGE AT KNOLL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — September 21, 2009 — Page 1 of 5 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 member of the Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. There were no ex parte contacts reported and no site visits. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher said he didn't have a staff report but that the applicant was here to address them and to present further information in this continued meeting. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mark Reed of NW Ventures Group, Inc., and applicant for the concept plan review, spoke about the changes since the last time he was before the commission. He distributed two handouts (Exhibit A). Referring to the August meeting, he said at that time it had sounded as though the Planning Commission liked the Knolls concept and the basic ideas for the plan; however, two main issues came out that needed to be addressed. One was parking and one was open space. He said they ended up eliminating two lots out of the planned development. So now, instead of having 14 single family homes in which 6 of them were detached, and 8 of them attached, they now end up with 12 detached single family homes. So there is no longer attached housing. The bottom line is it added 5,000 sq ft of essentially pure open space back into the project. He went on to describe the tiering of the open space - 3 levels — with the third tier as a flat open space. There's the possibility of community gardening. He then distributed photos of their existing facility in Milwaukee (Exhibit B). The photos showed how some of the sloped areas were used - from a planning standpoint. It showed, among other things, some examples of the recycled concrete walls that they use. He said from the open space percentage, when they initially did this plan, the minimum was 20%. He said they are currently at almost 23.5% - so they gained 3.5% of the site — essentially to open space — without taking away any of the other amenities of the project. In addition, by decreasing the two lots, they are no longer asking for the density bonus. The second item was parking. Reed noted that they'd asked their engineers to go back and help them redesign the houses. Now most of the houses have 2 car garages with two spaces behind it — essentially doubling the amount of off-street parking for every resident in the community. He went on to explain about garage set-backs and how they'd reconfigured the parking in Tract A so that there's not a greater than 180 degree turn into some of those spaces (which the old plan had). He said they'd reconfigured the lower portion of the site so the parking was re-angled, making it much easier for the residents to go through. In addition, those parking spaces ended at a wall so the parking doesn't go into general open spaces — it goes to a retaining wall. Also, on the lower portion of the site, they've added 6 additional parking spaces, so they end up with a net gain of 7 additional parking spaces - and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — September 21, 2009 — Page 2 of 5 a net gain of 19 off-street spaces with the garages, and the reconfigured parking driveway areas. And they also deducted 2 houses. So, essentially, they're taking away 15% of the potential people coming into the neighborhood with the loss of those 2 houses, while adding 26 total parking spots to the project. He said that with this new plan, the final product has more parking, more useful open space, and one that will be better for all the residents of the community. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT (answers in italics) The commissioners thanked Mr. Reed for the good work and effort they'd put into this new plan. • You mentioned that all the homes have a 2 car garage or — most of the homes have a 2 car garage? I believe it's 9 of the 12 lots that have them. Ifyou look on the plan marked COI (Exhibit A) there are little square box numbers behind each house. The one indicates a one car garage, and the one car behind it. The 2 's are 2 car garages, 2 spaces behind them. There am 3 that have single car garages and those are corner lots where you can 't really get a turning radius to get a two car garage in there. • You also mentioned you are not going to do features on the open space? You say you'll leave it up to the future homeowners to decide what to do. Will there be any funding of any future projects for the homeowners? Yes. I think we 'd have a very hard time selling the lots if we say `good luck in fundingyour own center area. " So I think part of the HO association documents that would have to be done — there 'd be a preliminary amount set aside essentially for the homeowners as the homeowners show up. • Did you consider townhomes at all as a way of keeping density? We looked at them. The challenge is they get so close together —you decrease the amount ofparkingyou can have for each individual home because you end up with a single-car garage on each one of them going through and then you end up with kind of the same problems we had with the original plan where you end up with more homes with less parking. When you increase the open space and take out that 5,000 sq ft of available lot square footage, it makes it real difficult to be able to have the houses be wide enough to have a two-car garage. There was some discussion about the alley variances although it had been already covered at the last meeting. Pagenstecher said he would check with the City Engineer on design and get some clearance up front during the application. • Commissioner Vermilyea said "I would suggest we make the recommendation to the Engineer that we allow variance to 12 feet on the alleyway." Inman said we can also very easily expect that this gets addressed before we come back with the detailed development plan. I'm personally fine either way. Reed said `7 think from our standpoint, if there 's a note that can be made that the Planning Commission is in favor of it, per as long as the City Engineer signs off on it. I would love that to be in the record because it's a lot easier to go to the City Engineer saying `Hey the Planning Commission 's already said they would like that, if it's possible — can we figure out a way to make it work?" Rather than going to him blindly without recommendation. " PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — September 21, 2009 — Page 3 of 5 Thank you again for listening to us and for your new presentation. We appreciate the efforts you all went through and your patience in coming back to us. • One thing I appreciate with regard to the photographs you sent around (Exhibit B) that you have at the other facility, especially with the kind of multi-generational group that you're having, I particularly enjoy the raised beds. Seniors can garden that way. This is good! Yes — they're specifically designed for wheel-chair accessibility. There are a lot of residents who are 90 years old and up and in wheelchairs that can 't get out to garden. Here the garden is accessible — they can get in front of a bed — it works. They feel part of the community. • Is it going to be posted "No Parking"? We can. Absolutely. We figure that's necessary access for fire / emergency vehicles if needed. If parking is allowed there, none of those TVF&R vehicles would be able to clear that area. That would be my suggestion - absolutely no parking and a tow zone so that it is kept clear. That would be no problem. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR: None PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION: None APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL: None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:33pm DELIBERATIONS • I was probably the most vocal last time around on this issue and I have to say they've addressed everything I had asked them to address and points I raised. I'm very, very satisfied with what I see and it's obvious they took us extremely seriously. I like everything I see. I have no objection, but would like the opinion of the City Engineer with regard to the alley issue we spoke about. But I certainly support this. • My gut feeling about the project is much better now. There's more flexibility — more space — places for people to visit without affecting the surrounding area. I'm very pleased. As far as the alleyway — I like the sidewalk in the middle. I would prefer we keep the sidewalk there. • This is a great plan. Thank you. I'm very pleased. • As far as the alleyway, I really like the idea of the sidewalk in the middle, so I would prefer that that stay. I agree with Commissioner Walsh that there might be some PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — September 21, 2009 — Page 4 of 5 technical reason why the City Engineer is looking for that 16 foot width but, if possible, I would prefer that we do keep that sidewalk there. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea as follows: "I move for approval of application PDR2008-00004 Village of the Knoll, and what will be included in that is what we discussed tonight in the staff report and the information we got at the last hearing and in the revisions presented by the applicant tonight." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Walsh (8) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Fishel (1) 6. WORKSHOP I Downtown Code Amendments Senior Planner, Sean Farrelly, went over his PowerPoint in detail (See Exhibit C). QUESTIONS OF STAFF There were some general requests asking Farrelly to delve a bit further into some of the topics he'd brought up such as the sub-committee, the design review board, the MU-CBD use table, etc. 7. OTHER BUSINESS - None 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. • • �e ,` n • e Doreen Laughlin, Planning Co Ilk *ssion Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — September 21, 2009 — Page 5 of 5