Loading...
01/26/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 26, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 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; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Kim McMillan, engineering Manager; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon, to approve the January 5, 2009 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was approved as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Fishel EXCUSED: Hasman 5. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2008-00003 — RED ROCK CENTER PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman read the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex-parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioners Walsh and Muldoon reported site visits. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 1 of 15 STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. He referred to the two comment letters he'd just distributed to the Commissioners (Exhibit A & B). He also passed out a Transportation Impact Analysis for Tigard Retail Center (Exhibit C), saying this would relate to the ODOT comment letter which was addressed in the staff report. He said they'd wanted it entered into the record, so it's being given for reference. Pagenstecher gave some history on the property — that the request to remove the PD standards overlay had been denied previously, citing that the standards were important to evaluate the relationship between the built environment and the natural resources on the site. He noted it's different from the Tigard Retail center application in that it does not have detailed plan from current review associated with it — a concept plan review only. One decision is being asked and it's on the concept plan review. Pagenstecher summarized that staff believes the applicant made a good faith effort in approaching this project with an opportunity in constraints analysis that fits the spirit of the PD concept plan review. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) Were there any elevation issues in the proposed plan or the concept? Retaining walls were brought up in the Scott/Nordling comment letter. They believe that retaining walls on the south edge of the propery, adjacent to their properties, which front on Elmhurst, would be significant. The applicant addressed the retaining walls in that area and in other areas in their neighborhood meeting — also in their project description. There are significant walls on the south side 0 — 5 feet is what the applicant says they are — not terrzbly high — and they also suggest they can be stepped back to minimirce the height of each wall. The applicant's made a real effort to address the natural resource in their proposal. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ben Altman, with SPA Design Group, introduced himself as the Project Planner representing the applicant. He introduced Brad Pihas, the applicant; John Anderson, architect; Brian Lee, with Pace Engineering; and Todd Mobley, traffic engineer from Lancaster Engineering. Altman asked the commission to keep in mind that they were dealing with the concept plan at this point — not the detail. He noted they were primarily looking for direction on the issues that haven't yet been addressed. They generally agree with the staff report but have a few comments or issues of concern that they want to address. He went through what they'd done to this point to get to the concept plan presently before the commission. He said the concept plan provides the framework to guide them into the final development stage for this property. He noted there are no hard conditions imposed so far as they know at this point but he wanted to clarify a few points. Through their site evaluation, they determined that there are opportunities to leverage the constraints that consisted on the site into opportunities for creative design which provide the anchor for the planning objectives for this planned development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 2 of 15 They follow the following factors: • Wetland forms a physical barrier at the n/w corner, and provides an opportunity to create a visual window, or aesthetic attraction, at this point. It can create views into the wetland from the site. • There is an FAR easement over lot 33 — s/e corner of the site — that limits buildings in that area — so they used that area for parking. • Street frontage on all four sides. • No access from 72nd, ultimately limited access on Dartmouth, with primary access on 70th and limited access on Elmhurst. • Key advantages are the ability to enhance and incorporate the wetland into the site as an integral part of the site. • Provides a nice visual backdrop for what is envisioned in the Tigard Triangle Plan. • Nice natural enhancement which results in allowing a more pedestrian friendly environment at a point which would otherwise be the intersection of two major arterial streets in the triangle. He then went over some of the concerns and issues raised in the staff report: • Missing trees in the survey: He said they'd provided a visual of the tree plan. Of those trees — 9 of those trees within the site are 12" or greater — another 9 trees of the 12" caliper in the ROW of 70th. They will provide details later. • In the phasing plan they are requesting to proceed with the storm drainage improvements within the Dartmouth ROW as soon as possible following approval of the concept plan and that this is allowed to occur before they submit the detailed plan. There are timelines imposed in the mitigation by DSL — particularly weather related timelines for them to complete that work — and that timeline is during the dry weather months. So they need specific authorization for that. • Transportation impacts: They have comments from ODOT. Their general concerns are in terms of the way they proposed their conditions, first by saying they didn't agree with the traffic report and would like to substitute one not related to the site — they think that's inappropriate. A completely different traffic report inserted into this hearing doesn't make sense. Their intent is to work with the City and ODOT on updating the traffic impact for that area. • 70th Ave: They anticipate using 70th as the primary access, as Dartmouth would limit turns. They requested interim improvements — as an option they would like to consider in the detailed plan providing Phase I access from Dartmouth until such time as a center medium would be imposed. Also, the scope of what this site is expected to deliver on 70th Ave — staff report implies full street improvement and then mentions an LID which implies that others would benefit from this improvement. They need feedback. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 3 of 15 • Concerns about impacting traffic thru residential neighborhoods to the south: They believe phasing in the improvements on 70th and Elmhurst would help minimize impact to the neighborhood. In summary, he noted that they've demonstrated compliance with Development Code in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and have specifically addressed the attempt to have the triangle focal point at the intersection of Dartmouth and 72nd as an element in their plan. What they're asking for is a general deferral of the conditions of approval specifically related to street improvements to the detailed development plan where they have specific uses in a revised traffic report. They would expect to continue to work with ODOT and the City on traffic details and defining specific impacts of this project. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT The commissioners questioned the applicant extensively regarding: • The phasing in of the 70th Ave improvement and of the development itself. • Trees • Structure of the walls • Flooding into residential properties • Benefit being provided by the site • Big picture goal • Surface parking • Landscape plan PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION Debi Scott, 7085 SW Elmhurst Street, spoke in opposition. She reiterated the main points as were in her written comments (Exhibit A). There were no questions of Ms. Scott. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, addressed the following issues: • Canopy cover — If the commission would put in as a condition, some canopy numbers — that'd be an advantage. There might also be a condition regarding covered walkways — due to precipitation. • Public access on walkways • Greenstreet Design — he believes the commission should require that this development review and propose what elements of Greenstreet design features would be included. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 4 of' 15 • Piping of the small stream — immediately downstream is the proposed PacTrust development — Frewing said a pipe here inhibits the achievement of the downstream PacTrust goal for the stream. This minor area of the stream should be opened up — not piped. • CWS has said in the recent past that they don't want vault underground detention and treatment. It looks like that kind of engineering is going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong. (Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager, commented that that was on residential.) • This streamside area appears to be mapped on the significant fish and wildlife map of the City of Tigard and there are development limits that I've not seen any discussion on. Those limitations ought to be discussed in the application and in your approval. There were no questions of Mr. Frewing. No other opponents to the application. There were some questions of staff — particularly of Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager regarding issues relevant to the street piece of the project - possible supplemental TIFS (Transportation Impact Fees) - the appropriateness of using the Tigard Impact Study, etc. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Ben Altman noted that, in terms of supplemental TIF's, the city of Wilsonville did it for their interchange area. They created a specific impact area based on trip generation through the interchange as a way to fund the next phase of improvements for those interchanges. The real concern they had is defining the proportional contribution for off-site — not just frontage. At what point do we have to participate in all those improvements when it's really a cumulative impact on 72nd that's driving all this? It's an existing deficiency that creates the problem. In terms of passing that on to the development community — it appears to me it's an area the City hasn't adequately addressed yet. He spoke about Elmhurst — do we need the access on Elmhurst? We could come out the south end of 70th and not use Elmhurst at all. We'll look at that in the detailed plan. As to storm drainage — backyard privacy — to the degree we can, we will try to preserve that. We can look at covered walkway areas. In the narrative we specifically address the intent to have public walkways, particularly the one going through the wetland to the south. Anyone could walk through the site — like any other retail center. We can look at the issues of Greenstreets and other details of "green" design. The piping of the stream was directed to us. We're open to a swale design if that's acceptable to the City. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Vermilyea said he would like to go on the record as saying he would be much more in favor if the stream wasn't piped. He'd be interested in what they have to say in the detailed plan. There were other concerns from the commissioners regarding the traffic issues and saving trees. It was suggested by one of the commissioners that with regard to trees, the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 5 of 15 applicant should get together with City arborist and Tree Board. The applicant said they could look into that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS There was significant deliberation regarding tree canopy cover, surfaces of parking lot, phasing requirement, Greenstreets, ODOT traffic issues, stepping and retaining walls, the importance of meeting with the Tree Board, etc. Vermilyea asked about the process. Commissioner Vermilyea suggested that there were two options. 1) Ask them to come back in a month and address these questions to our satisfaction — at which point we'll approve it — and 2) approve it with these conditions and require that they be addressed as part of the detail plan — whenever that comes forward. McMillan gave some information and answered some of the commissioner's questions. Vermilyea said he would like to ask the applicant a procedural question in terms of timing. Inman said the hearing would have to be reopened to question the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED Question by Commissioner Vermilyea - If we were to carry this forward another month — how long would you need to be able to come back to us to address our concerns? Brian Lee, Pace Engineering, replied that they would need several weeks and then 6 weeks to approve it. He said several permits would be expiring and all this would need to be taken into consideration. He said this work needs to be done this year and that the Army Corp of Engineers and DSL is reluctant to agree to any further time extensions and if the work is not completed this year, theft permits are in jeopardy of expiring in 2010. Mr. Lee explained the process that they'd been through to date and then talked about where they may go from there to address some of the concerns. He talked about the different experts (a wetland specialist, wetland biologist, and a representative from ODF&W, DSL, and Core of Engineers) that had met at the site to review the site and the natural resources and determined that theft application plan offered no significant impact. In other words, the resource oh the site did not offer any significant benefit to either aquatic or plant life. They felt the piping system proposed was acceptable and therefore they gave them the permits to do all of the mitigation for the on-site wetlands & onsite vegetative corridor. There were questions regarding the re-meandering of the stream and the applicant talked about where the stream bed would be located. There was some explanation by Kim McMillan regarding the history of the property. PUBLIC HEARING RECLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 6 of 15 DELIBERATIONS CONTINUE Vermilyea stated what he believed should be conditions of approval. There were more deliberations and then a motion was made. MOTION The motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon (with some of the conditions articulated by Commissioner Vermilyea), seconded by Commissioner Doherty as follows: I move that we approve PDR2008-00003 Red Rock Creek concept plan - that's the 12625 SW 70th Ave. - permitting improvements for the storm drainage on Dartmouth Right of Way and hydrology improvements for the wetlands and subject to five conditions that have been articulated to be included in the detailed plan: the Greenstreets concept; the canopy coverage and meeting with the Tree Board; (at this point Commissioner Vermilyea was asked to continue) - the alternatives to ingress and egress on Elmhurst; revision or addressing the concerns on the traffic impact analysis, both ODOT's concerns and the City's concerns; and addressing the detail on the step retaining walls. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: Commissioner Vermilyea (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman (1) BREAK 6. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (Originally scheduled for 12-15-08 canceled due to weather) (CPA) 2008-00008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00002 — FIELDS ZONE CHANGE President Inman read the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex-parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Muldoon reported a site visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 7 of 15 STAFF REPORT Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She mentioned two letters - one dated December 10, 2008 from Group MacKenzie (Exhibit D) and another letter from ODOT dated December 15, 2008 (Exhibit E) — that she would like to enter into the record. Staff recommends that PC recommend denial to the City Council because the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, Statewide Planning Goal #9, and the Tigard Development Code. 1) Policy 15 under Land Use Planning Goal 2.1, outlines the criteria for amendments to the Tigard Comp Plan / Zone Map. These include: • Transportation and other facilities must be available, committed to be available or of sufficient capacity to serve the proposed land use. - Access to the site would be by extending Wall Street across Fanno Creek. - Significant wetlands are present, Comp Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protection. - Application has been made. Currently incomplete. - Unknown if the CPA would be approved at this time. • New use shall fulfill a proven community need. Demonstrate that there is an inadequate amount of developable land for the proposed land use. - Tigard's target capacity under the Metropolitan Housing Rule is a density opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. - Based on 2008 buildable lands inventory, the City is currently in compliance as it can provide and overall density of 10.42 units per net buildable acre. - Several areas within the City allow higher density housing, such as WSRC, Tigard Triangle, and the CBD. Capacity is also expected to increase with the implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan. - There is not an inadequate amount of land zoned for medium-high density or multi-family housing. 2) Comp Plan Goals 9.1, 2 and 3 call for the City to develop and maintain a diversified, sustainable local economy, make Tigard a center for innovative business, and make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live by providing options for people to live in close proximity to where they work. - Tigard currently exports employment. By rezoning this site from Light Industrial to R-25, the City loses an opportunity for additional family-wage jobs within the City and a significant source of property tax revenue. - Tigard has a limited amount of vacant industrial land with limited potential for expanding into new areas that could be designated industrial. Surrounding residential and mixed use. 2008 buildable lands inventory indicates that the site has approximately 17.64 acres of buildable land after removal of sensitive lands. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 8 of 15 The City has identified a total of 24.51 acres of buildable land zoned Light Industrial. Re-designating this site to R-25 would eliminate 72% of this land — leaving only 6.87 acres. These acres are spread out over 10 properties with the largest being 3.3 acres. - The applicant has not addressed the full impact of the proposed amendment on the Tigard economy, nor have they identified other areas of the City where the jobs lost could be provided. - In addition, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has reviewed the proposal and commented that it is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9 — Economic Development. Staff finds that the proposal to re-designate this Light Industrial site to Medium High Density Residential will not promote the City's economic goals and is not necessary at this time to meet housing goals. The applicant has not shown that the increased residential density created by the amendment outweighs the loss of potential jobs and the impact on the local economy. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) The applicant implies that there is difficulty with industrial access to the land, if I understand correctly, is that necessarily correct? It looks to me like there's potential access to n/w thoroughfare that would allow truck access to that area but have you looked at that? Is this an area you can bring semi-trucks in? Wall Street that would be the mass that they're proposing to the site, would have to be constructed as a collector street and therefore could handle the capacity of truck traffic. It has to be a collector because it's on the Tigard Transportation System Plan as a collector. It has to be developed that way regardless of whether it's residential or industrial. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION The applicant distributed a large document to each commissioner and staff entitled "Hearing Exhibits for Fields Zone Change" which included 9 tabs of information and a copy of the PowerPoint that they would be going through at this meeting. Rhys Konrad, Project Planner with Group MacKenzie, introduced himself and those with him. He said he respectfully disagrees with the conclusions and findings in the staff report. Specifically, he feels they met the burden of proof and all the applicable criteria surrounding the application. He said they would do their best to address all the points on the staff report and DLCD's letter; however, there have been written materials just passed out to the commission (Exhibit F) that would touch on the information that was previously submitted. At this point Konrad, with help from Attorney Will Rasmussen, with Miller Nash, went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit G). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 9 of 15 The conclusion of the presentation was that: • The burden of proof has been met; • The site is not suitable for industrial; • Approval criteria met; and • Residential is the most appropriate designation QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There were several questions by the commissioners relating to the issues below: • Access, and whether residential generates more revenue than light industrial. • Has a traffic study been done? • Are you planning a bridge across the wetlands? • Rail access precluded from crossing — is there anything in writing stating that? • Can you address tab 8 and answer the question whether there has there been, in fact, a master plan and help us understand what the greater idea is in light of that plan? • How does the Memo of Understanding relate? • Have they purchased property to site their school buses? • How many people do you think would live in this area? • Your claim is that the site is better off with residential, and in looking at the zoning map around it, you're proposing that R-25 — why R-25 and why not compatible with the R-12 or R-7? Rhys and Rasmussen answered the questions and the hearing was opened up to public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR Clayton Hering signed up to speak but did not speak. Mike Wells, 15780 Upper Boones Ferry Road, said his company develops industrial, office & retail buildings. He said typically he would object to losing employment type lands as suggested here but his concern is market based. He noted that access to the site is through residential zoned area and the library. Its access is through Hall Blvd. He said he would not develop this site for industrial, the concern being that employers will be very reluctant to have the cars of their employees and delivery vehicles access the site through the library and the residential neighborhood. If it's a very light industrial it would be more car intensive with employees having more office and production — or if it's warehouse, then it would be more truck intensive — either one of those not mixing well with the library and residential traffic. Fred Fields, the property owner, got up to speak. He said several of those present didn't seem to be aware of the fact that originally the plan was to extend Wall Street from Hall Blvd to Hunziker. That plan was a very important plan for the City of Tigard as they were trying to establish an arterial from Hall to Hunziker to divert some of the traffic that congests at the intersection of Hall and Hunziker. The railroad shot that one down at one PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 10 of 15 point in time. They said they would consider crossing at the point we've discussed but they said the requirement for them to consider it was they'd have to see complete detailed drawings of the street and the crossing and so forth. The City spent $150,000.00 creating the drawings for that street. The agreement I had with the City was that I would form an LID to extend the road from Hall to Hunziker and I would pay for that if the City were to provide the engineering and the necessary inter-connections at Hunziker and Hall Blvd — meaning traffic lights and so forth. I would pay the balance of the cost. The railroad took that away from us but the agreement I had with the City was that in the event the railroad turned down the crossing, the contract would still be in effect. I would have access to the library property that crossed Fanno and so forth. I must say the City did everything in their power to get that road built from Hall to Hunziker but unfortunately the railroad has more power. The City did put forth 100% effort and I have no complaints about that but, in the meantime, 7 years had gone by and I've been trying to get access to that property since then. Unfortunately, I've not been able to accomplish that. I'm not going to live forever and I don't know whether you're trying to wear me out and hope that I vanish — but someone else is going to have the problem if you don't help solve it. I've met with at least 4 different City Managers here and had meetings with Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern, both, and had very detailed discussions with those involved - and everyone agreed that it was important that that toad be established crossing the railroad — including the railroad. I have letters signed by the appropriate individuals at Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern, but at that time economically it wasn't practical. Times have changed and now things are different. Someone mentioned that there are only so many acres of industrial land in the Tigard area — what was that number? Staff answered - of light industrial it's about 24, 25 acres. That's all there is? of buildable lands yes — including this parcel. I've got the 42 acres across the railroad track as industrial — somebody didn't count right. It's industrial park versus light industrial— so it's a slightly different the uses are a little bit different. They break it down into specific industrial Jones. Well, all that to say there's 42 acres across the railroad that is industrial. Thank you for your time. There were some questions of Mr. Fields regarding the bridging at grade crossing. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION There were four individuals who had signed up to speak but, due to the late hour, they decided to let James R. Essenberg, of 13688 SW Hall Blvd. #3, Tigard, speak for all of them. He said he lives in the condos adjacent to the library. His main points were: • The wetlands would have to be torn apart and filled in to build a bridge to a piece of property with only one way in and one way out. • If housing is put in there — and a 100 year flood comes, you've got all these people and houses on the other side of a bridge and no way out and no way in for emergency vehicles. • If it's light industrial, there are businesses in there — there won't be people in there at night if there's a flood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 11 of 15 • Who wants to live in apartments right next to the railroads? I live in the condos and I hear the trains constantly — now WES — during their hours of operation - every 15 minutes - they'll hear these trains. • They'd have to cut down so many trees. • Sewerage problem. There were some questions of Mr. Essenberg regarding pick-up trucks, vans, & heavy semi's if it was zoned light industrial. They asked what his preference on zoning type would be (Not high density.) No one else who had signed up on the list in opposition wanted to speak, so President Inman opened it up to members of the audience. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, spoke about his concern that he did not have access to the new material provided by the applicants. He was concerned that the applicant was providing information outside of the normal process. He said he'd like the opportunity to review that material. He noted this area is quite isolated from other areas. To the west are wetlands and the stream, further west is the library, to the south is natural area. If you call this a triangle, on two sides its natural areas surrounding this area — and on the third side the railroad of course. I think the characterization of this being a residential area isn't quite fair in my mind. Regarding the Oregon laws and so forth, they talk about sites — not things off the sites. It concerns me that you're giving too much weight to things that are off the site itself. I think that's irrelevant. Frewing went on to talk a bit about the DLCD letter of November 25. He said they find this doesn't meet their rules for economic development. He thinks great weight should be given to the agency and respects the applicant's arguments on this point, but he thinks when DLCD says this doesn't meet the economic development goal, that should be considered a big deal. Frewing went on to speak about the EOA (Economic Opportunity Analysis) and the Comprehensive Plan. He said as of now in the rules and the Comp Plan — this doesn't fly. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Phil Grillo, of Miller Nash, a Land Use attorney working for Mr. Fields, addressed the points the commissioners had made and the public testimony. He discussed the EOA and the idea of "one way in and one way out." As to emergency access, he said some sort of secondary emergency access would have to be done whether it's industrial or residential — either way. He talked about the railroad being a barrier rather than an asset to the area. He spoke about the "push" and "pull" factors. He said this is just not the site for industrial use. He said there may be some further discussion as to whether R-25 is the best designation. He believes that type of discussion is appropriate — rather than talking about whether it's appropriately designated as light industrial if you actually do an EOA for this. It just doesn't work for that purpose. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 12 of 15 Rhys Konrad spoke a bit about railroad sound — he said there are ways to help mitigate sound issues. He noted that the site can be developed and that the reason R-25 was chosen is that it allows mixed uses of density. And as to floodplain impacts — residential structures on this site certainly would not be proposed within the 100 year flood plain, nor would the access proposed to serve this site. There were some questions of the applicant from the commissioners. Commissioner Doherty said she was speaking on her own behalf when she said the message they were sending to her by giving them all this extra material at the very last minute, is that the commissioner's study of something - the time they take to go through materials that they have ahead of time - that the City sends to them in ample time - is apparently not very important to the applicant. She said that's the message she's getting and she doesn't appreciate it. "If you're giving us something like this, make sure we get it before the heating." `Duly noted — we apologize. " There was some discussion as to how to proceed — whether this should be legislative or judicial. The applicant said their strong preference is to have it decided quasi-judicial. He gave several reasons as to why — first is because they have the access application in process. That will be moving forward soon. That's a critical piece and it's important to know what use they're trying to get access for. They need the use issue solved so they can focus on what access they're trying to solve from the use standpoint. Secondly, the BOA for this site really hasn't been done and we have that information in here for you today. We want to be able to show you why, if you run the EOA, the constraints don't work for this site for industrial. That won't change in the legislative process. At this point, Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, said they plan to do a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan and one of the compartments is to do an EOA - essentially update what we have now. This particular proposal proposes to remove a substantial part of the available light industrial land. It also proposes to do a number of things which the state and Metro may have some concerns or questions about - as you see in the record today. The essential question is whether this should be done through a policy approach — essentially whereby the City Council can take broader discretion and look at this piece of land in context of all of the economic and job related uses in the city — not just individually, and then make the decision in that context. The Planning Commission tonight can determine whether, based upon this application, for this particular use, they meet the burden of proof, and whether or not it should be proved quasi-judicially. The other option is to go forward and ask staff to address it through the legislative process. There were a few more questions as to whether there would be new numbers were they to come back at a later time. At this point, President Inman said to be quite honest she's ready to move on it but they've already started down a path. She said she wasn't positive from her own personal opinion that there's much of anything the applicant's going to bring back that's going to change her PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 13 of 15 leaning. She asked if they would just be sending them on a fruitless task. She said she didn't want to waste their time or the commissioner's time. Another commissioner said he believed others may be able to rule on it as well. He suggested taking a consensus. At this point they closed the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11:08 DELIBERATIONS The commissioners discussed if the answer to this is R-25. One of the commissioners said he was not ready to go that far. There was talk about rail accessibility and whether the freight lines are not accessible. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, spoke about access to the property and that there are a number of issues and, unfortunately, the applicant made the case that it should be reviewed through a Periodic Review process rather than this process. All the issues they brought up indicate it's not clear what the best use for this property is — based on what's been provided. The commissioners continued their deliberations and then a motion was made. MOTION There was a motion was by Commissioner Walsh, seconded by Commissioner Doherty as follows: I move we deny the application of CPA2008-00008/ZON2008-00002 Fields Zone Change and adoption of the staff's recommendation in support of denial in the staff report. Following the motion, Commissioner Vermilyea made the following statements: I do think this piece of property is a problem piece of property. I think we need to look at making a change - and quickly. I'm not convinced that when that change happens, it needs to be at our designation — I think there are other alternatives. Some things that concern me are — I don't see a demonstrated need for higher density residential development in light of our current residential capacity in the city. There's a 30 year historic designation as light industrial that [inaudible] against changing it at this time. We have a real need to develop employment centers in this area — especially light industrial. We have a real need to develop and expand Tigard's tax base and the fact that the changing in the zone would significantly reduce available land for dense employment centers all lead me to vote to deny the application, but I want to emphasize that I'm very sensitive to the issues that have been brought up today by the applicant, and I urge staff to work closely with the applicant to find a compromise that makes sense for this piece of property in light of the concerns that I just raised. At this point the vote was taken. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 14 of 15 The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: Commissioner Caffall (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman (1) President Inman noted that the application is on the City Council agenda for February 24, 2009. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — None 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11 :26p.m. Aa,: Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commi ion Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — January 26, 2009 — Page 15 of 15