12/07/2009 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon,
Vermilyea, and Walsh
Absent: Commissioner Hasman, Alternate Commissioner Gaschke
Staff Present: Craig Prosser, City Manager; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager;
Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Gary
Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner; Gus
Duenas, Development Engineer; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project
Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist
3. COMMUNICATIONS — In celebration of 8 years of service on the Planning
Commission, there was a time of recognition of and appreciation for outgoing President
Jodie Inman.
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
11-02-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the minutes; there being none, President Inman declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
President Inman opened the public hearing.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009-00004. SEASONAL
OUTDOOR SALES CODE AMENDMENT — Cont'd from 11-02-09
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpc mnnrtcs 12.O7-09.doc
Page 1 of 12
President Inman read a statement from the applicant (City of Tigard) asking for a
continuance of this hearing to a date certain of January 4th. Inman asked if there was anyone
in the audience who had signed up to speak but could not make the January 4th meeting.
Seeing and hearing none, she said she would entertain a motion to accept the continuance.
The following motion was made by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner
Vermilyea:
"I move that we continue the public hearing DCA2009-00004, Seasonal Outdoor
Sales Code Amendment," as requested by the applicant, to January 4, 2010."
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner
Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea,
and Commissioner Walsh (8)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Hasman (1)
Inman announced that, per the motion, the public hearing on DCA2009-00004 is continued
to January 4, 2010.
5.2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SONIC DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT — PDR2009-00001, VAR2009-00014
PUBLIC HEARING [PART I CDP] CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports
are available to the public upon request one week in advance of any meeting.] She showed a
map showing the proposed location and stated the site is located at 15300 SW Pacific Hwy.
The site consists of 1 .34 acres located east of Pacific Hwy, south of Naeve St. and n/w of
Royalty Parkway. She noted that just to the north is Mays Auto Sales and to the south is Les
Schwab Tire Center. She said the applicant is requesting a concurrent review of the concept
plan and detailed plan. There will be two hearings — first for the conceptual plan and, if that's
approved, they would move on to the detailed plan. By doing so, the applicant assumes the
risk of rejection of the detailed plan resulting from rejection of the concept plan.
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-09.doc
Page 2 of 12
Gaines noted with regard to the Concept Plan:
It is a two phased plan:
• Phase 1 — fast food restaurant with drive through
• Phase 2 — second commercial building with possible drive through component
(approximately 3,000 sq ft)
Caines went on to say the applicant met the conceptual plan standards with one exception.
There was no clear schedule proposed for both phases showing when the phases will be
initiated and when they will be completed.
Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan with a couple of issues that may be
discussed if the Commission feels it necessary to do so. She said the plan meets the concept
and standards but, looking at the site, is the Commission satisfied with the overall design?
The design seems to be driven mainly by the circulation for the site and uses, and also the
access points from Pacific Hwy and Royalty Parkway (shared with Les Schwab on the south
end of the site off of Pacific Hwy). She said there are some regulations that say that's pretty
much where it's going to be with ODOT's standards. Caines noted there was an existing
access point there, so they're sharing that with Les Schwab and there wasn't a lot of "wiggle
room" on changing that access location. She said the applicant is not requesting exceptions
allowed through the PD process, PD overlay was existing, not requested, the site has no
natural areas to preserve and the site is quite small.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were some questions as to the unusualness of the hearing on this project — with the
two plans. Dick Bewersdorff spoke to that for a bit and wrapped it up saying "The concept
— what they're proposing — does it fit the desires of the Commission and, finally, does the
detailed plan meet the code requirements?" Question was asked: So we have to speak
separately? Bewersdorff: "It's all part of the same hearing but you make separate decisions
on each." So we can have one deliberation — but separate . . . ? Bewersdorff: "Yes."
APPLICANTS PRESENTATION:
Jess Wetsel, with the Wetsel Company, the applicant, at 2123 NW Aloclek Dr., Hillsboro
97124, introduced himself & his wife/business partner/co-owner, Andrea. He apologized
for having a conceptual as well as a detailed plan. He said it was something Gaines had
worked with them quite a bit on. He said he appreciated the commission's understanding
and Caine's work on what could have been a bit difficult for her. Andrea Wetsel gave a
presentation, giving a background and overview of what the "Sonic concept" is (Exhibit A).
I:\LRPLN\Dorcon\PC\PC Packets For 2009\I2-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-09 doe
Page 3of12
After Wetsel's presentation, President Inman interjected that she'd forgotten to poll the
commissioners and audience regarding ex-parte contacts and jurisdiction. She apologized
and said she would do it at this point (slightly out of normal order). President Inman asked if
there were any commissioners who wished to abstain or declare a conflict of interest. There
were none. She asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge any member of the
Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. No one did. She asked the
commissioners to report any ex parte contacts. There were none. Two commissioners reported
site visits (Commissioners Muldoon and Anderson). No one in the audience challenged the
jurisdiction of the commission.
SOME QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT / SUGGESTIONS FROM
COMMISSION
With regard to the Conceptual Plan:
Do you have any plans to partition the site? Most likely, yes. In fact, we anticipate that
we would begin that process immediately. Would Black Rock be a drive-through? Yes.
Have you looked at other sites? Yes — countless sites. This particular site is of interest to
us because it's between the Wilsonville location and our Hillsboro location. It's on Hwy 99
which is a very heavily traveled road in a fairly dense neighborhood that is underserved by
restaurants. We are very excited about pursuing this particular location. Has Black Rock
looked at the site plan? Yes — no feedback from them.
There were some questions and concern about circulation. Bryan Cole, Landscape
Architecture Manager, Associate from MacKay & Sposito, Inc., spoke to those concerns.
He spoke about accommodating inbound traffic, queuing traffic, drive-through stacks, etc.
There were concerns regarding the location of the menu-board possibly causing a back-up of
traffic. Andrea Wetsel spoke to that. She believed it wouldn't be a problem for various
reasons.
President Inman suggested that the location of the second lane menu-board should be
moved farther north to make it clear that it's clearly out of the path of travel. She believed
people could be directed around the corner and out of the congested area. Possibly striping
that clearly marks the path going around — making it very clear that this is where the travel
way is.
The circulation appears awkward. Coming from the south — is that a 2 way access?
There are conflicting traffic movements happening. There's no reason for Les Schwab
to use that. It's not anticipated that there will be much traffic from there because it doesn't
really go anywhere.
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-09.doc
Page 4 of 12
The presumption is Black Rock Coffee being there. . . what amount of cars would be
crossing the Sonic property? I'd guess 20% at most.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR:
No one had signed up and no one in the audience was there to speak in favor.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — OPPOSITION: None.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OF STAFF
There were some general questions about the width of the driveway in the front and what is
required. Gaines spoke to that question. She said the detailed plan was modified to meet the
requirements.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY [PART I] CLOSED:
DELIBERATIONS ON THE CDP [Conceptual Development Plan]
President Inman entertained comments on the general site layout, circulation, and other such
issues.
Muldoon: This type of business seems to me to be a retail business to occupy the area — it
doesn't have any particular design that it has to conform to. I don't see any real problem
with it.
Caffall: I'd feel a whole lot happier if that one area was a one-way but other than that I don't
see a problem with it. Which area? The drive between Les Schwab and what would be the
south side of their operation. My feeling is at some point even with the stop sign up there —
at some point there's going to be a point of contention with cross-traffic. Inman: That
might be a fire access . . .
Vermilyea: I concur with Commissioner Muldoon. I don't have much of an issue on the
back side of the Les Schwab — my view is the two of them can work that out if the need
arises down the road. I am concerned about the general flow of traffic. I understand it
better now after hearing the explanations. I feel more comfortable now with regard to the
south side. I'm a little bit concerned about how traffic is going to get through to the north
side and then back around. I think if they move that board up, that will help. My one
concern is how does moving the property 4 feet end the domino effect that impacts the
traffic flow on the southern side. Maybe we could condition that for later. Beyond that, it
certainly is better than what is there now. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood
just fine. I know my kids will be hanging out there on Friday's. We just need to get the
traffic issues nailed down.
Walsh: I don't like the traffic flow. If this was strictly a concept but I know this is going back
to detail. I'm not satisfied and would like to see what ODOT has to say.
L\LRI'LN Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12 07
Page 5of12
Inman list of concerns: I'm okay with the orientation of the buildings. I understand the
general traffic flow on the site and why it's there. From a conceptual level I think I'm okay
with it but at this point I think I'd require at the DDP to address the traffic flow patterns
coming off of the southwest.
Anderson: Okay with concept plan — would like to see it redrawn with a 1000 sq ft footprint
for the second building. It's a big lot — I just don't want it to be a quagmire where everyone
gets stuck. I would approve the concept.
MOTION:
Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon:
"I move we approve the concept plan for PDR2009-00001/VAR2009-00014 as
conditioned in the staff report, and as modified as indicated by the applicant tonight
with respect to expansion of the north side traffic aisles and movement of the
building footprint south 4 feet to accommodate traffic flow, and moving the menu
boards to accommodate additional stacking of traffic while waiting."
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner
Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea,
and Commissioner Walsh (8)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Hasman (1)
PUBLIC HEARING [DDP PART II] DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
At this point the hearing continued but this time with regard to Sonic's DDP [Detailed
Development Plan] .
ADDITIONAL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTATION:
Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner, gave the supplemental staff report.
She noted the following:
➢ Only for Phase I
o 1 ,728 sq ft Sonic on south side of site
o 990 sq ft patio dining area
1:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-09 doe
Page 6of12
o 26 in car dining spaces
> Phase 2 detailed plan at a later date with possible Minor Land Partition
> Originally there was a request for an adjustment to exceed the maximum allowed
parking standard allowance for that site, but under review it was determined that that
adjustment was not necessary because if you add the square footage of the covered
patio which counts towards square footage — it actually gets the applicant above the
actual number of spaces they've proposed with this detailed plan so that isn't actually
necessary.
> Staff is recommending approval with conditions:
o Tree canopy for the site (soil and species)
o Staff is recommending one freestanding sign because the two phases are
dependent upon each other, not separate developments — only one sign.
o Wheel stops — some sort of protection for people walking on the walkway.
> Proposed changes from Public Works. [Caines distributed a memo and some
comments (Exhibit B) that had been received from Public Works after the
application packets had been mailed out to the commissioners. Because of those
comments staff proposed some slight changes.
o An amendment to condition 12 & condition 33 (See Exhibit B).
Gus Duenas, Development Engineer, said he wanted to make sure the applicant is
conditioned to extend the sidewalk south of the property on the Les Schwab frontage and
SW Royalty Parkway to close that sidewalk gap. That would need to be completed before the
final building inspection. That would be about 260' over the existing sidewalk.
APPLICANTS PRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The applicant quickly went through the rest of the PowerPoint. At this point, Fred Harris,
Architect with Carlson Veit, in Salem, was introduced and after him Chris Tiesler of
Kittelson & Associates would speak. The applicant said he remained hopeful that at the end
of the hearing they would have an approval with conditions to make the changes and they
can move forward as they'd been working for several months and have a consider amount
invested in this process. He said they strongly desire to move the project forward that night
if at all possible.
Harris talked about the wheel stops. He said spaces on the south side do not have wheel
stops primarily as safety for the employees who are on roller skates. He said the call box and
the order box for ordering food is right beside the driver's window and that call box is
placed a distance from the curb so when they stop there to order, they are well away from
the curb. He said if the wheel stops are needed to proceed, they can do that, but they believe
that would be a safety hazard. He spoke about the access aisle and said he hopes they can
1:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets For 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 1207-09 doc
Page 7 of 12
make it a single lane on the backside of the restaurant. They'd like to have that space. He
said they would provide a minimum of 4 bike spaces.
Bryan Cole, a landscape architect with MacKay & Sposito, 1325 SE Tech Center Dr.,
Vancouver, WA spoke in response to the condition regarding trees. He said he is working
with their arborist and the City's arborist. He spoke about soil volume, irrigation, and tree
canopy.
Chris Teasler, from Kittelson & Associates, the applicant's traffic engineer, responded to
some of the things he'd heard. He spoke about access, queuing, and the one-way driveway
into their site. He spoke about the general concepts on the queuing and overall amount of
traffic. In the analysis, they were fairly conservative. 110 to 115 cars coming to the site
averaged out. Two menu tables would help during the peak time periods. 70% of the traffic
is anticipated to come from Hwy 99W. So the concern about the queuing on the outside
one for people coming in off of Royalty has been noted but because of the distribution to
the site with only 30% of the vehicles coming from Royalty Parkway — the ability for
someone to get into that queue will be minimized.
Inman questioned the applicant about whether they'd ever considered the possibility of a
using a "green roof." He answered "No." She asked if that had ever been done at any of
their facilities. He answered "No ma'am. Not that I'm aware of."
PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF APPLICATION: None.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF APPLICATION:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, spoke against. He would like a planter strip
between Hwy 99 in front of Les Schwab and the sidewalk. With regard to trees, he's
interested that there is an irrigation system for the trees. He would like the applicant to come
in with a 15 year canopy goal for the site - possibly permeable pavement (where roller skates
don't go.) Lastly, regarding block size 330', he is concerned it is longer than the standard
code.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL: "Some of the concerns are outside the scope of my control.
Planting strips on other people's property, namely, Les Schwab — I don't control that. Block
size — I can't control that. Practically, what we're doing is extending the sidewalk where
there is now just a ditch. We are improving the property and providing pedestrian crossways
through the property from Royalty to Hwy 99 . . . so I understand that perhaps from certain
perspectives, we can always do more. I believe we've done what we can do here."
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packers for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-09 doc
Page 8 of 12
DELIBERATIONS FOR THE DDP
Commissioner Caffall said the "green roof" will simply not work unless you're going to build
substantial pylons to hold up a roof that doesn't work in the northwest because of our
volume of rain; buildings come tumbling down with green roofs. He believes the applicant
has gone out of their way to make the property nice and believes they'd be a great addition
to the City. Commissioner Doherty agreed regarding both the green roof and believes the
landscaping and such will help the area.
Commissioner Vermilyea believes they should agree to waive staff's recommendation. . . in
other words — no wheel stops on the south side is fine. He thinks the use for a drive-in that's
got carhops — wheel stops tend to make it difficult to accomplish that. Commissioner Fishel
said she heartily agreed with that.
At this point, President Inman gave a synopsis of the conditions that staff had
recommended [that she'd been tracking] :
➢ Wheel stops — they all agree — no. Remove that condition.
➢ 1 versus 2 free standing signs — they agree on this one. Condition remains.
➢ Tree Canopy — they'd like to leave condition # 1 in as is.
➢ Three Public Works Conditions
o #12 regarding water meters will stay;
o #33 regarding the maintenance of the water quality facility will stay; and
o an additional condition to extend the sidewalk on SW Royalty Parkway across
Les Schwab to close the sidewalk gap to the existing sidewalk - remains.
So those are the existing conditions right now; other issues?
➢ Extend and add the conditions that they work with Les Schwab to explore
opportunities to minimize that access to be able to accommodate the additional floor
(inaudible).
MOTION:
Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move that we approve the application PDR2009-00001/VAR2009-00014, the
Detailed Development Plan and the adoption of the findings and conditions of
approval contained in the staff report as amended on the floor this evening, with the
exception that the requirement that there be wheel stops on the south side of the
building is removed; they must comply with the Development Code sited on the
findings specifically to extend the sidewalk on the parkway side to provide the
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\tpe minutes 12-07-09 doc
Page 9of12
amended and additional conditions set forth in Cheryl Caines memo dated 12/7/09;
they are going to expand the travel aisle on the north side of building to 14' in width
to accommodate cars entering and exiting parking stalls; and move the building
footprint south 4 feet to accomplish that goal. They will move the menu-boards on
the drive-through lanes to the north to allow for additional stacking and will work
with Les Schwab to accommodate improved traffic flow, including the consideration
of reduction of that lane and turning it into a one-way lane."
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner
Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea,
and Commissioner Walsh (8)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Hasman (1)
SHORT RECESS
5.3 DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS
CPA2009-00003, DCA2009-00005, Z0N2009-00001
STAFF REPORT
Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager, explained why this was coming to the
commissioners once again since there was a hearing previously held on this very thing back
in October 19th. He said he'd indicated in a memo [that he'd sent to the commissioners in
their packets] that they'd finally come to an understanding with ODOT that resulted in a
major change in the proposed code. Also, they wanted to make sure that proper notice was
provided under Measure 56. He asked that the minutes and staff report from October 19th
be entered into the record. He said, for purposes of the record, this will be considered the
first public hearing. He went through the proposal using a PowerPoint presentation
(Exhibit C).
At the end of his presentation, Farrelly went over the following changes [since the prior
Planning Commission meeting of October 19th] .
➢ Discussions with ODOT on potential impacts of 8-story development in Hall/99W
sub-area.
1 \LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12-7-09\ipc minutes 12-07-09 doe
Page 10 of 12
> Due to potential increases in trip generation, new proposal will revert to the
maximum building heights permitted under the properties' existing zoning (80 feet
for properties currently zoned CBD, 45 feet for properties currently zoned C-G and
C-P.
> The boundaries of the Hall/99W sub-area were re-drawn to separate out the
properties currently zoned CBD and those zoned C-G and C-P.
> The boundaries of the Hall/99W sub-area were re-drawn to separate out the
properties currently zoned CBD and those zoned C-G and C-P.
> The proposed front setback reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet.
> Changes incorporated into new draft 5.2.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS
Can you remind me of sidewalk width when redevelopment happens on Hwy 99? It is
10 feet. And then the street tree requirement will be there as well? Yes.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR
Alexander Craghead, 12205 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 spoke in favor. He read a
written statement [Exhibit D.]
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION: None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATIONS — Nothing further.
MOTION:
Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon:
"I move we recommend approval of CPA2009-00003, DCA2009-00005, ZON2009-
00001 to City Council."
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner
Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea,
and Commissioner Walsh (8)
I \LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2009\12 7 09\tpc minutes 12-0]-09 doc
Page 11 of 12
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Hasman (1)
6. STUDY SESSION PREPARING FOR JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL
REGARDING TREES (SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19TH).
Associate Planner, John Floyd, on behalf of the City, led a discussion about the upcoming
joint meeting. It will be a workshop — Floyd noted that generally they don't take public input
at these joint meetings. Vice President Walsh suggested that basically they walk the Urban
Forestry Master Plan by Council and get their thoughts on it. Commissioner Doherty said
she didn't really know what they, as a body, thought about this. Commissioner Vermilyea
suggested that they get together again and get on the same page — or at least understand what
they all think, since they hadn't discussed this topic in 18 months or so. There were several
things brought up that they, as a body, hadn't really talked about.
It was decided that this study session would continue on January 4, 2010 for further
discussion.
7. OTHER BUSINESS — Photographs were taken of the commissioners on the Dias for the
Comprehensive Plan land-use chapter.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm.
r _
Lf2 .
Doreen Laughlin, Plannin
rye
g 's ion Secretary
eir
ATTES '!Presi. ent Jodi- Inman }////�)
I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packers for 2009\12-7-09\tpc minutes 12-07-099.doc It
Page 12 of 12